Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've read both of your reports, Ms. Dawson. I want to share with you my initial reaction to them. I believe that in order to constitute a breach of the code, the conduct in question must be very serious. In my opinion, the cases that you examined were serious. You found, however, that no breach of the code or of the act occurred. I was surprised by most of your findings. On reading your report, one cannot come to the conclusion that the members in question behaved in a way that is above reproach. For each of your findings, for instance, in the case of the use of the Conservative Party logo on ceremonial cheques, you added that you were unable to find that there was in fact a conflict of interest because the definition may be unclear.
For each case that you examined, there seemed to be elements lacking in the code or in the act to allow you to carry out your analysis fully. As an MP, I'm shocked by this. I know that our code has not been around long, in fact, only since 2007. The act has been around somewhat longer, however. I'm wondering if either the code or the act needs to be amended, to avoid such serious incidents in the future as the presentation to a municipality or to a company of a cheque bearing the logo of the party in office. How is it that this practice which, in my view, is partisan, is not prohibited under the code or act?
Everyone knows that the money at the government's disposal really belongs to the taxpayers. Right now, the party in power forms the government. Eventually, another party will take over the reins. To my mind this is a very serious breach, so I have to believe that our code and our act must be worthless. I found it quite frustrating to read that the problem stemmed quite simply from the fact that the term “private interests” is not defined clearly enough to give you enough leverage or to allow you to reach a different conclusion. Does the package of amendments that you have recommended for the code include provisions that down the road, will help you deliver stronger rulings in cases such as the use of partisan identifiers on cheques?