That's the question, Chair. I think the objective of this amendment is to get the information in. It is not to ask the question; it's to receive the information.
I'm also wondering what would happen if the company comes back to us and says, “Sorry, this violates labour law.” What position would the committee be in in that instance?
I obviously want the work we do to be effective and efficient and to the best of our capacity. I know we don't have a lot of days left in this session. I'm just asking those questions and I'm hoping we can get some answers.
Ultimately, I think what we're trying to do here is get an understanding of what has occurred with the Global News article. From my understanding, we're adding this particular amendment, after talking at length about the amended motion as presented, for one of two reasons. Either the other folks in it were just a front to get to the other Randy and to sensationalize or grandstand—whatever objectives the Conservatives may have—or it was to understand what exactly has happened. It's one or the other.
I'm trying to understand the practical implication of the amendment to this motion. We're basically asking a company to give up all their records of all previous employees and all current employees, and if the Conservatives would have it, perhaps all future employees too. It seems to be a bit of a witch hunt, in my opinion, to see who this Randy is. What happens if there are multiple Randys on this list? What happens if somebody named Randeep goes by Randy? There could be many other instances of this.
This is not the most efficient way for us to conduct our business. I think the best way for us to go forward is to keep the currently amended motion, as it stands now, and see if there's something to sniff here. Then we can go from there.
At this point, as I've said before and will say again, I don't think what we're trying to do is achieve any real work. What we're trying to do is grandstand, to create scandals, to witch-hunt and go after people who, God knows, may or may not exist and to create a target on people's backs. Quite frankly, I've been a victim of that myself. I don't think we should be putting civilians up for that at all. We need to be very judicious in how we conduct ourselves at this committee, who we call before this committee and what kind of documents we order to be produced before this committee. We need to take into account what the practical implications of such an amendment would be. We need to take into account and perhaps pre-empt, or think about it at the very least, what a private company would have to go through to release private information of all former employees and all current employees.
I hope we can be a bit more judicious in what kind of amendments we're proposing. I would hope that we not partake in political grandstanding or in trying our very best to defame people in the House.
I am quite humbled and honoured to serve as a member of Parliament. I take my responsibilities very seriously. That includes the privilege we're given that says we are honourable; our words are not supposed to be questioned. Members here need to remember that as well. Ensure that we are being honest. Ensure that we are working to the best of our ability to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do, not to sensationalize things and not to create scandals out of something.
We really need to get back on track. I know I keep saying this again and again, but I'm hoping that we can find a way to build consensus on this committee. I'm hoping that we can find a way to get some real work done.
Mr. Chair, I know I've said this before, but I was quite disappointed in not being able to complete the study that I put forward and that we had spent a lot of resources on.