Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just don't want to see us head down the road of either duplication or overlap again. I think it is important that if this committee wants to study this issue, for whatever the reason, whether it's partisan or whether it's wholesome and good for the Canadian taxpayer, that's fine. That's fair ball and I suppose reasonable.
If we go ahead now without the information that has come forward or will come forward before the Ethics Commissioner, we're excluding anything we might hear there from bringing it into our meeting here. So I really think we have to take things in chronological order to deliver the results we need for the full evaluation of this committee. If we go ahead and study this now or in due course, and then after that study or investigation information comes out from the Ethics Commissioner that might either corroborate or be judgmental and/or be in opposition to some of the information we've already heard, we've put the cart before the horse.
I'd like to hear from the Ethics Commissioner on this, and their study and their evaluation. At that point, then, the committee would have the information available to them to decide whether or not we should go forward. If that information, in the judgment of this committee, after the evaluation of the Ethics Commissioner, is such that it is worthy of further study, then of course that's this committee's will, and I think we would accept that judgment.
Let's just do things in the proper order here; otherwise we're going to end up redoing something that's already taken place and then having to just recycle a horse around, and that's no way to run a committee's business.