Debates of June 5th, 2013

Concurrence in Vote 1—The Senate

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the NDP, but I can say that I am not surprised that the Bloc Québécois will support this motion.

The Bloc thinks that the only provincial government that will not be affected by the motion is Quebec's. The federal agency does not collect Quebec's taxes, but it does for all the other provinces. It would be the end of the federal government and the end of the provincial governments, except for Quebec's. It may sound like a good idea to the Bloc Québécois, but it certainly is not a good idea for Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member voted in favour of Bill C-290, the sports betting bill, which has been languishing in the Senate for more than one and a half years.

Why has the bill not been passed by the Senate when the House of Commons passed it unanimously with no dissent, no objections, and no one speaking from the opposition? Why has the bill not been passed?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that. I think the Senate these days is controlled by the Conservatives.

However, one possible answer is that we in the House of Commons proceeded too rapidly, or perhaps incorrectly, and the Senate is carrying out its traditional role as the chamber of sober second thought. Or, there perhaps is a more nefarious reason.

However, I do not know the answer to that question.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a gridlock that would happen here with people getting paid. Anybody who has seen what has happened in the United States over the last winter could see what might happen if we had that gridlock.

We would have hoped that there would have been some sort of motion coming from the NDP or the PMO on how it deals with picking senators, and then perhaps we could have had a better debate here.

My question for the member is on what changes he thinks should be made with respect to the Prime Minister's power on selecting senators.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, neighbour and colleague. We are both members of the 2000 cohort. There are only four of us left now. I thank him for his very good question.

I think that is something we would have to give a lot of thought to. I do not have a direct answer. However, obviously—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Just economists.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Having just economists is one idea.

However, it would appear that the Prime Minister has made some bad choices recently. I will not name names, but some members might guess some of those names.

I think there could be a case made for some sort of blue ribbon committee or advisory committee that would advise the Prime Minister and give recommendations or summaries of what it thought of the qualifications of certain people. Constitutionally, I think the Prime Minister has to have the last word, so he would not have to necessarily accept that advice. However, I think there could be a case made for that.

I also think we cannot determine this with any finality before we hear the position of the Supreme Court.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the chance to speak tonight. As you may remember, I enjoy speaking about the Senate, and I am glad to have this opportunity to share more of my thoughts tonight.

I am going to discuss a number of things on the motion that has been brought forward by the NDP. The first issue I want to cover is something I have heard a lot about in the House today and it is whether this is truly the best use of our time. When we talk to people in St. Thomas or Aylmer, or other places around the riding in southern Ontario, they do not think it is. They ask me why we spend hours debating motions like this rather than budgets and things that will help create and maintain jobs. They think we should be using our time more effectively, working for them. I agree. My constituents are very wise and very good at selecting members. I am very thankful for the wise people in the riding who keep sending me back here to do their work.

We should be here talking about jobs and the economy. I certainly have that conversation a lot in the riding. My constituents ask me what are we doing in Ottawa to help create jobs and prosperity. They do not ask me about the Senate much because it does not affect their lives. If a discussion of the Senate ever comes up, it is probably because I bring it up. I might do that because the Senate sometimes affects my work as the chair of the procedure and house affairs committee, which is where we talk about the Senate. That is usually the only reason it ever comes up back home. The real questions are about jobs and the economy.

Our government and our Prime Minister have proven that we can multi-task, that we can do a number of things at once. Here we are sharing in that multi-tasking, covering off a topic that does not seem to be of much use to us today. What matters to Canadians and the Canadians in my riding are the economy, creating jobs and maintaining jobs, and building a growing prosperity for the people we represent.

Since we are debating a motion on the main estimates, the fundamental appropriations for our government, we have an obligation to talk about financial matters and how they relate to the performance of our government and the economy in general. I say this in order to contrast our economic plan, something that is of paramount importance, and the NDP gimmick today, which my constituents do not think should be high on our priority list.

