Certainly, I'll speak to that.
Obviously my quarrel is not at all, as I mentioned in my preamble, with the qualifications of the candidate. She put before us a very replete curriculum vitae that included this case. I took the trouble to read the case. The case is a matter of record now; it's not a matter of future opinion. It doesn't tie her to any future decision-making. That would be improper. It's the American custom, which I think sometimes the Conservative side wants to take us toward. It's not the Canadian custom to try to tie people into what their future opinions will be. But because it is a CV vetting, I wanted to know the extent to which she was involved in this decision. She was a member of the tribunal, but I don't know if she actually penned the words. I don't know if she remembers the decision. Heaven's, there's so much in her CV that maybe she doesn't even remember the case. But it is pretty current to what we're doing as a committee. It's something that an individual Conservative member has made so important that he wants a full study of this very busy committee's time to take precedence over government legislation, so I think it's fairly relevant.
In closing, I would say that anybody with a CV like this one knows well or not whether she will wish to answer the question. I think she's very well counselled by her own abilities to decide whether she does want to and how she wants to answer this. I don't think she needs the protection of me or Mr. Woodworth to decide whether and how she wants to answer this.