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.

Ethics

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-518 is in committee precisely because it has yet to be voted on in this House, and the amendment brought in by his government this morning would only be to the advantage of the disgraced member from Peterborough.

Our question was whether or not that was moral. We have all taken note of the fact that the Prime Minister cannot answer.

In 2011, robocalls, judged to be mostly Conservative database; 2006, in-and-out fraud; 2008, Peterborough. Every time he is elected, there has been a vote problem.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the government surprised everyone. In parliamentary committee, they were studying Bill C-518 that would remove the pension of any member of Parliament convicted of an offence.

The amendment would make a new exception: it would no longer apply to convictions under the Elections Act. That amendment proposed by the government, and approved by all the government members of that committee, would only help one person, the member of Parliament for Peterborough.

Does the Prime Minister consider that moral?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll call the meeting to order.

First off, we are here today for meeting number 55 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We will be doing the clause-by-clause of Bill C-518.

Most of you remember how this goes. As we get to a clause, whoever is the mover of that clause will move it and get to speak to it for a short period of time. Then we will vote and move on.

We'll start, please, at clause 1. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the alternative title, is postponed. It will fall to the bottom of the we'll-do-it-later thing. Now the chair will call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

We'll start with NDP-1.

Mr. Scott, you get to move this.

[Prof. Bruce Ryder]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a great pleasure to be here, and I'm grateful to have my visit rescheduled so quickly after the tragic events of last week.

I hope I can share some useful thoughts about Bill C-518. I've prepared some speaking notes that I hope you have before you.

It's obviously a very straightforward and succinct bill. It aims to advance the objectives that underlie section 19 and section 39 of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act by filling a gap, really, or a loophole if you like, in the reach of the current provisions.

Those sections, as you know, now provide that a member of the Senate or House who is disqualified or expelled will receive a withdrawal allowance consisting of a return of contributions and interest, in lieu of a pension. However, if a member resigns—for example, to avoid impending disqualification or expulsion—he or she will continue to be entitled to receive a pension under the current state of the law.

To address this gap, Bill C-518 would add new subsections to the act, new subsections 19(2) and 39(2), that would extend the effect of the existing provisions to circumstances in which a member ceases to be a member in the following circumstances: If he or she 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 if the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member.

Then in its final provision, in clause 4 of the bill, it seeks to make clear that it applies to criminal conduct that occurred before the introduction of the bill.

I'm a constitutional lawyer and constitutional professor, and I thought it would be useful simply to share my view. I'm happy to elaborate on it if the committee's interested, but I don't see any issues regarding the constitutional validity of this bill. I don't see any provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or for that matter the Canadian Bill of Rights, that would be violated by Bill C-518.

I understand that some concerns have been raised about the consequences the bill would impose on behaviour that occurred before its introduction. However, it's open to Parliament to decide whether to impose consequences in this manner. Members of the committee may know that sections 11(g) and 11(i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect against the imposition of retroactive criminal liability--that is the creation of new offences that apply to behaviour that occurred before the coming into force of those offences, or the retroactive imposition of harsher sentences than existed at the time of the commission of an offence.

But as the Supreme Court of Canada has held, outside of the realm of criminal law, that is criminal liability, criminal sentencing, there is no requirement of legislative prospectivity embodied in the rule of law or in any provision of the Canadian Constitution. Indeed, when we step outside the criminal context, if we're in the civil context or the context of civil consequences, retroactive legislation is not unusual. Moreover, legislation imposing new civil consequences on criminal conduct that occurred in the past is not unusual either.

There is a presumption that statutes are intended to operate prospectively, and therefore not to alter rights or obligations as they existed before the date of the legislation coming into force. But this presumption can be displaced if Parliament makes its intent for legislation to operate retrospectively clear, as the final clause of this bill does.

In any case, if my understanding of the bill is correct, it doesn't seek to operate retroactively in a sense of taking away pension entitlements that have already vested. Rather, the bill imposes new consequences on members of the House or the Senate who cease to be members after the bill’s enactment. They will lose their pension entitlements if they committed and are convicted of a serious crime whether before or after the bill coming into force.

In my view, this intention would be more clearly expressed if clause 4 of the bill were to be replaced by the language that was used in a similar provision adopted by the Nova Scotia legislature last year. The Nova Scotia bill, known as Bill No. 80, provides that a member of the provincial legislature will receive a withdrawal allowance rather than a pension if convicted of a serious indictable offence while a member, and then it adds these words “regardless of whether the offence occurred before or after the coming into force of this subsection.”

In my view, this language could be usefully incorporated into the new subsections 19(2) and 39(2) proposed by Bill C-518, and clause 4 could then be deleted from the bill. This drafting change would have the advantage of making Parliament’s intention clearer within the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act itself.