Let us talk about what matters back home. We have the lowest tax rate in new business investment in the G7. That is something we set out to do and we have accomplished that. That helps create and sustain jobs back home in the riding. We are saving the average family of four more than $3,100 a year in taxes. That includes reducing the GST twice, and many other tax reductions. That helps families back home in the riding.

We have also provided tax relief in other ways, such as, the registered disability savings plan, the working income tax benefit, pension income splitting for seniors, and tax-free savings accounts, which eight million Canadians already have. All of these things help families in my riding. These things matter to them.

We have signed free trade agreements with nine countries since 2006, and negotiations are ongoing with 60 other countries, including the European Union and Asia-Pacific countries. Other areas that are important for jobs and growth are innovation, research and development, and capital formation, which are fundamental to stimulating business investment, including new high-quality jobs. They equip our country for success in the future. We have taken numerous actions on this file, and the positive results are there to see.

On infrastructure, post-secondary education and jobs training, we have taken positive steps to help Canadians and our economy. Just last week, Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy grew 2.5% in the first quarter of 2013. This represents the strongest quarterly growth in nearly two years. Additionally, Statistics Canada positively revised its economic growth for the fourth quarter of 2012, up from 0.6% to 0.9%. This is the seventh straight quarter of positive growth, and that is another sign that Canada's economy and our government remain on the right track.

Those are good results. They are good indicators that our focus on jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity is bearing fruit for Canadians.

We have seen over 900,000 net new jobs created in Canada since the depths of the global recession. Over 90% of them are full-time and nearly 75% of them are in the private sector. It represents the best job growth record in the entire G7. Constituents back home appreciate that kind of good economic news. It shows them that we have a good plan for the economy, and it contrasts with the lack of plan on the part of our opposition parties.

Speaking of a lack of a plan, we will come back to the NDP and the Senate. Since this motion on estimates does deal with the Senate, I will relent and spend some time talking about it. It is only polite. We are here at 8 o'clock at night, after all.

However, when we get to Senate reform, we cannot talk about the NDP because it has no plan. Luckily, our government does have a plan. We have been clear for many years that we favour reform first. We are willing to consider a number of options, but we want to work at reforming the Senate first and foremost.

For many years, our party and our government has supported the idea of term limits for Senators. The Prime Minister himself even appeared at a special Senate committee to speak about the bill on Senate reform, something that has never happened before. We have also been consistent in our support of provinces, undertaking democratic processes to suggest nominees for appointment to the Senate. One province has made these recommendations, and this Prime Minister has appointed those people who were recommended by the Province of Alberta. That is something we can be proud of. I hope that other provinces will follow Alberta's lead and let their people make the recommendations, after a democratic process.

That has been our plan. We have been clear and we have been consistent. The Prime Minister has been equally as clear that we support the reform of the Senate, but that if it cannot be reformed, it should be abolished. However, our side of the House has the proper respect for our Constitution, our institutions, regardless of their failings or the failings of their members, and respect for our provincial partners.

Our government recognizes that abolishing the Senate would be tough work. It would require co-operation across the country. With our Constitution, as venerable as it is, it is not entirely clear how Canadians might go about abolishing the Senate. Therefore, our government has done the reasonable thing, something that I think my constituents would endorse. Our government has asked the Supreme Court for its opinion on how we might go about abolishing the Senate.

Let us talk about what has been referred to the Supreme Court. The first thing we have asked the Supreme Court about is simple; we have asked about term limits. What term would be appropriate for senators, if indeed they had term limits? Can Parliament alone limit the terms of senators? How much could we limit them? Is there a point at which Parliament could act alone? We have suggested nine years in one piece of legislation, but we have asked the Supreme Court to give us an opinion on a number of different terms. Those are reasonable questions and I hope the court will provide some clarity, something that I recall the NDP opposes.

