If I recall, chief of staff Katie Telford was an exception. She actually offered to come forward. It wasn't a norm by which to proceed, but she obviously wanted to provide some clarity.
However, in this case, we do have the minister who is attending before us to provide clarity, clarification and full understanding of what has taken place. The requirement here is to enable us to determine if proper processes were followed, if the procedures were done correctly, if there was any interference by any other party by which to proceed, which would have restrictions on the way we process the transaction and the decision-making of the acquisition. I think that's been clarified at some length today and throughout the previous testimony.
The question now becomes whether we want to continue to prolong this process, to continue to promote some notion that there was a benefit to any individual as a result of this transaction. That's the only incentive that would be made or be insinuated by the opposition. If that person or any of them were not involved in the process into the termination of the ultimate decision, then it would seem that this is not likely. But that's fine. There is the right, and it's appropriate that we, as members of this committee, have full disclosure as to how things proceeded.
Also, the minister is accountable for the actions of her staff and, ultimately, has those rights. Certainly, the opposition makes that clear almost every time when they make wild accusations about various ministers and prime ministers in terms of engagement on files that they have no decision-making authority on, ever, yet those allegations and those connections are continuously being made, as they are trying to do again today. That's appropriate because we have a right to determine how best to proceed and how best to clarify the process.
Given the fact that the minister is attending and there is going to be the opportunity to question her effectively on this thing, I would suggest that we proceed with the amendment to eliminate Mr. Wilkinson and others who are just going to eat up some time on our committee and prolong the matter when we want to get down to the conclusion of the issue, which is ultimately a huge savings to taxpayers in the decision that was ultimately made.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.