Bill C-518 (Historical)

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act

An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance)

This enactment amends the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to provide for the payment of a withdrawal allowance in lieu of a retiring allowance or compensation allowance, as the case may be, when a member of the Senate or House of Commons who ceases to be a member has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament that was prosecuted by indictment and for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for not less than two years and when the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member.

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-518 under private members' business. The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly an interesting bill that we are debating tonight given the fact that we have a government that has consistently said it is about transparency and accountability.

I will quote the Prime Minister, who has said, “...bend the rules, you will be punished; break the law, you will be charged; abuse the public trust, you will go to prison”.

When looking at this bill, we have to take into consideration its intent and how we can best ensure that when we are elected or appointed as parliamentarians or senators, there is protection for the public trust.

This bill is similar to one moved by the NDP in Nova Scotia, as my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest mentioned a while ago. That bill received royal assent on May 10, 2013. There are some differences between the bills. The Nova Scotia law targets MLAs who have been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of no less than five years. It also provides that any entitlement of a former spouse or a court ordered restitution may be deducted from the MLA's pension.

The bill before us was tabled in the middle of the Senate scandal that was subject to raging debate in the House of Commons, a scandal in which many Conservative senators were under scrutiny for claiming expenses they were not entitled to. This has severely tarnished the Conservative Party's claim that it is the most ethical and transparent government Canada has ever seen. Indeed, we look at this, we see that it is an issue of ethical and transparent government. Just to go back a bit, we can look at some of the issues that have come forward from that. We just have to look at Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, the former Conservative spokesperson turned senator, who had to repay inappropriate living expenses. We had Mike Duffy being ordered to pay back more than $90,000 for false living expenses and claiming per diems while on vacation. Pamela Wallin was ordered to pay back more than $100,000 for improper claims. We have also seen Liberal senators who have had to make repayments.

When looking at what has transpired since the Liberal sponsorship scandal, there really is not much difference in terms of transparency and accountability on this side of the House. Therefore, when bills such as this come forward, we think they look great but we have to scour through them to see what the hidden agenda is or how we can work with the Conservatives to make the bill functional

During the analysis of the bill in committee, the Conservative Party changed the provisions that determined when a senator or MP's pension would be revoked by removing any retroactivity in the application of the bill and proposing an exhaustive list of Criminal Code offences that would trigger the removal of the pension instead.

Experts had hesitations regarding this approach, noting that the choice of including some offences and not others did not make sense, particularly the fact that offences under the Elections Act were not included. The Conservatives refused to accept an amendment that would have revoked the pension of the former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, as mentioned a while ago. We know that the Prime Minister stood in the House and defended that member over and over again until the member was found guilty of breaking the Elections Act.

While the bill clearly aims at punishing the Conservative and Liberal senators who have abused taxpayers' money, Canadians are more and more convinced that the solution to the unelected, unaccountable, and under-investigated Senate is to abolish it, pure and simple.

So much has been going on in the House with respect to accountability and ethics that we really have to look at the whole. We have to look at what happens at committees as well.

We used to see committees as a place where we could count on people doing the heavy lifting for Parliament. It was said that although the chamber could appear to be a partisan mess, the committees were where sleeves were actually rolled up and petty differences were set aside, while some common good was served. That notion and those outcomes have been replaced by sideshow antics and committees are now a place where democracy rarely happens. By using their majority to go in camera, the Conservatives are actually gaining every aspect of committees and then telling Canadians, with a straight face, that this is what they voted for.

There was a comment from one of the committee chairs at the time, the member for Winnipeg Centre. The Conservatives had voted to go in camera and he wanted to ensure we were not. As he was suspending the meeting he said the following. “while we clear the room of the Canadian public and go under the black shroud of secrecy once again”. That is how he ended that session of the committee in order to go in camera. Canadians need to know the truth. Therefore, when we are looking at this bill, it is important to look at all aspects.

Let me reiterate what the bill would do.

Bill C-518 would remove the privileges of retiring allowances or compensation allowances of former members of the Senate or House of Commons if they have been convicted of certain offences under the Criminal Code, and that is a great thing. The member of Parliament or senator convicted then receives an amount equivalent to the contributions he or she paid for his or her pension, as well as the accumulated interest on those contributions. They get what they put into it, but they do not get the rest.

Following an amendment in committee, the member of Parliament or senator must now have committed certain offences in the Criminal Code that are listed in the bill. The Conservatives have also removed the retroactivity of the bill, meaning that Bill C-518 will only apply to senators and MPs that lose their position once the bill becomes law.

Experts have warned against the use of a list of offences because it could be applied in a broad spectrum, for example, if an MP has been a public servant, and also because it does not include many offences to other laws that are relevant to an MP's or senator's function, such as the Canada Elections Act, the Income Tax Act and the Parliament of Canada Act. We found a solution to this problem, but the Conservatives simply chose to ignore it.

We make proposals. We try to work with the Conservatives and the Liberals to try to find that common ground where we can have bills that are functional and that mean something.

The changes that were introduced to the bill by the Conservatives in committee will exclude the offences. That is the part we want to ensure we emphasize. Too many laws that are relevant to the function of the MP or senator will be excluded. They were not able to justify why they refused the amendments brought forward by the NDP. It was a good amendment. By doing this, the Conservatives will allow the former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, Dean Del Mastro, to keep his pension even though he was found guilty of electoral fraud. That is the important piece.

Although the member across had mentioned the fact that it had to do with our duties, when we are running for an election, that is part of our duties as we are moving forward. That is how we get elected.

We can talk about a lot of the misgivings on the Conservative side. Peter Penashue was one of them. He was found to be in contravention of how much money he was allowed to spend during the election. It actually had given him a hand up over other candidates because there was much more money spent on that side. We have a list of those where we have a lot of misgivings on the Conservative side.

