House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 38% of the vote.
Chief Electoral Officer September 20th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, again I will say that a comprehensive proposal regarding that motion will be put forward in due course. However, I want to remind the hon. member that hundreds of thousands of dollars in sponsorship was given by their big union bosses in the unions. They had to repay it. It was an illegal donation.
Chief Electoral Officer September 20th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to his new critic position. This is going to be a challenging position for him because it was his party, the NDP, that had to return hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal donations from unions. It will be a challenging position for him.
As for the motion, a comprehensive proposal will be put forward shortly.
Committees of the House June 20th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, Canada's electoral system is held in high regard around the world and generally functions well in the service of all Canadians. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the 15th report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on recommended changes to the Canada Elections Act, which was tabled in the House of Commons on February 27, 2012.
As parliamentarians, we can and should look at updates we can make to continue to ensure strong, free and fair elections in Canada.
I would like to thank the committee members for their work and recommendations.
Elections Canada June 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, that type of behaviour is absolutely unacceptable and breaks Canadian election laws.
The Elections Act clearly indicates that corporate and union donations are not allowed. Political parties are required to raise their own money through donations from ordinary Canadians.
In fact, it was this government that brought accountability and transparency to political financing after 13 long years of Liberal rule, such as outright banning of union and corporate donations, in 2006.
The NDP must provide transparency on these questionable and potentially illegal practices.
Main Estimates 2012-13 June 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things in my colleague's comments I wish I had time right now to address, and at some point I am sure we will. I would like to thank him for articulating and very clearly explaining why the NDP procedure with the motion this evening is complete nonsense, in his words. I fully agree with him and I appreciate him explaining that so well.
He does not agree with the Senate reform act, which would allow a process for having elected senators and to set term limits on senators and to achieve this within Parliament's authority. He has a plan that would require full, drawn-out constitutional change. At the same time he said that provinces do not want long, drawn-out constitutional battles. He gave the formula that we need seven provinces with 50% of the population to agree. He even said we might need unanimous consent in some cases.
Is his proposal, the Liberal Party's proposal, not really to just talk about Senate reform, like the Liberals did throughout their whole tenure, and not take any action at all, talk about it and at the end of the day achieve nothing except to leave the Senate as it is today? Why does his party support the status quo in the Senate?
Main Estimates 2012-13 June 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, twice now the hon. member has been asked about the next steps.
Whether it is called political stunts or nonsense, as the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville has said, we would like to hear the next steps. If the member is not going to answer that question, which he has not in the last couple of questions, I would like to know why the NDP is stalling Senate reform act.
The Senate reform act would make the Senate more democratic and it would limit terms, which are some of the things the member talked about in his speech. Canadians want this. The member has said that 70% of Canadians would like to see the Senate change.
We have brought forward a bill. Why is the NDP delaying that bill?
Main Estimates 2012-13 June 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments.
As a government, we have a responsibility to think ideas through and to make sure that a proposal that we bring forward is actually achievable. Therefore, I just want to sincerely ask the hon. member this. What are the next steps for his proposal tonight? How does the NDP really see this playing out?
The Constitution binds Parliament to support funding for all parliamentary institutions. Is the member suggesting that we enter into some type of constitutional crisis over funding?
I just want to know what the next steps are here.
Main Estimates 2012-13 June 6th, 2012
Madam Speaker, regarding proportional representation, the fact is that Canadians in many provinces have actually rejected that idea. The hon. member knows very well that when Canadians were asked about proportional representation, they rejected the idea and preferred our current system.
As for the motion before the House today, I am quite disappointed that the NDP would rather pull this political stunt on funding to the Senate, essentially creating a constitutional crisis if this were ever to move forward, rather than debate real issues related to the main estimates. We could be talking about the economic action plan or the plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, but unfortunately the NDP would rather pull this political stunt. It is disappointing.
Main Estimates 2012-13 June 6th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his commitment to Senate reform, like other members on this side of the House.
The member is quite right. Senators do introduce legislation, review legislation, provide feedback and make changes to legislation. The work that senators do affect Canadians every day. That is why it is so important.
Senators work on the legislation that we pass in the House or legislation that they bring forward and we work on here. Therefore, it is very important that Canadians should have a say in who represents them in the Senate.
I believe we need to give Canadians a say because senators work on and introduce legislation in the House that affects Canadians every day. Canadians deserve to have a say in who represents them.
Main Estimates 2012-13 June 6th, 2012
Madam Speaker, it is always good to discuss these issues with him inside and outside of the House.
The method brought forward in the senate reform act is a voluntary framework for provinces to hold a consultation process with their citizens. I will give the example of Alberta.
Alberta has, for a number of years, held consultation processes, essentially an election, where the citizens of Alberta vote for their choice of senator. That list is then provided to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister recommends to the Governor General from that democratic process.
This has already resulted in senators who are currently in the House of Commons, including Betty Unger, a senator from Alberta. She is the first woman elected to the Senate. We are very proud of her achievements and very proud of this process.
This process has already been working in this place. It is a very strong precedent and a process that I would ask other provinces to look at. I encourage them to look at Alberta's process and model their voluntary frameworks after it because it works very well.