Thank you, Mrs. Chair.
I don't have a problem with the motion. I think it's a good idea. The only thing that is a question mark out of it—it's a parallel conversation to this, but I think it's important to this motion—is the business of the committee. Obviously the committee is an exuberant committee, it's anxious to look into many matters, and that's good. There's lots of enthusiasm. But that leaves us with a number of items to deal with.
We also have a motion coming from the Bloc, and we're going to want to make sure that we deal with that. I certainly am supportive of that motion as well.
I'm open, if need be, to having an extra meeting or two before the March break to make sure we get through the items that we're approving. I just want to make sure, as we're passing these motions, that we have the commitment from the people who are introducing them, or that as we pass them we're going to commit to having the meetings necessary to have those hearings.
Mr. Angus is suggesting in this motion three meetings, which I have no problem with. I'm not really aware of the Public Sector Integrity Canada issue. Maybe somebody can explain why that needs to be on February 26, or Mr. Moore can when that motion comes up. But I would like to see the three that are suggested by Mr. Angus. I know we've already approved one for the municipal election and the John Baird issue, and then we also have the motion from the Bloc.
I'm just looking perhaps for the assurance of the mover that as we're moving these motions we're going to make sure that we allocate those meetings. I say that, perfectly willing to sit for an extra meeting or whatever, maybe two, to make sure we do get through that before we head off to our March break.