This is as it's related to the act.
So, for the purpose of this committee, what I would suggest is that one of the classic—speaking of Latin—rhetorical fallacies is the modal scope fallacy, where you narrow the terms to such a place where you can't help but further your side. I'm looking to define these terms in a way that doesn't mislead the public. In the public, we've heard “witch hunt”; we've heard “circus” or “show”. What I'm concerned about is that if there's a show to be had, it's one of contortion wherein we're not actually sticking to the act.
Again, for people tuning in, as this is broadcast live, I want to make sure they have a clear understanding of what influence looks like under section 9. It says:
No public office holder shall use his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder’s private interests or those of the public office holder’s relatives [as defined by the act] or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.
The influence, I think, is an important consideration, given that these are not conversations of backbenchers, of regular members of Parliament, but of cabinet and of the highest echelons of power and privilege in this country.
There is another thing I want to draw our attention to. As new MPs—and I see some of my other colleagues who are new—we went through the whole process of the conflict of interest, the reporting processes where you had to declare. It was a very fulsome discussion, and one thing they taught us was on gifts.
I get very caught up in what I will call “political weasel words”. I'm not saying that in a pejorative way, but that's a term that's generally accepted for slipping and sliding around definitions: around what a contract is, or a contribution agreement, or what an honorarium is. I think we can generally agree on the fact—