Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  If I may follow on that point, I can remind members that Liberal amendment 0.1 expressly provided that nothing in the Conflict of Interest Act derogated from or limited in any way the privileges of any members. I would say that there seems to be an inconsistency, insofar as Mr.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I would just follow up by highlighting a few of the changes to the current regime, which, as Mr. Poilievre has suggested, would tend to suggest that judicial experience is required. There are a number of substantive changes to the regime that build on the current Parliament of Canada Act framework.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The effect of L-1 would be to remove the Senate from the appointment of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. As members know, one of the results of Bill C-2 is to create a new Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who will, as Mr. Stringham has said, have three distinct functions.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  --available, which is that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner may order incumbent public office holders not to have dealings with the former public office holder who is found to have violated the post-employment obligation. Otherwise, you're correct that there is no effective sanction on the part of the Prime Minister.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  If I might reply to the latter part of the last question, in a post-employment situation, there is one remedy--

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It's quite correct that the current section 52 does not provide for a monetary penalty at all in respect of the substantive obligations that are imposed today, the obligations that obtain during one's time as a public office holder or afterwards, when one is governed by the post-employment obligations, a cooling-off period and the like.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The only point I would make is that under the members' own code, the commissioner's function, upon making a finding or report, is to report that matter to the House of Commons itself. In other words, under the House regime, there is no provision for referring any matter to the Speaker of the House.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  There would be no duty to refer, even if reasonable grounds existed on the facts; that's right.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  That's correct.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'll defer to the lawyers on the question of consequence, but certainly the policy behind the attestation is to signify the importance of coming to the view that there are reasonable grounds in any set of circumstances--in other words, to ensure that no frivolous complaints are brought, especially in light of the larger population that may be subject to them.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  As an overview, three provisions would be removed from the current proposed section 44. The first is the question that the member of Parliament must have reasonable grounds, as set out in proposed subsection 44(5), and there's been some discussion about that. Proposed subsection 44(6) is a duty on a member of Parliament to refer a matter to the commissioner when there are such reasonable grounds, and there has been some discussion about the floodgate concern.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Proposed section 38 is really about whether the exempt staff in question are covered by the cooling-off period at all. If they are covered, then proposed section 39--which gives the commissioner discretion to waive some or all of its provisions for a shorter or longer period of time--would apply.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Again, the purpose of proposed section 38 is to give a minister the discretion, in accordance with the statutory criteria, to determine whether or not his or her exempt staff are to be covered by the substantive cooling-off rules found in proposed section 35. The first order of decision in the case of an exempt staff member would be for the minister decide whether or not that person is to be exempted.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Proposed section 39 gives discretion to the commissioner to waive or reduce the cooling-off period in proposed section 36, and if you turn to proposed section 36 you'll find that it refers to proposed section 35.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  By way of background on the current proposed section 38, this is an exception to the general rule that all public office holders are governed by the cooling-off period insofar as the minister can exempt members of his or her exempt staff from the application of the cooling-off period.