I'm just trying to figure out in which place it would be better. I like Mr. Nater's idea, because the Speaker has already ruled that it's a prima facie case. It's coming here. He has done his upfront ruling at this point, and we need to get into fact-finding initially. I think it would be better, if the Speaker came, to have him do so near the end, to find out how all of this....
I think, Mr. Christopherson, in effect you are saying that you want to see some changes, right? You think the way things have evolved over time is not in the best interests of parliamentary privilege, members' privilege, so that would be something better suited to be at the end of the fact-finding mission.
I don't know. It's obviously being debated. My vote is on that side.