I respect that completely, Mr. Chairman. The fact is that now you are explaining that we have some latitude to discuss comparatives. We're expanding this motion for that exact reason. I guess I should thank you for pointing that out.
This motion has to be expanded for one simple fact, and that is to have comparables. We need to compare whether they're public office-holders or whether they're not. That's fine. We're looking at the behaviour of one individual as compared to the behaviour of another individual. The Canada Elections Act will deal with whether any of this is the right way or the wrong way to go.
We still suggest that nobody has done anything wrong, but how can we tell whether it's outside the scope unless we expand? That's what the amendment's trying to do.
Who are those other comparatives? How can we compare? If we're going to vote on this amendment, we're going to vote on whether or not to compare the activities of certain members to the activities of other members. That's what the amendment is about. That's exactly what I want to speak to.