Debates of June 5th, 2013

Elections Canada

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege to discuss a matter of great importance relating to two Conservative MPs and whether they should currently be sitting in the House of Commons.

We learned recently that the Chief Electoral Officer sent you a notice, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the two Conservative MPs in question, specifically the member for Selkirk—Interlake and the member for Saint Boniface, indicating that he had made requests for corrections to their electoral campaign returns and that the corrections requested had not been made.

Before I start my arguments, I would like to quote the Canada Elections Act, which reads, in subsection 463(2):

An elected candidate who fails to provide a document as required by section 451 or 455 or fails to make a correction as requested under subsection 457(2) or authorized by 458(1) shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until they are provided or made, as the case may be.

It is quite clear that this subsection of the Canada Elections Act would require that these two members be suspended immediately, because the act says that they are to be suspended until the correction requested by the Chief Electoral Officer is made.

I understand that they may disagree with Elections Canada on the substance of their filings and that they have both made applications to the Federal Court on this matter. However, this does not change the fact that they should not sit or vote in the House until the matter is rectified, either by Elections Canada or by the Federal Court.

The precedence on this matter is clear. On March 1, 1966, in dealing with a similar question of privilege, Speaker Lamoureux ruled:

(a) That, even if there is a penalty provision in section 63 of the Canada Elections Act and whatever may be the terms of the order made by the judge pursuant to the said section in allowing an authorized excuse, the house is still the sole judge of its own proceedings, and for the purposes of determining on a right to be exercised within the house itself which, in this particular case, is the right of one hon. member to sit and to vote, the house alone can interpret the relevant statute.

(b) That the procedure followed in 1875 with regard to the precedent above referred to, which bears a resemblance to the case before us, seems to me to indicate that the question was dealt with at the time as being of the nature of a prima facie case of a breach of privilege.

(c) That it is not within the competence of the Speaker to decide as to the question of substance or as to the disallowance of a vote, and that such decisions are to be made by the house itself.

This ruling makes it perfectly clear that the House, not the courts, and with due respect, not the Speaker, determines whether the member for Saint Boniface and the member for Selkirk—Interlake have the right to sit in the House.

As for how this matter should be addressed, we are of the view that the question on this matter should be put to the House. According to Maingot, 2nd edition, on page 188, in reference to and from the same ruling, it says:

[T]he Speaker said that the right of the Member for Montmagny—L'Islet to vote subsequent to the date when he should have paid his election expenses was a proper subject of privilege, but that the House must decide that issue, and whether his votes should be disallowed. The Member who raised the matter did not move the usual motion to refer it to the committee and no further proceedings were taken.

Again, on page 247 of Maingot, 2nd edition, it says:

A...procedure akin to "privilege" (because it would be given precedence and discussed without delay) would be the case of whether a Member was disqualified to sit and ineligible to vote. These matters may only be resolved ultimately by the House, and they are "privilege" matters because the House has the power to rule that a Member is ineligible to sit and vote, and to expel the Member.

It goes on to say:

The determination of whether a Member is ineligible to sit and vote is a matter to be initiated without notice and would be given precedence by its very nature.

The facts are clear. The members have not made the proper filings or corrections, as requested by Elections Canada.

The act plainly states:

An elected candidate who fails to provide a document as required by section 451 or 455 or fails to make a correction as requested under subsection 457(2) or authorized by 458(1) shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until they are provided or made....

The review by the Federal Court does not provide relief from this section of the Canada Elections Act. Precedent clearly states that it is for the House to determine the member's eligibility to sit and vote in the House, not the Federal Court and not the Speaker. As such, I would ask that members of the House be provided the letter sent to the Speaker by Elections Canada on this matter.

This goes to the heart of our democracy. The fact that we are all elected to this place on the same footing, by the same rules and on an even playing field for all provides for a fair election to the House of Commons.

