Debates of March 5th, 2013

Opposition Motion--Senate

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party's position is very clear. It would abolish the Senate. On the other hand, when we look at the constitutional requirements, it could potentially only require one province to say no, that it does not want the Senate abolished. One province could indicate no and the population of that province could want the Senate retained. I was involved with the task force on the Senate. There is a great deal of support for having a Senate in Canada, more than abolishing the Senate.

If a province or Canadians as a whole want a Senate, would the NDP's position still be to abolish it? Even if 50% plus one of the population in the province of Quebec says we should retain the Senate, would the New Democrats still say to the residents of Quebec, “Tough luck. The NDP policy is to abolish it?”

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why my friend thinks his particular version of the constitutional requirements is the correct one because we have a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada now.

My hon. colleague thinks a change to the Senate would require unanimity in the Constitution, and some would think that. Others, however, believe that we can amend the Constitution with the approval of seven provinces with 50% of the population. That is the first thing.

Second, I would ask why he is disagreeing with the interim leader of his party, who, in 1984, stated:

In its conception and in its operations, the Senate is neither regionally representative in the sense that we understand it today, nor is it democratic. In tact the Canadian Senate is an undemocratic institution working at the heart of democratic government. That fact, combined with the history of the Senate as nothing more or less than a tool of patronage in the hands of the party in power, has led [me]...to the conviction that the Senate should be abolished.

That is what the leader of the Liberal Party said. The former premier of Ontario, Mr. McGuinty, has called for the abolition of the Senate. Premier Christy Clark of British Columbia said that the Senate has outlived its usefulness. I do not think my hon. colleague commands—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Pontiac.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, which is the issue before us, that the Senate is a joke. It is an insult to Canadian democracy and a vestige of aristocracy that existed. It needs more than a dusting off. Dusting it off is not going to solve the issue. We spend $90 million a year on people who do not do their jobs. It is an affront to all things democratic. That is what I understood was the emphasis of my hon. colleague's speech, which was of great interest.

In the absence of a bicameral structure, I would like to hear my colleague's opinions with regard to how our democracy would be strengthened.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have touched on this already. Four provinces in the country have abolished their senates with absolutely no harm done to their democratic structure or ability to govern, including Ontario and Quebec, which are both large provinces with many diverse regions. The idea that there must be some sort of regional counterbalance to majority view is simply belied by the facts.

The average number of workdays for the average senator in 2011-12, not a problem in past history, was 56 days. I have heard the Conservatives say that they cannot expand EI because they do not want Canadians to work very little during the year and collect money. Senators are working 56 days. I think most Canadians would find it offensive to learn that their tax dollars are paying $135,000 a year to someone who is working 56 days. Nineteen senators have missed more than a quarter of the sitting days in 2011-12. This is not acceptable to modern democracy and it is time to abolish it. We can have a unicameral country, like Britain, where we make decisions by democratically-elected people in the chamber. We can save money and be more democratic to boot.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Charlottetown, so people can stay tuned and look forward to his comments.

I am happy to speak to the motion today from my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the member for Toronto—Danforth. I and my colleagues in the Liberal caucus will be voting against the motion when it comes up for a vote. In our view, not only is this motion constitutionally very naive, it may in fact even be a cynical attempt on the part of the New Democrats to change the channel on what will be a difficult evening for them tomorrow night when they are forced to get up and vote on a Bloc Québécois private member's bill, Bill C-457, with respect to the Clarity Act.

It is constitutionally naive because, although some NDP members in their comments have suggested otherwise, most constitutional experts acknowledge that not changing the character of the Senate but abolishing the Senate would require the unanimity of the provinces, and that is for a very important reason. At Confederation, the Senate was, as members will know, designed to offer the smaller provinces in our federation a chance to have some regional balance that would not necessarily be found in this chamber, which reflected the population of different provinces and different constituencies. The New Democrats realize that unanimity with respect to abolition of the Senate would be impossible and, if we are being generous, we might even say it would be very hard to achieve.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway offered examples of premiers who had been in favour of the abolition of the Senate, but they are from Canada's most populous provinces. That the premier of Ontario or the premier of British Columbia may favour the abolition of the Senate should not surprise many Canadians. It would surprise me if the premiers of small provinces such as the premier of Manitoba, the premier of my own province of New Brunswick or the New Democratic premier of Nova Scotia were in favour. These premiers correctly recognize that the Senate offers the smaller provinces in our federation a chance in the Canadian Parliament to have some balance.

