Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I do not support this recommendation and this motion largely because it is really not in line with the findings of fact of this committee. Mr. Chairman, I think this goes to the abuse of power that I was talking about. Page 27, where it talks about the conduct of Mr. Selleck and the CBC, right up to page 29, there are a lot of statements made that showed the displeasure of the committee about the conduct of this reporter. I do not have an opinion about the right or wrong about this reporter as stated by previous speakers.

However, for example, looking at paragraph 6.2, it seems obvious to me that there is implied some kind of conduct that this House expects from the media. It has referenced standards and practice of the CBC and it sort of in a blanket states that this was violated some how. He has violated his professional standard. He has damaged his own credibility according to 6.3.

So many words here are so inflammatory and I am very uncomfortable stating all that about someone's work, especially when this person was not able to appear and answer to anything or to explain. Well, he chose not to. There is a statement that the reporter was embarked on a mission of surprise on paragraph 6.2. He refused to acknowledge the compelling nature of the summons, that his testimonial would have been important and instrumental.

This raises one question, which is if his statement was so important and instrumental to this proceeding and he chose not to appear because of whatever reasons, then can we imply that the Commissioner and the Minister have been victims of his improper conduct? If the committee feels so strongly that this person had the crucial information and he chose not to appear and he breached all the standards and he was in contempt of the Assembly and the committee was not able to get the information that it needed, then how was it that he was able to come up with the findings that he has?

I understand that it had to use the information that it was able to gain but if this was that instrumental, does that not leave a question as to what the soundness is of the finding of fact?

Another thing, Mr. Chairman, I find it really ironic that this reporter received a summons and he just simply said, "No way. I am not going to be there." He showed up. He would not swear in. He wanted to know why he had to speak and his lawyer said, "We are going to challenge this." So what did this committee do? Just a slap on the hand and say, "You are bad. You should have come and talked and you did not. We are really mad at you and you are very unprofessional." The committee could just say what other words? This committee is speaking on my behalf and this committee is speaking on behalf of the people out there because remember, that is where they get their power. I think they will have to answer to that.

Another side of this is what I see here is those four people who came and appeared before the committee and said what they needed to say, the Minister, the Commissioner, the civil servants, they came and they spoke and their jobs are on the line. They are going to be fired or have already been.

The reporter says, "I do not know what you are doing and I am not going to appear." Then he gets nothing. So for me, it is as simple as that. I have a concern with this motion in that the text of the findings went so far as to be imputing misconduct on a professional. It questions the integrity of the role and place of journalists in our society. I know that we are not always happy with what is being reported but, my God, I will not see the day when we somehow think that we have the power to judge the conduct of the media because we have this all omnipotent power to judge and then say we are really annoyed with you but we are not going to do anything. That does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

I think that if this committee has the importance and the mandate that it claims to have, then I think that it is irresponsible to say all that it has and to say we are not going to do anything about it because we do not feel like it.

When I first heard about the power of summons, I did not know what that meant because in legal process, if you do not show up when you are summoned, then there is a remedy there. You could be sent to jail or you could be sanctioned by the judge in some other ways or whatever. I do not know what the remedies are available to us but I am sure that the committee would have considered that.

I have grave concerns in many aspects with this motion and I think that it is a very irresponsible motion. Thank you.