If Elections Canada, our independent elections agency, determines that rules have not been followed or have been broken, there are consequences. Those consequences are that those members do not deserve the right to sit or vote in this House as members.

Finally, if you do find that there is a breach of privilege, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that the hon. members from Saint Boniface and Selkirk—Interlake may wish to address this more fully, once they have an opportunity, and the related issue of whether it is their privileges that have been offended by what has unfolded here.

Briefly speaking, my understanding of the issue is that the individuals in question are being asked to account twice for a single campaign expense, that being the billboards that were put up on a permanent basis. The rules in the past have always been that if there is spending that transfers over from an election period to a non-election period, any costs that are fixed are pro-rated.

Apparently, Elections Canada wishes to take a new interpretation of this. The members are disputing this new interpretation, which has not been applied, certainly in my own experience and that of others in the past. As such, the members have availed themselves of the only avenue that exists, which is to have the issue resolved in the courts.

That is where the matter sits right now. It is a quite simple dispute. It is certainly not the kind of question of accounting interpretation that I think a reasonable person would say would justify a member being suspended from being able to participate in the House, having been duly elected by the voters.

From that perspective, knowing how simple that issue is and also the legal framework in which you are working, the decision you have taken to allow that legal process to unfold to resolve the issue, at which point the question of how it would function under the act might come into play, is an appropriate one. Therefore, I do not see particular merit in the suggestion, in advance of the resolution of the issue and in advance of the court deciding on the interpretation of the fixed costs of billboards, that it has reached a level such that the member is asking you to intervene. I would suggest that it is obviously very premature. Another process is under way, and it would not be your place as Speaker to interpret that process and make a ruling when it is before the courts.

That being said, I think the hon. members may wish to come back here and make further submissions on the points that have been raised and if the fashion in which it has unfolded has offended their own privileges.

You, as the Speaker, I think have conducted yourself in the fashion that the rules of this place suggest, that being as the guardian of the privileges of the members of this place. The way in which you have responded to this issue has been the appropriate response in those circumstances.

As I said, the hon. members will likely return with further submissions.

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

Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the official opposition, we would also like to reserve the right to come back to this as soon as possible and to let you know when that would be.

It is true what the member for Avalon said. The provisions of section 463(2) do not make specific reference to an appeal process or a court process as trumping the section. The section is a mandatory section, but the approach you have taken also obviously has its merit. Therefore, we would much prefer to reserve for the moment and come back to address the matter.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that while the Conservative members may try to argue that they have filed the appropriate documents and it is only the substance of those documents that is in dispute, that point is in fact irrelevant.

Thinking strictly in terms of Elections Canada's legislation, subsection 463(2) uses the word “or”, not “and”, where it says:

....or fails to make a correction as requested under subsection 457(2) or authorized by 458(1) shall not continue to sit....

The word “or” is disjunctive, not conjunctive.

Mr. Speaker, this puts you in a position where you are bound to comply with the request of the Chief Electoral Officer. To do anything less will constitute a breach of the privileges of the rest of us in the House and, worse, bring the proper application of the Canada Elections Act and our willingness to abide by it into disrepute.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I look forward to further submissions on this question. We will move on now to orders of the day.

Opposition Motion—The Senate

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

moved:

That all funding should cease to be provided to the Senate beginning on July 1, 2013.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 24 minutes.

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, 2013, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

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

I am pleased to rise in the House to begin debate on my motion regarding funding for the Senate.

As hon. members know, the Senate dates back to the time of Confederation. The Fathers of Confederation gave that chamber the mission of reviewing and improving legislation passed by the House of Commons. The Senate was also designed to ensure that the provinces and regions are represented in the federal legislative process. Thus, the Constitution Act of 1867 divides the country into four regions—Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and the western provinces—and sets out the number of senators that represent each of those regions.

