I have just a couple of thoughts. I might have been one of the first to ask whether or not this was in our purview, not because I suspected anything political. Really, if you want to play politics, you can go all the way back to the origin of the vote. It's all been highly political.
I would also say to Mr. Saxton, he used the term “highly unusual” for this, but the whole vote 35 process is unusual. That's why an exception makes sense.
My only question was whether or not this was actively for us to look at or someone else. I was hoping someone would, but were we the right ones? You've made your ruling, and we've now sustained that.
Given the extraordinary nature of the vote, I'm feeling compelled to support it because there's no reason not to. It is unusual, but so was that whole process and the setting aside of money and the way it was going to be accessed.
I can appreciate the concern that there's partisan politics, but other than the usual layers of partisanship that exist, I'm not sensing, there's no particular case here, that this is going to segue into, or you're backing into, an issue you couldn't get in through the front door. There's nothing like that.
Yes, it's going to be political, but so is the whole setting aside of that money and spending it the way we did. So I'm feeling comfortable there are no games at play, beyond the usual tensions that exist anyway, and I don't think it's extraordinary enough that we wouldn't go ahead and do this. It's over in a short period of time. It's Canadians' money, they're entitled to know where it's being spent.
You've now said it's in order, Chair, and we've sustained that, so I'm in support of the motion. I can't see a good reason not to be at this stage.