On the employee side of things, again, the independence of the member comes in here, because the employee operates under the direction of the employer, the member. So whatever rules you might want to impose on employees of members generally you are indirectly imposing on members as well in how they conduct their business in their offices and how they carry out their duties. That can be problematic as well.
I'd like to add a further consideration here, which may come up. You mentioned you're going to be talking to IT people of the House later this morning. Again, the independence of the member comes in here too. Documents, e-mails, and whatever a member sends out or receives are the property of the member, in my view. It's not open, in my view, to a committee to call upon House employees to produce a member's documents without the member's consent. That's not to say the House itself couldn't order such a thing, but it's problematic if it is contemplating opening a regime that would impose upon the chief information officer, let's say, on demand of a committee to produce all the e-mails of a member of Parliament. That would present problems for the independence of the member. I'm not saying the House, by order, couldn't do that, but it would be a departure that would be difficult to reconcile with the independence of members and the carrying out of their parliamentary functions.