I'm going to go back to the line of questioning of my colleague again, in terms of the definition. I've put it in terms of defining our reach.
We've heard from many of our witnesses about the challenges we have because we're dealing with members of Parliament, peer to peer. We've heard about some other jurisdictions that have made definite decisions and how far they are going to go.
Professor, I think you've alluded to contempt of Parliament. I'm assuming that's what you're talking about when you're talking about the ability to remove a member from the House. There's already a structure in place for dealing with a member of Parliament whose actions are unbecoming and bring down the reputation of the House of Commons.
What I'm looking for from you today is: what would you recommend? How far would you go in defining our reach when it comes to reaching into the personal lives of members of Parliament? Even when we've cited the Senate policy or the House of Commons policy, we're still looking at policy that's definitely dealing with employer-employee or employee-employee, but not member of Parliament to member of Parliament.
I'm looking for a recommendation on defining our reach. Then, where do we start when it comes to taking a look at what's already in place and how we fill in the gaps?