Mr. Wallace, it would appear to me that your approach is to go through item by item what has been questioned, but not to suggest or even to look at the work that was done by the committee to consider that. In fact, it's clear that there are questions that were not answered, and that is a prima facie issue, because this committee issued a summons to Mr. Mulroney with regard to his trips to these various countries, asking him for the dates, the locations, and the names of those he met with and those who attended with him.
Mr. Wallace, you also asked about GST information you wanted from Mr. Mulroney. If we pull out the letter, the summons lays out a number of pieces of information this committee asked for. This committee decided not to act on the summons, although Mr. Mulroney did not respond to those questions. It's very clear that there are at least a dozen points of fact that the members had asked for, which this committee approved, and which were served on Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Pratte, and they were not responded to. Our invitation for him to come back to do that was turned down. So with regard to going through the testimony and suggesting there's no supplementary question on this item or that item, that is not going to make the case that there are no supplementary questions that could possibly be answered. We have on the record and filed with Mr. Mulroney questions to be answered.
So the issue about whether or not there are any supplementary questions is prima facie yes, there are. So move on with the rest of your considerations. You can carry on, but to make any argument--