I'd like to see that statement that I made. Having said that, I'm not saying I never made any such statement. I may well have made a statement that talked about redundancy, because there clearly is a potential for redundancy where a judicial inquiry that's under way is seeking to get to the bottom of a situation while a House committee is doing the same thing. Obviously, there is redundancy.
Is that a reason for the committee not to do it? Not necessarily, in my view, because the committee's objectives are quite different from what a judicial inquiry's objectives are. The committee's objectives are ones of seeking out a certain amount of knowledge about the facts with a view to looking at what the broader public policy issues should be in dealing with that situation, whereas a judicial inquiry may have a narrower focus.
But yes, there is, understandably, a certain process redundancy when you have two bodies doing the same thing. But that doesn't mean necessarily that they shouldn't go forward.