For the benefit of our colleague Monsieur Fortin, this is the exchange. I'm doing it slowly.
I wrote, “Here's my proposal. We move expeditiously today and clause-by-clause in the first 30 minutes of Monday's meeting. Then move immediately to S-233, with Todd Doherty taking one round of questions, and we move immediately to clause-by-clause. All of this s completed within two hours. We cancel Wednesday's meeting.”
Ms. Lattanzio's response was, “Let's see how today goes, and we'll talk after.”
I responded, “Will your team agree to wrap up by six?”
The parliamentary secretary responded, “Viviane has amendments to present, so we cannot be done by six.”
My response was, “It's her bill. Why wasn't it included to begin with and how is she presenting as a witness?”
Ms. Lattanzio's response was, “She can move amendments to her bill. Your colleague Luc did the same thing a few weeks ago.” That was Wednesday.
On Thursday at 2:44, literally within minutes of every justice committee member receiving the notice of motion for today's date, with no reference at all to Todd Doherty's Bill S-233, I responded, “I guess the utility of a discussion is moot, given the notice of meeting for Monday.”
The same day, I got a response from Ms. Lattanzio saying, “Discussion is always possible. We are just following what I've told you in the past, as we did with the other two PMBs—two meetings each, one with proponent of bill plus officials, the second meeting with witnesses plus CxC.” That's clause-by-clause.
My response last Thursday was—