Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Business of the House

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion for which I believe you will find unanimous consent of the parties.

That, at the conclusion of today’s debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Toronto-Danforth, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, October 23, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Question Period.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

Nuclear Weapons

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of the residents of Regina, who expressed deep concern about the continuing threat posed by nuclear weapons across the globe.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to call upon national governments to negotiate a treaty banning nuclear weapons, leading to their complete elimination.

Mining Industry

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, approximately 75% of the world's mining and exploration companies are registered in Canada.

Various indigenous and non-indigenous communities, both in Canada and abroad, have raised serious concerns regarding the impact of mining activities in their communities, including by certain Canadian companies. These concerns include environmental destruction, weak environmental assessments, failure to fully and adequately secure the consent of local communities, complicity in human rights violations and the use of government-sanctioned militias.

In response to partner organizations in affected countries, the United Church of Canada is asking the Canadian government to implement binding legislation that will, among other things, regulate the activities of Canadian mining companies abroad, allow Canadian courts to hear claims originating overseas, and ensure compliance within our national human rights standards to promote long-standing Canadian values of respect for the rule of law, good governance and democracy.

I am proud to table this petition that has the signature of many hundreds of people across this country.

Cell Towers

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of constituents in Guelph with regard to the Rogers proposal for a 40-metre tall cell phone tower at 987 Gordon Street.

My constituents are very concerned about the possible health concerns, including cancer, of the proposed tower, which lies 120 metres from residences in an area populated by many families with young children. They are also concerned about the negative impact on the value of residential properties in close proximity to the proposed tower.

Residents and the Guelph city council are against the proposed tower. The petitioners are calling on the Minister of Industry to stop the building of the proposed tower.

Human Rights

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The petitions are in response to a delegation of 14 Canadians from across the country, led by the Rev. Shaun Fryday of the Beaconsfield United Church, to study the impact of Canadian mining interests on indigenous peoples of the Cordillera region in the Philippines. The report, known as the Beaconsfield initiative, contains recommendations including for the calling of this petition and other representations, which were made to the international subcommittee on human rights in May 2012.

Mining Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

As with other members who have risen today to present a petition, I have one that has literally hundreds and hundreds of signatures from Canadians from coast to coast, from Nova Scotia, Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec.

It is calling on the Government of Canada to take action to regulate Canadian mining company operations abroad. It has several parts. In summary, it asks the government to establish a forum for non-Canadians to make claims if they have been negatively affected by overseas operations of Canadian companies; to adopt a legally binding mechanism for greater accountability; to ensure that the export development corporation is mindful of the negative impact of extraction processes abroad; to ensure that all projects funded by CIDA meet the criteria for the ODA Accountability Act; and to adopt legislation to ensure that bilateral agreements such as FIPAs are also protective of rights in the countries in which Canadian mining companies operate.

Genetically Modified Organisms

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is by petitioners who are mostly from British Columbia, from Comox, Vancouver and Burnaby.

It is calling for legislation to ensure that all products containing genetically modified organisms be properly labelled.

Public Safety

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Somali community left a war-torn country to come to our peaceful country only to have many of their children die at the hand of violence. Almost 50 young Somali Canadian males have been killed in Ontario and Alberta since 2006. In 2012, 6 of 33 Toronto shooting homicides befell Somali Canadian men. The petitioners call upon the government to investigate these deaths through the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, develop federal-provincial job programs, particularly with the RCMP, and examine witness protection.

Canadian Mining Companies

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present a petition signed by many Quebeckers who are deeply concerned about Canadian mining companies abroad. They are concerned about the environment as well as the living conditions of indigenous peoples. The petitioners are simply calling for binding legislation to govern the activities of these companies abroad so that they comply with international human rights standards, which promote values we all share.

I am very proud to be presenting this petition, which is also sponsored by the United Church of Canada.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Senate Accountability

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

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

I rise today to present to this House our practical suggestions for making the Senate more accountable to Canadians.

When the Prime Minister and the Conservatives were elected, they promised to reform the Senate. They also promised to clean up the appointments process. Now, seven years later, the only thing that has been done in that regard is that the Prime Minister has appointed 59 senators.

