Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2013

Opposition Motion—Senate Accountability

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise as the elected representative of the people of Timmins—James Bay who have given me their trust to speak on their behalf in the House of Commons.

I make this speech today recognizing that the democratic life of this country is at an all-time low. There is an incredible amount of political cynicism out there among ordinary Canadians, who look to this House, which is supposed to be the democratic House of the commons, for the common people of Canada, at a time when we see a government that has undermined the basic principles of accountable democracy. There has been the suspension and shutting down of the independent organizations that provide information, the muzzling of scientists and researchers, and the fact that under this first-past-the-post system, a mere 5,000 votes across 15 ridings gave the present Conservative government its so-called stable and very corrupt majority.

One can look at how electoral fraud and robocalls were used in ridings where some members were winning by six or seven votes. Phone calls were made misdirecting Canadian people from their right to vote, such as in Nipissing and other areas. No wonder Canadians are frustrated with the democratic system.

Even more so, Canadians look at the squalid example of the so-called upper chamber. These are the people who are supposed to be above the fray, who are so important, these senators, that we are supposed to just trust whatever they say, trust whatever they do, because they have the bigger picture. They are not supposed to be sullied by the ordinary partisan nature of politics.

We see today that they are debating in this so-called upper chamber—it is even in the language of the chambers; we are the lower people and they are upper people—the fact that three to four members completely misappropriated funds and completely abused the system. We are being told that well, they are senators. If a senator says that he or she is entitled to money, he or she is entitled to it.

Senator George Baker the other day stated in the press that “The Senate is above all rules”. Senators can set their own parameters for rules. Senator Baker thought it was really unfair that because these senators could set their own rules and decide what they want we would actually suspend senators for stealing money.

We had Senator Wallin's lawyer say that the move to suspend her for her abuse of the public trust was “...an affront to...democracy”. I was trying to find a comparison to an unelected and unaccountable senator who cannot be fired but can abuse the system. They cannot do anything with her except cut off her pay, and that is somehow an affront to democracy.

It goes much further, as we learned yesterday with the latest revelations from Mike Duffy. We now have a widening picture of a Prime Minister involved with his key fundraiser, Mr. Mike Duffy. They were threatening each other, blackmailing each other, and working out a deal to make a payoff with hush money. There were numerous senators involved, and part of the payoff for this hush money was that they were not going to actually comply or work with the Senate audit.

Of course, within the Senate, we did not believe that they were out doing the right thing with the audit anyway, because it was the old boys' club. However, we found out that in the Prime Minister's Office, the sitting Prime Minister had access to all of Mike Duffy's travel records, which is what the auditors did not have. Their knowledge of what Mike Duffy was up to was extensive.

It is unprecedented that we have a case of a police investigation into a sitting prime minister. It is unprecedented the legitimacy crisis we are seeing in the Senate.

The New Democrat position is well known. We believe that the Senate is an anachronistic institution that has been full of people who flipped pancakes at fundraisers for the Liberals over the years and got appointed or flipped pancakes for the Conservatives and were party hacks. They were paid off and were made men. We know that. However, the issue, if we are not going to move to abolition, is to look at what has been the poison in the Senate. That poison is the partisan work they do for the parties. By being made men in the Senate, they work for their political leaders.

I want to give an example of this idea of sober second thought. Canadians need to reflect that for the next 12 to 15 years, the sock puppets and hacks appointed by the Prime Minister will continue to interfere with, undermine, and potentially derail the democratic decisions of an elected House of Commons. That is what sober second thought means in Canada. It allows the Liberals their veto when they are kicked out: they will still have their party hacks doing the party work above the rights of the elected House.

Perhaps we will not move to abolition right away. However, the Senate has completely breached faith with the Canadian people, and the Canadian people are fed up with the abuse that has gone on. We see the bleeding of their friends, who are asking about due process and about these poor senators who have a right not only to rip off people, not only to claim whatever they want, not only to claim that they live in Saskatchewan or Prince Edward Island just because they say so, but also to get the money and not be held accountable.

It will take a lot to clean up that mess, but one way we can begin is by imposing on all senators the same rules that the Senate has applied to Ms. Wallin. If they are here to do the work of sober second thought, then by all means they can travel to Ottawa and charge for their stay here if the charges are legitimate and they legitimately live 100 kilometres outside the city and they are not running some kind of scam. If they are doing Senate committee work, they can travel. They have a budget for that.

However, the days when senators could stand up and claim that they travelled across Canada to do the cheerleading and the fundraising for their political party have to end. The days when senators could travel across the country and attend their various corporate boards and charge it to the taxpayer have to end. If the Senate is to have any credibility in this age, then the senators have to stop being the partisan puppets who do the heavy lifting.

