I'm going to break this into two pieces.
One is current senior executives of McKinsey, which is not an issue, because this is about McKinsey and we want senior executives who are, at the end of the day, accountable, to be down here. There's no question about that.
As far as specifically naming one individual goes, I would suggest that we possibly have a side meeting when the list of all the witnesses is there and we collectively decide who we want. We are naming one specific individual who's an ex-McKinsey...and I understand that. I've read all the news. I have all the briefings. I understand why you're asking that question, but all I'm saying is let's not start establishing a precedent that we need to name a single witness in our motion. We've worked collaboratively before. I'm committed to making sure that we continue to do that. We will put forward a list of witnesses, and the list of witnesses will always follow the rules that we set at the beginning of this committee, i.e., that there will be proportional representation of witnesses, as we agreed, based on the percentages that we agreed on.
I can probably guarantee you that you're going to have that name coming in from all the committee members, but I just don't want to set the precedent of naming one individual only. As you can see, we are naming the senior executives of McKinsey and we're not limiting it to Canada; we're expanding it to senior executives. Naming one individual sets a precedent that I am personally not comfortable with.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.