Thanks so much, Madam Chair.
As my colleagues have said on all sides, in principle, the motion makes sense. We don't have an issue with transparency. We don't have an issue with the public being witness to our debates or our discussions around spending. That's what this committee is here for.
I'm new to the committee. I'm new to government, and I'm new to Parliament. Even I can tell that the amount of resources, time and expenses spent on these particular issues—Phoenix and ArriveCAN—was excessive. We have to answer to taxpayers. Certainly, they want to know where their tax dollars were going with respect to these programs, and no one is denying there were issues with these programs.
It's incumbent upon us to investigate, but it's also incumbent upon us to continue to be guardians of taxpayer dollars while spending resources on investigations. In this particular instance, I don't believe the means justify the end we're going to get.
I'm not sure what additional information is going to be found by specifically focusing on Phoenix and ArriveCAN. I agree with Mr. Osborne that it's going to be distracting. I wouldn't want the type of verbiage in the motion that would influence or direct the investigator to a particular place when there might be other things that need to be investigated. That's not to say—