House of Commons Hansard #263 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senators.

Topics

Opposition Motion—The SenateBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I can assure the member for Ottawa—Orléans that I and all other occupants of this chair treat everybody equally. If the member for Welland did in fact use the individual “you”, I did not hear it, because there was a lot of noise in the House at that time.

It being 6:30 p.m., and today being the final supply day in the period ending June, 23, 2013, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion.

The vote is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Opposition Motion—The SenateBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—The SenateBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Opposition Motion—The SenateBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion—The SenateBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Opposition Motion—The SenateBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Opposition Motion—The SenateBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred until later today.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

June 5th, 2013 / 6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

moved:

That Vote 1, in the amount of $58,169,816, under PARLIAMENT — The Senate — Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, reform of the Senate has been debated in the House of Commons and around kitchen tables in homes across the country since shortly after the Fathers of Confederation met to decide how Canada would be governed. All of us here today who have the privilege to take our seats in Canada's House of Commons, representing our constituents and voting on decisions that will make our country stronger, should think about them and give them our thanks. I know there were those who said it could not be done, or many said it should not be done, but there were enough who could see past the challenges and were willing to stake out bold policy challenges to create Canada.

We are still a young country, but if the Fathers of Confederation could see us now they would be proud. They would see that their bold efforts against the status quo have led to a strong stable nation, which is the envy of the world, and a beacon of peace, security and economic prosperity. However, what they would also see is a country that has changed since the soot-filled candlelit debates that the first MPs would have had in the House of Commons. Things have changed. Canada has changed. However, our Senate has not changed.

Throughout our history, there have been those on the side of reforming the Senate and those who have wanted to protect the status quo. It disappoints me to say that the protectors of the Senate have most often won that day. I do not know why, and I am not sure if Canadians know why either. When the only Senate reform measure we can point to throughout our nation's history is a reduction from lifetime appointments to a maximum term of 45 years, members can appreciate the difficulties that Senate reformers have faced. For me, it only gives me more resolve to take the first steps to reform the Senate. It is the right thing to do, and it is what Canadians want us to do.

The status quo in the Senate is not acceptable. We have heard from Canadians that they want the Senate to change. Our government recognizes that the Senate as it stands today must either change or, like the upper Houses of our provinces, vanish. Canadians know that the Conservative Party is the only one that has a real plan to make the changes that are so desperately needed. Senate reform is fundamental to our party. It is at our core. Our government has long believed that the Senate's status quo is unacceptable and therefore it must change in order to reach its full potential as an accountable and democratic institution.

The alternative is the continuation of a situation where senators are appointed for long terms without any democratic mandate. We have said “enough”, and Canadians are with us in saying no to the status quo in the Senate. It is our government that has put forward proposals to elect senators and to limit their term to nine years, as well as measures to ensure tough spending oversight. These measures would immediately increase the effectiveness and legitimacy of our upper chamber. They would drag the Senate into the 21st century. Our proposals would deliver meaningful change within Parliament's authority to act now. Our new measures would make the upper chamber more accountable, more legitimate and more democratic.

Term limits in the Senate would also work hand in hand with our efforts to make government more representative. When senators have to be replaced every nine years, we would not have a representative body that looks like Canada did fifty years ago. These are the most recent of the practical changes that we propose in order to make our democratic institutions serve Canadians better.

However, change cannot come slowly enough for the Liberals and the New Democrats. Through nearly 20 hours of debate, over 7 days, we have heard opposition member after opposition member tell us why reforming the Senate was not possible. This is despite the fact that our government has received a strong mandate from Canadians to reform the Senate and, in fact, already have hard-working elected senators representing their provinces in the Senate.

All we learned from those seven days of debate was that the NDP and the Liberals would use any tactic to maintain the status quo and to block the reform that Canadians have been demanding.

We believe that encouraging provinces to elect senators and setting nine-year term limits are both reasonable measures that can be enacted within Parliament's authority. We have a plan. We have meaningful legislation. We have the support of Canadians.

