My understanding is that following the break, your intention, all things being as they are now, would be to proceed with the point of privilege that was raised and referred to our committee. Obviously, in light of yesterday's point of privilege, it sounds as though quite likely it will be referred to this committee, given its seriousness. They're both serious, obviously, but given the very unusual and highly precedent-setting kinds of circumstances that we saw take place there, and the fact that there was actual injury to a member of Parliament.... I'm not referring to the physical injury of the Prime Minister elbowing the member. I'm referring to the injury caused by her having to miss a vote as a result, and therefore the injury cost to her constituents. That's obviously quite a significant event. I would assume that it may be given precedence over that other matter.
Obviously we can't deal with something that isn't before us yet. I understand that.
In the event that things remain as they are now, and that's the point of privilege that we will be dealing with, I had asked a couple of times in the past about one of the witnesses I believe we should have, which would be the Minister of Justice. Obviously we've had some issues getting ministers of this government to appear at committee in the past. They've cited scheduling challenges. I wanted to just get a sense.... I had asked that we prescreen the dates and determine the availability of the minister so we don't get those excuses again. I'm wondering what the result of that has been.