The middle paragraph in the paper sets out what we propose with regard to the four statutory provisions: that subsection 6(2) be removed; that the “subject to” provision in subsection 64(2) be removed; that section 21 be amended by adding a subsection indicating that this section does not apply to public office holders who are also members of Parliament when acting in the course of a parliamentary proceeding; and that section 30 be amended to add a subsection that provides that an order should not be made under this section against the public office holder who is a member of Parliament in respect of a parliamentary proceeding.
Again, that's to reflect the fact that ministers and parliamentary secretaries, while they are public office holders and are governed by the conflict of interest act in that capacity, when they come into the role as members of Parliament come under the jurisdiction of the House of Commons in terms of any disciplinary rules or actions. We're just saying that these provisions, which currently govern the minister and parliamentary secretary in both capacities, should be modified to indicate that they don't cover the minister in his or her capacity as a member—that is to say, when engaged in the course of a parliamentary proceeding, which would include a committee proceeding or a proceeding in the House.
So they can debate or vote, or not, according to what the House says they can or cannot vote, as opposed to the statute. The problem there is that if you have a statute and there is a vote or debate, the Ethics Commissioner gets involved under the Prime Minister's code, as it's often called.
If there's some illegality, you have the possibility of going to court, and the court then gets involved in a House proceeding as to whether somebody should or should not have voted or debated. We're just saying that's something that's better left for the House, in its judgment, to deal with. It relates to a proceeding of the House or a proceeding of the committee, and that's where it should be dealt with, in keeping with the separation of the legislative and executive branches of government.
I took Mr. Robertson's suggestion at the last meeting to not get into drafting at this stage but to simply provide a report that addresses the issues substantively. If the committee is so disposed, we can prepare amendments for its consideration when it next convenes.