Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have two questions, one for Mr. Kirkpatrick and one for Mr. Wouters, but prior to getting to those questions, which I hope would actually take a couple of simple answers, I would like to make a point. The point I would like to mention is it's a sad reality where this committee is finding itself right now. We're simply being what I would call manipulated and playing politics.
This same issue came to the public accounts committee. In their wisdom they didn't want to be involved in a political football and part of a smear campaign. Quite frankly, very quickly, they discounted that and recognized that there was really nothing here, other than, I suppose, partisan politics on behalf of Mr. Holland and the Liberal Party.
Of course then, not wanting to just accept no for an answer, the Liberal Party and Mr. Holland refused to accept even the opinion of the Ethics Commissioner and then the Privacy Commissioner to investigate this matter. Obviously they have access to the reports that were issued by both of those commissioners. I suppose the next thing this committee's going to want, on behalf of Mr. Holland, is perhaps to call in the Privacy Commissioner and the Ethics Commissioner to see whether their testimony and their letters on this issue were truthful too.
In other words, where are we going with this? We have a minister who exhibited prudence, transparency, and a sensitivity to the realities of the political situation on the ground in that he did not get involved with making a decision of the middle of an electoral race so as to unduly influence it. I think that is just common sense and good dealing.
In contrast—and this is certainly not an attempt to demean my colleague across the road—Mr. Holland, there was an article written, as a matter of fact, in one of your local papers. I just happened to pick it up the other day. It went something like this: it said “To the editor”, and this is a classic example--