Just to support that, I appreciate the concerns Mr. Williams has raised, and that's why we had a lengthy discussion. To be fair, we had a written request from the Commissioner of the RCMP, who just suggested to us in very polite, respectful language that she felt that these two additional witnesses would be useful and would provide valuable information.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj had at least three or four others. He had given us a heads-up on that earlier and we deferred it to the steering committee. We didn't want to just outright deny him an opportunity, given that we're trying to go subject by subject.
So there we were with the dilemma, and rather than split it into two or three meetings, we said that we'd let the original witness list invitees come forward, be sworn in, and take their places. Those other witnesses will be there, will be recognized, and are available to members to call.
The chair and the steering committee are trying to respect that so we don't have what we had last time, which was all those people crowded around. That didn't work. Really, all we were left with was to say to the commissioner and to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, “Absolutely no, too bad, artificial deadline, we can't do it”, or have two meetings, or go the way we've gone.
What we decided, to be fair to the commissioner and to be fair to our committee colleague, was that we would allow them to be in the audience and come up as necessary for committee members.
That's how it came about.