PROC Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs met at 11:00 a.m. this day, in Room 112-N, Centre Block, the Chair, Joe Preston, presiding.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Alternative Title, was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

On Clause 2

Craig Scott moved, — That Bill C-518, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 1 to line 3 on page 2 with the following:

“(2) Subsection (1) also applies to a person who ceases to be a member as of the coming into force of this subsection if

(a) he or she has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament that was prosecuted by indictment;

(b) the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member; and

(c) the Senate or the House of Commons adopts a motion declaring

(i) that, in its view, that person would have been disqualified from the Senate or expelled from the House of Commons, as the case may be, had that person not ceased to be a member, or

(ii) that the seat of the person to whom section 750 of the Criminal Code applies is vacant.

(3) The application of subsection (1) or (2) does not affect any allowance that a former spouse or former common-law partner of the member or former member received or will be entitled to receive.

(4) The amount referred to in subsection (1) or (2) shall have deducted from it any amount necessary for the payment in full of the allowance referred to in subsection (3).”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

The Chair ruled that the following five (5) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also inadmissible:

“(2) Subsection (1) also applies to a person who ceases to be a member as of the coming into force of this subsection if

(a) he or she has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament that was prosecuted by indictment;

(b) the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member; and

(c) the Senate or the House of Commons adopts a motion determining that, in the view of the Senate or the House of Commons, that person would have been disqualified from the Senate or expelled from the House of Commons, as the case may be, had that person not ceased to be a member.

(3) The application of subsection (1) or (2) does not affect any allowance that a former spouse or former common-law partner of the member or former member received or will be entitled to receive.

(4) The amount referred to in subsection (1) or (2) shall have deducted from it any amount necessary for the payment in full of the allowance referred to in subsection (3).”

That Bill C-518, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 2 the following:

“(3) The application of subsection (1) or (2) does not affect any allowance that a former spouse or former common-law partner of the member or former member received or will be entitled to receive.

(4) The amount referred to in subsection (1) or (2) shall have deducted from it any amount necessary for the payment in full of the allowance referred to in subsection (3).”

That Bill C-518, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 22 on page 2 with the following:

“(2) Subsection (1) also applies to a person who ceases to be a member as of the coming into force of this subsection if

(a) he or she has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament that was prosecuted by indictment;

(b) the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member; and

(c) the Senate or the House of Commons adopts a motion declaring

(i) that, in its view, that person would have been disqualified from the Senate or expelled from the House of Commons, as the case may be, had that person not ceased to be a member, or

(ii) that the seat of the person to whom section 750 of the Criminal Code applies is vacant.

(3) The application of subsection (1) or (2) does not affect any allowance that a former spouse or former common-law partner of the member or former member received or will be entitled to receive.

(4) The amount referred to in subsection (1) or (2) shall have deducted from it any amount necessary for the payment in full of the allowance referred to in subsection (3).”

That Bill C-518, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 22 on page 2 with the following:

“(2) Subsection (1) also applies to a person who ceases to be a member as of the coming into force of this subsection if

(a) he or she has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament that was prosecuted by indictment;

(b) the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member; and

(c) the Senate or the House of Commons adopts a motion determining that, in the view of the Senate or the House of Commons, that person would have been disqualified from the Senate or expelled from the House of Commons, as the case may be, had that person not ceased to be a member.

(3) The application of subsection (1) or (2) does not affect any allowance that a former spouse or former common-law partner of the member or former member received or will be entitled to receive.

(4) The amount referred to in subsection (1) or (2) shall have deducted from it any amount necessary for the payment in full of the allowance referred to in subsection (3).”

That Bill C-518, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 2 the following:

“(3) The application of subsection (1) or (2) does not affect any allowance that a former spouse or former common-law partner of the member or former member received or will be entitled to receive.

(4) The amount referred to in subsection (1) or (2) shall have deducted from it any amount necessary for the payment in full of the allowance referred to in subsection (3).”

“(2) Subsection (1) also applies to a person who ceases to be a member as of the coming into force of this subsection if

(a) he or she has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament that was prosecuted by indictment;

(b) the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member; and

(c) the Senate or the House of Commons adopts a motion declaring

(i) that, in its view, that person would have been disqualified from the Senate or expelled from the House of Commons, as the case may be, had that person not ceased to be a member, or

(ii) that the seat of the person to whom section 750 of the Criminal Code applies is vacant.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Craig Scott and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott, Scott Simms — 4; NAYS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Blake Richards, Chris Warkentin — 5.

