Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Very quickly, we all want this thing to move forward. We all want to get to the bottom of it. What we find objectionable is the fact that certain witnesses have been lined up so that the initial reporting wouldn't be fair to the government side. It's much the same as a court case in which there is prejudice.
I believe our biggest objection to this whole process is the fact that the very opening is one-sided, and there's evidence to that. There's evidence to that, because at the very time that we decided we were going to steer off from our privacy identification theft and we suddenly changed course, we objected to that as well.
Through the course of objection, it wasn't long before the opposition had the press here. They've taken this opportunity to embarrass the government, and we have not had a fair chance before the evidence has been revealed .
We all agree on the same thing. The biggest objection here is that we have not had ample opportunity to prepare for these witnesses and the fact that they're going to be reporting on something that we have not had a chance to look at.
I think this is a compromise and I think it's a fair compromise. It's my own; I've not had opportunity to talk to my colleagues about this. I think this could possibly be a way to get out of this, and we could go forward.
Did you hear that, Mr. Chair? I didn't think so.