Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Owen is saying is that it seems that two members could do the same thing, set up for the same objectives, as in my example of Mirabel, but in one case the minister made a decision that was unfair and in the other case he made a decision that was fair. Where he made a decision that was unfair, the member now has a problem because he advanced some interests improperly. Where the minister made a decision that was fair, the member doesn't have a problem because it resulted in a fair result.
The problem with all of this is that we're looking at what the member of Parliament did, what his intention might be, what his pursuit or objective is. He may have an unfairness objective; he may want his constituent to have a fair shake like anyone else, obviously driven by the perception, to begin with, that what he got before wasn't fair. So there's an attempt to get an appeal or get that revised. Without getting legalistic about process here, my concern is that I don't know that you could measure the character of what the member is doing by the end result.