Again, Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to recommence my thoughts this afternoon. I'll refer to earlier on in the day. When we began committee today at 11 o'clock, my learned and very astute colleague, MP Angus, talked at length about the Canada student service grant, about WE, about the organization. He put forward a number of proposals, ideas and thoughts, and we listened intently.
In the back of my mind, I knew I could interrupt him with a point of relevance, but to be frank, I wanted to give Mr. Angus the floor to speak, to share his thoughts. I tend to learn something from him, so I'm going to continue to go that way.
I think we can all agree that Mr. Angus's initial proposal to study ethical levers in place to protect against conflicts of interest in the Prime Minister’s Office is fair and is a study that could yield some fair and reasonable recommendations for members of this committee. This motion, Mr. Chair, fits the mandate of our committee. It fits the basic functions of our committee to study key aspects as they relate to our mandate found in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
However, what is not in the Standing Orders is any reference to this committee being an investigatory body. This committee is not a court of law. There are no rules of judicial fairness. There are no judges or lawyers and there is no due process, yet with motion after motion, the opposition majority seems to try to drag us down a path that we are simply, in my view, not suited to travel.
Members from our government are not unreasonable, Mr. Chair. Frankly speaking, for me, I feel a great desire to—