It has to end. Hiring campaign organizers, fundraisers, and bagmen and putting them in the Senate has to end. In what possible alternate universe would anyone think that Leo Housakos would be someone to put in a so-called upper chamber for life because he would put the interests of the people of Canada above his own partisan interests? It is unfathomable. The man was a Montreal bagman. That is why he is in the Senate. Those days have to end.

My colleagues in the Senate are feeling bad that Canadians are noticing how much they have been ripping them off. They feel that nobody has ever paid attention to what they have gotten away with.

I am asking my colleagues in the Senate to come forward as well, because they have a responsibility. What we are seeing with the latest allegations against Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright is that Nigel Wright told Mike Duffy they would not give him a hard time about the fact that he was as much a resident of Prince Edward Island as I am because if they went after Mike Duffy, then Nigel would be asking about all of the other senators who are employing the same scheme. That was the so-called honour system, or dishonour system, of these made men and women, who claimed that if they were entitled to the money, they would get it.

The Senate is now in a situation in which Canadians are fed up. We are trying to offer an alternative here, which is to clip their wings. Let us say that we will end the poison in the Senate until the day comes when Canadians get a vote on replacing that anachronistic institution. The poison in the Senate is the fact it has been a partisan dumping ground and is doing partisan work. All of the other work it is doing has become a facade for its real purpose, which is as a party political machine, and it has to end.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about honour and accountability. We hear him talk about this regularly. We on this side would suggest that he is making things up rather than being accountable and honourable himself.

Two weeks ago he accused me of clearly breaching the ethical guidelines of the House of Commons. He did it outside of the House. I received a response from the Ethics Commissioner that said my letter to the CRTC was entirely appropriate. Will the member stand up right now, do the honourable thing, be accountable, and apologize to me for the remarks that he made in the media?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious issue when a parliamentary secretary writes to a semi-judicial body, because it is against the rules of cabinet. I am very glad that my hon. colleague has had this issue dealt with and I am glad for him.

I will continue to ask questions about whether or not these are breaches, but the fact that he has been found okay is good news for him.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's remarks.

I have read the motion several times. There is a lot in the motion that is of merit, leaving aside the NDP's choice to bring this motion on its first opposition day in this new sitting.

The area that I am having the most difficulty with is the question of senators participating in caucus meetings. What is the rationale behind the NDP's call for senators not to be able to participate in caucus meetings?

The member knows full well that although caucus meetings are occasionally political and partisan, they are also very much policy-based. They are discussions about the merits of bills, they are internal meetings about private members' bills, and, for that matter, about motions like this one being debated today that has been put forward by the NDP.

Would the NDP agree that if we preclude senators from participating in caucus meetings of their own party and if we want senators to be non-partisan, why do we not say to senators that they should participate in all caucus meetings, including caucus meetings of the NDP?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of the problem for my Liberal colleagues is that they do not have the ability to step back and see the problems being caused by the poison that runs through this system. An example is Mac Harb.

Mac Harb was an hon. member of the Liberal caucus. On June 9, 2013, the present Liberal leader defended his caucus member, because a caucus has to defend its own. He said that what Mac Harb did was an honest mistake and that all Mac Harb had to do was pay the money back and he would be welcomed back into the Liberal caucus. Mac Harb was under investigation for breach of trust and possible fraud, but because he was within the caucus, the present Liberal leader had to defend him.

I would point out to my hon. colleague that we found out that Mac Harb's housing scheme included a plan through which he basically bought an unlivable house in Cobden. What would an unlivable house in Cobden cost? Then he sold it and kept a .01% stake in that house. What would that be? Let us say it is a $50,000 house; that would be a $50 investment. He could not even get a can of paint to fix up that unlivable house, so for the $50 that he owned in the house he could collect $20,000 a year.

I disagree with the leader of the Liberal Party. That is not an honest mistake.

If we are going to continue to have these people sitting in caucus, then we are going to continue to see the massive distortions in ethics that will go from the so-called upper chamber right into the Liberal Party caucus. I am trying to help my colleagues in the corner get out of that ethical morass. I would ask them to come with us into the 21st century.

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

Mr. Speaker, ironically, although this motion from the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth decries the partisan activities in the Senate, who does he have to speak in the House for the NDP on the motion? He has the most hyperpartisan and flippant parliamentarian in Ottawa, the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I just sat through the member's speech and heard him refer to parliamentarians as pancake flippers and sock puppets. These are words on a motion that is critical of partisanship and demands accountability. Well, I am demanding that same level of accountability and civility from the NDP. I truly hope that the member for Timmins—James Bay discovers a way to advocate for his constituents without diminishing the level of debate in the House and without slipping into name-calling and chicanery.

However, as my colleagues and I on this side will explain today, our government believes that the measures proposed in the motion are not the appropriate way to proceed. In fact, like many of the pronouncements made on the Senate by the NDP, this motion truly is flippant and is not a sincere measure to reform that institution.

