Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess the issue is really whether we're going to proceed much further than where we already find ourselves, given that, as Mr. Walsh has indicated, the most serious remedy would be the elimination of a member's right to present these ten percenters in someone else's riding and that this remedy has already been addressed by the House.
The only other issue that would be present would be how this committee takes instruction from the Speaker about dealing with what has come down to a relationship amongst members, in their either impeding each other's ability to do their jobs, or their at least trying to be objective.
As I look at this list, I would want to do one thing, and that is address the issue of accuracy. I didn't want to characterize Mr. Reid's views in a way in which he did not intend; however, he did say that the information from Rabbi Melchior wasn't available to his caucus's research group, and therefore it would have had an impact on whatever statements were made.
Taking that as a point of departure, one would look at this list and ask which of these individuals can do the objective part. If we want to be professional, which of these individuals will make a contribution?
If you'll bear with me a moment, I divided this into a group of people who were actually there, or who had a direct impact on Durban I. As I go down further, I look at the list. All of page two, by the way—I've divided them into two pages, and just so that you know them, I'm looking at Anne Bayefsky, Khaled Mouammar, Mohamed, and so on. I ask myself, what could they possibly contribute to the facts—objective—of the matter at Durban I?