At the end of the day, we need to ensure that the laws we put in place will protect the public's interest when it comes to accountability and ethics as we take our positions in the House of Commons or in the Senate.

The House resumed from January 26 consideration of Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance), as reported with amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in Amendment

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few moments to rise on the first day the House is back for the 2015 winter session. Some have suggested that it may be our last session. As a few people in my riding have said to me, it is about time that we have a chance to get rid of these rascals and replace them with an NDP government and make some real changes for Canadians. In the meantime, we still have to deal with some of the legislation that is before us to try to correct some of the egregious errors the current government has made and to try to make sure that the concerns of my constituents in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour are properly represented.

I certainly recognize the intent of Bill C-518. Canadians have completely lost patience with public officials breaking the law and the public trust and expect government to do something about it. Unfortunately, Bill C-518 in this regard simply does not meet the standard that I think the sponsor of the bill might have expected it to.

Nova Scotia, as a result of a spending scandal back in 2010, has introduced a similar bill that would go further. It deals with a couple of the issues that we have raised before in both committee and here in debate. One issue in particular is the whole question of retroactivity, to make sure that MPs and senators are not able to duck out when they feel they are going to be okay doing so, even though it is pretty clear, whether a conviction has gone through or not, that they have in fact broken the law and public trust.

Other parts of the bill in Nova Scotia would ensure that a former spouse or spouse of the public official in question would be entitled to the amount of the pension that he or she would normally have been entitled to. Likewise, the government would still have the right to garnishee the pension if there were amounts owing to it. I think members would agree that these are two extremely important provisions as they relate to the question of balance and fairness.

Constituents of mine in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour have seen the Province of Nova Scotia move forward in this regard to put an end to public officials breaking the law and public trust and still being able to benefit from pensions and other entitlements they may have enjoyed as the result of holding that particular office. The Government of Nova Scotia was successful in doing that. The people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour applaud the intention of the bill before us and want to see it go through. They want to see us move forward in this area, and we have had some discussions with them about our concerns with the bill.

We want to see a bill like this pass, but we are concerned about the weaknesses we have already identified. Therefore, we have presented a couple of amendments to the bill.

We say to the government that if it is truly serious about making sure that this legislation would do what the government says it would, there are two particular problems. The first is that it basically wrote out the fact that former MP Dean Del Mastro would have been covered by this legislation. The government rewrote the bill so that he would, in fact, be absolved, that the bill would not touch him. That is wrong, and I think Canadians recognize that it should not be the case.

The second thing is that, with this bill, rather than setting the terms of what should be required, the government has listed a number of different laws that would need to be broken. It is cherry-picking what laws specifically need to be broken for this bill to apply. It has also exempted such legislation as the Canada Elections Act, specifically. What we have said in our motion, to make it very clear, is that it is wrong for the government to be picking and choosing the laws. Experts have told us this. We need to make sure that the provision in this is sufficiently clear that it deals with the issue of breaking the law and breaking public trust.

The amendment is really important. It says:

ceases or has ceased to be a member and who, on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force, is either convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code mentioned in subsection (4) or sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more for an offence under any other Act of Parliament, if the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member...

It says “any” act of Parliament. This idea that members can break the elections act, as former MP Dean Del Mastro did, and get away with it just does not make sense. I have heard that from my constituents. If we are serious about bringing in laws that will end this practice and hold officials accountable for doing this, we need to deal with that.

The second thing is the whole issue of retroactivity. We are suggesting that we add in the following:

ceases or has ceased to be a member and who, on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force, is either convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code mentioned in subsection 19(4) or sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more for an offence under any other Act of Parliament, if the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member...

My message to the government is that the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour support the intention of Bill C-518, but they are saying let us not pretend and agree to accept legislation that pretends do something but then really does not. It would excuse some members of the government benches, for example, or the Senate, at the same time that the government is trying to say that it will deal with the whole question of ethics and integrity in government and hold people to account.

I have indicated to my constituents that if that is the intention, and if the government recognizes this principle and our amendments to this bill, maybe we will get to a point where we are able to pass a bill that does what it sets out to do. That is the message that my constituents have asked me to bring here to the House. I hope the government is listening.

I hope we can do something to actually make this bill work to hold public office holders accountable who have broken the law and the public trust.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, since this is my first speech of the year, I would like to begin by wishing you and all my colleagues of the House and everyone at home all the best for 2015. We in the NDP have been anxiously awaiting 2015 for some time now; as everyone knows, this is an election year.

This year is particularly important to us, because it is time to do some housecleaning. We need to repair the damage caused by previous governments, both Conservative and Liberal. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that we have to start off the new year talking about scandals and about MPs and senators who have broken the law.

Bill C-518 amends the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. In principle, we support the objective of taking retirement pensions and payments away from senators or members of the House of Commons who are found guilty of certain Criminal Code offences.

The scope of the bill was changed in committee. I will elaborate on that later. In fact, I want to say from the outset that the principle is good. Every Canadian who is watching us or follows politics has had enough of the scandals and are sick of hearing about Mike Duffy, for example, who committed fraud, or Dean Del Mastro, who was convicted of violating the Canada Elections Act. Then there are the Conservative and Liberal senators; my colleague mentioned Mac Harb. Let us not forget the sponsorship scandal that is still dogging the Liberals.

People have had it with all this corruption, this approach, the same old politics. That is why we support this desire to tackle the problem. It really is not right for a convicted person to be entitled to a pension or benefits. The bill includes a balanced provision whereby a convicted person could nonetheless collect the equivalent of his or her contributions to the pension plan with interest. Even if a person is convicted, they are still owed a certain amount. The problem is this government's approach.

