Debates of June 10th, 2014

Concurrence in Vote 1--Senate

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

They would have to pass them, I might add. Good luck.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay talked about one of the solutions in the House of Lords: they show up and they get a per diem. It is about time; it is an idea to change the Senate that could be feasible. It is the first time I have heard it in the 10 years I have been here. If they do not like them, they get rid of them.

They constantly go on about the corruption aspect of the Senate. As I said, the lowest common denominator that existed in there is absolutely deplorable. Deal with it, which is what we need to do with transparency. It could be something like proactive disclosure. Proactive disclosure goes further than what is required for transparency. We did it. The Conservatives did it. What was the last party to say no, it was not going to do that? It has not done it yet.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

They will accept it kicking and screaming.

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

Right, Mr. Speaker.

They can practice what they preach, or they can just keep preaching. Either way, they are preaching from an empty book.

If we look at this argument about the Senate, again I go back to the fact that there was never a road map. There was never a way of getting rid of the Senate. There was a promise that abolishing the Senate would be taken care of.

As I mentioned earlier, one idea was brought up, and it was the first time I had heard of it. The Supreme Court, in its decision, said that there is a fundamental way to do it so that the federation is involved in the decision. The one thing that has to be done is that all the provinces have to agree to get rid of the Senate. Instead, what we got was that they could not do it, and therefore we should just give up on the argument. Let us just not bother.

What the New Democrat members are going to do today is vote to deny money going to Senate. Is it just me, or is that the first time that has ever been said in this House? I am just trying to illustrate the point here.

The New Democrats can lash out in anger in all different directions, madly off in all directions, I might add, but at the end of the day, if it is not feasible, it has fed into an untruth. If they want to have a conversation about the Senate, why do they start with an argument or a campaign or illustrate the most nefarious factor of an organization?

The New Democrats complained during many of the immigration bills brought in over the past little while. They said that what the Conservatives were doing was basing their theory, their logic, and their legislation on a small minority of bad things that happened. Is that not what the New Democrats are doing here with the Senate?

Let us assume for a moment that the Liberals want to either elect the Senate or get rid of the Senate. Let us assume that for a moment. At least we are starting with a conversation about how to change it to get the most nefarious factor, the lowest common denominator in the Senate, out.

However, we did not ignore the family. We did not ignore the people who built this nation, not just this House but 10 legislatures across this country that played a fundamental role in building this country, with provincial jurisdiction for health care, education, and other areas that are so vitally important. It is as if they did not exist altogether.

If that is the argument about the fundamental existence of the Senate, then surely there has to be room for a mature conversation about how we are doing it.

The Prime Minister tried to get around the fundamental elements, which were illustrated in the Supreme Court decision, of how to have an elected Senate. At least there was some element of trying to do something the Conservatives thought might fly. It did not work.

Now what we need to do is have a discussion with the provinces, which is fundamentally lacking in this House, about how we deal with the question of the Senate.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my colleague's comments. I know that a lot of Conservatives, and perhaps members of other parties, are interested in Senate reform, including making the Senate more democratic with elected members and perhaps making it more representative.

May I ask the hon. member whether there has been any progress with the Supreme Court's decision and whether the road to Senate reform is now clearer?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. Has progress been made on all of this? I think it has. I say that because, in and of itself, the Supreme Court gave us our sober second thought on this. It is like a road map that did not exist, and now it is more illustrative. That is why the Prime Minister referred it to the Supreme Court, which we applauded, and now we have this. It is similar to the way the Constitution Act was reformed in 1982. It was not just the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There were also fundamental ways to change our constitution. That too was a road map in 1982.