That was the vision, but the problem is that the Fathers of Confederation also decided that the Senate would be made up of unelected, partisan members. That is the problem. Unfortunately, there is a fundamental contradiction between the duties of the Senate and its partisan nature. This contradiction has now become a democratic crisis. We are at a turning point in the history of this institution and the democracy of our country. Today, senators more and more frequently vote along party lines rather than in the interest of the region that they are supposed to be representing. What is more, they refuse to pass bills that were carefully considered by the House and its committees.

Unfortunately, today, many of the senators were appointed to the Senate not on their merit, but as payback for their loyal service to the party in power. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have both appointed defeated candidates, campaign managers, close friends and party donors to the Senate.

We can talk at length about the democratic deficiencies of this outdated institution, but as the Treasury Board critic, I will let my colleagues add their important contribution to the debate and focus instead on the financial side of the issue.

Before moving this motion I asked myself the following questions: is the Senate a good deal? Is the Senate a good investment for Canadian taxpayers? I will show in the rest of my speech that the answer to these questions is a categorical no.

The reality is that the Senate costs Canadians a lot of money, more than $90 million a year. While the Conservatives have reduced the House of Commons budget, the budget of the duly elected members, they have just increased the Senate budget to a total of $92.5 million.

We are spending $92.5 million for an upper chamber when the provincial senates have been abolished since 1968. The provinces are getting along quite well without a senate. No one has convinced me that the difference between federal and provincial governance is enough to justify spending $92 million for a senate.

I would also remind Canadians that the senators worked only 71 days last year, roughly three months out of 12, and that they earn a salary of more than $130,000 a year, in addition to all their benefits. What is more, 31 senators were absent for 25% of those 71 working days.

As incredible as it may seem, it takes the annual taxes paid by more than 8,000 families to pay for the Senate. Just by way of example, the total of other shady expenses, in other words, those claimed by Senator Wallin, are equivalent to the federal taxes paid by 28 Canadian families. The senator's $350,000 in travel expenses would be enough to pay for old age security for 57 seniors for one year.

Between now and the end of his term, Senator Duffy, who is at the centre of a scandal, will pocket a further $1.3 million in salary. Between now and the end of his term, Mr. Brazeau, who is himself involved in a scandal, will earn $7 million. The total future payroll for the senators appointed by the Prime Minister is $116 million.

Senator absenteeism has become a problem. The average number of days worked by a senator in 2011-12 was only 56, which is not even two months of work.

If that is not convincing enough, several senators are double-dipping by claiming a residence that they do not really use.

According to the Constitution, senators must reside in the province they represent. Under section 31 of the Constitution Act of 1867, a senator's seat shall become vacant if “he ceases to be qualified in respect of property or of residence”.

Senators must also own a minimum of $4,000 worth of land in their home province, and according to internal regulations at the Senate, senators who live more than 100 kilometres from Ottawa are entitled to be reimbursed for travel expenses and to a $21,000 annual housing allowance.

The problem is that several senators have declared second residences in Ottawa when these residences are actually their primary places of residence.

For example, in 2012 Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau declared that his primary residence was in Maniwaki, Quebec, thus enabling him to claim a housing allowance for a secondary residence in the national capital region. Maniwaki is 130 kilometres from Ottawa. Media reports indicate that the residence in question is in fact the home of Patrick Brazeau's father. Brazeau resigned from the Conservative caucus and is now sitting as an independent.

On May 9, the Deloitte audit and the Senate committee on internal economy's report ordered Senator Brazeau to repay $48,000 in unjustifiable claims.

Another Conservative senator, Pamela Wallin, is supposed to represent Saskatchewan, but her primary residence is in Toronto and she holds an Ontario health insurance card. Since 2010 she has claimed $300,000 worth of travel expenses not related to travel to her province of origin and has been seen at numerous Conservative fundraising events.

In question period on February 13, 2013, the Prime Minister confirmed that he had seen the senator's travel expenses and that they were normal.

However, Deloitte is still examining the senator's expenses. On May 17, 2013, the senator left the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent.

