Debates of June 8th, 2015

Concurrence in Vote 1 — Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The point raised by the member for Langley reflects back to comments made by the Chair 25 minutes ago, before the member for Timmins—James Bay began his speech, which is that the general practice in this place is that questions directly related to the Senate are not considered government business. Consequently, there are times, for example, in question period, when questions are ruled out of order for that reason.

However, the matter before the House tonight relates directly to the Senate. Just to correct something I said in a previous intervention, the matter before the House tonight is whether to fund the Senate. It is not, in fact, a de-funding motion; the question is whether to fund the Senate. A yes vote would be in favour of funding and a no vote would be opposing that funding. I want to make that clear.

What the hon. member for Langley has quoted from O'Brien and Bosc is correct. He read it from the book. The Standing Orders do not specifically say that is context that comes from O'Brien and Bosc in terms of guiding the debate in this place.

In the opinion of the Chair, the fact that this motion has been deemed in order to be brought before Parliament makes that the subject before the chamber. Members are debating whether, as parliamentarians, they are going to support this part of the main estimates. It is not a direct question in terms of the jurisdiction of the government. It essentially is a parliamentary question as to whether members of Parliament will fund the Senate or not. This is the context that puts it in order.

The second point is the general practice in this place, that members are restrained in their direct comments related to members of the Senate. In that regard, the member for Langley is also correct that this is the general practice in this place. However, there are matters in the public eye at this point, in the media, that relate directly to specific members of the Senate and the spending that takes place in the Senate. Those things do relate to the matter before the House tonight.

This is a long way of saying that with regard to the debate we are having tonight, there is a set of rules that is a little different than what is normally before this place in referencing members of the Senate. However, I would ask all members to be mindful of the fact that one of the reasons why members of the House of Commons avoid speaking directly about senators is because the senators are not in this place and do not have the opportunity to directly defend themselves and their actions. Therefore, I would ask members to be mindful of that.

As all members can imagine, I have listened quite intently to almost every word from the member, not simply because he is such a great speaker, but because everybody in this place has been getting very close to the line tonight. I would again ask all hon. members to respect not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the rules that guide debate in this place.

In that context, the Chair is ruling that the speech by the member for Timmins—James Bay was in order. It is impossible to talk about the Senate without mentioning the Senate or senators. Therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, when the decision was made that the motion before the House was in order and was appropriate, that opened the door to this conversation tonight.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member opposite has the same motivation in cutting off spending for the Senate when 68 of his colleagues owe over $2.7 million to Canadian taxpayers. I certainly hope they will show the same type of motivation to cut off the spending of those 68 members.

We have heard the member for Winnipeg North and a number of members of his caucus talk about the abolition of the Senate. We know that it requires the unanimous support of the provinces and territories. We also heard talk of a referendum.

I know it has become a priority of the NDP to abolish the Senate. If the NDP is fortunate enough to get the confidence of the Canadian people, when will it call a referendum, what process will it use to bring about a constitutional amendment, and if that amendment is turned down by both the Canadian people and the provinces, what next step will it take to try to abolish the Senate?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is really sad is the idea that my Conservative colleagues would hide behind defending the integrity of a disgraced institution.

That is not the party of Preston Manning or Monte Solberg. I remember the days when they spoke for the taxpayers and they claimed to speak for the ordinary Canadian people. Instead they are telling us we have to show deference in the face of issues of breach of trust, fraud and bribery.

I want to thank the Speaker. There is no need to get into side issues with the upper chamber because we are dealing with such serious issues.

For my hon. colleague from Oak Ridges—Markham, it is amazing that the Prime Minister, who came to Ottawa promising to show leadership, has just left the country. I think he has been in the House about five days out of the last session because he cannot answer his involvement in the corruption scandal.

The Conservatives are throwing up roadblock after roadblock saying that it cannot be done, or it is impossible, or they go through all the constitutional things. They are starting to sound like the tired old Liberal Party.

The vote tonight is really a simple question as to whether my colleague in the Conservative party will give $57 million to that institution, and they are obviously more than set to give that money.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a representative of what my colleague just called the old tired Liberal Party, I want to gently say for my colleague that the Senate will not be abolished because there is no unanimity in the country to abolish it.

Since my colleague knows that we need to improve what he called “this disgraceful institution”, does he agree that we need to do two things. First, we need to ensure that senators are not part of a caucus of members of Parliament, something that was done in the Liberal Party but not in the Conservative Party. Second, the process by which senators would be chosen would be non-partisan to protect the independence and the competence of the Senate.

