Good. I appreciate that. Actually, I think that's quite reasonable. The committee was convened. It would be unreasonable to just issue you a dictum to be here and then to convene the committee afterwards.
I'm asking because, of course, there are other witnesses in this very block who were just issued dictums: “You will be here at this time; we don't care what your schedule is.” I don't mean you, I mean the witnesses. It was the same with summonses. Some of them were summoned at exact times, with no flexibility shown.
I just want to show that there's a difference here.
As well, I was reviewing your previous testimony and I noticed, then and now, the sub judice argument that you're using to not answer certain questions. For example, you had said, “I will not comment on ongoing investigations of the Commissioner of Elections Canada or the specifics of the case currently before the Federal Court.” I understand that.
You were sitting here during the last committee meeting. You know there were many points of order raised, and the chair, of course, ruled in favour of sub judice. How important is this matter to you, the fact that you can invoke that and not answer all the questions?