Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2013

Opposition Motion—Senate Accountability

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as I thought I had clearly said in my speech, my party, the New Democratic Party of Canada, absolutely believes in the abolishment of the Senate. The chamber of sober second thought has five u's: unaccountable, unapologetic, under investigation, useless, the whole nine yards. However, changes may take some time and the changes that need to happen in terms of partisanship of the Senate should happen right now. We urge members on both sides of the House to follow our lead and make those changes right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me on the following.

We often hear both the Liberals and the Conservatives making the argument that we should talk about the economy and that we are silly to want to talk about anything else. Does this mean that we will no longer talk about aboriginal woman, democratic reform of the Senate or employment insurance? We will no longer talk about anything that is not directly related to the economy. On the contrary, I think that we should talk about all these things that affect certain regions of Canada. Canada is a big country and the situation is not the same everywhere.

Does the member agree that we should talk about all of these issues in order to improve our country and our parliamentary structures, or should we only talk about the issues that interest the Conservatives and the Liberals?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It is funny that because this debate is taking place today, we on this side, Her Majesty's official opposition, have been accused of not caring about the economy, not caring about a free trade agreement, not caring about this and not caring about that. Nothing can be further from the truth. We believe in a strong economy, justice for aboriginal women and an untold number of different issues for the country.

One of the fundamental principles of our country that this whole democracy is based on is that the House of Commons is the shape of our democracy, but the Senate with five u's has to go and should go. It does not mean that we care any less about the other major issues before our country right now.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to take a few seconds to welcome all my colleagues on their return to Parliament Hill.

As we know, there has been a prorogation, which has deprived us of a precious month of debate on these fundamental issues. I earnestly hope that this new parliamentary session will be rich in terms of constructive debate and poor in terms of partisanship, so that we can all work together for the common good and improve the lives of Canadians.

I am accordingly proud to speak today in support of the motion by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, which calls upon the House to take urgent steps to improve accountability in the Senate and immediate measures to end senators’ partisan activities, including participation in caucus meetings. The motion also requires that senators’ travel allowances be limited to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to think as objectively as possible about the future of the Senate, its current role and what contribution it actually makes to progress in our society and in our democracy.

Before I express my opinion on the subject, I would like to issue a brief historical reminder. I hope it will give us a better understanding of the issue that brings us all here today, namely the relevance of the Senate.

Members will recall that electoral reform was a campaign promise by the Conservative Party and was included in its Speech from the Throne. However, not only have we not moved forward, we have retreated. This government has in fact appointed 59 new senators, including party faithful, defeated Conservative MPs, and party friends and organizers. It is a sorry story. The fact that we are where we are today is due solely to that party, which knows very well how to stab itself in the back, shoot itself in the foot or place a banana peel on the floor to be sure to slip on it.

While we discuss this motion by the member for Toronto—Danforth, whom I congratulate, the Senate is debating the expulsion of three senators and the withdrawal of their pay and privileges. The senators are disappointed at their loss of credibility in this matter. They were somewhat slow to debate the expulsion of these three senators. Their loss of credibility has been much discussed. Those mainly responsible, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, established a wholly partisan procedure for the appointment of senators.

Many provinces are asking that the Senate be abolished. Among them is Saskatchewan, whose premier, at the Council of the Federation meeting of provincial premiers in July 2013, called once again for the abolition of the Senate. Multiple scandals involving the Senate prompted the Premier of Saskatchewan, Brad Wall, to once again call for its outright abolition at this meeting.

Nova Scotia abolished its senate in 1928, and no one has been bothered about it since. Canadians want to see the Senate go. It is time that the old parties began listening to them. There is no longer any place for unelected senators who can block democratically passed legislation. The provinces of Canada are getting on very well without a senate. An unelected Senate filled with party cronies and bagmen has no place in a modern democracy.

Neither is it necessary to wait for the abolition of the Senate before taking action. Certain practical steps can be taken immediately. The NDP is calling for an end to the partisan work done by senators at taxpayers' expense. Senators should no longer be able to take part in weekly caucus meetings, conduct fundraising campaigns, engage in political organizing or promote a political party using Senate resources. The NDP demands an end to travel that is not directly related to senators' legislative functions and is paid for by taxpayers.

