Are we clear? I see we have a certain amount of confusion here.
As I understood it, we amended, first, to remove the in camera part from Ms. Rempel Garner's motion. Then Mr. Barlow came along and changed it to basically get rid of the second part of the motion, and instead of having a stand-alone meeting, to add the law clerk to a panel of witnesses. I thought he said “officials”, but fair enough. We can say it's witnesses in general.
Are we clear that this is what we have agreed to so far? We are. Okay.
Is there any dissent from that? No. Okay.
That being the case, that is the motion before us. It is Ms. Rempel Garner's motion as multiply amended. It's that we will add the law clerk to a panel of the first witnesses we have for the House study.
Are we clear on that?
Okay. I think we're clear on that, so let's vote on it.
The vote before us is that we will add the law clerk to the witnesses we bring forward for the first meeting on the House study, which will be in public.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you, committee. We have now decided that we will include an invitation to the law clerk for the first meeting with witnesses that we call for the House study.
Going forward, we have Mr. Davies. Mr. Davies, go ahead.