Thanks, Chair.
We've heard comments from the members, including that member, about respect, hesitation and reservation, but respect and reservation and thoughtfulness are what we've seen from the chair. I think it speaks to the motives and intentions of those who voted to overturn his ruling when we've seen the contrast. There's a fairness at play in this room. It doesn't always break the way I'd like it to, of course, but that's how an impartial chair works. We have not seen that at other committees dealing with this issue. While the chair's actions speak for themselves, so do the actions of those who voted to overturn that ruling.
Chair, on the amendment to the motion, we heard from Mr. Angus, and I look down the table to see a colleague who has logged nearly two decades in Parliament. He talks about the resources that have been expended and devoted at this committee to some of the issues that we're dealing with. I don't want to squander the resources and the efforts that have gone into bringing us to where we are today.
We know that the amendment has been ruled in order. We know that the consideration in Ms. Gaudreau's amendment reflects the will of the committee. Again, though I personally disagree with some of the points in the amendment, I know them to be the will of the committee in its current composition. Thus, while not striking the exact effect that I would look to achieve, the amendment does affect the outcome that the majority of the members on this committee have publicly stated they're seeking.
With respect to the main motion and the committee reviewing the safeguards to prevent a conflict of interest in the federal government, including the CSSG and the awarding of it to the WE organization, it's certainly germane. I think that having an individual from the organization speak to those documents and to have these documents in hand with the safeguards preferred by members of this committee would go a long way to being judicious in the future use of this committee's resources and time, because in a subcommittee or a full committee, in terms of deciding how to govern ourselves during the the development and progress of that study, we'll have resolved the question that is surely to be asked. It will be done with the main motion, the main motion that has now been shortened. It's been narrowed in scope and will affect what I have expressed previously in terms of getting some work done by substantially looking at issues that are in the public interest and looking at them in the limited time that we have.
We have a few days before the House will rise for Christmas, and it's unfortunate to be talking about Christmas now. The year is slipping away. We haven't even had Remembrance Day yet, and people are putting up their Christmas trees.
With that in mind, we need to get to the business that we've been sent here to do. These issues were of great public interest and of developing public interest over the course of the summer, through prorogation and into the new fall session. I appreciate that the main motion as amended is supportable, and I hope the committee can undertake to do that.
Chair, I will conclude, but if possible, with the resources of the House and in consultation with the parties, if the committee, which generally meets twice a week—and this committee was identified as a priority committee by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs at the start of the session—can have a second meeting scheduled this week, I think that would be prudent in furthering the business of the committee, knowing the limited opportunity even for an extension today with votes after question period and votes before question period boxing us in, and then we are losing next week to a break week. Hopefully, we will get that work done this week and we won't have to come back during a constituency week.
With those thoughts, I will yield the floor.