Finally, I hope the committee will welcome a few technical drafting suggestions regarding the specification of the kinds of criminal convictions that will be caught by the bill. The bill provides that it will apply where a member is prosecuted by indictment for an offence with a maximum punishment of at least two years for conduct that occurred while a member. I understand that Mr. Williamson has signalled his willingness to increase the threshold to five years, as is the case with the Nova Scotia legislation I mentioned earlier, and to add a qualification requiring the conduct that gave rise to the criminal charges and conviction to be connected to the fulfilment of the member's responsibilities as a member of the House or Senate. These strike me as changes that would improve the bill.

But I think it remains problematic to use the maximum penalty for an offence as the way of identifying the serious crimes targeted by the bill. This approach risks being over-inclusive. Let me just give an example. Consider the criminal negligence offence in the Criminal Code, which is in section 221—and we could pick many offences in the Criminal Code to make this point. This offence has a maximum sentence of 10 years. The offence of criminal negligence causing bodily harm has a maximum sentence of 10 years. It's an offence that can cover a wide range of criminal behaviour from the very serious that could lead to something close to or at the maximum sentence of 10 years or to the relatively minor forms of criminal negligence, or relatively modest if you like, that might attract a small or perhaps not even any prison sentence. In my view, it would be unjust to deprive a member of the House or the Senate of his or her pension automatically upon conviction of criminal negligence if we're dealing with criminal negligence that falls at the modest end of the spectrum. And we could say that about so many other offences in the code.

So I've been trying to think, as I'm sure you all have, about whether there are alternative means of identifying the convictions that amount to a serious crime that should trigger the loss of a pension. It seems to me that one possibility would be, as Mr. Williamson has proposed, to have a list of specific offences, but I think that approach has problems too. It's really the opposite problem: it risks being under-inclusive. We may not be able to imagine all of the potential kinds of behaviour that could occur in the future that could be connected to a member's parliamentary responsibilities that we would want to trigger this particular consequence.

Another alternative would be to focus on the actual sentence imposed on the member in a particular case. This is the approach that's taken by section 750 of the Criminal Code which provides that public employment must be vacated if one is sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. Focusing on the actual sentence imposed in a particular case rather than the maximum sentence that could have been imposed for a particular offence would be a more accurate way of isolating conduct that amounted to a serious crime.

But an even better strategy in my view would be to build upon the existing approach taken by sections 19 and 39 of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. By leaving the determination of whether a member should be deprived of his or her pension in a particular case up to the members of the House or the Senate as a whole, it just seems to me that this is a fraught issue and requires the exercise of discretion on a case-by-case basis.

I think members of the House and members of the Senate as a whole are in the best position to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether a crime was serious enough and strongly enough connected to the convicted member’s parliamentary functions or activities to warrant the removal of pension rights. I would encourage committee members to consider that approach.

Those are my remarks, Mr. Chair. Of course I welcome any questions or comments that committee members have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll call our meeting to order. We are here on the issue of Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance).

We have Professor Ryder here with us today to help us a little bit, I hope. We'll start with the premise that you are.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-518. Quite simply, this bill will penalize politicians who break the law by taking away their parliamentary pensions.

In a moment I'll suggest amendments for this committee to consider which I believe will improve the bill, but I'd like to begin by highlighting the current law. Members can already be disqualified for a pension for breaking the law if they are forced from office, but as we've witnessed, a member will be paid a parliamentary pension if he quits before being fired by his colleagues. The purpose of my bill is to close that loophole.

Here's what the bill will do.

First, it will add a clause to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to take into account the situation where a senator or a member of Parliament is convicted of an offence which arose out of conduct that occurred while that individual was in office. It does this by using the same mechanism that is already in place for politicians who become disqualified for their offices.

The law already takes into account the situation where a member is deemed disqualified. It states that a member will receive their pension contributions plus interest as a lump sum when a member ceases to be a senator by reason of disqualification or is expelled from the House of Commons. The change being proposed is that whenever a senator or a member of Parliament is found to have committed certain crimes while in office, the member or senator should have their pension revoked whether or not that person is still holding that office.

The second thing I want to accomplish with this bill is to make sure that it will be applied to all future convictions of politicians, including those for past malfeasance. For this reason I've included a section clarifying that the changes contained in the bill will apply with respect to any person who is or was a member of the Senate or the House of Commons and was convicted after the date I introduced this bill, which was June 3, 2013.

Some wonder if the law can be modified to repeal an entitlement and if the law can apply retroactively to the near past when the bill was tabled and include a crime that occurred before even that date. The answer is yes.

Yes, we can repeal a parliamentary entitlement. As I mentioned, the law already provides under what circumstances that can be done. There is certainly no issue, I believe, on a go-forward basis, that is, when the criminal charge and conviction all happen after the bill is law. Thus, regarding the retroactivity on convictions after the tabling date of June 3 for crimes committed before that date, the answer is yes, and yes again, with certainty. Colleagues, it can be done, for it has already been done.

