We all want what is right, but where do we go and when do we stop? This was before this committee before. This same issue was before government operations and estimates, and I sat on it. We reviewed it. We reviewed it again for the second time on June 18, when we had the senior people in, Daphne Meredith and other witnesses. And whether we agree or not, no convincing evidence was put forward in those different sets of hearings to give us reason to believe that we have to continue.
Where do we go? How many times do we go back and address the same issue? If there is conclusive evidence, or not even conclusive but serious evidence, that any member of this committee wants to bring forward that is going to lead us to rethink the issue that is constructive, that's there, that's a smoking gun, then by all means let's go back and do it. I'd have no difficulty. But to say we should go back because we weren't satisfied is not good enough. We're going to be doing that on every issue we deal with. I go back to the invoice situation, to Lepage, and on and on. We can go endlessly on these types of issues. Where do we stop? Where do we go?
We've made a decision. As I said before, it has already been before the various committees of this House three times now. To take it back again, if it's the will of the committee.... Honestly, it might not be 100% satisfactory to everybody, but where do we draw the line? We have all kinds of other responsibilities to do as well.