Bill S-222 explained in plain English
An Act to amend the Conflict of Interest Act (gifts)
Federal Parliament bill summary, status, timeline, sponsor, votes, and official sources.
At a glance
Official Parliament of Canada snapshot for 41st Parliament, 1st Session. MP vote breakdowns appear when the House of Commons publishes a recorded division export for that bill. Senate and House stage details include official debate/sitting links when LEGISinfo publishes them.
Our plain-language take, written for civic education.
Source: By PoliticalData.ca
Bill S-222 amends the Conflict of Interest Act to restrict gifts that public office holders and their families can accept from friends (while still allowing gifts from relatives) and to require disclosure of gifts valued at $200 or more from non-relatives.
Bill S-222 proposes changes to Canada's Conflict of Interest Act to tighten rules about gifts that federal public office holders and their families can receive. Currently, the Conflict of Interest Act allows public office holders and their families to accept gifts or advantages from "relatives or friends." This bill would narrow that exception so gifts are only permitted from "relatives" — removing friends from the exception. The bill also changes when public office holders must report gifts. It lowers the reporting threshold and requires: - Disclosure to the Commissioner within 30 days if the total value of gifts from any single non-relative source exceeds $200 in a 12-month period - Public declaration within 30 days if any single gift or advantage from a non-relative is worth $200 or more, with details about what was received, who gave it, and the circumstances The bill would apply these stricter rules to "reporting public office holders" — federal officials covered by the Conflict of Interest Act — and would include gifts received by members of their families.
- Amends paragraph 11(2)(b) of the Conflict of Interest Act to remove 'friend' from the list of people whose gifts are automatically permitted, leaving only 'relative' as an acceptable gift source that does not require disclosure
- Replaces section 23 of the Conflict of Interest Act to require disclosure to the Commissioner if total gifts from any single non-relative source exceed $200 in a 12-month period, with disclosure required within 30 days
- Replaces subsection 25(5) of the Conflict of Interest Act to require public declaration within 30 days when a reporting public office holder or family member accepts any single gift or advantage valued at $200 or more from a non-relative, with sufficient detail to identify the gift, donor, and circumstances
- Reporting public office holders under the Conflict of Interest Act (federal elected and appointed officials)
- Families of reporting public office holders (who may receive gifts on behalf of the office holder)
- Public office holders and their families may accept gifts from relatives without disclosure requirements
- Public office holders must disclose to the Commissioner within 30 days if total gifts from any single non-relative source exceed $200 in a 12-month period
- Public office holders must make a public declaration within 30 days if they or their family member accepts any single gift from a non-relative valued at $200 or more, including details about the gift, donor, and circumstances
- The $200 threshold applies to both accumulated gifts from one source and single gifts
- Bill was at first reading in the Senate on June 13, 2013
- Bill is currently at second reading in the Senate (status as of the information provided)
- No commencement date is specified in the bill text
- No direct financial or tax impacts are specified in the bill
- The bill text does not specify penalties or enforcement mechanisms for violations of the amended disclosure requirements
- The bill text does not define 'relative' or specify the degree of relationship required
- The bill text does not explain how the $200 threshold is to be calculated or adjusted for inflation
- The bill text does not specify what level of detail is required in public declarations
- The bill text does not clarify the circumstances under which the Commissioner and public declarations apply or the appeals process
- The bill text does not specify enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance
- It is unclear whether gifts from organizations or corporate entities are treated differently from individual gifts
- The bill is at second reading and has not yet been passed into law
Three sections of the Conflict of Interest Act are amended: paragraph 11(2)(b) is narrowed to permit gifts only from relatives (not friends); section 23 is updated to require disclosure when gifts from any single non-relative source exceed $200 in 12 months; and subsection 25(5) is updated to require public declaration when any single gift from a non-relative is $200 or more
Source: Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Bill S-222
Generated using AI from official bill text. Not legal advice. It is written by PoliticalData.ca for civic education, automatically checked and spot-reviewed before publishing.
Official textParliamentary Process
Bill S-222, an Act to amend the Conflict of Interest Act (gifts), had its first reading in the Senate on June 13, 2013.
Bill S-222, concerning amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act regarding gifts, completed its first reading in the Senate on June 13, 2013. The bill later proceeded to second reading.
