Debates of March 5th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Disclosure of Members’ Travel and Hospitality Expenses

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. Chief Government Whip, for his excellent presentation in the House of Commons today. I would also like to thank him for his invaluable service, not only as the whip of the great Conservative caucus that we have, but also for the yeoman work he has done at the Board of Internal Economy. I would like to thank him for not only making sure that Canadians can rest assured that honest, hard-working members of Parliament have their expenses go through a rigorous process when it comes to their duties, but also for his leadership in making sure that the Conservative caucus posts its expenses.

I wonder if the Chief Government Whip could further edify something for the folks at home. I know he alluded to it in his previous answer, but I wonder if he could expand a bit more on the audit that was done by the Auditor General in regard to the House of Commons financial services.

Could he also explain why, in his opinion, Conservative members of Parliament and Conservative senators, along with some of the Liberal members, are the only ones who seem to be willing to publicly display items above and beyond what is currently required? Why does he think that the NDP seems to be afraid to do what most Canadians would deem to be appropriate, which is to proactively disclose?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things to say. The first thing that Canadians, and all members of Parliament, would say is that we respect the Office of the Auditor General. We also respect the work of our House administration. There is no need to put them at odds with each other, in any way, shape, or form. What we are proposing and what this motion proposes would not do that.

The NDP always wants to create a wedge. Wherever it can create one, it wants to do that. Whether it is for the greater good or not, that is what it wants to do.

In terms of why the NDP is working so hard to not disclose hospitality and travel expenses proactively, I can only speculate on that. Sometimes we spend more energy and resources avoiding doing something than actually doing it. I have failed to understand its logic in this since about halfway through last year.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House and congratulate the Liberal Party. It does not happen very often. I have been here for 10 years, and I have had some difficulty with some of the decisions that the Liberals have taken.

I say this as a former financial administrator, one of the only people in the House who has actually prepared documents for audit. I am well aware that when putting expenses together, we need to ensure three things: that they are uniform, complete, and verified.

That is what we in the NDP have been saying now for years, going back to the very beginning when I was first elected in 2004. I was one of the first, along with a number of my NDP colleagues, to post verified expenses from the House of Commons online. I am proud to say that every single member of the NDP caucus now does the same thing. Their constituents can go online to their MP's website and find out what their MP has been spending. That is very important. It is a principle that we have continued for years, to ensure that in every case, if they are represented by an NDP MP, that they can go online and get the complete and verified expenses that the NDP MP has been putting forward over the course of the year. We are the only party that does that, and there is a small number of Conservatives who do that.

However, I am congratulating the Liberal Party. Rather than going with the games and partial disclosure that the Liberals were trying over the course of the fall, they have come forward with what has been the NDP position: that we have uniform, complete, and verified expenses.

That is extremely important. People need to be able to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. That continues on in the long tradition of NDP financial management. As members know, the annual compendium from the ministry of finance, which federally is certainly not a hotbed of social democrats, has been saying year after year, for 20 years, that NDP governments are the best at balancing budgets and paying down debt. That is a record we are very proud of. We are simply better at doing that than other parties.

We were very proud to see that the Liberal Party has moved toward the NDP position. Now, from the Conservative amendment, we are seeing a convergence on the issue of ensuring that the expenses that Canadians are looking for from their members of Parliament are uniform and complete and verified. That is extremely important. That would mean it would not only be when constituents have an NDP MP that they will be able to go online and find what their MP has been spending. Indeed, from all parties, we will have uniform disclosure, which is verified by the House of Commons. That is extremely important. It will also be complete.

I say that “complete” is important because we have seen partial disclosures. Partial disclosures are toxic to audits. A partial disclosure can be that a member—or in an institution, an individual—can choose to release whatever makes him or her look good. We have certainly seen that, particularly from the Conservative side. I refer to the member for Vancouver Island North, who refused to answer the question that I asked him a few minutes ago.

