I'm going to answer as to the procedural issue, since I've heard from both members.
What I was in essence trying to do was make some progress here. In the previous Parliament, and in our last report—not that we have to comply with it; it's not procedural, really—we had a way of operating in the past where we would allow for short and small answers or interjections if there was consensus by the committee to carry on that way. If I'm seeing now that the committee does not entertain it or does not allow me to use that flexibility, then I might not do that anymore.
I was doing it also, Mr. Richards, just as you were saying, in order to maybe find a compromise or a solution to this, because I do understand and I do recognize that you have the floor and that you could carry on if you like. But if things are not moving forward, then maybe the Simms protocol is no longer of value at this moment. That is up to the committee, really. Usually, it was just latitude that we had given in the past when all members seemed to be in agreement that it would help.
If the committee members don't feel that this is helping to move us forward, then it really is up to the committee, I guess, and it's up to you, Mr. Richards.