Mike Duffy is supposed to represent Prince Edward Island, where he owns a cottage, but he does not have a P.E.I. health insurance card. His primary residence is in Ontario. On March 26, Deloitte confirmed they had received a letter from Mike Duffy's lawyer stating that Duffy had repaid $90,000 and would no longer participate in the audit, and we know how that went.

All of these senators were named by the current Prime Minister, but to show that the problem is not limited to the governing party, Liberal Senator Mac Harb has claimed $31,237 in living expenses since 2010. Even though he is supposed to represent the riding of Ottawa Centre in the House of Commons, he has not been living in Ottawa for a long time and has now confirmed that he lives in Pembroke, Ontario, a 90-minute drive from Ottawa.

Deloitte's audit and the Senate committee on internal economy's report made public on May 9 ordered Mac Harb to repay $51,000, after which the senator resigned from the Liberal caucus in shame.

These are only examples that we know of, and the secretive way the Senate functions may very well mean that there are hidden abuses that we do not know about. These cases may just be the tip of the iceberg.

In his 2012 audit of Senate expenses, the Auditor General audited the housing allowance and travel expense claims for a number of senators. The Auditor General recommended as follows:

The Senate Administration should ensure that it has sufficient documentation to clearly demonstrate that expenses are appropriate.

We on this side of the House agree with him, but this is like putting a Band-Aid on an amputation. The problem is that senators are really on a different planet than most Canadians, and we cannot expect them to police themselves.

Here is the proof that the Senate cannot investigate itself. On February 28, 2013, the Senate committee on internal economy determined at the outcome of its investigation that senators' housing allowances, including those of Mike Duffy, were in compliance with the rules.

Well, that is convenient.

Let us not forget that the Senate committee on internal economy removed paragraphs in its report that criticized Mike Duffy because he had supposedly reimbursed the amount that he owed.

No, the institution is outdated and fundamentally anti-democratic and non-elected senators are entrusted with duties similar to those of elected officials. This is the very definition of redundancy. Its continued existence just cannot pass the test of good value for money. It is time to solve the issue once and for all. Let us do Canadians and our democracy a favour and let us shut off the tap and empty the trough.

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

Mr. Speaker, I talk to my daughter who is five years old. I understand she wants to get something done and yet I have to explain to her that there are rules in place, so if she wants to do something that is not how she can do it. I feel that this is the problem with the NDP right now.

I understand New Democrats want to make some changes to the Senate. We are doing that as well and we have a plan to do that. What they have is a gimmick and they do not understand that there is a proper way to do things.

I would like the ask the hon. member if they are trying to fool Canadians. Or do they just not understand the Constitution? Can he tell us whether their gimmick today, their little plan, is even constitutional?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I can tell my hon. colleague is that all it has been is inaction for the last two years on behalf of the Conservative government. Conservatives were elected on a promise they would do something about the Senate. What have they done? Nothing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party members have demonstrated once again that they just do not understand what is important to Canadians today. It is the issue in regard to the Prime Minister's Office and the $90,000. We have seen that in question period where it is prioritized, but New Democrats are off on this tangent in regard to the Senate. They are being a little dishonest because they know full well it takes a constitutional amendment to do what they claim they would like to do some day.

Can the member provide a list of the provinces that the New Democratic Party has actually approached? Does he have any idea of how many provinces, according to the Constitution, would be required? How many provinces do they have onside with the resolution proposed today?

Why is the NDP not dealing with the issue that is on the minds of Canadians today, which is the issue related to the Prime Minister's Office and the $90,000?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I do understand is that we can always count on a Liberal to defend entitlements and patronage. That is exactly what the Liberals are doing. That is exactly what their leader did. Canadians deserve better. They deserve that the institution be put to bed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just heard the Liberal Party tell us that Canadians do not care that the Liberal senators have been ripping off the Canadian taxpayer for the last 106 years, that it is not important to Canadians.

