Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be more direct, in that case.
I would like to propose an amendment to the motion in the hope that my colleagues might be amenable to it.
Part (a)(iii) now reads as follows:
that it be an instruction to the committee to consider, as part of its review, whether the act should be amended or expanded with a view to enhancing transparency, preventing conflicts of interest, avoiding potential or apparent conflicts of interest, regulating public office holders’ ownership of assets in tax havens, limiting the availability of blind trusts as a compliance measure, extending the act’s provisions to political party leaders and leadership candidates,
I'm wondering whether here we could amend the motion by including “expanding consistency between the act and the Conflict of Interest Code for members of the House of Commons”. This would come before “and increasing penalties for non-compliance; and”. It would be just that one addition.
The rationale there, Mr. Chair, is that many of us wear multiple hats as parliamentarians. We are guided by both the Conflict of Interest Act and the code, yet there are some discrepancies between the two. We have two regimes, not one. Again, since many of us do wear multiple hats, I think it's worthy of review as to whether or not there's an opportunity to actually bring these two closer together. There are many instances when, for example, members are provided with briefings that can provide early insight into government programs and announcements, yet only the code applies, not the act. Wouldn't it make more sense for us to be under a more consistent regime of conflict of interest guidance?
If we're going to undertake a study of the act, I think it might be interesting to see whether there's some value in bringing the code into this discussion as well.