My Conservative colleague from eastern Ontario talked about what was done in legislation in 1996 with respect to a regional veto. Slowly but surely we are getting ourselves to a point where we recognize that we have a way of doing it now that is far more descriptive and far more necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. He spent a great deal of his time talking about the NDP and our approach toward reforming the Senate, abolishing the Senate, and changing the democratic process in this country to make it more accountable to the people, the people who pay the taxes and vote to make sure that the institutions are working for them. What I did not hear him talk about at all was what we are here to talk about tonight, which is why we should grant another $92 million to the Senate, an institution that is utterly and inexplicably unaccountable. There was example after example given of the problems that arise when we do not have accountability mechanisms, where people run off with credit cards and are not held accountable for that.

I would like to ask the member this. Would he please explain to me and to the half a dozen people who might be watching this show why it is that he does not think it is important that the Senate be held accountable and that the government be held accountable for giving the Senate, an unaccountable body, $92 million?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member sold himself short. I do not think six people tuned in just because he got on. I think more people tuned in for that reason. I thought he did an adequate job.

The member complains that I am talking mostly about the New Democrats. I would like to remind him that it was their motion tonight. If the New Democrats put a motion forward, we should probably talk about them.

Let me get to the point. The member said I never talked about sending money—

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

I'm not complaining about you talking about us. You can talk about us all you want. I just want you to focus on accountability.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member right now, because I feel like my speech is interrupting his heckling, but I will just proceed as best I can.

When I illustrated my point about the money, it was as if the member was not winning the game, so he took his ball and did not go home but sat on the sidelines and pouted a bit and decided not to send the Senate any money.

What happens to the support staff? What happens to the people who are unionized support staff, who would not get paid, thanks to this motion? This motion would deny good, hard-working, unionized employees their salaries. God forbid that this happens, but that is exactly what this would do.

I would say this to the hon. member. Let us have a mature conversation about the Senate and how we can change it, based on the rules that were just handed to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been following this wonderful debate, and it is a very stimulating conversation. It brings a couple of thoughts to mind.

One understands that Canadians are not satisfied with the Senate as it is today, but we have to deal with what we have, what we are facing, and what exists within the machinery of government. We know that the Senate has the capacity to hold hearings on bills and make amendments to bills. That will not change. That cannot change without a constitutional conference and a constitutional amendment. If it is to fulfill the role of sober second thought, one has to assume that the Senate has to have research resources at its disposal so that it can come to proper conclusions about amendments the senators want to make to bills and so on. If the research budget of the Senate is cut, how would it be possible for senators to make the most informed decisions vis-à-vis legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, from the very origins of the debate about why the Senate exists, it is, as he points out, for that sober second thought. In order to provide that, and this is going to sound really bad, one has to be sober. Now, by “sober”, I mean “learned”.

One has to be sober and learned. What else is needed? One has to have $4,000 in property. I know that.

Fundamentally, he is right in the sense that the Senate does have that function of sober second thought, as prescribed by the Constitution. The fundamental principles were that it has to provide sober second thought and it also has to reflect the regions senators come from. There is a regional balance that the Senate has attained. All this is done through the monies they are given in doing that.

Let me just end with this. The other day, a Vancouver NDP member praised Michael Kirby for his work. Members will never guess where his work was carried out. It was the Senate. He did a report on health care in this country that was adored by all Canadians, including health practitioners and health boards. He did it in the Senate. They even praised it.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's comments on the Senate. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has, of course, some very effective senators. Coming from a small jurisdiction as I do, we certainly appreciate all the representation we can get in the House here in Ottawa.

I do believe that transparency and accountability will happen in the Senate. It should have happened a long time ago, but I think it will happen as a result of all the current woes of the Senate.

Given the political landscape, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, has no representative on the federal side of government, but it does have Conservative senators. I wonder if the member could comment, because he did say they are regional representatives. Does he see these senators having any role in benefiting their province?

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

No, Mr. Speaker.

Well, here is the thing about it. If there is nobody at the cabinet table, here is an idea. It has been tradition to have the leader of the Senate present at the cabinet table.

Here is another suggestion. Maybe the Prime Minister should appoint one of the senators from Newfoundland and Labrador as leader to sit at the cabinet table. Maybe that is an idea.