Canadians want to see reform of the Senate and a meaningful role for that House in our bicameral parliamentary democracy. Canadians expect much from the men and women who serve them as parliamentarians. In fact, this debate reminds me of the famous Canadian political quote about what characteristics are needed for serving in public office: “You need the stamina of a water buffalo, the hide of a rhino, and the energy of a go-go dancer.” Who said that? It was Stan Waters, a retired lieutenant-general from the Canadian Forces, a distinguished World War II veteran, and most interestingly, the first elected senator in the Canadian Senate.

With that quote by the first elected senator in mind, I would like to devote my remarks to highlighting a major step taken by our government to ensure that Canadians' desire for Senate reform becomes a reality. This major step is the reference on Senate reform that will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in November of this year.

Reference questions to the Supreme Court of Canada are an important part of our legal development as a nation. Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act provides for this ability, and there have been 75 federal references since 1892. Such questions have been posed for tax clarity, national securities regulation, individual rights, and numerous issues of national importance.

Reform of the Senate is another issue of national importance that only this side of the House is taking seriously. While the last 20 to 30 weeks have understandably led to some public disappointment in the Senate, we are actually sending this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada as a result of the last 20 to 30 years of desire for serious reform of the Senate.

I do not exaggerate when I suggest that Canadians have been demanding more accountability and modernity in the Senate for the last 20 to 30 years. I quoted Stan Waters earlier in my remarks. He was elected by voters in Alberta in 1991 and served in the Senate with distinction. One of my former colleagues, Senator Bert Brown, retired from the Senate just months ago. For 30 years, he led the campaign for a triple-E Senate that we will all remember. Bert was perhaps most famous for ploughing “Triple E or Else” into a farmer's field in Alberta. Interestingly enough, it was actually his neighbour's field, so hopefully he got permission before carving that message to Canadians. However, it really was a cry from a number of people who were not being heard in the national discourse in Ottawa, and for 20 to 30 years people like Bert Brown, Stan Waters, and the voters in Alberta have been asking for change.

What is the common thread between these Canadians pushing for the reform of the Senate over the last 30 years? They are all Conservatives.

The triple-E Senate proposals came out of Alberta during the early 1980s. These approaches called for changing the method of selecting senators to one based on elections and for changing the distribution of senators among the provinces, as well as changing the powers of the Senate. In other words, the triple-E Senate would have been elected, equal and effective. Truly, it would have been the reform of the Senate that has been called for over 30 years.

After many years of promoting this reform on the national stage, the movement truly took root in public discourse in Canada. First came the appointment of the elected Stan Waters by then-prime minister Brian Mulroney. Following that, in the early 1990s, many of the key elements raised by Bert Brown and Stan Waters in the triple-E discussions found their way into constitutional discussions in our country at that time surrounding the Meech Lake and Charlottetown constitutional accords.

In fact, the Charlottetown accord would have resulted in a fundamentally reformed Senate. It would have been elected with an equal number of senators for each province and with some limitations on the powers of the Senate. We all know what happened. The rejection of the Charlottetown accord in the 1992 referendum was a setback for the prospects of fundamental, constitutional and Senate reform for many years.

The public dialogue in discussion for Senate reform only ended, however, with the election of the Liberal government in 1993. The Chrétien Liberals did not continue the approach of appointing elected Albertan senators-in-waiting, despite the fact that Albertans had chosen people who they wanted to serve in the Senate. They returned to the older custom of appointing the few Albertans perhaps brave enough to declare themselves as Liberal supporters in Alberta at that time. While the 13 years of Liberal government saw the movement for an elected and accountable Senate sidelined for more than a decade, the desire for reform continued to germinate in the public consciousness and in public opinion.

Following the defeat of the Liberals in 2006, our government made Senate reform one of its key democratic reform priorities and brought forward proposals to implement term limits for senators and a process to consult Canadians on Senate nominees. In fact, the only province continuing to elect senators, Alberta, has seen some of those elected senators sit in our upper chamber because Prime Minister Harper appointed them as per the direction of the Albertans—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The member has been here long enough to know that he cannot use the name of a sitting member of the House.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker, my passion for this speech sidelined my adherence to the rules for a moment.

Our government believes that the Senate must be reformed, or as with its provincial counterparts, if we cannot reform it, it should vanish. Our government is committed to reforming the Senate so that it better reflects the democratic values that Canadians have grown to expect and that is why we introduced the Senate reform act.

The Senate reform act contained two important elements. First, it would limit senators' terms to one non-renewable term of nine years. Second, it provided for a framework that provinces and territories could use to consult their populations on Senate nominees. While we know Alberta has been electing its senators for some time, other provinces have considered it, with the province of New Brunswick talking about electing its senators some time in the next few years. However, in our federal Parliament, despite our best efforts, progress on our Senate reform initiatives have been stalled by continued questions really about the constitutionality of that legislation from the lower house reforming the upper house.