Legislation passed in 2013 in Nova Scotia strips the pension of any lawmaker convicted of a crime for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for not less than five years. The start date was May 6, 2013, which was when the bill was tabled in the provincial legislature. The result, in June 2013, was that an independent MLA lost his pension after pleading guilty to fraud and breach of trust charges arising from an expense scandal. That member had collected tax dollars after filing 10 false expense claims in 2008 and 2009, and today he is not eligible to receive an MLA's pension.

Some have expressed concern that this bill is too harsh. The bar that I set in the bill as it currently stands would strip away the pensions from any MP or senator who commits a crime with a maximum punishment of two or more years, which I later suggested in debate be raised to five years. It is conceivable that somebody could be guilty of a crime without the offence being tied to parliamentary duties. That should not be grounds for losing a pension, I believe.

I think honourable members will agree that if we proceed with my bill, we should do so thoughtfully and carefully to avoid unjustly revoking parliamentary pensions. I am therefore suggesting that changes be made, changes that I have not raised before in the House.

A document was sent to you, I believe this morning, that lays out 19 criminal offences. If I have time, Chair, I'll just read them quickly, and that will pretty much wrap up my statement. Do I have time to read them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Good morning. We'll call to order meeting number 49. Today we're in public.

We have Mr. Williamson with us in the first hour to talk about the order of reference for his Bill C-518, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

Mr. Williamson, we're happy to have you here today. We will have you make your opening statement, and then we will ask you a bunch of really hard questions, and from there decide where we're headed.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97(1), the committee is requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance), referred to the committee on Wednesday, February 26.

Statements by Member for Mississauga-Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Its members hate it when I point that out.

When the member for Mississauga—Streetsville misspoke in the House, he corrected the record and apologized.

When the entire NDP caucus says one thing to its constituents and then acts in completely the opposite direction in the House, it not only fails to apologize but, sadly, it does not even feel any shame.

We are still waiting on the member for Timmins—James Bay to apologize to his constituents for his reversal on the gun registry vote.

By telling its constituents one thing and doing another, the NDP's actions are an affront to democracy. Do as I say, not as I do. That is what it is saying.

Let us look at a few other important pieces of business currently at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Motion No. 431, sponsored by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, was passed just last month. That motion reads:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (a) consider the election of committee chairs by means of a preferential ballot system by all the Members of the House of Commons, at the beginning of each session and prior to the establishment of the membership of the standing committees; (b) study the practices of other Westminster-style Parliaments in relation to the election of Committee Chairs; (c) propose any necessary modifications to the Standing Orders and practices of the House; and (d) report its findings to the House no later than six months following the adoption of this order.

Just like the motion by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, Motion No. 431 passed the House and deserves to be studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Again, and unfortunately, the NDP's obstructionist actions are causing needless delays at committee.

Yet again the House adopted a deadline as part of its order to the committee to study the issue. For this particular matter it set a six-month deadline, which means that the procedure and House affairs committee will need to wind up its work by the summer.

There is yet another item referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs just last week that the opposition seems intent on delaying and obstructing, Bill C-518, Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act. Bill C-518 would strip convicted crooked politicians of their pensions. We have to wonder why the opposition wants to avoid studying this. The New Democrats should not be protecting the pensions of politicians who break the law, but by their actions on this question of privilege, that is exactly what they are doing.

As we know, private members' bills are on a guaranteed timetable that includes a deadline of 60 sitting days for a committee to consider a bill. That means that our procedure and House affairs committee would need to deal with this by the first few sitting days in September. I hate to think that their motives are sinister, so I call upon the opposition parties not to pass this motion so that the procedure and House affairs committee can get on with its work.

On top of those items of business, the committee also has other important business before it not under the gun of a tight deadline. It has been working off and on for the past two years on a review of our Standing Orders, the very rules and procedures governing how we do our work on Parliament Hill.

In October, the House voted to refer this issue back to the committee so that it could study it as part of its ongoing agenda. Also in October, the House adopted an order of reference for the committee to study a different question of privilege. I understand that the committee is still working and trying to hear from the last witnesses on that issue.

Additionally, the procedure and House affairs committee will at some point get back to the five-year review of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. It started that project some time ago, but its conclusion awaits committee having the free time to do so.

Here we have a proposal by the NDP to send something else to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to add to its very busy agenda. We already know all of the facts here. The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville came forward to acknowledge and apologize for what happened. He did that on his own, unrequested by the Speaker or anyone else. What is left for the committee to study? All of this leaves me scratching my head, wondering what the game of the NDP is. It has become quite clear.

