Debates of June 10th, 2014

Concurrence in Vote 1--Senate

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate when points of order are abused to try and carry on debate.

However, what the NDP is proposing to do here, there is no question, would obviously cause significant issues in our Parliament.

If the NDP members want to put forward Senate reform proposals, they should put forward a proposal. We have done that a number of times, but they have opposed that every chance we have given them. Trying to do something through the back door in this kind of way is just another example of the NDP amateur hour. It is certainly not a party that could be credibly considered as a governing alternative in this country in any way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to the main estimates this evening and specifically to the Senate appropriations. Before I go into more detail about the subject at hand, I have to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Brome—Missisquoi, an outstanding member whose riding is near Sherbrooke.

My colleague from Timmins—James Bay already mentioned one of the important points I wanted to raise: the difference between voted and statutory appropriations. Both Conservative and Liberal members have a hard time telling the difference between the two. There is a fundamental difference between appropriations voted here in the House and statutory appropriations. As my colleague said, the government allocates $58 million for voted appropriations—I rounded the number, obviously—and $34 million for statutory appropriations.

I just wanted to set the record straight before getting started. The few people who spoke before me seemed to have a hard time telling the difference between these two kinds of appropriations, a difference that is nevertheless very clear when we look at the voting process for appropriations in the House.

The Senate will cost $92.5 million, which is more than in past years. The main estimates list the previous year's spending and the forecast spending. From 2012-13 to 2013-14, Senate spending increased by about $3.8 million, or nearly $4 million. In contrast to all of the government departments and agencies that are tightening their belts at the behest of the Conservative government, the Senate has been increasing its budget year after year. The Treasury Board is asking all government departments and agencies to cut spending, but the Senate is making no effort to spend less. It is a shame that the Senate is once again taking advantage of this money to make expenditures that could be described as hard to justify. Later on, I can comment further on everything that has been going on in the Senate recently.

Before I begin, I would like to put some numbers in perspective. What does $92.5 million represent? It represents the taxes paid by 8,000 families who are footing the bill for the Senate. Another significant fact I would like to point out is that the Prime Minister promised he would not appoint any unelected senators. That was back in March 2004. How many senators have been appointed since then? More than 57. If my math is right, the total is now 60.

The Prime Minister also said that an appointed Senate is a relic of the 19th century. However, senators are still being appointed. As I said, the Prime Minister appoints senators every year. It is interesting to look at who is being appointed. A former campaign strategist, a former president of the Conservative Party, party fundraisers and failed Conservative candidates have all been appointed. There are very recent examples of this, dating back to just 2011. Conservative candidates who did not win the election were then appointed to the Senate. That is quite the gift. It seems that Conservative candidates who lose an election can get a gift from the Prime Minister and be appointed to the Senate, where they can remain until they are 75 and pocket all the money that comes with that, obviously.

Meanwhile, the third party and the government are trying to sell us nice ideas about how the Senate is a place for sober thought and reflection. I believe the Supreme Court ruling referred to a chamber of “sober second thought”.

For the last little while, members have been trying to convince us that the Senate engages in sober second thought, when most of the senators, who have been appointed by either a Liberal or a Conservative prime minister, are people who have close ties with the party and obey their prime minister. That is therefore not true. No one can convince me this evening that the Senate is a chamber of sober second thought. I think those are the words the Supreme Court used. In reality, senators are controlled by the Prime Minister's Office, whether the prime minister is Liberal or Conservative.

Here is another interesting statistic about appointed senators. To whom are they accountable? I do not think they are accountable to the public. In fact, 51 of the 57 senators appointed by the Prime Minister made donations to the Conservative Party. I would like to believe that this is just a coincidence, but I have my doubts.

This brings me to the topic of the people to whom senators are accountable once they are appointed and they arrive in the other chamber, where they can remain until they are 75. To whom are they accountable?

It is a valid question. We may ask to whom they are accountable if, for example, a senator is involved in misconduct, has acted badly or has incurred inappropriate expenses. I do not think I have to go on at length about senators' expenses. Everyone watching at home knows what I am talking about.

