Debates of June 10th, 2014

Concurrence in Vote 1--Senate

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that the Senate is filled with unaccountable, unelected women and men who from time to time are doing great work. They spend $92 million a year and it is unaccountable. We can talk all we want about it. We can wish it were not so. We can wish it were better or we can do something about it. That is what we are talking about here tonight.

Are we going to do something about it? Are we going to say it is time to ship up, it is time to get ready, it is time to start doing things right so that we can be proud of the way that organization works on behalf of Canadians, because eventually we are going to get rid of it. Let us hold it accountable at least. We have the opportunity tonight. Let us do the right thing.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for sharing his time with me and, of course, for very ably laying out the reason we are having this debate tonight.

It is all about accountability, and as I listened to the various comments, questions, and speeches, I have found it interesting that by and large members other than the NDP have not wanted to talk about the issues of accountability.

I was fortunate to be elected back in 2004, so I have been in this august place for 10 years now, but we so rarely get an opportunity in this House to discuss the issues around accountability in the Senate. There is simply very little mechanism for us to do this.

I want to applaud the member for Winnipeg Centre for consistently raising this issue year after year. He has been tireless in attempting to get this place to talk about accountability issues with the Senate. It is tonight that we get this very brief period of time to shine the light on the lack of accountability in the Senate.

I was interested to hear the member opposite ask the question about the very strict accountability that was put in place in December. We eagerly await, at least on this side of the House, the Auditor General's report on expenditures in the Senate. We eagerly await that detail and the recommendations for the kinds of measures that need to be put in place to ensure accountability in the Senate.

The other issue that has come up consistently this evening is the fact that people are talking about the Supreme Court decision and the fact that the government proposal in its piece of legislation was not deemed as meeting the requirements under the Constitution.

Certainly, I do not think any of us here is questioning the wisdom of the Supreme Court position with regard to reform of the Senate. However, there are still other mechanisms that we could put forward to talk about making the Senate more accountable. The NDP has certainly made some recommendations about the reformation of the Senate that do not require constitutional change.

The member for Timmins—James Bay mentioned that one of the things we could do is prohibit the senators from taxpayer-funded partisan work. The senators would no longer participate in party caucuses or do fundraising, organizing, or public advocacy on behalf of a political party, using Senate resources. That seems like a really good plan. We do not require the provinces' consent to make that particular reform. In fact, the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties, who are the only parties here who have Senate appointments, could actually work with their senators right now to institute that policy this very minute.

Second, we could end taxpayer-sponsored travel that is not directly related to senators' legislative work. This sounds like a reasonable accountability measure. Certainly here in the House we have rigorous reporting requirements in terms of how we report our expenses with regard to flights: what we were doing, where we were going. There is no reason why the Senate cannot have that same kind of rigorous approach.

Third, we could establish a single ethics code and a single ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians. Again, that would make absolutely perfect sense. I mean, there are standards that parliamentarians in the House of Commons have. We have to fill out detailed forms with regard to other activities we may be engaged in. The Ethics Commissioner reviews the forms to ensure we are fulfilling our requirements and responsibilities.

We have seen very rare occasions, fortunately, in this House where members of the government have had to stand up and apologize because their conflict of interest form perhaps did not reveal the details that were required. However, again, we have a rigorous process here, and members by and large abide by that process. It would seem a good process to put in place with regard to the Senate.

I have heard talk about the sober second thought. If only that were true. Since 2011, there have been very few bills that have been amended in the Senate. Where bills have been amended in the Senate, it was because the government gave it marching orders. It was because the government blew something on a bill and then told the Senate what amendments it had to do because they were required. However, in terms of independent review of legislation, that sober second thought that people keep talking about simply has not happened. We have a Senate that is heavily stacked on a partisan basis, and that is the kind of review that is brought to those pieces of legislation.

We have had unprecedented numbers of bills originating in the Senate. One would think, if the government thought they were that important, it would actually draft the bills and have them tabled in the House of Commons and then referred to the Senate. However, we are not seeing that kind of approach to a legislative agenda.

Others have pointed this out, but I was fortunate enough to be a member of the House when the climate change accountability legislation was passed in the House of Commons and then referred to the Senate. With some trickery and chicanery in the Senate, it was defeated. It makes no sense to me that we have the duly elected representatives debating and determining a piece of legislation that we feel is in the best of interest of Canadians, we send it off to the Senate, and it is summarily defeated. That does not seem a reasonable approach for an unaccountable, unelected Senate.