As for last session's scandals, and most recently those involving the Conservatives, we see that the Conservatives used their majority on the committee to protect one of their own. After throwing Dean Del Mastro under the bus, they nevertheless protected his pension. The Conservative members had an exhaustive and specific list of offences and they made sure that Dean Del Mastro would get his pension. I find it deplorable that they massaged a bill, which was basically a good bill, to protect one of their own. That is completely unacceptable, especially when we know that the person in question was found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act.

Indeed, the NDP's objective, which it continues to work towards by moving amendments and motions, is to expand the scope of the bill and to eliminate this gaping loophole that is protecting a Conservative member. This law must be enforced in an impartial and honest manner.

I will give other examples. What was initially proposed, and what we are calling for, was that federal legislation such as the Income Tax Act, the Parliament of Canada Act and all laws concerning the federal government be included in the scope of the bill.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives rejected the amendments we moved in committee, which only fuels cynicism. We have a bill with good intentions, that is, to punish those who commit fraud and violate the law. However, out of pure partisanship, the Conservatives—who, as we know, also have a majority in committee—decided to amend the bill to protect one of their own. That is completely unacceptable.

Furthermore, why were Income Tax Act offences not included? When I was the official opposition's national revenue critic, we moved a motion, which was studied by the Standing Committee on Finance, to combat tax havens and tax evasion. After negotiations, I managed to convince my Conservative and Liberal colleagues to tackle this issue, which is why we studied it in committee.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives' refusal to include Income Tax Act offences clearly shows their bad intentions. They agree to a study, but they refuse to punish tax evaders. I hope that this will change and that they will understand that this does not help them, even though they want to protect their friends. In this case, we are talking about Dean Del Mastro, but there are others. The Liberals did not take action when they were in power, and now the Conservatives are not doing anything either, even though they claim to be acting.

That is why I look forward to having an experienced leader in 2015 who will move things forward and fix the mess caused by Conservative and Liberal governments.

To come back to the bill, why does the government not want to go after those who break our laws? I am asking this question to my colleagues opposite. Why did they limit the scope of this bill, whose underlying principle was good, simply to protect one of their own? This will create loopholes for other fraudsters, who will be able to take advantage of the fact that offences under the Income Tax Act have been excluded from the bill.

That is rather surprising. Let us not forget that the Conservative government is the first government in the history of Canada to have been found guilty of contempt of Parliament. Clearly, this government wants to protect its friends and its MPs who break its own laws.

This brings us back to the matter of accountability. Senators are included in this bill. Everyone knows about the Mike Duffy, Mac Harb and Pamela Wallin scandals. These senators were appointed by this government, with the exception of Mac Harb, who was appointed by the Liberals. The NDP's position is clear: these senators do not belong in our democracy. The NDP believes that the outdated institution that is the Senate should be abolished, and we are going to make that happen.

In this case, why do the Conservatives want to protect one of their own, who has been found criminally responsible, by amending an bill that was commendable in principle and had the support of the opposition? We now have a watered-down bill, and this confirms what we have been saying all along: the government is once again letting senators and MPs get away with fraud.

If the government wants to be accountable and do something about this cynicism, which often arises as a result of the politicians themselves, why would it do such a thing? It is unacceptable. I hope that my colleagues opposite will consider and support our amendments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-518, a bill that, in principle, is worthy of support. The ultimate objectives and goals that the bill hopes to achieve are admirable.

Pensions have been a hot topic. I had the opportunity over the break to have a great deal of discussion on pensions. As much as it is nice to see the bill, there is a bigger concern related to pensions, which is real. I would have much preferred to talk about that today.

The member who spoke before me talked a lot about transparency, accountability and ethical behaviour. They are all wonderful things to admire, and I respect what the member attempted to say on that. However, as much as I will support the bill, I would have rather seen the government talk more about other issues related to pensions.

Over the last number of years there has been a huge backlash toward the government's decisions with respect to Canada pension plan, and in particular the OAS, where it saw fit to increase the age of eligibility from 65 to 67. As much as the government wants to spend time dealing with pensions for members of Parliament, I would encourage it to also spend some time, effort and provide more debate toward the issue of pensions generally and recognize that the people who the budgetary measures really hurts are those individuals who depend on those public pensions. That is why it would be a mistake for me to rise in my place and not remind the government how bad it has missed the mark in supporting our seniors at a time in need, at a time in which they look for comfort with respect to their retirement. It was wrong for it to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67.

With respect to the specifics, the bill would add a clause to the members of Parliament retiring allowance to take into account the situation where a senator or a member of Parliament would be convicted of an offence which arose out of his or her conduct and occurred while the individual was in office. It would do this by using the same mechanism already in place for politicians who have become disqualified from holding office. Currently if MPs or senators are kicked out of parliament, they lose their pensions. If members resign beforehand, they keep their pension. The purpose of this bill, and I sat on the committee, at least in part, has been designed intentionally to remove that loophole.

The issue of parliamentarians receiving pensions and those who have been disqualified to receive pensions because of inappropriate behaviour is nothing new per se. Other provinces have attempted to deal with this issue, some more successfully than others. Alberta and New Brunswick have both attempted to deal with the issue. As has been pointed out, back in 2013 Nova Scotia passed legislation that stripped away pensions.

What I liked about it was that we were provided a specific example where an independent MLA ended up losing his pension after he pleaded guilty to fraud and breach of trust charges arising from an expense scandal. That member had collected tax dollars after filing 10 false claims in 2008 and 2009. For the most part, due to that legislation and as a result of the conviction, the individual in question was not eligible to receive the MLA pension.

Currently the law is fairly clear that if members of Parliament or senators are caught in the same sort of situation and are asked to leave the floor of the House of Commons through a vote, they will in fact lose their pensions. If they choose to take it upon themselves to resign prior to a conviction or to being kicked out of the House, they will in fact continue to be eligible.