What does my hon. colleague hear? Does he hear from people who think that people like Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Mac Harb are an absolute disgrace and there needs to be accountability? I know the Liberals will defend it to the bitter end, but what is he hearing from his constituents?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from coast to coast to coast, I have had support for this motion from ordinary Canadians. It is not all that difficult to recognize that spending $92.5 million on a House in which the majority of people do not do their job is not worth taxpayers' money.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the NDP is really serious about the motion today, I think it is disrespectful to the Supreme Court because the question is in front of the Supreme Court now, what has to be done if we want to change the Senate in different ways.

I would say the NDP cannot be serious. If that is the case, we should not be debating it in the House today.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, getting rid of its funding is not an issue that is before the Supreme Court.

The motion, and I am sure my hon. colleague has read it, is about cutting the funding to the Senate, and that is completely possible.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express the frustration of the people of Canada at an institution that has belligerently refused to reform itself over the years and is now at the heart of the worst spending scandal in Canadian history. Still, we see Liberal and Conservative senators, and the Liberal Party working with them, trying to deflect people from the fact that we have an unelected, unaccountable body with senators who feel that they are entitled to take money when they want it and how they want it. When they are under pressure, they say that maybe they will start providing a few receipts and ask if that would make it go away. That will not make it go away.

This is not an obscure constitutional debating point. We are talking about an institution in 2013 that is unelected and unaccountable to Canadians, that has the power to interfere with the work of the democratically elected House. The House of Commons passed a bill dealing with catastrophic climate change because that is what Canadians want action on. It went to the other chamber, the red chamber. It is not called the red chamber just because of the colour of the carpet. This is the institution of patronage and corruption that was created by the Liberal Party. When that bill went to that place, it was senators who undermined the democratically elected will of Parliament.

One of the key senators who undermined that bill that was passed by the House of Commons to deal with catastrophic climate change was Pamela Wallin. Pamela Wallin is one of the rogues' gallery chosen by the Prime Minister. Pamela Wallin also sits on the board of directors of a major oil sands development company. Is that not a conflict of interest? I ask the people of Canada that. When Pamela Wallin was asked why these unelected and unaccountable senators monkeywrenched legislation that had been passed by a democratically elected House, she said that bill was a nuisance.

I have talked to senators. Some of them are nice people, some of them are smart people, but they see us as a nuisance. They believe that their work in the Senate is somehow more important than our work. There is at least one NDP private member's bill somewhere that they are all hot and bothered about that they have to deal with. Meanwhile, when the Conservative government stripped the Navigable Waters Protection Act and stripped environmental protection for lakes and rivers across this country, we did not hear a peep from senators. They rolled over like a bunch of obedient puppies doing tricks for their political masters.

We are talking about a Senate where the Liberal Party members, though I see now the Conservatives are starting to get in on this, say that House of Commons MPs are just not bright enough and we do not understand that we cannot make changes. I hear that from senators all the time. They are not going to reform themselves because they do not think they can be forced to reform. They say it is a constitutional issue. We will hear that all day from the Liberals. They say it is constitutional and we cannot touch it. It is perfectly constitutional for the House of Commons to decide how much money to appropriate.

Given the abuse of the taxpayers, given what has happened in the other chamber, I say that it is time to turn off the taps. Is there a precedent for it? Certainly, there is. We come from the Westminster tradition. Did members know that members of the House of Lords do not get salaries? No, peers do not get salaries. What they get is a per diem if they show up. Imagine the situation where hacks and party pals get to sit in the Senate until they are 75 and cannot be fired. They cannot be fired.

