Yes, I have a couple of points, Mr. Chair.
One is on your question about whether we go right to the Attorney General of Ontario. My opinion would be absolutely no. You ruled in the same way last week, on Mr. Wrzesnewskj's motion that we report to the RCMP on something. Committees of the House can only report to the House; we can't report to other jurisdictions. We can receive information, papers and so on, but I think anything we do has to go to the House. It is for the House to make that decision.
The testimony has been a comparison between the public accounts committee, which was information gathering to understand the issue, the same as Gomery, which was information gathering to find out what was going on, but the criminal proceedings were a prosecution and defence on specific charges. As you know, the investigations of the public accounts committee and at Gomery were wide ranging: what do you know about this, tell me about that, answer this question, and so on—which is quite a different process than the prosecution. I don't see any reason why these prosecutions were decided by the courts. There have been no allegations that there was perjury before the courts.
I don't think we need to do another comparison, with more testimony and so on. I think we have what we have in front us. We should limit our debate to the Gomery inquiry and the public accounts committee testimonies and decide where we're going from here.