While we remain confident that Parliament alone does have the authority to proceed with the amendments found in the Senate reform act, it appears that any progress will continue to be stalled until we can put these important constitutional questions to rest.

That brings us to our Supreme Court reference. On February 1, our government launched this reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada to gain clarity on the constitutionality of the Senate reform act as well as on a broader range of Senate reform questions and issues. The clarity achieved as a result of the reference will allow debate in the House to proceed on the basis of the merits of reform and without the uncertainty surrounding the constitutionality of the act. Ultimately, by addressing these questions now, we can move forward and accelerate the pace of reform. If all the questions and hyperbole in the House are any indication, truly there must be a desire to reform and to look forward, not to the past.

The reference process poses six questions concerning the amending procedures of part V of the Constitution Act, 1982. The first two questions ask the court to confirm the constitutionality of the provision for nine-year non-renewable term limits for senators and a non-binding framework for provinces and territories to establish their own processes to consult voters on the selection of Senate nominees. Our government remains confident that these measures separately and together may be accomplished by Parliament acting alone, pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The remaining questions focus on the appropriate amending procedures for a number of other issues that have been prominent in the Senate reform debate, being mindful as I said at the outset that this debate has been going on for 30 years. These additional issues include a national Senate appointments consultation process, real property and net worth qualifications for senators, and as a last resort, a question will be posed for consideration of outright Senate abolition.

Canadians deserve a more democratic Senate and the Supreme Court reference will help advance our progress toward that goal. We have been pursuing that goal since assuming government some years ago.

At this point, I will introduce and outline, in some broad strokes, the key arguments that our government is putting forward in the Supreme Court reference on Senate reform. The Constitution comprehensively sets out the rules for achieving Senate reform. Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, exhaustively describes the procedures for implementing any proposed constitutional reforms and sets out amendments that require provincial consent. In relation to the Senate, four changes require provincial consent: the powers of the Senate, the method of selecting senators, the number of senators to which each province is entitled, and residency qualifications.

Any other changes to the Senate can be made by Parliament alone. The plain language of sections 38 to 44 of part V of the Constitution, the history of the Senate and amending procedure reform, and the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation, all support Parliament's authority to make the reforms proposed in the Senate reform act without obtaining the consent of the provinces.

It is our government's position that except for the four matters mentioned explicitly in section 42, Parliament has the exclusive authority to make laws amending the Constitution in relation to the Senate. Term limits, consultation processes on appointments and the removal of property requirements are not among the four matters set out in section 42 of the act. Therefore, Parliament alone can make these real changes to that institution. These real and tangible changes related to accountability and reform have been asked for by Canadians for 30 years.

Our government looks forward to receiving the Supreme Court's opinion on this matter. Arguments will be made next month on this important national reference question. Our government received a strong mandate to pursue Senate reform, and the Supreme Court reference represents another concrete step toward the goal of making the Senate a more democratic, elected and representative place.

Our government strongly supports measures to improve accountability in the Senate, but we do not believe that the motion before the House today would bring us any closer to achieving that objective. In fact, the motion today and the partisanship and hyperbole it has already generated from the opposition members actually undermines the very principles that the motion purports to represent.

To have a serious discussion on democratic reform or potential amendments to the Constitution or on constitutional questions and removing partisanship from the upper house, and to try to advocate for those things through partisanship in the lower house does not seem to me to be a way to really engage the House in a serious debate about Senate reform, or indeed, to engage Canadians, Canadians such as Bert Brown or the late Stan Waters, who worked tirelessly for decades to reform that institution.

Motions that promote partisanship and promote division among Canadians in parts of this country undermine our parliamentary democracy. Therefore we certainly oppose the motion today, and I encourage all members, including the member for Toronto—Danforth, to encourage his colleagues to speak about reform of that institution in a meaningful and serious way, as Canadians have been asking.

As I said at the outset, Stan Waters was the first elected senator from the province of Alberta. There have been several since. These are Canadians that not only step up wanting to serve the public in the unique capacity of our upper house, but they are asking the public to support them in their pursuit of public office.

As any members of the House would know from knocking on the thousands of doors, which I know we all knock on in elections, that degree of connection and accountability that we seek on the doorsteps of Canadians translates into accountability in elected office. The very act of going to Albertans, asking for their votes, while knowing that senators will not serve beyond the end of their terms, would build accountability into each seat in the upper chamber. In fact, fighting against reform, which the opposition appears to do, particularly my friends in the Liberal caucus, would breed the opposite result.

How can we truly believe that any Canadian, man or woman, from any region of the country, any territory, if they never have to ask Canadians for their support and they could technically sit in the upper chamber for 30 or more years, how can we really expect accountability to exist in every case?

As any elected member of the lower House knows, going and seeking the trust of voters through an election builds accountability and term limits will build in accountability and respect for the institution in a way that has not been seen.

