Subcommittee on Disclosure Forms under the Conflict of Interest Code Committee on May 10th, 2007

[James Robertson]

Perhaps I could intervene. If the subcommittee could have the benefit of your main proposals and concerns by that meeting, they could at least make preliminary views of them. If there was specific follow-up language that needed to be done, we could work together with you on that during the one-week period.

[Rob Walsh]

That's correct.

[James Robertson]

Rather than hold up your written documentation, we could ensure that we at least got a decision of the subcommittee so we could move forward to the next stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Good. I think we've dealt with one item here.

The next thing I wanted to actually inquire—

[Rob Walsh]

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

It was with regard to you, actually.

We had a discussion at the front here, as you were going through it, with relation to the concerns you had regarding the letter to Minister Van Loan. I'm actually sufficiently confused again.

Perhaps, Margaret, you could summarize some of the things you'd like to make sure come forward in the letter.

[Margaret Young]

Mr. Walsh, in your remarks—you can correct me if I misinterpreted—I understood you to say that it was the code that should be amended, rather than the new Bill C-2 provisions in the Parliament of Canada Act.

I confess that I didn't really understand that, because the point of the letter, we thought, was clear: there is an exception for public office holders in Bill C-2, but no comparable exception for ordinary members who have these trusts under the code. It seems to me that as long as the legislative provision remains, as enacted by Bill C-2, nothing the code can do can change that. In fact, if Bill C-2 is not changed, ordinary members, under the code, will not be permitted to have the trusts.

So I wondered if you could, in your written material, either confirm that I am correct or explain where I've gone wrong, and in particular, in aid of where the letter might need to be redrafted, what you see is the problem.

[Rob Walsh]

There is a way of amending the proposed amendment here to make reference to the equivalent in the code so it's consistent with keeping it in both places. The legislation could say: “or the requirements for blind trusts, as may be set out in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons”. So the legislation itself could give reference to the code as the basis of any exception or exemption.

My point is that it's the wrong place to have it, the way it's done now. I will address that in the material.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I believe this really does complete the business before us.

Allow me, then, to take this opportunity to thank our witnesses for coming here, for being patient with our questions, and for staying late, as well, on a beautiful day when we could be off enjoying ourselves.

Both Rob Walsh and Melanie Mortensen, it's been a real pleasure having you here. Thank you.

[Rob Walsh]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

The rest of us, I gather, are going to be back here, unless there are objections, on Thursday next week, at same time and probably in the same place. But you'll be hearing from the clerk about that.

Thanks very much.

We are adjourned.