Thank you, Chair.
If you can just give me one second, Chair, I've written down some comments. I just want to make sure that I'm referring to the comments that I wanted to refer to and to go from there. I think I lost my place for a second, so let me just recapture where I am.
I think the last paragraph that I looked at was about how this committee is not a court of law, and there are no rules of judicial fairness. There are no judges or lawyers and there is no due process, yet with motion after motion, the opposition majority seems to want us to go down a path that we are simply not suited to travel, Mr. Chair.
Members from this side of the government—yes, I'm back on track—are not unreasonable, Mr. Chair, and I would say for myself, speaking personally, that I hope we can move on to a study and to multiple studies in the coming weeks and months. That is the role of committees. We are, as I've heard, masters of our domain and direction, so I hope we can come to some agreement.
I don't have the right words. I want to thank the interpreters for their patience. I am trying to speak slowly this afternoon. We understand that we are on camera, not in camera. Our words are parsed and looked at, and we are here to represent the best interests of our residents and of all Canadians, but I'm not into grandstanding, Chair. Other opposition members may wish to go down that route. I don't feel that's necessary and I don't feel that's right.
When the opposition speaks to several parts of this motion, the opposition knows full well that they are on tenuous grounds in regard to the motions that have been put forward. For example, on the 2008 date that is referenced here, we have seen Speakers' Spotlight reference that date as not being a date that would be in conjunction with the documents that they have kept for their clients, so that motion, in my understanding in reference to the amendment I put forward, would put them offside, and we don't want to do that. We want to concur with the privacy laws that are in place, both federally and provincially, and that protect Canadian citizens and organizations.
Again, Chair, I don't feel that we need to be unreasonable. I don't want to be unreasonable, because I do want to get to a study. It's 4:04 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, and many of us have things to do and family to see. I think we all understand full well that the idea of this study, with all the documents that have been released, is in my view a political game and an attempt to try to score political points. It's my view of why we are here in this vigorous and vibrant discussion that we've been having for several days.
There's been no evidence whatsoever to support some of the—I don't want to call them accusations—comments being made and some of the innuendo, particularly from the Queen's loyal opposition and some of the other opposition parties. Testimony at several committees, including this one, along with the release, Chair, of over 5,000 pages of documents, proves the exact opposite of what the opposition is trying to push.
Chair, I will admit that the majority of the opposition members have been very respectful to me as a person, and I've tried to be very respectful back. Those are the values I'm going to continue to put forth and that have been instilled in me. I thank them, most of them, for being very respectful in terms of their commentary and comments. We can agree, but I think sometimes we just need to agree to disagree and make our points, and that's fine. However, sometimes we just tend to—