The point is that with a minister there's a limited amount of time, and we all know that. To suggest that there wasn't a fair time.... The allocated time is always the allocated time with ministers, and friends around this table all know that this is the case.
Second, our folks here are not giving testimony; they are here in an official support capacity. So while they might be called “witnesses”, their being here is not going to gobble up the time here, depending upon how much longer this all takes.
Third, I just feel as though we're somehow playing politics with this thing. We settled it. Ms. Chow respectfully agreed, and I think we all agreed, if I recall, on two different things: first, to make the meeting one hour and 45 minutes and then to change the meeting time to 3:45. We all knew that, we all agreed, there was no dissenting vote, and if some people were absent at that time, their colleagues would have made the determination in conjunction with those others present from their party when they voted. But as I recall, it was unanimous.
So I look at this, and...you know, you get to the point that it feels as though it's a case of playing politics.
If we don't get through all of this today, then it strikes me that we'll have an opportunity to do it again, because we want to do this right. That is the point. We've always taken that approach, and so if it takes a bit longer, we'll do it right and so be it. The agenda is full—a little fuller as a result of this dialogue—but this is not the time to play politics with it. I don't think so.