Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2013

Opposition Motion—Senate Accountability

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stated that senators must do their work, that is, they must participate in legislative work.

Why does he state that caucus meetings—of whichever party—do not constitute legislative work? Senators cannot work in a bubble, never aware of the legislative work that members of Parliament are doing.

How can he state such a thing? Clearly, the NDP has no senators in their party. I do not know how he can state such a thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can state such a thing because the Senate's goal, its purpose, is to analyze bills and provide sober second thought, as the saying goes. It is really difficult for me to believe that senators can conduct a thorough and non-partisan analysis, without being influenced by hearing the strategy of a party in power discussed at caucus meetings.

In caucus, we sit down and talk about our approach to legislation. We talk about our legislative objectives as a political unit. If I am a Liberal or Conservative senator, and I attend those meetings, I might ask myself why I should be thorough in my work, because I have just heard exactly what I should do; I am going to follow the party line. Senators are supposed to consider what the House of Commons does.

Everyone makes mistakes. The Senate is supposed to be there to correct mistakes. I have a lot of difficulty understanding how they are going to be able to correct mistakes when they were part of making the mistakes in the first place.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I launch into my heartfelt criticism of what is going on in the Senate and into an explanation of our proposals, I would like to make a distinction between the Senate as an institution and the members who make it up. I actually confess to having a great deal of respect for some senators who have helped to build this country and whose competence and experience are not in doubt. However, even the best of them are caught up in this partisan approach that is tarnishing all of the Senate's work, not to mention clearly going against the spirit and the letter of what the Senate has supposed to have been since it was created.

Let us recall that the Constitution makes no mention of the partisan nature of the Senate. Now everyone can see that this has made it into a real political circus. When unelected people who are not accountable to Canadians are appointed to the Senate, we would expect at very least that the process would be like the one for a lawyer becoming a judge. Immediately, some distance is established with regard to his or her public appearances and public opinions. I know that comparisons are odious, but I made one anyway.

However, this upper chamber, which, in a way, is supposed to be the conscience of Parliament and the place where a second review of bills is conducted, has lost all credibility. The reasons for that loss of credibility are numerous. I will take the liberty of suggesting a few. When senators are not elected, we have a credibility problem. When candidates defeated at elections wind up in the upper chamber, we have a credibility problem. When the bagmen from one or two parties wind up in the Senate, we have a serious credibility problem. When people are appointed for their popularity or their ability to appeal to the electorate more than for their skills, once again we have a credibility problem. When a Senate seat represents a reward or a favour for services rendered, need I say that we have a credibility problem? When a growing number of bills start their life cycle in the Senate instead of being reviewed there, we have a credibility problem. I could go on almost indefinitely, but I believe these few examples are quite enough for everyone to understand that it is time to move on to something else. The NDP's position on this matter is well known and supported by an increasing number of citizens. The Senate must be abolished, period.

I will put this simple question to all those who act shocked when this proposal is put on the table: which parliaments in Canada have abolished their upper chamber and are now making every effort to restore it? Where are the citizens demonstrating for the upper chamber to return to the provincial parliaments that abolished it? Personally, I have witnessed no such demonstrations. To ask the question is to answer it. That is indeed a sign of an institution that was established in another era and no longer reflects the needs of our time. Furthermore, if I try to weigh the cost of the Senate against its actual usefulness, I believe the majority of Canadians will lose interest and want to move onto something else.

A Senate without scandals, if that is possible, nevertheless costs between $90 million and $100 million a year. You can imagine what we could do with that amount of money. Let us consider a few examples just for fun. The travel expenses of Senator Wallin alone represent the federal income taxes of 28 Canadian families. That sum of $350,000 is also equivalent to the annual Old Age Security benefits that could be paid to 57 seniors. We know the government is very good at half measures when it comes to getting people out of poverty. If we also had to correlate senators' salaries with their expense accounts and number of days worked, I do not dare say it for fear of shocking Canadians, but let us do it since it is time to do away with appearances and take a critical look at the institution: in 2011-2012, the average number of days worked per senator was 56. That is a good hourly wage. In that same year, 19 senators missed more than one-quarter of all sitting days.

I could also give you a list of the senators who spent the most during the last federal election campaign. However, merely citing that category clearly shows that there is an objectivity problem in the second chamber, which is supposed to represent the wisdom of our Parliament.

