All of us, as board members, consider being on the board a privilege. However, when you're on a board that deals with criminal law, which our board does, one has to be very careful that the board members, in their other activities, do not engage in activities that would undermine their effectiveness as a board member. We've had discussions at the board level on this issue, and certainly I believe the board members understand what that is about.
We've already heard from board members who have been able to put aside, together, their special interests and their personal agenda, because it may not necessarily...or perhaps I should put it this way. If in fact it was understood...it would negatively impact the ability of the board to administer a piece of criminal law.
I will give you a simple example. We as board members will eventually be in a position through the licensing and the enforcement activities, which we require legislation for, to be administering a piece of criminal law. It would be unfortunate if a board member were saying publicly something that was not in complete agreement with what the law and its regulations say. That is a difficult situation right now, because we don't have the regulations. So I caution board members not to engage in activities where they may be publicly saying something that eventually would be contrary to regulation. Then you would have the very unusual situation of a board member enforcing a piece of criminal law at the same time that they're on record as not being in agreement with that piece of legislation, and that is an incompatible situation for the board.
One of my concerns, as board chair, is that the board maintain its integrity so that the decisions we make are not challenged on the basis of a board that is not totally in favour of the legislation. Parliament has given us legislation that will be enhanced by regulation. To be on the board you must be totally in favour of the legislation and regulation, or you shouldn't be on the board.