The NDP proposes that the Senate be abolished simply because it is an archaic institution, filled with cronies, organizers, money men and former Conservative and Liberal candidates. Senators act solely in the interests of the party that appointed them.

The origin of the Senate dates back to Confederation. At the time, the Fathers of Confederation gave that chamber the mission of reviewing and elaborating upon the legislation passed by the House of Commons. The Senate was supposed to be less partisan. It was also designed to represent minorities, the provinces and the regions in the federal legislative process.

As a result, the Constitution Act of 1867 divides the country into four regions: Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and the west. It sets the number of senators for each of those regions. The problem is that the Senate has never really filled this role with which it was initially entrusted, and senators instead vote according to the interests of the party they represent, rather than defending the interests of the regions they are supposed to represent.

Unfortunately, there are a great many recent examples of partisanship clearly prevailing over defending the interests of our society. To thousands of Canadians, the Senate has now been reduced to a platform used by the party faithful to conduct fundraising campaigns and promote the agenda of the government in power.

Many senators have been appointed to the Senate not on the basis of merit but as a reward for their loyal services to the party in office. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have appointed defeated candidates, campaign managers, party cronies and donors. The NDP believes that such appointments seriously threaten our democracy since senators are not elected by the people and are not accountable.

Consider Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin, who claimed $300,000 in travel expenses unrelated to travel to her home province. She was also seen attending numerous Conservative fundraising activities. During question period on February 13, 2013, the Prime Minister confirmed that he was aware of the senator’s travel expenses and that everything was above board. In August the Deloitte report concluded that Ms. Wallin had misused Senate resources, specifically by improperly claiming living and campaign-related expenses.

Carolyn Stewart Olsen is another Conservative senator appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister in August 2009. Between December 2010 and February 2011, she claimed over $4,000 in housing and meal expenses. During this time, the Senate was not sitting and she was not working in Ottawa.

Senator Gerstein was the chief fundraiser of the chair of the Conservative Fund of Canada. Appointed on January 2, 2009, he is the Conservatives’ biggest fundraiser. He was charged with violating the Canada Elections Act for filing a false tax claim and exceeding spending limits on campaign advertisements.

Senator Judith Seidman served as Quebec co-chair of the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign.

Senator Plett was the president of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Senator Braley is one of the party’s major donors. Prior to his appointment, Senator Braley donated funds to the Conservative Party.

It bears mentioning that in all, 51 of 57 senators were appointed by the Prime Minister.

I invite my colleagues to work together with the NDP toward the abolition of the Senate. The credibility of our institutions and our democracy is at stake. It is nothing short of the right thing to do to protect taxpayer dollars, and this is precisely the mandate given to us by Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, which served as a reminder of the facts about a number of senators. The majority of them are Conservatives, but there were also some Liberals who broke the rules.

Of course, some senators have merit. They have had distinguished careers and played by the rules, but the majority of them are partisan through and through, if I may say it that way. Some are defeated candidates, like the candidate from the Quebec City region who was once an MP. The voters said no, they did not want her to represent the Quebec City region. Days later, the Prime Minister said that she would become a senator. It is clear that partisanship in the Senate is about as bad as it gets.

Everyone knows our position, and my colleague spoke about it as well. We believe in abolition. Why, then, is it important to take meaningful measures quickly to ensure accountability and reduce partisanship in the Senate as much as possible?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. There was a time when members of the Senate were considered to be wise people whose job was to comment on policies.

Nowadays, it is clear that the Senate has gone off in a direction that is completely unacceptable to hard-working Canadians.

There was in fact an example of this in Quebec City when a senator was appointed. She had been a minister in the oldest government, which is to say the Conservative government, since 2006, and she was defeated. It was a partisan appointment. That is not okay. It is not an ideal situation.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which provided a good summary of recent facts and everything that has happened in regard to the Senate. She also underscored the urgency of and need for the motion that has been moved, with due regard to the ultimate goal of the NDP, which is the abolition of the Senate. This goal has been on the NDP's agenda for 50 years.