However, the reality is that when we look through the disclosure of Conservative MPs, a third of its caucus has refused to participate in even the partial disclosure program that the Conservatives have put forward. Of course, many of the Conservative senators have refused as well. That is simply not good enough. Canadians expect better. Canadians demand to see uniform and complete and verified expenses, whether a person is in the Senate, which we believe should be abolished, or in the House of Commons.

We have seen a very good motion from the Liberal Party, which we are going to make even better. At the end of my speech, I will be offering an amendment. My colleague has already expressed some interest in accepting that amendment. He certainly seemed amenable to the Conservative amendment.

The member has done a real service by presenting this motion today in the House that would allow us to move forward, to actually add these elements on or around April 1. That was helpful from the Conservative side, and then, from our side, having the Auditor General mandate to be part of verifying the expenses of MPs.

I will give a bit of history because I think that is important. The history started back in the halcyon days of June 2013. On June 18, the NDP presented a motion. We said that given the importance of having that full disclosure and transparency, we would move to have the procedure and House affairs committee do away with the secretive Board of Internal Economy which now regulates the expenses of MPs.

Members will recall that on June 18, which is an historic date, the other parties agreed. The Conservatives said that maybe it would be good to do away with the secretive Board of Internal Economy. No longer would the expenses and difficulties of MPs be treated in a backroom, but would be policed by MPs themselves. Who would expect MPs to police their own expenses? That is not rocket science to the average Canadian. They all feel it is important to have a system with checks and balances. When we have MPs policing themselves, it does not seem to make a lot of sense.

On June 18, we offered that motion. It was adopted unanimously. Then we took it to the procedure and House affairs committee, and members will recall the unfortunate results.

We had a lot of important testimony. I would contradict the member for Vancouver Island North, who said something a few minutes ago about the Auditor General supporting the idea that the Auditor General not have jurisdiction over the expenses of MPs. I would like to be clear that is completely false. I will quote Sheila Fraser, the former Auditor General, who said, “I think Parliament's auditor should audit Parliament”. The current Auditor General came before the procedure and House affairs committee and also reiterated what Sheila Fraser said, that the Auditor General needs to have jurisdiction over the expenses of MPs.

Like most Canadians, members might question what that means: “Does the Auditor General not have jurisdiction now?” That is true. It is a surprise to so many Canadians. We have a secretive Board of Internal Economy that is maintained by the current government. It does not want to see that changed. The Conservatives steadfastly refuse to give the Auditor General that control and oversight over the expenses of MPs.

What is wrong with this picture? Even Conservative voters would say, “Are you kidding me? Do you mean that the Conservatives want to keep all of this in the backroom and want to keep the Auditor General away? That doesn't make any sense”. That indeed is the position of the Conservatives. They have a partial expense scheme. We can take out all of their senators and the dozens of MPs who do not get involved—and for anyone who wants to check that out, they can go online and see how many Conservatives are missing from the partial expense scheme—and at the same time, they do not want to involve the Auditor General and do not want to do away with the secretive self-policing of the Board of Internal Economy.

The current Auditor General thought differently when he said, “independent... oversight [of MPs' expenses] would strengthen members' accountability and enhance the public's confidence in the governance mechanisms of the House of Commons.”

We have had both past and current auditors general saying very clearly that they want jurisdiction over the expenses of MPs. We have also had the current Auditor General say that we need to have independent oversight.

The procedure and House affairs committee was called upon to look into that study. As a result of the NDP motion that at the time, on June 18, was supported unanimously as I recall, the procedure and House affairs committee heard from a number of witnesses. They provided testimony on what type of independent body could replace the secretive Board of Internal Economy. That secretive self-policing could be replaced by something like what we have in the United Kingdom, an independent parliamentary standards authority, which has independent oversight over the expenses of MPs. It is not self-policing in the United Kingdom; there is independent oversight.

That is a key policy difference between the NDP and the Conservatives. The Conservatives want self-policing of MPs, and the NDP wants to see independent oversight. There could not be a clearer division between those who want to see real accountability and those who do not.

