Debates of Nov. 4th, 2014

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the first opportunity I have had to rise on this debate.

It is very fundamental. This is one of the rules of this place that is so rarely used that we canvassed earlier in the debate by the hon. government House leader. Only five times in the history of Parliament has there been a decision to expel a member, although it could apply to anyone of us, whether a member of the Privy Council or an opposition backbencher.

In this place, in theory, and in principle at least, all of us are equal. There is no absolute rule that on finding of a criminal conviction any particular member has to be expelled.

The appropriate thing is to follow the route as put forward by the official opposition's amended motion to allow the member for Peterborough to defend himself and discuss it among other members of Parliament.

However, there is no denying it or getting around it. I will say freely in this place that especially since the hon. member for Peterborough became an independent, I have had occasion to work more closely with him. I have tremendous sympathy for the situation in which he now finds himself. Except for the fact that he is now criminally convicted, a judge has found his evidence not credible, that will weigh heavily against him in any appeal. The finding of the trial judge that he was not credible makes it unlikely that he can succeed on appeal.

It is not for us to decide. The courts will decide. However, the people of Canada expect the members of this place to operate to a high standard. It is quite appropriate that we, as a collective group in the House, take the actions that have been proposed. I want to put that position on the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, the provision in section 43 contemplates that in the case of an adverse finding that the member would no longer be permitted to have their seat. The jurisdiction remains for the House to make the decision, but it is important for the House to have regard for those particular provisions.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Drummond, The Environment; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, Health.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the members who have contributed to the debate thus far, I am inclined and convinced that we would be making a grave mistake by not keeping things as simple as possible, moving forward with respect to precisely what is expected us as the House of Commons, which is expel the member for Peterborough.

In our view, the Canada Elections Act is perfectly clear. Section 502 states that someone convicted of an illegal practice under the act is prohibited from being elected or sitting as an MP for five years from the date of conviction.

Let me quote the Canada Elections Act, subsection 502(3), which states:

Consequences of illegal, corrupt practices

(3) 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; or

(b) hold any office in the nomination of the Crown or of the Governor in Council.

We need to be clear on that point. It does not say from the date that all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted or some other complicated trigger.

I have listened to the government representatives, in particular the government House leader. I have heard the representations that have been put forward from the official opposition. As much as they want to justify whatever type of actions, such as incorporating the procedures and House affairs committee, it is nothing more than a justification for a position which they are attempting to take.

The Elections Act is very clear. The trigger for the prohibition of being an MP is from the date of conviction. That date of conviction was October 31. For the next five years, the member for Peterborough is currently prohibited from being an MP. The act could not be any clearer than that.

At this point, I would like to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Labrador.

Let us remember that the Canada Elections Act was passed by Parliament. This is not some foreign body imposing its will on the House; it was the House of Commons that in fact passed the law. It is our law. If Parliament is to have any credibility whatsoever, then the least we are required to do is to follow the laws which we have passed.

It is not acceptable to simply give the member for Peterborough a pass because he is a member of Parliament and he has some friends inside the House. Opposition members have suggested that we study it for a while and see what happens. That is just not credible.

The act is clear. The issue is that the individual in question, the member for Peterborough, needs to and must be expelled. That is what we should be voting on today. The member for Peterborough has been convicted. Under the law, he has no right to sit in the House of Commons for five years. It is as simple as that. That is the law.

Our duty now is to uphold the law, and if we are going to uphold the law, that means there should be a vote to expel the member for Peterborough. If we fail to do this, if we choose to start ignoring the law, then the House puts at risk its own credibility.

We are suggesting that what has been brought forward in terms of the amendments and the motion itself have in fact fallen short of what the law requires us to do inside the House today. Therefore, I would ask if there is unanimous consent that the amendment as proposed be withdrawn and that the original motion be amended by deleting all the words after “immediately” and substituting the following: “Expel the member from the House in accordance with section 502(3) of the act”.

In essence, it would mean that with regard to the guilty verdict of October 31 against the member for Peterborough on four counts of violating the Canada Elections Act, the House would immediately expel the member from the House in accordance with section 502(3) of the act.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would canvass the House to see if we would have unanimous consent to do what it is that we have been charged to do according to the law.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North have unanimous consent to read the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going back to the original question that I asked the House leader of the New Democratic Party.

Everyone is referring to the time of conviction. The time of conviction may be at the end of an appeal period, because at the end of the appeal period, that is it. However, it could conceivably go to another appeal court, and another appeal court beyond that, or new evidence could be presented and a new trial could be ordered. Anything could happen, yet we are going to drive a spike through this guy's heart right now. I think that is wrong.

