Debates of June 5th, 2013

Concurrence in Vote 1—The Senate

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is an incredibly important document. It is the basic law of this country.

It provides for the protection of minority rights, whether it is through the bicameral structure of Parliament or through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It provides for the governance and the structures of governance of this country.

It is very difficult to amend. That was done purposely, to ensure that rash and poorly thought-out decisions were not taken to change things in the heat of the moment. For that reason, I think we need to respect the Constitution. We should not try to do through the back door what cannot be accomplished through the front door of constitutional change.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a point of great interest to me, namely women and the Constitution, women and the Senate.

As the member knows, women were not always eligible to sit in the Senate. Indeed, they were not admitted until 1930, and only after fighting for this right. They won after a hard-fought battle, primarily led by five women. It was under Mackenzie King that women finally took their place in the Senate.

It was not the Senate that handed women their victory. Indeed, according to the Senate, women were not persons, and being a person was one of the qualifications required to serve in the Senate. This is still true today under the Constitution. This case, which was settled in 1930, was known as the “Persons Case”.

I raised this point because the member mentioned it. If he had not, I might not have talked about it. As we are well aware, it was a private committee, not the Senate or the Supreme Court of Canada, that ruled in favour of women. That committee was known at the time as the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council.

To conclude, I would like to say that I am very pleased that the member spoke about this.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for her comments.

I agree with the member. It was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom that declared that women were persons.

I agree with the member. It was the Judicial Committee of The Privy Council that ruled that women were persons for the purposes of election. I think we still have a long way to go to ensure proper representation of women in Parliament, and that is why I strongly support the increased representation of women in this chamber. It is something that I will always support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I echo the comments of the hon. member for Durham that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills has indeed elevated the debate. As a former member of the cabinet for intergovernmental affairs, he knows the file well and he is a passionate defender of democracy. Therefore, I hate to have to disagree with him.

In the past, I have always supported the Senate, but what I have seen transpire in the last few years has shaken my confidence to the core. Rather than it being a house of sober second thought, we have a chamber of partisan clout with no respect for democracy. It was prepared to take Bill C-311, which was passed democratically by this House, and defeat it without allowing it to go committee for hearings. This was the climate bill that had been passed here.

I fear that a future democratically elected House of Commons could have remnant Conservative senators appointed by the Prime Minister continuing to do the former prime minister's bidding against a newly elected House of Commons with different views. I think we are in trouble, and the only solution may be abolition, although not the current proposal before us.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe, as I have outlined before, that we need to check the majoritarianism of the House of Commons. We need to provide a check on the role of the executive branch of government. We need a place of sober second thought to review legislation and to do its investigative and research work. For all those reasons, I think the Senate of Canada has a role to play in our system of governance, which is why I believe we need to have a bicameral legislature.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I did not think that I would ever say this, but I agree with much of what the hon. member has had to say, especially with respect to the check on majoritarianism. It is particularly relevant in my small province of Prince Edward Island. Since the Conservative government has come to power, we have seen the withdrawal of front-line services for immigrants, taxpayers and veterans. There needs to be some sort of a check on this majoritarianism.

However, the member did say that he has some difficulty with there being a reopening of federal-provincial negotiations with respect to Senate reform. Does he not agree, given the long delay that the government went through before sending this to the Supreme Court of Canada, that the result of the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada will inevitably be those federal-provincial discussions that the Prime Minister seems to abhor?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member about his point on Prince Edward Island. However, Prince Edward Island did not join Confederation in 1867. It said “no thank you”. It was not until the offer was sweetened by the newly formed Dominion of Canada that Prince Edward Island joined, in 1873.

With respect to his question, I would say we should avoid reopening the Constitution because I think it is going to open issues far greater than just reform of the Senate. What we could accomplish after the Supreme Court rules, through non-constitutional means, would be a preferable course of action.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I should say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

This evening we are discussing a motion, a notice of opposition to a specific budget item. In fact, it is the role of the House to decide what sort of money to give out here and there. As everyone can see, there is one question and three answers. Do we need an upper chamber? Some will want to stick to the status quo, some will say that reform is in order and others will say that the Senate must be abolished.

