Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was going to make some of the same points as to why I cannot support the amendment. I guess it's what you would call a replacement motion, probably.
Certainly I've never heard of a court action being depicted in quite the way Mr. Poilievre has depicted it, as sort of clearing the air. These irregularities...which, again, are allegations and seem to be very widespread from former Conservative candidates that we read in the newspapers. We probably should hear right from those individuals, again, because these are allegations, and it is not a proven fact that they were advised not to speak to Elections Canada, not to seek clarification.
I do believe this is a matter that very much falls under the mandate of Procedure and House Affairs, but it is very specific in nature and, as such, does not need to be broadened to other parties who have not been named in this way or, indeed, other elections when clearly this is around the election of 2006 and the activities pertaining thereto.