Mr. Chair, again, I want to state very clearly at the beginning that this is not, as I said initially, in any way meant to be an attack on you or anything else, and is not in any way a judgment on your reasons for adjourning the meeting or anything else.
I guess the question that I had related not so much to the reasons for your decision to adjourn the meeting, but more whether there was an ability to adjourn the meeting given that it was suspended. I don't think your ruling actually covered that, and that's what I want to.... I think it is an important point. It's not one that I want to get into an argument about. It's simply for the sake of the precedent it set.
I understand you've indicated that you felt justified, both in suspending and in adjourning the meeting, and I'm not going to even begin any kind of debate on that particular topic. That is your prerogative as chair. My concern was more the fact that when the meeting was suspended, I don't believe it was ever reconvened. We didn't bring the meeting out of suspension, so were you in a position where you could properly by procedure actually adjourn the meeting when it was suspended? That was more the question.