Mr. Chair, you can see that this is where the issue lies. Mr. Barrett is asking for a double standard. Regardless of who the Prime Minister will be in the future, he's asking for financial information on the Prime Minister's family members when they aren't subject to the Conflict of Interest Act.
If Mr. Barrett really wants to meddle in the affairs of members' parents and siblings, let him move a motion calling on all members to proactively disclose their parents' financial statements. However, I know that Mr. Barrett wouldn't support this type of motion. Nevertheless, through his motion, he wants to see that information disclosed. Therein lies the issue. How far does Mr. Barrett want to push the boundaries of ethics and conflict of interest?
I don't see an issue regarding the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. He's doing an excellent job. He's already investigating this matter.
If Mr. Barrett is basically saying that politicians should be able to investigate other politicians, he's completely out in left field. I know that he understands what it means to be out in left field, because there are several fields in his constituency. I speak to a number of farmers from his constituency and I know them very well.
The issue is whether Mr. Barrett would be willing to submit his parents' financial statements. As a member of Parliament, I have no idea why Mr. Barrett would vote for or against a given bill. According to the Commissioner of Lobbying, the definition of “designated public office holder” doesn't distinguish between a prime minister, a member of Parliament and a minister.