Debates of March 5th, 2013

Opposition Motion--Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. I am sensing some impatience in the House at the length of time we are allocating for questions and comments. There is nothing the Chair can do about this if we have long questions and long answers. Therefore, I would ask all members to shorten their questions and their answers.

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

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

Mr. Speaker, recently Italian voters sent a majority to one chamber and another majority to the other chamber with no dispute settlement mechanism between the two, so they are unlikely to find a government and they may have to come back to an election at a time when the economy is collapsing.

In the United States, the two chambers cannot agree about the budget, and they put the world economy at risk.

I ask the minister not to dodge this question for once. Why do he and his government want to do the stupid thing of importing to Canada an institutional arrangement that would paralyze our institutions here in Canada with two elected chambers that are unable to find a solution other than a stalemate, as is the case in the United States, Mexico and Italy, and in all the countries where there are two elected chambers speaking for the people with no dispute settlement mechanism between them?

This is a very dangerous reform he is proposing. He should not dodge the question but answer it.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is what the Liberals use as an excuse to actually not do anything at all in the Senate. They want to use this as an excuse to support the status quo in the Senate and let it be the way it is today.

We want to see real change in the Senate. I will say that the relationship between the House of Commons and the Senate has developed over many years. When senators are elected by Canadians, when Canadians have a say in who represents them and when senators have meaningful term limits, that relationship would evolve in the best interests of Canadians.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the minister the opportunity to reflect on the NDP and Liberal positions.

It seems the Liberals compare our system to republics, which clearly shows they do not have a clue on how our system works. If they are going to compare with other countries, they might as well pick a constitutional monarchy, one like Australia, where it does work. To do anything else is just ridiculous.

I would like the minister to comment on how ridiculous the Liberal logic is, and also how disingenuous the NDP is in wanting to just abolish the Senate when it is not possible. Are they not just advocating for nothing to happen, for retaining the status quo? Is that not the real effect of the NDP position?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with my colleague. At the end of the day, the opposition's position would only support the status quo and not doing anything at all.

We heard in the question from the Liberal member that their proposal is to not do anything, because they want to get into these long constitutional battles.

The NDP members propose abolition, and they know very well that it is not possible. They are hiding behind the provinces. At the end of the day, the NDP members are doing this because they want to appoint their own senators. They do not have any senators in the upper chamber and they would like to appoint their own.

They may say it is not true, but in fact they tried to do it in 2008. They tried to work with the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals and tried to appoint their own senators. In fact, there is a signed agreement to do that.

That is their plan: not to do anything in the Senate at all. We have a real plan to reform the Senate, to bring in term limits and allow Canadians to have a say in who represents them in the Senate. That will go a long way toward having a more accountable and representative Senate for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the minister is calling this a stunt and saying that we are trying to distract people from the real issues. The Senate is the one pulling stunts here, as Senators spend their time running from journalists instead of being accountable, as they should be.

To get back to the point that my colleague from Toronto—Danforth raised, these people are not accountable to anyone. If we were to tell people in our ridings to go visit their senator, they would not be able to find them, because senators do not have riding offices and do not provide any services to the public. I have to wonder how they maintain contact with the people they are supposed to represent, when they are never at home, never in their riding.

I would like to ask the minister what he thinks about the fact that these Senators are not accountable to anyone and cannot properly represent people. I would also like to hear what he thinks about the fact that it is the Senate that is pulling stunts and not the NDP with its motion, which is designed to do away with all these stunts and focus on the real issues that are important to Canadians.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he seems to be unhappy with the current status of the Senate, as we are as well. We believe the Senate needs to be more democratic and accountable and needs meaningful term limits. Canadians need to be allowed to have a say as to who represents them in the Senate. If he is unhappy with the current status of the Senate, then why will he and his party not support the Senate reform act? Why will he not support our efforts to reform the Senate?