Does he agree with these two reforms that happen to be supported by the leader of the Liberal Party, of this old tired party?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and his defence of an old tired party, and the fact that poor James Cowan still calls himself the leader of the Liberal Senate.

The Liberals have not been very effective in getting the message that they are throwing the bums out. If they are serious about this, they would take steps to have them removed. If we want to find non-partisan people, we would move to ensure that people like Rod Zimmer and Marie Charette-Poulin, a former Liberal Party leader who is under investigation, Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Colin Kenny, Pana Merchant, a whole list of them, would not be appointed. They are Liberal operatives. Suddenly, when they become damaging to the present Liberal leader, he says that they are Liberal operatives, but they are actually independent Liberal operatives, so they have actually seen the light. What a crazy deathbed conversion.

If the Liberal leader were serious, he would work with us and say that he wanted the whole lot of them thrown out, that we should bring in a constituent assembly and replace them with truly non-partisan people, but that is not the case. We are looking at a long tired list of Liberal operatives, bagmen, party leaders, and suddenly they are all independents. Why? Because the scandal goes right to the Liberal leader as much as it does to the Conservative leader.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. It was a great speech. I and the member are both from northern Ontario.

Today the list of offending senators was released. On that list are 15 Conservatives and 15 Liberals. Unfortunately, the Liberal from northern Ontario is in second place on the list, having misspent over $131,000. Unfortunately Rod Zimmer spent $176,000. She was in second place, followed in third place by another Liberal who was followed in fourth place by another Liberal.

Could my colleague from northern Ontario, the member for Timmins—James Bay, comment more on Senator Charette-Poulin from northern Ontario and how the people of northern Ontario have been betrayed?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. Before I go to the member for Timmins—James Bay, I thought I had made a point, but maybe I need to reinforce it.

Obviously, members are going to talk about the Senate and senators tonight. However, I had hoped that I had also made it clear that it did not mean that it was open season on individual members of the Senate and that they could be accused of things, particularly that have not been proven, and that all commentary was open. That was not the intent of the Chair.

Again, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay can respond, but stay within what I think are the guidelines that every member of this House understands and what the Chair means.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank you for doing yeoman's duty tonight in trying to keep both sides on a very reasonable course and focused.

I agree with the Speaker that it would be very unfair for me to talk about individual senators at this point, in deference to my colleague for Nickel Belt, because we do not know the charges or what the issues are.

As a generality, my colleague comes from Nickel Belt and I come from Timmins—James Bay, and our people are hard working. People who are 68 years old have told me at Tim Hortons that they are going back to work. I am sorry, I am not to mention Tim Hortons. I know the Conservatives are deeply opposed to Tim Hortons.

They have told me that they are going back to work underground in the mines, because they do not have pensions. I hear people tell me that they cannot afford to heat their houses in the winter because they cannot pay their hydro. These are people who built our country. When I go home on the weekends, they are deeply offended by this abuse of trust in the Senate, because they see that these are people who should know better. These are people who are set for life and should do the decent thing, because these people do the right thing.

Therefore, I would say to my hon. colleague, whether it is the people of Nickel Belt in Sudbury or anywhere in this country, in western Canada, or in Quebec, we expect the upper chamber, just like we expect the House of Commons, to do the right thing. When senators show such egregious abuse and such disregard, people have a right to be angry, and they have a right to ask their members of Parliament to stand up. They have a right to expect that their members of Parliament are going to hold that group to some level of accountability, which is why we are debating this issue tonight.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

The Senate is an unelected legislative body whose members are appointed through political favours without any checks and balances and without any mandate from the Canadian people. Moreover, it has no fundamental accountability to the citizens and taxpayers of this country.

The Senate simply does not believe it is accountable to the Canadian people. It believes it is above the standards and principles of accountability that apply to the lower chamber of this Parliament, the House of Commons. The result is a culture of corruption, which has manifested itself over the years in numerous scandals, such as the latest one involving Senator Duffy.

This is not to say that the senators are somehow more predisposed to be corrupt than elected members. Not at all. The difference is that the democratically elected House of Commons has initiated numerous mechanisms to ensure its accountability to Canadian taxpayers. This includes, for example, limits on spending and travelling expenses. In contrast, the Senate has stubbornly refused to put similar standards and accountability mechanisms in place.

As a result, there is no clear code of ethics, and there are many loopholes, which some entrepreneurial senators are happy to use to advance their interests. They use the Senate's funds for dubious purposes at taxpayers' expense. Some of them even sit on the boards of corporations.

A unelected and unaccountable legislative body whose members cannot be removed from doing a bad job or abusing public trust is poised to go down a path of abuse and corruption, and sadly, this is exactly what we see happening.