On June 13, 2013, Bill S-222, concerning amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act regarding gifts, was introduced and received its first reading in the Senate.
This Senate sitting on June 13, 2013, included the first reading of Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Conflict of Interest Act (gifts). This means the bill was formally introduced and presented to the Senate for the first time. Following this introduction, the Senate proceeded with other business, including tabling reports, debating other bills, and question period.
The Senate is currently at the second reading stage for Bill S-222, which aims to amend the Conflict of Interest Act concerning gifts, with debate having taken place.
The Senate began the second reading stage for Bill S-222, an act to amend the Conflict of Interest Act concerning gifts. This stage involves debate on the bill's principles. The record indicates that a debate occurred on June 26, 2013, following the initial presentation of the bill. It also notes a previous similar bill, S-208, which also aimed to amend the Conflict of Interest Act regarding gifts.
On June 18, 2013, the Senate debated various items including committee reports, questions from Senators, and several bills, with a notable adjournment of debate on Bill S-222 concerning amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act regarding gifts.
The Senate convened on June 18, 2013, with various Senators making statements on diverse topics including the War of 1812, the Gimli Glider, sexual violence against women, Korean War veterans, and mandatory reporting standards for extractive companies. Routine proceedings included the tabling of committee reports. Question Period addressed topics such as Senate motivational speakers, the role of employees, job creation, international tax evasion, and the UN resolution on sexual violence against women. The Orders of the Day included debates on several bills, including the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Bill, amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, and Bill S-222, an Act to amend the Conflict of Interest Act (gifts). The latter bill, concerning gifts and public office holders, was adjourned for debate.
Senator Joseph A. Day introduced Bill S-222 in the Senate to amend the Conflict of Interest Act by removing the 'friend' exception for accepting gifts, arguing it undermines transparency and accountability for public office holders.
On June 18, 2013, Senator Joseph A. Day introduced Bill S-222, an Act to amend the Conflict of Interest Act (gifts), in the Senate. He explained that the bill aims to address a significant loophole in the current legislation concerning gifts received by public office holders. Specifically, the bill seeks to remove the exception that allows public office holders to accept gifts from 'friends' without disclosure, a provision that Senator Day argued makes the conflict of interest legislation largely ineffective. He provided a hypothetical example of a minister accepting a gift of a ski chalet from a CEO seeking legislative favour, which would not need to be disclosed under the current law if considered a gift from a 'friend.' Senator Day stated that this loophole, along with the lack of definition for 'friend' in the legislation, makes it difficult to oversee potential influences on public office holders. He noted that previous attempts to amend this loophole were unsuccessful and that the bill proposes to remove the word 'friend' from sections 11, 23, and 25 of the Conflict of Interest Act, 2006. He highlighted that while other rules, like those for senators or election candidates, require disclosure of gifts over $500, the 'friend' exception in the Conflict of Interest Act undermines this transparency.
On June 26, 2013, the Senate continued debate on several bills, including amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act, with Bill C-304 passing third reading after several votes on amendments, and also addressed issues such as cyber security and the need for mental health care in correctional institutions.
This document is a record of a Senate sitting on June 26, 2013. The sitting included Senators' Statements, Routine Proceedings, Question Period, and Orders of the Day. Most of the sitting was dedicated to continuing debates on various bills, including Bill C-377 (Income Tax Act amendments), Bill C-304 (Canadian Human Rights Act amendments), and Bill S-222 (Conflict of Interest Act amendments). Several votes were taken on amendments to Bill C-304, and the bill ultimately passed third reading. Other proceedings included tabling of committee reports, delayed answers to oral questions, and discussions on other matters such as flooding in Alberta and blindness and vision loss. The sitting concluded with Royal Assent being given to several bills.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Third reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
We don't have a plain-language summary for First reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Second reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Consideration in committee yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Report stage yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Third reading yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
Debate and sitting links point to official parliamentary sources when LEGISinfo publishes them. Any plain-language discussion summaries should be generated from those official texts and reviewed before public display.
Vote Summary
This bill is still active. We only show vote counts after the legislature publishes a recorded division.
No published representative vote breakdown
This bill is still moving through the process. When a recorded division is published, representative positions can be listed here.
Official sources
Status, sponsor, votes, and timeline on this page are drawn from these official legislative sources and public records. Each summary above is attributed to its own source.
How this data is sourced