The Senate as we know it today is an historic compromise that was made when this country was born. It is a hybrid of the British House of Lords and the U.S. Senate when it comes to its values and what its founders really wanted it to achieve. In fact, this was a matter of great debate during the Charlottetown Conference and the Quebec Conference in 1864. This is what was said at the time:

Senators are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Senators represent regions and provinces in order to balance the representation in the House of Commons. Less populated regions have a stronger voice in the Senate so as to ensure representation for regional and minority interests.

Is that really so? Has that ever been the case on any given day? I doubt it.

At the time, only the elite could be members of the Senate. There were two main conditions. We have to go back to the 19th century. To be a senator, a person had to be over 30 and own property worth at least $4,000, which was a lot of money at the time.

Governments of all stripes immediately saw a partisan advantage to appointing senators, and the problems began. It was supposed to be a chamber of people who could make wise decisions, a chamber of sober second thought. Has it ever been that? Not often enough for our liking, because if it were truly working well, then we would not be against it. Unfortunately, history tells us that year after year, decade after decade, there have been problems with that chamber.

Allow me to quote George Brown, who said at the time that the Senate was the key to federation,

...the very essence of our compact. Our Lower Canadian friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they would have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step.

At the time, it was a founding element of Canada and the intentions were noble. However, reality soon caught up. Do I really need to talk about Senators Harb, Brazeau, Wallin and Duffy? I do not have to talk about them any more in this place, because everyone knows all about it.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that there were three options. One of them is to maintain the status quo. That is obviously unacceptable, although some still believe in it. For all sorts of reasons, they try to instill fear in us, but all they really want is to go back to the way things were and appoint people who will do their bidding. The second option is reform. Do you believe it, Mr. Speaker? Do you know in what year the first attempt to reform the Senate took place? It was in 1874. We have been talking about Senate reform for almost 140 years. Has anything happened during that time? Not really.

More recently, attempts were made in 1980 and 1990. There was the Molgat-Cosgrove committee in 1984, the Macdonald commission in 1985, and even the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee in 1992. Did anything happen? On this side of the House, we believe that the only possible solution, in light of the Senate's history, is to abolish it.

However, that is not what we are talking about this evening. I would like to remind hon. members that the Senate has two types of budgets. Even if our motion is adopted tonight, the Senate will still have a $32 million budget under laws enacted by Parliament. We tend to forget that.

Do we need a bicameral system? The provinces decided a long time ago that such a system was unnecessary, and it did not bring about an apocalypse as some people claim.

British constitutional expert Walter Bagehot once commented about the British parliamentary system that, if we had an ideal House of Commons, we would not need a higher chamber. I believe that we need to look at how we work together for the good of this country.

Is the motion unconstitutional? Some have suggested that that is the case. I would like to point out to my colleagues that one of the privileges of this House is passing a budget. Part of the Senate's budget is granted by the House of Commons. It is therefore our prerogative to move this type of motion.

As I was saying earlier, part of the upper chamber's budget is statutory. I would like to once again remind hon. members that the Senate has a statutory budget of $32 million, which is not exactly peanuts.

The problem right now is that the Prime Minister appoints people and then he washes his hands of them. There is a serious problem with accountability. The Prime Minister cannot appoint people left and right or appoint just anyone and then, when they do something wrong, say that he is not responsible and that those people will pay back the money. That is not how it works.

The Conservative government has managed to do even worse than its Liberal predecessors when it comes to political partisanship in the upper chamber. That is why we are having this debate tonight. The situation is going from bad to worse. The more time passes, the less people see the relevance of this institution. What is its purpose?

