I'll speak to the chair of the House about this.
The point I was trying to make was with regard to.... I'm looking at the access to information. There's a spacing problem in the printout here, so I'll say this in French, which seems not to have this problem. Here we go:
(v) the review of and report on reports of the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to his or her responsibilities under the Parliament of Canada Act relating to public office holders and on reports tabled pursuant to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, which shall be severally deemed permanently referred to the Committee immediately after they are laid upon the Table;
(vi) in cooperation with other committees, the review of and report on any federal legislation, regulation or Standing Order which impacts upon the access to information or privacy of Canadians or the ethical standards of public office holders;
(vii) the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives which relate to access to information and privacy across all sectors of Canadian society and to ethical standards relating to public office holders;
and any other matter which the House shall from time to time refer to the standing committee.
When we say that we want a case study without parameters that is focused on particular individuals, we are indirectly, as I have said before, doing what we are not allowed to do directly.