Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With your indulgence, I'd like to continue my argument on the amendment to the original motion, now that I understand that it's not parties we're discussing and that we're narrowing this thing right down to public office-holders. I understand that although these individuals were not public office-holders during that debate, the chair--and I've read the minutes, by the way--has in fact conveniently interpreted that situation to mean that since they eventually became public office-holders, they are in a conflict.
I'm wondering if I could just have some indulgence in reading the names of some other individuals--individuals, not parties--who may at some point become public office-holders.
Let's start with the NDP.