Debates of Nov. 4th, 2014

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the incidents occurred in 2008. I think it is a little passing strange that the Conservatives are saying that we are moving too fast, when there have been convictions on three counts.

More important is the reaction. After Justice Lisa Cameron said that the member for Peterborough had offered incredible evidence, full of inconsistencies and improbabilities, and that the member for Peterborough had frequently obfuscated, the member for Peterborough responded that it was just her opinion.

It is quite obvious to me that the member for Peterborough does not understand that in a court of law, he has brought forward his evidence, and he has been convicted now on three counts of violating the Canada Elections Act.

Conservatives will say that we should not do anything until the next election campaign. We think that shows profound disrespect for Canadians and profound disrespect for the people of Peterborough, and that is why we are moving the motion today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many different issues one could get engaged in when dealing with the Canada Elections Act. What is important is that we keep it as simple as possible going forward.

When I look at the Canada Elections Act, it is very precise in terms of its requirements when someone has been convicted. It states:

Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice or a corrupt practice under this Act shall, in addition to any other punishment for that offence prescribed by this Act, in the case of an illegal practice, during the next five years or, in the case of a corrupt practice, during the next seven years, after the date of their being so convicted, not be entitled to

(a) be elected to or sit in the House of Commons....

I am wondering if the member can bring it right back to the simplicity of the act and what the act requires this House to do.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the point we are making today in the House of Commons. It is very clear.

The government saying yesterday that it wants to put it off to the procedure and House affairs committee, which is still considering referrals it received in January 2014 and has not dealt with, is inappropriate. There need to be some initial steps, although procedure and House affairs will eventually be called upon to deal with some of those issues.

The other thing that obviously concerns us is the golden parachute and the decision this morning by Conservatives to actively shift on Bill C-518 so that in the case of the member for Peterborough, he would have a full right to his pension. They made two important amendments. I know my colleague, the member for Toronto—Danforth, will speak to this in just a moment.

It adds up to a golden parachute. We think that is a completely inappropriate response by Conservatives to what has been a conviction on three counts in a court of law on serious violations of the Canada Elections Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion is obviously very important for Canadians to be assured that there is proper accountability for elected representatives, members of Parliament, in the House.

The balance has to be struck between fairness to the member for Peterborough and the dignity of this place, frankly. The motion of my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster is two-part. The first part basically calls for voting on the motion for an immediate suspension. The second part is for the matter to be referred the procedure and House affairs committee, where other elements will be considered. These include, for example, whether an expulsion should occur and on what conditions and timing, and how matters such as pensions should be dealt with in light of the existing statutory framework and what the committee recommends as right, as a matter of general parliamentary procedure.

The issue boils down to how the House will give effect to section 502 of the Canada Elections Act. Section 502(3) of the Canada Elections Act refers to any offence that also qualifies as “an illegal practice or a corrupt practice”. A list is also provided in section 502. It includes wilfully contravening section 443, exceeding election expenses limit. Where we have such a practice, for a period of at least five years for an illegal practice and seven years for a corrupt practice, the person convicted is no longer entitled to be elected or to sit in the House of Commons.

The question becomes that the statutory provision is there for us to take seriously, but of course we are within our own realm. Within Parliament, the Speaker has made it clear that, whatever a statute says, the House has to independently decide to act on the statute. When it does so, there is a fair bit of interpretive work that needs to be done.

One piece of interpretation is what the word “conviction” means in section 502. Does it simply mean that the effects of section 502 must be felt immediately, or as immediately as the House acts on section 502? Is it upon a trial judgment entering a conviction? Alternatively, does it mean conviction once all appeals have been exhausted? Let us call that a perfected conviction, so that there is no chance left for the person who has been convicted to be discharged or acquitted.

Quite obviously, that is something that the procedure and House affairs committee will have to deal with on this motion. What is the best interpretation, and what jibes with common sense in terms of what the best outcome is?

