As I mentioned to my friends on the Conservative side, if they would set that aside and allow for part b) to happen, then I would suggest that, if in the course of the investigation on part b)—the study on part b) with Pascale Fournier and Mr. Rosenberg—it was deemed at that time appropriate to send that invitation to Mr. Trudeau, then I'm for that.
However, I would also recognize the nature in which being implicated in this type of thing has almost as much effect as being brought before the committee, and that is why I would like to give the presumption of innocence, given his relationship to the Prime Minister, until such time as we have real information that would implicate him in a more serious way.
Again, I would restate that, if the movers of the motion would be open to setting aside a) until after b) happens, I would be willing to revisit that. If that's not the case, then I am not really interested in getting into part a) in this particular case.