Anyone looking at that situation would no doubt come to the conclusion, as I and many others have, that it is just not right. They are trying to escape justice by announcing their retirements to avoid being held accountable for their behaviour and so they can collect publicly financed pensions.

That is at the core. That is the way Bill C-518 was talked about at second reading. There was a need to close that loophole. It is for that reason that I feel comfortable supporting the legislation.

There were issues that came up in committee that raised some concerns with regard to other individuals who might have a bit of an entitlement, potentially, to a pension. An example raised was that of a spouse of a member, who, through divorce, would have had some form of entitlement and consideration.

The answers I found to be somewhat wanting. However, at the end of the day, there have been enough assurances and information brought to the table that I think it is advisable to support the legislation as suggested by the government. At the very least, we should be aware that there are other things we need to take into consideration.

The overriding theme is that as elected officials, we have a responsibility. There is a moral high ground if one is an elected official in a legislative assembly or the House of Commons or if one is appointed to the Senate. These are bodies that review and bring in legislation that ultimately becomes law, and there is a expectation that we will follow the law.

In situations where politicians fall on the other side of the law, there needs to be a consequence. I believe it is appropriate to look at the pensions MLAs or members of Parliament would collect, recognizing that this legislation only applies to members of Parliament and senators.

This is a piece of legislation that would ultimately apply to a very few. If we look at some of the past comments, particularly at the committee stage, we can count on one hand the number of potential offenders over the decades who would have actually been impacted by this legislation.

There has been a great deal of public interest in regard to public trust because of what is happening in the Senate, with Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy, and with other individuals, such as Dean Del Mastro.

It is necessary to pass this legislation. That is why, when it comes time for a vote, I will be voting in favour.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here with all my colleagues.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-518, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance). This is a laudable bill put forward by an hon. member who is concerned that parliamentarians could break the law and walk away with pension benefits paid by the taxpayers of our country.

All parliamentarians must be held to the highest standards of accountability. They have a duty to protect the integrity of our public institutions, and their actions should be based on integrity, trust and respect for the tax dollars of Canadians. The bill before us today is consistent with these key principles of our democracy, and that is why the government firmly supports it.

Specifically, the bill would disentitle the pension of a senator or a member of Parliament who would be convicted of any offence based on a specific threshold that I will discuss shortly. This would bring an important and welcome change to our system of government.

As it stands, if a parliamentarian retires or resigns prior to being expelled or disqualified from Parliament as a result of him or her committing a crime, the individual is still entitled to a pension. In many circumstances this is unacceptable, particularly when the crime constituted is a serious offence under the Criminal Code. There are many situations where parliamentarians who are convicted of certain offences should not continue to receive a benefit from pension benefits funded by taxpayers.

The bill, as amended, clearly states what the disentitlement threshold would be. It is based on a list of prescribed offences under the Criminal Code, which would apply only if a conviction were rendered on or after the coming into force of this legislation. This includes serious offences such as bribery of an officer, perjury or intimidating Parliament, which all carry a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. It also includes offences such as obstructing justice and theft over $5,000, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.

Any parliamentarian affected by the bill would be entitled to only a withdrawal allowance, which is really a refund of his or her own pension contributions minus any retirement allowance already paid plus applicable interest. However, any contributions made by the employer would not be included. In addition, the parliamentarian would no longer be eligible for post-retirement health or dental benefits.

The government has already taken action to ensure that public sector pension plans are sustainable, fair and financially responsible. In 2012, we reformed the pensions of members of Parliament and public servants to make them more broadly consistent with the pension products offered by other jurisdictions, as well as fair relative to those offered in the private sector. As a result, contribution rates for public service employees and MPs will be moving to a fifty-fifty cost sharing model by 2017.

We have vowed to strengthen accountability and transparency in our public institutions, and we have delivered on that.

A major milestone was the implementation of the 2006 Federal Accountability Act and its companion action plan. Through the Federal Accountability Act and action plan, we implemented numerous measures to prevent undemocratic and criminal behaviour from impacting our system of government. For example, we created a new standard of accountability for the financing of political parties. We did that by reducing the maximum annual contribution by individuals to political entities and prohibited unions and corporations from making political contributions.

We banned secret donations to political candidates by prohibiting electoral district associations and parties from transferring money to their candidates from trust funds.

Our government introduced a new Conflict of Interest Act and granted powers to the new Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to enforce it.

We toughened the Lobbyist Registration Act by introducing stricter rules for lobbying activity and giving a new Commissioner of Lobbying enhanced powers to investigate and enforce them.

We reformed the procurement of government contracts by adding transparency to the process and by appointing an independent procurement ombudsman to provide additional oversight.

We strengthened the Access to Information Act by extending its reach and its scope. As a result, more government institutions than ever before are subject now to the act, including departments and agencies, crown corporations and wholly-owned subsidiaries.

We strengthened the role of the Auditor General by expanding the office's investigative powers, which has helped parliamentarians to hold the government to account.

We strengthened auditing and accountability within departments by clarifying the managerial responsibilities of deputy heads within the framework of ministerial responsibility and by bolstering the internal audit function within departments and crown corporations.

In short, we have strengthened accountability in every corner of the government, from the Prime Minister to parliamentarians and public sector employees, and for all Canadians and businesses that receive government funding.

Canadians work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules, and they expect accountability from their government. This is why we continue to pursue opportunities and support efforts that promise to make our public institutions more transparent, accountable and ethical. This includes measures such as Bill C-518, which is consistent with the spirit of our landmark Federal Accountability Act and action plan. It applies to members of both the House of Commons and the Senate, because those who make the laws should never be above the law.

This is a bill we can all get behind. We also hope the bill will be another deterrent against criminal behaviour. As my hon. friend who sponsored the bill said so succinctly in debate, the point of the bill is to send the signal to people to not break the rules. If they do not break the rules, the pension will be there for them.