Another interpretive question will be what the impact is when we act on section 502. Let us just say that the decision is to remove the member from the House. Does that count as an expulsion in some formal sense, or does that count as vacating the seat? It might matter, because the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act currently provides that, if a member is expelled from the House, the pension is lost. If this qualifies as some other kind of act on our part, however, even though the person would be removed by the House, it is possible that the pension would be kept.

That is a separate issue from what I will speak to at the end, about what happens if the member for Peterborough decides to resign before the House can act along the lines of removal.

It is really important that we keep in mind that there are some precedents from recent times that are not direct, but relevant. We had the case dealing with the letter sent by the Chief Electoral Officer to the Speaker and what effect that should have in terms of the right to vote and sit of two members of the House, which raised a point of parliamentary privilege. There was a tussle in the House on whether the House should wait for judicial review or whether the effect should be immediate. As a result, the so-called “Fair Elections Act” has made it clear that it does not have an automatic effect until it is clear that the courts have already dealt with it.

We continue to believe that the best interpretation of the act, as it was written, was that the effect was immediate. Of course, that was only a suspension; we are not talking about expulsion. It was completely within the realm of acceptable interpretation to think that the Canada Elections Act would suspend two members as a compliance measure for co-operating with the Chief Electoral Officer.

Here, we are talking about expulsion, so it is not the case that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has stood up and moved for an immediate expulsion. He has only moved for an immediate suspension, and that is really important to note. We already have had a degree of due process through the court process and the process leading up to the judge's decision that the member for Peterborough was guilty of the charges. It is not analogous to another case we have recently seen, which is in the Senate where three senators were summarily suspended with virtually no due process in the Senate itself, but also with no conviction in the courts. There was nothing else outside of the Senate to which to refer, to say, “this is a reason for us to suspend them; we can rely on that”. Here, we have something on which we can rely.

I submit that it makes every sense to rely on that up until such time as the faint hope occurs and a conditional or absolute discharge is the sentence instead of something more. At that point, then the suspension could be vacated. PROC can make clear that it would be the effect on this immediate suspension. We do not have to wait for it, though. The burden has already shifted because of the court process and because a judge, in full independence and neutrality, has determined that there is guilt. It is completely reasonable that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has structured the motion so that there would be an immediate suspension. As for the rest, it would go to PROC, and that includes of course the question of expulsion.

For my part, I am not going to prejudge what we might hear from those better versed than I in parliamentary law and election law, but from my perspective, expulsion should not occur until appeal measures have been exhausted. That would be the position I would be taking, but that is expulsion. Suspension can occur immediately, without an affront to any due process values.

It is also important to note that one of the effects of a suspension is that, at that point in time, the member would not have the right to speak in the House. I would submit that this does not mean the member would not have the right to testify before PROC with respect to what should be done post-suspension. However, as for standing up in this House and, for example, as seems to be the wont of this member, attacking others for what has happened to him, that would not be permitted. That is one salutary effect of suspension.

PROC should be dealing with this forthwith. I have every confidence that is what will happen, given the importance of the matter and given how my friend, the chair of PROC, runs the show. I think it is something that will be taken very seriously.

I would like to end, before moving a motion, by saying that we have come up against an issue here according to whcih it is possible for the member to resign in order to preempt the effects of an expulsion. If he actually is expelled, and that is technically what happens to him, he does lose his pension under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. If he resigns, however, there is a loophole and the bill that is about to come back from committee, Bill C-518, would not change it. It would not apply to the member. Despite some subamendments I moved today, it would not apply because the Canada Elections Act is not included in the list of offences covered, and because the conviction has to have occurred after the act would enter into force. For those two reasons, he would keep his pension if he resigns.

With that, I move:

That the motion be amended to add, after “Commons”, the following:

“, including:

(i) an expulsion of the Member, should a conviction under section 443 of the Canada Elections Act not be set aside by a competent authority and no further rights of appeal remain available to the Member, together with the appropriate Order, in those circumstances, for the Speaker to issue his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a Member to serve in the present Parliament for the electoral district of Peterborough;

(ii) the appropriate approach respecting the Member's pensions, travel status expense account, insurance and other benefits;

(iii) the appropriate approach respecting the employment of the staff, and management of the offices, of the Member; and

(iv) any other questions that arise as a result of this matter and its disposition.”

