Okay. Let me continue on the logic, if I may.
If it is the case, there is then no reason the witnesses who were available today, notably, Mr. Bramley and Mr. Jaccard, could not have done so. They were going to be separate anyway. Isn't that right?
Whomever we picked, the totality of the two different sessions adds up to a balance. It doesn't add up to a round table, which was the original thing you said.
It's logical that once the sherpa had his own session, we could quite easily deal today with the witnesses who are available and on Tuesday with the sherpa who is available. Once you have decided to split them up, then they can be split up over days and not only back to back.
I don't think the actual mechanism is consistent with your vision. What we've put forward is consistent with the way things have turned out. We're going to lose the witnesses we wanted on Tuesday, and we were never going to have a round table on Tuesday anyway.
On my second point, I would simply add this. I realize I'm getting ahead of myself, but what we're talking about here is not a question of integrity and is not a question of confidence. It's a question of judgment.
I think it was basically unwise, Chair, to not have given a heads up to the people who sit on the subcommittee by simply saying here's where we are, and not moving in a unilateral way to switch the witnesses. It's an unfortunate thing, and that's all.
We're not challenging your integrity and we're not asking for a vote of confidence. We're only saying we think it was a mistake. We'd like you to recognize it and to be more respectful and sensitive the next time.