Okay.
With respect, Mr. Arseneault, I direct you back to the Hansard from last week.
It was put forward to me as a package. At the end of the day, we agreed that there would be a letter that we could hopefully all agree on, and that's what we set out to negotiate. And...because I threw it on the table. In fact, I think it was Mr. Kelly who mentioned it first, or Mr. Davidson, and then I sort of made that part of the package.
If you look at the Hansard, you'll see it's clear that there were two pieces to my relinquishing the filibuster. One was that we would agree on a letter; we're there. The other—and this was important to me—was that we would have a public hearing with the Auditor General and the finance department so that we could ask some questions that we all have about this and have a baseline of fact, rather than just—and I'll say it—the rhetoric that comes from a filibuster. It's not the content; it's the action, in that case.
To me, if we don't have that piece, we have only half a deal. I didn't think it was a problem. I'm not raising it as a concern. Everything I've heard privately is that we're good to go, and I'm hearing that again publicly. I'm just saying that it has to happen.
On that, Chair, I was I thinking that if the deputy's not available, I would accept an associate deputy. I would even accept a director, to be fair. What I would not accept is anybody answering a question saying, “I'm not the deputy, and I can't answer that.” They need to make sure there are people in the room...maybe the chief of staff to the deputy.... As long as there's an assurance that we're....
I've been around a long time. I remember the days before the legislation, and it would be all, “not my job, not my job”, in which case we may as well not have had a meeting. We need people who are going to be accountable, which is what the deputy is. I'm saying if the deputy can't make it, I would accept an ADM, but I would not accept an answer from that ADM saying, “I'm not the deputy, and I can't answer that.”