The NDP is simply looking to block and delay the fair elections act despite the Chief Electoral Officer saying that we need to amend our electoral laws by this spring for them to have appropriate effect by the 2015 election.

I call upon the NDP to let the procedure and House affairs committee finally begin hearing witnesses on the fair elections act. As I said earlier, this legislation needs to become law within the next few months. Despite the NDP's filibuster at committee, Conservatives believe that the committee needs to get down to work.

I understand that the Chief Electoral Officer and other important witnesses are ready to testify. We could have started hearing witnesses weeks ago, but the NDP is afraid to hear witnesses. Why do those members not want to hear from Harry Neufeld, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and others? I think it is pretty obvious. Of course they do not want to hear Mr. Kingsley. He gave our bill an A minus. No wonder the NDP would not want him appearing before the procedure and House affairs committee. Why do those members not want to hear from first nation groups? Why do they not want to hear from groups representing those with disabilities? I think we can all figure it out.

The NDP claims that it wanted to hear from Canadians on the fair elections act, but every action the party has taken since the bill was introduced, from the filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee to the debate on the motion here today to add to that committee's agenda, has been an attempt to disrupt the progress of the fair elections act and to avoid hearing from witnesses. That party may not like what it hears.

Why do NDP members not come clean with Canadians and admit that they are simply trying to be obstructionist? They do not care what it costs or what important legislation is held up as a result. That is exactly why the NDP will never form government. That party simply does not understand what it is like to balance priorities, an important part of governing.

I have only known the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for about two years, but I find him to be a good and decent member of Parliament, who has delivered a great deal for the residents of his riding. He rightly corrected the record in the House after realizing that he misspoke. I consider this matter closed. Most Canadians consider this matter closed. I encourage everyone to vote accordingly.

We all make mistakes in life. We all make mistakes as members of Parliament. I have made them myself. Just this morning the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was at our committee and I mistakenly was going to allow her to vote, although she did not have a vote. We corrected that. It was not a big deal. We own up to our errors, and that is what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville did. End of story.

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be speaking to Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

The bill would revoke the privilege of a retirement pension or compensation allowance for former members of the Senate or House of Commons who are convicted of an offence under an act of Parliament that is punishable by a minimum of two years in prison. These types of sentences of two years or more mostly involve federal offences covered by the Criminal Code.

Once the bill is passed, MPs or senators who have been found guilty of such an offence would be reimbursed their pension contributions plus interest, which is consistent with other applicable legislation.

The NDP supports this bill because we belive that any bill that strengthens parliamentary ethics is a step in the right direction. However, it is clear that this bill is really just a Conservative charade to make us believe that they are not responsible for the Senate scandal and that they champion ethics.

In reality, the Prime Minister—a man who appointed people like Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin to taxpayer-funded positions—is using this bill to try to make us believe that he has at least a vestige of ethics. Canadians know better and they will not forget this government's schemes.

Liberal Party senators, those who are part of the non-Liberal caucus or rather independent Liberal senators with no caucus or something of that sort, should not get too excited yet. Canadians have not forgotten that they had no issues with Mac Harb even after he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, nor have they forgotten that the Liberals paid their deficit by drawing on workers' employment insurance contributions. Above all, nobody, particularly nobody in Quebec, has forgotten the sponsorship scandal. Quebeckers are fed up, and in case anyone is wondering, it is not because the Montreal Canadiens are winning the Stanley Cup. It is because Quebeckers believe in their motto “Je me souviens” or “I remember”.

In short, although the bill is a step in the right direction, it is just a front and does not address the serious ethical problems caused by both the Conservative and Liberal parties. No legislation can do that. The problem is these parties' culture of entitlement. They think that they deserve to be in power no matter what they do and that they eventually will be again one day. They think they are entitled to their entitlements. That is an unhealthy way of thinking. The NDP is now giving Canadians a healthy option that works for them. The NDP knows that it is a privilege to represent Canadians, not a given right. The NDP works for Canadians, not for the lobbies.

I am also proud to mention that the bill is basically copied from a bill introduced by the NDP government of Nova Scotia that received royal assent on May 10, 2013.

I am pleased that the members opposite are finally using one of our ideas to draft ethics-related legislation. Perhaps they are starting to see the light, unless they are merely acting like a co-worker who steals other people's lunches and then puts a note on the fridge the next day warning people to stop stealing others' lunches. Given the government's history, I tend to think the latter is true.

Let us now come back to the subject at hand. Clearly, the purpose of the bill is to show that the Conservative Party is angry about the ethical lapses of its senators, who were all personally appointed by the Prime Minister.

The same is true for the Liberals, who magically made their senators disappear overnight and who will surely make them reappear when they need them.

In fact, the party of the Mac Harbs and Raymond Lavignes still plays political games, assuming that Canadians are naive, when they are not. Canadians see through their games and, with each passing day, more and more Canadians come to trust the NDP. The only solution to the ethical problems of parliamentarians is to elect an NDP government and to abolish the Senate.

Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, formerly run by the member for New Brunswick Southwest, believes that the lack of ethics in the House comes from the blue and the red parties. Let me quote what Director Gregory Thomas said:

Canadians have just witnessed the spectacle of convicted fraudster, former Liberal Senator and MP Raymond Lavigne, collecting his $67,000 annual pension while sitting in jail for filing false Senate expense claims. We now have a former Liberal MP and Senator and a former Conservative Senator each facing criminal charges relating to their official duties, with more Senators under criminal investigation. Clearly, Senators and MPs need tougher anti-corruption penalties to combat the temptations politicians face.

This quote, which could not be clearer, perfectly summarizes the constant and systemic ethical breaches of successive Liberal and Conservative governments for the past 20 years, from the sponsorship scandal to the current Senate scandal.

This bill is a step in the right direction. That is why we in the NDP will support the bill at second reading. However, we cannot legislate the culture or the ethics of a party. That is the problem with this government and the third party.

That is why we must send a message that Canadians need a government that respects them and that will work in their best interests rather than its own interests. In 2015, that is the government Canadians will have by voting for the NDP.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the member's ending remarks concerning public relations.

One of the things I have found to be very topical, whether it is provincial politics or federal politics, is the issue of pensions.

I have had the opportunity to sit on different types of committees over the years to deal with the matter of pensions, on issues such as who should be entitled to a pension, what type of pension it might be, and so forth. In fact, as an MLA, I was involved in discussions as to how we could replace the pension program that we had in 1988. I can say that people are very much concerned about the pensions that politicians receive. We want aspiring politicians, and we recognize that they often sacrifice a great deal in order to have the privilege and opportunity to represent someone. However, there are always questions.

I have had the opportunity to have many discussions with political candidates in the past. One of the questions they often have is with respect to benefits, annual pay, and so forth. These are issues that one would expect to come up for anyone seeking elected office.

On the other hand, from the constituents' perspective, we find there is a certain caring attitude, of wanting to see fairness within the system.

I have seen a lot of change in the ways in which pensions have come into being. As I pointed out, back in 1988 when I was first elected, we had a pension program. It was something in the nature that one had to be successful in three consecutive elections, or to have been elected, I think it was for eight years, though I could be a bit out on that. However, then one would be able to receive a pension virtually immediately.

Some members of the public felt that was not an appropriate type of program for elected officials at the provincial level. There was a great deal of debate, and we ultimately formed a committee. That committee was made up of a group of interesting stakeholders. One of them, I believe, was Mr. Northcott, who is with Winnipeg Harvest. There was representation from management and union. What happened ultimately is that we lost the pension program in favour of matching RRSP contributions.

In the late 1990s, 2001, and 2002, there was a change. MLAs would make contributions, the government would match those contributions, and that would go into an RRSP.

When Gary Doer became the premier of Manitoba, he recognized there was a need to go back to government pensions, as opposed to matching RRSPs. That is ultimately what ended up happening.

Again, I have had the opportunity to listen in to some areas, and in other areas to get engaged, in terms of what sort of pension programming and benefits that MLAs should be entitled to.

One of the things I found to be important throughout the whole process was the need to provide assurances to the public that there is a proper way to deal with the benefits that MLAs receive. That is why I was quite pleased that the provincial Liberal Party was involved in terms of how we come up with the pay, benefits, and pension-related issues. Ultimately, pensions were then reformed in the province of Manitoba.

I say that because I have had the opportunity, through the leadership of the leader of the Liberal Party, to become engaged with the procedures and House affairs committee. There has been a lot of discussion there about benefits of members of Parliament, the Board of Internal Economy, and to a certain degree there are issues relating to pay.

One of the suggestions, from the perspective of the Liberal Party of Canada, is that we need to look at ways we can have more independence in terms of the setting of pensions and the salaries of members of Parliament. That was incorporated in our report. I must say it was a minority report; it did not receive the support from all parties. However, if we look at what our constituents would want, it is in the best interest of the House to see that independence in the setting of salaries for politicians. I suspect it will only be a question of time before that will be the case in Ottawa.

With Bill C-518, I understand what the member is proposing: Should an individual be denied a pension if they have been held criminally responsible? If we were to try to get a better understanding of the details of what the member is suggesting, I would be most interested in hearing that and having that dialogue.

However, my primary concern is dealing with the bigger issue of pensions. That is the reason I started my comments by talking about the idea of independence and how pensions are best set. From a personal perspective, I do not know if I would qualify for a member of Parliament pension. I believe it is six years, but I am not a hundred per cent sure of that.

