Anecdotally, my suspicions align with yours, Mr. Epp, but we need to know for sure. An opportunity to hear both sides, without a big bun toss in the middle of the room, would be a useful way for us to determine for ourselves what is and isn't. Then what comes out of it should be a durable resolution, rather than just assigning blame or responsibility.
Again, having two meetings is perfect—maybe an hour with our officials and an hour with the Great Lakes group. Then, in the second session, we'd bring our people back in and say, “What are you going to do to fix this?”. Perhaps we can determine for ourselves whether something needs to be fixed.
I share your suspicions that something needs to be fixed, but I'd like to give everybody a good and adequate hearing. This, to me, means we hear from them separately, then bring our people back in and bring up the gaps where there's either a difference in understanding or simply a management issue, as you propose. Then we'd ask them what they are going to do to fix this.
That's where we're at and that's the substance of the amendment we are offering. We accept Mr. Arnold's proposal for two meetings. That's friendly, so it comes down, then, to a matter of whether it is concurrent or we hear them separately.