Okay.
With that being said, I think what we've discovered here is that many people, whether it's Trudeau and his trip to the Bahamas under the Aga Khan...
I have to say this to you, Mr. Chair, and I do apologize, and I do apologize to my colleague MP Khalid, because I did make a comment that I think elicited her response earlier. When the context was described, I couldn't determine whether they were describing Stornaway or, worse, a plantation, which is more likely, given when it was built. I certainly hope the Prime Minister isn't spending his time in Jamaica at a former plantation, but I digress.
I think what has been determined is that when people get into these positions of power, they lose touch with the everyday Canadian. What I'm hearing from the testimony is that it's incumbent on us as MPs to create a higher standard, with clear definitions, recognizing that terms like “friends” are not clearly defined. There's too much ambiguity.
With that, and to ensure that we don't run out of time, Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent for a motion, and if there is not, the members can take this to a vote.
I move:
That the committee send a letter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Board of Internal Economy with the following recommendation:
That the travel points system used by members of Parliament be amended to allow two special travel points to be used for international travel for parliamentary purposes, and that the Conflict of Interest Code for members of the House of Commons be amended to explicitly ban sponsored travel.
If we can get one thing from this S.O. 106 request that resulted in this study, hopefully it would be that.
I'm going to seek unanimous consent. If not, then I would invite the members to go on the record about whether they support the gravy train or they don't.