However, from time to time I do see the senators going back and forth to Newfoundland and Labrador. I do see them at some events. They come with good backgrounds. I am going to be non-partisan about this. I have seen them do some good work. They have good backgrounds. I wish they could speak up a bit more, but I guess that is the fault of everybody in this place. We all feel we could speak up a bit more.

In answer to her question, I would say specifically that yes, I have had some good dealings with the senators from Newfoundland and Labrador, despite being Conservative or independent.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity tonight to speak to the proposal by the member for Winnipeg Centre to oppose Vote No. 1—Parliament, to provide the program expenditures to the Senate in the amount of $57,532,359 in the main estimates.

My remarks, I should say off the top, should in no way be confused as a ringing endorsement of the status quo in the Senate. Our government has consistently tried to reform the Senate while always recognizing the important role the Senate plays in our parliamentary system. That recognition is in direct opposition to the views of the sponsor of this motion, whose party would like to summarily abolish the institution. That is what the motion of the member for Winnipeg Centre would effectively do by depriving the Senate of the resources it needs to function.

Our government has always believed that while the Senate plays an important role in our parliamentary system, it needs to be improved to better serve Canadians in the way it was originally conceived.

A review of our government's record since taking office in 2006 demonstrates not only our government's commitment to Senate reform but also our flexibility in accommodating different views about Senate reform.

Legislation was first introduced in the 39th Parliament in April 2006 to limit Senate tenure to a period of eight years. Bill S-4 at the time proposed to amend section 29 of the Constitution Act of 1867 to limit Senate tenure to a renewable term of eight years and to remove mandatory retirement at 75 years for new senators coming in.

Also in the 39th Parliament in 2006, our government introduced Bill C-43, the Senate appointment consultations act. That was a bill that would have provided for a national consultation process through which Canadians would be consulted on their choice of candidates for appointment to the Senate. That was obviously modelled after efforts made in my home province of Alberta, where we had undertaken any number of these consultations in the past and where we had senators who were essentially elected by the people of Alberta. It was modelled after that particular idea, the innovative approach taken by my home province of Alberta. Unfortunately, as with the term limits bill, the opposition parties refused to support these important reforms.

In the second session of the 39th Parliament in 2007, our government introduced Bill C-19, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure), here in the House of Commons. Bill C-19 proposed to limit Senate tenure to a period of eight years, the same as the bill we introduced in the Senate a year earlier. However, there were a couple of important modifications.

First, while Bill S-4 did not expressly forbid the possibility of renewable terms, Bill C-19 did in fact expressly provide for a non-renewable term.

Second, Bill C-19 contained the provision to permit a Senate term to be completed after an interruption. An example would be a term interrupted by a resignation. Despite these changes and our government's determined effort to bring change to an institution that had remained largely unchanged since 1867, the time of our Confederation, the opposition parties steadfastly refused to support our legislation.

Then, of course, our government was re-elected in 2008 with a mandate to reform the Senate, and we went to work on that. In the 40th parliament in 2009, our government introduced Bill S-7, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate term limits). It was introduced in the Senate, and it included two key changes.

The first was the idea of eight-year term limits. That limit would apply to all senators appointed after October 14, 2008, with the eight-year terms beginning from the time that the bill received royal assent. Then, of course, the retirement age of 75 years would be maintained for all senators. Once again, even this modest but important reform was opposed by the opposition parties.

In 2010, our government introduced Bill S-8, the senatorial selection act. It was a bill to encourage the provinces and territories to implement their own democratic processes for the selection of Senate nominees. It would have democratized the Senate and provided an opportunity for the provinces and territories to implement the processes to enable that to happen. This act included a voluntary framework that set out a basis for provinces to consult with voters on appointments to the Senate going forward.

We all know what happened there: the opposition parties refused to support that reform too. Is anyone sensing any kind of pattern here?

That year our government also reintroduced the Senate term limits bill, Bill C-10. That bill died on the order paper upon the dissolution of Parliament. Can we guess why? It was due to a lack of will for reform from the opposition parties once again. They refused to support any idea of reform in the Senate.