Senators are paid by taxpayers, and it takes 8,000 Canadian families to pay the Senate's bills. To whom are senators accountable, then? They are accountable only to the prime minister who appointed them.

That really is true. In theory, one could argue that it is not the case, that they are free to think and act as they want and that they are not accountable to the prime minister.

However, in fact, senators are accountable to the Prime Minister's Office only. We saw that during the Senate scandal. The Prime Minister's Office exercises immense control over the senators, including the leader of the Senate, who, if I am not mistaken, meets regularly with the Prime Minister. We have also seen how certain tactics that were used in the upper house were directly linked to instructions from the Prime Minister.

Do not try to convince me that the Senate is a chamber of sober second thought. Only one person controls it all: the Prime Minister and the people in his office.

Do not try to tell me I should believe the Conservatives, either, when they talk of reforming the Senate. They have been promising to reform it for more than 10 years. The hon. member for Wild Rose said that it was the opposition's fault that the matter has been dragging on for 10 years.

The only person to blame is the Prime Minister, because, in his vision of Senate reform, his only intention was to avoid talking to the provinces. The only thing in his mind was to get his reform through without having to talk to the provinces.

As a result, the only person to blame if there has been no Senate reform for 10 years is the Prime Minister. He promised reform, though. He never wanted to consult the provinces. He always wanted to do it all by himself without ever consulting, and the Supreme Court told him that things do not work that way.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sherbrooke for the excellent job that he does on a daily basis for his constituents.

The Conservatives and the Liberals swear, with their hands on their hearts, that they want to change things, but at every opportunity, they vote for the status quo.

In his view, why does this happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, the great defenders of the status quo are the Liberals.

The Conservatives have been swearing to us for 10 years that they want to reform the Senate. However, we might think that they are also in favour of the status quo, given their poor results since they first promised to reform the Senate.

The only ones who do not want to change anything are the Liberals, with the exception of the Liberal senators, or rather the senators who are Liberal. That is the big Liberal reform.

In my view, the Liberals are advocating for the status quo. They might provide explanations, but the fact is that they do not want to change anything. They let scandals come and go and tell themselves that there are no problems. They do not see the need for reform. According to them, everything is perfect. The only thing that is going to change is that the Liberal senators will now be called “senators who are Liberal”. That is the big Liberal reform.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question in regard to consultation.

The member is critical of the government for not consulting. The Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling earlier, and part of that process was that the Province of Quebec gave its view as to what Parliament could do unilaterally and gave its view that Bill C-7 could not proceed without provincial consent.

Now, the member for Winnipeg Centre has put forward a motion that we are debating right now that basically does the same thing, an end run and shutting down the Senate by defunding it. Did this member write or call anyone from the Province of Quebec to consult? Does the member know if the NDP consulted with anyone on this particular motion tonight?

I would like to hear the member answer, yes or no, and outline whether it was a letter or a consultation with the Province of Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent question.

If he had listened to one of my very first remarks, he would know that consultations were not necessary because today's debate is about the $58 million in funding that has already been voted. Parliament does not have the right to question statutory appropriations.

This motion is designed to make those in the other chamber aware that they will have to improve accountability in the short term. We have a different long-term vision for the Senate. However, for the time being, the senators need to be more accountable to Canadians, including the people of Sherbrooke, for the $92 million that they are given each year.

We did not need to hold consultations because the motion is designed to take $58 million away from the Senate. It will still have $34 million. The Senate will exist in the short term, even though that is not our goal in the long term. This will send a clear message to the Senate that it needs to be accountable so that Canadians know that their money is being spent in a transparent way. That is basic when an institution is spending taxpayers' money.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I will be talking about the main estimates. The government keeps talking about how it wants to shrink the bureaucracy and save taxpayers' money.

Well, the NDP has a solution that will help the government save $90 million per year. The money saved could be used to enhance the programs we have been talking about this evening.

How would the NDP save $90 million? Well, it is very simple. We would abolish the Senate, which is an archaic and undemocratic institution. Why are we paying $90 million per year for an institution made up of unelected members who are accountable to nobody?

