Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. Chair.
For the record, I have been at this committee before. This is the second time I've been here. Fortunately, we have access to the transcripts of committee proceedings, and I often consult the minutes of the various committees. That has always been the case.
Let's get back to the matter at hand, which is the debate on the amendment before us.
If we want to get to the bottom of things, we have to start somewhere. The first thing a member of this committee did was write to the Ethics Commissioner. That's great. I hope he will provide the response to the committee, but I assume he hasn't received a response yet. Otherwise, I bet he would have shared it with his colleagues and the media by now. That is not the case at the moment.
If we want to duplicate the work of the Ethics Commissioner, we can invite him to appear before the committee and allow members to ask him questions about the advice he gave the minister. If we want to go further, we can also invite the minister. He can come and explain all the steps he has taken to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.
Despite my colleague's answer—