The opening of the Constitution, as my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville so properly pointed out this morning, would offer a constitutional swamp that would see no end. There is the idea that we could have the partners in our federation come to a constitutional meeting. We know the Prime Minister certainly is averse to any meetings that would involve all first ministers in the federation, so we should not hold our breath for that ever to happen. It has not happened on issues as important as the economy, so I find it hard to imagine it would happen on an issue as complicated as abolishing the Senate. However, at that meeting, we know very well that first nations people would want to talk, correctly so, about self-government and aboriginal rights. Certainly the current separatist Government of Quebec would arrive with a laundry list, which would take up a two or three week meeting, of ridiculous grievances and complaints that it would fabricate to try to hijack the meeting.

As for the idea that we could ever get to a point, Canadians are not interested because we have been at that point. In the 1980s, under the leadership of a Progressive Conservative prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, Canadians remember Meech Lake and they remember the Charlottetown accord process. Canadians are correctly asking their elected parliamentarians to focus on issues that affect their daily lives, like the economy, youth unemployment and the environment. Those are the calls I get in my constituency office in Shediac. I have not had numerous people say to me that we need to convene a first ministers conference to discuss the issue of abolishing the Senate.

I understand why the NDP tried, somewhat cynically, to take advantage of some of the problems the Senate is having right now.

We have seen in reports from various media outlets that expenses have been called into question and that some senators seem to be having difficulty determining their place of residence.

Obviously, we are not in any way minimizing the importance of settling and resolving the situation and holding accountable anyone who acted inappropriately.

That is why the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration decided, on its own initiative, to refer certain cases to a major external audit that will be made public, and some cases involve certain senators appointed by the current Prime Minister. I have no doubt that if the external audit indicates potentially fraudulent circumstances, the senators will do the right thing and refer everything to the appropriate authorities. The Senate takes its financial responsibility seriously.

We are in no way minimizing the concerns of Canadian taxpayers about circumstances that are of significant concern to us. I must say that no one in the Liberal caucus will object to having people who may have done something inappropriate face serious consequences, including prosecution, if so required.

However, we cannot pretend that we need an endless constitutional discussion because there is currently an issue with residency or expenses. This problem may be resolved severely, appropriately and quickly, as the Senate itself has said. I think this is an attempt by the NDP to change the subject. Perhaps the NDP is thinking that tomorrow evening, with the vote on Bill C-457 , put forward by the Bloc Québécois, will be difficult for them. We know very well that the NDP opposed the Clarity Act. The NDP will have to be absent en masse tomorrow evening when we, the Liberals, will vote against this Bloc bill that makes no sense. Sort of along those same lines, the NDP is pretending that another constitutional crisis needs our attention.

The Senate at its very inception, as I said at the beginning of my comments, offers the regions of the country a chance to balance the obvious demographic weight of some of the larger provinces in this chamber. An unelected Senate will certainly never be able to play the effective and, I hope, regionally equal role that the Fathers of Confederation, almost 150 ago, thought this model might achieve.

We need to be clear. The Liberal Party has supported and continues to support the notion of an elected, effective and equal Senate. For us, that would be an appropriate Senate reform measure.

In our view the country is not ready to proceed to a constitutional conference to discuss that at this moment. However, if we were to accept that the abolition of the Senate was in fact the alternative, then smaller provinces like mine in New Brunswick, like Manitoba, where my colleague from Winnipeg North sits as a member of the House, would not have an opportunity to work with the other partners of the federation and hopefully a prime minister who would interested at some point in having a discussion, when the moment was right, on how we could achieve an elected, effective and equal Senate.

