It's my intent that it should be narrowed to our duties as members of Parliament.
I've heard examples about sitting on a board, for example, and you're convicted of a crime there. Should that apply? My thinking is that it should not necessarily. The aim is to get at crimes that have occurred through one's conduct as a parliamentarian.
We're all put in positions of trust with tax dollars, whether it's our own expense accounts or those of the government at large, individuals in cabinet or another position of authority. My purpose is to focus on measures that have occurred out of the conduct of one's duty and not beyond that.
I believe we should narrow the scope to the 19 charges I have laid out because someone raised a very good point. We all drive a lot in our ridings. I know I certainly do. Even at the five-year threshold, which is the threshold that the NDP government included in Nova Scotia, if I were to, God forbid, hit someone in my riding and kill that person, even under the five years, that would trigger a loss in pension.
The purpose is not to have someone, through a momentary lapse of judgment or in error lose a pension; it's for the ongoing or deliberate fraud or actions that I think these 19 charges that I've laid out cover.