I would like my colleague to speak further about the abolition of the Senate and to explain why the NDP is in favour of abolishing the Senate because it fails to reflect a modern democratic Canada.

The Senate is no longer an institution worthy of the 21st century.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for LaSalle—Émard for her question.

The Senate currently costs $92.5 million. I do not believe that we still need this body, which in the past provided sound advice about the positions taken by the first people to represent us in Canada. Several provinces eliminated their senates and few people noticed.

The government proposes legislation and the Senate can reject it. Senators are not elected democratically. I believe that these are the main reasons why the Senate really should be abolished, apart from the fact that it is very unpopular from sea to sea.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was just now listening to the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary saying, at the end of his speech, that the Conservatives could not support this motion because it did not contain any concrete measures.

And yet the motion does include concrete measures: to put an end to partisan work carried out at the expense of taxpayers—such as participating in the caucus meetings of parties in the House of Commons, fundraising, working as political organizers and promoting political parties—and to travel that is not directly related to legislative duties.

Can my colleague clarify matters for the Conservative government's parliamentary secretary's colleagues and explain to them why these constitute concrete measures?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the party does not support either the positions or the proposals we are putting forward.

We are reaching out to the government and giving it a way out, because this whole affair has really gotten out of hand.

We are proposing a number of solutions that could help improve things. It is important to remember that this was one of the promises the Conservatives made during the election and it was included in the throne speech. They therefore need to take another look at the solutions we are proposing. This might be the last chance they have to save the Senate.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this opposition day and to debate today's motion.

I would like to remind the House of the wording of this motion, because some of the points in my speech are meant to clarify certain aspects. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate, and, therefore, this House call for the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings, and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business.

As parliamentarians, I believe we have an obligation to contemplate and carry out Senate reform, as needed, in such a way that promotes and ensures accountability—as we already do here in the House of Commons—transparency—as we also did in 2006 when we came to power—and the reliability of the system, as well as to uphold the public trust. It is really important to focus on public trust in relation to the Senate as an institution.

We would like to increase the accountability of the Senate. This is one of the most important objectives that our government has vigorously pursued, although the opposition has failed to support any of its efforts to do so since 2006.

That said, I firmly believe that the motion before us today in the House shows that the opposition does not have a clear position on the Senate. Our government has always favoured the idea of having senators elected by Canadians in every province. To date, only Alberta has ever held these elections.

Indeed, our Prime Minister honoured the choice of Albertans and appointed the senators who were recommended by Albertans themselves. We would like other provinces to follow suit. If each province could elect their own senators, the new representation here in the upper house would be very interesting indeed.

What is truly striking is that Alberta held senatorial elections in 1989, 1998 and 2004, but the NDP and the Liberals boycotted these three elections.

On our side of the House, we respect the choice of Canadians. We have encouraged each province to hold these elections. Indeed, we went further by asking the Supreme Court for a legal instruction on how to set up the consultation process to ensure that senators were accountable to Canadians.

The Prime Minister's position is absolutely clear. The status quo in the Senate is unacceptable. The Senate must be reformed or, like the old upper houses of our provinces, vanish. This view was clearly expressed in the throne speech that opened this session of the 41st Parliament last week, and I quote:

The Government continues to believe the status quo in the Senate of Canada is unacceptable. The Senate must be reformed or, as with its provincial counterparts, vanish.

As members will know, the issue of Senate reform has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. This referral will further clarify what options are feasible and how they may be exercised. Our government is committed to bringing about real change in the Senate, while respecting the Constitution of Canada, which I am sure has the support of all my colleagues in this House.

That is why, as noted in the throne speech, our government is anxious to receive the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada before proceeding with Senate reform. My colleagues will be presenting in greater detail the government’s arguments on the various issues referred to the court. Personally, I will be emphasizing the significant work our government has done to ensure accountability in the Senate. More particularly, I would like to review the steps the government has taken to ensure that the obligation to be accountable applies throughout our parliamentary institutions.