At every opportunity, New Democrats have filibustered the Senate reform act. They have delayed it and opposed it. Even today, when I asked for unanimous consent to pass this bill, they rejected an opportunity to reform the Senate. They have a dream of abolishing the Senate. They are trying to create a sideshow, taking away from the fact that they continuously block, oppose and delay real reform in the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister went further than ever to answer my question. He said he is hoping that elected senators and members of Parliament will find a way to work for Canadians and will do something we do not see in other countries. Does he not understand that the very moment a senator is elected, he has a mandate? Then because he has a mandate, he will not give the last word to his colleagues in the House. They will stand on their views and then block a lot of bills, not 2 or 3 out of 400, as is the case today, but maybe half of them.

This would be a big change in our political system. Does he not realize the consequences it may create in our centralized federation where we need to be sure that our federal institutions are working properly for Canadians?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is where we, the Liberals, and the NDP differ. We believe that Canadians should have a say on who represents them in the Senate. We trust Canadians on this issue. We also believe that a more accountable democratic Senate is actually a good thing for the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, institutional reform, if not done wisely, might create more bad than good. It is a well-known tenet of political science that tomorrow's political difficulties are often the result of today's ill-conceived institutional reforms.

I will show that this is exactly what will happen if the House makes the mistake of supporting the motion moved today by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth on behalf of the NDP caucus. This motion urges the Government of Canada, in consultation with the provinces and territories, to take immediate steps towards abolishing the Senate of Canada.

Let us list all the problems that implementing this motion would cause. First, we would have to open the Constitution. In these times of economic uncertainty, where the governments in our federation have to work together to protect Canadians' jobs, the NDP is asking them to put a great deal of their energy into constitutional negotiations.

Second, the NDP must tell us whether it really believes that all the governments in our federation are willing to open the Constitution to deal solely with the issue of the Senate. If the NDP thinks that is true, then I suggest they go talk to the current Government of Quebec.

As Professor Benoît Pelletier, from the University of Ottawa, said to Hill Times on February 18, 2013:

I don't see the abolition of the Senate to be something that would get the approval of all the necessary provinces that would have to give their approval. I'm sure that different provinces, including Quebec, would like other subjects to be discussed at the same table. We would eventually get something as large, as wide, and as substantial as the Meech Lake Accord or even the Charlottetown agreement.

The NDP may want a new round of mega-constitutional negotiations, but Canadians put constitutional talks at the bottom of their current priorities, and rightly so.

Third, has the NDP taken into account the fact that the constitutional rule to abolish the Senate almost certainly requires the unanimous consent of the provinces? Most experts think that, if the 7-50 rule—seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population—is needed to change the nature of the Senate, then the consent of the House and the unanimity of the provinces is needed to abolish the Senate, and this would likely be confirmed by the Supreme Court.

In the February 18 edition of The Hill Times, Bruce Ryder, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, reminded us of this when he said that the support of 10 provinces was needed. In any case, I would like to remind all hon. members of something that has not yet been mentioned: the Parliament of Canada has passed regional veto legislation. The regional veto act would therefore have to be abolished so that none of the provinces would have the opportunity to veto changes to the Senate or its abolishment.

Fourth, since the NDP keeps saying that it wants to impose a costly referendum on Canadians on this issue, has the party considered what question should be asked and what majority would be required? A question that gives Canadians only one alternative—to abolish the Senate or not—would not do justice to the variety of opinions Canadians have about the Senate.

As for the majority required for abolition, is the NDP thinking of a simple majority at the national level? That will not do because the provincial governments and legislative assemblies that would have voted to keep the Senate would feel, with reason, that their constitutional duty is to have the wishes of their voters prevail.

So we are talking about a simple majority within each province. The probability of attaining such a majority 10 times from coast to coast is so low that you have to wonder why public funds should be spent on such a referendum.

Therefore, we see that abolishing the Senate would represent a major change to the federation, requiring the unanimous support of the provinces under the rules for amending the Constitution. This is very unlikely to happen. As a matter of fact, only three provinces have indicated they are currently in favour of abolishing the Senate.

I think the best conclusion we may reach on this ill-advised motion is the one given by Peter Russell, Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto. He was quoted in Hill Times on February 18, 2013. Dr. Russell said:

They [the NDP] really haven't done much homework on the pros and cons of bicameralism. I don't know if they honestly know how to spell the word.

