It's in order. We simply got a little carried away. Mr. Poilievre, on a point of order, basically asked on what basis we would want to wait for the other two witnesses. That's why I gave the information with regard to the difficulty in actually serving the summons. At least Mr. Siksay now understands, and all members understand, why I might think it would be best for us to proceed once members have had an opportunity and once we hear and determine that witnesses have in fact not appeared in accordance with the order of the committee.
Do you have a further point?