Thank you, Chair.
I find it fascinating that in fact you all--the commissioner, Mr. Conacher, Mr. Drapeau, and Mr. Racicot--seem to be in agreement on one thing. The commissioner made it quite clear he didn't think the act was working. Mr. Conacher, you called the situation ineffective. Mr. Drapeau, your adjectives were even harsher. You called it an embarrassment. In fact, you also said it's dead in the water.
So you all seem to be in agreement that it's not working. It's just that you all seem to be taking very different approaches on how to fix it. The commissioner has his quick fixes and obviously would like to see more resources. Mr. Conacher believes that what we need is a regime of consequences, penalties, etc., that this might do the trick. I almost get this feeling...you haven't come out and outright said it, but you've said that the commissioner has the powers, and I guess we are to infer that the present commissioner isn't using his powers, so he's actually not effective in his role.
So first of all, just to clarify that, because you haven't come right out and said that this current commissioner isn't getting the job done, is that what you're trying to say here?