Professor Russell said this. Indeed, if we followed the NDP's plan, Canada would become the only large federation in the world to have a single federal chamber. If we were to lose our upper chamber, then we would also lose the useful role it plays in our political system, which benefits Canadians, particularly the regions and minorities.

This is precisely the role that the Fathers of Confederation set out for the Senate, the role of sober second thought. Since senators are not elected, they play their role with moderation and almost always give the elected chamber, the House of Commons, the last word.

But with sober second thought, senators can detect mistakes and inaccuracies, and can ask members to amend their bills in the interest of taxpayers and citizens.

Allow me to cite some recent examples of sober second thought executed by our colleagues of the other chamber. In 2006, the House accepted 55 Senate amendments to improve the Federal Accountability Act. In 2008, the Senate convinced the government not to proceed with changes to the Canadian film tax credit. It was an infamous censorship provision that would have allowed the minister to deny a film tax credit where it would be, according to the minister, contrary to a vague notion of public policy. There was a huge outcry from everywhere in Canada. Thank God we had a Liberal senator who saw the mistake and corrected it in the House.

It was in 2012, after rejecting Liberal amendments to the Safe Streets and Communities Act in the House, that the amendments were made in the Senate and then accepted in the House. Currently, the NDP bill, Bill C-290, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting), is being carefully scrutinized by the Senate after a number of sports leagues and several provinces raised concerns that the House had failed to provide the necessary level of scrutiny before passing it.

As we see, the Senate has always provided useful amendments and clarifications to bills passed by the House, while rarely obstructing the general will of this chamber. In fact, between 1945 and today, I have enough fingers to count the bills passed by the House of Commons that were rejected by the Senate. The Senate performs an important checking role in the Canadian federation by providing an opportunity for sober second thought on bills passed by the House, a complementary chamber of scrutiny and amendment. This is precisely why the Senate was created by the Fathers of Confederation. It would be particularly unwise to abolish a chamber of scrutiny, since we are currently dealing with the most secretive government in Canadian history. What federal institutions need is more oversight, not less oversight.

For the Senate to properly fulfill its role as a chamber of sober second thought, the Prime Minister has to choose good senators who are exceptional because of their hard-working nature, rigour, expertise and moral strength.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has made some very dubious appointments. Instead of appointing highly qualified individuals, he has chosen some people whose sole qualification was as Conservative Party partisans. The Prime Minister is to be held accountable for these bad choices, not the Senate as an institution. The Prime Minister must also be held accountable for the constitutional mess that his own Senate reform would create. He wants to elect senators without changing anything else in the Constitution. Let me describe how much damage that would do to our country.

Many Canadians would like their senators elected rather than appointed, and that is understandable. It would be more democratic. However, what would happen if, as proposed by the Conservative government, we changed the way Senate seats were filled, without changing our Constitution accordingly?

If we went along with the Conservative Senate reform proposal, we would have: no dispute settlement mechanism between the Senate and the House if both were elected; continued under-representation of Alberta and British Columbia with only six senators each, when New Brunswick and Nova Scotia hold 10 senators when they have five to six times less than Alberta and British Columbia; U.S.-style, now Italian-style and Mexican-style gridlock between two elected chambers unable to solve disagreements; and bitter constitutional disputes regarding the number of senatorial seats to which each province would be entitled. Fortunately, the Supreme Court is likely to confirm that such ill-conceived Senate reform cannot be done unilaterally by an act of Parliament alone.

Therefore, first things first: will the provinces be able to reach an agreement on the distribution of senatorial seats? If they do, we can then figure out which constitutional powers we should attribute to the Senate in order to create healthy complementarities with the House rather than paralyzing duplication, after which we can agree on the process to elect senators and federally amend the Constitution accordingly.

Abolition of the Senate would represent a major change to the federation requiring the unanimous support of the provinces under the rules for amending the Constitution. This is very unlikely to happen. Furthermore, the Senate serves a useful function by improving or correcting bills that pass through the House.

As long as the provinces fail to agree on the number of senators to which each one is entitled, we must avoid the kind of constitutional chaos that an elected Senate would cause.

