Okay. First of all, when one decides what witnesses are called or not—for instance, Minister Clement--if you're going to include their testimony, examination, and cross-examination—make it part of your report and consider it. You don't need to call them again. You could, but you wouldn't need to.
We had, I think, two meetings set aside for this, with the majority of witnesses being called from Mr. Savage's perspective on the point he wished to make. The same witnesses who were called before the industry committee could have been called here, if we had wanted to do another meeting or two; we could have called them, but we didn't. When you take everything into context, to say now that we'll just excise the negative part, as far as you're concerned, because it was heard somewhere else, and Mr. Clement could have been called, but wasn't.... There was a reason all of that happened, so consider that.
Two, when we consider the question of the analysts' doing another report, they need to have some idea and instruction as to what this committee—