I might be mixing up my issues, though. I know that in the past the retirement date was changed, from appointment for life down to age 75. In that respect, we are more likely to get some clarity, which I support. I believe that in the last study I read at committee, the average length of time served by a senator in the House was between nine and ten years. This is how we got the number for a nine-year term. It is the average that a senator currently sits, so we are on the right track.

The next thing is about the democratic selection of the Senate and nominees to the Senate.

Our government has proposed a few different ways to hold democratic processes to recommend Senate nominees, so we have put those questions to the Supreme Court. We have asked whether we can ask provinces to determine themselves who they would like their senators to be. If that happens, they would then be appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister, as we have already shown in the case of Alberta.

As I have mentioned, Alberta has already chosen to do this. There are senators now who have been elected by the people of Alberta to represent the province of Alberta in the Senate, and they have been appointed by the Prime Minister. That process is in our latest bill, so we are asking the Supreme Court about that. We have also asked about a national process that we proposed previously.

We have also asked the Supreme Court for a couple of opinions. One of them has to do with the net worth of senators.

The requirements in the Constitution on this question are from another age. The Fathers of Confederation in Canada drew up a Constitution in 1867. That was a long time ago. That document has lasted this long, but there are many questions about it.

Very late last Wednesday night there was talk about a time in the 1800s, around the time the Constitution was written. A story was told about an elephant in St. Thomas getting hit by a train. I have had some requests to bring it back, so there it is. I have talked about the elephant in the 1800s in St. Thomas again.

We should consider visiting these rules from another age, from a long time ago. My constituents would agree with doing that.

The last set of questions has to do with what we are talking about today: the abolition of the Senate.

We are asking the opinion of the Supreme Court on this very topic, and our approach reflects well on the government. It shows just how out of its depth the opposition is on this question. We have put a number of specific questions to the Supreme Court because the Constitution is specific.

Amending our Constitution is a weighty matter, so we need take care to ensure that we get the answers we need, but care is not something I detect in today's motion from the NDP. The party opposite knows the Supreme Court has been asked for its opinions on these topics, yet what is its motion today? Let us spend a whole day talking about a backdoor way to vandalize our institutions, bypass our Constitution and use a gimmick to maybe get a few media hits.

That frustrates our constituents. We could respect the Supreme Court of Canada and Canadians, but instead of spending our time talking about important matters like jobs and the economy, we are talking about a topic that New Democrats believe will add some political oomph. It is just a gimmick to allow them to crow about their complete lack of a plan, which I find strange and wasteful of our time and energy.

That is what New Democrats really care about when it comes to taking the Senate out of this place. They just want to hear themselves talk. They have spoken at length on our most recent Senate reform bill. They put up about 40 speakers on that bill, and they all said the same things over and over again.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has seen its own fair share of filibustering on Senate reform, I can tell the House that this is filibustering. I know it when I see it. New Democrats are not debating anything; they are just hijacking the House to ensure that Senate reform cannot move forward. They are clogging the zone, as we say in hockey.

Back when I could, I was a stay-at-home defenceman when I played hockey. I see the member for Cape Breton—Canso—

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

Now you just stay at home.

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

Many of the fans yelled the same thing, sir.

People may not be able to tell by my appearance, but in hockey I seldom got past centre ice. My coach thought I was a far better defenceman than I was a goal scorer. Therefore, I know when players are delaying the game. I know what it looks like when players are not rushing the puck. I would suggest that the party opposite has gone even further than just not rushing the puck.

We have debated Senate reform legislation for over 18 hours in this House, and the NDP just keeps talking and talking. We could be spending that time examining the bill in committee or talking about other important things in the House, such as the economy and jobs.

It is a filibuster, despite their protests. We broke that logjam by referring the bill's subject matter, along with other important questions, to the Supreme Court of Canada. We await their opinion. I know I am interested to hear what they have to say.