We believe that the Auditor General should have a role, and I will be speaking to that idea in a moment and offering an amendment that I believe my colleague from the Liberal Party would accept. We also believe the Auditor General should be given the ability to look into MPs' expenses, and not on an invitational basis. That is where the Conservatives currently stand their ground. They say that we can invite them in if we all agree. That amounts to self-policing again. We are saying that the Auditor General should have the resources and the ability to go in and check.

I just got an update from our fabulous lobby team. It is always very interesting to see what is happening on the floor of the House of Commons.

We also looked into having the ability for access to information to also cover MPs' expenses, and our report coming out of the procedure and House affairs committee very clearly spoke to this idea. The Information Commissioner has called for it. The Information Commissioner does believe that access to information should also cover Parliament Hill and MPs' offices, with a system of checks and balances in place to preserve confidentiality.

When we are talking about expenditures, we are talking about something that is part of the public domain. We brought forward, after the unanimous support in the House of Commons on June 18, a plan to make MPs' expenses much more accountable and to have full disclosure of them. We had already pushed for the April 1 date that all parties have agreed to, and we are very happy that we will see enhanced disclosure as of April 1. We will start to see this information released on a three-month basis, and that is very important too.

What is most important in that overall framework is that we are talking about uniform, complete, and verified expenses. We are not talking about partial expenses or schemes whereby MPs self-police with no oversight from the Auditor General and can release whatever they choose to release and not release whatever they choose not to release. It has to be complete, it has to be verified, and it has to be uniform so that we can compare one member of Parliament to another. For the most part, members of Parliament work hard and make sure they are justifying their expenses, but if we do not have apples compared to apples, it is difficult for the public to compare and make sure they know what their MP is spending compared to other members of Parliament.

The fact that all NDP MPs put this information right up on their websites as part of the information they send out to their constituents is very important. It is not for show. It is a very practical tool that my constituents have been using for eight years.

For eight years, with my annual disclosures, I have been getting questions asking why I spent a certain amount on something or other. I can answer those questions. They come in from my constituents, because for eight years my constituents have been able to go directly to my website, find my expenses, and find out how much I spent.

This would be happening on a three-month basis, and that is good. It means that every three months we will be responding to the questions that quite legitimately come from our constituents who pay our salaries. That is extremely important.

The enhanced disclosure on April 1 will also increase disclosure and transparency, but neither I nor the NDP caucus believes that is enough. Those three other elements have to be part of the package. I know Conservatives have to be dragged kicking and screaming into more disclosure, but we are saying, and we will continue to say, that the Auditor General needs to have the ability to go in and examine MPs' expenses, as he has requested and as previous Auditors General have requested.

It has to be done in a very clear way, not in a way that would cause the Office of the Auditor General to stop other expense studies it was currently engaged in because of a lack of resources. Under the Conservative government, we have seen the Auditor General's department being cut back severely. That makes it more difficult for that good institution to do an effective job on behalf of taxpayers. We say that the Auditor General needs to be examining the expenses of MPs and that the Auditor General needs to have adequate resources to that.

We are also saying that access to information should apply to Parliament Hill. Since the Information Commissioner has requested it, we think it is an extremely important element to include as part of an overall transparency package.

As well, we are not going to give up on the idea that the secretive and unaccountable Board of Internal Economy should be removed from overseeing MP expenses.

I mentioned the United Kingdom. It has an independent standards authority that is working very well. Another example of independent oversight in Canada is the Government of Manitoba, an NDP government, which has put in place a commissioner to oversee those expenses.

I think it would be fair to say that if we asked 100 Canadians if MPs should be policing themselves, 99 out of 100 would say, “Gosh, no; there needs to be some kind of independent oversight. We should not have MPs policing themselves on expenses. There has to be independent oversight.” That is what 99 out of 100 people would say. The 100th person would probably ask that the question be repeated, and would then probably agree that there should not be self-policing but an independent oversight of MPs' expenses.

