I certainly do understand that.
The point I'm trying to make is that the amendment to this motion is an attempt to expand this study into all.... If you don't want me to use the term “political parties” and simply allow the opposite members to use the term “Conservative Party” on a repeated basis, then I won't use the word “party”.
The fact remains that we're on an amendment that attempts to expand the motion. I think the relevance there is that the reason we feel it's absolutely necessary to expand the motion is that we need to determine by comparison; it's the only way to determine whether someone did....
Let's take an example. If you'll allow me, Mr. Chair, I'll drift a little bit and use an analogy.
Malpractice in the medical community is something most members are familiar with. It is determined by comparing the treatment protocols and the behaviours of other local physicians. There was a time when drilling a hole in your head to let the spirits out was perfectly acceptable in the medical profession. That would be considered malpractice today. How would you conclude that? How would a court conclude that? It would be by comparing the behaviours of other professionals who are similar.
Here we have a number of members of Parliament who belong to different political parties. By the matter of numbers, we want to keep the study focused to one individual party. I'm saying that's impossible without the amendments and without the subamendment. It can't be done.
Therein lies my point. Sometimes it takes a little while to get there, but the point is made very clearly that this has to be amended as suggested by my colleagues. There is truth to what my colleagues are saying. The RCMP was invited along. Using such terminologies as “the RCMP raided the place” is absolute proof of political rhetoric. An absolute opinion in any direction can't be made if we're going to study one single party.