It's a few things. I will get to the conclusion.
The first one is that, once we are back—as you suggested—we not take away from Ms. Pauzé's study, which was passed a long time ago. We add a third meeting for two hours, as per the motion, with Deputy Minister Simon Kennedy and officials, where we reject the idea he proposed about us taking on the specific model the industry committee used for the EV documents. We are our own committee. We are fully within our prerogative to take our own approach, as per the motion we passed.
I think it's clear from the law clerk's letter this morning that it is our responsibility to not divulge information. Again, going back to what we did in camera on the motion, I think it's entirely reasonable. It behooves any parliamentarian, as our responsibility, to not make that mistake, particularly at a time when reports about election interference are running rampant and people are making mistakes. I think we're all cognizant of that. It's entirely reasonable to put that onus back on us.
However, we were very specific in the wording of the motion we passed during the emergency meeting. I think it struck the right balance, one that upholds our rights and privileges as members of Parliament and takes into account the constraints of official bilingualism the deputy minister outlined.
To your question about what we do on Tuesday, the minister is not appearing, which is disappointing—