As Ms. Shanahan just said, it's a step, but it's a step in another direction. Is it in the right or the wrong direction? History will tell us.
There is something I find unfortunate about this debate on the amendment to the motion. It is rare that I take the time to speak philosophically. We are changing the essence of the motion and why we want to go in one direction rather than another. It was really important to include the brother and mother of our Prime Minister in the motion.
We took the time this summer to work on the whole famous story of the WE Charity when the ethics committee had the right to work and before everything was stopped. We were beginning to get somewhere and to understand some things. Some people, through our committee, had revealed some interesting things.
The advantage of having witnesses come to committee is that when we ask them questions, they answer us. They are not necessarily redacted documents. If you take the trouble to ask the right questions, you get very interesting answers that can shed some light on what happened with the student program and the WE Charity.
I will open a parenthesis here. In all the measures that were put in place last spring to help Canadians, this program was misunderstood and difficult to understand. That's why we asked questions of some of the witnesses who appeared before this committee last summer. We wanted to know where this initiative came from. The students were already protected. Those who had already worked were entitled to the CERB. We know that in Canada, there were many—