My colleague from Toronto—Danforth, a member for whom I have considerable respect, also has on the order paper his own private member's bill, Bill C-470, which seeks itself to abolish the Clarity Act and substitute this bizarre 50% plus one formula, which shocks many Canadians, as a threshold to break up the country.

I think some NDP MPs would also have difficulty voting, and I am thinking of my friend from Acadie—Bathurst, who represents so well francophone minorities outside Quebec. For him to get up and have to vote for a bill by the member for Toronto—Danforth would obviously be difficult. That is probably why it is so low on the order of precedence, with no possible hope of ever actually coming before the House to be debated.

It is a cynical attempt, from our perspective, to change the channel at a time when Canadians think we should be referring and discussing issues a lot more important to the daily lives of Canadians than a pipe dream that somehow we could convene a constitutional conference to abolish the Canadian Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague by saying that I would have no trouble voting against any bill introduced to trick us or to demonstrate that we are dealing with a hidden agenda or some other ploy.

I want to thank him, because while listening to his speech, I remembered why I got into politics. The fact is that the vast majority of Quebeckers and people from my riding are fed up with sterile discussions and the dead end into which the Liberals and Conservatives have in turn led us.

I would like to reiterate what someone said this morning about how the Bloc, which introduced this bill, was invented by a bunch of Conservatives and Liberals back in the day. We no longer feel like playing a role in this movie. We have moved on. I am afraid that abolishing the Senate could turn out to be a missed opportunity, because the idea of getting rid of this idiotic body would probably be very easy to sell to Canadians. I cannot think of anyone who would want to defend the Senate, apart from them.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his comments and his question.

If he wishes to talk about dead ends, then he will have to speak about the bill introduced by his own colleague from Toronto—Danforth, Bill C-470, to abolish the Clarity Act and thereby lead Canadians and francophones outside Quebec to think that our country could be split by a simple 50%+1 majority.

If he wants to talk about dead ends, then he should talk about his own motion—the NDP motion—which we have been discussing all day, about abolishing the Senate. The NDP, which claims to care so deeply about unemployment, young people and the environment, has decided to talk constitutional nonsense today. The motion may be welcomed by some, but New Democrats know very well that it will never see the light of day. The NDP might think that it could happen, but it is constitutionally impossible.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear new-found passion for Senate reform from the Liberal benches. I recall the reform package they had back in 2008, when the then leader of the Liberal Party, the current member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, had a coalition agreement that apparently included a side deal to put the current leader of the Green Party into the Senate if they were successful in forming a coalition government. That is the Senate package I remember from that particular party. Is that what the Liberals currently support today?

Could the member stand and say he supports our government's approach to refer this to the Supreme Court and get some real clarity before pursuing Senate reform?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Essex can perhaps imagine all kinds of scary scenarios from 2008, but I have no reason to think any of his musings are accurate.

If he is asking if we support the government's decision to refer to the Supreme Court the whole issue of the constitutionality of some of the supposed Senate reform bills that it leaves on the order paper and does not bring up for debate, the answer is yes. In fact, we were urging the government to put the question to the Supreme Court even before it left a number of its alleged Senate reform bills languishing on the order paper, and more importantly, we were urging the government to ask its partners in the federation what kind of Senate reform would be appropriate. The Government of Quebec had already taken a reference case to the Quebec Court of Appeal. The Province of New Brunswick was preparing to take a reference case to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

The government's sudden conversion to some respect for the Supreme Court and its decision to take its cynical, piecemeal, ineffective Senate reform measures to the Supreme Court for an opinion hide what it is unable to get it from its own Senate caucus, which supposedly agreed with these Senate reform measures. I see no evidence that Senator Duffy is ready to send in a resignation letter because he suddenly had a conversion over getting himself elected to the Senate from the province of Prince Edward Island.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be able to address this motion from the NDP and to be able to follow my colleague from Beauséjour. He is always a tough act to follow, and I expect you are aware that his tongue was planted firmly in his cheek as he was praising what he may expect in remarks from me. Nonetheless, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion before the House. I will be opposing the motion.

