No, I hear you, and that helps. That mitigates it. Nonetheless, it's an advantage that Mr. Reid has that all the other sponsors of bills do not have, and we can only do our work if we're seen to be fair-minded by our colleagues.
However, I am a big believer, notwithstanding the abuse that Mike Harris made of the term, in common sense. I think in this case certainly I would be prepared, without prejudice but without setting a precedent...and only in the questions and only because it came up late. In future, we should make it clear that there is no role for the sponsor other than coming in as a witness at any time.
Since we didn't do that ahead of time and it would just disrupt everything, I'm making the case that we'll go along with it this time. But it's a one-off and without prejudice. We should be reaffirming somewhere, if I might leave it with the clerk, that in future, if a member wants to play a role at all, they have to disconnect themselves entirely.
But for the purposes of today, we can live with it without prejudice.