No. Hold it, Hold it, hold it, sir. This is not a debate. I just want to finish the point, sir.
The operative part of the motion is to determine if the actions of some event that flowed from that meet the ethical standards. That's 108(3)(h)(vi) under our mandate.
The issue, as you know.... The committee is not trying to figure out whether anybody is guilty or innocent, or whatever. There are some matters that flow from this, and they relate, as you may recall in my ruling, to potentially pecuniary interests or the need to report to the Ethics Commissioner. Because public office-holders, when they subsequently found out this was an issue and they were named by Elections Canada--how and why Elections Canada did that is a matter that is somewhat beyond the scope of us getting involved in it too much. We know what the report says; they made a finding. Based on that finding, should it be sustained, could there be some consequences?
In any event, that was the ruling.
But your point of order is that the original motion is out of order. In fact, the committee dealt with that. It ruled it in order, so the point of order is incorrect.