Canadians gave another mandate to our government in the election of May 2011 to again make changes to the Senate. A month and a half later, on June 21, 2011, our government introduced Bill C-7, the Senate reform act. Members can probably imagine where this is going. Bill C-7 would have implemented a nine-year non-renewable term for senators. That goes back to the point I raised earlier about being flexible and accommodating. Some concerns had been raised about the eight years, so we went for a nine-year non-renewable term.

As well, that bill would have once again enabled a voluntary framework for the provinces to implement Senate appointment consultations. Processes were put in place for that. As with all the other times, the opposition parties still would not change their minds. They refused to support meaningful Senate reform.

Throughout all of those debates on the Senate, time and time again our commitment to reform was crystal clear, as was our recognition of the value of the Senate in our parliamentary system.

Our commitment to reform was also demonstrated by a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on Senate reform that our government launched in an effort to clarify questions about the constitutionality of legislation that we brought forward. While we were obviously disappointed by the court's decision, it is unfortunately one that all governments will have to respect going forward.

However, the court's opinion does not in any way change our view that improvements to the Senate are needed, nor does it change our view about the value the Senate can play in our bicameral legislative system. My hope certainly remains that reform will be accomplished at some point in the future.

In the meantime, there are other ways of improving the operation of the Senate, as demonstrated by the measures that the Senate itself has initiated to improve transparency and accountability with regard to its expenses.

The Senate plays a key role in the review of legislation. My Liberal colleague across the way can debate what sober second thought means, but he was right that this idea of sober second thought is a learned opinion of second thought. That is something the Senate provides, and it has resulted in improvements to legislation in the past.

The Senate also plays an important role in its committees in the investigation of issues of importance to Canadians. Certainly, the committees, as has been mentioned already in the debate this evening, have produced comprehensive reports. They have produced many, in fact, that have proven to be of tremendous value to the debate and to learning and understanding here in Parliament and throughout Canada. The Kirby report on mental health was an example of that. There was a study done by the national finance committee in the Senate on the price gap between Canada and the U.S. Again, the national finance committee looked studied the elimination of the penny. I could go on and on, citing reports that have been helpful and that have come from the Senate.

There is no doubt that, while the Senate is one of our key institutions here in Parliament, it has been hampered in its role by the lack of accountability that we have seen. There is no question. This lack of accountability has, in turn, been created by the lack of a democratic basis to the system of appointments. Despite the best efforts of most senators and the good work that does get done, some have questioned the legitimacy of the Senate because it lacks that democratic basis.

As I said earlier, I personally do not question the work of the Senate. However, clearly the events of the past year or so have fairly resulted in some damage to its reputation. While we agree about the need for improved accountability, and there is no question that it is needed, we do not believe that the solution is to remove the Senate altogether from our parliamentary system. Rather than destroy the institution and the valuable role it does and can play, we continue to believe that it can be improved and that it can continue to function as one of our key institutions.

Clearly, the recent decision by the Supreme Court on the Senate reform reference has changed the outlook considerably on the reform front. However, improvements can still occur, and the Senate itself has been a leader in that regard over the past year. The Senate has an important role to play in making the improvements. That it has the responsibility to regulate its own affairs is the prime reason for that.

I would draw to members' attention section 33 of the Constitution Act of 1867, which says:

If any Question arises respecting the Qualification of a Senator or a Vacancy in the Senate the same shall be heard...by the Senate.

The Senate has made some progress in dealing with the issues it has faced in this area of financial accountability and transparency. Much of the progress has been the result of the investigations carried out by the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. As a result of that committee's recommendations, the Senate has adopted new administrative rules to render the reporting system more transparent and to tighten the requirements that senators must meet in filing their expense claims. Some senators have been required to reimburse the Senate for expenses that were considered to be improperly claimed.

