Yes, again, admittedly, I was caught a little off guard by the motion and didn't have the chance to consult with folks in advance of this, but I would say that I am certainly open to the former board members and non-family related people testifying. If there is in the course of that testimony evidence that implicates Mr. Trudeau in a deeper way that would require a second consideration of this, I would at that point be willing to support it.
Through you, Mr. Chair, to the mover of the motion, if he is still present, or to anybody who is willing to speak on his behalf, would they be willing to, in this moment, allow the motion to come with the first two that were listed and set aside Alexandre Trudeau until such time as the initial testimony would perhaps further involve him in the necessity of this study?