When Ms. Dawson appeared, I asked her questions specifically on her role as Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. My questions were well prepared. I wanted her to tell us specifically what her role was, in view of the fact that she has to administer the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.
However, the word “ethics” appears nowhere in the act or code that form the basis of her mandate. She herself said so. When she was asked what her mandate was with regard to ethics, the answer was vague. It is possible to consult the notes on that subject. She clearly said that the notion of ethics is very vague, very subjective. She clearly has no act on which she can rely as such. Of course, complaints can be filed in various places, but you have to know whether the people you speak to are empowered to respond to them as part of their mandate. She has no ethical mandate as such under the act.
It is also urgent that parliamentarians examine the question. By that I don't mean that I don't trust what the Commissioner might do or say. We can hear her recommendations, but that doesn't prevent the fact that, in the context of this committee, we as parliamentarians take precedence over the rest. I think we can conduct a more in-depth study and determine the exact situation with regard to what certain members are doing. I don't think we have to wait.
I'd like to introduce a subamendment. The idea is that, first, we take into account the wording of the first amendments that have been made. The subamendment would mean that we delete the second part proposed by Mr. Siksay and vote on that subamendment.