Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With the minimal meetings that we're actually allowing for this study, I think we have to concentrate on the intent of the study by Ms. Lewis. Again, taking into consideration the limited time we have and the members we're going to expect to attend to give us those answers, I think we should in fact stick with those members first. Having said that, there's no question that, as we're moving forward in those meetings, if in fact the minister then is required to come out and clarify and/or be a part of something that has to do with the government....
I want to emphasize once again that it's at arm's length. It's no different from Via. It's no different from CN. It's no different from the CTA. They were organizations that were created to be separate from government.
I know what the intent of the opposition is. It's to bring in the politics of it. I get that. That's what they do, and that's what they're to do. I get that part of the game, but I'm more interested in getting down to the more granular side and the more business side of it. If there's a concern on this specific project, let's get to it. The only way we can get to it is if we deal with the people and ask questions of the people, and if we hear from those individuals who are in fact those who are intimately involved with not only the CIB, but again, getting a bit more granular, with this specific project within the CIB.
Once again, I apologize for being repetitive, but if we recognize, through the dialogue and through the testimony provided to us by those who are involved in this specific project, that the minister would then be needed to come out, we can make that request at that time. I don't think it's appropriate, it being an arm's-length organization, that we ask that to happen at this point.