The answer is yes, in the sense that the process that would be put in place—looking for fairness, objectivity, a third party—would somehow be developed involving someone who could look at the situation and have the confidence of everyone.
However, once the process was gone through and a decision and a recommendation had been made, this recommendation would have to come to the House, because ultimately it is only the House that can make a decision about its membership and the right to sit. Ultimately if a member were found to be guilty of having committed something reprehensible against a code of conduct, the House would have to be made aware of it and make a decision.
This also brings up issues that perhaps Monsieur Parent may want to comment on in terms of how we are able to keep the confidentiality of the process when in fact the guilty plea comes to the House for adjudication, because that would bring about other questions. If I'm voting on someone's right to sit—for example, assuming we're talking about extreme cases—I'd like to know the facts. Are we prepared to see all this dealt with in public?
In our thinking, we're looking at whether there are alternative ways the House could have a process to look at these issues but still keep the confidentiality and impartiality. These are not simple issues, as I said, but I just want to bring that to the committee's attention in terms of consequences.
But on your question about a third party process to look at the process and the questions and investigate, sure, that could certainly be put in place.