We're just not in a position to assess them, and I say that with no disrespect to Mr. Shrake. The whole point is that we can't make any assumptions here. We don't have the information, we haven't done the investigation. So we can't begin with the starting point that of course Mr. Shrake's view is correct and of course Mr. Steiner's view is a pack of lies. I'm simply not in a position to say that, and I don't think anybody around this table is in a position to say that. Though it may turn out to be the case, I just can't say it.
As for voluntariness, I think that would just gut the effectiveness of the counsellor. I don't think the idea that you only have to participate in the investigation on a voluntary basis is going to be productive.
Although Mr. Shrake can speak about his own willingness to participate, I suspect that the calculus that different actors make is going to vary. It's going to really hamper the ability of this body to establish itself as credible if nobody is going to participate in it. And then what happens to the accountability that is at the root of this, which is to say, don't we think that people and companies that receive government support ought to be accountable in a meaningful way for the funds they receive? EDC's capacity and the CSR counsellor's capacity to hold them accountable with their existing processes are simply inadequate. I don't deny that they are attempts or desires or are directed at the idea of accountability, but for various institutional and procedural reasons they simply aren't up to the task. Recognizing that, my view is that Bill C-300 offers a more effective mechanism of accountability. Why wouldn't we all want companies to be accountable for the receipt of Canadian funds in the same way that we want NGOs, civil society, and all other organizations that are the beneficiaries of government support to be similarly accountable?