As I mentioned before, the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Senate must be reformed or be abolished. We will await the opinion of the Supreme Court. We will examine that opinion when it arrives, and we will take action based on it, as we have promised to do. We will pursue reform, and if that cannot be accomplished, we will pursue abolition.

The aim in seeking the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada was to accelerate the pace of Senate reform and to lay the foundation for further reform to the Senate. That is exactly what it will do. We will receive clarity on the steps that we must take to move forward, and then we will move forward.

In the meantime, we will continue to bring forward measures to strengthen the accountability of senators to taxpayers. We will do what can be done.

Last week the Senate adopted 11 tough new accountability rules governing travel and expenses that were put forward by Conservative senators. I think Canadians would think the rules are reasonable.

They removed the principle from the senate administrative rules that stated that a senator is presumed to act honourably with respect to expenses.

They clarify and make consistent the terminology surrounding residency for the purposes of expense claims.

They require a senator to provide a specific purpose for travel when claiming expenses. They require senators to maintain mileage logs for the purpose of claiming mileage.

They require that taxi receipts be provided when claiming taxi expenses, and they restrict per diems in Ottawa to days the Senate sits, days the senators attend committee meetings and up to 20 additional days while on approved Senate business.

They amend the 64-point travel system to limit senators to 12 trips that are not between Ottawa and the senator's provincial residence, restrict a senator's designated traveller to a spouse or partner and require administration to provide internal economy with monthly reports on travel patterns.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is recording commentary into his iPhone or BlackBerry, and it is very distracting in the House of Commons. I do not think we are supposed to be using those devices to record audible messages.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Windsor West for his intervention. I know this issue has come up in the House before. I will have to go back and see if there are particular rulings that one should abide by.

Of course all members are aware that the use of telephones and other devices in the House is typically not allowed. If members have to use those devices, they are certainly welcome to do it out in the lobby.

We will have a look at that and get back to the House should it be necessary.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Windsor West for giving me a bit of break during that extremely thrilling and exciting speech. I can see why he would want to pop up and break the momentum there. Again, to use a hockey analogy, he is trying to get the momentum to go the other way.

I know it was just members recording what a great speech they were hearing in the House so they could ensure that their constituents back home would have a record of it too.

I was reading the rules and I think all these rules make pretty good sense. These strong new measure will improve accountability and prevent abuse. We said we would fix the Senate rules governing travel expenses; we have delivered. At least we have made some progress to make things better.

It is unfortunate the rules were broken so badly that we needed to tighten them. It is unfortunate that some people decided not to follow the rules. That is what happened, and we are dealing with it to make sure it does not happen again.

We are dealing with taxpayers' money. That is the most important thing to remember. To go further to ensure that taxpayers' money is being cared for properly, this week the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced a motion asking the Auditor General of Canada to conduct a comprehensive audit of Senate expenses. Again, this is a strong measure that will protect taxpayers. We have demonstrated that we have a plan and that we will take action when abuses come to light.

That contrasts us with the opposition parties, because they have no plan. They did not have a plan in the past and they still do not have one today. They want to take the easy way out: hold a press conference here, make a speech there and move motions to circumvent our Constitution and our institutions in their free time, instead of talking about things that are important to Canadians, such as the economy. They do not have a plan.

We have a plan. We support reasonable reforms and we will move toward abolition. It is very simple, but our plan's simplicity respects our institutions and our Constitution.

However, we are optimistic on this side of the House that the Senate can and should be reformed. We think Canadians agree that the Senate should be reformed and that politicians can come together and agree on that. If it is not possible and the Senate cannot be reformed because senators will not co-operate or because politicians cannot work together to solve a national problem, then it needs to go.

It would need to go because the status quo is unacceptable. I think that is something we can all agree with.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who spoke a bit earlier, and this member talked about strengthening the responsibilities of the Senate, which is not very effective. Why have they done nothing about this since 2006, when they came to power?

