My suggestion to you is that members of Parliament are open about a great deal of things in a more open fashion by legislation than most other bodies are. I don't know whether or not the judiciary are in that position, but many of us in this place have no direct influence on what occurs with respect to commerce. We may have collectively, but not on an individual basis. I think sometimes we get ourselves thinking too deep into some of these issues.
In your comments with respect to the $500 and that being brought in, I think it was more like 12 or 14 years ago. Instead of it going down, maybe we should be looking at it moving up. It's because we get “introverted” into this whole thing that we think, well, we have to get lower and lower. Maybe that's not the real answer. If we haven't had problems, I'm not sure what we're trying to fix.
I look at you as having been non-partisan in the time I was here. You were elected in that role by all parties. Even when your party wasn't government, you were still elected as the Speaker. You've had the opportunity to see things from a broad view. The dealings you talked about with the Board of Internal Economy would be totally different in this scenario, and yet it might have been a conflict situation or been detrimental to the code of conduct. But it's not in this: it's in dealing with the Board of Internal Economy.
After all that time you sat there, and having had four years away from it to ponder it—I'm sure you spend every day thinking about it—