I see. I would like us to correct the impression that people may have. They may think that since a member of Parliament put forward one or more names and because the individual was selected and appointed by order in council, the returning officer is automatically accountable to the member of Parliament or to future candidates from the same party. That is not the case, nor is it the case if someone has gone through all the steps in the selection process and been appointed for a 10-year period. If the term is renewable, the individual may be subject to pressure within his or her company to have the term renewed. I make this comment simply to demonstrate that there may be aberrations in both cases.
In your proposal, you say that if the amendment were accepted, the revocation should occur for the reasons set out in subsection 24(7). Do you have a copy of the act so that we can see exactly what these reasons are? Are you suggesting that a very clear revocation process, and one that is well-known to the public, be set up should the act be amended as you propose?