Today someone from the media asked me if I was shocked that Mike Duffy missed half the committee meetings. I said heck no, I was shocked that he even showed up. There is no obligation for him to show up. Senators cannot be fired. Conservatives are looking at each other and sort of grinning about Patrick Brazeau, a man who has certainly disgraced a public office. He cannot be fired. He is in there until he is 75. He is a $7 million man. However, if we turn the taps off, we can tell Mr. Brazeau he can come back any time as a volunteer, just like in the patronage. I hear some squawking from the Liberals asking what the per diem is. Certainly members of the House of Lords get per diems, but if we turn off the taps, it would allow the House of Commons to finally start a discussion with these unelected and unaccountable cronies.

However, that is not what the other two parties want to do right now because they have used the Senate to place their party organizers. The people that the member for Papineau relies on for fundraising sit in the other chamber. They do the party work on the taxpayers' dime. This is the way it has always been and this is still going on. They get to do that regardless of whether Canadians want them to do it or not because they believe Canadians cannot touch them.

We are not talking about constitutional change. We are talking about cutting off the taps. Let us put that to the Canadian people.

The other thing that is really galling, from a democratic point of view, is the belief that in the 21st century Canadians have no ability to decide whether they want an unaccountable body.

Every now and then, we will see the poor young tour guides who go around the House of Commons. They give a spiel about how the senators are there to defend minorities. I was at lunch the other day and I heard a senator go on about how her job was to defend minorities.

When John A. Macdonald set up the Senate in 1867, he was very concerned about minorities, but he was not worried about women, francophones and gay people. What he was concerned about was the rich people. John A. Macdonald said that there would always be more poor people than rich people and that was why the Senate was needed to protect their interests. If the Senate has done one job well over the years, it has certainly looked after the interests of that class of people.

On the housing scandal, the Liberal and Conservative senators came out and asked how we defined a primary residence. What planet do these guys live on? I go home to Cobalt. I could ask people if they know where their primary residences are because there are senators who do not know where their residences are. It is really complicated for them.

This is part of the scam that went on in the Senate and why we have to demand some accountability from it. We were told that poor Mike Duffy just was not all that bright, that he could not fill out a form. That is why he was on the hook for $90,000.

Certainly, if an average Canadian cannot fill out a form and claims $90,000, they get charged with fraud. However, we were told, according to internal audit of the Senate by Senator Tkachuk, Senator Olsen and the Liberal senators who were there, that the only problem with Mike Duffy was that he could not figure out where he lived, so they had to cut him some slack.

On May 9, Marjory LeBreton, Conservative leader in the Senate, said that the case was closed, that it was over. It was as if there was nothing to see and they were going home. We did not hear a peep out of the Liberals about that, but they knew what was going on as well.

Then we find out, because of the potentially illegal cheque that was written out of the Prime Minister's Office by Nigel Wright to Mike Duffy, which forced the light back on, that it was not just the fact that he did not know where he lived, but he could not seem to fill out expense forms. He would turn in an expense form and it would be rejected. He would turn in another one and it would be rejected. How many times does someone send in improper forms that even the Senate rejects without someone saying that there is a of abuse of the public trust.

That was going on with Mike Duffy. I would be fascinated to hear what they say about Pamela Wallin, if we ever finally get that. Maybe the Liberal and Conservative senators will gang up and keep that hidden.

There are a number of senators in the penalty box right now and none of them have responded with honour. The fundamental thing is public honour. We are called here to represent something better than ourselves.

The Liberal leader, the member for Papineau, praised Mac Harb the other day. He said that Mac Harb did the right thing. What did Mac Harb do that was so good? The Liberals did not kick him out of the caucus. He quit the caucus so he could go after the Senate, go after his old comrades because he was not going to pay the money.

Patrick Brazeau says that he is not going to pay the money. Mike Duffy did not even have to worry about paying the money, because he just called up Nigel Wright and asked him to give me $90,000 or he would not pay, so Nigel Wright paid him the $90,000.

Do members think Pamela Wallin is going to easily fork out that money? That will be an interesting one.

In 2013, when we have a group people that are defiant, people who cannot be fired and who refuse to be accountable to Canadians on the most basic things, we do not have to get into a constitutional debate with them, we simply have to say that enough is enough and we are turning off the taps.