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I felt it important to stand and ask a good friend some questions on this. He has done a great job of sharing his views with us. I respect him and I respect the work he does at committee. I am having a little more trouble with his House leader at the moment.

It was discussed that, if this were to go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, it would be swept under the carpet. I am here to point out that it would need to be a very large carpet.

The other piece that the House leader suggested is that the committee is somehow derelict in its duty and behind in its times. It is one of the few committees meeting in the House every week, each time it is set to meet, and filling its time. I ask if the member for Toronto—Danforth thinks we have been slagging and not getting our work done.

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

Mr. Speaker, being a member of the committee and watching everybody else working very hard, I can say that we are always very busy. We are piled with work all the time. I personally trust that we will deal with this quickly and efficiently, but that is from the perspective of trusting the chair. I very much hope that the entire committee will operate along those lines.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague for his speech on such an important issue that is before the House today. I would also like to thank the Speaker, who just gave his ruling, for his remarks.

The member spoke little about the distinction between suspension and expulsion. I would like him to elaborate on the importance of this term in the motion before us and its repercussions.

For members who will have to take a stance on this motion, why does it propose a suspension, and how is this different from expulsion?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Quite simply, expulsion is permanent. The member loses his status as an MP and becomes an ordinary citizen without the rights conferred on parliamentarians.

When suspended, the member remains an MP, but his rights are restricted. In particular, the member cannot sit in the House, cannot vote and cannot sit on a committee. Accordingly, the member's rights are restricted but he remains an MP.

Therefore, this indicates that there is a problem. The conviction, in and of itself, is sufficient to suggest that the member should be suspended, but not definitively.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague and the NDP is this. You have introduced a motion today that talked about suspending the member based on the conviction and the sections of the act. You have now proposed an amendment that—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I did not introduce a motion, so I would ask the member to direct her comments to the Chair.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize. My question is this. Now NDP members are proposing an amendment that talks about the expulsion of the member. I would ask why they have changed that thought and why they are introducing that amendment as opposed to making it the official motion moved at the beginning of the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that the original motion already contemplated that the expulsion would be dealt with but it was not wrapped into the words of the reference to PROC. Obviously, expulsion was going to be dealt with. What I have done with my amendment is to spell that out, along with several other things that PROC will have to look at. The change is out of respect and deference for the more detailed motion that would have been presented by the government House leader. It is to say that we listened and wanted to incorporate his more detailed language so that we would all be on the same page. There is nothing different about the motion. We just further specified what was the second part of the original motion.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker had the benefit of very thorough submissions on this question of privilege yesterday and reached a decision based on them. I want to thank the Speaker for that decision and for doing so on a prompt basis.

I want to restate clearly the government's position. From the outset, I will indicate that the government is of the position that it will support the motion. In particular, we will support the amendment, which as the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth has observed, reflects the contents of the proposed motion that we wished to advance, setting out in detail some of the questions that had to be looked into by the committee on procedure and House affairs, should this be dealt with.

We had extensive submissions yesterday. They were all in a similar direction, that this is a question for the House and that it is appropriate. However, in restating the government's position, I do want to make clear from the outset what our view is and has been.

Section 443 of the Elections Act is the one that is significant. That is the section of the act that contemplates a member being expelled. While there are other convictions, it is that section that does that. There was a conviction under that particular section and I think that is what gave rise to the Speaker's prima facie finding of privilege and the question that must be dealt with here in the House.

Of course there is the other question, which is: should appeals be pursued, how does one assure natural justice? The structure we had proposed, which I think is by and large maintained by the motion from the official opposition, is that a suspension in response to the initial finding of the court is appropriate and that a decision on expulsion, finally giving full effect to what the statute contemplates, should await such time as the legal avenues available to the member are exhausted. That is the structure we had proposed and it is essentially the same structure proposed here.