Since 2011, 369 residents of Brome—Missisquoi have written to me about the Senate or have signed a petition calling for the Senate to be abolished. I am speaking on their behalf this evening.

Canadians work tirelessly to make ends meet, but the senators sit only 70 days a year. They are only asked to work three days a week, and that is when they even bother to show up for work.

In 2005, the Prime Minister said that the Senate was a relic of the 19th century, but since 2006, he has appointed 57 new senators, 51 of them former Conservative Party backers. Senators are completely unaccountable. They represent only the party that appointed them. They do not represent their regions or even the Canadian people.

It seems to me that, over the years, the Senate has turned into a gang of publicly funded lobbyists disguised as provincial representatives.

On April 18, 2014, the National Post reported that one-third of senators hold positions on either public or private boards of directors. Thirty-four of the 96 senators are board members. According to the National Post analysis, senators earn a lot of money from their membership on boards.

I would like to know how they can wear so many different hats at the same time without being in conflict of interest. Senators sit on boards of companies in financial services, mining and energy, and real estate. This makes me wonder how impartial they really are when they are debating our bills.

Let us not forget that, in November 2010, under a minority government, the NDP passed Bill C-311 through the House of Commons. That bill would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels. That was a much more ambitious target than the one the government announced at the Copenhagen summit. The bill was passed by elected representatives in the House of Commons and killed by the Senate.

When asked to justify this strategy, the Conservative Senate leader at the time retorted that the government, which did not support the bill, was not going to miss an opportunity to get rid of it.

One of my colleagues introduced another bill to protect transgendered people, which was passed by this House in April 2013 and is currently being held up in the Senate.

The Senate has never had a problem quickly passing the omnibus bills that this government pushes through here with its majority and time allocation motions.

What other bills passed in the House will the Senate kill in the future?

The NDP has long been calling for the Senate to be abolished. Originally, the Senate was designed to be a chamber of sober second thought. It has become a haven for donors, fundraisers and other friends of the Conservative and Liberal parties.

Canadians are becoming increasingly frustrated with the scandals in this undemocratic, unelected Senate that is currently under investigation. The senators continue to abuse Canadians' trust. That is why now, more than ever, this antiquated institution must be abolished.

We are not the only ones who want to abolish it. Manitoba and Quebec got rid of their senates many years ago. Their unicameral legislatures work just fine. People in New Zealand did the same with their upper chamber. Saskatchewan MLAs recently adopted a motion to abolish the Senate. I remind members that Saskatchewan has a Conservative premier.

Here in Ottawa, the Conservatives and Liberals refuse to take action. The NDP has proposed some practical solutions to make the Senate more transparent now, such as the following motion:

That all funding should cease to be provided to the Senate beginning on July 1, 2013.

The Liberals voted against this motion. Then, in the fall, we moved a motion to make the Senate more accountable to Canadians. The NDP was optimistic that the old parties would reassess how they use the Senate and support our motion. Our measures would have prevented senators from participating in partisan activities and using taxpayers' money to participate in activities that are not directly related to their parliamentary work.

The outcome of the vote on that motion shows that they are all talk and that transparency and accountability are not really that important to them. It was particularly disappointing to see the Liberals join forces with the Conservatives to defeat this motion. The Conservatives and the Liberals keep swearing that they really want to change things, but as I said, they vote for the status quo at every opportunity.

Canadians now know that the NDP will continue to defend our democratic values and fight for the Senate to be abolished. Why are we paying $90 million a year for an unelected, unaccountable Senate? Abolishing the Senate would save millions of dollars, and that money could be invested elsewhere in the estimates.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would provide some comment on the need for consultation. What the NDP is attempting to do here is, in essence, cripple the Senate of Canada and, many would ultimately argue, Parliament.

We would acknowledge that the Supreme Court of Canada and all of the provinces have some say. There is a need to consult and to work with the different stakeholders to be able to achieve some of the things that Canadians as a whole would like to see happening with the Senate. That would include the way in which the Senate is financed. There are, no doubt, some who would be quite upset, such as some of those stakeholders who have a vested interest and are now having their constitutional requirements being challenged by the thoughts put forward by the NDP.

