Mr. Mayrand, I'm going to continue along the line of questioning that I took yesterday. Considering that you were the one who raised these matters, I trust they're within the realm of questions that you can actually answer.
By way of clarification, you stated that the five factors are really five facts, but they are still a test. What makes this clear to me is that you applied them as a test to the other parties. You stated that all the other major parties had their returns reviewed for the 38th and 39th general elections, and that these five facts were identified.
In your reasoning, you've stated that all five facts are essential, and that only the presence of all five facts can justify the decision that you came to. As a matter of logic, if any one of your five facts is flawed, your conclusion is also flawed. I'd like to review one of your five facts in a bit of detail, to unpack it a little bit, because I think there's a flaw here that completely unravels this house of cards that you've established. But before I get to that, I want to get some administrative questions out of the way.
You said that these five facts were investigated in the other parties in the 38th and 39th general elections. I assume, then, that you have some paperwork that would substantiate the investigation applied to these other parties. Could you provide that documentation to the committee?