Today, however, despite the NDP's firm resolve to abolish this institution, we have to implement measures to better manage the finances and ethics of this chamber of scandals. The abolition of the Senate will have to wait until 2015 when we replace the Conservative government, which is embroiled in various scandals of its own making.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne, the Conservatives have once again shown that their strategy is to stall for time and to sweep problems under the rug, instead of addressing them. There was no mention of the rules they intend to put in place to solve the problem in the short term.

Never short on good ideas, with this motion, the NDP is proposing simple, effective solutions that can be applied today. What does putting an end to the partisan work of senators mean? It means that they will no longer be able to participate in weekly caucus meetings, nor will they have the right to do fundraising or political organizing. In addition, they will no longer be able to go on trips that are not directly related to the legislative duties of senators.

Instead of moving in that direction, the Conservatives are adding insult to injury. While they have reduced the House of Commons budget, the budget of members who, let us recall, are duly elected, they have just increased the Senate budget to a total of $92.5 million.

As to the Senate's administrative rules, they are not available online, if you can imagine, even in our technologically advanced times. To get a copy of them, you have to put in a special request to the Senate administration. What do you find when you put in that request? You find some real gems. For the great benefit of my fellow Canadians, let me give you some examples.

Number one: “partisan activities are an inherent and essential part of the parliamentary functions of a Senator”. I certainly need an explanation for that one. Despite the 11 changes made to the rules for travel, senators are still allowed to take part in a number of partisan activities.

Gem number two: the policy governing senators' travel defines “parliamentary functions” like this: they can travel, for example, for an election of a member of the House of Commons held under the Canada Elections Act. That is funny. I never saw a senator in my riding immersing himself in the orange wave in order to gain a better understanding of many Canadians' desire for change.

The travel policy for senators also uses the definition of “parliamentary functions” to cover things in the private interests of a senator, a family member or a dependent. It is difficult to imagine more latitude, but I feel it would be wrong to believe that this state of affairs is exclusive to the Conservative Party.

Of course, the Liberals before them use the Senate in the same way. This statement by Mr. Trudeau Jr. is proof enough: essentially, he said that the problem in the Senate is that there are now not enough Liberal senators.

In closing, I will say that, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate until the time comes when a political party resolves to put an end to an archaic institution in which unelected and unaccountable senators fritter away the hard-earned money of Canadians.

That party is the NDP. The time will be the election in 2015. Until then, the NDP will continue to put forward effective solutions to show that politicians can work in harmony with the concerns of Canadians.

I hope that the other parties here in the House of Commons will acknowledge the validity of this motion and will support it unanimously.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member spoke at considerable length about accountability. However, since I have had the honour of being in the House, any approach to accountability in the Senate from the NDP has really been a number of insincere or flippant motions, whether cutting the Senate budget or removing caucus members from the Senate, as we heard today.

I would urge the member to respond in terms of our reference to the Supreme Court that would have elections for the Senate and accountability through term limits. Why would the NDP not get behind these tangible reforms that would actually make the upper house more effective and more in touch with the modern age?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The question provides a clear illustration of what I was just talking about, namely, the Conservatives' ability to put things off to avoid solving the problem now.

As for the accountability the hon. member is alluding to, I will remind him that it is the NDP that asked the House to give a completely independent third party the ability and means to determine whether expenditures are relevant to MPs' work or not. If I remember correctly, the government did not grant that request.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard this member and other members from the NDP caucus talk about their constituents. One of the concerns I have is that the New Democrats will often say that what they would like to do in dealing with the issue of Senate reform is to see a referendum and let Canadians ultimately decide what they would like to do with the Senate.

If the NDP got one of its wishes, and Canadians were allowed to make that decision through a referendum, and it lost, would that cause the NDP to change its party position? Would it then be in favour of a Senate?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always if this and if that.

Right now, I have to base my observations on what my constituents tell me, and they are all in agreement. Today, I believe that, if we had the intellectual honesty to put the question to Canadians, they would thank me, thank the NDP government in 2015 for asking the question, even though there are much more important issues. I agree with the importance of working on the economy and job creation, but please, let us get rid of this archaic institution that in no way corresponds with the needs of a modern society.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is not working in the Senate—and it has been mentioned many times in debate today—is the fact that the institution of sober second thought has become an ultra-partisan institution in an arena that is currently overly partisan. This makes things extremely complicated since the Senate and the senators see their work only in terms of the party line, whether they follow it or not. This issue has been raised on a regular basis.