The Senate is an important and essential component of our constitutional and political life. The motion put forth by the NDP to abolish the Senate is a simplistic and knee-jerk response to the current and questionable behaviour of some senators. If lack of decency, lack of integrity, half-answers, half-truths and a general disregard for democracy are grounds for abolishing the upper chamber, then there would be ample grounds for Canadians to call for the abolition of the House of Commons.

Our democracy is in decline, but not because of the Senate. Rather, its decline can be traced to a Conservative government that believes the entirety of our democratic legitimacy occurs during an election. To the Conservatives, once an election is held, there is no more need for democratic engagement. That is why we see them shutting down voices in the public sphere and in civil society. That is why we see a complete evisceration of facts and evidence from their decision-making through gutting science and Statistics Canada. That is why we see women's organizations and other civic voices that disagree with the Conservatives having their funding cut or being told to toe the line.

If there is concern about the political health of the country, it is not the Senate that should be the focus of the NDP but the reform of this place, the House of Commons. Day in and day out we see scripted questions and scripted answers. Day in and day out we hear empty words and hyped-up rage and rhetoric, disingenuously calling it debate. It is not debate. Debate implies that we listen to one another. Debate implies that we are genuinely open to different options and new ideas. It implies as well that the health of our democracy cannot be sustained when we as MPs simply sit here like trained seals and do what we are told. We need fundamental change on how MPs operate.

We do need real reform, and it should start here in this chamber, but today we are chasing headlines again by debating a motion introduced by the NDP, a motion to abolish the Senate. The motion shows a lack of appreciation of our history, and that to me is troubling. I am privileged to be a member of Parliament and further honoured that I represent the riding of Charlottetown, the birthplace of Confederation.

This debate is meaningful to me because the construction and building of our federation was not an accident. The creation of the Senate was not an accident. It was a deliberate and thoughtful decision made by our founding fathers, as the Senate was meant to be a counterbalance to the House of Commons.

Again historical context is important. Representatives of the Maritime colonies at the time, including Prince Edward Island, were rightly concerned that the concentration of political power and decision-making would be centred in what was then Upper Canada. Even the distinguished Quebec representatives from Lower Canada at the time understood the need for a counterbalance against the power centre of Ontario, then Upper Canada.

That is why it is shocking that today we have Quebec MPs who would in any way wish to reduce the power and influence of Quebec. This would in fact occur if the NDP had its way and the Senate was abolished.

The principle of representation by population, rep by pop, was to apply to the election of members of the House of Commons. Under this principle, the people of Upper Canada would naturally have received the greatest number of seats in the House of Commons. That is where the population centres existed. For the people in the Maritimes who embraced responsible government, though, the idea of a second chamber based on regional representation was fundamental to the Confederation agreement.

Again, it was, and is, fundamental to counterbalance the power of the House of Commons and the concentration of power in what is now Ontario.

The Province of Prince Edward Island has as its coat of arms a large red oak tree and, beside it, three small saplings. Under the coat of arms, in Latin, are the words parva sub ingenti, which means “the small under the protection of the great”. That has been the motto of Prince Edward Island since 1769.

The Senate is there to ensure that the small are protected by the great. Provinces like mine need a strong federation. We need that representative regional voice that is part of the Senate. We need that to avoid being trampled. We need it to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

My province is small but proud, and we have some very serious challenges. The government is quite happy to kick us to the curb.

In my province, we have a chance to diversify our economy. We had that chance through the announcement that was made in 2005 by the Liberal government of the day to construct a third subsea cable that would ensure electricity would come from the mainland. That is the key to energy security, to economic opportunities going forward. That project was cancelled by the Conservative government.

Right now we are going through a very vigorous debate. The gutting of the EI system and the impact it will have on the seasonal economy that we have in Prince Edward Island are topics on the lips of everyone in my province.

Back in the last budget, when the Conservative government decided it was going to cut back the civil service, the rate of cuts across the country was 4.8%, but not in Prince Edward Island. In Prince Edward Island it was double that, so where we do have good-paying jobs, they are being cut at twice the rate they are in the rest of the country.

