Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 30th, 2014

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

I would have no problem if another member or the government were to come forward with a bill that included similar provisions for public sector workers. I decided to focus my bill on the houses of Parliament and on their members, in part to ensure I didn't bite off more than I could chew as a backbench member trying to stickhandle it through.

In principle, I would certainly agree with expanding this law to others in the public service, absolutely. I would applaud and vote for any legislation that came forward, whether from the government or from another member.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Reid for four minutes, please.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I want to pick up on the return of contributions issue. I'd been meaning to raise that had it not been raised. This would mean, I assume, that effectively if someone lost their seat after anything less than six years' service they would get a return of contributions plus interest anyway. Does it mean that this piece of legislation would have no impact on anybody who has fewer than six years of service?

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

It's a good point. It likely would, yes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

All right. That's not unreasonable.

I was going to mention, along with some other concerns, that anybody who has fewer than six years of service and loses their seat through no fault of their own, especially if it's one of these waves where one party is swept out and another one is swept in, they suffer all the same consequences as someone who is convicted of a crime, in terms of what happens to their potential pension benefits. Plus they lose their salary.

The other thing I wanted to ask is with regard to the issue of saying this goes into effect, assuming it's passed by both houses and gets royal assent, as of the date on which you tabled it. You say this is what was done in Nova Scotia.

The obvious thought that occurs to me is, am I not right that the charter says you cannot be found guilty and subjected to a penalty that has been made more severe after the date on which you were initially charged with the crime? Do you see what I'm getting at here? It seems to me that anybody who was charged with a crime prior to the date on which the bill was actually enacted, some future date, might be in a situation where they cannot actually suffer this consequence. Am I not right that this is how a court might interpret this?

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

It's an argument. The example we've seen in Nova Scotia refutes that. The charges occurred before the bill was even tabled. The crimes occurred long before, even years before, the bill was tabled, yet ultimately the member was found guilty.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That's not the subject of any litigation you're aware of.

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

Not that I'm aware of, no.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

No. Okay. That's the obvious question. Maybe it's just too expensive to litigate on something on that, from the point of view of the former member.

This would have relevance, I assume, to some of the people who are involved. I assume, for example, that Senator Lavigne, Senator Harb.... Senator Lavigne, I think his charges all predate.... We can't do anything about him.

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

Yes, I agree.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

What about Senator Harb or Senator Duffy? What about those guys?

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

Neither has been found guilty in a court of law.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Fair enough. Assuming there's a guilty verdict, would they be caught within the legislation?

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

I believe so, yes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

They would. All right. That's helpful to know.

That may be all I have to ask.

Ultimately, in those cases, Duffy and Harb but not Lavigne, in the event they're found guilty, it would come down to whether or not it is possible to backdate the penalty. In fact, if the more restrictive interpretation I was taking is found to be the one that's valid, then in effect they would be able to retain their pensions.

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

I am aware of the argument you've made with respect to the courts but I also believe that this body, this House, this Parliament also has responsibility for setting and removing the pay and benefits that its members receive. I don't know if a court has ever found that is not the case.

I am aware of that argument and I have considered it. Again, the real-life example, I believe, refutes it. As well, I think the mandate we're given under law to set our pay and benefits also permits us to decide under what conditions they would be revoked.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

We'll go to Madame Latendresse, who I believe is sharing the time with Mr. Christopherson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Williamson, I will come back to the issue my colleague discussed. I want to talk about more specific points regarding dependants.

According to the example you gave, right now, if someone goes to prison, their family suffers. Of particular interest to us is the fact that, if an individual who has worked all their life in a mine commits a crime after retirement and goes to prison, the pension for the work they did throughout their life will continue to be paid to their spouse. I think certain aspects have to be taken into account. In life in general, pension is a resource spouses count on.

If I have understood correctly, you will move an amendment proposing that the compensation provided go directly to the spouse. Is that right?

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

No, not exactly. It is not up to us, but rather up to the families and the courts to decide how the money will be distributed. The goal of the amendment is really to determine whether there is a connection between crimes and our duties, as parliamentarians. I was not talking about an amendment that would affect families.

To use your example, in the case of a member who serves for 10 years to 20 years, we see that, after 20 years, about $1 million is accumulated. That is a lot of money. Yes, the amount is lower than if a crime had not been committed, but I think it is reasonable and sufficient.

In my opinion, additional amounts for the family are not necessary.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Christopherson.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have two minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very good. Thank you, Chair.

I want to make sure I've got this right, John. The Constitution provides right now for senators to lose their pensions under certain circumstances and certain convictions, but if they retire early, they can get out from under it. Part of what you're doing is closing that loophole so you can't get around your medicine.

But there is nothing that applies to MPs specifically in the same matter. Is that left to the ability of the House to decide for itself what it does to members?

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

Those are two different questions. On the question of expulsion, it is more vague—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm just talking about—

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

—but if a member is removed the taxpayer-funded portion of the parliamentary pension is lost.