My point had been, of course, that had there been a government member who was going on as someone who would advocate the government position and who would articulate a point of view that I could present, I would have presented to that person certain arguments to take to the subcommittee that might have resulted in it producing a different report.
Obviously my own concerns with regard to the legitimacy of dealing with this subject matter at all are already known. They're already on the record. They date back to a ruling I sought from the chairman some months ago, when I asked the chairman to rule on a version of this motion. I don't think it was exactly the same motion, but I asked him to rule it out of order.
That motion had asked us to engage in a fact-finding process, which is in parallel with a process that is being conducted in the court system. As I pointed out, parliamentary committees are ill suited to the task of doing this sort of thing. Parliamentary committees are meant for other purposes, but not for findings of fact.
The purpose of these hearings is therefore outside of the--