It's part 1, yes. Thank you. I need my lawyer friends.
To summarize really quickly, we're dropping all of the other stuff that is orbiting around this and just saying that it's those three amendments for that. It gives our witnesses time on the weekend to have the three amendments that are related to the Privacy Commissioner. Then we can move on and go from there.
I think that's a very reasonable way. It allows the department and the minister just to focus on that. It gives them plenty of time. They don't have to worry about the other stuff that's in here. Some of the stuff is actually important. I give credit to the drafter of this.
I think if we're going to have some type of general sense of civility in the committee and the expectation that when you do present in front of us.... There's a precedent here. If we don't deal with this responsibly, we're telling anybody else who comes and sits in this chair that they can mislead us whenever they want. That's really what this is about at the end of the day. Their expectations should be measured in the same way we treat the minister. That's really what this is about. It's not personal to the minister. It's what we have to deal with and the fact of all the different people who will be sitting in those chairs.
If we're going to allow this to continue like this, we're wasting time. Also, we're setting a precedent that you don't have to come here and tell us the truth. It's not necessary. Do what you want when you sit there and there will be no consequences.
I'm hoping that maybe this is the final point to try to find some consensus and move on.