Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm not a regular member of the committee, as most of the members here today are, but I have a few comments on what's been discussed, in relation to business, political and family connections.
I know the member opposite is open to certain amendments. We can talk about that later, but it's important that we do our due diligence and establish what counts as a business connection for a politician.
I don't think we should be the ones defining that because it's a conflict of interest for us to do so. We shouldn't be the ones deciding what a potential conflict of interest is, but it's something that could be clarified and codified.
We have a duty to invite the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, or previous commissioners, to appear before the committee to advise us on the matter and, perhaps, propose solutions.
On the word “connection”, I think it's incumbent on all of us to have a lot more information before we even propose an amendment. I think we ourselves can come up with a definition, but I think we should probably have the Ethics Commissioner, and the former ethics commissioner, in front of this committee in order to inform us on what would be deemed a problematic connection when and/or if there is a contract issued, which is the issue at hand that we're dealing with.
I would just say that perhaps we could take it offline and have that discussion, but I am.... I don't know if we would come up with the right definition for what you're looking for in your motion. I would say it would probably be best to have, as I said, a few witnesses here before, and then we could produce the documentation that is requested in that particular motion.
I'd say let's probably take it offline, have a discussion, and then see where this goes, but I do raise caution on us defining the word “connection” by ourselves, without having an informed debate and witnesses in front of this committee.
Thank you.