First is a suspension without pay until a final determination or all appeals are exhausted. Then finally, at that point in time, the procedure and House affairs committee can make recommendations to the House on expulsion, but also on a raft of other detailed issues.

We saw this with matters elsewhere that the easy answer, quickly, sometimes leaves out many details that are important and loose ends that need to be tied down. For the benefit of everyone, we want to have some confidence that this can be done. Hence, the other aspects that were put forward in the amendment, which we will happily support.

It is in the interest of the House to reach a timely decision. In moving the motion, obviously the opposition House leader wanted the House to act quickly. I do hope they will permit the House to act quickly and make a determination on this matter. I simply say that in passing.

There have already been some important questions raised by members. In particular, the member for Dufferin—Caledon raised a number of important questions. First, he believes the hon. member should be afforded an opportunity, since it is his future being discussed, to respond to this issue and to have his say before those who are judging him. That is, of course, a fundamental principle of natural justice. It is the principle of audi alteram partem.

The House is now seized of this matter. That is not a surprise. It was raised yesterday. Everyone knew there was the likelihood of a decision very quickly. In fact, it was raised in the first instance on Friday and both the opposition House leader and I spoke to it at that time.

If the hon. member desired to exercise his right to speak to this motion he could do so right now in the House. The Speaker would be required to recognize him and give him the opportunity to be heard here. Therefore, that opportunity is afforded to him and in that sense, natural justice is provided.

However, there is a further safety valve available to assure natural justice if people do not think that is sufficient. It is one I referred to yesterday in my submissions. The committee will have an opportunity to deal with these matters, including expulsion and other related matters, and the member will have an opportunity to address those at that time.

The committee will be seized. It will have the full ambit and could potentially recommend to the House that it reconsider its decision because of subsequent judicial matters. For example, if he is fully cleared by the courts on an appeal it could say that he should be restored as a member and no longer suspended. That could be one end of the spectrum, or it could move to the other end of the spectrum and say all appeals have been exhausted, and so on, and now is the appropriate time to expel. Only then, I hope, would it act to do so. However, there will be an opportunity for the hon. member to appear there as a witness and have his case heard.

Therefore, I think we can be confident that the principle of natural justice that people seek to see maintained here, which is a good one, is available both now and ultimately at committee.

The one thing I would also add, and this is something that is not expressed in the motion but certainly one that I hope is implicit in the amendment, is that at such time as that eventuality arises, that all legal dispositions have been played out, I would hope that whatever direction is appropriate from the committee, it would come quickly so that there is nothing left in abeyance, either should he be successful on appeals and so on, that he be restored quickly, or should those avenues of appeal be exhausted, that at that time the recommendations come to the House quickly to deal with the future membership of the member in the House.

With that, and to encourage all members to let this debate come to an end quickly so that the House can vote on the motion, I will complete my comments.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the government House leader for his comments today. I was in the House and heard his comments yesterday. I have copies of what he said yesterday in the House of Commons.

First off he said it would be premature at this time for the House to suspend. The motion the government was offering yesterday was that all of the matters involving the member for Peterborough be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instructions that it report back to the House with recommendations. No due date was given, not forthwith, but just that at some point procedure and House affairs would report back.

However, there was no immediate action taken on the government motion. Procedure and House affairs was to look at suspension, impacts on the member's pension, travel status expense account, et cetera. Some of these elements, of course, the member for Toronto—Danforth and I have incorporated into the motion we offered, but this is a very clear change from where the government was yesterday.

Yesterday, the government was opposed to suspension. Yesterday, the government did not want to take any immediate action and felt we should refer it to procedure and House affairs.

My question is very simple. What changed the government's mind from yesterday?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree profoundly. The government was never opposed to suspension. In fact, that is what we suggested as the appropriate solution, pending the outcomes of appeals, and that is in fact what we recommended.

We made a case about where it should be determined and the process that should be followed. The Speaker made a ruling on this and invited the opposition House leader to make his motion. That is what has changed; not much. In fact, we are all on the same page.

