Evidence of meeting #49 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was crimes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I guess the message is that if you're going to commit a crime against the House, do it—
11:40 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
September 30th, 2014 / 11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
The other part of it is I think what my colleague across the floor asked about: a spouse receiving a portion of a pension. I'm not sure where we are in this whole stage. We've changed the rules, but it could very well be that a divorce occurs before anything happens. The spouse has the portion of the pension that he or she would be entitled to. Then this kicks in.
What happens to that previous pension?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Again, there will certainly be a reduction in the pension.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
But it wouldn't be for the spouse, right? The spouse would still get 100% of the 50% they were entitled to.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Potentially, and this would have to be determined by a court, they would receive whatever percentage, whether it's 50% or more or less, of the pension that is returned to the felon.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
No, but my point is that someone is charged. The spouse says “I'm out of here”, gets a divorce, gets a settlement before there is a conviction registered, and gets her or his share of the pension. I don't think we could touch that at that point.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
As I understand it, and the lawyers will correct me if I'm wrong, in a divorce proceeding one party pays the other a percentage of their income, whether it's 40%, 50%, 60%.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
I believe that's the same difference. They get the income stream. The pension will be reduced under this, but there will still be a return to the member who's found guilty of a crime, a return of their contributions over the year, which I will remind the committee, is significant. After the next election we'll be contributing upwards of $38,000 a year to our pension—
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
But that's not a gift. That money was already contributed to the member, and whatever they get back will be less taxation, and so on and so forth.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Christopherson, for four minutes, and let's see if we can finish off here.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
To pick up on that thought, I don't know; you're the legal expert, but it seems strange to me that you would be able to go in and undo a legal deal that has already been done. However, that's a detail at this point that we're going to have to come to grips with.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Very briefly, circumstances change all the time in people's financial standings, whether one has a bad year on the stock market, whether one's job changes, and those changes affect parties all the time that were married and are now divorced and payments are made. Those payments are often reduced because of those financial changes. I don't see how this is all that much different from that.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Again, I'm the furthest thing in the world from a lawyer, but it would seem to me that it's likely the current laws would already dictate whether or not that could be touched. I don't see us delving into that here, and whatever the implications are they are in a court case, so it's ultra vires our discussions here, but I think it's a significant issue. My gut's with Dave. I suspect it would be very hard to undo that. Since the money is there, there's already a revenue stream. It's not a matter of whether the money's not there; it's whether or not they are entitled to it. Legally they are entitled to it after the fact. So 10 years later their horrible spouse they divorced for all good reasons did something that doesn't surprise them at all, but why should it impact on their life going forward.
Having said that, it will be dealt with elsewhere.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:45 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
We won't go there, Chair. We're going to stay in a happy, happy place today.
I'm still trying to understand, John, the difference between what the current laws are in terms of how they are applied to senators currently versus MPs. The Constitution requires that senators either be expelled upon conviction or lose their pension upon being expelled.
Could you give me the differentiation between us and the other place?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
When it comes to losing...and I apologize, Tom. I should have known the point the analyst raised. Whether you're a senator or a member, if you're expelled from either house, you forgo the taxpayer top-up of your pension, and you receive back only what you contributed plus interest.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
