Sure. Those are good points.
The reasonable idea—the original motion, which this motion repeats—assumed that the minister would come with officials. She didn't. We just had officials. That's how that would have been off in one section. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. What we ended up with was just officials.
Normally, we would have had the minister and officials for an hour, and then officials. That would have been the normal case. Then, on the plan, the second meeting would have been the law enforcement agencies that were requested. That's not the way it worked out.
The idea is that of the two meetings in March, in the first one, the first hour would be on what I would call law enforcement issues—CFIA, RCMP and CBSA. I haven't put C and P in there because they were here already with the departmental officials. The second hour of that meeting would be with the whistle-blowers. Then the second meeting would be with the minister. Given that we've had three or four requests in for the minister, we could do an hour on elvers and then the second hour on the estimates, which I think we need to do as well, and knock it off.
That would be the intent. I wrote it this way because sometimes it provides the clerk with a little more flexibility in scheduling. You may want more precision, but that's the thinking behind it.