Advertisement

Senators object to bill that nixes pensions from convicted politicians

Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada, June 16, 2015. REUTERS/Chris Wattie
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada, June 16, 2015. REUTERS/Chris Wattie

By Brent Jolly

A piece of legislation that would see pensions pulled from MPs and senators who are convicted of an indictable offence is set to die on the vine when the impending federal election is called later this summer.

Bill C-518, the Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act, is a private member’s bill introduced by New Brunswick Conservative MP John Williamson. It stipulates that politicians would lose out on the government-funded portion of the gold-plated pension plan if convicted of an offence that carries a minimum two-year sentence.

An overwhelming majority passed the bill in February in the House of Commons — an oddity in modern Ottawa. But it has been held up in the Senate.

“Watching senators hold up this bill sends the wrong message to Canadians,” Aaron Wudrick, federal director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, tells Yahoo Canada News. “It says that they are just looking out for their own.”

Senators, however, disagree. They say that the bill is flawed and they are doing their best to overcome the legislation’s many legal technicalities.

At a meeting of the Senate’s Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament held last month, several senators raised their concerns about the bill. Criticism of the bill ranged, for example, from the potential harm that could be done to third parties, such as spouses or children if money is withheld, to issues of legal enforceability.

In particular, Sen. Joan Fraser was critical of the bill’s scope.

“This bill refers only to offences under the Criminal Code […] however, if we’re concerned about the public’s faith in its institutions, why would we deprive somebody of their pension for unauthorized use of a computer but not for stealing an election under the Canada Elections Act?”hile Wudrick admits that the legislation is not without its flaws, he says that the Senate would be wise to have taken this bill more seriously given the public’s blighted faith in the red chamber.

“With great power comes great responsibility,” Wudrick says. “So too there must come great consequences for abusing that responsibility.”

Williamson, the former national director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, has said that this private member’s bill was motivated by the actions of former Liberal senator Raymond Lavigne, who was convicted of fraud and breach of trust in March 2011.

With the virtual certainty that the bill will perish on the Order Paper, Wudrick says his organization will lobby all of the federal parties to ensure that this kind of policy is included in their election platforms.