My question to the member is on the time of conviction. When is that? When does the member think that is? Is it now? Is it when the appeal period expires? If the member for Peterborough appeals this conviction, is it at that time? If there is another appeal beyond that, is it at that time?

The member for Peterborough has some rights, for heaven's sake. Are we not going to give them to him?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, actually, all we have to do is follow the law. The law says “from the date of conviction”. The date of conviction was October 31. The law does not say “from the date that all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted” or provide some other complicated trigger. The law is very simple and straightforward. Everyone can understand it when it is put in front of us, which is the reason I asked for unanimous consent, which, unfortunately, was denied. I would suggest that if individuals read what the law says, they would know that it compels us to vote on expelling the member.

If other members do not want to expel, then fine, they can vote that way, but at the very least let us attempt to follow the law by putting the motion that is most important, which would compel us to have a vote on the expulsion of the member for Peterborough.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to our friend from Winnipeg North. He speaks a lot in the House.

On some occasions what we are talking about affects us here in Parliament, as this does, because the law that we are referring to today and the motion of privilege that the Speaker ruled on affects all of us in our conduct and behaviour. It should be established how high the bar is set in the Canada Elections Act on order to be convicted of the crime that the member for Peterborough has been convicted of. I do not think that was in the member's comments. This is a very difficult thing, and it has been since 2008.

My question for our friend from the Liberal Party is around the culture that seems to have been permeating some parts of the Conservative Party. With Mr. Penashue, who was accused of similar things, we saw that the recourse was taken differently.

Is there not some conversation among Canadians in which they worry about the degrading quality and content of what goes on in our elections when they see criminal charges like this successfully brought to a sitting member of Parliament? Is this not something, regardless of our political affiliations, that we should all be seized with? The deterioration of voters' confidence in those they elect to sit in office degrades this very place itself and the integrity of our democratic institutions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question that has been put forward. Canadians as a whole have great expectations of their legislators. They want us to do the right thing on issues of this nature and on all things.

In this particular case of privilege, I have tried in the best way I can to simplify it. We have a conviction. The law is clear that upon conviction, the member needs to be expelled. It is only the House that can actually expel the member. We can give a vote of confidence to our election laws by having that vote today.

We need to reinforce the importance of our election laws. We, as legislators, need to follow the law.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I must point out that the list of adjournment proceedings questions that was read earlier was in fact incorrect, so I need to do it again.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. Paul's, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Employment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Labrador.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to contribute to the debate today. It is a sad occasion and an unfortunate situation for the member and his family, who are directly affected. I am sure none of us in the House take any pleasure in having to engage in debates of this nature. However, we as parliamentarians have been seized with the responsibility of dealing with this issue. While there are many pressing issues in this country that require our attention, we have to make a decision on the issue before us today.

We cannot ignore the facts. This particular issue has been in the media for quite some time. It goes back to 2006. It has been well debated in many circles by many pundits through many broadcasts. There have been a lot of opinions on this issue, as there were on the issue of Peter Penashue, the former member for Labrador.

We live in a country that is governed by the rule of law. We live in a country that takes the rule of law seriously. It is what makes us strong as a country. It is what makes us strong as a democracy. Therefore, when incidents like this happen, and we are confronted with a decision, we do not have a choice. We cannot suddenly ignore the law or bend the law that has been set in this country because of a particular circumstance for a particular person, a particular occupation, or a particular profession.

In this case, an independent, third-party, objective process has been engaged in. We have seen the courts at work. We have seen concerns expressed. We have seen the rule of law being conducted. Witnesses were called. We heard testimony from individuals who were impacted. All of this occurred in an independent, objective, third-party way that was removed from the House of Commons. It is called justice in this country. It is called the judiciary system, which makes those decisions.

Both parties had legal representation. They were able to bring forward their arguments and the facts. At the end of the day, the court rendered its decision. We have confidence in our legal system to make the right decisions, and we have no reason to believe that this was not the case. On October 31, we had a decision taken by the court, after a tremendous amount of consideration, and we have the verdict we have today. Parliamentarians are now left to look at how we proceed from here.

It is not an easy decision. I previously sat for a number of years in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador. I sat through a process that saw four of my colleagues in that chamber convicted and sentenced to serve time. It had to do with illegal spending, how budgets were conducted, and what was appropriate or inappropriate.

This is not a new issue. It is a different issue. It is a different chamber. However, it is not unlike the process in the House of Assembly I served in.

