We did. I'm just trying to go back through the notes of the previous meeting on Monday. But if I recall, we did pass the motion, we put in the request, and the response back from the minister's office was that he could not make himself available before mid-October. So technically speaking, we addressed that motion, which brings us back to reintroducing the motion, which would go back into the 24-hour period. If I'm out of line here, I'll ask to be corrected.
Okay. As the clerk has informed me, you're correct that the 48 hours' notice is required for a substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, and that the notice of motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and distributed to members. That means we don't need 48 hours' notice on this specific request, as has been clarified by the rules of the committee.
So we can now move forward with the motion that is before us. As I said to you, colleagues, my sense is that nobody around the table is trying to be heavy-handed, but as I've heard from both sides, these are unusual times, difficult times. The minister, I know, is interested in coming before the committee to brief us and give us updates.
It would seem there's no consensus, so I'll put the question on the dual arrangements.
(Motion agreed to)