I want to turn to the scandals that have been plaguing the Senate over the last several months.

Again, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour pointed this out. I know from talking to my constituents and other Canadians that people are raising concerns about the Senate, about how money is spent in the Senate, how accountable it is, why it is that the Senate continues to operate in this fashion, and why somebody is not doing something about it.

New Democrats are. We are trying to actually highlight the fact that there is a significant amount of money—in fact, the total amount is $91.5 million, but the amount we are talking about tonight is $57.5 million—which is the part that requires approval of Parliament.

Canadians are asking why. Why are we continuing to spend this money when there are so many other pressing issues facing Canadians? Why does the Senate continue to be funded for a job that it clearly does not do? It rubber-stamps legislation for the government, so why is it continuing to be funded for that?

I want to turn to consultation for a moment. I have been lucky enough to sit here and listen to a number of comments and questions, so I heard the government and the third party ask us a number of times what we did to consult. I have to remind members of this House that the responsibility around consultation rests with the government. It is the one that develops legislation. It is the one that develops policy. It rests with the government.

The Supreme Court decision said that, in order to do that constitutional reform, we need to have the consent of provinces. We do have a long history of Reformers and now Conservatives talking about the need for Senate reform. If they acknowledge that there is that need for Senate reform and they saw what the Supreme Court said, what exactly have they done to move this conversation along?

Again, I want to remind people that it is the government's responsibility to take part in consultation.

I would argue that members in this House, whenever they put forward a private member's bill or a motion, do not engage in the extensive kind of consultation that is required with regard to government legislation. I am the aboriginal affairs critic and we do not even see the government doing appropriate consultation with respect to aboriginal issues. It hardly seems likely that it is going to conduct the kind of consultation required around constitutional change with respect to the Senate.

In the brief time I have left, I want to briefly touch upon a couple of matters with regard to expenditure.

Again, I think the member for Timmins—James Bay mentioned the $57 billion that some of us have argued was theft from the employment insurance fund. That is just one example of where similar kinds of money that should have gone to support the workers and their families in this country have just been removed from government coffers by arbitrary decisions, because of governments that could not balance their budgets any other way except on the backs of workers.

I certainly would like to talk about what $57 million would do for schools on reserve, what $57 million would do for clean drinking water on reserve, what $57 million would do for housing, what it would do for child welfare, and what it would do to implement Jordan's principle. There are many ways that this $57.5 million could be used to actually make lives better for all Canadians instead of for a few senators who are party hacks.

I would urge all members of this House to support this very important motion that the NDP has put forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I think of the proposal that the NDP has put forward, I recognize that it would have a very profound impact on the operations of the Senate. I am sure that, as any responsible official opposition would, the NDP has actually gone out and canvassed the opinions of different provinces, because as the Supreme Court has clearly indicated, the provinces do have a legal right to participate in what is taking place, to a certain degree, with the operations of our Senate. That would be in both the federal and provincial jurisdictions. Some might have different viewpoints.

I wonder if the member could give any indication whatsoever as to whether the NDP has, in fact, canvassed any of the provincial jurisdictions. Would the provinces be in support of the motion that has been put forward? It would be very helpful for the debate if the member could demonstrate any support that goes beyond her own caucus.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly did cover in my speech the aspect of where the duty to consult rests. It clearly rests with the government in terms of initiating constitutional change and pieces of legislation that would have that kind of impact.

However, what I also indicated in my speech was the fact that we could use this as a starting point to talk about instituting real accountability in the Senate. Again, as the member for Timmins—James Bay and others have suggested, this is an opportunity to put a real ethics package in place in the Senate. It is an opportunity to stop the kind of partisan spending that happens in the Senate, where there is party fundraising and that kind of activity. It is an opportunity to stop taxpayer-funded travel on measures that are not related to a legislative agenda.

I agree that constitutional change is going to take time and that it is going to require working very closely with the provinces, but in the meantime, we cannot continue to let this kind of unaccountable spending continue to happen. It is just the wrong use of taxpayers' dollars.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very eloquent speech. She has really shed a lot of light on the nature of the debate today. It is about whether this House agrees to continue to fund the Senate in Canada to the tune of $92 million.

