Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate Mr. McKinnon's amendment; however, I do feel it's a bit of a semantics amendment. I don't know how substantial it is, but I would make the point that three hours for, I think, about 10 witnesses, according to the original motion, is not nearly enough time. When we think that in the first hour we're inviting the numerous RCMP officials who were mentioned in the Halifax Examiner, that is not nearly enough time.
Mr. Lloyd made the point that they all have five-minute opening statements, and that would perhaps allow for one, maybe two, rounds of questioning. They are certainly a focus of this study. It would not do justice to the study and what we're trying to accomplish, which is to provide more insight into the legal testimony that was provided. Again, one hour is not nearly enough time to have opening statements and to provide rounds of questioning to each party, when it is important for the democratic process to get the full story from these witnesses.
I have great issue with the time constraints being put on the Liberal members on this. I think if we want to be open and transparent, we need substantially more time. That's why we originally proposed a full two-hour meeting for all the RCMP officials. I think that is very important and we need to stick to that.
Therefore, we don't support this subamendment.