Is there not any sort of obligation, not only legally, but morally, for a political party to consult with some of those stakeholders before it moves the motion that is being suggested here? Am I wrong, and the NDP did consult? If it did, could it provide us with the names of the provinces that it got the okay from?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

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

I will answer with what I said in my speech: the Conservatives and the Liberals keep swearing that they really want to change things, but when they vote for the status quo at every opportunity, it comes as no surprise.

The Conservative Party continues to defend the Patrick Brazeaus, Pamela Wallins and Mike Duffys of this world, and the Liberal Party continues to defend the Mac Harbs of this world.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to listen to this debate tonight. We are talking about basic financial accountability of the Senate. The Conservatives and Liberals are talking as though this is some kind of parliamentary apocalypse, a complete shutting down of Parliament, a complete shutting down of legislation.

I find it fascinating to hear my friends in the Liberal Party say that we have a moral obligation to engage in this national consultation about whether people who have been ripping off the taxpayer should be held accountable to the taxpayer.

I have not heard anything from either party tonight about the corruption. I have heard nothing about the fact that guys like Mac Harb were acting as lobbyists for oil and gas, while charging fake housing allowances and collecting it. I just heard members talking about people's constitutional rights to be protected, a crook in Kanata, while he does not even have the constitutional right to sit in the Senate.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks that a question about finances and about financial spending and accountability so deeply offends the Liberal Party.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

I would simply say that I am not surprised that the Conservatives and Liberals are hiding behind fine principles to defend the indefensible. The Senate is unelected and unaccountable to Canadians. Senators do whatever they want in the upper chamber.

I am not surprised to hear that such things go on in that dark place.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, normally I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in a debate, but not today. Today, in this case, I will be rising to oppose a motion denying the allocation of resources for the Senate. In other words, I will not be supporting the motion that opposes funding for the Senate.

I expect that was the point by the member opposite in creating this motion, because the member knows the role of the Senate in our Constitution. Once a bill leaves this place, it must pass through the other place before it ultimately can receive royal assent. In essence, the member opposite is suggesting to shut down the ability to pass laws, to amend laws and to change legislation, because without the Senate, the way our Constitution is structured, that would be the final result.

I suppose that a do nothing approach is favourable to the NDP. After all, if nothing were to change, the New Democratic Party would not have to oppose everything. I have problems with that, and I would like to provide an example for the chamber as to why that is.

Recently, in this place, we debated Bill C-17, otherwise known as Vanessa's law, a long overdue, much needed bill that would better protect Canadians from dangerous drugs by ensuring that our democratically elected Minister of Health and Health Canada could have the power to recall dangerous drugs and not just the huge pharmaceutical corporations, as is the current case.

One of my weekly member of Parliament reports was focused on Vanessa's law. I am pleased to share with the House that the response from my constituents was overwhelmingly in support of the bill. Even my local NDP and Liberal friends were strongly supportive of the bill. Yet, as we know, the NDP in the House supported Vanessa's law as well, even if they filibustered the debate in debating how they agreed with it. I suspect when the New Democrats heard from their constituents back home, they heard much the same message that I heard. That is likely why they did an about-face in sending that bill forward late last week.

Imagine if bills like Vanessa's law could not ultimately become law because they could not pass through the other place. This is the kind of nonsense the NDP is proposing in this motion today.

I am not naive to the fact that there are many Canadians who are strongly opposed to the Senate. The problem is that the NDP likes to pretend that it has a magic wand and can simply wish the Senate away. Our own Supreme Court has confirmed that simply is not the case. The NDP knows this and yet it continues to play a political game that we can simply make the Senate disappear when, in fact, we cannot.

If the NDP truly wants a constitutional debate on the Senate, it should simply say so. Let us be clear that there are many non-partisan support staff that make that Senate run, no different than the assistance we here receive and benefit from in this place. The NDP members, with this motion, in effect, is suggesting that none of them get paid, or perhaps they are suggesting that they possibly work for free. Is the member for Winnipeg Centre also proposing to hand out pink slips to all the support staff in the Senate?

