I will continue talking about the subamendment. We said we would limit it to two meetings.
Mr. Chair, when there is no other proof than finding a person's name on Elections Canada's public and transparent list of all Canadians who donated between $100 and $1,600 per year to a political party, when that is the only thing people are interested in, I find that very unfortunate.
The result is what Mr. Paul-Hus suggested. These are nothing but unfounded allegations. That is why I think six meetings is too many, and I say that once again with a lot of respect for Mr. Paul-Hus. As I said, he is someone who has a good reputation that is well deserved. He made an error this time, and that is unfortunate. Saying such things is not to his credit, in this instance. He has a good and well-deserved reputation, and I hope he will stop repeating things like that. I am certain he will not repeat them outside this room. I hope he will not do so here either.
Let us get back to the matter at hand, the subamendment and the two meetings. Mr. Chair, once again, this is the best way to get a good overview. If there is something fishy, we can pursue the matter further or, if something shocks us, we can refer the matter to the people who can conduct a full investigation, such as the Auditor General. There is also the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I am convinced, and I would even bet on it, that it will not go very far and that we will not have two waste four meetings that we could have set aside—as we should—to consider access to information and other matters raised by a number of members at this table.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.