The subamendment applies to the main motion. That's how you understand it. But with all due respect, it says “certain election campaign expenses”. So you're telling me that because it doesn't say exactly the in-and-out portion of national advertising, this committee could not call any other official agents or anybody from Elections Canada. There are other candidates who are not getting reimbursed for election expenses for other reasons. There are issues other than the one that's been pointed out here.
It's been said in the House that there's a list of individual people. So if your argument is the case, I think this motion is poorly worded because it opens it up. My interpretation of this is that it does open it up.
Second of all, based on what you've said--and I don't disagree with you--the ethical standards of public office-holders is in the main motion. In past elections there have been public office-holders. I want to see what transpired in previous elections with public office-holders and their campaign expenses, and if that interpretation changed in 2006 for public office-holders who became public office-holders.