As you should.
Evidence of meeting #53 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was criminal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #53 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was criminal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Ryder, for your presentation. I'm interested in the other aspect of the fairness question that has been raised and was certainly part of the debate and discussion around Bill No. 80 in Nova Scotia, particularly in section 16, clauses 7 and 8, which talk about spouses and dependants. This seems to make some sense and has been well received, so I wondered if you would speak to that as being something we could include in the current bill under discussion.
11:40 a.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
Obviously that's an issue of policy for parliamentarians to decide, but it does seem to me to be consistent with the overall objectives of the bill, which are to ensure that someone who has committed a serious crime while a member does not draw upon the public purse to receive a pension entitlement after behaving in a way that is such a betrayal of our expectations of parliamentarians.
That's the objective of the bill. Pension entitlements, of course, can serve to benefit the recipient but also dependants. To punish the dependants by association, so to speak, doesn't seem to be consistent with the objective of the bill. If it's possible to adopt an amendment along those lines, it seems to me that it could avoid some serious hardship without posing a significant risk, I think, to the objectives of the bill.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Right. I believe we've made subsections 16(7) and (8) from Bill No. 80 available to the analysts.
Thank you.
October 28th, 2014 / 11:40 a.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will ask my questions in French, since we all have access to simultaneous interpretation, if needed.
I would like to come back to your presentation. In the beginning, you said that you felt that the best way to fill the gap was to go directly through the House of Commons or the Senate. Mr. Williamson said that the bill's purpose was to fill the gap.
The two houses currently have a process for expelling a senator or a member. Do you think that using the existing process is a good idea? The same type of process and criteria have to be used when a senator or a member is being expelled. Just because someone has resigned, they are not suddenly entitled to everything they would not have been entitled to had they gone through the aforementioned process.
Do you think the same kind of a system could be used?
11:40 a.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
I understand French well, but I have more difficulty speaking it.
11:40 a.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
I'm quite sure you understand the existing procedure for expulsion or disqualification better than I do, so I'm not sure I can be terribly helpful on this question, but let me just react generally.
In principle, it doesn't seem to me that it needs to be an elaborate procedure that could lead to the judgment of the House or the Senate that a particular criminal conviction meets the threshold for triggering the loss of a pension. I'm not sure if the existing procedure is an elaborate one or not; I'm just not familiar with the details.
It would seem to me, for example, that a debate, an opportunity perhaps for the member whose conduct is being debated to contribute to that debate and have his or her views heard, leading to a motion and a vote on the issue, would be sufficient. I don't know how different that is from the existing process, but it seems to me that the important thing is to have an opportunity for debate, an opportunity for the member whose behaviour is at issue to contribute to that debate, and for a vote to be held after a full debate. That would seem to me to be a sufficient procedure.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
I have no one else on the speakers list. I'll take any one-off questions, if there's any new ground that hasn't been covered.
Professor Scott.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have just one follow-on. It's sometimes the case that values we associate with the Constitution, or say the charter, aren't themselves engaged purely as charter or constitutional issues, but that we borrow from those values. With respect to the question of my colleague, Mr. Chisholm, the impact is on family members who may, for example, have a restitution order in court. Or maybe it should be limited to those who are in situations where they're not continuing to live with the former member, because we can't separate who is benefiting them. The point would be that if the impact on innocent parties were deemed to be severe, from the point of view of fairness, would that in and of itself boost the concerns under the retroactivity discussion?
Keep in mind that we're talking about expectations and fairness. If this creates one more circumstance in which family members could be affected, does it add to the seriousness with which we should be looking at the retroactivity issue?
My second question is this, and it's one that we asked Mr. Williamson. His answer was compelling in its own terms, I have to say, but maybe didn't go all the way. He said that MPs and Senators shouldn't be treated any differently from normal people, ordinary people, outside of these realms. If somebody gets thrown in jail or fined or whatever, family members are always caught up in the consequences. This does have a particular impact on MPs and senators, and their family members are affected no differently than if somebody were thrown in jail for something else.
This made sense, except that this particular consequence is limited to parliamentarians. Ordinarily if somebody commits a crime, they don't lose their pension. So it's very tailored. The question there is, does that add any added element of unfairness? I'm not saying it touches the Constitution, but is that second element, where family members of a particular group of people are more likely to be treated differently than others, at all an issue? Or is it just such a minor subset that it shouldn't be considered a problem?
11:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
I think that's an excellent point. Let me just say that I'm absolutely certain that you're right about that.
11:45 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
It's not a point that I had thought about, but again it makes sense. As I was suggesting earlier, it doesn't lead me recoil from this bill from the point of view of fairness or justice. It feels consonant with what strikes me as fair in the circumstances, if we can find a way to isolate the truly serious crimes that are connected to a parliamentarian's responsibilities.
But to punish others—who, as you've pointed out, may have perfectly legitimate expectations grown up around their capacity to share in the pension entitlement in a way that secures their financial futures—for having formed that expectation doesn't feel right. If the members of this committee could find a way to propose to the House an amendment that would improve the overall fairness of the bill, I think that would be an excellent contribution.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Is there no one else?
Professor Ryder, thank you for coming and sharing with us today. You've given us great insight on this and we're glad you persevered after last week to be able to come back this week. We thank you for coming.
We'll suspend for a couple of minutes. Then we'll go in camera for some committee business.
[Proceedings continue in camera]