I come from a province, Ontario, that also used to have a Senate. It abolished it many years ago, as did a number of other provinces and as have many other countries in the world.

When we meet people from other countries and talk about the Canadian Senate, they think of a senator as someone who has been elected and who is democratically accountable to the electorate. They do not fully understand that, in fact, many of those who are in the Senate are failed candidates from the governing party, people who have been fundraisers, loyal campaigners, and so on. They are basically partisans who have been put in the Senate as some kind of reward. As a quid pro quo, they often continue to work on behalf of their political party.

Some have said that they do some good work and that there are some studies that they have done. Perhaps my colleague could answer, then, what kind of studies $92 million could actually buy. If the point of the Senate is to do the odd study that might be of use, how many studies could $92 million buy the Canadian people?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the government wanted to get value for its money, what it could do is continue to fund the Canadian Council on Social Development for some independent and non-partisan studies. It could fund the National Association of Women and the Law. That is another great organization that has now lost its money. It could fund organizations like Rights and Democracy.

There are many ways to get at the heart of these kinds of studies and the kind of in-depth information, which would be non-partisan and would truly be value-added, not only for parliamentarians here in terms of their review of the legislation but for all Canadians. I would welcome an opportunity to have that kind of investment, instead of an investment in the unaccountable, unelected Senate.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House and anyone who might be in the gallery tonight on a beautiful summer evening in Ottawa.

We need to be clear on what we are talking about tonight, what the substance of the debate is. It is my understanding that my colleague from Winnipeg Centre gave notice of opposition to Vote 1 in the estimates, which is an amount of approximately $57 million under “The Senate—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015”.

What does this mean? It means that this amount is part of the amount that the Senate uses to conduct its operations. There has been a lot of important debate tonight about changes in the Senate, about how we could reform the Senate, about how the Senate could act in a more transparent manner or be more accountable to Canadians. These are important, weighty issues.

I have certainly been quoted in the media. My opinions about the need for Senate reform are on the public record. When I go out to talk to my constituents, it is an issue. How do we make the folks who are responsible for legislation in this country more accountable to Canadians? There are several senators who would agree that this body should be made more accountable. This is a topic of debate.

Going back to what we are talking about tonight, it is the allocation for this upcoming fiscal year for the operations of the Senate. I am going to take a moment, because I have some time tonight, to read an article that is on the Parliament of Canada website. It is entitled “Making Canada's Laws”. It states:

...Canada's Constitution states that both the Senate and the House of Commons must approve bills separately in order for them to become law. Legislative basics The lawmaking process starts with a bill — a proposal to create a new law, or to change an existing one. Most of the bills considered by Parliament are public bills, meaning they concern matters of public policy such as taxes and spending, health and other social programs, defence and the environment. A bill can be introduced in the House of Commons (C-bills) or the Senate (S-bills), but most public bills get their start in the Commons. A bill goes through certain formal stages in each house. These stages include a series of three readings during which parliamentarians debate the bill. Prior to third and final reading, each house also sends the bill to a committee where members examine the fine points of the legislation. Committee members listen to witnesses give their opinions on the bill, and then subject it to clause-by-clause study based on the testimony. Either house can do four things with a bill: pass it; amend it; delay it; or defeat it. Sometimes, one house refuses changes or amendments made by the other, but they usually both agree eventually. All laws of Canada are formally enacted by the Sovereign, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons. Once both houses have approved a bill, it is presented for Royal Assent and becomes law.

Just to recap, how does a bill become law? It passes through the first House—sometimes the Senate, but usually the House of Commons—and it passes through the second House—usually the Senate, but sometimes the House of Commons—and then royal assent is given by the Governor General.

How does it pass through a House? It goes through first reading, when the bill proposing a law is received and circulated. At second reading, the principle of the bill is debated to verify that the bill represents good policy, et cetera. Then it goes through committee stage. Members of the public appear as witnesses to comment. At report stage, the committee report is considered by the whole House. Third reading is final approval of the bill, and the bill is either sent back to the other House or set aside for royal assent.

As a recap on how the legislative process works here, right now, for this fiscal year, we require both Houses in order to pass legislation. I actually do not think anyone here can argue that, and if they do, they need to have a refresher course prior to continuing their activities in the House. We need to have both sides under our Constitution right now.

