I think the distinction may be in the actions of the member of Parliament on behalf of a constituent. If the MP is affecting that person's interest in a legislative sense, then that's in a general sense and it's not a problem; that's the partisan role, and we should be playing that role.
On the administrative side, the executive side, an MP, I believe, has the right and duty to influence the administrative or executive side within the rules. That presupposes that the executive is actually running a proper administration, where you have objective criteria, transparency, and accountability, and such.
So the distinction would be, for instance, in whether an MP is furthering the private interest of a person in an immigration matter by going to the IRB or to the minister and saying, look, I want this person to jump the queue or I want to bend the rules. On the other hand, furthering someone's interest in being treated fairly or according to fair rules, or being treated fairly by seeking to have the rules changed to become fair, I think that's just fine. I don't think that should get us into any trouble, and I think that is our role.