The motion states that urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate, something the government has been actively engaged in since it came to power in 2006.

In order to achieve our democratic reform goals, we have already implemented a broad range of measures to achieve improved accountability in the Senate.

Our government can in fact be proud of its track record on Senate accountability. I would like to emphasize that our government is focused on meaningful Senate reform, including elections, term limits and strong spending oversight.

When it became obvious that the possibility of reform was becoming bogged down in interminable debates about the constitutionality of our proposals, we returned to action. In the circumstances, I am pleased to provide my colleagues with an overview of the major breakthroughs in terms of responsibility and accountability in the Senate that our government has been proposing since 2006.

In that connection, I would like to restate the government’s commitment to improving democratic institutions in Canada, including the basic principle of responsibility.

Our record clearly reflects our goal of reinforcing government responsibility and transparency, so that our citizens can have confidence in their political institutions. This is very important.

If our democracy is to function properly, we must be willing to make the necessary changes to the Senate. Canadians can rest assured that we are the only party seeking to introduce genuine change. For example, it was our government that turned its attention to responsibility and improved the Senate rules governing travel and expenses. We have taken 11 steps to increase transparency and accountability in the Senate. Since 2006, our government has made Senate reform one of its priorities in the context of democratic reform, and has made proposals to introduce term limits for senators, and set up a framework for democratic consultation of the electorate in connection with the selection of senatorial candidates from the provinces.

Canadians have given our government a strong mandate to proceed with Senate reform. We have made substantial efforts to secure passage of a bill that would give the Senate democratic legitimacy, and improved accountability. Our government believes that term limits for senators and voter consultations on the appointment of senators are changes that Canadians want to see, and it is taking action accordingly.

These measures will help build relations between Canadians and senators, because it is ultimately to Canadians that every parliamentarian must be accountable.

The Supreme Court of Canada was asked to answer six questions to provide us with a Senate reform instruction manual. These questions addressed issues like appropriate procedures for amending sections of the Senate Reform Act and anachronistic property qualifications and, as a last resort, abolishing the Senate.

The fact that our government sent these questions to the Supreme Court proves that it is determined to reform the Senate and not merely talk about it. I therefore believe that it is important for our democratic system to evolve accordingly to ensure that political entities remain accountable to taxpayers and for the democratic process to preserve the trust of Canadians.

Through the initiatives mentioned above, our government will be able to implement concrete measures to increase Senate transparency and accountability, and we shall continue to work at maintaining the confidence of our fellow citizens.

To conclude, the NDP is contradicting itself when it first tells the media that it wants to abolish the Senate and then presents a motion on Senate reform. The NDP has already said that it wants to abolish the Senate, and yet today it is speaking about reform. We have not forgotten that in those years when we were a minority government, the NDP, behind closed doors, negotiated Senate seats in the event of a coalition with the Liberal party. Who is telling the truth?

Our government remains determined to implement Senate reform, and we are convinced that Canada's Parliament has the power to enact the improvements to the Senate contained in our legislative measures on Senate reform. Our government is convinced that these measures should be taken to increase Senate accountability.

I do not believe that the motion presented today in the House of Commons is a serious or suitable measure to achieve this objective. I am therefore personally opposed to it, and would ask all members of the House to oppose it as well. However, we will continue to work towards Senate reform in keeping with the sound proposals we expect to receive from the Supreme Court of Canada.

I trust that all members of the House will be able to work together to give Canadians confidence in our Canadian democratic institutions, in which we take great pride.

I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague’s presentation quite interesting.

First of all, I want to make it very clear that the NDP has always called for the abolition of the Senate. It is truly unfair for the government to wage a campaign of disinformation and fiction.

What does he think his constituents and fellow Canadians will have to say? They are completely shocked by the scandal involving the Conservative senators appointed by the honourable member's own Prime Minister. What are they saying about the Senate? Are they not frustrated that after his government repeatedly called for Senate reform, the only thing they are seeing is scandal and a glaring lack of responsibility toward Canadians?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. May I say again that every MP and senator is responsible for managing his or her own expenses. That is of paramount importance to us. We have done our duty on this side of the House. We have put in place measures to ensure that senators attend to theirs. I want to remind every MP and senator that they have a moral obligation to respect taxpayers' money.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ever since my eminent colleague from Toronto—Danforth tabled his motion, the Conservatives and some Liberals have maintained that he is an amateur and that his motion was hastily cobbled together.

