I'm so excited to start deliberating on the amended motion at hand. I just need to dig something up, Mr. Chair, very quickly—some notes I have put together to speak on what I call the amended amended motion at hand.
I will speak to the matter that was before us a few minutes ago in terms of the defeated motion on Speakers' Spotlight and so forth.
As we know, organizations and individuals across the country maintain records for a number of years, and they meet both fiduciary and legal requirements in maintaining those documents. Speakers' Spotlight has highlighted the fact that records are maintained on a consistent, cumulative basis and that after a certain period of time, when documents are no longer required to meet fiduciary or legal requirements, they no longer maintain those documents. I think that's very relevant.
I also think it is relevant is that we are now in the year 2020, I believe, and the Prime Minister became Prime Minister in 2015. As for records pertaining to that period, Speakers' Spotlight would have encapsulated them within the seven-year look-back period, and I will call it a look-back period.
I notice some of our members have got up to stretch. I will admit that during the break I had to get up and stretch, and I was almost inspired to do some calisthenics to get some exercise here, because sitting and being stationary is not great for health.
Going back to Mr. Angus's motion, looking at the points and considering the company Baylis Medical—and we heard some very wise remarks from my learned colleague from la belle province—it seems to me that what I call this fishing expedition.... I don't want to call it a smear campaign, because I don't believe any of our colleagues or anyone from other areas of political life want to smear anybody. We don't want to paint with a brush like that, but I do think Baylis Medical company should....
I will not repeat those remarks, Chair, but I will just say that, in all defence, they are a great organization, and you've heard me comment in a prior speech when I was not defending Baylis but just speaking on facts related to that company.
Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to speak here this afternoon, for providing this opportunity to me. We've listened intently to all sides.
I will say, like Mr. Angus, I believe in doing good work in terms of the studies, and I have had the pleasure of sitting on this committee, my third committee in five years. I sat on finance for a number of years and listened to many stakeholders talk about how they want to improve Canada and what they see as the issues for their communities. Across the board, there were literally hundreds and hundreds of presentations.
The ethics committee has taken me on a different journey. I would anticipate a very different journey in terms of where we are. I do hope we come to some sort of unanimous approval on where we want to move the committee. I honestly thought we were there with Mr. Angus's motion, which was then amended by Mr. Fergus and then amended by Madame Gaudreau. I truly felt at that time, and I said this earlier, that it was not in a correct manner.
I do feel bad for Ms. Vignola, who replaced Ms. Gaudreau. Maybe something happened there that she needed to explain, and she obviously voted in a manner that she thought was appropriate, and she thought she was right. We all have that responsibility, and if you look back on the blues, she voted to not continue. That's it, and that's what we do in this job. We inform ourselves, and we need to inform ourselves not only before we get on committee but also during committee to make sure we ask the questions we need to ask.
It remains to be seen on that front.
In terms of where I want to—