As a drafter—it is something I'm trained in—I would change 29(1)(a) along the lines I just mentioned very briefly. Then, with regard to the language you were setting up, Mr. Chair, I would add by way of a proviso, “Nothing in paragraph (a) authorizes the Ethics Commissioner to breach the confidence—”. So it becomes an override provision, which becomes an interpretive tool relative to the principal message, which is “to inform the proper authorities of his belief”. That message, I think, has to be clear, rather than being burdened by additional language. But you can always add another provision that qualifies that and says “it should be done in a manner that is consistent with confidentiality or the legal privileges of the House and its members”, or that sort of thing.
On May 17th, 2007. See this statement in context.