That is the package we put forward. It was supported by testimony from the Information Commissioner. It was also supported by testimony from not only the current Auditor General but also from previous auditors general. They said very clearly that they need that jurisdiction, which they currently do not have, over MPs' expenses. It was also reinforced by many other witnesses as well.

Tragically, as members know, we ran into a brick wall after the public support received on June 18 and a great deal of support from across the country. I personally had a number of calls and emails from coast to coast to coast from Canadians saying, “Good on the NDP for presenting the motion. Good on all parties for accepting it.” However, I guess the Conservatives were following up on that old adage of forming a committee, a committee being a dead-end road whereby a good idea is taken down into the back streets and quietly strangled. Indeed, that is what happened in this case. Those very good ideas that clearly meet with support from the vast majority of Canadians were strangled in committee.

We presented a dissenting report, circulated widely across the country, in which we called upon the government to look at this issue of the Auditor General. We are not going to give up on the issue of having the Auditor General look over MPs' expenses. We believe strongly and firmly that we need that independent, credible body looking and making sure that MPs' expenses have been properly analyzed.

We do not agree with the self-policing that currently seems to be in vogue on the government side. We honestly believe that the Board of Internal Economy's self-policing of MPs' expenses should be ended. Obviously we would receive a great deal of support on this issue from the public.

Those are the ideas that we continue to put forward. We know the government does not support those ideas, but we think Canadians do. Therefore, I will propose the following motion.

I move, seconded by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, that the motion be amended by adding, after the words “ministerial expenses”, the following: and call on the Bureau of Internal Economy to invite the Auditor General to audit this disclosure.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. I would remind all members that an amendment to the motion before the House has already been moved. As such, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is actually proposing a subamendment to that amendment.

I would like to point out to all members that O’Brien and Bosc states on page 534, under the section “Subamendments”:

Each subamendment must be strictly relevant to (and not at variance with the sense of) the corresponding amendment and must seek to modify the amendment, and not the original question; it cannot enlarge upon the amendment, introduce new matters foreign to it or differ in substance from the amendment.

On this basis, the proposed subamendment is not in order because it goes beyond the context of the amendment itself.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster is rising on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you consult the table, you will find that it is in order. What may not be in order is the fact that there has been another motion put on the floor. In that case, unanimous consent would be required.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Could the member repeat that logic? I did not catch it the first time.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you are saying it is not in order because it is out of the scope of the motion. I believe that is incorrect. It is not because it is out of the scope of the motion, but because there is another amendment on the floor.

Could you clarify that for me, please?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that a motion was put on the floor by the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. Subsequently the Chief Government Whip moved an amendment to that motion, which was in order. There cannot be two amendments to the motion on the floor at the same time.

Consequently, what the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has proposed could only be considered as a subamendment to the amendment, but it fails the test of modifying the content of the amendment itself and is therefore not in order at this time.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent, it can be considered in order.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member is correct that this House can do almost anything if it receives unanimous consent.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this case, what I will do is again propose, seconded by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, for unanimous consent, that the motion be amended by adding after the words “ministerial expenses” the following: “and call on the Bureau of Internal Economy to invite the Auditor General to audit this disclosure”.

I am hoping for unanimous consent for this motion, which would be in order.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member is seeking unanimous consent to move this amendment. Does the member have unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

There is no consent.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that was unfortunate, but I want to go to a question and concern that was brought up earlier to the hon. member. First I offer my apologies that the member did not receive the consent he was looking for.

When it comes to expenses, the member mentioned that if people go online and look at my expenses as the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, they will see, for the dates October 1 to December 31, how many trips I look in that time period and the cost of each of those trips, as published by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Can I see that on the member's website?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, for the last eight years my expenses have been put online every year. My constituents can actually look at my expenses. In a very proactive way, that is what the NDP has been doing.