The bill sends a strong message that if anyone breaks the law in our country, there are consequences. It is a very strong bill. More than that, it is consistent with our government's focus on accountability, transparency and protecting taxpayer dollars. It reflects Canadians' sense of honesty, hard work and fair play. That is why we support the legislation. I encourage all members of the House to join with me in voting for the bill.

I also want to thank my hon. colleague again for his excellent work in preparing and putting forward the legislation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-518, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 16 on page 1 with the following:

“ceases or has ceased to be a member and who, on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force, is either convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code mentioned in subsection (4) or sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more for an offence under any other Act of Parliament, if the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member, a”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-518, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 25 on page 3 with the following:

“ceases or has ceased to be a member and who, on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force, is either convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code mentioned in subsection 19(4) or sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more for an offence under any other Act of Parliament, if the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member, a withdrawal”

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you and all of the members here today a happy new year. We have a lot of work to do in the House of Commons over the coming months. Even though I was sad to leave my friends and family in Burnaby—New Westminster, I am pleased that we are all here to work for the people, for Canadians.

I think that this bill will be of great interest to Canadians. The Conservatives' amendments to this bill will also be of interest to people across the country. I am therefore pleased to rise in the House to deliver the first speech of 2015 and talk about Bill C-518.

As members know, the NDP was in favour of the bill in principle. In fact, when the bill was originally presented, we raised the fact that the former NDP government in Nova Scotia was a pioneer in this regard. It presented legislation in the Nova Scotia legislature that took away the ability of representatives who have been convicted to be able to fall back on a pension, coming out of that conviction. We supported it in principle, and we supported bringing it to committee.

Then, what I can only consider to be the centralized control of the Prime Minister's Office kicked in around this particular bill. That is why we are offering the amendments that have just been proposed by the Speaker. They are amendments that seek to close the loopholes that were opened up in committee. We certainly hope that the Conservative members of Parliament will support the amendments we are bringing forward. We believe that most Canadians support those amendments as well.

When this bill was brought forward, we raised the very clear concerns about loopholes around acts of Parliament that are violated. As we know, when an act of Parliament is violated, it is a serious breach of trust by any member of Parliament. We have seen it particularly in the Senate with Conservative and Liberal senators, but also here in the House of Commons. We can think of the former member Dean Del Mastro, who resigned just before Christmas.

Crimes were committed. In the case of Mr. Del Mastro, he was convicted in court. Crimes were brought about by this particular member of Parliament, and we felt it important that the legislation, Bill C-518, actually reference those criminal violations, which result from a violation of an act of Parliament.

To our surprise, in the heat of the scandal around Mr. Del Mastro, Conservative members at the committee that was given the task of studying Bill C-518 actually put in place an amendment that would simply subtract these types of criminal violations from the overall thrust of the bill. I do not fault the member who proposed the bill for this. I think he is very well meaning in this regard. I have a sense that he believes that the bill should cover every member of Parliament convicted of serious criminal violations including acts of Parliament.

However, at committee, the order came down, as we have seen with other pieces of legislation brought forward by Conservative members. The order came down from the Prime Minister's Office, I can only assume, and it basically subtracted any criminal violation of an act of Parliament from the overall thrust of the bill.

What does that mean? It means that there is the Del Mastro loophole, which is a sizeable loophole in this legislation. If this legislation were passed as is, it would allow the Conservative and Liberal senators the violations that they have committed, as well as violations that we have seen in the case of Dean Del Mastro. Even when it is a serious criminal conviction, the bill, as amended by the Conservatives in committee, would not allow for their retiring allowance to be withdrawn.

What we have is this curious cherry-picking of what offences would and would not be included. That is why we decided to bring forward the two motions, the amendments we have brought forward today. The idea is to assure that any serious violation or criminal conviction that includes violations of acts of Parliament, which are certainly breaches of trust by any member of Parliament as part of our duties to uphold the acts, be considered in withdrawing the retiring allowance.

That is why we are moving these two motions, and we hope the government members will support them.

The motion reads in part as follows:

...is either convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code mentioned in subsection (4)...

This covers offences already included in the bill, as amended by the members of the committee, which has a Conservative majority.

The motion continues:

...or sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more for an offence under any other Act of Parliament....

We would then be able to strip these members of their pensions.

Currently, there is a list that includes certain offences and of course refers to provisions of the Criminal Code. Certain sections are mentioned; however, offences under acts of Parliament, which we are supposed to uphold as MPs, are not included.

Of course, that is why we want to repair the damage done by the Conservative majority on the committee, because some acts were eliminated, which changed the scope of the bill. These amendments would make the bill more just, especially when it comes to serious offences, including those that carry a sentence of five years or more in prison. Such offences should be included in the scope of this bill.

It is just common sense. This is hardly a radical idea. I think the vast majority of Canadians agree with us on this. We are here to support federal laws and the Criminal Code. In both cases, if a serious offence was committed, then it must be dealt with accordingly.

In this situation, that is not the case. The bill refers to a few Criminal Code offences, but not offences under acts of Parliament, such as a violation of the Canada Elections Act.

In the case of former Conservative MP Mr. Del Mastro, it was a serious offence. The bill came before the committee that very week, and it was certainly the time for the Conservative members to send a message. The Conservatives undermined their own bill. We are repairing the damage.

Under the leadership of our very experienced leader of the official opposition, we are ready to take action. In the months to come and this fall, we will repair the damage caused by the Conservative government. That is our plan.

Today we will move motions and propose amendments that make sense, in order to repair the damage caused by the Conservative members of the committee when they removed offences under acts of Parliament and thereby changed the scope of Bill C-518.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-518.

Motion No. 3 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee.

Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance), as reported with amendment from the committee.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to very important issue. In my opinion, the motion moved by the House leader of the official opposition is of utmost importance. I want to emphasize that the amendments proposed by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth are also very important. I am truly pleased that most of the members of this House will be supporting this motion, because it will send a clear message to the Canadian people. As my colleague said several times during his speech, we cannot let this kind of thing go on, and assume that, as parliamentarians, we are armour-plated and protected and nothing can touch us.

Last week's charges against the member for Peterborough are very serious. There is no argument that the elected members sitting in the House of Commons must not have been convicted of charges as serious as violating the Canada Elections Act. It seems so simple, that I find it all deplorable.

I would like to speak more specifically about one point. In fact, it is a strange coincidence that this happened today of all days. I want to remind the House that in the amendment presented by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, in (ii), he specifically mentions the steps to be taken with regard to a member's benefits, including his or her retirement pension.

Today, as it happens, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was conducting a clause-by-clause study of Bill C-518, introduced by my colleague fromNew Brunswick Southwest. This bill very clearly states that a member of Parliament or a senator cannot, by resigning, escape the consequences that his or her expulsion from the House or Senate would entail. This speaks directly to this motion and the situation we are facing today.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest has repeated over and over that what he was ultimately trying to do with this bill was to close a loophole. The loophole resulted from the fact that when a senator or member was found guilty of breaking a law or having otherwise done something that would lead to his expulsion from the House or Senate, instead of waiting for the House or Senate to take the appropriate measures and decide to expel him, the person concerned could simply say that he had had enough and was resigning.

And what would happen? Such persons would be entitled to their pensions, as if nothing had happened. Life would go on, happily. They could get their money, and neither the House of Commons nor the Senate could do anything about it. This has never happened in the House, but it has happened several times in the Senate. That is the problem my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest has tried to solve with his bill.

And what happened then? The question is fundamentally rather complicated, because there are many aspects involved. It was necessary to be as inclusive as possible, but without including too much, of course. Thus, there were several options open to us. Was it necessary to draw up a list of infractions that could lead to this result?

In the end, I think that my colleague, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, has found the best solution. He introduced an amendment this morning, during the clause-by-clause study of the bill. I repeat, this only happened this morning. The hon. member simply proposed to amend the act to provide for cases where the House or the Senate are involved in the process leading up to an expulsion. We could insert wording in the act providing that if the House or Senate passed a motion recognizing that an individual had resigned, but was still a member or senator, his or her pension would be revoked.

Therefore, all we need to do is give ourselves the power to use the same process as that followed for expulsion. That way, we would cover all cases where a person has been found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act, for example. The House would find it unacceptable that such a person was entitled to his pension simply because he resigned before being held accountable to the House or the Senate, because that is not relevant. That person should not be entitled to a pension.

That was by far the best solution, but in the end another amendment was passed earlier, probably by the committee's majority, as we can all surmise. That amendment lists a number of infractions, but only those under the Criminal Code. If a person is found guilty of any one of them, the law will apply.

All of this will apply only after the law is passed, which is very specific to their amendment. There is no retroactive provision, although several experts told us in committee that it would not be a problem to make it retroactive.

When the NDP amendment was rejected and we knew that the majority amendment was going to be adopted, we introduced amendments to the amendment to try to add certain specific aspects regarding the Canada Elections Act.

We are elected members of Parliament and we must stand for election every four years—or less often, if there is a minority government. As elected members, we must go back to the people and ask them to vote for us. And now I am told that a member can remain in place here without suffering any consequences, despite having broken our country's election law.

Last spring, when we were debating Bill C-23, we saw how little respect the Conservatives have for the Canada Elections Act and how ready they were to change it all to gain an advantage.

Regarding what happened this morning, it is worthwhile to read the short title of the bill introduced by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest: “Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act”. It is quite strange that a bill with such a fine title and such an interesting principle does not apply in any way to a person who violates the Canada Elections Act.

That is why I think the amendments proposed by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth to the motion on which we are about to vote are very important. Even though this bill has gone through today's clause-by-clause study, it is even more important than ever to return to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and ask the members to look into the strategy concerning the member's benefits, particularly his pension.

Today we saw that there is a lack of consistency and the results will not be what my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest had hoped for. He talked about similar situations, even though at the time he obviously did not know that a member of his own party would be convicted of a crime. Nonetheless, the fact remains that it is the same principle and such principles should apply to all members and senators.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this motion. I will vote in favour of this motion because I like to think that by doing so there will be a little more justice in this world.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is obviously very important for Canadians to be assured that there is proper accountability for elected representatives, members of Parliament, in the House.

The balance has to be struck between fairness to the member for Peterborough and the dignity of this place, frankly. The motion of my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster is two-part. The first part basically calls for voting on the motion for an immediate suspension. The second part is for the matter to be referred the procedure and House affairs committee, where other elements will be considered. These include, for example, whether an expulsion should occur and on what conditions and timing, and how matters such as pensions should be dealt with in light of the existing statutory framework and what the committee recommends as right, as a matter of general parliamentary procedure.

The issue boils down to how the House will give effect to section 502 of the Canada Elections Act. Section 502(3) of the Canada Elections Act refers to any offence that also qualifies as “an illegal practice or a corrupt practice”. A list is also provided in section 502. It includes wilfully contravening section 443, exceeding election expenses limit. Where we have such a practice, for a period of at least five years for an illegal practice and seven years for a corrupt practice, the person convicted is no longer entitled to be elected or to sit in the House of Commons.

The question becomes that the statutory provision is there for us to take seriously, but of course we are within our own realm. Within Parliament, the Speaker has made it clear that, whatever a statute says, the House has to independently decide to act on the statute. When it does so, there is a fair bit of interpretive work that needs to be done.

