I'm very careful so as not to overstay my very early welcome here on this committee, and I do appreciate the sensitivities around it, as I did the most illuminating lectures on the segments of the mandate of this committee, as well as the act.
I do want to draw attention to what is determined to be a material gift, which I recall to be very clear. You can correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Chair, but I believe the materiality of that was $200. When we talk about honorariums, when we talk about conflict of interest, when we talk about the act's definition of relatives, when we look at section 4 and section 9, and then when we get into what compliance looks like as it relates to gifts, I think there is plenty for this committee.
Hopefully, if I'm given an opportunity in the future to be here in an official way, I do believe those are of public interest and well within the mandate of this committee, notwithstanding the modal scope fallacy that has been presented by what I'll call liberal—small L, so as not to be confused—definitions of the terms that have been put forward.
That being said, I did want to take my time, as I've been here listening so closely, to ask this committee to consider, when we are presenting aspects of the act, aspects of the mandate, that we do it in a full way that doesn't omit material definitions that have already been put before the House and are included in the Standing Orders.
Those are my comments, and I do appreciate your indulgence for allowing me to say the same.
Thank you.