Chair, again, if you're ruling on interpretation of the motion, I realize the wording is perhaps a little simpler, but it's still not 100% straightforward.... Is the essence of the motion that, if we pass this, before we hear any witnesses, we will bring the commissioner in to give us a sense of guidelines and we can ask any questions...? Is the reason, if I could ask, that this is being put forward by the government members—Mr. Kramp in particular—because we're dealing with confidential records?
Is it that we're dealing with people who believed they were being protected when they were whistle-blowing, and since we're in that whole world, let's understand what the guidelines are about privacy issues before we start hearing from anyone so that we can stay within the rules when we're colouring? Have I got it right?