The Senate has also asked the Auditor General to conduct an audit of Senate expenses, which will take place in the months ahead. The Senate has also acted by suspending several senators without pay or without access to Senate resources. It seems as if the Senate is taking these matters into its own hands, as it should. Our government has encouraged the Senate to address these issues, and it supports the progress that has already been made.

Since 2006, our government has made a number of attempts to reform the Senate, as I have outlined throughout my remarks here this evening, and as I have indicated, the opposition parties have continued to stand in our way every single time. We as a government continue to believe that providing a democratic basis for the Senate would be a vast improvement and that it would in turn improve accountability.

Our reform efforts, of course, culminated with the introduction of Bill C-7, the Senate reform act, in the last Parliament. Bill C-7 would have introduced non-renewable terms of nine years and provided for a voluntary framework, which provinces and territories could use as a basis to consult their populations on their preferences for Senate nominees, again, as I have indicated, much like what has been done in my home province of Alberta many times. It has produced some great senators, some senators with democratic legitimacy and accountability. The ideas in Bill C-7 were real and concrete measures to reform the Senate.

Unfortunately, our efforts to move those important reforms forward came to an end with the release of the Supreme Court's decision on the Senate reform reference. The fact that in that reference we included a question on abolition was not in any way an indication that our government favoured abolition as an instrument. Our first choice has always been the introduction of reforms that would enhance the Senate's democratic legitimacy.

The Senate certainly has an important role to play in our system. I believe that abolition would remove an important player in the parliamentary system and would leave a huge hole in the legislative process, and for no good reason. Those who know even a little about our system of government, just a bit, know that the Senate has an important role to play in our system, despite what opposition parties may have tried to claim. The Senate's role in the legislative review process is invaluable to our system. We need to continue to provide the Senate with the resources it needs to function effectively.

Of course, we expect the Senate to treat those funds with respect. There have been a number of rule changes designed to ensure that is what is happening. However, we cannot simply remove the entire allocation to the Senate. As I said, we have brought forward a number of suggestions and bills, both in the Senate and in this place, seeking to provide the reform, to create the democratic legitimacy, and to create the accountability that we believe is necessary in the Senate. As I have said, every single time, time and time again, those measures and those attempts to make the reform were blocked by the opposition parties. They would not support anything we tried to do in terms of reform. We brought forward a number of different proposals. We were willing to be flexible, we were willing to be accommodating, we tried different approaches, and we did everything we could to see that reform come to fruition, but the opposition parties refused to allow reform to happen, every single time.

As I have indicated, we understand that there have been some issues with regard to expenses and whatnot in the Senate over the last year or so. There is a need to address those issues and create better accountability. As I have said tonight, there have certainly been efforts undertaken in the Senate itself to try to accomplish those things, and we continue to encourage and support that. We know that reform is something that needs to happen some time in the future. Hopefully, we will get some recognition of that from the opposition parties at some point in time. We can keep trying and hoping, but what we cannot do is simply remove the entire allocation from the Senate and pretend it never existed, and that is what is being proposed here tonight.

I cannot support the proposal by the member for Winnipeg Centre to oppose this allocation of the resources to the Senate, which is clearly a thinly disguised attempt to abolish an institution that fills an important function in our legislative process.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech tonight on the Senate. I am hearing conflicting messages from the Conservative member about the other messages from his party and his Prime Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is sending different messages. I would remind the hon. member that in 2004, the Prime Minister said, “I will not name appointed people to the Senate”.

[An hon. member]

Who said that?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

The Prime Minister said that on March 14, 2004, Mr. Speaker.

He also said on December 14, 2005, that an appointed Senate is a “relic of the 19th century”.

The hon. member talks about reform and says that the Conservative Party has always wanted reform. How is it that the Conservatives have been talking about reform since 2004 and yet nothing has happened? They have not come up with anything. How does the hon. member expect us to believe now that the Conservatives really want to bring in reforms when they have been telling us for 10 years that they are going to do this?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister often said that if reform was not possible, they would abolish the Senate. Everyone will remember that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister repeated that message.

