That's not entirely correct. The projected times on the orders of the day were done on August 1. These were set up after we issued the summons.
With regard to how late a meeting goes, etc., I think the member makes a valid point, which the committee should understand. My only defence to the member about carrying on is that we are in round three, and all four parties submitted names to me to speak in round three. I took that as an indication that all four parties wanted to go to round three.
We have Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Del Mastro, Madame Lavallée, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Proulx.
All four parties indicated they wanted at least one speaker in the third round. I took that as an indication that the committee wanted to have a third round. If I'm incorrect, I apologize. But when all four parties agreed to have additional speakers, I'm sorry, I made an assumption that everybody wanted to move forward.
With that, I apologize, Madame Lavallée, for interrupting. You had only used just over a minute of your time.