I have two quick points.
On the former, we're quite happy with the schedule as it has already been presented. I appreciate David saying, yes, we'd certainly like to highlight Ms. Fraser in prime time. Obviously she's made comments critical of the bill that we're all aware of. We understand that. I'm sure she'll get as ample coverage in the evening, but the chair and the clerk have gone to great trouble to put together a schedule that I think works, so we're quite happy with that.
With respect to David's second point, let me give you a quick analogy. He said he feels insulted, and that somehow this is inappropriate. If we were the industry committee studying a bill or a piece of legislation on telecommunications, for example, and we had a witness come forward to offer testimony, I would want to know whether or not that witness was giving a viewpoint based on all the facts, or whether or not that witness was perhaps being contracted out by a telco. That certainly has some impact on public opinion, at least on testimony being given, so I think it's quite legitimate to ask anyone.
Not only have we found after the fact that Professor Thomas had signed a contractual agreement with Elections Canada, but we also found out that Mr. Neufeld had a contract for up to $25,000 as well, which we didn't know in advance, which could have changed some of the testimony we asked for.
I think it was a legitimate request.