Mr. Speaker, let me assure my honourable colleague this is a very serious matter that had a considerable amount of attention over the last three or four years. I am not trying to deflect anything. I believe my Minister's statement was trying to give clarity to the way in which the government does its duty as it relates to former employees. What I am trying to present here are the facts as they are laid out in the guidelines and policies. Public perception on all issues depends on who you talk to. It depends on who writes the editorial, depends on who is on the radio, et cetera.
What I have said is, in a serious effort to try and re-examine what we are doing, our department right now is going to complete a survey of practices in other jurisdictions. That is important. We are going to research the case law that is relevant and to assess what changes we need to take to the approach my honourable colleague raises. I have also said, once it is done I will communicate to the Members of the House, either in the House or by letter. It is a genuine effort on this government's part to bring clarity to the issue. At the end of the day, quite frankly, to aid the contracting departments, so they have it clear whether or not a particular person, because there are about 250 of them out there, requires a waiver or does not and do they meet the criteria set under the guidelines. Definitely we have to re-examine them. I would have to say to my honourable colleague, we will do that as quickly as we can.