When people talk about alternatives to the Senate, suggestions include giving more resources to officers of Parliament, who are much more respected than senators, be it the auditor general, the parliamentary budget officer or other parliamentary officers who are watchdogs that can hold Parliament much more accountable than the Senate currently does.

For example, the Supreme Court has the authority to consider matters such as minority rights, which is an issue of major concern.

I would like to hear what my colleague from Trois-Rivières has to say about these alternatives to the Senate and the bicameral system, which is not working properly at present.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Once again, the party that is leading the way on this subject is the NDP. When our leader tables a motion to increase the powers of the parliamentary budget officer, we have there a clear example of a modernization or updating of Parliament that is perfectly in line with what people expect in the way of accountability, responsibility and transparency in the management of public affairs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address what I think is a relatively important issue.

I would not necessarily say it is the number one issue that the House should be debating today, even though many of my constituents and Canadians from coast to coast to coast are very upset and concerned in terms of what is taking place over in the Senate. It is amazing how a few bad senators who have inappropriately used tax dollars have brought this large black cloud over the Senate.

I must say that the long-lasting scandal taking place in the Prime Minister's office has had more of a negative impact than the one in the Senate. I say this because there are many different issues out there, and we need to recognize that this is actually the first opposition day motion that has been brought forward.

Personally, I would have thought there might have been something more pressing that Canadians would have wanted the parliamentarians here in the House to Commons to be talking about. An example of that could be the EU trade deal. Another example could be the middle class. Let us look at how big an issue the middle class is. There is the cost of university; and the personal debt issue is very real and continues to increase; and there is the issue of unemployment particularly for young people. Let us look at the people who are unemployed or let go at age 45 and then find out they have to go through some sort of retraining program to get a job that is going to pay close to what it was they were receiving prior to being laid off.

These are the types of issues that Canadians are very much concerned about. We recognize the government has dropped the ball in dealing with Canada's middle class. It could be doing so much more.

Yesterday I made reference to the Prime Minister's office and the scandal that is taking place in the Prime Minister's office. That has been a huge issue. Let us take a look at the question periods to date. The reason the session was prorogued is that the Prime Minister did not want to come and face criticism and questions with regard to the scandal that is taking place in the Prime Minister's office.

Yet, we have the New Democrats, in their wisdom—and that could be a contradiction in terms—making a statement that we need to talk about reforming the Senate. That is really what this is all about. This has more to do with their idea of abolishing the Senate. I will get to that particular argument, as to why I believe that.

The motion itself talks about wanting more accountability. Actions speak louder than words. The leader who has failed the most on the issue of accountability in terms of the Senate and the members of Parliament is the leader of the new Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party had the opportunity to ensure that, in fact, there was going to be more accountability in the Senate chamber, and not only the Senate chamber but also here inside the House.

We could have made that happen back in June when the leader of the Liberal Party stood in his place and asked for unanimous consent to ensure more accountability inside the Senate and inside the House of Commons. What did we see? One political party, one leader of a political party said no. The NDP did not want accountability back in June.

[An hon. member]

Shameful.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

It is shameful. There was a wonderful opportunity, as opposed to bringing forward a motion, trying to throw in a few things to see if they could get the Liberals to vote against the motion, being a little mischievous.

Instead of doing what was right for Canadians and recognizing that there was a substantial initiative that was taken back in June, and even the Conservative Party stood in its place—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans on a point of order.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could advise the hon. member for Winnipeg North that his microphone is actually on.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I am quite certain that is not a point of order but perhaps a casual suggestion for the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure if the member is referring to the microphone down here or if he is referring in terms of asking—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. As I just said, it is actually not a point of order. Perhaps the hon. member could carry on with his remarks.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to continue. I suspect I will get a little more time added on because of the point of order, hopefully.

The point that I was trying to make is the fact that we need to recognize that even though we have the motion before us today, asking for more accountability, there was an opportunity for us to have more accountability not only in the House of Commons but also in the Senate, the other place. There is only one political entity in the House of Commons that said no to more accountability and transparency, and that was the New Democratic Party of Canada. When I read the motion before us, one might say it is somewhat hypocritical. When New Democrats had the opportunity to ensure more accountability in the Senate, they chose not to do that.

