I appreciate the constructive conversations I've had with the member, but keep in mind that, when a definition is being established, it needs to apply to specific individuals or office-holders, in a specific context. That is why we consulted the experts.
I'm not saying that I'm opposed to the definition in the Conflict of Interest Act, but it was drafted to apply specifically to public office holders. That's why we came up with another definition, one that is appropriate, strict, consistent and comprehensive, without being overly broad.
Personally, I have trouble with the argument that there can't be two definitions in the thousands and thousands of pages worth of legislation, two definitions that would address two different situations and two completely different types of positions.
I still haven't read the definition we are proposing in the amendment. Political interference would mean interference in the public sector, specifically as follows:
(a) in a way that causes any political or personal interest to prevail over the public interest, including by influencing or directing a public servant (i) to apply a law not according to the intention of Parliament but according to some other interpretation preferred by the person so influencing or directing, or (ii) to exercise a discretion or a power or to refuse or fail to do so, or to take any other measure; or (b) in any other way that does not observe the distinction between political and personal interests and the public interest or the priority in the public sector of the public interest.
I'd like to hear what the member doesn't like about the definition we are proposing, without rehashing the fact that there would be two definitions for two specific situations—an argument I find hard to swallow.