One piece of interpretation is what the word “conviction” means in section 502. Does it simply mean that the effects of section 502 must be felt immediately, or as immediately as the House acts on section 502? Is it upon a trial judgment entering a conviction? Alternatively, does it mean conviction once all appeals have been exhausted? Let us call that a perfected conviction, so that there is no chance left for the person who has been convicted to be discharged or acquitted.

Quite obviously, that is something that the procedure and House affairs committee will have to deal with on this motion. What is the best interpretation, and what jibes with common sense in terms of what the best outcome is?

Another interpretive question will be what the impact is when we act on section 502. Let us just say that the decision is to remove the member from the House. Does that count as an expulsion in some formal sense, or does that count as vacating the seat? It might matter, because the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act currently provides that, if a member is expelled from the House, the pension is lost. If this qualifies as some other kind of act on our part, however, even though the person would be removed by the House, it is possible that the pension would be kept.

That is a separate issue from what I will speak to at the end, about what happens if the member for Peterborough decides to resign before the House can act along the lines of removal.

It is really important that we keep in mind that there are some precedents from recent times that are not direct, but relevant. We had the case dealing with the letter sent by the Chief Electoral Officer to the Speaker and what effect that should have in terms of the right to vote and sit of two members of the House, which raised a point of parliamentary privilege. There was a tussle in the House on whether the House should wait for judicial review or whether the effect should be immediate. As a result, the so-called “Fair Elections Act” has made it clear that it does not have an automatic effect until it is clear that the courts have already dealt with it.

We continue to believe that the best interpretation of the act, as it was written, was that the effect was immediate. Of course, that was only a suspension; we are not talking about expulsion. It was completely within the realm of acceptable interpretation to think that the Canada Elections Act would suspend two members as a compliance measure for co-operating with the Chief Electoral Officer.

Here, we are talking about expulsion, so it is not the case that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has stood up and moved for an immediate expulsion. He has only moved for an immediate suspension, and that is really important to note. We already have had a degree of due process through the court process and the process leading up to the judge's decision that the member for Peterborough was guilty of the charges. It is not analogous to another case we have recently seen, which is in the Senate where three senators were summarily suspended with virtually no due process in the Senate itself, but also with no conviction in the courts. There was nothing else outside of the Senate to which to refer, to say, “this is a reason for us to suspend them; we can rely on that”. Here, we have something on which we can rely.

I submit that it makes every sense to rely on that up until such time as the faint hope occurs and a conditional or absolute discharge is the sentence instead of something more. At that point, then the suspension could be vacated. PROC can make clear that it would be the effect on this immediate suspension. We do not have to wait for it, though. The burden has already shifted because of the court process and because a judge, in full independence and neutrality, has determined that there is guilt. It is completely reasonable that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has structured the motion so that there would be an immediate suspension. As for the rest, it would go to PROC, and that includes of course the question of expulsion.

For my part, I am not going to prejudge what we might hear from those better versed than I in parliamentary law and election law, but from my perspective, expulsion should not occur until appeal measures have been exhausted. That would be the position I would be taking, but that is expulsion. Suspension can occur immediately, without an affront to any due process values.

It is also important to note that one of the effects of a suspension is that, at that point in time, the member would not have the right to speak in the House. I would submit that this does not mean the member would not have the right to testify before PROC with respect to what should be done post-suspension. However, as for standing up in this House and, for example, as seems to be the wont of this member, attacking others for what has happened to him, that would not be permitted. That is one salutary effect of suspension.

PROC should be dealing with this forthwith. I have every confidence that is what will happen, given the importance of the matter and given how my friend, the chair of PROC, runs the show. I think it is something that will be taken very seriously.

I would like to end, before moving a motion, by saying that we have come up against an issue here according to whcih it is possible for the member to resign in order to preempt the effects of an expulsion. If he actually is expelled, and that is technically what happens to him, he does lose his pension under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. If he resigns, however, there is a loophole and the bill that is about to come back from committee, Bill C-518, would not change it. It would not apply to the member. Despite some subamendments I moved today, it would not apply because the Canada Elections Act is not included in the list of offences covered, and because the conviction has to have occurred after the act would enter into force. For those two reasons, he would keep his pension if he resigns.

With that, I move:

That the motion be amended to add, after “Commons”, the following:

“, including:

(i) an expulsion of the Member, should a conviction under section 443 of the Canada Elections Act not be set aside by a competent authority and no further rights of appeal remain available to the Member, together with the appropriate Order, in those circumstances, for the Speaker to issue his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a Member to serve in the present Parliament for the electoral district of Peterborough;

(ii) the appropriate approach respecting the Member's pensions, travel status expense account, insurance and other benefits;

(iii) the appropriate approach respecting the employment of the staff, and management of the offices, of the Member; and

(iv) any other questions that arise as a result of this matter and its disposition.”

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the point we are making today in the House of Commons. It is very clear.

The government saying yesterday that it wants to put it off to the procedure and House affairs committee, which is still considering referrals it received in January 2014 and has not dealt with, is inappropriate. There need to be some initial steps, although procedure and House affairs will eventually be called upon to deal with some of those issues.

The other thing that obviously concerns us is the golden parachute and the decision this morning by Conservatives to actively shift on Bill C-518 so that in the case of the member for Peterborough, he would have a full right to his pension. They made two important amendments. I know my colleague, the member for Toronto—Danforth, will speak to this in just a moment.

It adds up to a golden parachute. We think that is a completely inappropriate response by Conservatives to what has been a conviction on three counts in a court of law on serious violations of the Canada Elections Act.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, with regard to the guilty verdict of October 31, 2014, against the member for Peterborough on four counts of violating the Canada Elections Act, (a) the House immediately suspend the member of (i) the right to sit or vote in this place, (ii) the right to sit on any committee of this place, (iii) the right to collect his sessional allowance as a member of Parliament; and (b) this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study of appropriate measures concerning the member for Peterborough's membership in the House of Commons.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, who will deliver the second part of my speech.

