As an overview, three provisions would be removed from the current proposed section 44.
The first is the question that the member of Parliament must have reasonable grounds, as set out in proposed subsection 44(5), and there's been some discussion about that.
Proposed subsection 44(6) is a duty on a member of Parliament to refer a matter to the commissioner when there are such reasonable grounds, and there has been some discussion about the floodgate concern.
What this provision is designed to do is strike a balance. In other words, once an MP has come to the view that the threshold has been met, there's a duty to refer. Why the need to balance? Just by way of background, under the current regime members of Parliament may bring complaints forward only in respect of ministers and parliamentary secretaries. In other words, at any given point in time there are only about 60 people who may be the subject of a complaint. Under this new regime proposed in the bill, all 3,600 public office holders are the potential subjects of complaints under the regime, so a much larger population of people may be subjects of a complaint.
Obviously the reasonable grounds are mentioned there to give the MP a gatekeeper function like the one MPs have currently in respect of complaints brought against ministers.
The duty to refer is a bit of a countervailing principle; namely, if an MP does have the view that there are reasonable grounds, then he or she must bring the matter forward.
The attestation is there simply to confirm that the reasonable grounds exist. Again, that's part of the balance; it is to ensure that frivolous complaints aren't brought, especially with the much larger group of people who may be subject to these complaints.