Having said that, the Liberals were not prepared to leave it at that. We moved forward. We call it proactive disclosure. Today Liberal senators and members of Parliament are providing proactive disclosure on travel and hospitality. This was done a number of years ago when former prime minister Paul Martin instituted it for cabinet ministers.

Now people can go on the Internet and find out that I flew back and forth to Winnipeg. I am not too sure exactly what the cost was but that is okay, because people can go on the Internet and find out what the cost was. People can find out what my hospitality costs were. Someone asked me, “Aren't you leaving yourselves more vulnerable to criticism because other political parties don't have to do that?” My response was no, because not only is it the right thing to do, I believe that by demonstrating that leadership within the Liberal Party, others will follow suit. I believe, ultimately, it is starting to work.

We do not know the details of it, but now the Conservative Party has indicated that its members are going to be proactive in providing public disclosure, which is great. We welcome their participation. We now need to shift all of our focus onto the party that likes to talk about it but does nothing about it. We challenge the New Democrats to not only talk about the issue but demonstrate a little leadership on the issue by saying they too are committed and will in fact make their expenses public. If it is good enough to demand that senators need to provide more public disclosure and accountability, why is it not good enough for members of the House of Commons?

I put that challenge to my colleagues on the New Democratic benches and I anxiously await each one standing, led by their leader, and indicating that they are prepared to do likewise and join other members of the House in support of proactive disclosure. It would be wonderful for us to formalize a rule that would make it absolutely mandatory by regulation or law. That is something I believe Canadians would welcome.

In the motion, the New Democrats talk about senators and they always do it in a very derogatory fashion. They make reference to sober second thought. They do a disservice to many of the things that the Senate has been able to accomplish. Yes, there are some bad apples in the Senate and I am not going to attempt to defend those bad apples. However, I know that there is some value to the Senate.

If we took the time to better understand some of the issues that particular individual senators take upon themselves, they are not all political. Some of the work that former senator Carstairs did on palliative care is recognized across this country. People of all political stripes, New Democrats, Greens, recognize the efforts that Madam Carstairs put in on palliative care, and Senator Kirby on health.

The NDP does not want to allow these senators to participate in caucuses. Do hon. members know how valuable a role individuals such as Senator Dallaire have played in assisting, developing and discussing issues? This is an individual who is in demand around the world because of his activities. We have some outstanding individuals in the Senate. NDP members would say that those outstanding individuals should always run for office. They do not have to be appointed.

I would suggest and recommend to my New Democratic friends that they pry open their minds a little on this issue. They would find that there is a role for a Senate in Canada. I believe it, and I believe it would be wonderful to see some changes. I am not the first Liberal to say we need changes. Pierre Elliott Trudeau attempted to bring in changes back in the seventies. I remember the whole idea of the house of federation, where provinces had more input in what would happen in the Senate.

The idea of Senate reform and change is nothing new. I had the privilege of sitting on an all-party task force on the Senate in the province of Manitoba. I travelled to different areas in the province. The opinion of the overwhelming majority of individuals who made presentations about the Senate to this group of MLAs, which were majority NDP, was that we need to change and reform the Senate. That was the overwhelming opinion. That is why I pose the question to the former speaker. Is there not value in acknowledging the important role that the Senate could play? We should not write off western Canada's needs. We are a country, and we need to recognize that there are some regions of our country that might see more value to having a Senate than others. What we are saying is that everyone needs to be brought in and be made to feel they are contributing to the whole discussion.

I pose the question to the government members in regard to what consultation they have done with the premiers. The Prime Minister has been in government for how long? How many first ministers conferences have we had? Not one, I believe. I do not believe there has been one first ministers conference.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

There was a dinner.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

There was a dinner. I stand corrected. There might have been a dinner, but has there been any discussion at all about the issue of Senate reform or making changes to the Senate?

Every one of us knows full well that we cannot change the Senate if we do not have substantial support from the provinces. The Conservatives can say what they want, but unless they are prepared to do the work to make it happen, it will not happen. The NDP members say they want to abolish the Senate if they get elected in 2015, heaven forbid. They know they cannot do that. They do not have the mandate to do that. They would have to get the provinces and others on side.

The government members talk about making changes and reforming but all they have done to date, with the exception of the last year, is bring in legislation to make the changes. How many provinces' premiers has the Prime Minister actually talked to about the amendments that the government is trying to force through the House?