The subject of the debate tonight is whether we should or should not approve funding for the upcoming fiscal year to keep the government operational. To put this in a real-life context, there is opposition on this particular vote. If this vote in the estimates were to be defeated, what would that mean in a real-life context?

A bill is coming up that my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands is keen on, because she proposed it. I am talking of Bill C-442, an act respecting a national Lyme disease strategy. It had first reading in the House on June 21, 2012, according—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Could the long distance conversation between northern Ontario and Cape Breton be brought closer together? The rest of us would like to hear the Minister of State's remarks.

The hon. Minister of State.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, going back to this particular example, my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands introduced this legislation in the House in accordance with the precedents set on private members' bills. I believe the bill is coming up for debate shortly.

The bill will be debated here at second reading stage and will go to committee. Many of the stakeholders that my colleague has consulted on the bill will provide their input at committee stage. I hope that we have great debate on this particular bill. Should the bill be supported in the House, where would it go to become law? What is the next step in this process?

If we go back to what I just went through, which is publicly available and part of any civics lesson, the bill will go to the Senate for the next stage of review, and then royal assent. That is how the legislative process in Canada works. In order for Bill C-442 to become law, the Senate needs to be funded in order to pass it.

Not putting this vote forward in the estimates means that the NDP is voting to shut down the legislative process in this country. It is as simple as that.

We can have an extensive debate on Senate reform and how senators should be elected and so on, but that is not the subject of the debate tonight. The NDP has proposed to shut down the legislative process in Canada. For all of the democratic woe is us, for all of the democracy in Canada is this and that and what not, we have before us a suggestion to shut down the legislative process in Canada.

We are late in the session. Many of us want to be in our ridings connecting with our constituents. We should all give pause for thought as to what that means. It means that if legislation from the House cannot be passed, then it cannot be enacted. It means that next year, the routine process of government that goes through the Senate would not happen. Whether one agrees with Senate reform or abolition or however a member thinks we should seek to change it, the reality remains that not voting this particular piece forward means we cannot put government legislation through.

I have been listening to the questions and answers tonight. We have had a lively debate on how we could possibly make the Senate more accountable to Canadians; that is subject matter worthy of debate, but it is not the substance of what is being debated right now. Sometimes we lose sight of that.

I would ask my colleagues across the way just to have a think. The NDP has put forward a few private members' bills over the years, not just in this session, that have achieved consensus in the House. How do they become law? They become law by going through the Senate. This is part of Canada's Constitution.

The vote on the estimates that has been put forward here is for this upcoming fiscal year. Our government asked for a Supreme Court opinion on what we could and could not do in the House in terms of scope for Senate reform. We were obviously quite disappointed with the outcome of that decision. That said, my colleague the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has talked about how we as a government will press forward on this particular issue because it is something of concern to Canadians. We also have to look at this upcoming fiscal year, which is the subject matter of the estimates.

I would like to see government continue to operate because I would like to see legislation continue to go through the House. I hope that my colleagues will give pause for thought on this one and support Vote 1, because the reality is that this is part of Canada's Constitution. We need to separate the debate around how we could reform the Senate, which again is worthy of debate, from the reality of this particular motion.

I could go through numerous bills in terms of how this particular vote would affect them. The Senate right now has a very heavy legislative calendar. Many of the committees are tasked with a review of bills that have come from here.

Certainly my colleagues opposite would say that there is support for some or all components of some of these bills. I would like to see those bills passed. I would like to see that process continue to operate, which is why we support Vote 1 in the estimates. It is because constitutionally we need the Senate to operate in order for legislation to be passed.

It is very short-sighted for us as a House to sit here and say we cannot fund the Senate and that we are going to pull the funding from it. How, constitutionally, would we put legislation through? I just do not understand this. It is actually a little mind-blowing that the substance of this situation has not come up. Constitutionally, the Senate has to operate. Certainly in the next fiscal year, even if we work at lightspeed beyond the speed of government, the Senate has a job to do right now, and certainly we would all say that we should continue to support it.

