Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not disputing the fact that you're interpreting this in the sense that the witness was named and perhaps it was just the one witness. But I'd like to point out that we've had delegations before us that were actually delegations from a particular group--whether it be chicken producers or whether it be some others--who brought numerous people with them who weren't identified on the list as witnesses per se; they simply came as part of that delegation. Mr. Kingston certainly represents a much larger group than himself personally. It seems to me that if we're trying to do things in a wholesome and fulsome way, one of the ways to do that is indeed to allow him additional folks, who are here, who are going to make representations, who can really speak to the entire system, and I think are of value to this committee.
They may not even be asked a question in some cases. We're not certain. I don't believe we're asking them to give testimony, because I believe Mr. Kingston has provided it in writing, and I'm sure he's going to present it as he has it here, but they may indeed have specific information that may arise from a specific question, or may not. But it seems to me not to allow that to happen sets a tone and sets a sense that somehow we don't wish to hear from them, and I don't think that's the case.
I think the case on all sides is that we're trying to flash the light on all of the circumstances surrounding this particular situation that happened last year so that Canadian consumers who buy food can feel that the system is safe. I think doing that and allowing those folks to come forward, whether indeed they're questioned or not, at least allows the opportunity for all sides to engage in that conversation.