If they want to come back to us and discuss a role and what would be fair, I am sure we could talk about stuff. We could look at the situation in England where in the House of Lords, the members get a per diem. If they do not show up, they do not get paid. We could discuss that. Then it would restore it to the democratically elected House to decide what to do with that chamber, because it will not reform itself.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right about a couple of things.

First, he is right that Canadians are disappointed and angry. I think they feel their trust has been betrayed, certainly by what they have heard in the news. I think that is why the NDP has reacted with this motion today.

However, we have a reference right now to the Supreme Court of Canada. It asks a number of questions. One is about how the government could go about reforming the Senate, which is an important question. It also asks conditions under which we would have to satisfy if we were to look at abolishing the Senate.

We have been consistent on that. Certainly I am never going to defend the status quo in the Senate. I know the Liberal leader has done that a number of times recently. I also know he gave Mac Harb a pat on the shoulder, which I thought was disgraceful

I understand the motion the NDP brought forward which, by the way, I do not believe, even if the motion were passed, could ever be undertaken. However, would the member support our government's efforts to reform the Senate, if not reform, then abolish it? Will the member support the government in its stated direction?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we find frustrating is we remember when the Conservatives came in and they agreed with the New Democrats on many areas. One was our share of frustration with the Senate. We were promised that action would be taken, but really no action has been taken. I do not know if it is whether the Conservatives do not want to do it or they realize the Senate will not do it. Therefore, it is important that the question is put before the Supreme Court.

However, we have to send a message now. We cannot keep waiting. Because the Liberals keep telling us again and again that it cannot be done. Well, we turn off the taps. I certainly would like to hear from the courts on what we need to do.

Also, when the Conservative government came in, it was working with the New Democrats on the accountability act. One of the key elements of the accountability act that we pushed was for a single ethics officer for both Houses and that was turned down by the Liberals in the Senate. Now the Senate officer needs permission from the people she will investigate and if she even gets that permission, she has to bring her recommendation to an in camera hearing and it will decide what to release.

The Senate ethics officer has gone back into hibernation. There is no accountability. There were attempts to bring accountability and senators blocked it. It is time we take action.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. It is about accountability. Earlier today, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada had a proactive approach at disclosing expenses. That would have ensured more accountability for tax dollars, not only for the Senate but also for the House of Commons.

The NDP's official response was that it was too onerous. The NDP wants to tell Canadians that we do not want this type of accountability because it is too onerous.

I wonder if the member might want to reflect, in terms of that spontaneous statement from the New Democratic Party, and recognize that taking a proactive approach for both Houses, the Senate and the House of Commons, is what is in order and that he would in fact support the leader of the Liberal Party's call for more accountability of tax dollars, and that means taking a more proactive—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has just a little more than a minute.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Boy, Mr. Speaker, he sounds defensive over there. I think it is cutting close to home.

Let us go back to the Raymond Lavigne fraud case. He is the Liberal senator who was convicted of fraud. I urge people to Google it. They will see that everything was laid out there in the abuse of public trust, and they decided to go back to business as usual.

Now what the Liberal leader is trying to do is what the Liberal senators are trying to do, saying “Don't look at us. Look over at the House of Commons”, and then they accuse us of diverting people's attention by throwing any attention elsewhere.

If it had not been for us taking this up issue, the Liberals would be doing the same thing that happened under the Raymond Lavigne fraud case, saying, “You know what? Once people stop looking, we'll just ignore it and we'll be back to business”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. 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 Burnaby—Douglas, Science and Technology.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me address this NDP gimmick, because that really is what it is. That is most obvious.

Our party remains the only party with a serious plan to reform the Senate. Our party leader remains the only party leader with a clear plan. The Prime Minister has been clear. The Senate needs to be reformed or it needs to be abolished. While the NDP concocts this last minute motion, with serious constitutional ramifications without even consulting the provinces, our government takes real action such as tough new spending oversight for the Senate. That is not anything like the NDP window dressing. That is action.

