Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to state on the record that I've been fairly patient throughout the proceedings of this committee over the months. I'm growing frustrated, and I think that was reflected in the motion I presented.
It feels to me that this committee is more interested in having procedural conversations, ad nauseam at times, as opposed to getting to the work of this committee. I think today is an example. We've had another three-hour meeting doing exactly that.
I find that when we actually had witnesses, when we had the opportunity to hear from them, when we had the opportunity to ask them questions, we learned more and we shed more light on the invocation and the revocation of the Emergencies Act. That is exactly what Canadians want from us, rather than when we do what we have been doing today.
I find it a bit odd when people are suggesting that somehow by putting forward a motion like that, I or others are trying to bring an end to this committee. It is absolutely to the contrary. I'm attempting to focus us so that we can get the work done.
I agree with Senator Harder. It would be quite absurd if the work of this committee went beyond that of the public inquiry, which has a very set timeline. I think it's incumbent upon us to roll up our sleeves, bring witnesses and ask them the questions, so we can have a better understanding and we can report back to Canadians.
My last point, Chair, would be that sometimes it feels that some members of this committee are looking for almost a make-work project, that they would like this to go on and on until maybe the next election. If that's what they're interested in, I don't think Canadians are interested in that. Canadians want us to ask important questions of relevant witnesses and report back. That's why I'm part of this committee, and that's what I intend to do. Thank you.