Instead, let us keep the Prime Minister accountable for the quality of the individuals he appoints to the upper house. Let the Senate continue playing the role conferred upon it by the Fathers of Confederation, the chamber of scrutiny and the chamber of sober second thought.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was very well done, informative and well argued. At the same time, is he not being a little defeatist in his clear understanding that it is impossible to abolish the Senate? It is ultimately, yes, in the hands of the provinces and the people of the provinces, but we owe it to Canadians to work with the provinces to try to persuade them, assisted by Canadians in their outrage about what the Senate now represents.

If the Supreme Court does say 7/50 is the formula, it does become possible. I grant that if it is unanimous consent, it becomes very difficult, but 7/50 it is possible. As my colleague, the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Quebec just reminded me, Jack Layton always reminded Canadians, “don't let them tell you it can't be done”. With that in mind, is the member absolutely certain, for example, that Quebec would never support the idea of abolition?

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

Mr. Speaker, I failed to meet one Quebec politician who would be ready to open the 1982 Constitution only to fix the problem of the Senate. I never met one in the National Assembly of Quebec, so that answers the member's first question.

I will ask the NDP members, because they have a full day to answer, if they are saying that they are ready to get rid of the regional veto act. When they say that it will be 7/50, that means the regional veto act will not exist any more. The House and the Senate will get rid of it. If that is their plan, they should say that, because I think it will create a big flap.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member agrees with us that the NDP motion is nothing more than a sideshow and a distraction and really it is not possible to abolish the Senate in the way proposed. He also disagrees with us in having term limits in the Senate and allowing Canadians to have a say. Therefore, for so many years. while Liberals were in government, they did nothing to make the Senate more democratic, more accountable? Why do they support the status quo? Why do they support not making any changes in the Senate?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that under the Liberals, the Senate played its role as a chamber of scrutiny. It is the role that the Senate has played since Confederation.

It is not only the Chrétien government that did not change the chamber of scrutiny in an elected chamber. It is all the governments before. It has not been done before because it is not as simple to do if we have a sense of responsibility. If we have a sense of responsibility, we do not elect senators without changing anything in the Constitution. We do not create two chambers with equal powers that would paralyze each other. We know that, but we do not create a forever under-representation for Alberta and British Columbia. That would be so unfair in an elected Senate.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville a question.

I do not doubt his intellectual rigour and honesty, but does he not see that polls clearly show that what you are proposing, better senators for example, pales in comparison to what is being called for by the 78% of Canadians who are against the status quo? Is this not a do-nothing attitude on your part? It almost seems as though you are satisfied, that you are fine with this problem.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would remind members that all questions and comments must be addressed through the chair and not to members directly.

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reply to my colleague through you.

The Liberal Party of Canada is included in the 78%. We would support an elected Senate. However, I would like to know what he would do about the problems that would be created if we did not amend our Constitution accordingly. What would happen if we did not establish a hierarchy of the powers of the Senate in relation to those of the House of Commons and if we did not set the number of senators for each province that the provinces could agree to?

Today, with unelected senators, it is not the end of the world if a province is overrepresented. But the day that we have an elected Senate and it exercises its real powers, the overrepresentation of Alberta and British Columbia will be intolerable. For these reasons, as responsible legislators, we must not take the easy road of abolishing the Senate or having an elected Senate without planning for it. We have to work with the provinces to see whether they can agree on the number of senators for each province. It will be very difficult to do, but just because it is difficult does not mean we can pretend that the problem does not exist.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville's arguments for an effective House of Commons and Senate.

The NDP wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can the member comment on how important the Senate is to the regions, minorities and Quebec? The NDP wants to do away with one of Quebec's advantages in our federal parliamentary system.

If the opportunity arose, would the member support limiting senators' terms to foster renewal and greater effectiveness within the Senate?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by answering the second question. We are open to the idea if it is constitutionally possible, that is, if it can be done unilaterally by Canada's Parliament. Limiting senators' terms to two years would obviously be unconstitutional because it would change the character of the Senate. Limiting terms to 15 years might be constitutional. The government finally decided to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. We will get an answer.

In my speech, I emphasized that it would be very dangerous for Canada to be the only large unicameral federation in the world. I hope that our NDP colleagues will take a close look at this issue.

