Mr. Chair, I'll answer the first two questions I heard, and I may ask the member to repeat the third question, because I'm not sure I understood it properly.
The first question had to do with what's in and what's out, what's covered and not covered, if I take a transactional approach. I think the essence of the ethical wall is the understanding that fair-minded people may differ as to what is or isn't covered. That decision will not be my decision.
Whether something is or is not covered by the ethical wall will ultimately be determined by the Ethics Commissioner. In doing so, she'll look at the statute, I believe, and she'll see that a private interest does not include a decision or matter that is of general application affecting a public office holder as one of a broad class of persons. She'll look to that definition in the statute.
The point I really want to make in answer to the question is that I won't decide on my own behalf. The Ethics Commissioner, who has approved this system, will make those decisions.
The second question has to do with the supervisor of the ethical wall within the PMO. I think the member will understand that there has to be somebody within the PMO to whom matters I cannot deal with will go. The supervisor of the ethical wall is that person. That person is the person on the other side of the ethical wall, if you will, who is able to receive communications or participate in briefings that I cannot. But that person is not the ultimate arbiter of what is or isn't covered by the wall, or whether the wall is or is not being effective. That person, by statute and by design of the wall, is the Ethics Commissioner.
I'm sorry, I missed the last part of the question.