Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think that's an excellent point. Let me just say that I'm absolutely certain that you're right about that.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I understand French well, but I have more difficulty speaking it.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It would certainly remove that concern from the conversation.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I want to be clear: it's not really any change in substance. It's really a question of clarity, visibility, and elegance in the drafting in a modest way, if you like. I say this because I think it's a little bit awkward right now having clause 4 at the end saying that the changes would apply whether or not the conduct at issue that led to the criminal conviction occurred before or after the coming into force of the act.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That change I've suggested is really for clarity and visibility. I don't see it as a change in substance at all. At the constitutional level, there is currently no prohibition on Parliament or provincial legislatures passing legislation that operates retroactively outside of the criminal context.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Then we could say that does potentially give rise to unfairness and maybe to kinds of unfairness that the courts would be concerned about and, perhaps, at a constitutional level, in interpreting the charter in the future. As I said earlier, I don't think that pushing the law forward in that regard—because that would be a new kind of concern—is going to happen in this case because the courts, I think, will only be moved by a very serious unfairness.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Right. But as I said, I don't think there are any issues with the current state of the bill either.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I'm not sure if there is a simpler answer.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think they are very similar. The differences in the wording are modest, and there are a couple of important differences. One is that language I referred to earlier, making it clear that it applies to a conviction that occurred either before or after the coming into force of the act.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think that would be my second choice, and there may be other options I haven't thought of. I haven't spent as much time studying this bill as members of the committee, but the reason that's a better alternative is, yes, a judge will be exercising discretion and taking into account a range of factors.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I agree. I think that's very helpful. The change that I suggested, drawing on the Nova Scotia bill and making the application of these amendments to criminal conduct that has occurred prior to the coming into force of the bill, is, as you suggested, valuable. I think it's valuable from the point of view of transparency and clarity, and because the courts say about legislation that it will be presumed to operate prospectively unless Parliament has made its intention clear that it is to operate with respect to events that have occurred in the past.