I wish I had that power, to just move the motion and get right to the vote.
I've just shared these comments in person. I would like to reflect on them now.
I'm quite clear that when the law clerks come back they'll likely have an opinion that the oath of secrecy pertains simply to the secret orders in council. I don't know whether we are or are not at that point yet, but I just want to be clear that in supporting this, that will be my understanding in terms of our oath of secrecy. However, I'm not willing to concede on the fact that we still have the ability as a committee to get to the heart of the matter and have parliamentary privileges that are beyond what has been presented to us.
I want to point out, Mr. Chair, that when we hear members around this table talk about frustration and getting to work, I can't imagine a scenario in which we continue to invite witnesses who continue to come before us and tell us that they can't tell us anything. That's frustrating. That was the case with the ministers we had before us. That was the case with CSIS and with the RCMP.
My hope is that in this motion we also have the ability to contemplate, when it comes back, as a committee, matters for which we are going to demand extra scrutiny. That's where we will, hopefully, create parameters of when we ought to be going in camera to, hopefully, be privy to the facts of the matter. As it stands now, this motion will pass, and they'll come back and just say it's a code of secrecy for the secret orders in council that were constituted over the course of the emergency, which will be likely very minimal, given what we already know as a committee.
Those are my reflections on this motion. I'll support it, knowing where it's going to go, but I will also continue to beat the drum about wanting to get to a place as a committee where we have access to real information and where we have a duty of candour from our witnesses.
The last point of contention is that, referencing back to the Attorney General, who is also the Minister of Justice, they are always both the client and the solicitor at all times, and therefore my challenge is that we're not going to have access to anything substantive.
Thank you.