Mr. Chairman, I do believe I am sticking to the motion, which is to say that the special committee's mandate should be expanded and that they should be given the mandate to consider the allegation and to consider related matters. I am saying that the word "consider" says nothing about what it is that the committee is supposed to do. We are debating a motion that would create a committee without giving specifics as to what they could do.

My point to this very specific motion is that the idea of this committee would not do the job that this Assembly, that this motion thinks that it is going to do, that it is unclear and that, in the best interest of this Assembly and the people, it would be better for us to wait for the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to be filed.

We should step back and revisit. I think the only thing that would remain is any of the legislative or policy questions that may come out of this whole process that should be addressed, because the allegation of bias is withdrawn. It has been completed. It is outlying the overriding considerations which are, in my view, policy and legislative items that we should be dealing with in a separate way.

Last point, Mr. Chairman, if there is a question about the conduct of the Minister in taping private conversations, or of the senior management, I do believe we have other means of dealing with that. We are legislators. Our job is to keep the government accountable and maintain the trust of the people in this government. There are many ways to address that. I do not believe this special committee, as proposed, is one that would be able to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do believe that it was important that I make that clear.