The Conservatives said in 2004 that they would not appoint anyone else to the Senate. Why then has the Prime Minister made 57 Senate appointments since 2006, and mostly patronage or partisan appointments at that?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech, we did talk a lot about reform for a number of years here. As the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, I can say that we have certainly talked about democratic reform and reform of the Senate. We talked about it over and over, and then we have talked about it in here for a bit, and then we talked about it back there for a bit.

I find it a bit over the top that the member talked about how much we have tried to move toward reform. When we found that the delaying tactics were the way they were, we made a reference to the Supreme Court to try to have those answers clarified. When the answers come back from the Supreme Court, we will see how fast we can work on the reform of the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from London, home of the London Knights. It is a good team that of course lost to the Halifax Mooseheads in the Memorial Cup this year.

I have been here 13 years and I have heard a lot of speeches in this House. That was certainly one of them. I have been able to join in on a great number of debates on a lot of topics, but I have never seen a motion brought forward before that lit up the political universe.

On Twitter I am following all the journalists and people who like to weigh in with a political opinion. They are commenting on just how flaky this particular motion is. “Flaky” should not be offensive to anyone, but I would like my friend to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to all the flakes out there, I guess. However, I tend to agree with one of my favourite members.

First, I would like to handle the question on my London Knights, who won the Memorial Cup two years in a row and will be hosting it next year, which will be three years in a row. Find me another Canadian team that has done this three years in a row, or at least has been to the Memorial Cup. Halifax should bring its team to London next year.

This may give me an answer to the second part of the member's question.

It is great to be to stand and talk about one's hometown hockey team, or elephants that have been hit by trains in one's hometown, or a number of things like that, but the real answer here is that we are wasting the time of this place. We should be here talking about the jobs, growth and prosperity of the economy and the taxes that we have already cut. However, to use the member's word, we are talking about the “flaky” issues that are out there. I am afraid the people at home are tuned into the hockey game and not into the CPAC channel to watch us speak of this.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just a reminder to all hon. members that through the course of this debate on today's motion there have been a lot of interesting questions and comments, but I would ask all hon. members, as well as those responding, to keep their interventions no more than one minute.

Questions and comments, the hon. for Kildonan—St. Paul.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very insightful and beneficial. I appreciated it very much.

As we all know, there are so many wonderful senators in the Senate who work very hard and do pay very close attention to what they are doing. Unfortunately, we now have to take a second look because there are some real issues that need to be addressed at the Senate for accountability.

I would like my colleague to comment on what he feels is the most important focus that we need to have on the Senate to reform it and improve it as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to tell now, but we used to be seatmates. As members can see what happens in this place, one can switch from one end to the other, and I see her very rarely now. She is way down at the other end.

To answer her question, the most important thing has already been done. We have referred the matter of the reform of the Senate to the Supreme Court. We have referred the matter of Senate term limits to the Supreme Court. We have referred the matter of the democratic process to be used to select senators to the Supreme Court. We have also, in that same reference to the Supreme Court, referred the matter of abolition of the Senate and how might it be done.

As I said in one of my speeches quite a few years ago, 140 years ago the country was founded and a Constitution was written. It is very tough for us to crack that open and make these changes.

Let us ask the court of this land, before anybody else puts forward a law suit, ahead of time about how we do these things. That is the most important thing, which has been done by the Prime Minister and this government. We are awaiting the answer. When we get the answer, we will go right to work.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question regarding Bill C-290, which is a bill he supported and voted for in the House of Commons.

The Conservatives supported Bill C-290, but it has been stalled in the Senate for more than a year and a half. The democratic will of the House of Commons passed this bill with no dissension. No Conservative spoke or voted against the bill. However, it was moved to the Senate and it has not gone forward in a year plus.

The bill was in regard to the nefarious operations of organized crime overseas and would have ensured that we had legalized single-sport betting under the rule of government.

Where does the member stand on that with regard to the Senate that has not passed this bill in one and a half years?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite unique. The member has asked this question of a couple of speakers tonight on where this bill is in the Senate and how the Senate working on it.

