Madame, maybe there are others who don't quite understand what's happened here.
The minister and I had a very good conversation yesterday, and he indicated that he certainly wanted to have, one way or another, an opportunity to discharge his responsibilities, to do his job, and to have an opportunity to address the committee.
The committee has already.... As you well laid out, Madam Freeman, we are following the rules of the House as we understand them, as they have been unchanged by the ministerial statement. I also have the understanding that it is going to be up to the House to make a resolution of this. It's not for us to decide.
The minister is here today; he has not insisted that he sit there as a witness. He in fact has been replacing another permanent member on the committee. He actually has signed in as a participating member of the committee now. He is not visiting, like when Minister Paradis came as another person, in addition to all the permanent members, and then when all of those members didn't speak--when no other permanent member spoke--your visitor could have had an opportunity. In this case, rather than having to wait for the full two-hour meeting to be over before he had a chance to speak, the minister thought it would be more efficient for his time to have one of his colleagues allow him to be signed in. He has put his name duly on the list, and it is his time to speak.