What we did not have was an opposition who shared our urgent belief that Senate reform is critically necessary and immediately possible. Let us be clear. Our reforms are reasonable and achievable, and they lead us on the path to further reforms. The Prime Minister has been clear. The Senate must be reformed or it must be abolished.

While we are committed to debating the merits of Senate reform and specific proposals in actual legislation, the NDP and the Liberals are committed to telling us why they think our actions are unconstitutional. It is not that they have a plan themselves. They did not have a plan and they still do not have a plan. We are the only party with a plan.

To prove our commitment to either fixing or ridding ourselves of the Senate, we decided to ask the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion on Parliament's authority to make these meaningful changes. For the first time in a generation, we asked the Supreme Court's opinion on what is required to reform the Senate and what is required to abolish the Senate. The aim in seeking a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is to accelerate the pace of Senate reform and to lay the foundation for further reform to the Senate. It sends a strong signal to Canadians that we are ready to move forward, confident in the legitimacy and strength of our reforms.

The questions referred to the Supreme Court reflect the government's position that meaningful change to the Senate can be achieved within Parliament's authority. As I have said before, the Senate must reform or vanish. The questions asked of the Supreme Court seek legal certainty on the constitutional amending procedure for term limits for senators, democratic selection of senate nominees, net worth and property qualifications for senators, and abolition of the Senate. We are eagerly waiting the Supreme Court's opinion on these important issues. We said we would reform the Senate, and we will deliver.

Until the Supreme Court returns its opinion, we will continue to bring forward measures to strengthen the accountability of senators to taxpayers, including when the Senate adopted eleven tough new accountability rules governing travel and expenses that were put forward last week by Conservative senators. These strong new measures will improve accountability and prevent abuse.

We said we would fix the Senate's rules governing travel and expenses, and we delivered. Yesterday 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. These are strong measures that will protect taxpayers, and I outlined these improvements earlier today.

I spoke earlier about the protectors of the Senate, those who want the status quo; those who say it should not be done or it cannot be done. While we have been moving Senate reform forward with meaningful proposals, a reference to seek clarity from the Supreme Court and a tough new accountability rules, the Liberal leader and his party have once again staked the claim as the champion of the status quo in the Senate.

The Liberals go so far as to demand that the Senate remain unelected and unaccountable because it is an advantage for Quebec. This has come after 13 years of inaction, where the Liberal Party took every opportunity to protect the Senate from any and all reform. Actually, it is probably closer to a hundred years. The Liberals have abused the Senate in its current form for the past three generations.

I can see why the Liberals are attracted to the status quo, but they certainly had an option. In all their years in office, they could have taken the initiative to correct the Senate. They could have admitted that it was wrong for Canada and Canadians, and tackled this democratic deficit. They had an option to stand up, but they chose to say yes to the old attitudes and the entrenched entitlements of the Liberal Party. It is time for the Liberal Party to stop protecting the status quo and to support our efforts for a more accountable, democratic, and representative upper house.

The Conservative plan to reform the Senate is clear and real. Our government wants to see changes in the Senate. The Liberals only seem to want it to remain the same. While the Liberals continue to stake out and vigorously defend the position of the status quo, the opportunistic NDP has shown, once more, that there is no plan too risky for it.

While Conservative members have been squarely focused on what matters to Canadians, jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, the NDP has decided to advance a gimmicky proposal to unilaterally defund the Senate.

To really appreciate the NDP's logic, I think it is worth reviewing the statements made by the NDP's senior treasury board critic, the member for Pontiac, just yesterday. When asked about the constitutional requirement to have the Senate pass legislation, he said:

There's no reason why the Senate can't do its job without funds. It's not an issue of constitutionality.

Listening to the NDP say that the Constitution is no big deal is also concerning. Canadians are learning every day how risky the NDP and its ideas really are. To him the upper chamber is rotten to the core, as the member has stated, casting a very wide net. The member for Pontiac is even willing to strip the jobs of some 400 Senate employees, who have absolutely nothing to do with recent events in the Senate.