I should note that reform of the Senate is truly what Canadians want. It can be done in a way that I have outlined in my remarks. Many of the changes can be done by the House alone and effective senators can play a significant role.

As I said yesterday in some remarks on the subject, while I was in the Canadian Forces during the Chrétien Liberal government, the Canadian Forces was being dismantled. There were morale problems. The only—

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

The decade of darkness.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

The decade of darkness.

The only people who spoke for the Canadian Forces were two senators, the late Senator Forestall, a Conservative senator, and, with respect, Senator Kenny, a Liberal senator, who took it upon themselves to advocate for this institution.

This side of the House wants serious reform. This side of the House has been advocating for that for many years. We wait with heated anticipation for the Supreme Court reference in November that we hope will give the House, and all members in it, a road map for reform of our Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for outlining the government's position. I do not doubt his sincerity in putting it forward, but unfortunately we are really sidestepping the question. Throughout the presentation, the hon. member did more to reinforce our position than I think he realized because he spent so much time talking about how election and accountability were tied together.

Basically, the idea of an appointed partisan Senate is completely at odds with everything he claims the government and his party stand for. Therefore, all his argument amounts to is saying that the perfect, at least in the Conservatives' vision of the world, is the enemy of the good. Why, for goodness sake, can we not at least take some steps in the direction that we have been asking?

The Senate really is unduly partial to parties and political power. Partisanship has meant it has never been a serious defender of either principle or the provinces, let alone the people. That is so obvious. Yet all we get is a half-measure reform that has been sitting on the books for well over seven years and that is used as an excuse for no action at the moment.

I would like to ask the member if you cannot join us in making the Senate somewhat better now until either your reform or our goal of abolition takes place.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would remind all members, including the member for Toronto—Danforth, to direct questions through the Chair rather than directly to members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member covered a bit of ground in that question/statement, so I will try to pull two issues from it.

First, he talked about our Senate reform act having been on the books and having not advanced in some time. I would remind the hon. member that the Supreme Court reference is occurring in November.

As a learned law professor from one of our fine institutions before his election to Parliament, I would urge him to consider a proactive step in the reform debate. He should get involved. He should make a submission. The NDP could intervene and try to add to the debate of that reference where serious discussion will occur.

With respect to his remarks about partisanship, certainly the upper house and those elected senators I spoke about in my speech did sit in a caucus, as we all do as parliamentarians. I think it shows how really insincere the motion is when one would say that such caucuses could not exist in the upper house when elected senators in Alberta are running on principles as Conservatives. Therefore, certainly, the caucus structure in the Westminster system is important and I hope the hon. member acknowledges that.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member across the way is very simple. We have watched that party, since it came to power, appoint 57 senators, including Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau, and there is a problem. That is 2% of the Senate that the Conservatives appointed.

When the member sits in caucus, has the Prime Minister revealed some of the information that we have seen now between Mr. Duffy and the Prime Minister? Has the Prime Minister revealed to caucus members when Mr. Duffy and Pamela Wallin were going across the country during the election? Was he also part and parcel of that? Did he benefit from Mr. Duffy going to his riding to speak?

Do Conservative members know what is going on in the Prime Minister's office since they sit in caucus or are they in the dark, too?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Agincourt talked about what happens in caucus. I cannot speak about what happens in caucus, other than the fact that the our caucus is truly united on a desire to reform that institution. That is a singular common thread on this side of the House.

I would remind the hon. member that it was actually Prime Minister Chrétien who stopped the tradition of appointing elected senators. Albertans had expressed the desire to send elected upper house parliamentarians to Ottawa. That was done by Prime Minister Mulroney. Liberals actually stopped the movement for Senate reform.

I think back to famous former Liberal senator Andrew Thompson who set new standards for bringing the respect of the House down. I would encourage the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt to work within his caucus. I do not need to know what he says, but he should work within his caucus to get Liberals serious about Senate reform and catching up on the ground lost under their government.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague for his speech. He explained in large part the government's position on the Senate.

It is important to remember why the Senate was created and how the Fathers of Confederation initially envisioned it. It was supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought. That is not the case today. The upper chamber is just as partisan as the House of Commons, if not more so.

I heard my colleague complaining about the partisan nature of the House of Commons and the role of the party system. The second chamber, the upper chamber, was in fact created to offset the partisanship in the House of Commons. I wonder if the government thinks that an elected upper chamber—which is what it is seeking and will argue in favour of in court in November—would solve the problem of partisanship. After all, if senators are elected, they will still have a political allegiance. This will not solve the partisanship problem that we take issue with when the upper chamber was supposed to function as a chamber of sober second thought.