We are the only province without a passport office. In every province in this country, if veterans want to see their case manager, they can go to a case manager in their province, but not in mine. If immigrants want to talk to a live person about their case, they can talk to somebody in their province, but not in Prince Edward Island. If taxpayers want to talk to a live person about their income tax return, they can talk to a live person in any province in Canada, but not in mine.

There has been a lot of talk in this chamber about a certain senator, Mike Duffy. I can tell members that the appointment of Mike Duffy in Prince Edward Island was a huge insult. As far as we are concerned, out of the four seats that were set aside for Prince Edward Island, one has been given to Ontario. Every time he opens his mouth, that embarrassment is further exacerbated.

The real issue in this debate should be the quality of the appointments, not the Senate as an institution. When we see the Prime Minister appointing Senators Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin, we should rightly question his judgment. We certainly must not, as the NDP is proposing, rush out with simplistic and ill-conceived policies that would undermine the protection of Quebec and the Maritimes as well as their constitutional and historical links to the Senate.

The NDP's approach to democratic reform looks a lot like the Conservatives' approach to justice: when the only tool they have in their tool kit is a sledgehammer, everything starts to look like a rock.

As the member of Parliament for Charlottetown, I say to the NDP that the current government has done enough to undermine Prince Edward Island's status as a province. Please stop helping them.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to read a quote from my Liberal colleague: “In its conception and in its operations, the Senate is neither regionally representative in the sense that we understand it today, nor is it democratic. In fact the Canadian Senate is an undemocratic institution working at the heart of democratic government.”

It is this, combined with the fact that the Senate has been an instrument of favouritism for the party in power throughout its history, that has led our party to the conclusion that the Senate should be abolished.

And just whom was I quoting? The current interim leader of the Liberal Party.

I would therefore like to know whether the member thinks, as he said in his speech, that the interim leader of the Liberal Party is redirecting debate and has no understanding whatsoever of history.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do understand history. That quotation was from 1984 when the interim leader of the Liberal Party was Ontario's New Democratic premier. My colleague certainly did her homework.

However, that is not our party's position. We believe that it is more subtle than that. This is not a simple issue; it is a complex one. We understand that. The problem with the NDP and its position on this issue is that it does not seem to understand that this is a complex issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like Prince Edward Island, Manitoba is a relatively small province compared to Ontario and Quebec. There is a great deal of value in looking at the Senate as a strong regional force going into the future.

The concerns I have, and I kind of picked up on the comments of members, are the issues about which my constituents are most concerned. Those issues relate to jobs, health care, crime and safety on the streets and things of that nature.

What the NDP is proposing today is to open up constitutional debate, knowing full well that it will never get unanimous support across the country to abolish the Senate.

Could the member provide some comment on what is important for us to be debating versus having a motion of this nature today?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the question is actually a timely one. Since my election in May, I have decided to spend one full day per month going door to door within the riding of Charlottetown to simply ask people what is on their minds and how I can do a better job representing them.

Nobody is talking about the abolition of the Senate. Nobody is talking about constitutional reform. The topics on the minds of the constituents in my riding change from month to month. Last week it was Senator Duffy and EI. The EI topic seems to be a consistent one. Health care is a consistent one. I can assure members that Senate reform and constitutional negotiations are not.

We have dramatic economic issues in provinces where we have seasonal economies, economic issues that are not only being ignored but exacerbated by the government. That is what is on the minds of the people in my riding, not constitutional negotiations.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the truly wonderful member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

Today, we are debating a motion, and I will take the time to read it.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government of Canada, in consultation with the provinces and territories, should take immediate steps toward abolishing the unelected and unaccountable Senate of Canada.

I want to emphasize one very important element of this motion: “in consultation with the provinces and territories”. The NDP believes that it is essential to consult the provinces and the territories when making decisions that affect them.

