I will continue my speech, if I may, Mr. Gourde.
I heard other people say that one meeting would be enough to resolve everything. That seems to be the sticking point. People think that we will be able to ask the witness questions, study the issue and clear everything up in just one meeting.
Members of this committee are experienced. We know full well that this will take more than one meeting. The request does not even ask us to report our findings to the House of Commons, since it is not sitting.
I am therefore having a really hard time understanding my colleagues at the table who are asking the committee to bring in a single witness in order to get answers. They are saying that, if that person has nothing to hide, then we will be able to quickly deal with the issue. If the other parties have nothing to hide either, then why do they not want us to assess the software programs they are using? Why will they not agree to expand the scope of this study so that everyone is transparent? That is what my colleague's amendment is trying to do, to expand the scope of this study.
Some committee members are telling us that they do not agree with the amendment and that they want to stick with the original motion. For what it is worth, the motion talks about a study that seems very broad at first glance. It does not indicate that the study will be limited to a single meeting where we hear from the witness in question. What is more, the motion seems to allege that there is already a conflict of interest when that is not what we have before us. Some members want to bring in the witness so that they can go on a fishing expedition, as my colleague, Mr. Sorbara so clearly pointed out. They are at it again. It is like a second version of the WE Charity investigation.
All my colleagues are saying that they want to focus on the work they need to do for their constituents and on issues affecting Canadians. Unfortunately, we were summoned, almost urgently, to a meeting in the middle of July about something that has no basis. Obviously, some members want to investigate to see whether there is something to find. What is more, they want to limit the debate. That goes against the principle of transparency that Mr. Carrie was talking about this morning. These members do not want us to look into and study the other software programs. They want to limit the study to this particular software.
You are going to tell me that there is no political motivation behind this and that this is not a witch hunt. I am—