Thanks very much.
I need to say for the record I have not made these points before, so I resent the allegation that I'm repeating myself.
I'm going to go back just to make sure my thought wasn't lost in all this.
We've heard from the minister three times, and a number of others. I believe that during the minister's testimony, for example, we heard about the steps that were taken by the minister and why he took them. Just to remind members, he explained how he was trying to make sure the process is one that's unbiased and handled professionally. [Technical difficulty—Editor] I would say that we've heard in response to what Mr. Garrison just said about some of the questions he wanted answered and why he is arguing for the summoning of Elder Marques. I'm making the point that I believe we've obtained the answers to those questions because we've heard from all of those folks I just listed, in some cases multiple times. That's the first point.
I think when we think about Mr. Elder Marques, we're talking about somebody who, as I think has been made clear by others, has been working well with the committee. I would just ask the members to think about, and maybe answer the question if they would, why they feel that summoning Mr. Marques is necessary when he has been working with the clerk and is apparently willing to testify.
Anyway, thank you, Madam Chair.