My only comment was going to be, in reference to what Mike is putting forward, which is that only people who were directly involved in some group advertising buy should be called as witnesses, the in-and-out idea or the claiming of national expenses as regional expenses or campaign expenses is not limited to advertising. The Ottawa bureau chief of the Winnipeg Free Press, Mia Rabson, identified some 50-odd ridings where the same modus operandi was used for polling. So we should not limit our investigation to just group advertising. We believe they exceeded the national spending limit by even more than the $1.3 million with another 50 ridings that did the same trick for polling expenses, national polling expenses, where there were examples of individual ridings spending $16,000 on polling in the middle of a campaign. I don't think you could spend $16,000 on a poll on an individual riding, a federal riding.
So by no means should we limit the witnesses by virtue of the fact of whether they were in the advertising buy or not. The point is, were they involved in claiming national expenses as if they were local campaign expenses?