“ceases or has ceased to be a member and who is convicted, on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force, of an offence that arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member, a withdrawal allowance, in a lump sum, equal to the amount determined according to the following formula:

A + B - C

where

A is the total amount of the contributions that the person has paid under this Part and Parts I, III and IV of the former Act;

B is the interest on those contributions that the person has paid under section 11 or 11.1 or under section 23 of the former Act; and

C is any retirement allowance paid to the person under this Part prior to the day on which the person is convicted of the offence.

(3) If the amount determined according to the formula under subsection (2) is negative, the amount is deemed to be zero.

(4) In subsection (2), “offence” means an offence under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code:

(a) section 51 (intimidating Parliament or legislature);

(b) section 119 (bribery of judicial officers, etc.);

(c) section 120 (bribery of officers);

(d) section 121 (frauds on the government);

(e) section 122 (breach of trust by public officer);

(f) section 131 (perjury);

(g) section 136 (witness giving contradictory evidence);

(h) section 137 (fabricating evidence);

(i) subsection 139(2) (obstructing justice);

(j) any of sections 322, 326 and 328 to 332 (theft), if the person is convicted under paragraph 334(a);

(k) section 336 (criminal breach of trust);

(l) paragraph 342.1(1)(c) (unauthorized use of computer);

(m) section 354 (possession of property obtained by crime), if the person is convicted under paragraph 355(a);

(n) paragraph 362(1)(a) (false pretence or false statement), if the person is convicted under paragraph 362(2)(a);

(o) section 366 (forgery);

(p) section 368 (use, trafficking or possession of forged document);

(q) section 368.1 (forgery instruments);

(r) section 374 (drawing document without authority, etc.);

(s) section 375 (obtaining, etc., by instrument based on forged document);

(t) paragraph 377(1)(c) or (d) (damaging documents);

(u) paragraph 380(1)(a) (fraud);

(v) section 397 (falsification of books and documents);

(w) section 399 (false return by public officer);

(x) section 426 (secret commissions).

(5) The words in parentheses in subsection (4) form no part of that subsection but have been inserted for convenience of reference only.”

Debate arose thereon.

Craig Scott moved, — That the amendment be amended with the following by

a) replacing the expression “of the Criminal Code” in paragraph (4) by “of the Criminal Code or the Canada Elections Act”; and

b) adding after paragraph (4) (x) the following:

“(y) any offence characterized by the Canada Elections Act as an “illegal practice” or “ corrupt practice”.

At 11:30 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 11:34 a.m., the sitting resumed.

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Craig Scott and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott, Scott Simms — 4; NAYS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Blake Richards, Chris Warkentin — 5.

Craig Scott moved, — That the amendment be amended by removing the following expression in the second and third line of the first paragraph “, on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force,”.

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Craig Scott and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott, Scott Simms — 4; NAYS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Blake Richards, Chris Warkentin — 5.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Tom Lukiwski and it was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Blake Richards, Chris Warkentin — 5; NAYS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott, Scott Simms — 4.

Clause 2, as amended, carried on division.

On Clause 3

Tom Lukiwski moved, — That Bill C-518, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 22 on page 2 with the following:

“ceases or has ceased to be a member and who is convicted, on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force, of an offence referred to in subsection 19(4) that arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member, a withdrawal allowance, in a lump sum, equal to the amount determined according to the following formula:

A + B - C

where

A is the total amount of the contributions that the person has paid under this Part and Parts I, III and IV of the former Act;

B is the interest on those contributions that the person has paid under paragraph 33(1)(c) or (2)(d), 33.1(1)(c) or 33.2(1)(c); and

C is any compensation allowance paid to the person under this Part prior to the day on which the person is convicted of the offence.

(3) If the amount determined under subsection (2) is negative, the amount is deemed to be zero.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Tom Lukiwski and it was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Blake Richards, Chris Warkentin — 5; NAYS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott, Scott Simms — 4.

After debate, Clause 3, as amended, carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Blake Richards, Scott Simms, Chris Warkentin — 6; NAYS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott — 3.

Clause 4 was negatived.

On Clause 1, Alternative Title,

Craig Scott moved, — That Bill C-518, in the alternative title, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 6 on page 1 with the following:

“1. This Act may be cited as the Revoking Pensions of Some Convicted Politicians Act.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the title of the Bill that, as provided on pages 770-771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, may only be amended if necessitated by other amendments made to the Bill.

Clause 1, Alternative Title, carried.

The Title carried.

The Bill, as amended, carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Blake Richards, Scott Simms, Chris Warkentin — 6; NAYS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott — 3.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-518, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 11:52 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 11:55 a.m., the sitting resumed in camera.

At 12:31 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.