I am sorry, I have not followed the bill religiously through the Senate. As a member of Parliament, we barely had a chance to follow it here. It was passed unanimously when most of the members were not here one day.

Therefore, to use the trick to talk about the changing the Senate and then to use the trick to talk about a bill to try to make his point, sounds like those members are pretty consistent on that side.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hockey fan colleagues that the Halifax Mooseheads play in the Quebec major junior hockey league. We are very proud of winning the Memorial Cup for the third straight year.

I have a more serious question for the member, who, much like his Conservative colleagues in this debate tonight, is sitting on the fence. The Conservatives are trying to have it both ways. Maybe because things are not going too well in the Senate, suddenly there is the possibility of abolishing the Senate, although the Conservatives' rhetoric since they came to power in 2006 has centred on Senate reform. Even the Minister of State for Democratic Reform focused on this quite a bit this evening.

Are the Conservatives suddenly talking about the possibility of abolishing the Senate because of all the underhanded shenanigans going on there? Are they opposing the abolition of the Senate to protect the friends they appointed to the Senate to help the Conservative Party? It is either one or the other.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain where the member has been. I hold in my hand a fact sheet about the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, which mentions all of the things that I mentioned in my speech, including all the parts that he just asked in his question.

Yes, we have talked about reforming the Senate. We have moved forward to ask, as Alberta has done, that provinces select their senators and other provinces have even expressed some interest in that. We have talked about the term limits for senators, and that was a piece of the reform package that we talked about.

However, in the reference to the Supreme Court, we also asked it tell us if some of these other things were not possible, if we could not move forward to improving the Senate in Canada. We asked the Supreme Court to give us some rules and some answers on how abolition might take place. It has been a number of months now since that has taken place.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all across our great country, Canadians are struggling and going through financial hardships. Living pay cheque to pay cheque and relying on credit cards to make ends meet has become the reality for thousands of Canadians under the current government.

I would also like to say that I am splitting my time with the amazing member for Trinity—Spadina.

Yet here we are debating whether the Conservative government should give $58 million of taxpayer money to the unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic Senate. This does not represent the best interests of Canadians, which we are here to do.

The Fathers of Confederation envisioned the Senate to be an academic, non-partisan body of sober second thought. Instead, it has been turned into a tool of patronage for Liberals and Conservatives alike.

I would like to share with the House that my political awakening as a teenager, when I was 13, was the 1984 federal election. For those members of the House who remember that, it was Brian Mulroney versus John Turner. It was Brian Mulroney of the Progressive Conservatives, which no longer exist, they are now, I would say, the regressive Conservatives. In the televised debate of that federal election, Brian Mulroney, who was a Conservative, lambasted John Turner for doing a raft of patronage appointments that were asked of him by the former Prime Minister Trudeau. Conservatives at that time said that the Liberals had the option of not doing it.

However, in the past 30 years we have seen that Conservatives and Liberals alike have used the Senate as their patronage dumping ground, at the expense of the taxpayer. All we are asking tonight is to take pause and reflect. Does that chamber deserve the money that the taxpayers are paying for it? We just want to pause and reflect, and see if the money is being well spent over there. As Canadians have seen over the past couple of weeks, I think they would agree with most of the members of the NDP that it is not being spent well, that taxpayer funds are being misused.

That election in 1984 started off with Brian Mulroney riding into Ottawa on a white horse to clean up Ottawa, to get rid of the patronage appointments and it ended in 1993 with two members of the Progressive Conservatives remaining in the House, with division in the country. The same thing is going to happen in 2015. After nine years of power, the current government is going to end up a small rump, if anything, in the House, with a New Democratic government in power.

The Senate is an institution full of scandal and lies and it is a stain on Canadian democracy. I am proud to say that I am a New Democrat and I am proud to say that I am part of a party that does now and has always called for even when—