Having elected senators will not achieve that and, what is more, it will create a dysfunctional chemistry between the two chambers. We will have two elected chambers with no clear sense of which is best positioned to draft bills. That is a whole other matter.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate on that.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few times in his question, the member for Sherbrooke mentioned the Senate as a chamber of sober second thought. In my remarks, I briefly talked about some of the good work done by the Senate in the last number of decades. It can be effective and I think will be more effective when senators are elected and accountable for their regions.

I mentioned Senators Forrestall and Kenny advocating for defence and military members and their families during the decade of indifference. I think of another Liberal senator, and here I am being non-partisan, Michael Kirby and some of his work on health care, another important public policy element. I am also thinking of Senator Hugh Segal, who I met while I was a cadet at the Royal Military College of Canada, the only senator who talked about engaging foreign policy and all these sorts of things, defence procurement, a number of the issues that were not in the media to the same degree they are now. He was advocating for them then, and, in fact, was appointed by a Liberal prime minister.

There can be effectiveness in the Senate. It is our government's firm belief that it has been Canadians' desire for the last 30 years for accountability through election and term limits that will make the Senate even more effective and a complement to parliamentarians in both Houses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to identify the part of the NDP motion that the Liberal caucus supports and the parts that we find are wrong and that we cannot support.

The motion reads, “That, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate” and we agree, but we should add “in the Senate and in the House”. It goes on to say, “and, therefore, this House call for the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings”. Well, that is ridiculous. It is certainly against the Constitution. It continues, “and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business”. Can we also ask the same of the members of Parliament?

The Liberal Party agrees with the first part of the motion “to improve accountability in the Senate”, but also in the House. We believe Canadians want to see improved accountability in both the Senate and the House of Commons, which is why we have taken the lead on making that happen.

As of today, Liberal senators and MPs are the only ones who have begun to proactively disclose the details of their travel and hospitality expenses online for Canadians to see. In fact, Liberal senators are now far more accountable for their spending than NDP MPs, who continue to hide how they spend taxpayer dollars from their constituents.

Today what Canadians are wondering is why the NDP members will not disclose their expenses. Is it that they have something to hide, or maybe it is in their political culture to be accountable for others but not for themselves?

Why would those members not unanimously support the four measures our Liberal leader proposed publicly some months ago: hospitality expenses made by MPs and senators and their staff be disclosed; introduce legislation to make meetings of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons open and transparent to the public; create a quarterly and more detailed online expense report for spending by members of Parliament and the Senate that is also more easily accessed and usable by the public from the home page of the Parliament of Canada website; and the House and Senate Boards of Internal Economy should work with the Auditor General to develop mandatory performance audits of the House of Commons and Senate administration every three years.

I that agreed, unanimously? Certainly, I am sure my colleagues will applaud that, if they want to be as accountable themselves as they want the Senate to be.

The second part of this motion cannot be supported by the Liberals, “to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings”. That would certainly be against the Constitution.

I want to explain this to my NDP colleague who is so surprised. We have no right to say today that there are two kinds of parliamentarians, some with some powers and prerogatives and others without powers and prerogatives when it is not written in the Constitution of Canada. It is as simple as that.

We cannot say “You are a parliamentarian, but not the same as the ones in the House. You cannot be part of your caucus”. This would change the character of the Senate, its relationship with the House and it would be a constitutional problem.

It is very amateurish on the part of our NDP colleagues to be constantly introducing motions in the House that make no sense and waste time. It really is a basic thing to know that one house cannot restrict the powers and prerogatives of another house.

That is why we cannot support it. I think I have made my point clear.

Another example of the NDP amateurism in all these issues is that in June 2013 we had a debate of the opposition day motion that called for the complete defunding of the Senate. I doubt MPs are asking for that. The Liberals opposed this motion on the grounds that a defunded Senate could not achieve its constitutional mandate. Can we agree about that?

The New Democrats are falling into the trap that the Prime Minister has set. They are making it a constitutional issue rather than an issue about the Prime Minister's judgment in his appointments, and it distracts from scandal and cover-up in the PMO on the Wright–Duffy affair.

Yesterday, we learned that Mike Duffy was told to take the $90,000, keep his mouth shut and go along with the cover-up, or Conservative senators would kick him out of the Senate. On June 5, the Prime Minister said in the House:

...it was Mr. Wright who made the decision to take his personal funds and give those to Mr. Duffy.... [It was] not communicated to me or to members of my office.

That is what he said.

Now he saying that it was his best knowledge at the time. What a change. A lot of questions come from that. The Prime Minister, shamefully, does not want to answer to Canadians. That is completely unacceptable. Who told him that at that time? If somebody told him that only Mr. Wright was aware of the $90,000 cheque, who told him that? The Prime Minister should give names and should explain why these people misled him, if that is the case. If it is not he who misled Canadians, he should explain himself. The fact that he is not explaining himself is completely a scandal and an attack against our democracy.

