It was in 2006? That's great. It's quite recent. Updates can always be made. I know that there are normally reviews every five years and the act can be renewed. In 2006, Parliament felt it was important to create an independent office and not leave the matter in the hands of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That's what I read in the documents from the time of the late Mr. Mulroney, whom I was lucky enough to meet once. He was a man who may have made mistakes in his life, but he really served the country well.
Back then, the role was assigned to the ethics committee. It was like a zoo. It really wasn't appropriate or respectful. It was not the right way to provide the public with relevant information. The point of this exercise is not to crush an adversary. I think we're all in agreement that we don't do it to crush anyone. The purpose of the Office of the Commissioner is to reassure the public, that is to say Canadians and Quebeckers, that everything is done properly. When there's a breach of the rules, then it has to be dealt with. There is obviously a whole range of consequences that can be imposed.
In this case, there was no follow-up. Not just once, not just twice, but three times the commissioner found that the allegations and accusations—