Yes. I concur absolutely and understand what it is you're saying and what you're after.
My only point at the outset was to perhaps remove any impression that previous witnesses were purposely trying to hide something and not disclose. That was my only point in raising it. It was my understanding that this information was generally known. I have read the report. It has been on the Internet since March 6 of last year.
I guess what I'm saying, and I say this respectfully, is just because you didn't know it isn't to suggest that it wasn't common knowledge elsewhere. There wasn't a secret meeting, and it's been on the Internet for almost a year. That's my only point. I don't disregard what you're saying at all, or your wanting to have more information. I'm just saying I don't believe there was any intent, by any witness, to not provide information that was asked, and the fact that we didn't ask the question was the only reason they weren't forthcoming in that regard. As I say, it was public information, and it has been for ten months.
Madame DeBellefeuille, on that point.