To the NDP, it seems that the end always justifies the means. Better yet, when the member opposite was called out by his interviewer for being heavy-handed, he said that employees and senators could do some volunteer work. He expects our Senate employees to come to work but not get paid. Ask the member for Toronto Centre how that went for them.

The NDP knows that its motion is a gimmick and it will not work. Canadians are more than smart enough to see through the NDP's opportunism. It should trouble Canadians that the NDP has chosen to debate this gimmick that it knows will not work instead of important issues like job creation and economic growth. However, we should perhaps not be surprised that the NDP does not want to talk about the risky tax plan.

Our government's priorities are unchanged. The economy remains our top priority. Our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. We are proud of our record. Thanks to Canada's economic action plan, under our watch Canada has created over 900,000 net new jobs since the depths of the global recession. That is the best job creation record in the G7.

However, we can see where the NDP's priorities are. It could have chosen to use its debate time today on the important economic issues that Canadians continue to care about, such as, indexing tax fund payments to better support job-creating infrastructure in municipalities right across the country, reforming the temporary foreign worker program to ensure Canadians are given the first crack at available jobs, expanding tax relief for home care services to better meet the health care needs of Canadians, and removing tariffs on important imports of baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment.

While we are focused on growing the Canadian economy and jobs in the face of ongoing global economic challenges, the NDP keeps pushing job-killing carbon taxes and picking constitutional fights.

Canadians know full well that the NDP's claim that it wants to abolish the Senate is nothing more than a gimmick. The NDP has never brought forward a serious proposal, and Canadians know that it has no intention of ever doing so. They know its position is unrealistic and that the NDP is making it up as it goes along.

I am surprised that the NDP chose to debate its real record on the Senate today. Here are the facts.

In 2008, the NDP worked out a deal to appoint its own senators when it conspired with the Liberals and the Bloc to form a coalition.

The Leader of the Opposition has claimed to support abolition, yet introduced a bill to give the Senate more powers.

The NDP democratic reform critic, the member for Toronto—Danforth, provided further proof of the NDP's lack of sincerity when he said that the NDP is open to any kind of reasonable Senate reform.

On March 4, 2013, the NDP brought forward a motion calling on the government to consult with the provinces and territories on the steps necessary to abolish the Senate.

Two weeks ago, the NDP launched a website and said it would start a discussion with the provinces on whether there was support, as required by the Constitution, for abolition.

In January of this last year, the leader of the NDP said that abolition of the Senate would be a profound constitutional change and that his party and country had other priorities before opening up a constitutional debate.

The NDP record on Senate reform can be summed up in four points.

First, it claims it will abolish the place.

Second, the NDP repeatedly acknowledges that it does not have the constitutionally required support to actually abolish the Senate.

Third, it obstructs every government effort to bring accountability and transparency to a reformed Senate.

Fourth, it proposes gimmicky motions that it knows will not work.

The NDP has frequently admitted that it needs the support of the provinces and territories to abolish the Senate, support that it knows it does not have.

The NDP's grand consultation with Canadians and the provinces was announced just two weeks ago. Is that grand consultation finished already? Did it take just two weeks? Did the NDP members even talk to anyone? Perhaps they have abandoned that consultation because they did not hear what they wanted to hear. We can only guess, as it took so little time.

Whatever the reason, it shows that the NDP is just not serious when it talks about the Senate. It does not matter whether it is talking about consultations or funding or anything else; it is just not serious. That is why it has never put forward a legitimate plan to reform the Senate.

We must then ask ourselves this simple question: is the status quo good enough?

It is clear that while there may be different approaches to solving the problem, we know that the status quo is not in the interests of Canadians. Our government believes that Senate reform is needed now. Canadians deserve better.

In closing, we are the only party with a real plan to reform the Senate. My constituents tell me that they want change. Canadians want change.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's comments would be marginally more plausible if it were not for the fact that he serves under the most profligate and prolific abuser of the powers of the Senate in Canadian history.

