My only difficulty with this is that where it's a big issue of ethics and whether or not there is wrongdoing, fair enough, but in the more mundane matters, where you're dealing with a policy that's not a headline issue, it's not a question of ethics or borderline criminality but more a matter of being able to ask the deputy why they chose a certain direction in terms of their implementation. For instance, when we ask, “Why did you set it up this way, why didn't you set it up a different way?”, it's right at that moment that we get our own version of the iron curtain dropped, and we can't get an answer.
Quand il se pose une grave question d'éthique et que des actes illicites ont été commis, ou non, c'est légitime, mais ce qui me préoccupe ici, ce sont les questions plus terre à terre, lorsque traite d'une politique qui ne fait pas la une des journaux; il ne s'agit pas tant d'une question d'éthique ou de quasi-criminalité que de savoir s'il est possible de demander au sous-ministre pourquoi il a choisi une certaine orientation pour la mise en oeuvre.
