Well, you're absolutely correct, Mr. Chair. Of course it's surprising we got here with the chair's restricted debate opportunities, but I'm going to carry forward anyway, because this has everything whatsoever to do with expanding the amendment.
Let me just jump to that. I'm going back to this stuff, Mr. Chair. I'll raise my hand until September if I have to, because this is absolutely relevant. The member opposite opened the door when she herself talked in the last meeting about big companies. She was allowed, Mr. Chair, all the freedom to discuss all kinds of things from this alleged RCMP investigation, which has nothing at all to do with these amendments either.
So with all due respect, what I'm going to suggest to you is that here on the ethics committee the mandate is to determine ethical standards. It seems pretty ironic to me that this committee, which is about to determine whether we should study the ethics of another party, is about to make the biggest ethical mistake ever, and that will be to subject witnesses to violate sub judice convention and potentially influence, to the negative, the outcome of a civil proceeding. That's where it's relevant.