Let me just comment, because both you and Mr. Desjarlais mentioned this.
I think you're overstating the days that are open. On June 4, the Auditor General will be tabling three reports. That's why I've been working to try to get reports done line by line and to free space in June for those three audit reports.
This is where the committee kind of pulls and pushes at the same time, wanting maximum meetings on studies—we have to catch up line by line—but also rejecting recess sittings, and now potentially turning what I viewed as one meeting into two. That is the committee's right to do.
I will say this: If this motion passes, certainly I'll find space for it, but it will be at the expense of one of the meetings currently scheduled, and we'll still be here on Thursday of next week. It's well within the committee's right to decide and to dictate to the chair. I do find it unnecessary, because it means having not one meeting with individuals but two.
On that note, it is your choice how we proceed.
Your amendment is to strike the date altogether and to add “to have these two members not sit in a recess week”.