The Liberals and the Conservatives claim that the Senate is essential to our parliamentary system because, in their opinion, the Senate is the chamber of sober second thought and it gives the regions a voice.

In reality, the Senate is a haven for Liberal and Conservative Party organizers, contributors and fundraisers and, most of the time, these individuals act in the interest of their political party. Canadians have had enough and are fed up with the unelected and unaccountable Senate, which is always under investigation.

More and more Canadians agree with the NDP that the Senate should be abolished. Abolishing the Senate has been part of the NDP's broader vision of democratic reform for a long time. This idea is still a key component of our agenda, and more and more Canadians agree with us.

In the meantime, while we work toward abolishing the Senate, the Conservatives and the Liberals must take measures to correct their mistakes because the status quo is no longer good enough. The NDP is standing up for Canadians by moving this motion and proposing practical measures to make the Senate more accountable to Canadians.

There is no acceptable reason for unelected individuals to use taxpayers' money and Senate resources for partisan purposes. The Liberals and the Conservatives are defending the Senate, claiming that it is the chamber of sober second thought.

If that is the case, senators, as appointed rather than elected officials, should drop their partisan talking points and examine legislation in an impartial, non-partisan way. Like judges and other public servants who are also paid by taxpayers, they have a very specific job to do. They should start doing that job in an impartial and non-partisan manner.

Allow me, now, to share with members some very perceptive observations of a century ago, recorded literally half a century ago in Robert Mackay's classic book, The Unreformed Senate of Canada.

The quotation from 1913, published in the The National Review in London, is from a certain gentleman named Professor Stephen Leacock, who stated:

Liberals and Conservatives combined, we made our Senate, not a superior council of the nation, but a refuge of place-hunting politicians and a reward for partisan adherence.

Mr. Mackay, in his book, goes on to say:

Such statements, though rhetorical, are on the whole still true.

He is speaking in 1963.

Appointment of party supporters is an all but unbroken tradition. During his nineteen years of office Sir John Macdonald appointed only one Liberal and one Independent; Sir Wilfrid Laurier appointed none but Liberals...

Mr. MacKay then went on to draw attention to a debate in the House of Commons in 1906, where the prime minister at the time, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was asked the following question:

Does the right hon. gentleman...say that under our present constitution he feels he must select appointees of his own party when choosing them.

That was the question asked of the prime minister, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier responded:

...if I have to select between a Tory and a Liberal, I feel I can serve the country better by appointing a Liberal than a Conservative...

Nothing better conveys the connection between prime ministerial prerogative, patronage, and the undue hyper-partisanship of the chamber we call the Senate.

I end by citing where Mr. MacKay says:

Senatorships have often been granted as pensions to the “deserving poor” among party supporters in the House of Commons and provincial legislatures, or as honours to editors of the faithful press, party organizers, or to contributors to the “war chest.”

What has changed? My colleagues today will lay out how too many current Conservative and Liberal senators fit this tradition all too well. I will not go into those details, but one figure perhaps tells all. In the government's own factum before the Supreme Court in the reference on the question of Senate reform and abolition, the government itself tells us that 95% of the appointments to the Senate since the Senate began have been of persons of the same party as the appointing Prime Minister. Nothing has changed from those quotations from 1913 and 1963.

Canadians would be interested to know about the Senate administrative rules of 2004, which are not online and are not available for Canadians to see unless they go to a special effort to ask for a copy to be sent to them. In chapter 1, clause 3, various principles of parliamentary life are set out:

The following principles of parliamentary life apply in the administration of the Senate:..

(b) partisan activities are an inherent and essential part of the parliamentary functions of a Senator;

How so? I cannot wait to hear today from the members of the other parties how partisanship aids in fulfilling the supposed purposes of the Senate let alone how it is an inherent and essential function. The Senate has not bothered to remove this provision, even though last year it did amend some of the administrative rules on travel. In the principles:

a Senator is entitled to receive financial resources and administrative services to carry out the Senator's parliamentary functions...