If there were lawsuits from de-funding the Senate, would the member for Winnipeg Centre ask his friends in the union movement to cover the costs of those lawsuits, as he did his own? I suspect not. This is the same NDP that has no problem using tax dollars in NDP satellite offices, the same NDP that is happy to use taxpayer-funded staff in these satellite offices, but apparently does not think there should be taxpayer-funded staff in the Senate. This just does not reconcile.

The Canadian Senate, rightly or wrongly, was conceived as an institution to provide sober second thought in legislative scrutiny. It was also conceived as an institution to provide regional representation, as evidenced by the regional divisions of the Senate.

Disagreement with the Senate is nothing new to Canadians and, I would suggest, has been occurring since July 1, 1867, and has continued ever since.

As I am sure all members are well aware, a plethora of Senate reform proposals have been put forward over a number of decades. In most cases, proposals have called for an injection of democratic legitimacy into the appointment process, as well as the changes to the distribution of senators among the provinces, and also changes to the power of the Senate itself.

One of these reform initiatives was the triple-E Senate proposal that came out of Alberta during the 1980s. Triple-E stands for elected, equal and effective. This should not be confused with the Liberal leader's vision of a triple-E Senate, which is a Senate of the elites, by the elites and for the elites.

The original triple-E proposal laid the basis for many of the proposals that ensued in the years that followed and found its way into constitutional discussions that took place during the 1980s and 1990s, the most notable being the Meech Lake constitutional accord and the Charlottetown constitutional accord.

The Charlottetown accord would have resulted in a fundamentally changed Senate. The Senate would have been elected with an equal number of senators per province, with some limitations on the power of the Senate to avoid deadlock. The rejection of the Charlottetown accord in the 1992 referendum significantly reduced the prospects for fundamental constitutional reform for many years, and serious discussion of the Senate largely disappeared from the national debate.

As members will know, not long after the 2006 election, when our government first introduced Bill S-4 in the Senate, the bill would have limited senators' tenure to a renewable term of eight years. Bill S-4 gathered a great deal of support and was endorsed by the Senate Special Committee on Senate Reform, as well as by a number of constitutional experts.

Let us not forget that it was the opposition parties that united in their refusal to support meaningful Senate reform, as was proposed in Bill S-4. This led to the introduction of Bill C-7, the Senate reform act, in 2011. Bill C-7 would have implemented a nine year, non-renewable term for senators, as well as a voluntary framework for provinces to implement Senate appointment consultation processes of their own. However, that was not to be, and now we must all live with and respect the decision of the Supreme Court in this matter.

The court said that Senate abolition would require the support of Parliament and the legislative assemblies of each province. In doing so, it has given the Senate the highest level of protection that can be achieved under our amending procedures. I would point out for the member for Winnipeg Centre that his proposal to effectively abolish the Senate by withdrawing its funding would not conform to the court's decision in its Senate reform reference.

I would also like to point out that it is unlikely that all of the provinces agree with the position of the member for Winnipeg Centre. I would further submit that one thing most of the provinces do appear to agree on is that the Senate is not the top priority of provincial concern.

I would like to make this clear. I am not looking to defend the institution that we call the other place. That is not the role of members of the House. However, we now have a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on Senate reform and the release of the court's opinion this spring. It remains to be seen what the ultimate impact of the court's opinion will be on the future for reform.

However, the subject of this potential constitutional debate is not one that any member of this place should take lightly. The reality is that the member for Winnipeg Centre is trying to do an end run around with his motion.

I understand the NDP's frustration, and at times I am certain we all wish we had a magic wand to make our challenges magically go away. However, what the member for Winnipeg Centre has proposed, as we know, is not how this issue will be resolved.

Before I close, I would like to share a few personal thoughts on this issue. Since I have come to this place, I have worked with senators. I have worked with senators on the Senate-House of Commons Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I worked with the Senate on the passage of my private member's bill on the interprovincial movement of wine. This work seldom is covered by the media. However, I can state first-hand that it is important work and that the Senate takes a different perspective on these issues. I mention this because we all know that there are a handful of members from the other place who have become household names for a variety of different but not flattering reasons. However, there are also many good people who do good work on behalf of Canadians in the other place.