However, I have a few questions for the Parliamentary Secretary in an attempt to prove that it is actually his government that is flying by the seat of its pants.

Their version of a reformed, elected Senate has no electoral rules. None at all. There are no rules that would apply to the entire country. Each province would be left to come up with its own rules.

Moreover, if the Senate remains a partisan institution, candidates vying for a Senate seat will wage a partisan campaign. Will they have access to funds provided by their respective parties or will their campaigns be financed in some other manner?

There are many questions that cannot be swept under the rug because when important questions such as these are swept under the rug, that is when people start making things up as they go along.

If my colleague has some idea of how this would work, then I invite him to let me in on the details.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very interesting question.

We have given the provinces the option of electing senators from their own list. That will not change.

From the standpoint of democracy, it would be a significant gain for Canada if every province could select the individuals who deserve to sit in the upper house. It is a great privilege.

If every province, such as Alberta, did the same thing, I am sure we would have a list of distinguished Canadians who could sit in the upper house.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pursue the point that was just made my hon. colleague.

In fact, what the Conservative majority has offered the provinces is not the opportunity to elect their own senators; rather, they have forced the provinces to hold elections, for which they are not compensated, under a dog's breakfast of different rules and regulations from one province to another, and under different election campaign financing rules and so on. They will then take on the cost of organizing these elections in order to offer up a list of possible candidates.

However, under Bill C-7 it would still remain the Prime Minister's prerogative to choose someone to be appointed to the Senate. He would be in no way restricted to the list of possibilities created through this process of forcing the provinces hold elections.

I wonder if the member could be clearer about what is currently before the House, which emanated from the Senate side as, I think, a very inadequate attempt to create real reform in the other place.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very interesting question. However, I would remind her that if every province could hold elections to elect senators, Canadians in each province would choose their own senators.

It is ultimately the people who would make that choice. That would be greatly appreciated and it would also be a significant gain for our democracy.

Democracy in Canada has a cost and we are all aware of it. Defying democracy has a much greater cost. I think the best solution is to let Canadians choose their own senators.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a question to the Conservative member from Quebec. Conservative members from Quebec are a rare breed. They are almost an endangered species.

This brings me to Bill C-7, which no longer exists because it died on the order paper due to prorogation. This bill was presented by the government, which requested a reference to the Supreme Court. As the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands explained, the bill provided that the provinces could hold elections at their own expense. Then, it would be up to the Prime Minister to decide whether or not to appoint the elected individuals.

If, for example, there were three vacancies in Quebec and five individuals were elected, it would ultimately be up to the Prime Minister to choose who would get a seat. This is because the government decided to put forward a piece of legislation that did not require any change to the Constitution.

That is what the government did. This was a rather strange approach designed to circumvent the Constitution, to leave it be so as not to trigger a debate on the issue. The Conservatives designed a piece of legislation that bypassed the Constitution by giving the Prime Minister the prerogative to select senators.

How does this process allow Canadians to have a greater say in Senate appointments if the Conservatives still give the Prime Minister the power to accept or reject an individual? An individual can be elected, but the Prime Minister does not have to appoint him. How does this give power to citizens?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I would like to remind him that democracy is important in Canada. In two years, he will surely get a taste of democratic choice in his riding, and I would like to give him a little tip. In politics, you can win once, but it is much more difficult to win a second time.

Respecting the Canadian Constitution is very important. The Constitution currently sets out that senators are chosen by the Prime Minister. If people want to change one part of the Constitution, it needs to be opened up, which is not something that can be done every year based on the acts and regulations they want changed. It is done only very rarely and will happen in good time.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London is rising on a point of order.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some discussions have taken place, and if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to return to routine proceedings and reports from committees.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Pursuant to Standing Order 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I should like to move concurrence at this time.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?