Thank you.
I believe I understand what Monsieur Sauvageau was trying to get at. I also understand very clearly the point you've raised, that the way in which Mr. Sauvageau's amendment is worded, the commissioner would have a legal obligation to conduct an investigation once he or she receives a request from a parliamentarian, an MP or a senator, but doesn't have to have reason to believe that an investigation is necessary to ensure compliance with the code or the act, and has the legal obligation to conduct such an investigation when any other information may come from another source. So it's like two different weights, if I could call it that.
So if the last line of Mr. Sauvageau's amendment were changed to read “Commons and/or has reason to believe”, would that take care of the concern that you have? I believe if that were the wording, the commissioner would be legally obliged if a request were made by a parliamentarian and the commissioner had reason to believe that an investigation was necessary to ensure compliance, and the commissioner would also be legally obliged to conduct an investigation as well if he or she had reason to believe an investigation was necessary.
So regardless of where the information or request came from, there would be a requirement for the commissioner to conduct an investigation only if the criterion or condition was met that the commissioner had reason to believe that investigation. So that change would satisfy the nebulousness that you were seeing in Mr. Sauvageau's amendment. Is that correct? Maybe not.