Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker, for being here. It's always enlightening to have you here, not only as a Speaker but also as a student of Parliament and history.
Of course, you know better than most that our form of democracy is one of representative democracy. Therefore, it always seems to me that when we're talking about these kinds of things, the one player who's missing at the table is the public. The concern is that this can look awfully clubby to non-politicians, to the public, who say, “Isn't it convenient that the members of the club get to write the rules for the club, decide what benefits the club can have, and then decide all the procedures for confirming them?” From the outside looking in, it tends to look a little different. Then, of course, there's the commissioner's perspective, which is unique because of the expertise and the properly narrow focus of their concerns. Then there are the members of Parliament themselves.
In terms of process, can you give us any suggestions on how we might involve the public? This is recognizing that there isn't an obvious body, that I can think of, to which someone can go and ask that somebody be sent. Given that we're the ones who are elected to be the representatives of the public here, it's not straightforward as to how we would cover that off. It seems to me that it's critically important that at some point there be that perspective in developing this. Beyond just passing judgment at the end of the day on what we've concluded, could there actually be some input, some opportunity, for that public view from the outside looking in?
Given all your experience, do you have any thoughts on how we might be able to cover off that critical perspective? At the end of the day, that's the perspective that matters the most. Does the public believe that their elected representatives are creating proper rules and adhering to the rules, and that those rules reflect the priorities of the public and not just of the members of the club?
I'd like your thoughts on that, sir.
