Our colleague across the way used the terms “odd” and then “strange” to describe our opposition to what Madame Sinclair-Desgagné has raised. There's nothing strange or odd, with all due respect, Mr. Chair, in having a challenge with this committee looking at documents that are already being looked at by another committee.
I think Canadians send us to this place to do serious work and not redundant work. That committee will be able to look at the relevant documents and draw conclusions based on those documents. I think we should be doing the important work that has been set out at this committee. Generally speaking—in particular, when this committee has not been politicized—we have been able to complete serious work in a timely way that has allowed us to live up to the mandate of the committee.
Unfortunately, yes, arguments have been raised in relation to a motion that our side did support, but there was nothing in that motion that said we would be carrying out redundant work. Another committee is doing this work already. I have a real challenge with, again, seeing the point of this motion, with all due respect. What is the efficacy behind going ahead and supporting this particular motion? I don't see the relevance. I don't see how it would help our work. I don't see how it would help to add to the motion that was originally put forward and supported by this side as well with respect to the Trudeau Foundation.
If I recall the original motion, we set aside two meetings to look at the issue. I don't have that in front of me, Mr. Chair. If you look at the amount of time we've expended on the subject—I'll be kind and I won't say “wasted”—we are eating up valuable time here that, again, could have been used to look at a range of issues as a committee.
I'll leave that there for now, Mr. Chair. I think Mrs. Shanahan had something to add too.