Many of us may not like the historic structure of the other place and the role it plays in our governance. However, dislike of an institution we disagree with does not alleviate our constitutional obligations to work with that institution. Regardless of what the NDP thinks, the Senate is part of the process of how we pass laws.

I need not remind the NDP that we are legislators. To deny or otherwise disable part of the very process involved with changing legislation would in effect compromise the work we do on behalf of Canadians. If the NDP seeks to disable our ability to pass, amend, or change laws as legislators, then perhaps it is time it ceased to be the opposition. I frequently hear the NDP members propose private member's bills, suggest amendments, and even propose to change laws, should they ever form the government. None of that can happen without bills passing through the Senate. It is in our constitution.

Either the New Democratic Party is kidding Canadians, or perhaps it is just kidding itself. Either way, like the Senate or not, those who came long before us did a very good job of ensuring that the other place is very much part of how we pass bills into law. To undermine this process undermines the work we do as legislators, and I cannot and will not support this motion presented by the NDP tonight. I certainly will be happy to vote in favour of the estimates put forward.

I support the motion put forward by the government so that it can have supply, but I stand opposed to the notion by the NDP.

I would like to thank all members of the House for taking the time to hear my comments this evening. I appreciate and look forward to their questions.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, because I am hearing about what the Senate's purpose was and why it was created. The whole reason it exists is because of all of these archaic notions of lords and property owners and things that are far outdated. There is a reason why every time I have spoken in this House on issues concerning the Senate I have referred to it as institutional arthritis, because that is essentially what the Senate is at this point.

My colleague talked about the NDP wanting to disable part of the legislative branch and to disable part of Parliament. In that vein, does the member feel that it is appropriate that at the end of the day, the Senate is disabling elected members of Parliament in passing legislation, as it did on Jack Layton's bill on climate change, for example? There are plenty of great examples in this place. We talk about sober second thought all the time, but at the end of the day, there does not seem to be much thought in there.

Does the member feel that it is appropriate for these folks to be disabling the work that we, as duly elected members of Parliament, are doing in this place?

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

Mr. Speaker, we all wish that things would be the way we want them to be. One of the toughest parts is that we all come here with notions about how things should be and how we would change things, but then we find out that not everyone in this place agrees with us. Therefore, we have to have a process to deal with the issues of the day. Our constitution says, and the Supreme Court backs it up, that we have two houses for a reason. Despite perhaps an individual member's wishes, we need to acknowledge that it is part of our constitution, that it is part of the lawful process we are here to do, and that we need to take ideas, translate them into bills, debate those issues, and see those things come forward by getting enough people to say yes.

My bill on the interprovincial shipment of wine started back in 1928 as a prohibition era idea that many of us here opposed. It took time, but eventually it was rescinded by the unanimous support of this place and the Senate. While the member may wish things were different and may feel that things are outdated, part of being productive is accepting reality, working with what we can, and seeing what we can deliver for our constituents.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's satisfaction with his own bill when it comes to being able to transport wine from one province of Canada to another. However, I have to say that when it comes to the issue of the Senate, certainly the Prime Minister was very vocal about his concern about change in the Senate. Yet after eight years of Conservative rule, the government has brought no changes at all to the Senate. It was our leader, actually, who made more significant change in one morning in the Senate than we have seen from the Prime Minister himself, other than appointing 54 senators since he came to office.

If my colleague feels that we need to have some improvements in the Senate, is he encouraging his government to take a stand for the changes that he thinks need to happen in the Senate?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that member's support for my bill on wine.

Again, she has brought forward that her leader has made a suggestion and has put forward that they will have no more Liberal senators. They will call themselves Senate Liberals. The Liberals basically said that they were going to have free elections for their own leadership, their whip position, and the House leader, and it was the same individuals. Of the change she speaks of, I do not know what she actually means, because as far as I can see, that is just more talk.

Getting back to the issue of Senate reform, this Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister in history to go before a parliamentary committee, and it was on Senate reform. This Prime Minister in this place said during question period a week or two after the ruling from the Supreme Court came out that if the provinces have ideas on whether the Senate should be reformed or whether it should be abolished, to carry those motions forward forthwith.