He should be willing to admit that he and his party are part of the problem, not part of the solution. It would be almost comical, if it were not so sad, to watch successive Conservative and Liberal members of Parliament stand up here and squirm, wriggle and tie themselves in knots trying to defend the indefensible, when it is as plain as the nose on one's face that the Senate of Canada is beyond redemption.

I have not been here that long, but I have been here for 16 years and I have been watching these attempts to reform the Senate. Since 1972, there have been 28 significant attempts to constitutionally reform the Senate, and 28 times they have failed.

The position of our party has been consistent since 1933. In fact, the second term in our founding constitution, the second item for both the CCF and the NDP, is to abolish the Senate. We have been consistent.

My colleague is correct that back in 1867, working people immediately objected to the creation of a House of Lords. The founding fathers believed Canada needed an aristocracy because we had none, so they created an imitation of the House of Lords to make sure that the great unwashed did not pass any bills that might inadvertently share the wealth of the nation. They needed to—

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

6:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Order, please.

The hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about a solution and says that the Senate must change. Well, we also say that the Senate must change. Unfortunately, the member and his party have brought forward no real plan to change anything in the Senate. They bring forward a political stunt, a gimmick. It is deceptive and it is clearly unconstitutional.

The member just said that he has been here for 16 years. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows that what they have brought forward is unconstitutional. He knows it will not work. The NDP is just being deceptive and not being honest with Canadians.

The fact is that we as a government, as a party, have a real plan to reform the Senate. It would include elections, term limits so that we can regularly refresh the Senate and tough new spending accountability rules.

We have a plan. Unfortunately, all the NDP has is a gimmick.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many parts of the minister's presentation. Some I thought were unnecessary. If a minister wants to be taken seriously about advancing legislation, to withdraw rhetoric out of comments is, I think, important.

That said, he understands fully that if there to be significant change brought upon the Senate, it would require the support of provinces. That is why you identify this motion as a gimmick, and I do not discount your comment on it.

If I could just come shortly to my question—

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

6:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Order.

The member is again repeating what we have had three times already in less than an hour. He is addressing comments to another member of the House rather than through the Chair.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, the past minister of intergovernmental affairs, Peter Penashue, would have been charged with the responsibility to deal with provinces on such issues. I cannot ask him that question because he is no longer here.

However, would he have been charged with consulting with the provinces? Would he have had the opportunity to meet with the provinces? Indeed, if those types of meetings took place, would the minister share with us where the provinces are with this issue?

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member took objection to something in my speech. I suspect it was that I raised the issue that the leader of the Liberal Party said he supports the status quo in the Senate because it is better for Quebec. I do take great offence to that comment, and that is why I raised it.

Right across the country, we do have support for Senate reform. Coming from Alberta, I am very proud to say that our province holds elections for senators. We give Albertans an opportunity to have a say in who represents them in the Senate. British Columbia has looked at legislation. Saskatchewan has passed legislation. We are seeing out east in the Maritimes as well that New Brunswick is now putting forward legislation to have elections, so we do have support.

However, what we really need is a serious plan. What we see today from the NDP is not a serious plan. Again, it is a gimmick.

We have a serious plan that we put forward to Parliament, a bill. Unfortunately, that was delayed and stalled by the opposition. We have now put forward some questions to the Supreme Court to get clarity on Parliament's authority to make these changes.

The Prime Minister has been clear that if we cannot reform the Senate, it must be abolished, and that is what we are going to do.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

6:55 p.m.

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo B.C.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for again clearly articulating our position on moving forward with Senate reform. It has certainly been a long-standing commitment. No one ever said it would be an easy task. I suppose that if it were an easy task, it would be done.

We have talked about the NDP and what was really a very gimmicky approach. I cannot think it was a very serious approach.

However, as a westerner, I have to say I was most offended by the comments of the Liberal leader on why we should maintain the status quo.

I would ask the minister to contrast the Liberal approach to the Senate versus our plan to move forward. It is not an easy task, but we are moving forward.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. I was quite taken aback as well. For the Liberal leader to come forward and say that the Liberals support the status quo because it is of benefit to Quebec is just unfortunate and has no place here. The leader pits one part of the country against another. It is just not responsible.