With respect to minorities, I would note that francophone communities outside Quebec are now in court to protest the government's bill because there have always been francophone senators from other provinces to speak on behalf of francophones across Canada. Premiers in Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and elsewhere have wisely appointed French language champions. That would disappear along with the Senate.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to raise a question, but the Minister of Veterans Affairs talked about the importance for the regions of the Senate. I happen to be in the unenviable position of having Senator Michael Duffy as one of my senator. I agree 100% on the Senate being very important for the regions in representing the regional interest if the government is going against what the region wants.

However, what we clearly have in this case is a senator who is not a resident. He does not rub shoulders with the residents. He is not fighting for employment insurance, as I and all my colleagues are. What he becomes is the representative of the Prime Minister in the region which has the cart before the horse. There is a problem.

Could my hon. colleague tell us how we protect ourselves against that? The current structure of the Senate is the Prime Minister appoints people to represent his views in the region rather than the senator who is supposed to represent the residents of that region to the Government of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, if we link the impression of my colleague with the NDP motion, it is not because we have bad doctors that hospitals are closed, otherwise the House would have been closed for awhile. We had bad MPs who were in breach of many rules, and we know that.

Second, I am convinced that if a senator does not have his or her residence in the province, then that individual should not stay in the Senate. It is constitutional requirement. In French it is even clearer. It is “le domicile”, so it is clearly the principal residence. It is an obligation to do so. If a senator is not respecting this rule, then that senator should leave his or her seat right away.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

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

It has been quite an unsurprising day so far in the House. We have listened to the Minister of State for Democratic Reform spouting conspiracy theories and pulling a stunt like asking for unanimous consent when having just sent the government bill off to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. The Liberal member gave his great discourse on the dangers of democracy, while supporting the status quo. We have had two great speeches from NDP members.

Let me comment in particular on the speech given by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, a member of the House not yet—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am having some problems hearing.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

My response is if that end of the chamber on both sides were quieter, the member might be able to hear. I would repeat to all members that it is difficult to hear the speeches. It is obviously an important issue, given the tenure of the debate to this point. If members are to have private conversations, I would ask them to whisper rather than talk at the top of their lungs.

The hon. member for Beaches—East York.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to comment on the fine speech from my colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. She is a member of this House, not yet old enough to serve in the Senate. I think that is evidence enough in support of this motion, a sufficiently compelling argument on which to actually rest my case.

However there is yet more evidence, so I will not rest it there. I am sure she and my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, whose motion this is, have greater expectations of me.

If I might, I will say what a pleasure it is to share the privilege of representing the citizens of the east end of Toronto with the member for Toronto—Danforth. We stand back to back in our common cause of serving the people of the east end of the city. I stand with him today in full support of this motion.

Today's motion is part of a larger progressive vision and plan that we in the NDP have for reforming the electoral and parliamentary systems of Canada.

This is about bringing a more fulsome democracy to Canada, about making representation more meaningful and real, about making sure we have a system whereby the citizens of this country can be sure that they are able to remove us from this place when those of us who occupy this place fail to do our job properly. It is this latter point that is relevant, I believe, to today's motion, to this part of our democracy project.

Let me say at the outset of this speech that it is my desire as an MP to always conduct myself in a dignified and civil manner as befitting this institution. Whatever one wants to say about the conduct and language that is appropriate to this place does not really matter because there are, in any case, some very clear, explicit expectations of my constituents for my conduct.

A speech about the Senate poses a huge challenge to that, because the subject matter is not in fact dignified and is not civil. The institution has become ugly, crude and sordid, and an argument for its abolition cannot avoid but shine a light on that and speak in plain terms about that.

As a new MP, I am not so used to and familiar with this place yet that the Senate and the senator seem normal to me. There is something quite unusual about this collection of people who have made this place home till kingdom come or they are 75 years old. This ought to be a place where we are able to be, only by the will and grace of those who sent us here. We ought to feel lucky about that. We ought to never take for granted the privilege we have to be in this House to represent the views of our constituents on the important issues of the day.

We ought to be well aware, every day, that the privilege is in our constituents' hands to withdraw or withhold should we slip and fail in our duty, or should they change their minds, or should time and events simply overtake us and our usefulness to them.