This is an unprecedented situation in our history. Before I present my arguments in support of our motion, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about what happened on October 31.

Since we are talking about something that is rare in the House, unprecedented, I think it is useful to start off the important debate on this issue by citing the various violations of which the member for Peterborough was convicted last Friday.

First off, the member for Peterborough was found guilty of personally paying an election expense, thereby willfully exceeding his contribution limit, contrary to subsections 405(1), 497(3), and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act. Just to reference those important subsections, 405(1) says, very clearly:

No individual shall make contributions that exceed

(a) $1,000 in total in any calendar year...;

(a.1) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates...,

Every person guilty of that offence, knowingly contravening these subsections, is guilty of an offence under sections 481 and 482.

Second, the member for Peterborough and his official agent were found guilty of willfully incurring election expenses in excess of the campaign expense limit, contrary to subsections 443(1), 497(3), and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act. Subsection 443(1) stipulates:

No candidate, official agent of a candidate or person authorized under paragraph 446(c) to enter into contracts shall incur election expenses in an amount that is more than the election expenses limit calculated under section 440.

This is an important part of the Canada Elections Act and is an extremely important violation the member has been found guilty of.

Third, the member for Peterborough was found guilty of providing an electoral campaign return containing a false or misleading material statement in omitting to report a campaign contribution, an election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(a) and 497(3)(v) and subsection 500(5). Again, 463(1) stipulates very clearly:

No candidate and no official agent of a candidate shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a document referred to in subsection 451(1) or 455(1) that (a) the candidate or the official agent, as the case may be, knows or ought reasonably to know contains a material statement that is false or misleading;...

Finally, the member for Peterborough has been found guilty of providing a campaign return that did not substantially set out the required information by omitting to report a campaign contribution and election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(b) and 497(3)(v) and subsection 500(5).

Among the convictions on three counts, the final count was stayed, at the crown's request, following the finding of guilt.

Each of the three counts of which the member for Peterborough was found guilty carries a maximum penalty of $2,000, one year in prison, or both.

This is not a little event in the life of the House of Commons. There is a serious criminal conviction, in three cases, under the Canada Elections Act. The judge stated that the evidence provided by the member for Peterborough was incredible and full of inconsistencies and improbabilities and that the member for Peterborough frequently obfuscated.

Justice Lisa Cameron was very clear in terms of the guilty verdict she rendered on three counts for the member for Peterborough. What was the response from the member for Peterborough? I heard it myself on the radio. The member for Peterborough said that it was just her opinion.

This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of the law of the land not being respected by the member for Peterborough. The House is now seized with this question and has to make a decision about what comes next. There is no doubt that this is a serious violation of the Canada Elections Act, and it should be treated seriously.

Yesterday we had, from the government, its initial response on how it is going to respond to the important issue of convictions on three counts of violating the Canada Elections Act. I am certainly not going to reproach the government House leader for being very clear on where the government wants to go, but I think it is important to note that the government said very clearly that it wanted to do nothing. The Conservatives want to tuck it under a carpet and refer the whole matter to the procedure and House affairs committee.

On this side of the House, we believe that the serious violations of which this member has been convicted require serious measures. That is why we are putting forward a motion today that says very clearly, given the serious violations of the Canada Elections Act, that this House should immediately suspend the member.

That is our approach. The government has seemingly not wanted to take this approach. Seemingly, the government has said, no, it just wants to tuck it over to the procedure and House affairs committee. We disagree profoundly with that approach. We believe that these serious violations demand a serious response from this House of Commons.

Given the current government's track record, it is not surprising that the Conservatives would want to, in effect, by putting it over to the procedure and House affairs committee, try to sweep this under the carpet. However, when we couple this with what we have seen as a systematic pattern of behaviour by the Conservative government, members can begin to understand why we are concerned that the government's approach is to tuck this away in a committee rather than deal with a very serious series of violations and a guilty verdict that is very clear on three counts. Rather than tucking it under the carpet, we believe that serious measures are required.

On the Conservative government's history, when we look at the last three federal elections, I think, to a certain extent, there is diminished public trust in how the government approaches violations of the Canada Elections Act.

In 2006, the first election in which the current Conservative government was elected, we had the in-and-out scandal. What we saw following that were a number of Conservative Party operatives found guilty of breaking Elections Canada rules. They had to pay more than $52,000 in fines. Taxpayers spent more than $2.3 million for the investigation, which led to a five-year legal battle.

For the 2008 election campaign, we have the conviction we have just seen. The member for Peterborough has been convicted on three counts.

In 2011, we saw the robocall scandal. A former Conservative staffer has been found guilty. We have also seen the former member of Parliament, the former minister from Labrador, very clearly overspending and seeing that the Canada Elections Act did not apply.

There has been a systematic pattern of breaking the Canada Elections Act.

The Canada Elections Act is a fundamental Canadian value. It sets a level playing field for all candidates. It sets the rules for our democracy. Given these systematic violations we have seen over the course of the last few years, we say that on this case now coming before the House, it is important for the House of Commons to say that it is a serious violation. These three counts are serious in nature, and as a result, the House of Commons should be moving to immediately suspend the member from the right to sit or vote in this place, the right to sit on any committee in this place, and the right to collect his sessional allowance.

I have two final points I would like to make.

First, the procedure and House affairs committee is now nine months behind on its consideration of Motion No. 428.

Second, as we saw today, and as the leader of the official opposition mentioned, on Bill C-518, what we have seen is the government moving to extract from the Canada Elections Act a series of violations that would lead to the end of the sessional allowance. We do not stand for that on this side of the House, and the member for Toronto—Danforth will comment further.