I certainly do not want to paint all senators with the same brush. It is not my intention or the intention of the members on this side of the House to say that everyone is cheating. That is not our objective. The point is that the system is not working. We have been trying to change things for a long time. There are always problems, but they never get solved. In the end, we are always left with the status quo, which everyone in the House finds unacceptable, I hope. I hope that no one in the House still believes in the status quo, otherwise we have a problem.

To conclude, I would like to quote someone people here know, Michael Fortier, a former Conservative senator. On March 2, 2013, he said:

I was very naive...I thought it would be a different place than the one I found. [In fact, he shared the idyllic view of the Senate at the time.] I found it to be extremely partisan...on both sides, including my own. And it was very annoying because these people were trying to be members of parliament and they weren't.

If I had to choose today, I would say that I'm probably closer to closing the place down. I just don't see the usefulness.

More and more Canadians feel that the Senate has no place in our system, not because it does not have a defined role, but because it does not fulfill its role the way it should. Throughout history, the Senate has been manipulated for strictly partisan purposes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for adding some very important points to the debate.

The previous speaker pointed out that the Senate is one of the institutions of Parliament. The founding of Canada was partly based on the fact that there would be regional representation that would allow some of the smaller areas, such as the Maritimes, to feel that they had adequate representation. That has been part of our system.

I would say that most Canadians would agree that this is a great country, in part because of the Senate, which is one institution among many that are important.

The NDP continues to muse about the abolition of the Senate. What would be the effect on the Maritimes if they did not have the Senate floor, the guarantee that they will receive as many seats in the Senate as they will here in the House of Commons? Has the member considered that policy and its implications for other areas of the country that would then be under the threat of under-representation?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I mentioned in my speech, the notion of equality was a factor when the Senate was initially created. It was designed to provide increased representation for regions that do not have large populations. We all understand that.

However, although the original intent was a good one, the institution no longer works, and it is partisan. Instead of trying to repeat what we have done over the past 140 years by trying to reform an institution that does not work, the House should have the courage to look at other solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech, which was rather restrained, compared to the speeches other members of his party made today.

I understand that we need to have a debate on the Senate and start looking at ways to solve what has become somewhat of a problem.

Does my colleague not think they are misleading Canadians by trying to make them think we can abolish the Senate by waving a magic wand or that by depriving it of funding we can solve the problem?

Does the member not agree that if the Senate is not operational, under our democratic system, we would not be able to pass laws, since any law must go through the Senate to receive royal assent? Is the NDP's motion not overly simplistic?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

On this side of the House, we have never said that we could resolve this issue by just snapping our fingers or waving a magic wand. We have always said that the institution is dysfunctional and that we will have to roll up our sleeves and find other solutions.

However, as I pointed out twice in my speech, the motion does not state that all the Senate's money will disappear, but only the portion voted by the House of Commons. The other portion, which is statutory, nevertheless amounts to $32 million. I think they can do a thing or two with that money.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to participate in the debate on this important concurrence motion.

It is a belief of mine, as it is of the rest of my colleagues and many Canadians across the country, that the funding of $58,169,816 under the Senate program expenditures in the main estimates allocated for the funding of the Senate under vote 1 should cease to be provided to the Senate.

We are in the midst of a democratic crisis in this country, and Canadians across the country agree that there is no place for an unelected, unaccountable Senate in our democracy.

The origins of the Senate date back to Confederation. The members of the red chamber were asked to review and scrutinize legislation passed by the House of Commons. It was intended to ensure the representation of minorities and of provinces and regions in the federal legislative process.

As the member for Timmins—James Bay clearly articulated earlier, at the time that the Senate was created, these minorities were the wealthy people of this country. They were concerned that the interests of the wealthy few in this country might not be represented sufficiently in the elected House of Commons and wanted to make sure that people were appointed to represent the interests of the wealthy.

It was also intended to be less partisan. However, the Senate has never really played this role, as senators vote according to the party they represent rather than according to the interests of the regions they are supposed to be representing.

