Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I have spoken previously, but thank you for another opportunity to speak on this again. I do believe this is very important. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear that I agree with the concerns raised in this report. I think there is no question that the process on this issue over the last couple of months has raised more questions and issues. I agree that this has to be resolved in some way. I just want to make it clear that my position is that this committee, as proposed, will not be able to get to the truth without a doubt, which is what a Member has said.

I just want to make it clear that it is not because I am not on that committee. I do not think it matters who is on that committee as long as they are Members of this House. It is because there is such a lack of clarity about what it is that this committee is supposed to seek and the procedure that should be used. For example, what is the definition of bias? Is there something that says that if A has one, two, three, that is bias?

I attended all the committee meetings and I was quite surprised at how legalistic this process was, when it is really not a court. As a lawyer, I do not believe that a legal resolution or legal discussion is always the best way to solve things. I believe in the power and the privilege of the political process to resolve most of the issues of the day. Whereas what I watched were Members who had to constantly rely on legal advice.

If there were any parties or witnesses who appeared before it, it would be the same. Inevitably, this will boil down to a legal conclusion, but what is the legal concept of bias that we are giving the power to this committee to determine? Do we have a legal definition for which you could gather enough evidence and at the end you could come to a conclusion because I found A, B, C, D, now we find that there is a bias?

The next concept is what would happen if you do find bias or no bias? The question comes to my mind, that be careful what you are asking for because when you get it, what are you going to do with it? What would you do if the Commissioner was found to be biased, by whatever means you got to it? Do we have a penalty in mind? Are we saying that we are going to remove her from office? Are we going to throw her in jail? I do not know. What if there was no bias? Should the Premier be allowed to take the Deputy Premiership back? I do not know.

There are no set procedures on what it is that we are looking for, what evidence or what sort of conditions have to be met to say that you have found it when you find it. Then how do you reinforce it afterwards?

I am also uncomfortable -- not to mention the fact that I do not believe that you can control the timing of this committee. We have seen cases where in asking for 12 witnesses, most of them would not or could not appear. I think most people that I know are pretty busy for the next two months. It is very predictable that you will not be able to get the people to appear and do the things that you would like them to do or say, or whatever.

Mr. Chairman, I have another point, which is that I do not think it is wise for us to place the Members of this House in a position where the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is our commissioner. She is our advisor. We are her clients. At the same time, we as a Legislature created that office and the Board of Management, on our behalf, appointed her. It will be, in the end, us who will decide what is going to happen. For that reason, I do not think that we should be...