In this particular case, as parliamentarians, we have to look at the sections of the law that govern us.

We have to look at the verdict that has been given on October 31. We have to look at what the impact of that is on the member, and while we take no pleasure in having to look at motions in the House today that look at suspending or expelling the member simply because of the verdict, we have no choice.

In my opinion, our decision should be very clear. When we look at section 443 of the Canada Elections Act, and we look at the fact that the member has been convicted, the next course of action would be to have the member expelled. I know that members opposite want to talk about going through this appeal or that appeal, and those standards are out there, but unless we are going to change the rule of law in the country today that we are governed by, it is very clear that upon conviction a member would be expelled. That is really what this debate in the House is coming down to.

It is no longer a debate of whether it should go to committee and be reviewed. It has come down to a debate among members on whether we should be expelling the member based on the conviction, according to section 443 of the Canada Elections Act and what it states, or whether we should not. Should we give him an opportunity to go through appeals and other processes, but can anyone dispute the fact that we have already had an independent third party process? We have already gone through the court system. A verdict was given on October 31 and the member was convicted.

The decision before us is obvious. My colleague from Winnipeg North's amendment was not accepted to be voted upon by the House. It is unfortunate because his reference to subsection 502(3) is directly related to corruption practices and what happens when there is a conviction for a committed offence and where there are legal and corrupt practices by a member. It is very clear.

It is unfortunate that what I am seeing is a tangled web around this whole issue, where it should not be. If every member were to read these sections of the act and look at the conviction that was passed down on October 31, I do not think we would even be having the kind of debate we are having right now. We would be moving to what we see as expelling the member based on the rule of law under which we pass and practice in this country.

I move:

That the amendment be further amended by deleting the words:

“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;”

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The subamendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of debate about the fact that there should be an expulsion. Of course what I hear in the member's motion is not expulsion now but expulsion some time in the future, and for good reason.

First, as I understand the facts, there has not been a sentencing as of yet. There have not been any appeals that have gone forward, obviously, because there has not been a sentence. In fact, there is some suggestion that there may be new evidence introduced that may cause the judge to overturn the decision or do something else, so there may not be the conviction.

I appreciate this is a serious matter, and I appreciate the fact that this House can take some interim steps like suspension. However, before it does something like an expulsion, it should at least adhere to some fundamental principles like hearing from the person whom it is going to expel. We would want to think that there would be that provision.

How can the member say that her proposition is either fair or reasonable, without giving the person in question the opportunity to present himself before some forum to make adequate defence and to indicate what the facts really are?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, again it is another situation where we hear the government talking from both sides.

It was only a little while ago when the government House leader stood in this place and outlined all of the opportunities that the member had to actually stand in the House and make representation of his own case. I would like to remind him of what his colleague has already stated for the House. In fact, the government House leader outlined several occasions on which the member could stand, including right here this afternoon when the member could be standing.

However, notwithstanding that fact, there is always opportunity, and that opportunity came in a court of law. It came in an independent third-party process in this country, a process that Canadians have held up as the very symbol of what this country has been built on. That is the rule of law and following that law and applying that law regardless of who one is or what office one holds. That is what I want to remind the member of, and that is the section of which we speak today.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my colleague from Labrador a question, I wanted to say that I think it is rather interesting to hear Conservative members say that the member for Peterborough should be able to speak and defend himself, while they themselves did not give me a chance to defend myself when they were looking into some of our mailings. I was targeted in that case.

Going back to my colleague and her speech, I would like to know whether she thinks it is important to act quickly to show that we are exercising due diligence in the face of such serious issues. I would also like her to explain why it is important to set an example for Canadians who are subject to laws and must abide by them. If they do not comply, they suffer the consequences.

Why is it important for the House to set an example in the case of members of Parliament who do not abide by the law, when the courts have found that these people broke the law?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the reason we have to act quickly is simply because the law states we must act quickly. It says upon conviction, and that conviction occurred on October 31.

This is not an issue that any of us takes any pleasure in, and I said that right from the beginning. However, what I would say for the hon. member is that we cannot sit in a place where we make laws and then all of a sudden when the time comes to start applying those in a very stringent way, we want to look at what other options there are. I am not into that practice. I do not want to play that game.

All I am saying is that the law in this country is very clear in a situation like this. I have seen it happen in another chamber in which I served. I saw four other people who were convicted and sentenced. There was absolutely no fun in that.