This inevitably begs the question, does Canadian democracy need such an institution in the 21st century? The answer is clear: No. This archaic institution has no place in our political system anymore. It drags us down and prevents our Parliament from becoming a more transparent, accountable, and efficient democratic institution.

The time has come to roll up the red carpet. Of course, this will not be an easy thing to do. It will certainly require extensive consultations with the provinces, some of which have expressed their concerns about representation in Parliament with the abolition of the upper House.

An NDP government would engage in a constructive dialogue with the premiers to decide the future of the red chamber, and I am sure that Canada will be better off without that archaic institution. The experience of New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries clearly demonstrates that unicameralism is a viable choice for a modern democracy. I am confident that this is the right choice for Canadians as well.

Once again, the House is being called upon to intervene on an important issue and express the views of the people it represents. The people have expressed their opposition many times to the lack of accountability in the Senate, an institution which, we must remember, because of its composition, does not necessarily act in the interest of the citizens and taxpayers of our country, and whose members are named through political favours or merely through a partisan selection, without any checks and balances or any mandate from the Canadian people.

The issue before us today and on which we must vote this evening is very important. Will we listen to the vast majority of Canadians or, on the contrary, will we decide to close our eyes, ignore what real democracy is and sidestep the corruption scandals in this institution that inflame public opinion?

In fact, in the wake of the scandals in the Senate, and further to the successive revelations that have thrown light on the flawed practices of senators, there are many questions that remain unanswered. On the other hand, it is becoming more and more evident that this institution as it stands today is not a true representation of a democratic system. Its conduct is not above reproach, and it does not seem to be able to spend public money responsibly.

It is time to put an end to all these lapses of accountability, the flagrant lack of transparency and the contempt for the most elementary rules of democracy. It is time to take bold measures, measures that will stand as examples and will put an end to all attempts against the public interest.

Unlike senators, members of Parliament have a direct relationship with their constituents and are in regular contact with local residents. That proximity enables them to stay informed about public opinion and about what the public wants. On that point, there is a very broad consensus as to the need for thorough reform of that institution, which is unfortunately resistant to change.

Elections are the legitimate foundation of democracy. They provide a way to hold governments accountable to the people. They make it possible to build a strong and representative democratic system. Citizens are free to choose their political representatives. Candidates are selected on the basis of their political affiliation and their election platform, as well as their social involvement, their productivity and their performance throughout their political career.

Those candidates will be penalized at some point, or instead rewarded with renewed voter confidence when an election is held. That is the electoral model that Canadians want and demand, a model that embodies the principles and the core of democracy: a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Unfortunately, the Senate cannot say that it adheres to these basic principles. Canadians have simply had enough of hearing about senators who use taxpayers’ money as if it were their own. They have had enough of an entitled and utterly corrupt Senate.

Canadians across the country believe it is unacceptable that a body as powerful as the Senate does not have a system with the capacity of strengthening democratic control and ensuring proper management of its own operations through oversight and checks and balances. The present model has clearly failed. What purpose is there, then, to keeping a dead body on life support?

The NDP's position is based on very clear principles. There is nothing that justifies the existence of an unelected, unaccountable Senate that enacts legislation for Canada, particularly when its members are incapable of obeying their own rules. It is time to abolish the Senate once and for all.

I often knock on doors in my constituency, and this was a subject that came up again this weekend. It really is unbelievable because when I go door to door, I introduce myself by saying that I am their member of Parliament, I am happy to be there because I want to know their opinions, I am going back to Ottawa the following week, and I would like to know what issues they would like me to talk about in the House. I ask them whether they want me to consider an issue, to put it before the House, to ask a question and to introduce a bill, on any subject. I ask them what they want me to talk about in the House the next week.

These days, we talk regularly about Canada Post. In Dorval, it is the Dorval golf club operations. We talk about the Canadian economy, and we talk quite regularly about the Senate. When I see that the people I ask to tell me what issue is most important go so far as to name the way we use Canada’s upper chamber, it means that Canadians are very concerned about the situation.

In a constituency like mine, there are local issues and there are immigration problems. People come to see me to talk about very individual situations. Overall, however, what we talk about is the Senate. We hear people talk about the abuses committed by senators and the trips taken and paid for out of their office expenses to engage in partisan activities.

When I am asked what the Senate does, I have to explain that basically, the Senate was in fact created as a repository of a certain constitutional memory and to put people in place who had very diverse experience. What is it now, though?

