It is my understanding, then, that it is the wish under this amendment that the documents would be transferred directly to the Ethics Commissioner and not be a “pass Go” kind of thing. With regard to that aspect, I guess I'm just wondering why that is even necessary, since the commissioner has full powers to call for any documents or, I suppose, any record or anything that he has a need of in the execution of his duties.
I'm just posing that question because it has been very edifying this afternoon. We have sort of done three studies in one here, all trying to get an understanding of how the act works and how the office of the commissioner works.
That is my understanding. It is my understanding that the commissioner has those powers already, so for that reason I'm just a little confused as to why that would be considered an important amendment. It's as if we're telling the commissioner how to do his job, and I think that is outside our remit. I think we can have that kind of discussion once he has completed his review. In fact, that's why we would have the commissioner appear before us once he has actually tabled his report: to ask exactly what processes he went through and why he did x, y and z. I can see that, but I'm not sure it is necessary. I mean, I could be wrong. I'm just throwing that out there.
Then on the issue of the Prime Minister appearing, I think the Prime Minister appears almost daily and has been very open. He has already apologized for his actions or lack thereof, so I don't see the validity of that either, but I understand that it's important that we do some kind of reflection on this. I think that we want to reflect further on this amendment.
I'm happy to come back to another meeting, actually, to resolve it. That's where I would leave it. Thank you.