Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly understand where you're coming from, Mr. Scott. As you said, I would point out that the definition of “parliamentary functions” totally accepts and considers the fact that of course members can be and actually have to be partisan. But the test, as I said earlier, is always that you look at whatever situation you're faced with in the context of whether or not the member was performing his parliamentary functions. That's what we use in everything that we review in terms of surveys, or questions, or activities of members. It has so far served us well. If in our interpretation it's found that either it's too strict, or too lenient, or too wide, I should say, then a member can easily go to the board and make their point. Often, that's the case.
But the test that's applied relates to whether or not the situation touches on the parliamentary functions of the member. Partisan activities are totally acceptable as long as the activity we're looking at relates to those functions. That's why, when you touch on political activities, on partisanship that's outside of the realm of parliamentary functions, of what a member does, then it's found to be not acceptable.