How many premiers has the Prime Minister actually talked to about the amendments the government is trying to force through the House? Imagine if the Prime Minister did his job and actually met with the premiers and after meeting with them came back to the House and presented the consensus and conclusion he and the premiers, from coast to coast to coast, arrived at. Imagine if he built the support of the Canadian public. I suspect that the government of the day would have a lot more support in the House for some of its initiatives.

When I look at today's motion, I question the priorities of the official opposition. Why does it not recognize the scandal taking place inside the Prime Minister's Office and the impact it is having on the Senate, on Canadian public opinion of that institution, and on the PMO itself? That is one of the issues I am concerned about.

The other thing I am concerned about is why the NDP consistently brings up accountability. Yet when it had the opportunity to be more accountable and to have the Senate be more accountable in a tangible way, it chose to say no. If the NDP wants to join the Conservatives and the Liberals in acknowledging more accountability, and it is the will of this chamber to ensure more accountability and guarantee it to Canadians, then we could do that. We have the ability within the chamber today to make a difference on the issue of accountability. All it takes is for the New Democratic Party to agree to proactive disclosure.

What might be most appropriate would be to ask whether there would be leave to accept in their entirety the motions brought forward by the leader of the Liberal Party back in June, thereby ensuring that we have the accountability, at least in part, that today's motion is actually seeking to achieve. I ask if today might be the day the New Democrats take a step forward on the issue of public accountability and transparency.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Intergovernmental Relations.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, effectively the government has a set of reform proposals that we do not think it has taken seriously, but at least they are reforms. The NDP does indeed believe in abolition. With this motion, we want to have some interim measures before abolition takes place. However, we have heard nothing from the Liberals, frankly, besides various forms of defence of the status quo. What we have been hearing for ages from Liberals is that we are going to see tweaks, some proposals for an appointment system that would somehow, within the status quo, be a relevant change to the Senate.

I would like to hear more about this. Is this serious? When are we going to hear about it? What is taking so long?

Let us assume that the Liberals are serious. Surely any such system has to exclude partisanship as either the basis for appointments or the outcome. If that is the case, why will the Liberals not support the current motion to reach into the current chamber and try to effect the same results rather than pretending to have a system later? We have not heard what it would be. There would be non-partisan appointments that would only take effect in the future, because we are stuck with a hundred senators now. Will we hear anything at all about this fabled, vaunted system of appointments?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the New Democrats really wanted to see some action, some real, tangible movement on one aspect of the motion, all they would have to do is stand in their places and say that they want to make it happen, and we would see universal, proactive disclosure that would apply to all political parties, both in the House and in the Senate. I am disappointed that he has rejected that suggestion outright.

To say that the Liberal Party has done nothing on the issue is just wrong. It is not factual. Whether it is the issue of reference to the courts or the desire to recognize the reality that provinces have to be involved in the process, it is an absolute necessity. The New Democrats do not believe that this is the case. They do not believe that Canadians need to be consulted, that the provinces have to be consulted, and that they have to be accountable in terms of their own travel and hospitality expenses.

This is a good opportunity for them to get on the record and say that they are prepared to do something tangible other than just talk. That is what this resolution is.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the report the member refers to, which came out of Manitoba, actually has a very interesting section on how to elect senators using senatorial districts based on federal boundaries, for those policy wonks who might be watching.

This is the first day back we have had as a Parliament to discuss issues that are important to Canadians. If we look at what happened over the summer, we saw the financial crisis in the States. We saw the United States shut down. We had issues around the border. We saw war in Syria. We saw many things that are of profound importance to Canadians. Yet the opposition picks the Senate. How Ottawa-centric do they have to be?

Will the member agree that this is not a Canadian priority and that the economy is the number one priority for Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member in that I too was quite surprised by what the New Democrats chose as their first opposition day motion. This motion is a roundabout way of dealing with the abolition of the Senate. For whatever reason, they love talking about that particular issue. It is not the issue I would have talked about. I cited other issues I would not have been as surprised about. Based on what I am hearing at the local McDonald's, in meeting with constituents, and in talking with the average person, there is genuine concern about what is taking place on the issue of accountability and the Prime Minister's Office. What did the Prime Minister know? Has he been honest with Canadians? This is something that goes right to the core of democracy, going into the Prime Minister's Office itself.

That is not to marginalize the need for more accountability and transparency in the Senate chamber. As I say, we have taken great strides in ensuring that this would actually take place. The Liberal Party—