When I should be working on my law school assignments, I'm watching the fascinating Ethics Committee meeting with Mr. Schreiber on CPAC.Why are they fascinating? Mr. Schreiber has not really said anything significant, other than the fact that he would have been willing to pay Mulroney another $200,000 on top of the $300,000 he actually received if Mr. Mulroney had actually done anything.But that's not really why. I'm fascinated, as a parliamentary procedure geek, with the procedural issues and how they were dealt with in the committee. While I can't find any significant fault with Mr. Szabo's running of the committee meeting as far as rulings, I have to admit that he made the proceedings very difficult to watch. Something about the way he ran the meeting grated against my expectations for the way a chair should operate. One thing that made me cringe was the way in which he continued to ask Mr. Schreiber whether or not things were "OK" with him.For goodness sake. You're the chair of the ethics committee of Parliament, and the guy is compelled to be in the room by virtue of a Speaker's Warrant. There is no obligation for anything to be "OK" with Mr. Schreiber. Just tell him how it's going to be.For those of you who didn't see it, and want an update, here's the committee meeting in brief.Chair: Is that OK with you, Mr. Schreiber?NDP: Why did you donate to the Liberal Party in 1993?Conservatives: So you haven't contributed to the Conservative party since it was founded in 2003?BQ: What did Harper know, and when did he know it?Liberals: Thank you, thank you, thank you.Schreiber: I am not prepared to answer that question at this time, but you have no idea how complex this is. It's, like, really complex. You couldn't possibly understand.