In terms of Bill C-234, I may differ in opinion regarding the number of meetings we need, but I do agree with keeping the sequence. We're sort of disregarding the subcommittee's agreement on the top three priorities. We've been mixing meetings and having one on world food insecurity and one on Bill C-234. We said we'd do both of those before we moved on to agriculture and the environment. That's what our agreement was.
Now this is a new motion coming forward. I get that there's some pressure in terms of what the public will be expecting us to look at, so I get that it may interrupt that to some degree.
What I want clarification on is this: Are we just talking about doing Bill C-234 and then moving to this motion now, or are we still finishing the study on food insecurity?