However, I will say that all Canadians deserve to have representation. They deserve to have a voice in this chamber. They deserve to have someone who stands for them. In order for that to happen, that person has to be elected and serving under the current laws that we have in place in this country.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my esteemed colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

This is an interesting debate. I am a young member of Parliament—not only in terms of age, but also in terms of the number of years I have served my constituents here in Parliament. I say that because journalists were so fascinated by the unprecedented number of young members in the House, and they would often ask us questions about cynicism to find out what was the most pleasant surprise we experienced in our work and what we found most disappointing.

We have obviously had a lot of pleasant surprises in our ridings. However, I want to focus on the disappointments, since today we are debating a disappointing and extremely problematic situation.

When I was asked this question, I said that one thing I found disappointing was going door to door in my riding—and I am sure many of my colleagues experience the same thing—and hearing from constituents that they are proud of our good work and how we represent people, but that they are not interested in politics and do not follow it.

Despite the hard work of every member of Parliament, there is a certain cynicism that is fuelled by actions like those of the member for Peterborough and by the elections fraud convictions. This type of thing contributes to growing cynicism.

Given the public nature of our work, it is easy to fuel this cynicism. In other workplaces, you do not hear about a crime that was committed over and over again in the news. Of course, there are some exceptions. However, since we serve the public and, moreover, this issue is a matter of public interest, it is widely talked about, which breeds more cynicism.

I am not saying that we should not talk about this issue. It is crucial that we talk about it. However, this demonstrates to what degree the actions of one MP, particularly given the history of a political party, or even several political parties, can taint the work of an entire institution and all of its members.

That is why it is really important to take action, as we are doing today by supporting the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, to suspend the member for Peterborough and refer his case to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Let us be very clear. If the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examines this issue, this means that the member for Peterborough may be called to appear as a witness, if that is what the committee wants.

The government is claiming that the member did not have the chance to plead his case. However, let us look at how many times a question of privilege was raised, the many questions that were asked in question period, and all of the other opportunities he had to speak up.

What about the fact that he is a member of Parliament and that he has a public forum available to him by way of the media, for example? Did he not have many opportunities to speak out and share his point of view, not to mention the opportunity to be heard in court? He had plenty of opportunities to share his side of the story and he may even have more.

It is completely ridiculous to make him out to be a victim who did not have the opportunity to share his side of the story. This only serves to fuel public cynicism. The actions of the member in question created a perfect storm of cynicism.

It is very unfortunate that we are here debating the suspension of an MP, even though we agree with it. We agree that he should be suspended and that his salary, benefits, MP budget and so on should be cut off.

However, if I am not mistaken, a year ago the Senate was also debating the possibility of suspending Conservative senators and a former Liberal senator.

The fact that we are once again debating the possibility of suspending a parliamentarian demonstrates how prevalent the extremely problematic culture of entitlement has become. There is also a lack of responsibility.

Even though the government seems to be announcing its intention to support our motion, this seeming desire to prove that the member for Peterborough is somehow a victim will only serve to fuel cynicism, as I have said many times before, and entrench this culture that exists in Ottawa and that must change.

That is why I appreciate how this debate was brought forward, the position that we have taken and my colleague's motion. This was all done very responsibly. That means that this case requires some study and that there are a certain nuances to consider. These are complicated issues. He was found guilty, but the House nevertheless has its own will and must determine how far it is willing to go. It is also about managing the future, because this is not the first time we have seen a Conservative member being convicted of such things. There was also the former minister and member for Labrador, Mr. Penashue. Then there is the current heritage minister and the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. There were the in and out and the robocall scandals. There are all sorts of examples, to say nothing of the party that supported them. We have seen situations that tainted the good work of this institution.

It is important to study the situation so that we can proceed responsibly, but not suspending the member in the meantime would be irresponsible. If that happened, we would go on seeing our constituents, who would tell us that we are doing good work but that things like this make them wonder if they can trust politicians and their work. We must make this decision immediately so as not to stoke that cynicism.

I would like to go back to the example I was talking about earlier, about the fact that this is the second time in a year we are having this debate—once in the Senate and now in the House of Commons. I think this demonstrates the need for major change.

The Minister of State (Democratic Reform) introduced the unfair elections act. We called it that in the nicest way possible considering it was such a mess of a bill. There have been attempts to use that to make political hay, to try to change things, to stack the deck even more, but in the end, it is not just the laws but the culture that must change. I am sure that my colleagues agree.

I think it is interesting to see that even the Conservatives, who seem to support my colleague's motion, are unable to take ownership of the actions of a member who was, as we all know, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.

