So in good part I'm responding to a question currently. I raised the issue earlier, prior to the question, based on my experiences from the chamber and the committee.
This is what I'd like to go back to, Mr. Chair. There are changes.
Mr. Richards, you raise some valid points, but the points you raise are more on policy and process. If I understand what you were saying in your last statement, you're saying we need to have a better understanding of a number of issues in order to be able to question the qualifications and the competence.
If that is the case, then in all likelihood maybe we should not have called for the appointed individual to come before us, since the official opposition was not actually questioning the qualifications. You were right when you made the statement that you're not questioning the qualifications or assessing whether or not that person's qualified. I think we heard—
Pardon me?