Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that happened with regard to this whole process is that the government has decided to go with a process which doesn't go under the Public Inquiries Act. I think that by doing so it has allowed the Members to address it in this House in some form. Also, I can recall several years ago when there was a doctor in Fort Smith that was in question, we proceeded with an inquiry under one of our acts and it cost this government $500,000 to do that. We ended up with no answers at all because it was still sub judice. It was still under investigation, there was jeopardy here. In this case, I thought that when the Minister consulted me, and I appreciate that the best way to do it was for the department to initiate the whole thing. I have no problem with that. I don't know whether or not, by discussing it further we are resolving anything right now. I think we should allow the investigation to be carried out right now and allow the department to respond to it by the end of this month, as they said. From there, it's still not going to be a closed case after that. I would think that Members will be allowed the opportunity to look at the results of the investigation as opposed to doing it through one of our acts.
Most of the stuff that was on the terms of reference, and what I told the Minister at that time was that we not only look at the department itself but we also have to look at the services. I would hope that at that time, in order for anybody to carry out an investigation, you have to look at both sides of the story. I thought they did that. I have no problem other than... I guess the children are going to be the ones... Mr. Ballantyne, I believe, was going to say something about it, but it's the children's welfare that is at stake here. I think the investigation can carry on without it jeopardizing or tormenting the children, as it is. Can we allow the government to carry out their investigation and at the same time ensure that those children are in care?