In fact, as recently as this week, the leader of the government in the Senate introduced a motion to call in the Auditor General to review Senate expenses. Of course, Liberal senators blocked it, as the Liberal leader continues to justify the status quo in the Senate.

The New Democratic Party wants to call open season on Canada's constitution and the Liberal Party has its horse blinders on saying that the status quo is the way that it will go. Canadians want real action.

Empty rhetoric in the case of the NDP and empty ideas in the case of the Liberals is not action. We believe that the Senate, in its current state, must change or it must go. It needs to reach its full potential as a democratic institution serving Canadians.

To find out what we can change, we have taken several questions and proposals straight to the Supreme Court so it can clarify our mandate. The NDP meanwhile has not even tabled a serious or legitimate bill on abolishing the Senate, not one. They know they cannot get the support of the provinces, yet the New Democrats sit here today discussing this as if it is something more than an empty gimmick. Canadians will not be fooled.

The NDP does not have an interest in actually reforming the Senate. It does not have an interest in talking to the provinces. Instead, it wants to ram through a poorly thought out gimmick that proves that it lacks the basic understanding of how our democracy works.

Let us look at this concoction that the NDP has tabled today. The NDP wants to halt all funding to the Senate by Canada Day. It believes the Senate and the people who work there are rotten to the core. It is a broad brush. Let us pretend we have halted funding. What happens then? Legislation from the House still needs to pass in the other chamber.

I just cannot believe the New Democrats are going to stand over there and pretend that this is an actual plan or anything more than what it actually is, just a gimmick. It shows how little they understand about functioning government. It shows how little they understand about our constitution. It shows how foolish they think Canadians are if they think they will buy this farce. No, Senate abolition is not a real goal for the NDP, a distraction maybe, but certainly not a goal.

Why would a party serious about a constitutional battle with the provinces over Senate abolition make a caveat in the coalition agreement with the Bloc and the Liberals to have the power to appoint its own senators? The answer is that it is just not serious. Why would a party serious about Senate abolition state in its election platform that on top of a carbon tax if it formed government, it would bar party insiders from being appointed to the Senate? The answer again is, the NDP is just not serious.

The NDP has been on every side of the issue. It calls for abolishing the Senate, then says it is open for reasonable reforms. Then it will not say whether it would appoint its own senators or not, when it is well known that it would, given the opportunity.

The Supreme Court will provide a ruling on how to reform or abolish the Senate. However, given the NDP leader's past criticisms of the Supreme Court, I can see why it would rather roll the constitutional dice and hope it has pulled the wool over the eyes of Canadians.

Are the members over there actually intending to go home over the summer and attempt to sell this to their constituents as a real plan? Is this something that they would really try to sell? Surely, there must be a reasonable person on that side who knows full well that this is not action or a plan. It is simply empty rhetoric. Their own leader has said that abolition would require profound constitutional change and that they have other priorities before opening up the constitutional debate, yet here we are debating a motion that has no constitutional merit, one that would crack open the Constitution.

What were the other priorities that the New Democrats had? Was the other priority to cover up their leader's cash-filled envelope offer from the former mayor of Laval, someone who faces numerous charges, including gangsterism and fraud? Why is it just coming to light now when he kept it to himself for 17 years? Is that the priority? They spent this time to discuss a gimmick when they could have used it to talk about the Canadian economy, something important to every Canadian and that affects us all.

I can understand why they would not want to discuss their plans for the economy either. They are much like their proposal today.

A $21-billion carbon tax. Maybe that is a tougher sell than today's concoction, but Canadians deserve to know what that means for them. It means essentially a tax on everything, on gas, on groceries, a tax on it all. It would kill jobs and hurt our economy. I would not want to spend the summer trying to sell that either.