The commissioner may be asked to investigate a matter. He may come to the view that there is a conflict under the code. Then he may issue an order to recuse on all matters having relation to that interest.
I don't know how broad the Ethics Commissioner's definition might be of what is a relationship or relevant, or how narrow it might be. I can't predict what the commissioner of the day may feel about what's sufficient to require a recusal. My point is that it's odious to parliamentary tradition and principles for an appointed official to be telling you as an elected member of Parliament that you can or cannot vote, you can or cannot participate in debate. That to me is something that only the House should be allowed to do.
Now, the House could delegate a decision to the Ethics Commissioner on its behalf--i.e., please advise on this--and then the House might take that report, concur or not concur, and so on. But to give up power of order to an appointed official with regard to that, this is what we're saying is contrary--