Sure. Thank you.
Through you, Madam Chair, on the issue overall, some of the comments and other remarks that we would make are that in considering any recommendation or any potential change, I think it's important to consider the roles of the members, the nature of the role of members and the implication and impacts of any given increase in obligations and follow-ups that would be required. What will it mean? Will it be practicable? Will it be justified in terms of the concern that it is meant to address?
In terms of the definition of “family members”, the commissioner indicated that the goal was, as I understand it, in part to harmonize with the definition that the Board of Internal Economy has adopted. I think it's important to look at the purpose and the impact of the definition. The Board of Internal Economy's by-law for members is dealing with different things, the same as the Conflict of Interest Act is in dealing with ministers. The board has adopted a broad definition of “immediate family” for the purpose of indicating with whom a member may not contract and who a member may not hire. The obligation is on the member.
In terms of the code, there are other obligations, as you indicated, in terms of disclosure—disclosing the financial assets and so on. A broad definition like that would have different impacts and broader impacts. I understand the commissioner's recommendation, though, to be only with respect to furthering a person's interests. If this committee decides to adopt it, they would have to make sure that it's not expanding that for purposes that would go beyond the needs.
In terms of the gift rule, I think the weighing that you would do as a committee is in establishing: Is this justified? What kind of onus will this put on members in terms of assessing the value? Is it going to be manageable? Is going to be resulting in an obligation that is so great that it is higher than needed?