My interest is also in making sure that we are able to wrap this study up in time, that we do get a summary of evidence, and that we give the analyst the full month of January to do the report writing. I think at the subcommittee level we already discussed extending the study in order to add Twitter, because they had said no, and then they said yes. We created some extra room already. I think we were also going to give them the question that Ms. Harder had proposed so that they were ready, or maybe we're recommending that Ms. Harder feed directly to them to give them advance notice of the depth of questions that she'd be asking.
To me, if it's possible to add another day of testimony, and especially if we can get someone who can talk from a layperson's perspective about what this means and whether it is regulatable by the federal government, then I would support that, but not if it throws off the ultimate goal of making sure we protect time for the analyst to do work while Parliament is not in session.