I am not sure that I have the entire detail of the question Mr. Steen is asking, but I think it goes something like this: I think he is saying, is it possible to have a report which you may not in fact be questioning and still find that you have lost confidence in the person who wrote the report? I think this speaks to the issue of the reasonable apprehension of bias. I think the committee has said from the outset conceivably, certainly, where you could see someone in their investigation leading up to a report had done things like talk to the media, or some of these other kinds of things which would cause you to lose confidence or cause you to have a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The actual results of the report, one way or another, would not confirm nor deny whether or not that had taken place. If that is Mr. Steen's question as to how we can accept the report and still have concerns about someone's competence or whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias leading up to that report, I think yes, you can. I think it is important to remember that the application of reasonable apprehension of bias was made before the report was ever seen by anybody.