Mr. Chair, we're still on the amendment. Is that correct?
You know, I think this is worthy of a study. To echo Mrs. Vignola's comments, OGGO is currently preoccupied with other topics.
I would love to see us get to a report on the rural postal delivery study that we're currently conducting. We're still waiting for the president of Canada Post to come to share some insights with the committee.
The intention here is to send it off to INDU and have them decide whether they want to conduct a study. In my view, the best way to go about it would be to invite the relevant ministers, the labour unions and the companies involved to find out whether there's a justification for making these contracts public.
I do think that comes with a degree of risk, as has been mentioned by my colleagues. At the same time, the questions about Canadian jobs are valid ones, and I think they deserve a thorough airing before the committee.
I would prefer that OGGO not become sort of a catch-all for these emerging issues where we sideline the rest of our work to take on stuff that other committees can't fit into their schedule, because, of course, we have a work plan of our own. In my view, it's better suited at INDU, which is why I made the amendment in the first place.
I'm happy to vote on it. I'm not going to speak at length like some of my colleagues have, but this is an important issue.
See? I was just filibustering until my colleague came into the room.
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair, in the hope that we can get to a vote on this amendment to refer it to the industry committee. With that, I'll welcome my colleague, Mr. Masse, who lives quite a bit closer to these investments than I do and who I know has been working very hard on this file at the industry committee, like Mr. Perkins, who I understand also migrated over from the industry committee to OGGO today. I'm sure they'll both have many sage words.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.