The fact is that my Conservative colleagues accept that, day after day, the Prime Minister stands up and, instead of answering specific questions, deflects all the questions. They should be very impressed that this is the Prime Minister of Canada behaving this way. Let me say that as a minister I always answered questions in this House. The opposition may not have always been pleased by my answers, but as a matter of respect, if they asked me questions on something, I gave an answer. Most of these ministers do the same as the Prime Minister. When we come with a specific question on anything, most of them are pleased to read their notes and they give an answer that has nothing to do with the question. When they do not answer questions from the opposition, it is not only this House that they are not respecting; it is the people of Canada.

To get back to my NDP colleagues, they are not at their best when they talk about the Senate. First, there is this entire matter of abolishing the Senate because some senators misappropriated their budgets. Senator Duffy seems to have scoffed at the basic rules of respect for taxpayers.

It is absolutely staggering that the NDP is proposing to reopen the Constitution on that basis, because that is what we would be obliged to do. This party would be obliged to tell Canadians that the economy is doing very poorly, that the government has so mismanaged the economy that it has become anemic, but that that is not its priority. Its priority is to ask the Prime Minister of Canada, the premiers of the provinces, the House of Commons and all the provincial legislative assemblies to undertake a huge constitutional negotiation for the purpose of abolishing the Senate.

The Supreme Court will very likely tell us that that will require all or at least seven provinces with 50% of the population, but that is a relatively minor difference because, unless the NDP members rise and say they are prepared to abolish the veto on constitutional change that this House granted Quebec, 7/50 and unanimity are more or less equivalent.

The NDP members have never explained themselves on that point. Perhaps they should do so since they want to talk about the Constitution at all costs instead of talking about the Prime Minister’s accountability.

If Quebec’s veto on constitutional change is a joke to them, then 7/50 is equivalent to unanimity among the provinces. That is their fate and that is the debate we would have.

Obviously, one province will say it wants certain things if we abolish the Senate. We would embark on an enormous negotiation that would no doubt turn out badly and would be a huge waste of time. That is the NDP’s irresponsibility.

As for the Conservatives, their irresponsibility on this issue lies in their wish to elect the Senate without changing anything else in the Constitution of Canada, as though the provinces had nothing to say on the matter and a Senate elected without any mechanism for resolving conflict with the House of Commons would not lead to the same repeated paralysis we see in the United States. The Prime Minister of Canada wants to import many things from the United States, including parliamentary paralysis. The whistle has to be blown on that.

Furthermore, if the Senate were elected, the Prime Minister would focus on his own province and British Columbia, since those two provinces are highly under-represented in the Senate. Since the Senate is not elected but plays a useful role, which, most of the time, consists in leaving the last word to the House of Commons, the problem of the under-representation of Alberta and British Columbia is controllable.

However, if the Senate were elected, all its members would have only one idea in mind: to get themselves re-elected and to serve out their terms, and the under-representation of British Columbia and Alberta would be utterly intolerable. We do not know which province would volunteer to give them more senators.

Would it be the Atlantic provinces? That is highly unlikely; their weight in the House of Commons is steadily declining. Would it be Quebec? No, Quebec is a nation. We can forget about that. Ontario is quite under-represented in the Senate and the House of Commons, so that is highly unlikely. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories have no senators to give away.

Consequently, we would find ourselves in an enormous constitutional crisis with the ill-considered plan of an irresponsible Prime Minister who still refuses to conduct himself in a transparent manner with Canadians.

The Liberal Party of Canada is the only party with a comprehensive plan to make Parliament more accountable and transparent, and publicly disclosing our expenses is just the first step.

With the return of Parliament, Canadians can count on the Liberal Party and its leader to continue pushing for measures to prevent ethical breaches, increase openness and transparency and strengthen the integrity of our electoral system and our great democracy.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to point out that the member had his facts wrong.

The NDP was the first to post the expenses of its members online. My colleague failed to mention this. This is the first thing he addressed, but contrary to what he claims, we do this. The NDP started doing it even before the Liberals made an attempt to do so.

In addition, this motion has to do with the Senate. If anyone in the House wishes to move a motion on how the government or anyone else uses the House of Commons, they may also bring forward a motion on that. However, today's motion refers to the Senate. There is no need to confuse the issue, when there is no argument. This is my reading of the situation. The Liberals have no argument with respect to the Senate. They still want to maintain the status quo on this issue.

Let us stop confusing the issue and talk about what is on the table right now, namely the motion on the Senate. Should any members in the House wish to move a motion dealing with the House of Commons, they can do so, and that motion can then be debated and voted on.

I just wanted to comment on the Liberal member's misleading claims.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member is claiming that he posts all his expenses online and that his caucus does too, Canadians would be very interested to know this, since we have not seen them.

Furthermore, if the New Democrats are indeed volunteering to show transparency, why do they not vote unanimously for the Liberal leader's proposals, which they have refused to support?

