Well, that's nice. Okay.
I do have a subamendment. First of all, I share the concern raised by Mr. Owen and by the Bloc, but I don't want to be a part of any lynch mob to execute the current Ethics Commissioner. That's not what this committee should be seen as. If that's the reality or the perception, I think we have to nip that in the bud right at the get-go.
I do have what I think is a subamendment that would satisfy everyone, and it's very simple. In line 14, remove the words “has demonstrated” and replace them with the words “or a person who has demonstrated.” Let me explain what I'm seeking to achieve. That way you could have the qualification that a person must be (a) a former judge, or—as the current language—a former member of X, Y, Z, and now further, “or a person who has demonstrated expertise in one or more of the following,” and as it reads, “conflict of interest”, etc.
So by simply adding the words “or a person who has demonstrated expertise”, we will be putting strict qualification rules in place, and there is still the option of having a judge, or a former judge, if that's the most qualified person. I believe it satisfies everybody's concerns. That's the subamendment I would seek to move with some possible codicil here.
I'm not quite finished that subamendment. I would like to add another simple qualifier in paragraph (b): “a current or former member of a federal provincial board”, etc. to open the door even further. Would you like me to summarize?