Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll forego my usual restraint. Indeed, I'm not in the habit of speaking intensely regarding certain debates.
Mr. Barrett's question is an interesting one. Is this offence a priority? Is it one of the worst? The answer is no in both cases. It's not uninteresting, because the Prime Minister has a bad history when it comes to gifts and conflicts of interest. However, as one member said earlier, the debate we're having is being blown out of all proportion.
A person in a position of authority will certainly be offered things, whether it be you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fisher or Mr. Caputo, for example. I suppose we'll judge properly whether it's acceptable or not.
Being held to account is what lies at the heart of a conflict of interest. Is a person beholden by accepting a favour? You could say that the tickets to the Taylor Swift show, which are sold for $15,000 on the black market, are significant. As I said earlier, when you're a prime minister or president of the United States, there are limited options to get certain things—Bill Clinton said that that going to McDonald's was hard; at the same time, you get a bunch of stuff that you don't usually accept.
I think it might be worthwhile to ask for documents, but I'm surprised that they're making such a big deal out of it.
We are members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Ethics is the pursuit of just solutions according to the circumstances. However, that's not what I've been hearing from the outset, and I find it disappointing.
I agree that the committee should ask to see the documents. As Ms. Shanahan was saying earlier, the Ethics Commissioner gave the go-ahead. If we don't agree with the commissioner's verdict, it's up to us to change the act or code. We also have the privilege of amending privacy legislation. We are asking for that, but it's not being done. I believe that the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons in its current form has a lot of flaws. However, at present, the commissioner is responsible for enforcing those shortcomings, which creates political problems, as Mr. Housefather said.
I think we have to give this case its full weight. Mr. Barrett is asking for documents; let's get them and we can analyze them. No one has died. We can't treat this as the worst offence, because it's not.
I'd very much like for us to move forward. To pass the motion, we have to vote, and in order to vote, we have to stop talking. Talking to the point of exhaustion will still lead to a vote. I'd like us to avoid exhaustion and vote on the motion, which I will support.