Mr. Chair, I'll repeat my last sentence exactly: Can we stay focused on the subamendment?
Once again, we've just experienced something unusual, because I'm asking the committee to focus on my subamendment, and Mrs. Church is asking me to focus on the subamendment. It would be nice if people listened when we speak. That would be incredible. It would save us time.
I would like to understand what is expected of us. Are we expected not to ask questions? What is the point of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics if we are not allowed to call people from Parliament who may have a conflict of interest to testify? That is the focus of our committee.
I'll wrap up here, because I've made it quite clear that things aren't going the way they should. In my view, we should be here to work for the people. What is being proposed? We want to bring in a minister, and that's okay. We want to bring in the Ethics Commissioner, and that's okay. However, talking to Alto is not okay. Is that right? If that's the case, are they moving a motion to say that the minister and the Ethics Commissioner are invited? Let them put forward a motion removing Alto, and we'll see what happens. After that, however, we need to ensure that we stop wasting time and we move forward.
This is already the third time we've agreed to the Liberals' requests to move things forward and respect citizens and taxpayers. Can we move forward and propose something so we can wrap this up? Can we stop the monologues about how we don't want the minister to come and answer questions and how we don't want citizens to get clear answers?
Thank you.