I guess there are a couple of different aspects to the proposed language.
The first thing is the issue of what's meant by “former judge” and so on. Just to be clear, it is not meant to imply that the person has to be a former judge before going through the selection process. It's meant to state that you can't hold two jobs. You can't be sitting on the bench and at the same time be the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; it's meant to be one job.
With respect to splitting out what is really, I guess, proposed paragraph 81(2)(b) into two statements, to say “a former member of a federal or a provincial board, commission or tribunal or a person who has demonstrated expertise”, in the way paragraph (b) was crafted, it was intended that those criteria be used to help determine whether or not a member of a particular federal or provincial board, commission, or tribunal is sufficiently qualified.
The proposed amendment would change that by basically allowing any member of a federal or provincial board or commission, without any further qualification, whereas the intent in the bill was that the member would still have to demonstrate having met one of those following criteria.
I'm not sure what the intention is in the amendment. It certainly could be fixed to make sure those criteria apply to both former members of federal or provincial boards, commissions, or tribunals as well as to the proposed any “person who has demonstrated expertise” in those areas.