That's right. They outnumber you. It's not that you're wrong. It's not that you didn't make the proper ruling—because I'm sure you did.
If I can refer back even to the beginning of this, when the first Standing Order 106(4) motion was put forward, signed by four members from the other side, to come forward this summer to look at the so-called in-and-out scheme.... A motion was moved from that. I remember you taking the time, Chair, to get that ruling right and to say whether it was going to happen or not. You ruled, even with the advice of the law clerk, that the motion was out of order; it wasn't something this committee should be looking at.
If I can remember correctly without my notes in front of me, what you talked about was the fact that it was before the courts, that it's certainly one of the reasons this committee should not be looking at it, as precedent has been set that committees should clearly not be looking at something that's before the courts, and that it doesn't truly fit the mandate of this committee.
It was an investigation into an election financing thing. This committee is about legislation and reports from certain parts of our government, the Chief Electoral Officer, and we do work from that vein, but we don't necessarily do the investigation work into election financing.
I guess I'll just leave it at that. We just don't do it.