As for the Senate, I put forward a whole series of arguments. I do not understand why he did not make any, but I will try to reiterate my own. We cannot abolish the Senate without the agreement of the provinces and Quebec—unless the member wishes to get rid of Quebec's veto. He did not really explain this. This is not a priority for Canadians. It is irresponsible to make us waste so much energy on this when we should be focusing on more serious issues such as the economy and the environment.

This motion is unconstitutional. We cannot limit the prerogatives of a group of parliamentarians through a House of Commons motion. It is completely amateurish of his party to bring forth a motion like this today, when there are so many urgent issues to discuss, including the Prime Minister's refusal to address serious allegations of a cover-up.

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

Mr. Speaker, normally I hold my counsel, but I really do have to take exception to being called an amateur on a point of law from someone who has proven to have no serious training in the law in his positions on constitutional matters.

The question is that the House take urgent steps. It is not actually saying what steps to take. It could well be by calling on the Senate later to adopt these measures itself. It could be for the parties to actively make sure senators do not sit in the caucus.

As for the earlier claim that the constitution is violated by this, I would urge the member to read the case of New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia. It makes it very clear that the privileges of the House block any application of the rest of the Constitution. Secondly, I would urge him to read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and understand how section 1 works. Reasonable limits on rights in the Constitution are absolutely possible. The idea of making sure that senators do not sit in caucus has everything to do with de-partisanizing the Senate. Therefore, the rational objective, the minimal infringement on such prerogatives as sitting inside the House and caucus, is not touched upon.

I would ask him to read the case of Osborne v. Canada, in which the Supreme Court said that high functionaries of the civil service themselves can be prohibited from engaging in partisan activities, and that would not violate the charter. Therefore, rather than these broad sweeping claims from the member who does not know anything about constitutional law, I would prefer he make his precise arguments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have made my colleague go out of his mind like this. Sometimes jurists have difficulties with political scientists. It is true, but I am very proud to be a political scientist. To speak for my profession, we know a lot about the Constitution and the political consequences of some of the legalities involved. A political consequence is to reopen the Constitution because we saw Duffy mismanage his budget enormously.

Certainly it is amateur to pretend the contrary. I should not say that anymore. Okay, my colleague is not amateur. I withdraw this word. My colleague is wrong on this issue, for example, when he put an equivalency in the ruling on the top bureaucrats and parliamentarians, because a senator is a parliamentarian according the Constitution. To say that there are limits on the ability to express one's political opinion and preferences when one works for the government as a public servant, and to say because of that we are entitled to deprive a parliamentarian of being a part of his or her caucus, is something that does not make sense and will not reach first base in baseball.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question. He seemed to get his facts mixed up during his speech. I will also reiterate what my colleague from Toronto—Danforth said.

According to the motion as it stands now, senators would no longer have party affiliations. It is therefore not unconstitutional to ask them not to sit in a caucus, since the motion proposes to eliminate all partisanship among senators. If they are not partisan, they can create a non-partisan caucus. However, we do not think that they should belong to a partisan caucus, since we do not want them to be partisan. Therefore, constitutionality is not an issue.

The member claimed that our desire to abolish the Senate came about in recent years, but that is completely untrue. We have been calling for the abolition of the Senate for over 50 years. This is not some revelation we had in response to the Senate scandals.

This brings me to my question. I would like to know whether the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville agrees with us or whether he supports all senators travelling to participate in partisan activities.

Does the member agree that senators—both Liberals and Conservatives—should travel around the country to campaign during elections? Does he agree with this level of partisanship and does he agree that senators should be allowed to use taxpayer money to participate in partisan activities?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am 100% opposed to any misuse of public funds and any use of parliamentary funds for partisan activities, whether in the Senate or the House of Commons. That is why I am surprised that the NDP members are putting forward a motion that applies only to senators and not to themselves. This clearly demonstrates that, in political culture, it seems to be more important to demand accountability of other people than of oneself. If we want to really work together to ensure that past abuses committed by unscrupulous parliamentarians never happen again, the Liberal leader has a very clear proposal. Unfortunately, it was rejected by our NDP colleagues.

I would also like to ask them why they have not yet stated their position on respecting Quebec's right to veto any constitutional amendments.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate.

I think most Canadians, and anyone watching this debate, understand that the member's integrity and opinions are beyond reproach. One thing that he garnered a lot of recognition for, and justifiably so, was the work he did as the minister of intergovernmental affairs in past governments. He certainly worked hard at gaining an understanding of all the provinces and their positions on the Senate.

I fully appreciate his comments on accountability, and in this motion I think it is fair to point the guns at the NDP and ask why the New Democrats have not been more accountable.

However, we are concerned and confused about other aspects of the motion. Would these issues have come forward during his days as the minister for intergovernmental affairs? Would the issues around the Senate and Senate reform have been issues that premiers would have come to him with?