Thank you.
I'm sorry, but my first question may be something outside of your purview. We talked about and you talked about the consensus model that the BOIE follows. Even though this is a consensus model, if one party—and in this case obviously it's the NDP—has been found through independent research to be in violation of the rules of the BOIE in terms of these mail-outs, should or does one party have veto rights like those of a UN council?
The NDP is trying to suggest here that this was an unfair process. The consensus model has worked well, but clearly if one party is in contravention of the rules, they can easily say they were outvoted and it wasn't fair. The system is set up to be as fair as possible. Clearly if one party is guilty and knows they are guilty, they are going to try to do whatever they can to stop any repercussions from occurring.
So how do you square that circle? How do you deal with a consensus model if in fact one party doesn't want to play ball and doesn't want to agree to a consensus even if the evidence proves or at least demonstrates that they have been in violation of the rules?