Also:

a Senator is entitled to have full discretion over and control of the work performed on the Senator's behalf...in carrying out the [Senator's] parliamentary functions...

The whole question of parliamentary functions continues throughout the rules. Basically, a senator is prohibited from using his or her offices and other resources for anything but parliamentary functions, but the definition and the approach to parliamentary functions throughout the document, and what we know through the long-standing practice of the Senate, is to include almost everything but the kitchen sink. The rules go into some detail to exclude certain things as expenses that can be recovered. For example:

No Senator shall request the copying or printing of material by the Senate that...is partisan because it is on a party letterhead or includes a party logo....

It continues:

A Senator may not charge the following expenses to the Senator's office budget:

(a) payments to partisan organizations;

Wow.

Another provision under travel says that one cannot actually use Senate money to campaign during an outside election.

These specifications are clear in what they exclude. They exclude from partisanship almost nothing. Parliamentary functions of the Senate include almost everything.

I would end there by making one final comment. It is not a lot better, in fact it is no better at all, if senators travel around the country as propagandists for the sitting government. If they go around the country showing up on behalf of the government on the Senate dime, not on the government dime, it is not so different from the way the government is using advertising through government dollars to convey a partisan message. There is so much more I could say, but I will leave it to my hon. colleagues, who will no doubt say it much better than I.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up something I heard yesterday that, I have to admit, was a bit of a surprise to me. The member for Oak Ridges—Markham, in answering a question in question period, talked about how the NDP had once asked for six senators. I was totally flabbergasted by this, but maybe it was because I have only been here for five years.

Can the member enlighten us on either the truth or the falsity of that particular comment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can, indeed, enlighten the House on the total, complete, and utter falsity of that claim. I would not like to know that it was knowingly propagated no fewer than three or four times by the member.

At the time in question, when there were discussions about a possible coalition between the party of the member who just asked the question and the NDP, the NDP asked for six cabinet positions, which is somewhat different from asking for six senators. New Democrats never asked for a senator. We have never wanted a senator in the Senate. When a person appointed to the Senate has claimed to be an NDPer, we have asked that person not to stay in our caucus. It is a complete and utter untruth, and I hope it is not more than that. I hope to see the member rise in the House at some point to correct the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for an excellent motion. I certainly plan to vote for it. I appreciate the focus on getting rid of the hyper-partisan atmosphere in the Senate. I would like to get rid of the hyper-partisan atmosphere in the House. Both are threats to democracy in this country.

My question is slightly off-point of the motion, but as the other place is debating something, and my colleague from Toronto—Danforth has a distinguished background in law, I am wondering if he is prepared to share any personal views on whether the motion for gross negligence against three individuals offends principles of natural justice. I am deeply troubled by it. I have no use for the misuse of public funds, but a rush to judgment and a vindictive stoning in the public square of certain individuals, without getting to the bottom of what actually transpired, offends me.

I wonder if my friend from Toronto—Danforth has any thoughts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that I am speaking entirely for myself in the spirit of the question.

I am myself troubled by the procedure. I think it is nothing but veiled, vindictive politics. The Senate has to look at its own procedures. Its procedures with respect to finding a senator guilty of a criminal offence are much more protective of the individual than what is about to happen in the Senate. I have no time at all, from what I know, for the senators in question, but the process being followed in the Senate has to look at the Senate's own rules. That is simply my view. Whether it is actually the case, one thing everybody should know is that one lawyer's view is often matched by the opposite view from another lawyer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that over 600 constituents in the riding of LaSalle—Émard have voiced support for abolishing the Senate.

I would also like to congratulate my colleague on his opposition motion, because there is an urgent need to put an end to all partisan activities.

I would like him to expand on this in order to reinforce the importance of the motion he is moving here today regarding measures to end partisan activities and the urgent need to do so immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

All I can say is that, yes, this is really urgent. Waiting until the Senate is abolished is out of the question.

Canadians deserve good governance, including a government and a Parliament that work, as much as possible, in the best possible way. Therefore, yes, this really needs to be done right now, as soon as possible.