My subamendment was based upon the belief that if we don't have the minister come in to testify on what happened—for these three meetings—we won't be able to include that in the study. Based upon clarification from the clerk, we can ask the minister about this in a separate meeting. Those findings can then be included in any report to the House that we propose.
I want to be clear that there has been a changeover in the minister's office, so we're certainly not picking and choosing to drag staff to committee. We're leaving it to the minister's office to decide. If it's the minister himself—I believe, yes, ministerial accountability is key—that would be our ideal solution for this.
With that being said, I'm willing to drop having the minister, because, as we said, we are having him come to another meeting and we can ask him questions on this.
The key thing is that we would like to include representation from victims talking about their side of the story and how they feel about processes that can be improved to ensure that victims' rights are being respected. Then we'd have the officials who were listed by Ms. O'Connell, so we would cover all the bases I'm asking for.
I've asked for three bases to be covered: the victims' point of view through their representation, however appropriate that may be; a political office point of view through the minister when he comes on a separate matter; and the government point of view through the professional civil service. If we cover all three of those bases, we could have two meetings on this and accomplish this.