Certainly, Chair, I think we're on the same team as far as trying to clarify what this motion is attempting to do.
I could have an issue with some of the other wording, which may be, again, more of.... How many of us wear different hats, Chair, in our roles? For example, I'm the member of Parliament for Châteauguay—Lacolle, soon to be Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville. I'm also the chair of the national Liberal caucus. I'm also a member of this committee. We have different roles.
In the same way, the Prime Minister has different roles. His role, vis à vis the Liberal Party, is as leader of the Liberal Party. When the text refers to Mark Carney being recently appointed, he's appointed by the leader of the Liberal Party as an adviser and as a chair to the Liberal Party's task force on economic growth.
I salute the member for getting the name of the task force right because we know there are a number of different task forces, committees, forums and so on. Sometimes those names can be easily confused.
On that note, Mr. Barrett has the right name of the Liberal Party's task force on economic growth, but he does not have the right title. It is the leader of the Liberal Party. It's not the Prime Minister in his role as Prime Minister, but the leader of the Liberal Party.
If we get to the meat of the motion, what is Mr. Barrett trying to do here? I gather he's very concerned about conflicts of interest. He's very concerned about conflicts of interest amongst those people.
We are fortunate in Canada that we have many experienced people who provide their advice and who have extensive education, expertise and, most importantly, real-world experience in a number of different areas. They're not elected, necessarily. They are advisers. They are appointed to different forums or task forces. They can be a staff member.
If they're a staff member, then we can see where the rules, regulations and legislation concerning conflict of interest can come into play. If they are an elected member, we can see where our rules, regulations and legislation around conflict of interest and ethics come into play.
I think Mr. Barrett brings up a valid concern. What about people who are acting in a volunteer, ad hoc, periodic or regular advisory role to any leader of any party? Any leader of any party is lobbied and is under constant scrutiny and pressure, so it's reasonable to have questions about the background, the profile and the nature of the people surrounding a leader of.... In this case we're talking about federal parties. We're not going to get into the provinces. That's another story altogether.
Is it the purview of this committee to be considering, to know more, to understand better and perhaps be in a position to make some recommendations that would better protect the integrity of our way of governing and of our democratic system, which are reliant primarily on democratically elected representatives of Canadians across the country?
It's good to know the people around leaders, who wield tremendous influence and have the ability to move matters. It would be good to know more about them and what, if anything, should be done by this committee or recommended by this committee.
In that regard, Chair, I would like to move an amendment. I think I have it here.