Thank you, Chair. My apologies for being late. The public accounts committee ran late, so I wasn't here for the opening remarks. Unfortunately, without any written remarks, I may just have limited questions because I don't want to ask things that have already been dealt with.
But to pick up on what you just said, which I did hear, you mentioned that what should be in place is strong language--I think you used the term “strong language”--to prevent any potential abuse. Can I push that a little further? What kind of strong language? How should that be structured?
Because that is our concern. It's not the regularization. We've all accepted that it's a regular part of business, notwithstanding your comments that we could do without it. But it is the potential abuse and the notion that what happened could ever be repeated again, or something worse; that is what many of us are trying to prevent. So when you say “strong language”, sir, what should we be looking at? What are some ideas?