If the hon. opposition House leader wants to quibble, I could stand here and say, look at his motion. It does not even contemplate expulsion. The one thing the statute talks about, that the member has to give up his seat, is not even in here. What caused him to change his position? What is so dramatic?

That kind of rhetoric may be useful and fun in a partisan way, but I think the matters we are seized with here are very serious. This is not a question of trying to gain that narrow partisan gain. Perhaps he never wanted to expel the member. Perhaps that is where he did not want to go. I will not make that argument because I do not think that is credible, nor are the arguments he is making right now credible.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my question is obviously for the government House leader.

Based on your comment yesterday that it would be—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I will make this very clear. The hon. member should address her comments directly to the Chair, not the chamber but to the Chair, and speak of the other member in the third person.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, comments made yesterday by the government side obviously spoke to the prematurity of suspending the member. Today, he quotes section 443 of the Elections Act and talks about the support of the government for expelling the member. It is all very confusing, I would say, and it is quite obvious that the government is very torn in terms of what direction it will take on this issue.

I ask the government House leader this. If there is agreement with section 443 of the Elections Act, it would indeed mean that the member would be expelled. Is that what the government supports, and if so, why is it not prepared to proceed with it immediately?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will once again state it for the member, which I did at length yesterday, and will do again today. It is reflected in the motion we have proposed, and the amendments and motion from the opposition.

The appropriate disposition is suspension pending the completion of all appeals. The fundamental principle of natural justice is that the hon. member for Peterborough should be allowed the legal rights that are available to him, and I do not think the House should deprive him of those legal rights to pursue an appeal. A suspension also responds to the fact that there is a conviction, a judgment rendered by the court on the question, and that the Speaker has made a decision that this is the appropriate time for the bringing of that prima facie motion.

Finally, the questions of administrative issues, pensions, staffing and the like, and how all of that should be handled are appropriate things to be studied by the procedure and House affairs committee, which does that, as well as the question of recommending expulsion at the appropriate time. There is no mystery or confusion; it is all quite simple. It is a serious matter. I think, though, it would be a mistake to go all nine yards forward to expulsion.

I will say one further thing. In the arguments and submissions I made yesterday, I provided precedents, which had the full range, from acting on a suspension immediately to deferring all of these matters to a committee. As I said, the Speaker has provided a decision, we are acting on it and we think the motion in front of us, with the amendments, is quite supportable.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened keenly to this debate, including the debate of my friend from Toronto—Danforth who talked about the debate being important to ensure proper accountability of members of Parliament. Then today he supported his House leader's move to immediate action. Despite the fact there remain routes of appeal, they want immediate consequences.

In light of that, there has been a determination with respect to $1.2 million in mailings and salaries for improper staff. I understand the New Democratic Party is looking to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal because it does not agree with the decision with respect to the money that is owed the House of Commons.

My question for the government House leader is this. Since the New Democrats want an immediate response, perhaps it would be possible for these monies to be paid in trust to the House of Commons pending the appeals the NDP are launching.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair is not sure that the question is relevant to the matter before the House, but I will give the hon. government House leader an opportunity to respond.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps some relevance on the principle of when justice should be rendered, and I will simply restate our position. In this case, we believe that suspension is appropriate until any avenue for appeal is exhausted or the appeal period runs out, whatever the case may be, and to act before that would be premature.

However, there is a big difference between a matter like that, which involves his rights that are very fundamental to sit in the House and the issues related there, and a simple question of a debt owed in a judgment that has been found. If I were the official opposition, I would pay my debts quickly.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you were absolutely right to say that was an irrelevant question and, of course, an irrelevant answer. We are going to be debating this over the next little while, and there are a lot of members of Parliament who want to speak to this issue.

The government House leader chided us because we simply raised the points that the Conservatives said yesterday compared to what they said today, saying that we should not be partisan. That was an appallingly inappropriate comment and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will rule on the relevancy of that. If the Conservatives are not going to take this seriously, they should be—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The opposition House leader raises the issue of relevance and I would agree. If and when during this debate the Chair enforces relevance on members on both sides, then I am sure I will have the support of all other hon. members in this place.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.