Thank you. I would agree and acknowledge that the Minister did the right thing in removing himself from Cabinet discussions. I do believe he was in conflict in these matters. I guess my question is about who assumed the role for the Minister of the public service. It was the Premier who in fact decided himself that he would take over the role as the Minister of the public service. We know there was no official process for doing this, so in fact, Cabinet was not made aware that this was going on, I believe. He was a witness in the conflict process. He gave testimony at this conflict process. Furthermore, he was named in the conflict report, specifically in one of the recommendations, recommendation 4:

The committee recommends that the Premier take immediate action to regain the confidence of the public and all Members in the integrity of government and the standards of all persons within government. This action is essential in order that the Premier retain the confidence of the House.

He was a witness in the process, gave testimony, was named in a recommendation in the report, yet it was he who took the role of the Minister for the public service in order to sign the termination contract of one of the people who was let go, did not sign the other one, but at least signed one of them. I am wondering, in this Minister's view, does that not seem to be a conflict?