Because the topic of Senate reform has come up in debate tonight, I would like to take this opportunity, because I have been itching to do so for a few months, to talk about the approach to Senate reform of my colleagues in the Liberal Party. I find it a bit disingenuous for the senators who consider themselves Liberals in their caucus to all of a sudden walk out and say that they are not Liberals anymore.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

They are Liberals in the Senate.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

However, Mr. Speaker, now they are Liberals in the Senate. My colleague, the government House leader, makes a good point. The Speaker in the Senate recognizes them as Liberals.

Really, nothing has changed. Furthermore, my colleagues in the Liberal Party have proposed an unelected body to appoint unelected people to one of our governing bodies as a solution to Senate reform.

I am an Alberta MP. This is the home of the triple-E Senate discussion, and I just hate to stand here and see the triple-E debate devolve down to a triple-E that is now a Senate of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite. I really do not think that is what former Senator Brown had in mind when he coined the triple-E term.

I hope that when we do have the opportunity to talk about Senate reform, Canadians will really look at what was proposed. I do not know if it was really proposed so much as a walk out on stage and maybe just try a flavour-of-the-day announcement by the leader of the Liberal Party by saying, “Hey, these guys are not Liberals anymore, but they are still going to come to our conventions”.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The bozo eruptions.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the NDP are talking about this bozo eruption. Mr. Speaker, that is really not how we should be talking about this very weighty component of legislation that could potentially come before the House.

It is also important to note that in the last year, as someone on this side of this place, I know we are all subject to very transparent and rigorous reporting functions. I have been glad to see that we have had some all-party dialogue on how MPs can report their expenses and how we can have more accountability and transparency in that area. Certainly that is something that the Senate side should be following as well, and over the last year we have seen the adoption of some new rules in the Senate for reporting expenses. That is a step in the right direction.

Again, just to recap, to simply eliminate this particular item out of the estimates and say we are not going to let the Senate operate is perhaps not the best approach. I know it is late in the year and sometimes we have a propensity to grandstand and try to capture debate in a way that it should not be. I do not think anyone in this country who has any background in civics or who has taken grade 6 social studies could honestly say that in this fiscal year we should shut down the Senate and prevent legislation from passing.

Legislative gridlock is a problem. If we voted to have legislative gridlock in this place, industry would be quite upset about that. The international community would be somewhat shocked, would scratch their heads and wonder why Canadians would be shutting down their constitutional process to have legislation go through.

The follow-up to that would be a lack of investment, capital flight, and implications for the delivery of government programs and services. All of these sorts of things would happen because, constitutionally, this is how legislation is passed in our country.

In the coming days, months and years, the topic of Senate reform and how we deal with that is something with which we will be seized, and we should be. However, shutting down the Senate in this fiscal year is perhaps not the wisest possible course of action.

It is a privilege to stand in this place. There is a certain amount of theatre that happens at certain points of the day, but at the end of the day, especially when we look internationally at some of the unrest that happens in other parts of the world, to stand here, especially as a relatively young woman, in a democracy to debate matters of substance and weight and to speak on behalf of my constituents is a privilege.

There are better things to do with our time than to try to have PR stunts around shutting down our legislative process. Just to re-emphasize, if this funding does not go through, the Senate ceases to operate. I would just ask that perhaps my colleagues across the way could have a little more of a think around the motions they put forward. Surely there are other parts of the estimates that we could have had a very rigorous debate around, such as the efficacy of funding.

Surely, my colleagues opposite cannot expect that the Government of Canada would see legislative gridlock for the next several years. I am not sure what to say. This is kind of crazy. It is just one of those things that we look at and know that we have to speak to it, because we need to have laws passed and we need to have our democracy continue to function.

I hope my colleagues opposite will have a change of heart. Everyone in this place agrees that the topic of Senate reform is one that is worthy. It is one that will have heated debate. There are divisions on how to approach that even within our party structures, within our caucuses.

When we are talking about the business of supply and funding that is going to the Senate, I would like to see legislation continue to pass. I am sure my colleagues opposite who have private members' business on the agenda, would like to see their legislation considered by the other place, hopefully passed and become law.

In the name of sanity, in the name of rationality and in the name of respecting the debate here, I would ask my colleagues to understand that in the next fiscal year we need the Senate to operate in order to pass legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 10 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Call in the members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Income Splitting

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the opposition motion relating to the business of supply.

The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #189

Main Estimates, 2014-15

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Senate

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The next question is on Vote No. 1.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.