If, however, Del Mastro toughs it out and ends up being expelled from the House of Commons following his conviction for violating election financing rules, under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowance Act he could end up walking away with only what he has already contributed to the MPs pension plan plus the interest it has earned.
Under the current rules governing MPs pensions, an MP who voluntarily resigns gets to keep their pension. In Del Mastro’s case his nearly nine years of service coupled with his average sessional allowance (MP’s base salary) of $159,418 over his highest earning five years would entitle him to begin collecting a pension of roughly $40,000 a year once he turns 55 years old.
Should Del Mastro, now 44, live to 80 years old — the life expectancy of the average Canadian male — he could collect more than $1 million in House of Commons pension over 25 years.
Tuesday, Del Mastro’s case led off question period with NDP Leader Tom Mulcair accusing the government of watering down a private members bill that would strip MPs convicted of crimes under the Canada Elections Act of their pensions in order to protect Del Mastro.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper responded by saying the government has already passed legislation that ensures that MPs “cease to participate” in the pension plan if suspended — an apparent reference to a 2014 amendment to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, which stops an MP from accruing pensionable service while they are suspended.
Del Mastro’s case also dominated the afternoon’s debate in the House of Commons after Speaker Andrew Scheer ruled that the question of Del Mastro’s ability to sit as an MP constituted a prima facie case of privilege that warranted being dealt with immediately.
The debate over Del Mastro’s future comes after the three-term MP for Peterborough was convicted Friday of three counts of violating election spending laws in the 2008 federal election. He was found guilty of exceeding spending limits during the campaign, failing to report a $21,000 contribution he made to his campaign and knowingly submitting a false document.
Del Mastro is scheduled to return to court Nov. 21 for a sentencing hearing. The conviction could prevent Del Mastro from holding office for five years.
On Monday, Del Mastro called for the case to be reopened, arguing Elections Canada failed to turn over some evidence in time for his trial. He has also talked about a possible appeal.
“There is fresh evidence that was not put before the trial judge because it was not disclosed in a timely fashion by Elections Canada,” Del Mastro’s office said in a statement.
While Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan had argued Monday that the question of whether Del Mastro should be suspended without pay should be referred to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, he shifted that position Tuesday, saying the Conservatives would back an NDP proposal to suspend Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former parliamentary secretary and strip him of his $163,700 MP’s salary.
“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,” Van Loan told the House.
Presenting his motion to suspend Del Mastro and refer the question of his expulsion to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, NDP House Leader Peter Julian argued Del Mastro’s conviction was a serious matter that should be dealt with quickly.
“This is not a little event in the life of the House of Commons.”
Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux argued Del Mastro should be immediately expelled.
One of the few MPs who defended Del Mastro was Conservative MP David Tilson who argued suspension was premature because Del Mastro had rights and the option to appeal the conviction.
“Anything could happen and yet are we going to drive a spike through this guy’s heart right now? I think that is wrong.”
One person who was silent during the debate over Del Mastro’s future was Del Mastro himself. The MP, whose wife gave birth over the weekend to their first child, was not present for the debate.
A vote on whether to suspend Del Mastro is set for Wednesday afternoon.
Del Mastro’s case is not the first time that the pension benefits of an MP or Senator charged or convicted of a crime have triggered controversy.
Conservative MP John Williamson tabled a private members bill in June 2103 designed to stop MPs or Senators convicted of serious crimes from being able to keep their pensions by resigning before they could be expelled. Williamson’s bill was inspired by the case of Senator Raymond Lavigne who was convicted of breach of trust and fraud but managed to preserve his pension by resigning before he could be expelled.
“This bill would penalize crooked, law-breaking politicians who fleece taxpayers by taking away their pensions,” Williamson told the House of Commons as he kicked off debate on his bill in December.
However, Williamson’s private members bill is unlikely to be adopted into law before Parliament has to decide Del Mastro’s fate. Moreover, the Conservative majority led by MP Tom Lukiwski pushed through amendments to Williamson’s bill Tuesday morning that would narrow the list of offences that could result in an MP losing their pension.
While Williamson had proposed those convicted of an offence prosecuted by indictment and “for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for not less than two years,” the amendment to the bill details a list of two dozen specific offences ranging from theft, fraud and breach of trust to perjury, forgery or unauthorized use of a computer.
The bill would no longer cover very serious crimes like murder, assault or drug trafficking. Nor would it cover convictions like Del Mastro’s for violations of the Elections Act.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca/
Author: Elizabeth Thompson
No comments:
Post a Comment