I understand.
That is all great. My point is that it's a decision that the current government—just looking at the most recent example—has already decided to put in place as a process. They swear an oath, and the government accepts the risk that a parliamentarian could stand up and disclose that information. The government decided that it was in the best interest of the Canadian public, of our country, to share that information, to allow people to apply to get a security clearance to get access to that information. They accepted that risk.
My bill does not stop the government from doing that or even doing more. They could ask any parliamentarian, as a condition.... Just because they have a security clearance.... If they want access to anything, they have to follow the following safeguards.
Again, I am not opposed to safeguards. What I am opposed to is an amendment to a bill that doesn't.... We didn't hear testimony. We didn't debate that. We didn't bring it forward. I didn't bring it forward as part of a thing to tackle because that, to me, is something that is worthy of a legitimate in-depth debate and discussion in the House of Commons, to allow all 300-plus members who don't have the privilege of sitting on this committee and having this debate right now, and the 100-plus senators, to actually debate that.
To be fair, the senators will eventually see this, regardless, if it goes through in whatever form, and then they'll have a chance to study it properly. For those of us who have gone through second reading, where I was limited to two hours of debate, the only person who had to answer questions was the sponsor of the bill. Everybody else had spoken to it. I sat there, and the government put up a parliamentary secretary who spoke for 10 minutes on a bill he hadn't even read before he spoke to it. If you listen to my reply, I called him out on it.