Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this, my first opportunity to comment publicly on this issue, to say that I feel very strongly that this is highly regrettable, that by the incremental steps that have been taken by various parties, that we have gotten to where we are here.

There has been so much said and reported about this. I have taken the opportunity to attend all of the public meetings that the special committee held on this issue. I have tried my best to pay attention to the documents being filed and so on. I must say that I have not been able to read the mountains and hundreds of pages of various documents, statements, letters and stuff that has been filed on this matter.

In thinking about what we could do to come out of this process, the only thing I could think of was to go back to how we came to this in the first place. I guess the Minister in question would have a different opinion about it, but for me this goes back to the fact that a reporter found her name on a corporate registry showing her as a director.

Like I said, we will not know what the result of the Commissioner's investigation is, but even if she was found to be guilty or have done something wrong, in the big scheme of things, I do not think this is a matter that is really earth-shattering, or is of such criminal conduct that we have to deploy resources of the state in the way that we do.

I think there are things that are wrong, things that are right, and things that we have to fight for, and things where we have to move on. It does not take a lot for us to look around and see that we have a lot of bloody bodies around us, or at least severely bruised parties as a result of this process. I strongly believe that it is in the best interest of this Assembly and the people out there to put closure to this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I am very aware of the concerns and the seriousness of concerns expressed in this report and I think that those have to be dealt with by some process, but I am not sure if that process should be by way of this special committee.

First of all, because it is a process where the Minister herself has withdrawn from. She filed a complaint and for whatever reason, reasons she has stated and not stated, she has decided that she does not want to pursue that argument or that complaint anymore, which has effectively eliminated the reason for this committee to exist.

The second thing is that the Commissioner does not support this process. So we have two parties who have the most at stake and have asked, agreed, supported a position that this special committee should not go on anymore.

Third, I have a problem with that process in that I am not part of that process. I am not saying that I want all that work, and I am not even sure that all of the Members here want to spend the next month or two reviewing something that has questionable merit, but if there was such a process, I want to be part of that process. So you have five or six Members reviewing this question for the next two months and it will have to be brought back here, like Mr. Steen mentioned, and then we will have to go through this all over again.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I really do not have confidence, no matter how the terms of reference are worded or written and no matter what the membership of the committee is, whether I am in it or not, I do not think it is an issue that anyone could get to the bottom of. I think we have had a month. There are enough things having been said of various colours that could have us studying it for the next year. What is the question we are going to get to? How much can people say about someone's action or inaction or another person?

Then you have the lawyers involved. Anyone who comes before this special committee in the next two months will be armed with a lawyer. I am sure that the Commissioner, even if she was not to take part in this process in a formal way, she has already made it clear in her letter that she does not want this discussed without her having the opportunity to defend it.

By passing a motion, we have said we are going to agree to allow the Minister to withdraw and we did not put any value in that. We did not say it was right or wrong. She asked for it and we voted on the motion, each Member as they saw fit. To say that we accept to withdraw this, but we are going to just move right along because we think if we looked at this hard enough and thought about it enough and studied it enough, we are going to figure this one out. I do not think we can.

I am disturbed by the wording of the third motion where it says to consider the allegation of apprehension of bias in relation to the investigation conducted by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and to consider related matters which have arisen or may arise. That is a recipe for something that would grow daily as it moves through the process. I am not comfortable supporting such a mandate to a committee of this Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, I am not saying that this issue should not be visited, but I would suggest something like a retired judge or another Conflict of Interest Commissioner, because the Commissioner points out all sorts of areas in the law that are ambiguous. I can think of one where she said that I should not be asked to advise and adjudicate, and then the Minister's lawyer suggested that the Commissioner should not be making recommendations as to what should be changed in the act. That is just one little element out of hundreds of allegations and accusations that are in this report.

I do not think it is fair to ask these Members to straighten this out. I think if we feel that the conflict of interest legislation and process should be changed, we have to step back and have a third party look at it. This is not something that can be done by having various parties appear as they did before for the last month, and continue to do it. That really defeats the purpose of the first and second motion, or the reason why we are here today. I am not going to hold somebody against having voted for these motions or anything. These are very difficult issues, but I just do not believe that.

Second of all, I just want to remember that there are a lot of people on our legal aid who are not able to get legal assistance to defend whatever charges they have against them or to go after child support or spousal support or anything. We are looking at the prospect of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars -- $300,000 limit for legal fees. I do not understand why someone who needs child support has to apply for $2,000 to go and see a lawyer, whereas we think nothing of approving $300,000 legal bills.

So for many reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think it is wise for us to stop this process right here and figure out another way of making the legislation and the process clearer and better. Thank you.