It's not the point itself. Thank you, Chair, for allowing us to sort out what we're talking about there. It's just that there was some different wording added to the point.
I would like to clarify what's being asked here. My understanding was that the original emergency motion on this issue to have two meetings, which we agreed to as a committee. My understanding was that the intention here was to have the meeting that's already been agreed upon, with the first half for law enforcement and the second half for whistle-blowers.
With that caveat, I want to point out that if we're able to get the minister here, and I would like to highlight that would be great to see the minister here.... We're not seeing the minister coming to committees as much as I would like. If we can get the minister here to talk about this important issue, I would most definitely support an addition of another hour. Ideally, as the minister has already been requested to come for the supplementary estimates, it would be great to have the minister here for the whole meeting, instead of just one hour for the supplementary estimates.
I just want to clarify, because the mover of the motion said “two meetings”. Is it in fact two meetings that are being asked for? What does that look like? The wording of the motion itself is very broad. It just says to “prioritize the future regularly scheduled meetings”. I feel that we need to clearly identify what we are agreeing to with that wording.