Right. The point is to look at them together.
Let's just call them informally external auditors. I think we should realize how important this is. Not only has a CEO suggested it after reflection and analysis, but in the system set up by Bill C-23, the external auditor is the government's response to the demands by the official opposition and others. I think they include those who voted for our motion in March 2012 for direct access by the Chief Electoral Officer and his auditing team to the receipts and documentation of the national parties which at the moment do not have to be produced. The government is saying there has to be external auditors doing it, and that's their answer.
Therefore, it's all the more important, if that's the case, that this should be voted for. You need to at least have that connection between the interpretations of the act in this structure set up by the government's Bill C-23 and the external auditor. If the government does not want to vote for this, I would worry.
One of the worries of the Chief Electoral Officer is that external auditors appointed by the parties from general auditing firms may not have the same kind of expertise as in-house auditing staff in the office of Chief Electoral Officer. As such, his worry is that the auditing may not be as experienced or as informed.
If there's a linkage between the two through Ms. May's combined amendment, and our amendment, as well, I think the circle would be kind of squared, if that's the right metaphor.