Mr. Chair, if I may reply to Mr. Hawn, if someone is removed for cause, I guess you wouldn't really expect them to be participating in a decision. I'm assuming you wouldn't want them to participate in the decision after the fact that they were removed for cause, so that's purposely left out.
The Lamer recommendation--number 85--recommended this, so Chief Justice Lamer obviously thought this was important. I think the decision is the decision as to what advice it's going to give, so I don't see that as a problem. And why should the chair have a say? If the person is appointed and participating in a decision, then it's just simply a matter of ensuring that the jurisdiction doesn't lapse. This is really a legal point that the Chief Justice of Canada recognized as an important legal point. I don't see why we should try to second-guess him at this stage.