Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to point out that there are safeguards in Bill C-2 to protect against an undue empiètement on the privileges of the House. If one looks at the proposed section 92.3 in clause 40, this allows the candidate to seek an extension from the Chief Electoral Officer to either file the return or make a correction to the return. The Chief Electoral Officer applies a test that's provided for in that proposed section and grants the extension if the delay was due to the illness of a candidate, to inadvertence, or to an honest mistake of fact. What this means is essentially the Chief Electoral Officer will grant the request for an extension, unless there's an indication that the intention was to not provide the statement, for a dishonourable purpose, or was to try to hide something.
Where the Chief Electoral Officer refuses to grant the extension, or if the person is outside of the delay that was given by the Chief Electoral Officer, then there's another safeguard that the candidate, or the member in this case, can go to a judge and obtain an extension from the obligation to file the statement. Again, the criteria is the same. So it's granted if the delay was due to the illness of the candidate, to inadvertence, or to an honest mistake of fact. Basically, you need two independent, if I can call them, officials—the Chief Electoral Officer and a judge—to have reason to believe that the failure to file the return was due to an attempt by the member to circumvent the disclosure requirements.
Of course, it's up to this committee to decide whether it wants to deal with this through the House code or through the legislation, but the presumption behind clause 40 is that there's a public interest in having an MP disclose any personal gifts that may have an influence on how he or she votes in the House of Commons. If there's any indication that the member may be trying to circumvent the disclosure requirement, then this particular clause says that he or she can't sit until the statement has been provided and until there's full openness about any gift that he or she may have received that could influence a vote.