No. I appreciate the point you're making. The way I phrased it gave rise to your concern. I don't want that concern to be sustained.
Let me be clear: I, too, will be supporting the amendment. I have my concerns about how it times out and plays out, based on the parallel investigation going on, but I also appreciate that members of the opposition wish to use the committee this way. That's the prerogative of the committee, and the motion that's in front of us is the one I have to vote on. I can't split it, parse it and divide it.
The point I was raising, and I think it's an important point, is that how we do it matters. I'm not evading. I'm not suggesting that this shouldn't be, that this line of questioning doesn't have standing at the committee. It's how it plays out that raises concerns for me. It raises concerns because of the points I made earlier.
It's clear that the amendment as proposed is the right way to go, based on the consensus of the committee. I'm not trying to turn that upside down. I apologize for raising that alarm. That wasn't the intent.
I hope the point that was raised and was made was that we have to make sure that the Ethics Commissioner does his work, and does his work with the confidence of this committee and is not undermined by it looking as though there's a parallel investigation going on. That was the point I was making. If I didn't make it clearly enough, I apologize to my colleagues and I apologize to the committee.
In particular, I want to assure Mr. Green that I will be supporting the Angus motion. I hope that clears it up.