We spend $90 million per year on a Senate made up of unelected, unaccountable senators. Since coming to power, the current Prime Minister has made 58 partisan Senate appointments even though he said that he would never appoint an unelected senator. He has appointed more senators than Mr. Mulroney, including several Conservative candidates who were defeated at the polls. Half of the 105 Senate seats are currently occupied by people appointed by this Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's Conservative Senate has become even more corrupt than the Liberal Senate that he inherited when he came to power. Worse still, the Conservatives have just increased the Senate's budget, which is now $92.5 million.

I would also like to point out that the Senate is currently fraught with scandal. I will just mention a few. Senator Brazeau, a Conservative, was recently arrested for domestic violence; he is yet to appear in court. Even before he was appointed to the Senate, several complaints of sexual harassment were filed against him. He is also under investigation for stealing from the Senate and committing tax fraud. Should he remain a Senator until the end of his term, in 2049, taxpayers will have forked out $7 million, not to mention all the other benefits Senators receive, such as their residence and travel expenses—and that does not even take into account other possible acts of fraud. He has been suspended with salary. Taxpayers, therefore, continue to pay an annual salary of over $130,000 to a possible sex offender.

To top it all off, he holds the record among Senators of having been the most frequently absent during the parliamentary session, both in the Senate chamber itself and in the committees on which he sits, or rather, on which he is supposed to sit—I am not sure how I should put it. He has, in other words, missed 65% of the meetings of the aboriginal affairs committee.

Senator Mike Duffy, also a Conservative, claimed a generous housing allowance, alleging that his main residence was on Prince Edward Island despite having an Ontario health insurance card. This is completely unacceptable. In my opinion, if every member of the House were asked which health insurance card they have, I am certain that they would have the card for the province they represent. This, however, is not the case when it comes to Senators.

Over the last three years, Senator Duffy has cost Canadian taxpayers $1.2 million. He is never in the Senate chamber, but he readily participates in Conservative Party fundraising activities.

Senator Pamela Wallin, also a Conservative, is currently being investigated by the Senate, which suspects that she does not meet the residency requirements. She claimed over $300,000 in travel expenses over the past 3 years alone, in spite of the fact that only 10% of these expenses covered travel in Saskatchewan, the province she is supposed to represent. Moreover, just like Mr. Duffy, Ms. Wallin has an Ontario health insurance card, rather than one from Saskatchewan. This is unacceptable.

In 1999, Senator Eric Bernston, also a Conservative, was found guilty of having defrauded the Saskatchewan government. He nevertheless continued to sit in the Senate for two more years at the taxpayers' expense costing over $260,000.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not the only ones to have brought shame upon this country's democratic institutions.

Let us start with Senator Philippe Gigantès. This has to be my favourite example of lack of respect for democratic institutions. This failed Liberal candidate read one of his books in the Senate—from start to finish—in order to get a French translation. And then what did he do? He published that French version. Unbelievable. What a lack of respect for democratic institutions. You have to be pretty cheap to not want to pay for your own book to be translated into French. Come on.

Mac Harb, another Liberal senator, is also being audited for travel expense fraud. He claimed $30,000, even though he has several residences in Ottawa. Andrew Thompson, a Liberal, showed up for work only 12 times in seven years, and continued to be paid. That works out to an average of two days a year, for a salary of $132,300. I imagine that a lot of Canadians would like to get $132,300 for two days of work a year. The government is harassing the unemployed, and meanwhile, senators can work two days a year for $132,300. That is shameful.

This is what the Prime Minister has said about the Senate in recent years:

...the upper house remains a dumping ground for the favoured cronies of the prime minister...

These comments were posted on his website on January 15, 2004, during his party's leadership campaign. Here is another quote:

The truth is the Senate is a patronage position—virtually a lifetime patronage position—with little responsibility or accountability. And this is the fundamental problem...

That is an excerpt from an interview he gave on CTV on December 10, 1997.

Taxpayers are now on the hook for millions so that the Prime Minister's friends and generous Conservative Party supporters can sit pretty for the rest of their lives. In my opinion, there is no place in our democracy for a Senate made up of unelected members who have no accountability.

