Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll pick up where I left off because I find the topic interesting.
Mr. Shore, you seem to speak of Parliament as a place that would have all the powers. Personally, I was elected a year ago, and I'll tell you what I see.
Ms. Sabourin, you said earlier that those who enforce the laws should not be the ones who make them. In theory, those who are subject to the law should not be the ones who make it either.
Here at the committee, we make recommendations, conduct studies and invite witnesses. Currently, however, Parliament is mostly made up of Liberal members, and we have just experienced a situation here where a debate that was taking place behind closed doors was suspended. How can we hope to be completely clear and transparent when those who will be subject to the law have an influence on what is voted on by Parliament? These people will not vote in favour of a bill that will be used to investigate them.
Every time I bring up this subject here with many witnesses, whether they represent the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or other organizations, they tell me that what I'm saying is accurate. For his part, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner tells us to amend the laws. However, those who amend the laws are those who hold the majority in Parliament. At some point, it comes down to the same thing.
I believe your vision is the right one: We should have a Parliament that is truly connected to the people. How can we hope to demonstrate transparency when there's a problem within the mechanism itself?