With regard to members of Parliament or members of legislative assemblies throughout out country, I suspect that the primary reason they become engaged in politics is not necessarily to receive a pension. I like to believe that individuals who take an interest in politics, first and foremost get involved because they want to serve. I think that is of critical importance.

Individuals approach me, especially nowadays, and at least every other week I talk to someone who could be interested in becoming engaged in politics. Being able to share with them about the compensation and so forth is important. There is no doubt about that. However, their real interest is in being able to serve the community in which they live, whether it is a smaller neighbourhood or the broader country. That is admirable.

The bottom line is that we have to respect that and to recognize there is a need for some form of compensation. As to what kind of compensation and to what degree, I would like to see that brought into the realm of independence in terms of how that compensation would be determined.

With regard to the bill specifically, I look forward to hearing more debate.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving us the quiet we need in the House to make a few comments about this bill, since it is a private member's bill and therefore no period for questions and answers is provided. It is too bad, because I would have liked to ask some questions. I will ask some during my speech and hope that they will be heard. Perhaps I will get some answers later.

This bill is rather odd. As we are entering a second hour of discussion on this bill, allow me to quickly put it into context again and provide another overview of the bill introduced by our colleague from New Brunswick Southwest, for those who are following us on CPAC or on other media.

Let us first look at the title: Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance). If I were a regular citizen seeing this at home, I would immediately think, “Finally, they are going to get rid of pensions for overpaid MPs”. However, that is not at all what this bill is about. That is why I want to set the record straight.

Bill C-518 revokes or would revoke the privilege of a retirement pension or compensation allowance for former members of the Senate or House of Commons who are convicted of an offence under an act of Parliament. The parliamentarian must have been indicted for an offence with a maximum punishment of imprisonment for not less than two years. The offence must have been committed, in whole or in part, while the person was an MP or senator.

That is more or less the idea behind this bill, which, I must say, comes at a curious time. Obviously, I can tell you right away that there is little chance that we will not vote in favour of this bill, because otherwise we would practically be saying that we are against virtue. However, while I would not say that drafting a bill that asks members of the House to obey the law is worthless, it does raise quite a few questions.

Among other things, it is amusing to see a bill come from the Conservatives that in some way deals with issues of ethics and honesty. In fact, the bill involves revoking pensions that are to be paid to elected officials should there be a serious omission or should they commit a serious crime that breaches a federal law.

Allow me to say that if the substantive principles of this bill make sense, the approach is somewhat suspicious, just like the timing of the bill's introduction. We might also wonder why this bill is so relevant now. From what I understand with my meagre experience of a few years as a parliamentarian, MPs usually table a private member's bill to solve a problem, fix a legislative loophole or clarify a particular local issue. The question here is: what situation is this bill trying to fix?

I will take the opposite approach. It seems entirely clear to me that the vast majority of MPs in the House, regardless of their political affiliation, are here for good reasons, despite their different perspectives on various bills and the direction our society should take. The vast majority of MPs serve quite honestly, to the best of their abilities and with an ultimate goal, which is to serve their constituents to the best of their knowledge and to the best of their convictions. Therefore, what is the purpose of this bill?

I get the feeling that this exercise is not about diversion or camouflage, but rather about image, in order to send the message that some Conservative members—and certainly the member for New Brunswick Southwest—want to address the scandals in the House of Commons, the government and the Senate.

I cannot help but recognize that most of the scandals we have been talking about for many weeks now do not involve my party. Still, I find the current juxtaposition of this bill rather strange.

I read the entire bill; it is only two pages long. I am by no means suggesting that a two-page bill is irrelevant. That is not what I am suggesting. However, it seems to me that someone who really cared about this issue would want to take the time to look much deeper.

For instance, Nova Scotia has a very similar bill. However, it is much more comprehensive than Bill C-518, which is being proposed today. I have to wonder if the sponsor really wants to solve a problem that he considers important, which it may very well be, as the misappropriation of funds has become increasingly comon in recent weeks. I will not dwell on these cases now, but perhaps I will give a couple of examples before the end of my speech.

If one really cared about this matter, it would only make sense to consult the case law, to consult similar legislation that exists in other countries and to consult the provinces. I just used the word “consult” three times, and I suspect I just created something. I am not quite sure what to call it; it is not quite an oxymoron. Let us just say that the word “consult” and the word “Conservative” do not flow together naturally for me.

I will give a very specific example. I would like to remind members that I will be voting in favour of this bill because we cannot be against virtue. If an MP or Senator has committed the acts warranting the penalties set out in Bill C-518—the loss of retiring allowances and other compensation—why is it that in Nova Scotia, for example, a minimum five-year sentence is required as compared to two years in the case of this bill?

Once again, it is probably to give the impression that this government is tough on crime and that it is going to take a hard line. I would like everyone to draw their own conclusions about that.

