I was just going to reiterate only slightly here, because I think my colleague has very eloquently explained the sequence of events here. Mr. Godfrey, having heard that explanation...he's a decent person and has been good to work with over the past and is I think a little confused in terms of a possible two-meeting scenario.
I believe if you take that into account, you probably can see the fact that your intended ideal scenario would not work out. There would only be one meeting, and I guess we have a difference of opinion whether that meant a round table or witnesses at a point, sitting, and then you bring in the other group of witnesses, which is still centred around...but I don't constitute that as a round table, which is not anywhere in the records from the last meeting here.
I just thought it was good that that was clarified there. Mr. Chair, in view of the fact that you were restricted by this committee, you were following through in terms of not breaching anything that was decided at committee. We only had one meeting to deal with; that's all you had permission to work around. That being the case, you have to get your people there at the same time. It makes a lot of sense. While Mr. Godfrey's suggestion is well intended, it's not workable in view of the restraint you had by way of that motion that was passed unanimously, ten to zero, at the committee here.
I would say that I'm quite fine in hearing these two witnesses. Mr. Bramley, notwithstanding the fact that he has helped write a Liberal plan...I'm not so sure he is one of the most objective on the file here. They want to hear Mr. Mark Jaccard. He'd probably be an objective witness. So I have no difficulty with that.
But are you going to consume all of your time at one meeting doing it today, and then we're not going to hear from the sherpa? The commitment was to have only one meeting. I'm not sure what's assumed here. If we'd had those people meeting today, did we all of a sudden then have an agreement out of nowhere from the others to have them in at a subsequent date? The agreement was one meeting, not two meetings. I think my colleagues across the way are well aware of that, so I'm not sure what kind of a quandary that leaves the chair in.
For my part, I think it was an appropriate judgment. I disagree with colleagues across the way. I think you did the best in the circumstance: a one-meeting scenario whereby it was going to be done on Tuesday. I'm assuming the House will be sitting and we'll proceed full steam ahead on that.
You're going to have Mr. Bramley in, who is probably not the most objective on the file, but you'll have Mr. Jaccard in, you'll have the sherpa, you'll have them all at one meeting, unless all of a sudden we're having some ad hoc proposal of more than one meeting with these people today. That wasn't ever the original agreement. I think my colleagues will concede that, and an honest review of the Hansard records confirms that. So I wanted that on the record.