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

[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.

[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]

Sure.

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

This list is available in English and French. These are all indictable offences for which the penalty is at least five or more years. The 19 include: intimidating Parliament or a legislature; bribery of officers; frauds on the government; contractors subscribing to election fraud; breach of trust by a public officer; perjury; contrary evidence with intent to mislead; fabricating evidence; obstructing justice with dissuasion; theft over $5,000; criminal breach of trust; possession of property over $5,000; false pretence, property over $5,000; draw document without authority; obtaining, etc., based on forged documents; fraud over $5,000; falsification of books and documents; false return by a public officer; and, secret commissions.

These modifications would keep the spirit of the bill entirely intact and I believe would address the concerns I've heard from honourable colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Williamson. Thank you for staying on time. Fantastic.

We'll go first to Mr. Reid.

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

I thought Mr. Lukiwski was first and I was second.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski and then Mr. Reid.

Okay, you're interchangeable. That works well for me.

You have seven minutes, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thanks very much.

John, I want to probe a little bit.

How did you come by this bill? What was your motivation to bring this bill forward?

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

My motivation actually goes back to my days with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

I was sitting in my Ottawa office, as I recall. I was there when Senator Lavigne was found guilty of several crimes, fraud and breach of trust being two of them. He was set to be expelled by the Senate. Ultimately, Lavigne resigned before he was to be expelled, thereby keeping his parliamentary pension. He served his time in jail, and while he was in jail he was collecting a parliamentary pension. Today he's a free man—guilty, a dishonourable senator—and he continues to collect a pension worth $67,000.

I remember the outrage of taxpayers across the country when it was announced that he had been found guilty of fleecing taxpayers yet was entitled to retain his pension, frankly because of a loophole in the law. Had he not been able to resign, he would have been ejected from the Senate and would have therefore lost his parliamentary pension.

This bill closes that loophole. If you commit crimes against taxpayers, you steal money from taxpayers and you're found guilty in a court of law—which I think is very important, in that it's not Parliament, not a partisan body deciding your guilt; it is a court of law—that should be enough to trigger the loss of a pension.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I'm sorry, John, I should know this and I apologize. Is this only applicable to crimes that have occurred—you say a theft of taxpayers' dollars—by abusing his or her parliamentary status? If there is an outside crime not related to Parliament and is indictable, a penalty of over five years, will that trigger this as well?

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

It's my intent that it should be narrowed to our duties as members of Parliament.

I've heard examples about sitting on a board, for example, and you're convicted of a crime there. Should that apply? My thinking is that it should not necessarily. The aim is to get at crimes that have occurred through one's conduct as a parliamentarian.

We're all put in positions of trust with tax dollars, whether it's our own expense accounts or those of the government at large, individuals in cabinet or another position of authority. My purpose is to focus on measures that have occurred out of the conduct of one's duty and not beyond that.

I believe we should narrow the scope to the 19 charges I have laid out because someone raised a very good point. We all drive a lot in our ridings. I know I certainly do. Even at the five-year threshold, which is the threshold that the NDP government included in Nova Scotia, if I were to, God forbid, hit someone in my riding and kill that person, even under the five years, that would trigger a loss in pension.

The purpose is not to have someone, through a momentary lapse of judgment or in error lose a pension; it's for the ongoing or deliberate fraud or actions that I think these 19 charges that I've laid out cover.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you. That clarifies it.

I understand completely what you're saying about being charged with involuntary manslaughter or for hitting someone while driving. However, if you were convicted of a heinous crime—rape, murder, manslaughter—you're saying that your bill wouldn't trigger a loss of pension.

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

No, it wouldn't. We've seen that case even with some public servants. I've chosen to narrow it in a way that focuses on our duties as members of Parliament or senators.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

How much time do I have, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

The final question maybe depends on the length of the answer.

Could you provide us with information? Had your bill been in effect years ago, say 30 or 40 years ago, how many instances would there have been in Canada where either senators or members of Parliament would have lost their pension?

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

I probably could provide that. We could go through.... I think Senator Lavigne would be a good example.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I wonder how common this has been.

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

That's a really good question. I actually don't think it has been terribly common, much as the House of Commons over its entire history has thrown out only four members—one of them twice, I believe. Along the same thinking, this is not something where we're going to see members of Parliament or senators losing pensions left, right, and centre. Actually, if anything, it is a deterrent. If individuals are found guilty, they will lose a pension, but I don't believe you'd find probably more than a dozen or two examples. I'd be surprised if you found more than a dozen over the last 10 or 20 years, as you suggested.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Again, going back to the motivation, you're thinking that this bill will be fairly widely publicized if it's passed into law. Do you feel that the deterrent aspect of this bill could perhaps play a role in convincing more senators and members of Parliament to be actually honourable, as their title suggests?

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

Yes, I do. I think we all work hard as members of Parliament. We're well remunerated, but another of the benefits of service is a pension after we've served our time here. These are generous pensions. We've changed them; we're making them less generous, but they do provide for income in retirement. I think that's something that no member would want to play around with, and currently, with that loophole, that's not a problem.

I do think it would provide greater deterrence to bad behaviour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

We'll go to Mr. Scott, for seven minutes, please.

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

Mr. Williamson, I want to follow a bit on Tom's questions.

Regarding the list of 19 offences, they have an animating idea of connection to office—that's the way you've explained it—but then there's an added layer. You seem to be suggesting it includes offences that somehow or other go to abuse of the taxpayer.

I'm wondering whether there are any crimes on this list that you would have an overarching provision for to say that if this crime is committed in relation to office.... I'm looking at possession of property over $5,000, theft over $5,000. These are clearly crimes, but as explained, they don't necessarily cover only offences in office.

Will there be an overarching provision in your amendment, which we're going to have to work for, to say that it's these crimes as long as they are committed in these circumstances? Is that the way you envision it?

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

Absolutely. I have something written up. I didn't include it in today's testimony, but it's very much along those lines, that it would be very much in the conduct of one's duty as a member of Parliament, or senator, for that matter.

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

Okay, that clarifies it. I can see the list narrowing, but the list also covers stuff that doesn't seem to fit exactly what you were saying in total.

Thank you.

The other question is whether you've considered whether or not at the threshold level.... You've narrowed it now by crimes, the least serious of which carry five years, and others much more. Have you considered the whole issue of the sentence as a trigger?