While the member may be content with the ideas her leader has put forward, the fact that he did not even consult with his own caucus before ejecting them seems to say more about how his approach to reforming his own party is all talk, and in fact, no consultation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board a question.

The timing is good because today we are talking about the main estimates 2014-15 and, more specifically, about the voted appropriations under “The Senate”. We are talking about voted appropriations and statutory appropriations. Voted appropriations account for $58 million and statutory appropriations account for $34 million.

My question will be straightforward because whenever I ask an even slightly complicated question, I often do not get a response. Can my colleague talk about the difference between discretionary and statutory items? As the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board he should be more than able to answer that question.

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

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to the estimates process. There are some that are what we would call “statutory”, which means that they have already received Parliament's consent and will automatically be funded, and then there is discretionary. Tonight we are going to be voting on the discretionary aspects.

Going back to my speech, I support the government's request for supply. However, the New Democrats have chosen to debate a particular area of funding that falls under the discretionary items. I do not believe that their motion is either serious or productive, so I will not be supporting their call to not fund the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the clarification provided by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

Can he respond to the allegations being made by his colleagues and Liberal members, who are saying that voting on this motion would completely shut the Senate down for good? We heard these allegations that were being made by most of his colleagues.

Can he confirm or deny that the motion we will be voting on later will cut $58 million in funding and force the Senate to change its ways and become accountable to the public and that this evening's vote is not designed to shut down the Senate?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the NDP continues to believe that its magical thinking will pan out in a way that supports Canadians.

That particular member, regardless of whether it is a discretionary or a statutory item, will vote in opposition, because the NDP ultimately opposes this government's agenda of low-tax policies that will help us grow our economy, create more jobs, and create long-term prosperity.

I understand that the member has certain ideas about the Senate and about whether it should be funded, but this government stands clear. We want to see a strong parliamentary agenda. We want to see things like Bill C-17, Vanessa's law, which I mentioned, go forward, because they are in Canadians' greatest interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for a very few moments to debate this particular motion. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I am pleased to wade in here to have this discussion. The motion that is before us is about the estimates, and it is about the Senate. The mover of the motion, our first speaker, talked about the whole question of accountability and approving a line item of $92 million to the Senate, where there is no accountability for how that money will be spent.

In reality, and let me clarify this, members on both the government side and the Liberal benches have been extraordinarily upset that we are going to cut off all the money to Senate, which will not be able to operate anymore and some of the staff may be laid off. They have been very concerned about that.

Let me assure members that what we are talking about is the discretionary part of that particular budget line, which is nearly $58 million, and the $34 million, nearly $35 million represents statutory forecasts, in other words the amount of money that has been deemed necessary to keep the lights on and the staff working, and so on.

I know that members opposite and adjacent have been very upset by the fact that we may be proposing to vote on a motion that would lay staff off. I would love to hear what working people across this country think about the faux concern that they have heard tonight from government members and Liberal members.

That is the first point, the concern that we would cut off money and that the Senate would not be able to operate.

The second concern, of course, is that if we close the doors to the Senate, then we would not be able to do anything. We would not be able to pass any legislation. We would not be able to do any business.

It used to be the case in this country that 10 provinces had a Senate or two Houses. They got rid of them, and they still operate. The provinces still do business. My province of Nova Scotia got rid of its Senate in 1928, and it is still working. It is still governing. It is still doing business. It is still passing legislation. It is still raising taxes and still spending money on behalf of the people who have elected the Senate members.

Let us be clear, I understand what the nub of the problem is here. The Liberals and the Conservatives have had this other institution over there that they have stuffed chockablock full of partisans for 150 years, who have gone across this country from coast to coast to coast on the taxpayers' dime performing partisan activities.

It is not that some of them have not done good work or that some of these committees have not done some good work from time to time, when they have been able to find time, when there are no elections or fundraising events or snowstorms in P.E.I. or something of the like happening. They have done some work.

