Mr. Chair, I believe my name is next on the speakers' list.
I was just about to intervene to point out that I was to be next, after Mr. Aboultaif, on the list of speakers. I wanted to make a point of order, which was not a point of order, as Mr. Oliphant did.
I would point out, by the way, that Mr. Oliphant did not need to come to the chair's rescue, since Ms. McPherson in no way blamed anyone. She merely pointed out an empirically verifiable fact: if it is possible to hold this meeting today during the pre-session caucus of one party, it is certainly possible to hold a meeting during the pre-session caucus of another party. It was just an observation on her part. No one was blaming the chair. I don't see why Mr. Oliphant needed to come to the defence of the chair when there was no attack.
That said, I want to make it clear that I personally am not adamant that my witness list be retained. I just want to make it clear to my colleagues that it will be difficult enough to hear all of the witnesses mentioned in the motion in two meetings. If the list of witnesses is extended, I regret to say that we will not be able to keep to just two meetings.
The Liberals seem to want to pursue two irreconcilable goals, to keep this study to two meetings at most and to expand the witness list. Now, I regret this, but it is not feasible. It is one of two things: either we stick to this witness list and have only two meetings, or we expand the witness list—I do not see a problem with that—and we will have to have three meetings, not just two.