I think that we do have some connection, all things considered, to our riding association. I'm all for you're trying to absolve Mr. Dykstra any way you can, but if you did not review the case on the basis of subsection 10(1), then as I understand it, a new complaint could be filed pursuant to subsection 10(1) and the matter investigated anew.
Based on the personal information he obtained, he was, after all, able to gain access to a suite that no one, except for a handful of people associated with Rogers, had access to. I won't reread the part that says you need to have dealings with Rogers in order to rent this suite. Take, for instance, the suite belonging to the owner of the Montreal Canadiens which is located right above the ice, a suite that obviously everyone would like to rent. The team's website does not advertise that this suite can be rented. Do you understand what I'm saying? It is the same thing in the case of Rogers. I get that. However, you're telling me that this event was not connected with his duties as a member and I'm telling you that when he leaves his riding and goes to Ottawa, he's working for his constituents, as I see it. If he met with a lobbyist in a restaurant or elsewhere, I have to wonder about subsection 10(1). You say that you didn't look at this provision as part of your investigation. Fine. You didn't. End of story.