It was a very strange experience early on in my tenure here—and strange perhaps that I remember it really well—the day I sat down on a joint House of Commons-Senate committee, substituting for one my colleagues, next to a senator. Here was this man, sitting on this committee nominally for the same purpose as the rest of us sitting around the table, reviewing and scrutinizing legislation, studying the issues of the day, with no one to go back to, no one to account to, no constituency, no events that weekend to get back to the riding for, just collecting a salary until the inevitable. He was entirely unaccountable.

This is to argue that the institution is fundamentally undemocratic and that it represents a deep distrust of democracy. It is and it does. It is a comforting backstop for those who are concerned about the wisdom of the elected, and by extension the wisdom of the electors. There are facts aplenty served up over the course of time to undermine the justifications of that institution.

To focus on the issue of accountability seems a bit naive. There is an unassailable truth to those arguments, but there is a bigger truth that seems to make those finer, higher arguments somewhat moot.

The Prime Minister once described the Senate as a relic of the 19th century. Were it only that, then there may be something pointedly historical about it and some historical justification for keeping it alive, for reforming it, for modernizing it perhaps. This argument might take the shape of tradition versus more modern democratic notions about institutions.

However, it is actually substantially worse and considerably sadder than simply that. The institution, even for what it was, has degenerated and become corrupted beyond rehabilitation. It is not even about what the senators are doing here, or what terms and conditions they operate under, but what they have done to get here.

The Senate is the pension. The work has already been done, their masters have been served and this is the deferred compensation for that work.

I am not a historian, and maybe the institution knew better times. Maybe someone took seriously—and apparently the Liberals still do—the notion of second sober thought. On the other hand, some people say that it has always been thus, and I enjoyed the quote from my colleague by Sir John A. Macdonald about this being the chamber of the propertied. I only know what the Senate has been throughout my adult life: a crass, crude and corrupted institution.

Look what we have there.

We have Senator Doug Finley who is the former national campaign director and director of political operations for the Conservative Party in 2006 and 2008. He was charged for overspending the Canada Elections Act spending limit and falsifying tax claims in the 2006 election. Over the last three years, he has cost the taxpayer just shy of $730,000.

We have Senator Irving Gerstein, chief fundraiser and chair of the Conservative Fund Canada. He is the largest fundraiser for the Conservative Party and was charged in 2011 with violating the Canada Elections Act. He was involved in filing false tax claims and exceeding federal spending limits on campaign advertisements. Senator Gerstein has cost the taxpayer just shy of $1 million over the last three years.

The list goes on, of course, with bagmen, backroom boys and failed candidates in the Senate.

Not to be outdone, the Liberals have enshrined their own set of past political operatives in the Senate. For example, Senator David Smith is a former national Liberal campaign co-chair. He cost the taxpayers $935,000 over the last three years. Senators Cowan, Robichaud, Mitchell, Campbell, all former Liberal Party operatives, each cost the taxpayers either side of a million bucks over the last years, and the list goes on.

The Senate was never justified on any grounds, but at least the red chamber had the facade and aura of dignity. However, that is no more. That has fallen away and with it has gone the possibility of recovery. A seat in the red chamber is the crude patronage of a twisted cynical political game that has been played out between those two parties since Confederation. It is the pork of political bagmen and operatives of Liberals and Conservatives. The party that wins the election gets to bring its insiders to feed at the trough of the Canadian Senate; wealthy enough men and women gorging themselves at the expense of the taxpayer for doing the dirty work of their party.

Senate reform has been the mantra of this Prime Minister, but there has been no rush, we note. He has had seven years to deliver on that promise, but what he has delivered instead was 58 of his own to feed at the Senate trough; taking a seat as the head of all of but six other prime ministers in the pantheon of patronage.

With Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Mac Harb, it has come down to audits and investigations over housing allowances and travel expenses. Do senators live where they say they live?

It makes one wish we could go back to debating the principles and the value of the relic. Perhaps it is a debate without a different conclusion, but at least a debate of a higher order. However, the plumbing is backed up on this relic. There is no reviving it or getting rid of the stench. This unconstitutional, undemocratic relic deserves better than the crass feeding trough it has become.