What seems to be missing in this bill, and leaves me quite perplexed, is that this income is not always the income of just that one person. I will explain. We are revoking the retirement income of an MP or senator, without including in the bill possible exceptions for the people who depend on this income.

For example, if the parliamentarian's child support payments are based directly on his or her income, a judge could review the support payments because the MP's or the senator's income has changed.

This means that this tough-on-crime bill for someone who commits fraud significantly affects more than just the person who committed the fraud. I have a serious problem with that.

The second problem I have with this bill is that it reminds me of something we have seen in many bills.

This bill establishes penalties for the person who commits the crime. We have seen this hundreds of times in other Conservative bills. Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit and getting carried away. However, this bill does nothing to prevent these situations.

Although we cannot be against virtue and we will be supporting this bill, it seems to me that it is designed solely to make a good impression and is an inappropriate solution.

The House resumed from December 10, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the principles involved in Bill C-518, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance).

As we know, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act is the legislation that governs pensions for members of the House of Commons and for senators. The bill being discussed today proposes to change that legislation. It proposes to disentitle a parliamentarian to a taxpayer-funded pension if he or she is convicted of an indictable offence under an act of Parliament that carries a maximum prison sentence of not less than two years. In addition, the offence must have arisen out of conduct that occurred before June 3, 2013, and while the person was a member of Parliament or a senator.

As well as disentitling the person to a taxpayer-funded pension, the legislation would cause him or her to lose eligibility for the post-retirement health and dental benefits that normally come with the pension plan. The person would, however, be entitled to receive a refund of the monies that he or she contributed to that pension.

We believe the work that the hon. member has put into this bill is laudable. As parliamentarians, we have a tremendous responsibility to Canadians, and the citizens of our country have the right to demand the highest standard of ethical conduct from us. This is part and parcel of our job.

People elected to the House of Commons and those appointed to the Senate are expected to craft the laws that govern the land, and for the laws to be right, the people who make them must be right. Indeed, the highest ethical standards are an integral part of the jobs with which we are entrusted. Canadians expect nothing less.

When we compromise that trust, Canadians deserve recourse, and justice demands recourse. Let me also reiterate that one of the abiding beliefs of our government is that people in public office must be accountable for their actions.

Strengthening accountability is one of the hallmarks of our government. On coming into office, our first order of business was to introduce and implement the Federal Accountability Act and the accompanying action plan, which demonstrates our commitment to that accountability. This act provides Canadians with the assurance that the powers entrusted in the government are being exercised in the public interest.

Through the Federal Accountability Act and the accompanying action plan, we brought in a series of accountability reforms. Among these reforms were the designation of deputy ministers and deputy heads as accounting officers and the requirement that they appear before parliamentary committees, the five-year review of the relevance and effectiveness of departmental grant and contribution programs, the new mandate for the Auditor General to follow the money to grant and contribution recipients, the law requiring departments to send results of public opinion research to Library and Archives Canada within six months, and the removal of the entitlement of political staff to priority appointments in the public service.

These reforms were followed up by others, including new electoral financing rules and restrictions on gifts to political candidates; the Public Service Disclosure Protection Act; the new Conflict of Interest Act; tougher penalties and sanctions for people who commit fraud involving taxpayers' money; clarification and simplification of the rules governing grants and contributions; the extension of the Access to Information Act to cover agents of Parliament, five foundations, and the Canadian Wheat Board; and regulations to ensure lobbying and government advocacy was done fairly and openly. In all, our Federal Accountability Act and action plan made substantive changes to some 45 federal statutes and amended over 100 others, touching virtually every part of government and beyond.

As a result of these efforts, the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, parliamentarians, and other public service employees are more accountable today than ever before in Canadian history. Our commitment to accountability has not waned one iota.

I conclude by saying that this bill is consistent with the principles behind those measures to which we have spoken. Since our government came to power, we have worked to protect the integrity of parliamentary office and the conduct Canadians expect of their members of Parliament and senators, strengthen accountability in our public institutions, operate with respect for taxpayers' dollars, and punish those in a position of power who break the law. We will continue to do so.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-518, which would amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

This bill would revoke the privilege of a retirement pension or compensation allowance for former members of the Senate or House of Commons who are convicted of an offence under an act of Parliament.

Parliamentarians must have been indicted for an offence with a maximum punishment of imprisonment for not less than two years. The offence must have been committed, in whole or in part, while the person was an MP or Senator. Most Criminal Code offences fall into this category.

The idea of punishing these offenders is not new. Nova Scotia's NDP government has already passed similar legislation. Under that law, all entitlements of a former spouse, or any court-ordered restitution, can be deducted from the pension of the MP in question. This is a very important point because it is not included in the bill that I am debating.

In a few moments, I will give an example that demonstrates how this gap in the law can lead to the victimization of someone who is already a victim of an act of violence. I will come back to that shortly.