Therein lies the challenge with Senate reform itself. The challenge for close to 100 years has been people who support the status quo, people who want to see the Senate continue the way it is today.

We as a government, as a party, have been very clear. We want to reform the Senate to be more democratic and more accountable. We put forward plans for elections to allow Canadians to have a say in who represents them in the Senate and plans for implementing term limits for senators so that we can regularly refresh the Senate. We have also presented tough new spending rules so that there is more Senate accountability to taxpayers.

We have a plan and we are moving forward with that plan.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Mr. Speaker, the mayors in my riding work hard every day. Only 21 of the mayors of these 23 municipalities receive a salary. These people truly represent the riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges. They work hard for no pay. They receive an optional salary of roughly $17,000 or $20,000. That is not much for those who do real work on the ground.

The minister says this is a gimmick. I think it is a pretty clear plan. We will stop providing money to the Senate in order to address other priorities in the country. It is possible to reduce the amount of money that goes to the Senate.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the NDP would consider what they have put forward today a real plan. This goes right back to the NDP's economic policies. They are not real plans, and it is obvious that the New Democrats are just not ready to govern.

We cannot just turn off the tap. We cannot just change the fundamental characteristic of the Senate without making some amendments to the Constitution and without consulting the provinces.

Their leader has said that before, and now, today, more or less because of opportunity, they are putting this measure forward.

I would have a lot more respect for the NDP if they wanted to debate such things as economic bills today. There is crime legislation we could debate. There are many other issues that are important to Canadians that we could be debating today instead of this silly gimmick that they have put forward.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

7 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of clarity and just to keep people posted on what is really going on tonight, we had a debate earlier on an opposition day motion put forward by the NDP. What we are debating now, and we should not confuse the two, is that we were asked, in the course of approving the main estimates, the instrument of supply for the Government of Canada, to vote to approve $58,169,816 funding for the Senate.

I put forward a motion to pull that money out of the main estimates and consider it as a separate vote so we might consider, on behalf of the constituents that we represent, if this chamber really wanted tonight to vote for and approve another $58,169,816 for the Senate of Canada. I wish it was a larger figure. I wish we could vote tonight at 10 o'clock on the whole amount that this money pit sucks up every year, but $58 million, sadly, is the only amount that we deal with as a voted appropriation. The rest is statutory. That is what we are faced with tonight.

This is the debate we are having on behalf of our constituents. Do we, or do we not, want to keep shovelling wheelbarrows full of money down the hallway and dumping it into that black hole, that money pit of the Senate. That place is insatiable. It will gobble up every nickel we put there and there will be nothing to show for it except for a bunch of high flying, globe trotting, semi diplomat senators. The only thing they like doing more than fundraising for the parties they represent is flying around the world on the taxpayers' dollar as some kind of a quasi diplomat.

I will be the first to concede that it is difficult to abolish the Senate by constitutional amendment. That would take a referendum put to the people of Canada. Perhaps in the 2015 election it might be a good addition to ask the people of Canada what their wishes are at that point in time. However, one thing we can do tonight is cut off its blood supply. We can throttle it. We can shake it up. We can tell it in no uncertain terms that we are sick and tired of the shenanigans in the other place.

I come from a time when we were not allowed to say the word Senate in the House of Commons. You, Mr. Speaker, would have called me out of order if I used the word Senate, never mind criticizing it. That place has fallen into such disrepute right across the country that even that rule is now out the window. The whole country is universally condemning and shouting it from the rooftops that they have had enough. They will not tolerate it anymore. They are sick of shovelling money into the Senate. It has gone from an impediment to democracy to an expensive nuisance to a national disgrace, and that is where we are right now.