In this case, the Prime Minister himself trusted the member. When the Leader of the Opposition read him some of his own words during question period today, the Prime Minister rose in the House and defended the member. Not only did he defend him, but he also made statements that contradicted the court's ruling. The judge said that documents were missing, but the Prime Minister said that all of the documents had been provided. The best answer the Prime Minister could come up with in question period today was that it was not a problem because they removed him from their caucus and he was no longer a Conservative. We heard the same argument with respect to the senators. Unfortunately, we are likely to hear the same argument in the future.

What is also troubling about this argument, as it was in the case of Senators Brazeau, Duffy, Wallin and company, and in the case of the member for Peterborough, is that they were found guilty of actions committed while they enjoyed the trust of the Prime Minister, who appointed the first individuals to the Senate and made the member his parliamentary secretary. That is completely unacceptable.

Today, we must suspend this member and refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Contrary to what the chair of the committee said, we will be pleased to do the work and to show due diligence in studying this case. Let us not fuel cynicism; let us take a small step and suspend the member.

It will take a lot of these small steps, but it will be a step in the right direction for democracy and to rekindle Canadians' optimism.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the member talk at length about the importance of applying the law of the land to the people of this place, and I agree with him on that.

I want to ask the member if he believes in consistency in applying the law of the land to members of all political parties. His party had several members who got together and illegally spent over $1 million to fund illegal satellite offices. They are only protected by the Board of Internal Economy, which meets secretly and requires all parties to agree before anything can be done.

If the member believes in consistency, he should agree to change that decision and have his party support the other parties and the Board of Internal Economy to discipline and punish those who spent over $1 million illegally on illegal satellite offices.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the hon. member, I will just remind all hon. members that there is a particular motion before the House, and questions and comments should be relevant to the business that is specifically before the House.

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that clarity, because we are actually talking about the criminal conviction here and not a political conviction by a kangaroo court.

The member for Peterborough has been criminally charged by a court. Let us face it, I completely agree with my colleague when he says that the law should apply. I know he is getting very upset, and I understand why it can be frustrating, because with the cheap political antics of the other two parties in these kangaroo courts, they seem to think this is some kind of counterweight to criminal convictions.

When I go door to door in my riding, as I said in my comments, I do not get constituents who are concerned about these kinds of political actions. I get constituents who are concerned about criminal actions. That is why we need to suspend this member and study this in the procedure and House affairs committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to the Elections Act being actually fairly clear. It states that one cannot sit in the House for five years upon conviction. It does not talk about appeals or anything of this nature. It states that one cannot be sitting inside the House upon conviction. That is what has happened with the member for Peterborough.

Does my friend believe that justice would actually be better served if we, as parliamentarians, followed a very specific law dealing with Elections Canada law, of all things?

We all know the history, in terms of election issues, at the national level. Would the right thing to do not be to have a discussion and end the debate on the issue of expulsion? That is really what we should be debating and voting on. Would the member not agree with that?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first part of my reply to my colleague's question, whom I would like to thank, is to refer to the Speaker, who said that it is up to the House to determine the future, if I can put it that way, of one of its own members. That is what we are doing today.

Clearly, there is a lack of consensus about this way of proceeding. That is why, before talking about expulsion, I believe that the responsible thing to do is to study the matter in committee, even though the rules are clear and we know that the member in question was found guilty by the court. In accordance with the Speaker's decision, let us study the case in committee.

Contrary to what was initially proposed by the government, it is also important that we not go to committee without first suspending the member, thus taking an important step that signals to Canadians that this kind of conduct is considered unacceptable by the House, and that the House acts in a responsible manner.

The committee's decision will be extremely important. Ultimately, it will set a precedent. I believe we should act in a responsible manner. I will reiterate that, at the same time, we must suspend the member in order not to fuel cynicism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to very important issue. In my opinion, the motion moved by the House leader of the official opposition is of utmost importance. I want to emphasize that the amendments proposed by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth are also very important. I am truly pleased that most of the members of this House will be supporting this motion, because it will send a clear message to the Canadian people. As my colleague said several times during his speech, we cannot let this kind of thing go on, and assume that, as parliamentarians, we are armour-plated and protected and nothing can touch us.

Last week's charges against the member for Peterborough are very serious. There is no argument that the elected members sitting in the House of Commons must not have been convicted of charges as serious as violating the Canada Elections Act. It seems so simple, that I find it all deplorable.

I would like to speak more specifically about one point. In fact, it is a strange coincidence that this happened today of all days. I want to remind the House that in the amendment presented by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, in (ii), he specifically mentions the steps to be taken with regard to a member's benefits, including his or her retirement pension.