We could find much better ways to spend the $90 million a year needed to run this archaic institution. How many seniors could we lift out of poverty with $90 million? How many job opportunities could we help create for our young people? How much could we help young single mothers who are living in difficult situations? But no, we are paying senators so that some of them can work two days a year and earn $132,000. We can see where the priority is here.

Appointed senators, especially the ones who abuse their privileges, do not represent the interests or values of Canadians. Canadians, senators aside perhaps, are hard workers. This situation is completely unacceptable to them when they have to get up early every morning to work hard, despite sometimes difficult living conditions and economic situations that the Conservatives do not seem to be aware of. That is what normal Canadians do, while senators hardly do anything and are not accountable.

So we are calling on the Government of Canada to abolish once and for all the upper chamber of unelected, unaccountable officials. Why not simply abolish this archaic, undemocratic and outmoded institution? No province has had an upper chamber since 1968. No province has since said, “We made a mistake and will be reinstituting our upper chamber.”

The provinces, which have not had an upper chamber since 1968, have shown that they are able to operate democratically and that they have not been affected by this. The behaviour of some senators shows that it is high time to review the benefit of this democratic institution. Even if senators are elected for a nine-year term, they are still not accountable to anyone once they are elected, right up until they retire. So this does not solve the problem at all.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we move on to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Citizenship and Immigration; the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, Health.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members have declared that the biggest issue facing Canada today is abolishing the Senate. Whether Canadians want it abolished or not is irrelevant. The NDP has taken a position that it has to be abolished.

There is no doubt, and we have to be very clear on this issue, that in order to abolish the Senate, we need the support of all the provinces in Canada.

I am wondering if the member could provide a list of the provinces that she and her caucus colleagues have compiled that are prepared to abolish the Senate. Does she even have a list? Has she any concept of which provinces want to abolish the Senate?

If in fact there is no list, if in fact a province like Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba or any other province wants to keep it, would it be the position of the NDP that it does not matter, that at the end of the day the NDP wants it gone even if Canadians do not? Is that the position the NDP is taking?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would like to re-read the motion, so that it is very clear for my colleague:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government of Canada, in consultation with the provinces and territories, should take immediate steps towards abolishing the unelected and unaccountable Senate of Canada.

Again, it is in consultation with the provinces and territories. Does that mean that we will act unilaterally? No, because we will consult the provinces and territories. The NDP understands the importance of consulting the provinces and territories when they are affected by the decisions.

We are not like the Conservatives, who make major reforms without studying the repercussions, without consulting the provinces and without talking to the ministers. We do not scoff at them. Our motion clearly says that we will consult with the provinces and territories, and that is what we will do.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in follow-up to the previous question, which was put forward rather aggressively, I must say, I wonder if the hon. member could speak to the fact that Canada remains the only major democratic nation in the world that has a second, unelected body that can override the decisions of our elected chamber.

None of the provinces still retain a second body, a senate. Quebec and Ontario removed theirs.

I wonder if the member thinks Canadians have expressed a strong interest in electoral reform. Does she agree that seems to be something that the Liberal contenders for leadership say Canadian want? Is Senate reform perhaps one of those areas of democratic reform for which Canadians are calling?

Finally, do we all in this House recall that this elected House passed the climate change accountability act, which the Senate then crushed?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that an Ipsos Reid survey from February 18, 2013, showed that a minority of Canadians, 22%, were in favour of the status quo. The vast majority of Canadians, 78%, spoke out in favour of abolishing or reforming the Senate.

It is obvious that Canadians want something to happen with the Senate. Since Senate reform is going nowhere, it is high time we consider abolishing the Senate, in collaboration with the provinces and territories.

As I said in my speech, every province has abolished its senate. The last one was abolished in 1968. Since then, has any province discussed the idea of reinstating their senate? Absolutely not. They function perfectly well without an upper chamber. We could do the same.

Given how much money is wasted in the Senate, I believe it is really the only option available to Canadians. We need to enter into discussions with the provinces and territories about abolishing the Senate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer on a point of order.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following motion:

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, March 6, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.