Frankly, the monkey business around a few expense accounts is the least of the problem here, because there is absolutely nothing new about senators fudging expense accounts and wasting their dough.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to this debate for the last number of hours, both the previous debate on the motion put by the opposition and the debate currently on vote 1 of the estimates. Clearly, we need to be respectful of this institution of Parliament, which includes the Queen, the House of Commons and the Senate.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance on this, but I quote from page 614 of the rules of the House, from O'Brien and Bosc. It says:

Disrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House and the Senate individually are not permitted.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask members in the chamber during this debate on the vote to exercise restraint in their reflections on this institution.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I think the difficulty we are having from the Chair, and this is the second time it has been raised in the House today in terms of language being used vis-à-vis the other House, is that although we have clear historical rulings, the reality has been that the practice with regard to comments regarding the other House have been allowed to expand quite dramatically over the last decade in this House.

However, I would caution the member for Winnipeg Centre to try to moderate the tone and at least stay within some reasonable parameters, understanding the emotion that this issue is generating.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that consideration. I would just remind my colleague of the doctrine of estoppel, but he can look that up later.

The monkey business around misbehaviour by senators is the least of the problems with the Senate. There is nothing new about senators misbehaving.

I remember a time when the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance guys brought a Mexican mariachi band and a bunch of straw hats in front of the Senate and were doing a Mexican hat dance to protest the behaviour of one senator who had established himself on a beach in Mexico and was pulling down a Senate salary. That was Randy White, Monte Solberg, the current Minister of Immigration, Rahim Jaffer. Those guys were a lot of fun, and they were right at that time.

I remember when Deborah Grey bought 50 plastic pigs and placed them on the lawn in front of the Senate. The imagery I think she was trying to invoke, and correct me if I am wrong, was probably pigs at the trough. It is an unkind comparison perhaps, but it was her way of graphically illustrating what the Canadian public was feeling. That goes back 15 years. There is nothing new about that kind of misbehaviour.

However, the expense scandals pale in comparison to what is really wrong with the Senate and that is why the NDP, the CCF before it and the Independent Labour Party before that when J.S. Woodsworth was elected in 1921, were consistent in that they wanted the Senate abolished. It was a party of the people. It is natural that the party of the people would oppose the Senate.

As I said in earlier comments, one of the main reasons for establishing the Senate in 1867 was that the ruling class realized that they needed an equivalent of the House of Lords. We had no established aristocracy so one would have to be created to ensure that the great unwashed, that the working people of Canada, did not pass any legislation that might interfere with their ability to line their pockets with the resources of this great nation and they used their veto extensively.

In those early days, fully 10% of all legislation passed by the House of Commons was vetoed. Fully, 25% of it was amended significantly by the other chamber before it was allowed to succeed. It managed to gut and veto anything that might have been of benefit to the ordinary, freely-elected representatives of the people in the House of Commons. That was why it was created. It is no wonder we were opposed to it and objected to it. Believe me, that attitude and atmosphere continues to this day.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of the few New Democrats who was in favour of Senate reform instead of Senate abolition as a young parliamentarian. I took part in something called the Charlottetown accord constituent assemblies in 1992. I answered a letter to the Globe and Mail as a working carpenter, as an ordinary Canadian, to see if I would be interested in this. There were 160 Canadians chosen from all walks of life. We visited six different cities over six months and studied the Constitution and the Senate in great deal with the leading constitutional experts of the day. For six months, we were fully immersed in all the complexities and nuances of intergovernmental affairs, the jurisdictional powers of the Senate and the House, the configuration of the Senate and whether the Senate should succeed.

At that time, I believed the Senate could be reformed and it had merit, not because of the merit or the virtues of it but for one simple reason, and that being that in 1993 my party lost official party status, the party to which that I actively belonged. We were reduced to nine seats.

The Conservative Party of Canada suffered its worst defeat in Canadian history. It was reduced to two seats. Its caucus—

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

7:05 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Concurrence in Vote 1—The SenateMain Estimates 2013-14Government Orders

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

I do not know who is bad-mouthing me over there, but whomever it is has a lot of lip and a lot of nerve too. The member might get a fat lip by the time it is finished. No, I would not say that.

The Conservative Party of Canada was reduced to two seats, but its caucus was 50 people because it had 48 senators and all their staff, resources and travel abilities. That is like 100 people fully salaried and fully staffed able to rebuild—