I'll just return to the point on which I closed at the end of my earlier intervention, because Ms. Bennett touched upon it in her remarks.
She commented on whether or not the chief of staff would have opinions, and express opinions, on the reduction of corporate tax rates, business tax rates on job creators, for example--suggesting that because of your background in business you would then be unable to comment on taxation for all businesses. By this logic, the fact that I am a consumer would mean I was in a conflict when I voted to reduce the GST. The fact that some members of the House of Commons coach little league means that they were in conflict when they supported the children's fitness tax credit. The fact that some members of the House of Commons are farmers would mean that they were in conflict when they voted to support agriculture.
If that principle were broadly applied, it would mean one of two things: either members of Parliament couldn't do anything, or we could only elect members of Parliament who have no recreational, family, community, commercial, or any other form of interest, because at some point they would be prevented from voting on something that would ultimately affect the broad class of people of which they are a part.
That brings me to the section in the act to which the chairman referred, which is section 2 under the definition of “private interest”, because it foresaw that exact extreme, ridiculous, and Orwellian interpretation. It prevented that interpretation from going ahead when it said that “private interest” does not include an interest in a decision or matter that is of general application; that affects a public office holder as one of a broad class of persons; or that concerns the remuneration of benefits received by virtue of being a public office holder.
So the first two being the most pertinent, if it is of general application, or if it is broadly applicable to a class of persons, then it is not something that could be defined as a private interest.
To conclude this, where is the line drawn, as the chairman asked earlier on? The line is drawn by the Ethics Commissioner, who's chosen by Parliament to interpret the act. And you have made the right decision by making all of your interests known to her--your background and your responsibilities--so that she can determine whether something falls under your private interests or whether it is simply of general application to a broad class of persons.
I just leave that as an open comment and welcome any response you might have.