Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess maybe my next stage is more a comment. I just find it very unusual. I am in favour of the expenditure. I'm in favour of the clinic. I'm in favour of it in almost every sense, except for the special warrant process. The special warrant process doesn't provide me any comfort. Just looking and trying to understand some of the timelines and the fact that this wasn't brought to the House, it feels like it kind of slipped under the radar before it was brought to Members. I don't agree with arguing it on the principle of the costs. I think the principle I'm coming from is I feel it sort of slipped by our radar for Members.
Of course, there is a rule that says we have a two-week period of notice, basically, if session is about to start or finish. So it wouldn't be appropriate. This is a little more than two weeks before session starts, but I have a concern about this being slipped in under the wire beforehand, running an RFP at the end of August; the timeline seems kind of funny I have to admit. I guess I'm doing the smell test and they seem kind of peculiar. I'm not sure I can offer anything new. I'm sure our Minister has every answer in the book at the push of a button. So like I say, that's probably more of a comment. A matter like this I'm not sure, I think maybe we should be dealing with this issue specifically; not on legal aid, but on the usage of special warrants. So it's more of a special warrant issue, not a legal aid issue. No question, Mr. Chairman.