Of course we can imagine some kinds of behaviour by a member that might not amount to a criminal offence but would nevertheless put Parliament in a terrible light in the public eye. It seems to me that the current focus of concern, and not just with members of Parliament but also in other legislative bodies across the country, as we see reflected in the Nova Scotia bill as well, has been members engaging in serious criminal conduct. There's the sense that there's a pressing need to make sure that those who are convicted of serious criminal conduct while they are members that is in some way connected to their Parliamentary responsibilities shouldn't be able to retain a pension that is funded to a significant degree by the public.
If that's the focus, and I understand that is an appropriate focus, I don't think we can avoid the attempt the bill makes to draw the line, to try to distinguish more minor criminal offences from more serious ones. When you think of all the different ways that we can try to draw that line, I don't think there is an easy answer—and we've all been grappling with that.
There is the range of alternatives that I discussed earlier.