Until very recently, other parties were not doing that. Now we are starting to see other parties starting to put their verified expenses online. That is welcome. It is something we all support.

As of April 1, that will be happening every three months. Every three months my constituents will be able to go online and see, with the improved disclosure as of April 1, exactly what I have been spending as an MP.

Again, that is something that most MPs do not do, but every single NDP MP does this. That is the distinction.

People do not have to take my word for it. They can take a few minutes and actually check MPs' websites. They will see who actually provides disclosure of expenses and who does not.

Some may say that it may be found in a party website somewhere. We just do not think that is acceptable. What our constituents need to be able to do is go on our website, which is the website address they get through all of our mailings. For every single NDP MP, people can see the verified expenses from the House of Commons.

That is what Canadians deserve. I hope other parties do the same.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me try this again. The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor made an attempt to get a response but did not get an actual response from the member. He just referred to the fact that anyone could go to his website. He mentioned this before the procedure and House affairs committee of which he was formerly a member and of which I am a member.

I did check his website to verify the accuracy. I can tell members that what is found there is the same link we can find on the parliamentary website of a broad section of categories, but what we cannot find there is a detailed listing of his expenses for his travel or his hospitality. That is not there.

However, if we look at the websites of every member of the Conservative government caucus, that information is there.

I really want to know why he and the other members of the NDP do not seem to want to share this information with Canadians. Our government is very open and transparent about those expenses. The NDP seems to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into disclosure and accountability.

Why is it that the NDP does not want to disclose its expenses, in terms of travel and hospitality, to the Canadian public?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I find this really funny. The Conservatives said something that actually was not accurate. Now they are being caught up on it. There are dozens of Conservatives who did not even participate in their partial disclosure scheme, let alone actually have a direct link from their website to their annual House of Commons expenses. Now that they have been caught out on this, they are saying, “My goodness. We are going to try to blame somebody else for the problems that we as Conservative MPs have in refusing disclosure”.

As I mentioned earlier and will say again, and I know the Conservatives do not like this, every single NDP MP has a direct link from his or her annual expenses that are verified through the House of Commons. As of April 1, it will be every three months, and that is wonderful.

However, more importantly, every single NDP MP believes that the Auditor General should be allowed to have jurisdiction over MPs' expenses. We actually believe we should be doing away with that secretive Board of Internal Economy that the Conservatives want to hang on to, to have MPs policing their own expenses.

Every single NDP MP believes in transparency, and we hope, some day, the Conservatives will join us in that.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the Hamilton Labour Council and we had our books audited every year. I know the struggle it is for small organizations to follow through on these kinds of things.

However, the House of Commons is not a small organization. We have tremendous resources.

What I would like to ask the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is, are not the Board of Internal Economy, which we have been trying to get rid of and made arm's length, and the procedure and House affairs committee, where the blocking has been, dominated by Conservatives?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek is absolutely right. This is the problem. After a motion was adopted by all parties at the procedure and House affairs committee, the Conservatives said, “We are going to do away with the self-policing”. Once the cameras were shut down and the lights were turned off, they decided to take a completely different stand.

Today, members saw my amendment. We had a bit of a dialogue about it. All that we moved was that the Auditor General be invited to audit the disclosure. Is there nothing more motherhood and apple pie than that: bring in the Auditor General just for this disclosure? The Conservatives spoke strongly against it. They rejected that.

I can just say, shame on them. Shame on them for refusing to have the Auditor General come in and monitor MPs' expenses. Shame on them to have to answer to their constituents.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to recognize my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, in bringing forward this particular motion.

I listened to the NDP speak to this, and I want to put something out for the public because the NDP is leaving a misconception about members of Parliament; that is, we are not adequate to handle a lot of our responsibilities, one being the internal economy commission.

When we talk about MPs policing themselves, it is a false conception. We know that there is a financial arm of government. I know that every time I put a claim in, I get phone calls and emails to my office. I know there are people who work within the parliamentary system who look at the financial piece of it.

