I think the tie-in, Mr. Chairman, is not so much in the substance of the allegations but in the fact that the committee had not finished its business and there could well be relevance to the decision of reinstatement, whether the House did or did not find the individual to have been contemptuous of the House. That's not reliance on testimony. That's recognition of a public act by the House of Commons, and it could well be relevant, in my view, to a question of reinstatement. The commissioner perhaps made a decision, it would appear, on the basis that the testimony could not be taken into account, therefore it was out of the picture, and the other allegations were withdrawn, so we had no basis to not reinstate.
