The previous comments referred to the continuum of work that we must do as parliamentarians. I've been thinking about that. There were some very conscientious interventions, and there was talk about the need to move away from partisanship. Beyond all that, I realize that during the summer, a committee looked at the allocation of nearly $1 billion to shed some light on this. It is not $202. Having been on the Standing Committee on Finance as well as the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I can tell you that we have moved forward and we have taken a big step.
The reason I am talking to you about this is that our work has been interrupted for several hours to discuss a request. Perhaps you had fun combing through all this, but I didn't expect us to stop so abruptly at the first experience. However, in my opinion, we cannot deconstruct what was actually a very good start. We were going to find the missing elements. So I don't understand why we are putting so much energy into this. The door is even open for a subamendment. I heard my government colleagues ask how far the definition of family and extended family goes. Whether or not we agree to include our loved ones, there are some things that need to be clarified.
At the moment, we have a motion before us. In any event, whether Mr. Barrett's motion passes or not, I have heard you all agree with the idea of a special committee that would allow us to do our work on all issues, whether it be lobbying, conflict of interest or privacy. I don't have to list them all, you know them all. However, we do have a duty to complete what we were doing up until August 13.
I therefore invite you, no matter how it happens, to stop stretching out the debate and to do your work with dignity, conscientiously. One way or another, I believe we all want to finish what we have just started. In fact, the Standing Committee on Finance has the same problems.
A lot of things were raised, and although there were a lot of very relevant stories and comments, this leads me to believe that if we could pass this amendment, we could continue our work and get to the bottom of what happened. In any case, I repeat, I think we all agree that we should continue to work on our files and finalize everything, while respecting everyone's personal opinion.
With respect to the amendment, I believe Ms. Shanahan asked a question about its scope. When I began my role as a member of Parliament, I understood that my spouse would also come under scrutiny in the event of a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
I think we could talk for hours. We are likely to reach a consensus, because we have rules to follow, especially when we are at a high level. For my part, I lack elements to make a judgment. We can discuss the details later, and I think that should be done in a special committee.
Dear colleagues, I really want to talk to you, but I am a person who works conscientiously and who thinks about her fellow citizens every day. Since this summer, there has been a lot of pressure. I am asked if we can do everything at the same time. The answer is yes, but we spend hours going around in circles.
So I'm calling on you. I am in favour of the amendment, and I would like the next speakers to speak specifically on the amendment so that we can proceed to the vote, because I am sure that you, like me, have another beautiful and great day's work to do.