Yes, I hear you, but I've got to tell you, it's not often I disagree with you, but I'm not convinced, to tell you the truth. I think the same work can be done and it can go back to a group of parliamentarians. The difficulty with the current process is who we hold accountable if we're not satisfied with this process or any part of it. It's the minister, at the end of the day, and that's the very problem.
So to me the solution is still keeping us within the problem, and I don't know how we break out. You know, human nature.... I've been in government. There are vested interests that are protecting territory, just by human nature, but we're out of the loop. A lot of times, you know, he who pays the piper calls the tune, much like when you're doing consultancy and things like that.
I hear you, and I suspect the government will be relieved that you're on that side of it, because it feels more comfortable going with a recommendation like this, and if it has your blessing, that gives it a lot more comfort. My concern, however, is that it still remains in the hands of the government, by virtue of its being in the hands of the deputy, and we don't have any direction over deputies.
So if there's a guarantee, Chair, or if the deputy can in some way build it in that parliamentarians from all caucuses can play a role right from the get-go, that would probably raise my comfort level. It's just that solving the governance problem by using the current governance structure to come up with the recommendations to change the structure seems to me to be less than efficient. But we'll see.