Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the Canadians who will be watching this or who are watching and listening to this committee right now, the effect that this amendment has on the main motion moved by my colleague Mr. Cooper will be exactly what Mr. Duncan predicts. It will cut the amount of time that we have to question the minister more proportionally. It cuts the committee time in half and it actually cuts the time that the minister has to answer questions by significantly more than half because it doesn't alter the minister's time for opening remarks, which would leave a mere 50 minutes for questions from members of Parliament, rather than an hour and 50 minutes.
This is a frustrating bone of contention. It also removes the element of 14 days. Time is of the essence, given the scope and mandate of the Hogue commission. I certainly don't take any comfort in any good faith because I've seen this many times over the last nine years.
Then, of course, adding on the context at the end of the motion of “the return of Parliament and his mandate” in relation to the study of Bill C-65 means that any question that anybody asks that's not germane or pertinent to Bill C-65 will be interrupted with points of order by, I'm assuming, Liberal MPs, to try to further obstruct and provide cover and a place for the minister to hide in relation to other questions.
That is why the wording in the motion by my colleague, Mr. Cooper, leaves it broad. We could ask the minister questions about legislation. We could ask the minister questions about foreign interference. We could ask the minister about the integrity of our election institutions and election readiness by Elections Canada, but many of those questions would potentially be deemed out of order should we adopt this amendment.
It's frustrating, but this is the pattern. I remember the conversation that we had at this committee about whether or not it was actually this committee's role to continue to pursue foreign interference, and everybody said that we're going to push this off. I can't recall how many times we've had document production requests from this committee and the big argument around this table was that members of Parliament shouldn't be seeing these things because we don't have the security clearance and so on. The solution from the government—the coalition at the time—was that we're going to give this over to a commission and to a justice who will have the security clearance to see all of the documents.
Of course, that was just code for sending the justice only the documents that we think the justice should see and not the documents that we would have liked to have seen produced before this committee and before the law clerk. It's not even the documents that the commissioner herself and her team have suggested they need in order to fully ensure accuracy and the details necessary to carry out the mandate the commissioner has.
It's always about weasel words, saying they're going to try to make this look like they have nothing to hide. However, it really is that they're going to duck and cover and continue to provide cover for this government, which frankly does not have the confidence of Canadians and quite understandably should not have the support of this House.
It's frustrating for me to watch this continued charade where the government pretends to be acquiescing and to be open, honest and transparent with Canadians, and then its actions and behaviours are anything but.
I will not be voting in favour of this amendment proposed by Mr. Turnbull. The minister can appear, as far as I am concerned, within the 14 days.
I would encourage my colleagues who actually care about the future of our country to vote against this amendment. Let's have a vote in favour of transparency. Let's have a vote in favour of democracy. Let's have a vote in favour of holding the government to account, which is what all of us ought to be doing at this table.
Say no to the amendment proposed by Mr. Turnbull and get back to the main motion, which I think should be passed in its original form as presented by my colleague Mr. Cooper.