Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I agree with my colleagues. Time concerns have been raised. Now, as Mr. Angus mentioned, there was nothing that would have prevented the committee from hearing from other witnesses. I had the idea of adding a witness and I wanted to incorporate that into Ms. Sahota's motion. Originally, I wanted to have this witness appear for a full two-hour session. I then agreed to a one-hour appearance, and finally proposed that this new witness be included in the third panel. I felt that the committee members wanted to close this study.
That said, there was nothing to prevent the committee from adding an hour, if the Liberal or NDP members had wanted to add witnesses, of course. That was not the purpose of the process. It was simply to include in a motion the appearance of a witness whom I considered to be important. The committee seems to be concerned, and rightly so, about the issue of time. That is why the motion focuses on a meeting and a half. If that's the will of the committee, we'll go along with it. I just wanted to make the point, again, that the intent was not to limit the power of members of the Liberal Party or the NDP to add witnesses. Quite simply, the goal was to be able to both hear from additional witnesses and complete this study in a time frame that would allow us to table the report in the House of Commons before the summer recess.