However, I also want to say this: I served on the internal economy commission in Newfoundland and Labrador for six years. I did so when the auditor general was auditing all claims for members, and so I do not object to what the member is proposing.

However, I would like for him to put the proper message out there to the people of this country; that MPs just do not have an open chequebook to do exactly what they want.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like the member for Labrador, although the reality is that most Canadians believe oversight comes from some body other than MPs themselves. The Board of Internal Economy is secretive, and it is MPs policing themselves.

We put forward a motion on June 18 and Liberals and Conservatives voted for it. It passed unanimously. Obviously, Liberals and Conservatives at that time agreed with us and the vast majority of Canadians that we cannot have a self-policing system and have the same legitimacy, no matter how good people are.

I mentioned earlier in my speech that MPs are generally very good at managing their own budgets, but the reality is that self-policing is not a go. That is why the Liberals and the Conservatives voted for the NDP motion. We are just asking them to follow through and keep their commitment of June 18. We are asking them to vote for NDP motions. Let us do away with self-policing and bring in the Auditor General.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, 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 Vancouver Kingsway, international trade; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, rail transportation.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to today's motion. I also want to congratulate my colleague the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for putting the motion forward. This would be an important step forward. I will repeat the text of the motion:

That the House recognize the importance of transparency and accountability in the expenditure of taxpayers’ money and also recognize that the majority of parties have already begun disclosing the travel and hospitality expenses of their Members; and therefore call on the Board of Internal Economy to instruct the non-partisan professional administrative staff of the House of Commons to begin posting all travel expenses incurred under the travel point system as well as hospitality expenses of Members to the Parliament of Canada website in a manner similar to the guidelines used by the government for proactive disclosure of ministerial expenses.

Why does that make sense?

Canadians' trust in public office-holders and politicians was seriously eroded in past weeks by the ethics scandal involving the $90,000 payment by the Prime Minister's chief of staff to a sitting legislator and the holier-than-thou attitude of the Conservatives in power.

There are a number of reasons to do this next move in transparency and openness. Canadians have a right to know how their money is spent, and there is significant public concern.

Having said that, I want to touch on the remarks that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has made in his indignation, calling on us to end the self-policing system. I want to reinforce the calm and practical words of the member for Labrador, a new member to the House, who is very experienced in parliament in her home province and who understands very well, as we all do, that this is not a self-policing system and that in fact there are non-partisan House of Commons administrative employees who process all claims and make payments for the bulk of our expenses, ensuring that they comply with the rules on how budgets can be spent.

To leave the impression that this is a self-policing system adds to the damage we are seeing done to the reputation of parliamentarians in the House of Commons, and I hope that the temperature of this kind of indignation can cool down and that all parties can work together in a spirit of co-operation to support the Liberal motion.

Having noted that a non-partisan House of Commons administrative employee will be the one who processes claims according to the rules, and they are very strict, as my colleague from Labrador has mentioned, more can be done. Why do we need to do more? Clearly, there is a democratic deficit in our country and that is leading to a loss of trust in Parliament and in parliamentarians. There are many reasons for that and I will go into some of those later, but an indication of the lack of trust and erosion of trust in our democracy and in our parliamentary system can be found in some quotes that I will provide.

In an address in 2009 by the President and CEO of the Public Policy Forum, David J. Mitchell, he said that according to EKOS, a polling company, “Canadians' trust in government to do what is right has steadily declined by a total of 30% from 1968 to 2006”. That is government, not Parliament, but government is part of the whole institution of our democracy and so that affects the reputation of parliamentarians as well.

Also, according to Mr. Mitchell, who quoted a Gallup poll, confidence in the House of Commons fell 26% from 1979 to 2001, and during that same period, trust in political parties in Canada declined by 17%.

According to Elections Canada studies, there has been a steady increase in negative perceptions of public sector waste, “crookedness”, and ethical standards since the 1960s. This is a regrettable decline in confidence in Canada's core democratic systems and institutions.

