Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper.
I do appreciate your willingness to by and large accept the amendment that I'm proposing. I know that in talking to my colleagues from the other parties, a subamendment or two might be needed to clarify some things.
I'm also reminded of an old joke. I wish I could remember which MP said it. I think it was George Baker. He once got up—a Liberal from Newfoundland and Labrador—and asked Mr. Speaker if he could call another member x, y, z, which was unparliamentary language, and the Speaker got up and said, “No, you can't do that.” Then George Baker said “okay” and sat down.
I know you're not impugning my motivations, but let me just defend what I'm saying. I don't think I've gutted the motion at all. As a matter of fact, I think I've enhanced it.
Neither the Prime Minister, nor a minister's office, nor the Prime Minister's Office is on the front lines of making determinations on national security. That always comes up, and it's legislatively required to come up, from the different departments or agencies that are concerned with those matters.
When I put in the amendment that we bring in all relevant documentation that comes from all departments, ministries and bodies responsible for this, I think I made it more open to understanding the information that was seen by cabinet than what was being suggested. It wasn't my intention to gut the motion. It was just about finding a more elegant way of writing it.
That's what's behind the amendment, and I think members will actually end up getting a fuller picture than what was just described in Mr. Cooper's motion.