Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First, I would like to thank my colleague for moving the motion before us, which I find very relevant. It's too bad we don't have the opportunity to discuss it because we haven't dealt with the parliamentary secretary's amendment yet.
Let me explain why I prefer the proposed motion to the amendment. The purpose of the motion is to find out what scientific public health advice the government used to make its decision. Not so long ago, we asked ourselves this question. A few days ago, when the government announced that it would put an end to random testing, we wondered whether that was a good thing or not. However, there is no data to help us determine that.
The government also announced that vaccination would no longer be required to travel by plane or train. Personally, I have no problem with that, but, once again, there is no data to support this decision. It gives us the impression that the government is making decisions on the back of a napkin. If they could give us that data, it would tell us whether these decisions are good or not.
Given the way passport applications are managed and the huge lineups at airports, one has to wonder whether the government has done things right. We have good reason to want to know more about how decisions are made and on what basis the government has made them.
I'm very much in favour of the motion, but I am a bit disappointed with the amendment that was proposed, because it's not intended to request all relevant documents, but only those that support the government's decision. There may be documents that don't support the government's decision, but they wouldn't be sent to us, so we wouldn't have all the information.
I find it strange that such an amendment comes from the government side, Mr. Chair. Even though I wasn't a member of Parliament during the Harper government, I remember the media decrying on a daily basis how obscure the government was and how it wasn't giving people the information they were entitled to expect.
I'm very disappointed to see that this kind of filibustering is going on or that amendments are being proposed that weaken a motion to the point where it loses its meaning.
In closing, I would like to point out that I had another motion that I would have liked to discuss today. It's almost 5:15 p.m., and we will soon be 45 minutes into this discussion.
I'm sorry about that, because it would have been interesting to have information on other issues that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities could have come and talked to us about, such as bilateral infrastructure agreements with the provinces, which he decided not to honour. There is also a motion to provide documentation and exchanges that support this decision. That's another request for information that would be very relevant.
If the government side would stop filibustering, we could pass these motions. If it weren't for the famous filibuster, we'd have been able to ask the witnesses questions today.