In the past few months, information has come to light about certain Liberal and Conservative senators that raises many questions and concerns about the use of public funds granted to those senators. Constituents and Canadians across the country are wondering about Mike Duffy and his $90,000. Fortunately, we have the Leader of the Opposition asking all the right questions, and Canadians are looking for real answers from the government.

Canadians deserve to know the details surrounding the $90,000 loan from former PMO chief of staff Nigel Wright to Mr. Duffy to repay housing allowances he falsely claimed. Despite his permanent residence being clearly in Ontario, Mr. Duffy declared that he lives in Prince Edward Island, where he owns a cottage. The $90,000 loan allowed Mr. Duffy to repay Canadians, and he now no longer participates in the audit. Mr. Duffy left the Conservative caucus, and on May 19 Nigel Wright also resigned for his actions. This transaction between Mr. Wright and Senator Duffy is now with the Ethics Commissioner to evaluate whether there was a violation of the Conflict of Interest Act. The RCMP is also investigating Mike Duffy's expenses.

Then we have Ms. Pamela Wallin, who is supposedly a representative from Saskatchewan, yet primarily resides in Toronto. Since 2010 Senator Wallin 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. The senator left the Conservative caucus and chose to sit as an independent as of May 17 of this year.

Then we have Mr. Patrick Brazeau, an even bigger embarrassment, who found himself in the middle of many controversies, including repeated absences from the Senate, an allegation of abuse of his housing allowance and charges of sexual assault. In 2012 Mr. Patrick Brazeau declared that his primary residence was in in Maniwaki, Quebec, which enabled him to receive a housing allowance for a secondary residence in the national capital region. However, we have all learned that media reports indicate the Maniwaki residence is actually the home of Patrick Brazeau's father. On May 9, Deloitte's audit and the report of the Senate committee on the internal economy ordered Patrick Brazeau to repay $48,000 in unjustifiable claims. The senator resigned from the Conservative caucus. We are seeing a trend here.

Abuse of privileges does not rest only with the Conservative caucus but with Liberal senators as well.

These are only some of the abuses of power that we are aware of at the moment. We do not know what else is to come. While we certainly need an independent audit of residency requirements, housing allowances and travel expenses in order to find out whether certain senators are abusing public funds, at the end of the day we need to abolish an institution that no longer serves Canadians.

In any other Canadian workplace, this type of behaviour and lack of responsibility and accountability would result in disciplinary action and, quite possibly, the cessation of the employment relationship, but here what we see are senators stepping away from caucus while maintaining all of their other privileges.

It is outrageous that according to Conservatives, senators are presumed innocent, but unemployed Canadians are guilty by default. It is clear that the Senate is incapable of rectifying its own problems.

While the Senate asked Deloitte to review the expenses of former Conservative Senator Mike Duffy, former Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin, Liberal Senator Mac Harb and former Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau, the firm is still in the process of completing its audit.

The leader of the government in the Senate has stated that the Senate would make the audit public, but we know there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. Moreover, the Senate committee on internal economy removed paragraphs in its report that criticized Mike Duffy because he had reimbursed the amount he owed. It clear that all public funding for this institution must end.

In 2005, the current Prime Minister campaigned on a promise to reform the Senate, to make it the three Es, equal, elected and effective. He went on to table several bills on Senate reform on behalf of this so-called commitment from his government for change, yet the bills went nowhere. They never rose to the top of the priority list. Even further, the Prime Minister broke his promise not to appoint senators and in fact appointed a whopping 59 senators.

The Senate is a fundamentally undemocratic institution, used by both the Liberals and Conservatives to thank their friends, defeated candidates and donors. They are appointed not because of merit, but as a reward for loyal service to the party in power. The Prime Minister's so-called Senate reform is without a doubt, a complete failure. Like the Liberals, the Conservatives are only part of the problem.