That is from 2009. How are we doing since then? The Conference Board of Canada recently gave Canada a C and said that we ranked sixth among 16 peer countries and that public confidence in Parliament has declined in most of the peer countries over the last two decades. Therefore, we may be in the middle third of the set of 16 countries; however, confidence in all of those countries has been declining. We know that confidence in the political institutions is crucial for the stability of societies and for the functioning of democracy. Actually, there is research showing that the health of the democracy of a country is directly correlated with the health of its economy; so this ties right into the pocketbooks of Canadians.

In June 2013, The Globe and Mail quoted a former deputy minister of the New Brunswick commission on legislative democracy. David McLaughlin noted that trust in Canada's Parliament and MPs was among the lowest of some 26 countries in a polling survey conducted in 2012. Mr. McLaughlin said another survey last spring found a 20-point drop in democratic satisfaction in Canada in 8 years, to just over half of Canadians being satisfied with their democracy.

That is not good enough, and that is a precipitous drop over the period of this Conservative government.

In 2012, AmericasBarometer claimed its research showed that only 17% of Canadians trust Parliament and only 10% trust political parties. These are different numbers, but they are all about trust and confidence in Parliament. Of course, if questions are asked differently, there will be some difference in the results that are being acquired. However, all of this is not good enough.

Frank Graves of EKOS polling, in 2014, noted this in his analysis. “If we wanted a one-sentence summary of what the polls told us about Canadian democracy in 2013, it would be this: We're losing faith”. That is what the Canadian public told EKOS pollsters. When asked, “Which of the following choices best reflects your deepest concerns about the future?”, the top choice was “Acute decline of our democratic and public institutions”.

I have more statistics along that line, but that is enough to really demonstrate that there is a loss of public confidence in our Parliament, in our government, and in our democracy. We know that is the wrong direction. We need to be moving public confidence in the other direction.

When there is a lack of trust in Parliament, there is a lack of trust in our democracy, and then Canadians limit their participation with democracy; so it can become a downward spiral if they are not engaging with the policies, the laws, and the bills. They are then less likely to support them, and those bills and policies are less likely to reflect their input. This is a downward spiral that we cannot afford in our country.

I was born in a country that did not have democracy during the seven years I lived there. That is South Africa. It is a very personal matter for me to be aware of the health of Canadian democracy and to take the responsibility as a member of Parliament, as most of us do, to build the trust and confidence in our democracy. I have seen the kind of society one has when one does not have a democracy that is working and is trusted.

In South Africa recently, we saw the passing away of Nelson Mandela, who was an absolute hero around the world for the work he did to bring democracy to a country that did not have it for so long, and he did it in a way that brought people together, rather than dividing them. In the spirit of the contributions that Mr. Mandela, Madiba, made to the world, I take it as a personal challenge and responsibility to do what I can, and I know that many of my colleagues feel that way as well in the quest for restoring the democracy of our country.

There are reasons why the trust in democracy is eroding. Over the last eight years, there has been some acceleration of that distrust. I would contend that there are deliberate decisions and policies made by the Conservative government that have contributed to that. I need to mention some of them, even though the motion Liberals are putting forward is one that we are hoping will be supported by all parties in a spirit of co-operation.

It is important to note that some of this erosion of trust in our democracy, institutions, Parliament, and government ties into the abuse of the tool called prorogation. When prorogation is used to avoid accountability, that undermines the public's confidence in the institution. When omnibus bills are tabled that include massive public policy changes on a whole range of issues, and closure on those bills is pushed through, so there is not proper understanding and debate in the chamber, then there is an erosion of the confidence of the public in the process of deliberating and debating on changes in policy and legislation.

The public counts on parliamentarians to do work in committees, to scrutinize bills, and to explore and study issues of concern to Canadians, public policy issues, funding issues, issues of injustice. Committees have been counted on to be independent places where parliamentarians can bring their ideas and voice their concerns about the effectiveness of policies and bills being brought forward by the government or private members. Committees are no longer as effective. Much more committee business is done in secret, so there is a lack of transparency and accountability, and the independence of members on the government side has been curtailed, frankly, so that the instructions from the Prime Minister's Office overcome the individuals' possible concerns about what their own government is doing.

