Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is different from what we've spoken about off-line. I think the intention here, hopefully, is to move forward with Bill C-20. We've now had the witnesses here twice, and we thank them very much for coming. It's time to get to this important legislation.
I think there may be the seed of a solution to the filibuster we saw a few days ago, but one of the things I indicated very clearly was that I felt the Minister of Public Safety should be coming before this committee to discuss both this issue and a range of other issues as well. I actually think the subamendment is less helpful, because what we are actually talking about is a three-hour meeting with so many witnesses that we can't have the ability to question the Minister of Public Safety in the way I certainly would like to see, not only on this issue but on a range of public safety issues.
He's a new minister. I know he's eager to come to committee. There's a whole range of questions we're going to be asking him. I had flagged this and I had thought we had some consensus around this idea that the Minister of Public Safety would be invited with his officials as part of a separate meeting.
For the reasons I just mentioned, I can't really support the subamendment as currently worded. In my opinion, the minister should appear before the committee for two hours, along with department officials, to answer all our questions.
I don't know whether we will be able to agree in the next few minutes, but I agree with Ms. Michaud: We don't want to make the legislative clerks wait again while we discuss this motion rather than doing the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑20. I hope that we can quickly find a solution to adopt wording written to reflect what I had understood, because what's just been presented to the committee doesn't quite do that.