It was not until February 1, that the Prime Minister referred the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court will give its legal opinion on the processes to follow under the constitution to limit the terms of senators, elect senators, eliminate the requirements for senators to have a residence in the province that they represent and, of course, the abolishment of the Senate. The Supreme Court decision may take years to come, but Canadians want and Canadians deserve action today.

While the Conservatives and Liberals rise in their places to defend the status quo and their senators, the NDP is proud to stand up for Canadians and their tax dollars.

The Senate is outdated and fundamentally anti-democratic. We have senators who abuse the public purse. Also, that place is supposed to be the place of sober second thought. However, in fact, it is allowing partisan lines, as well as blocking legislation that is passed in the House of Commons a number of times, such as the NDP bill, Bill C-311, which would have ensured responsibility and action from Canada to prevent climate change. It passed the House of Commons, but the Senate stopped it.

Premiers, including Saskatchewan's Brad Wall, and many Canadians across the country, agree with us. It costs $92.5 million a year to run the Senate, over $90 million a year to cover the costs of salaries and travel for political organizers and people responsible for raising funds for the Liberals and the Conservatives. This is outrageous. The Senate is an archaic institution with appointed senators, some of whom, as we know, abuse their privileges and do not represent the interests or values of Canadians.

I know in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge River, this is a lot of money that could be put to much better use, yet it will take the annual taxes of over 8,000 average families to pay the Senate's tab. Senator Duffy will be collecting another $1.3 million in salary, while Patrick Brazeau will be collecting $7 million over the course of the remainder of his appointment.

There are many residents of Scarborough—Rouge River struggling to provide for themselves and their families. There are much more important uses for our taxpayer money. Youth unemployment in the GTA is double that of the national average. Where is the real job creation strategy? Canadians across the country are in need of affordable housing. Investments in housing are what Canadians are looking for. In my riding, greater investment for the crumbling infrastructure and investment in public transit services are needed. This $90 million could go very far in investment in public transit in Scarborough.

Neither the Conservatives, nor the Liberals, are taking this issue seriously.

On one hand, we have the Conservatives' so-called reform that is going nowhere. On the other hand, the Liberals are supporting the status quo. Fortunately—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The member's time has expired. Before we go to questions and comments, the hon. government House leader is rising on a point.

Bill S-8—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to third reading stage of Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.

Bill S-15—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to second reading stage of Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure that the House appreciates this notice from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The Senate

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some attention to the address by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River tonight.

She takes issue with the Prime Minister appointing some 50 senators, having said that he would not do so. She said that the Conservatives and the Liberals had not taken this issue seriously.

The member, if she were listening to the debate in the House tonight, would know that we cannot abolish the Senate simply by cutting funding. It is part of the constitution and we simply cannot ignore it.

On the issue of appointing senators, would the member not acknowledge that the era when the Prime Minister had left about 18 seats vacant, hoping to appoint senators who were elected, like the ones from Alberta, after a coalition of NDP, Liberal and Bloc leaders proposed to appoint their own senators, the Prime Minister acted to fill those positions so they would not be used that way.

Will the member not admit that the motion today is just a gimmick. Although we are all upset about abuses in the Senate, we are seriously trying to make—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Nanaimo—Alberni of some of Canada's history.

When Canada was formed, five of our provinces had senates, had upper Houses. The first thing Manitoba did, for example, was get rid of the senate. In 1876, Manitoba's upper House was abolished. In 1892, New Brunswick abolished its senate. In 1893, Prince Edward Island abolished its senate. Then Nova Scotia and Quebec followed and abolished their senates.

All of these provinces that did abolished their upper House had no constitutional problem. They are not having any problems. There is a way to do it. The Constitution does allow for it and if Canadians have the will, we will accomplish that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I would ask all hon. members, when another of their colleagues has the floor, they really need to keep the noise down. I am sure there are other colleagues who wish to hear the comments and questions from others. Please keep the noise down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have noticed over my two years here that when women members of the House stand to speak, the heckling is usually much worse than when male members stand to speak.

The member for Calgary would probably—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I do not think that is a point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.