It is not about the individuals, and that is what gets confusing sometimes. It is about a few of them. It is about the ones who seem to use the money they get, the allowances, and the credit cards they get, as if it is their own money to do with what they will, before they finally get caught. It is those ones who end up getting chased around by the authorities, the police, and others. That is a bit personal. Those are the people we are talking about.

We are saying to the government and to the Liberals that we can hold the Senate accountable. That is what this motion is all about. It is about accountability.

Why do we not, as a group, stand up, suck it up a little bit, and start playing hardball with the Senate, start demanding some accountability? The government has not been able to do it in the 10 years it has been proposing to make the Senate accountable. It has not been able to do anything. Let us agree tonight, all of us here in this chamber, to do it once and for all. We will defeat this motion so that all of a sudden, tomorrow morning, the senators will realize they will not get $57 million until they start coming up with some accountability measures that have teeth and that Canadians can trust, and most important, members in this House who are responsible for paying those bills will have some confidence that once and for all, the activities that go on in that chamber will be held accountable.

We will get to the other part. Members suggest that it is impossible to actually deal with Senate reform or abolishment, but it is not. Canadians are ready for it. Provinces are ready for it. We hear about it wherever we go in the country. People are fed up with the fact that we have a chamber where men and women have been appointed simply because of the favours they did for a particular prime minister or for the water cans they carry for a political party. That is not good enough. Canadians are demanding more. They are demanding more because the government and the former government have been asking Canadians to tighten their belts and to do with less.

I talked to a woman today in Dartmouth who is having a hard time finding housing for her and her two children because of the cuts the government has made in the availability of affordable housing across this country. We have tried, my colleagues on this side have tried to force the government to bring forward a national housing strategy, to no avail. The woman, on behalf of her children, wants to see us holding the Senate accountable for at least $57 million of the $92 million that we are supposed to approve tonight.

A number of people have been in my office in the past two months who have had to wait upwards of 40 days to get their claims paid through EI. They have asked me why it is that the Senate, which is unelected and unaccountable, can be allowed to spend $92 million without any explanation, without being held accountable.

I am here to say, and my colleagues are suggesting in their debate and in their support for this motion today, that we have the opportunity to hold this institution accountable tonight, right here, on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of Canadians across the country who are asking us to be accountable for the money that we allocate. We have the opportunity to do that today. Let us do it today. Let us vote to hold the Senate accountable and then let us move on to get rid of the Senate, because we can operate. Canadians are asking us to make sure that the decisions that are made by the Government of Canada in fact are accountable and are made by people who are duly elected.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I love this high horse that the NDP members are up on tonight. It hurts to fall off it too. They are going to have a rude awakening when their leader gets raked before the House.

Let us go back to this individual member. He talked about the senators going all over during election campaigns. Let us talk about the Labrador byelection campaign and how many NDP members were in Labrador, this member being one of them.

My question is, how did he go to Labrador? Was he on the government dime? Was he on the party dime? Better yet, how many times were you in Labrador before the byelection, and how many times were you in Labrador after the byelection?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Before I go back to the member, I would remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than at their colleagues.

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member getting involved in this debate. I appreciate the fact that he is feeling somewhat emotional about the fact that we are facing right now a debate about allocating $92 million, $57 million of it discretionary. He does not have to worry that the workers that he is so concerned about representing will be okay. They will be because $34 million will still be there.

He has to answer to his constituents just like I have to answer to my constituents, “What did you do when the opportunity arose to hold the Senate accountable for spending $92 million? Did you step up, or did you sit down?”

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we could all agree that everyone wants this whole Parliament to be accountable. Everybody wants the Senate to be accountable. In fact, it has been very discouraging to see a few individuals from all different parties who have taken advantage of the Senate.

Recently this year there has been a very strict accountability of the finances, a very close examination of the Senate. We know the Senate has a long and wonderful history where it is known as the chamber of sober second thought. We know that there are a lot of wonderful senators who work extremely hard and play within the rules. Since some of this has happened in the Senate and it has been revealed that some individuals allegedly have misused funds, this very strong accountability of the money has been put in place. I believe it was last December.

Is the member aware of this aspect, that accountability is being put in there and has been put in there now?