In a way, it is difficult to separate out the two, because one flows from the other. In other words, the question of what it is that we agreed on June 7 is what's at stake here.
The problem with the position you've outlined, Mr. Chair, is that it suggests there would have been a round table and at the centre of the round table would have been the sherpa, and on the various sides the other witnesses, who collectively would have constituted some kind of balance. Right?
The problem with the scenario you described is that the sherpa has not accepted it. I gather the sherpa has indicated to you that he does not wish to be part of a round table, and that's why we have the format we have; he wishes to stand alone as a free-standing witness, and that's why he was scheduled as such. Therefore, in other words, the round table is severable, that is to say, we're not going to get them in the same space at the same time—at the request of the sherpa, who didn't feel it was appropriate to be—