Lastly, what I call the unfair elections act is another tool that is undermining the confidence of the public. Our elections are a very critical part of our democracy. They are how parliamentarians are elected. If the process for electing parliamentarians has become less inclusive and more likely to exclude vulnerable voters and Canadians like the disabled, the elderly, the homeless, and low-income earners, then that is less democratic and less fair. When the leader of the Elections Canada organization is curtailed in his or her ability to talk about the importance of voting, to encourage the public to get out and vote, to ensure that the laws and rules are being followed, and there is no cheating happening, that also undermines confidence in our democracy and the very processes by which our government and Parliament are made up.

What is needed is action. We can talk all we want about transparency and openness, and that is a good start, but we need to see action. I am proud to say that the Liberal Party has taken a number of concrete actions to restore trust in the institution of Parliament and in our democracy.

In fact, not long ago, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada announced Senate reform. Some people have called this the biggest reform of the Senate that has happened since the Senate was first created. What the leader of the Liberal Party committed to is a change in how senators are appointed. Under a Liberal government, no longer would senators be appointed because they are the best-possible fundraisers for their partisan team and would be doing that on the public's dime. Under the Liberal leader's commitment, there would be an independent, non-partisan, and non-patronage process for appointing senators.

In order to walk that talk today, the Liberal leader released the Liberal senators from needing to be part of the national caucus, thinking through partisan matters as elected members of Parliament, of course, have to do. He released them from taking direction from the Liberal Party leader, released them from the time that had been devoted to those joint discussions, and certainly released them from the kind of following of instructions that we have seen the Conservative senators do, to the detriment of their own party and their own government when it came to the senators allegedly taking instructions from the Prime Minister's Office, allegedly whitewashing Senate reports, and influencing a supposedly neutral audit of senators' expenses. Those kinds of activities are completely unacceptable and undermine the faith and confidence of Canadians in our Parliament and in our government.

Under the Liberal Party leader's Senate reform, Liberal senators are constructively working together. They are focused on public policy, on the well-being of Canadians, on their regions, and on the issues they are advancing and the expertise they are applying to the review of bills and policies. That is as they should be doing and as they would be doing in the future under a potential Liberal government. That is just one key initiative to walk the talk on openness, transparency, and democracy and to begin to restore the public's trust, the trust that has been so badly damaged, as the quotes with which I began my remarks attest.

Co-operation is what we are looking for with this motion, and co-operation is what we are looking for from the parties in this initiative to make more transparent the spending of members of Parliament. The Liberal Party leader led the way with that last summer, by committing to transparent posting every three months of the travel and entertainment expenses, following a very effective proactive disclosure mechanism that was put in place by a previous Liberal prime minister in 2003 to cover the expenses of ministers. That has been in place ever since, and it made a lot of sense to adopt that mechanism for members of Parliament as part of that restoration of trust in our institutions. It was disappointing that, when the Liberal Party put forward a motion that all parties would post their expenses in this proactive disclosure framework used by ministers today, there was one party that blocked that motion, and that was the New Democratic Party.

Who knows what the New Democrats' idea is? I heard some of the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but I certainly did not clearly get why the New Democrats felt their party should not co-operate with a common framework of proactive and transparent disclosure such as the Liberals are doing; followed by the Conservative Party, whose members are also disclosing their information in a way that is transparent and restoring trust.

We are inviting the official opposition to join us in doing this in order to have a framework that is, as I said, managed by the non-partisan officials who are already skilled in ensuring that rules are complied with in terms of how budgets are spent.

It is important that we restore the trust, the confidence, and the spirit of co-operation, which is how we need to move forward to address the big public policy challenges that Canadians care about.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?