I want to be clear: it's not really any change in substance. It's really a question of clarity, visibility, and elegance in the drafting in a modest way, if you like. I say this because I think it's a little bit awkward right now having clause 4 at the end saying that the changes would apply whether or not the conduct at issue that led to the criminal conviction occurred before or after the coming into force of the act.
I'm not trying in any way to change the substance of that idea. I'm only suggesting that there's some value in having it visible, present, inside the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act itself, and to do so with the simple phrase, “regardless of whether the offence occurred before or after the coming into force of this subsection,” that is used in the Nova Scotia provision.