We know that a parliamentarian sentenced to a jail term of less than two years does not lose his status as a parliamentarian and may continue to sit, unless he is expelled by the Senate or the House. However, this power is rarely used. Some charter provisions could potentially protect parliamentarians.

The proposals include parliamentarians found guilty of crimes subject to sentences of more than two years, but they could be punished with a shorter jail term or perhaps even a suspended sentence or community service. The proposal is more specific with regard to the fact that the crime must be committed when the parliamentarian is in office. This is an important point. The crime must be committed while the parliamentarian is performing his duties, not before and not after. In any case, if it were before he was elected, the bill would not apply to him.

Today, a parliamentarian may commit a crime, complete his term as a parliamentarian and be convicted a number of years after completing his term in office. Current sections 19 and 39 of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act do not take this situation into account. Right now, senators and members of Parliament must have been defeated or expelled before they can be penalized. The new proposal would be retroactive to June 2013 for a parliamentarian found guilty well after the period when the crime is committed.

What is the loss for a parliamentarian who commits a crime? They are just going to lose the additional contribution by Parliament. Parliamentarians lose a privilege, not a pension entitlement.

Of course, with all the scandals we have heard about, the general public and we ourselves are sick of all these stories and we want justice to be done. It is not surprising that sometimes, when we are taking part in an activity, people ask us to give them money. They make inappropriate comments because they perceive politicians as corrupt. This must be stopped. More than just changing the legislation, we—senators and members of Parliament—must change our behaviour in Parliament. It is the culture that must change.

Of course, the legislation goes with the culture, and with the changes, but to date we have put up with too much. People have even decided not to vote because they no longer have confidence in us. They say that they vote, but nothing changes. They think that parliamentarians commit fraud and they are paid by taxpayers. We must bear in mind that the money we receive is money that comes from taxpayers.

All this is important, and this bill aims at improving the situation. However, some things are missing from the bill. We cannot just change the legislation; we must change our behaviour and the way we engage in politics.

I would like to mention two examples, one of which is Senator Brazeau, who is accused of sexual assault. The Prime Minister told the House that it was a personal matter that made it necessary to remove him from the Senate caucus. He is still a senator.

He said:

Our understanding is that these are matters of a personal nature rather than Senate business, but they are very serious and we expect they will be dealt with through the courts.

I am mentioning this because the man in question assaulted his partner in their home. There is another case, that of Raymond Lavigne, the former senator who is currently in prison. He was convicted of fraud and breach of trust. However, he committed the offences in his role as a senator, using public money.

I am raising these examples because when we were discussing the Nova Scotia law earlier today, it was said that the spouse of the accused still has the right to part of the pension. However, under the new proposal, if Mr. Brazeau is convicted, he will lose his privileges and, since the law is retroactive to June 2013, his partner, the victim, will lose them as well. It will be his ex-wife, since I imagine that they will divorce. She will be a double victim. We need to take those aspects into consideration in order to improve this bill. That is why the NDP is committed to supporting it at second reading, so that the committee can address certain gaps in the legislation.

However, in the case of Senator Lavigne, the legislation unfortunately came out too late. He was convicted of misappropriating Senate funds. He is presently in prison, but, for the six years that the trial lasted, his pension fund continued to grow. This legislation therefore still lets him profit from his transgressions because it is retroactive to June 2013.

The task I am giving to committee members is to improve some aspects of the legislation. Just now, I mentioned that Mr. Brazeau's wife is twice a victim, but I have a bit of a problem with something else. It has to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the idea of a double penalty. We have to be careful because we are talking here about a punitive sanction on a privilege. We agree on that. However, say a senator leaves a Christmas party having had a bit too much to drink and hits someone with his car because he is driving while impaired, he will be convicted and will pay for what he did. However, at the same time, he will be punished again. I am just concerned about that. It must be improved.

With people using public funds, like Mr. Lavigne, or like the others we have spent a lot of time talking about here—Mr. Duffy and Ms. Wallin—we get it. The money belongs to us all. It is related to their duties. We must therefore pay attention and specify the penalties more clearly so that we do not descend into an inequality of sorts. That is what concerns me.

The NDP will be continuing to discuss that aspect. As parliamentarians, it is in our nature to believe deeply in democracy. In committee, we must work to improve the legislation, because what we have to stand up for above all is the greater good and the advancement of democracy.

It is fine to sanction people who break the law in the performance of their duties. However, as I said, we have to be careful not to victimize someone a second time, as in the cases I mentioned.

We must change our way of engaging in politics. We must not shelter those who commit fraud. We must not become complicit. I am sure that many of us feel ashamed of the actions of some people, who shall remain nameless. Those of us who are seriously committed to our work feel tainted by things not of our doing. We must have the courage to say that it must stop.