When will reform no longer be possible and when are they going to abolish the Senate?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that the member chose to very selectively listen to the comments I made. I made a number of comments, and what I did was very clearly lay out exactly what has transpired since our government has taken office. We have always believed there is a need to reform the Senate. We believe it has an important role to play in Parliament, but there does need to be reform in the Senate. I have outlined throughout my remarks this evening all of the attempts we have made to try to create that reform, to create a democratic process that is a voluntary one for the provinces and territories to be able to choose their senators.

We have made attempts to put in term limits and there were a variety of reforms, but guess what? We have been unable to make those changes because the opposition parties have failed to support any of those changes. It is unfortunate that the member stands and tries to cast aspersions on our idea of reforming the Senate and how important we believe that reform is, because members opposite have blocked every single attempt we made to try to create those reforms. The fault lies squarely over there.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, actually the member is wrong. It is not because the NDP does not support the Conservative government's reforms; it is because the Prime Minister has failed to understand that in order to have the types of reforms the member is talking about, unfortunately from the Prime Minister's perspective, that obligates him to work with the provinces. He would have to get the provinces onside. The Prime Minister can stand on his pedestal and say whatever he wants, but until he recognizes that he needs to meet with all of the premiers and get them onside and maybe even do some consultation with Canadians, his position is not that much more tangible that what the NDP members are proposing to do.

Could the member tell the House how many meetings the Prime Minister has had with any of the premiers in regard to Senate reform?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it highly rich to hear a Liberal member stand in the House of Commons and talk about Senate reform. His leader's contribution to the idea of reforming the Senate is to take all the Liberal senators and turn them into Senate Liberals in some kind of publicity stunt. That is all it really was. Then on top of that, the member's idea to try to further reform the Senate going forward is to appoint people to appoint the senators. That seems a lot more democratic. I am sure that would make the Senate far more democratic. If his leader were to appoint some people who would then appoint senators, I think that would make it much more democratic.

I think it should be made clear that the sarcasm was evident in those comments. I do not know if the member thinks, like his colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, that it was a bozo eruption from his leader or if that was a legitimate proposal, but certainly appointing people to appoint senators would not do anything to create more democratic legitimacy in the Senate; that is for sure.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I believe the topic of Senate reform is one of worthy debate, and I think it is wonderful that we are having that debate here tonight. However, the form and substance of the motion ahead of us talks about whether or not we should be providing funding to the Senate in the upcoming year.

Now, if one would search of the Parliament of Canada website under “how a bill becomes a law”, one would read that it is first passed through one House and then passed through a second House. This implies that in order to pass legislation, we need the Senate to review it under the current constitutional processes.

If I understand the form and substance of the motion correctly, the NDP is asking us to shut down the House of legislation, which would allow bills, such as the one proposed by the member for Timmins—James Bay that passed this House, to stall and completely shut down the entire legislative process in this country.

Could my colleague possibly comment on the utility of that motion, as well as the possible outcomes and effect on the average Canadian citizen of shutting down the legislative process in this country entirely?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister certainly makes a very good point.

We all know what NDP members have as their agenda. We know the member for Winnipeg Centre is no stranger to what we would call a cockamamie stunt or scheme.

The member is right, to pull the funding allocation for a legislative body in this Parliament would shut it down completely. In order to reform something, one has to make concrete proposals and changes, which is something that our government has brought forward and tried to do, with opposition every step of the way from NDP members.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my hon. colleague does not understand how this works. We are not talking about the $34 million to the Senate, which is not under the purview of the House, and so it would continue to carry on its ability to do its function. We are talking about the portion that belongs to the House of Commons, the $57 million. My hon. colleague needs to have a better sense of how parliamentary procedure works.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The chair always appreciates the advice of hon. members in this place. With respect to this matter, all hon. members will know that there is a responsibility to remain relevant to the business before the House, but at the same time, a significant amount of latitude is given to members in terms of presenting context or related facts.

With that, I will go back to the member for Wild Rose.