I want to address the question of balance. We had a session on September 15 and there was a two-hour period for the department to explain the procurement process: why it's doing what it's doing, talking about sole sourcing. Mr. Ross was there, Mr. Slack was there, the chief of air staff was there. That side of it was presented. The notion of balance that Mr. Hawn is presenting here is that if there happens to be one witness who has a different point of view, then that should be countered by another witness to do the whole thing.
I don't have a real problem with hearing from Mr. Ross again, but I don't know if balance requires a full two-hour meeting so that there can be equal time. This gentleman here is a retired public servant who has a point of view. I'm sure Mr. Ross has his point of view and can express it. But where was the balance the last day? We had three people who were interested in the business on the F-35s, all here talking all afternoon. There was nobody from the competitors saying there should be another way of doing things.
Balance is a long-term thing, it's not a one for one, meeting for meeting, witness for witness, which is being proposed here.