I think it will be a fairly short question. I want to be clear, because when we embark on this thing, we've got to have our terms of reference and our objectives in mind too, and stick to what we decide is the intent of the inquiry we're going to embark upon.
Mr. Laforest has emphasized contradictory evidence. That's what we want to zero in on. That's what the inquiry will be focused on. If I interpret that correctly, it means this committee isn't going to try to become some judicial inquiry to go on for months trying to investigate everything under the sun. I think a lot of us know the limitations of this committee in trying to do that sort of thing.
I'm really asking the person who presented this motion what his intent is. Is it the first or is it the latter? If it's the latter, I'm just wondering how that fits in with the protocol this committee just recently adopted, which fairly well defined the mandate and role of this committee.