Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about our question of privilege.
Today we must deal with an unprecedented problem. The member for Peterborough, who was also the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, was recently found guilty by the Ontario Court of Justice, under the Canada Elections Act, of several offences connected with the 2008 federal election.
A judge found the member guilty of the following. First, he was found guilty of personally paying an election expense and thereby wilfully exceeding his contribution limit contrary to subsections 405(1), 497(3) and 500(5) of the Elections Act. Second, he violated, by willingly incurring election expenses in excess of the campaign expense limit, subsections 443(1) 497(3) and 500(5). Third, he was found guilty of providing an election campaign return containing a false or misleading material statement in omitting to report a campaign contribution and election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(a) and 497(3)(v) and subsection 500(5) of the Elections Act, and violating by 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 597(3)(v) and subsection 500(5).
This count was stayed at the Crown's request following the finding of guilt.
Each count carries a maximum penalty of $2,000, a year in prison, or both. I am sure the Speaker has already read the document dealing with this conviction.
These are extremely serious offences. By being found guilty of breaking the very electoral laws that put him in this place, the member has shown contempt for our democratic institutions and has undoubtedly tarnished the dignity of the House.
The second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Bosc and O'Brien, states at page 134:
Parliamentary privilege holds Members responsible for acting in character with the function they fulfil as elected representatives.
It also quotes Bourinot, 4th edition, page 64, stating that:
The right of a legislative body to suspend or expel a member for what is sufficient cause in its own judgement is undoubted. Such a power is absolutely necessary to the conservation of the dignity and usefulness of a body.
Page 135 contains other references to Maingot, second edition, page 221, which states that expulsion is advised and “extends to all cases where the offence is such as, in the judgement of the House, to render the Member unfit for parliamentary duties.” Nothing exemplifies a member's unfitness more clearly than being found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act.
As I said before, this is an unusual matter. There have only been four cases since Confederation where members of the House were expelled for having committed serious offences. We can look to the more recent events in the Senate where three appointees of the present Prime Minister were suspended without pay, and they have not even been found guilty of criminal acts in a court of law.
The second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice clearly sets out, on pages 244 and 245, all the details of the next steps to be taken by the House of Commons:
By virtue of parliamentary privilege, only the House has the inherent right to decide matters affecting its own membership. Indeed, the House decides for itself if a member should be permitted to sit on committees, receive a salary or even be allowed to keep his or her seat.
It also states:
The power of the House to expel one of its members is derived from its traditional authority to determine whether a member is qualified to sit.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to our collective privilege that requires us both to act in a manner that upholds the dignity of the House as well as to regulate our own internal affairs and membership, I am asking that you agree that this matter constitutes a prima facie case of privilege and that you invite me to move the appropriate motion. Should you do that, Mr. Speaker, I would propose a motion that would seek to immediately suspend the member for Peterborough, without salary, and refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study on the status of his membership in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that a member of this government has faced charges of election fraud. However, it is the first time that a member has been found guilty by the court of these offences and has publicly stated that he intends to keep his seat in the House of Commons, as well as all the inherent privileges.
The in-and-out scandal of the Prime Minister's senior electoral advisors, the voter suppression through illegal robocalls by Conservative Party staff, the electoral fraud of the Prime Minister's disgraced former minister of intergovernmental affairs, and the spending scandal involving the Prime Minister's appointments to the Senate all advanced Conservative interests and asked the Canadian public to pick up the tab. These are all cases that have been raised in this House.
However, this is the first time that a member has been charged and found guilty.
In closing, although the Prime Minister expelled his former parliamentary secretary from the Conservative caucus as soon as he was charged with these serious offences, other measures are required now that he has been found guilty of four counts of election fraud.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will agree that this matter constitutes a clear prima facie question of privilege, a question on which this House ought to debate and make a decision.