Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the course of the comments being made, I want to refer back to some comments made by Mr. Steen. I heard him questioning the authority for the committee to be able to continue. The original motion stated that the authorities directed to consider the application filed by the Member. The application has been withdrawn and we have agreed that it has now been withdrawn.

That is an important element in the establishment of the committee. It was established because the Board of Management could not deal with the issue, so we established a committee to have the committee look at this specific issue.

I think like others have said, as Mr. Kakfwi has stated, the Conflict Commissioner, from what I understand, would be satisfied with this situation where this issue now deals only with her report in the House. If the committee wants to look at other issues, it goes way beyond the mandate I feel that was the original reason for establishing the committee. It was to deal with the authority and had the authority to deal with the application made by Mrs. Groenewegen.

We need to deal with the conflict report, Mr. Chairman. That was the start of it all. That is the issue here, the conflict report. We need to get that before us and deal with it. If there are other concerns, then I feel there is a process in place that people can make a complaint. If the Conflict Commissioner is not satisfied or someone else is not satisfied, then they can make a complaint. At that point, you can action the issue. Right now, the mandate of the committee has been completed.

I am not sure that my just stating the mandate is extended...what mandate? There is no mandate anymore. You have no terms of reference for that committee. I think you need to look at that. To me, I would ask the question legally, perhaps, for an explanation. What is the mandate of this committee? What are the terms of reference? If there are no terms of reference to follow up on this, then you cannot carry on as a committee.

That does not stop the process. If there is concern out there, then surely somebody will come forward and say "Look, we need to look at this issue. There are some unresolved issues here."

I would like to get on with the report itself. From that, no doubt we can make some judgments as well. We are going to get a committee to come forward with its investigation of bias? Well, we have to spend a lot of time as Members of this Assembly to judge whether the committee did its job properly. Did it do its job properly? Did it do it in due process? I guess my question would be, of the legal advisor, what is the authority of the committee and the terms of reference?