Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to make just a few more comments. First of all, Members of the Cabinet met this morning and had decided on certain points to speak freely as Members of the Legislature and others to look at making decisions collectively as a Cabinet, so the recommendations maybe should be dealt with one by one to allow for that.

I wanted to point out a couple of things which I think are in fact factual errors in the report. One of them is that John Bayly and Lynda Sorensen did not refuse to produce the letter. In fact, Mr. Bayly was never asked. That is a serious factual error contained in the letter that may have lead to some of the conclusions that the Members made.

There is also another error in the report that makes the suggestion that in fact no letter of reprimand may exist. I take that to imply -- inadvertently, perhaps -- that I have misled the committee. I think it was clear from the legal advisors that the letter of reprimand exists. Witnesses acknowledged that they had received it. The legal advice was that it is subject to the access of information and privacy legislation and the laws of this Legislature and that the legal counsel for the government advised the committee of that. Further, Ms. Sorensen said she could not provide for that based on her legal advice.

It should be pointed out to Members as well, because it was not clear then that the letter is not just addressed to Ms. Sorensen, it is also addressed to John Bayly. It was one letter of reprimand that was given for both of them so there was no way that Ms. Sorensen, by herself, even if she had agreed to, could have provided that to the committee. The legal counsel suggested to the committee on that day apparently that there were ways available to the committee through a series of questions that would help ascertain what the nature of the reprimand was. The committee did not choose to explore that.

I think that is important to point out. The gag order -- or the letter, as it should be properly addressed -- of June that suggested that this was a quasi-judicial committee and would conduct itself in a fair and impartial way was a very, very powerful letter. Let me tell you that those of us who are on Cabinet and for senior staff, it was a very, very powerful, threatening letter.

There has been virtually no conversation that I have had with the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development since then without others present. I have left Mr. Handley's office on two occasions because I did not want the perception made by anyone that I was in there having a private conversation with Mr. Handley. That is the extent to which this had impacted us. I have never had a conversation with Ms. Peterson or with Mr. Hamilton except a few weeks ago.

I refused to subject myself, my staff and Ministers to that so we made it absolutely clear that we will not and could not talk to anybody alone, even to make suggestions of any kind. So all my communication and that of our senior staff was done through a lawyer provided by the Department of Justice. Any interference, any suggestions, even the perception that any of us or our staff made that could be perceived by any member of the committee would possibly be seen as an act of contempt by the committee. That is how serious that letter was. Perhaps it was not clear to the authors of that letter but believe me, that was a very, very powerful letter and it has seriously impacted the conduct of everybody.

There is no doubt, and I raised it in the proceedings, there was an allegation from the onset of that committee against myself, my office and my staff. I asked the committee to address it through letters. The committee never addressed that. I raised it in the course of my evidence. To this day, that committee has not responded.

If they were trying to clear a cloud on the office of the Conflict Commissioner, I wish they had also paid attention to the cloud that was cast by a member of that committee on my office well before the evidence was in.

I wanted to raise that. I think it is important. I was advised I have no way to raise a point of order, a quasi-judicial process that is parliamentary in nature. I am not quite sure what it is that we have created. As I say, I am prepared to go through this recommendation by recommendation. I think we should do that and I think we should allow Members to make the comments that they should without threatening one another. That is important. Thank you.