Today, as it happens, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was conducting a clause-by-clause study of Bill C-518, introduced by my colleague fromNew Brunswick Southwest. This bill very clearly states that a member of Parliament or a senator cannot, by resigning, escape the consequences that his or her expulsion from the House or Senate would entail. This speaks directly to this motion and the situation we are facing today.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest has repeated over and over that what he was ultimately trying to do with this bill was to close a loophole. The loophole resulted from the fact that when a senator or member was found guilty of breaking a law or having otherwise done something that would lead to his expulsion from the House or Senate, instead of waiting for the House or Senate to take the appropriate measures and decide to expel him, the person concerned could simply say that he had had enough and was resigning.

And what would happen? Such persons would be entitled to their pensions, as if nothing had happened. Life would go on, happily. They could get their money, and neither the House of Commons nor the Senate could do anything about it. This has never happened in the House, but it has happened several times in the Senate. That is the problem my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest has tried to solve with his bill.

And what happened then? The question is fundamentally rather complicated, because there are many aspects involved. It was necessary to be as inclusive as possible, but without including too much, of course. Thus, there were several options open to us. Was it necessary to draw up a list of infractions that could lead to this result?

In the end, I think that my colleague, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, has found the best solution. He introduced an amendment this morning, during the clause-by-clause study of the bill. I repeat, this only happened this morning. The hon. member simply proposed to amend the act to provide for cases where the House or the Senate are involved in the process leading up to an expulsion. We could insert wording in the act providing that if the House or Senate passed a motion recognizing that an individual had resigned, but was still a member or senator, his or her pension would be revoked.

Therefore, all we need to do is give ourselves the power to use the same process as that followed for expulsion. That way, we would cover all cases where a person has been found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act, for example. The House would find it unacceptable that such a person was entitled to his pension simply because he resigned before being held accountable to the House or the Senate, because that is not relevant. That person should not be entitled to a pension.

That was by far the best solution, but in the end another amendment was passed earlier, probably by the committee's majority, as we can all surmise. That amendment lists a number of infractions, but only those under the Criminal Code. If a person is found guilty of any one of them, the law will apply.

All of this will apply only after the law is passed, which is very specific to their amendment. There is no retroactive provision, although several experts told us in committee that it would not be a problem to make it retroactive.

When the NDP amendment was rejected and we knew that the majority amendment was going to be adopted, we introduced amendments to the amendment to try to add certain specific aspects regarding the Canada Elections Act.

We are elected members of Parliament and we must stand for election every four years—or less often, if there is a minority government. As elected members, we must go back to the people and ask them to vote for us. And now I am told that a member can remain in place here without suffering any consequences, despite having broken our country's election law.

Last spring, when we were debating Bill C-23, we saw how little respect the Conservatives have for the Canada Elections Act and how ready they were to change it all to gain an advantage.

Regarding what happened this morning, it is worthwhile to read the short title of the bill introduced by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest: “Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act”. It is quite strange that a bill with such a fine title and such an interesting principle does not apply in any way to a person who violates the Canada Elections Act.

That is why I think the amendments proposed by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth to the motion on which we are about to vote are very important. Even though this bill has gone through today's clause-by-clause study, it is even more important than ever to return to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and ask the members to look into the strategy concerning the member's benefits, particularly his pension.

Today we saw that there is a lack of consistency and the results will not be what my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest had hoped for. He talked about similar situations, even though at the time he obviously did not know that a member of his own party would be convicted of a crime. Nonetheless, the fact remains that it is the same principle and such principles should apply to all members and senators.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this motion. I will vote in favour of this motion because I like to think that by doing so there will be a little more justice in this world.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's remarks were very thoughtful.

The question I would like to put for the member is this. The motion that has been put forward, as amended twice over, simply says that we have a situation where a member of the chamber has been convicted of violating a federal law, a very significant federal law, one that establishes the electoral rules to place us in the chamber and that determine whether the member, who has now been convicted, can take his place in the chamber.

It appears to me, and I will ask the member, that it is a reasonable proposition before the House that the member be suspended until such time as the appeal period lapses or the outcome of the appeal. We have to uphold the reputation of this place, and I think Canadians expect us to assume our responsibilities to do that.

The member has made some very cogent remarks. I would agree with her that it is appropriate to refer this matter to the standing committee, which may determine the appropriate measures to take at the appropriate time and look at the alternative measures available, depending on what occurs in the judicial process.