Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I completely disagree with the subamendment. I think I understand the intent of the subamendment, but I would like to hear from the other members of the committee on this.
What is the purpose of this subamendment? Why do they want to delete the last sentence, which, as my colleague Ms. Lattanzio just said, in no way negates the principle that we must report to the House? All the members of this committee know very well that we have to report to the House on all the work we do. That's the way we operate.
To say that we need to send a separate report on this to the House is contrary to the intent of the motion. I'll read the motion again, which was adopted on November 16, 2020:
That this study continue our work relating to the Canada Student Service Grant, including this committee's work to review the safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest in federal government expenditures; government spending, WE Charity and the Canada Student Service Grant; and the administration of the Canada Student Service Grant… And that this study include…
That's when we started listing the witnesses one after the other. That led to a lot of debate in this committee. I recall that some of the names of witnesses were crossed out because some of our colleagues rightly said that these witnesses were not relevant to the study. We agreed to hear from other witnesses, including Frank Baylis, a former Liberal MP, and Rick Jamieson, on procurement contracts for medical ventilators.
When I hear my colleague suggest that the Liberals are hiding something, I am shocked. Mr. Baylis testified before the committee. So who is hiding what?