Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this motion, I would like to discuss a couple of the points that are within the body of the recommendation. We have heard a lot. The report itself is driven by the need to establish and maintain the highest standards of integrity, of transparency and professional conduct. There are many other ways of describing, keeping the very best of process.

Where the committee states that it finds the actions of Mr. Selleck and his employer, the CBC, amount to a "...clear and deliberate contempt of the committee's authority and proceedings." Yet it essentially tosses them off as a sideline dispute that does not warrant or merit the attention of the House. I guess I find it ironic, Mr. Chairman, that it was almost the same kind of statement in Mrs. Groenewegen's decision to remove her application of bias.

If I have this correct, Mr. Chairman, if I recall that she sort of lifted the official complaints from requiring it to be action, but she said in the body of her letter that she still felt that there was a bias there. I think the committee, where it was assigned to try and sort this out, it has in fact duplicated something that upset the committee in the first place. Here it points out that there is a clear and deliberate contempt and yet it says it is not worth bothering with.

I guess the point in here for me, Mr. Chairman, is that if we have indeed determined that the actions of a reporter and a national broadcaster are in contempt of the standards of performance and professionalism that we want to maintain in this House, then some kind of action, or at least some kind of venue where the CBC could engage, is warranted.

There is a further reference under 8.7 to something about sanctions by this House. The sentence reads, "The consequences of their own actions, meaning CBC and Mr. Selleck, on their reputations may well be much more far-reaching than any specific sanctions of this House."

I am wondering in here if it is the suggestion that if we really do consider this to be their response to the committee's request to appear, if their refusal is indeed a clear and deliberate contempt, do we want to undertake some steps to indicate our displeasure in more concrete terms than simply saying, "We dismiss you guys. You are not worthy of our attention." They are, I believe, worthy of attention.

I do not know, Mr. Chairman, unless the committee -- I would be interested in hearing any other comments to see if anybody else supports me in this, but we are not being true to ourselves and our conviction here if we are going to take this kind of finding, especially on the part of a broadcaster as large and with as much reach as the CBC does to our audience, that we should leave this unsolved or unattended to. There is something unfinished about this recommendation.

I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman, thank you.