Right. Well, I've explained now the context of the concern, that it wasn't presented to me till now, and so I've been trying to think what would be the appropriate way of moving here. The report does not deal with certain key elements that I'm going to suggest should be included. The elements I've described conceptually, but as a starting point, the original motion that Madame Lavallée put forward and which I amended, you may recall....
I know there have been complaints about other members going on at length, but I think I've tried to be very, very businesslike.
I proposed an amendment, which went through, so there was no presupposition of guilt.
Her original motion, which we are seized with, is on the question of any wrongdoing that might have occurred, specifically breaches of the Access to Information Act. At no point that I'm aware of has anyone pointed to the relevant sections of the access to information law. I think that has to be the starting point.
I'm fully prepared to accept that there may have been such breaches. That's indeed why I proposed the amendment I did, and then was...well, I wasn't actually here for the final vote, but I would have been supportive of the motion as amended.
We need to start by figuring out what it is that's been broken. I printed it out this morning. This is a long, complicated law. So I have a copy right here. I've been trying to go through it this morning, actually, trying to figure out what parts of this might potentially have been breached.
To summon people here, we would have summoned Ms. Sabourin, who I assume is the person who is likely to be the person—