Now, the Senate is a gang of buddies put in place by a Liberal leader or a Conservative leader to represent partisan interests and go out and collect money, and it drags out the process of enacting legislation in Canada, because we have to go through the same process all over again in a second chamber.

Unfortunately, the people who make up the Senate at present are no longer the people who were supposed to have an institutional memory, and that is very disappointing. It disappoints me tremendously, it disappoints the NDP and it disappoints Canadians.

The question we are asking ourselves tonight is whether we should keep funding the upper chamber. I think the answer is no. Canadians think the answer is no. I hope that all members will vote not to send money to the Senate.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member. Canadians, or at least her constituents, would feel a lot better about her remarks if she took the opportunity to repay them the $169,171 she owes them for her support of an illegal partisan office in Montreal.

I wonder if she could help me understand, because the member for Timmins—James Bay and every single speaker from the NDP has refused to answer a very simple question that has been brought forward by me and the leader of the Liberal Party. That question is, with respect to the abolition of the Senate, and I will get a little bit more specific—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Saint-Lambert is rising on a point of order.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is once again deviating from the topic we are discussing this evening by bringing up other situations that have nothing to do with the motion we are debating.

I would ask the Speaker to intervene, to call the parliamentary secretary to order and to ask him to stick to the motion on the Senate that we are debating this evening.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I think it is unreasonable for members to suggest that if the House is debating the funding of the Senate, it is not relevant to discuss the possible consequences of that decision. While the Chair is reluctant to engage in the substance of the debate, the Chair thinks it is entirely reasonable, if the debate is about funding an institution, for a question to be raised that if the institution is not funded, what does that mean and how would that be managed. While previously there were questions raised that clearly were of questionable relevance, I think the question about the future of the Senate if it is not funded is absolutely relevant to this conversation.

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, on a point of order.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would help the debate if our NDP colleagues would stop interrupting the debate with points of order that are irrelevant. If it is relevant to question the Duffy scandal, it is certainly relevant to question the NDP scandal.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I would agree with the member that endless points of order do interrupt the debate, and the Chair ruled on this already.

Would the hon. parliamentary secretary quickly move to the question?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the New Democrats are very touchy over the fact that they owe $2.7 million to the Canadian taxpayers and are refusing to pay it back.

However, my specific question for the member is this. The New Democrats have proposed a constitutional conference and opening up the Constitution. They proposed a referendum. If their referendum on the constitutional amendments, which is a priority of the NDP, fails, what are the New Democrats' next steps to abolishing the Senate?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but I did not mention a referendum in my speech.

What I said was that when the NDP takes power this fall, on October 19, it will consult all provincial and territorial premiers, as well as the first nations.

In any case, I do not need to think about what will happen, since I know that Canadians are on our side. I sent messages to my constituents to let them know what was going on in the Senate, and I was surprised by how many people took action, signed petitions and responded to tell me that they support our position on abolishing the Senate. They see the Senate as a bottomless pit in which taxpayer money disappears.

There are so many problems in Canada. As I meet with people who are unemployed and who have a hard time making ends meet, the government is spending incredible amounts of money to fund the Senate. I know that Canadians will be on our side and will support our position to abolish the Senate.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s comments. However, if I have understood correctly, she wants to reform the Constitution, but she does not want to hold a referendum. Is that her position?

To abolish the Senate, the Constitution must be amended, and in order to amend the Constitution, it seems to me that a referendum must be held. It is not the Constitution that requires it, but rather Canadian democratic practice. Amending the Constitution requires a referendum, which requires a majority of the votes in all the provinces, since every province has a right of veto over the abolition of the Senate.

Does she understand this, yes or no?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP’s position is very clear and it has been the same for a long time: we want to consult Canadians.

We already have a very clear idea of what they think, because we have held consultations and toured the country. Some of my colleagues have travelled from coast to coast to coast to find out what Canadians want, and that is what they told us—the NDP is listening to Canadians.

This is our strength. We care about our citizens, we go out into the field, we go door to door and we consult with Canadians. We want to consult with Canadians and hold a dialogue with the premiers of the provinces and the territories and with the first nations. This is what the NDP will be doing when it forms the government in October.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise and speak to the motion that is before the House.

Let me make it very clear that the motion we are debating is with respect to the government's giving $57 million to the Senate. The average hard-working Canadians, the taxpayers who keep our institutions going, must be really wondering why, in light of the media frenzy, we have a government that is saying that we should give that House $57 million more. I am opposed to that for a number of reasons.

To put it into perspective, we have a Prime Minister who absolutely believed in the abolition of the Senate and failing that, wanted to make it more accountable and all of those things. Yet, the Prime Minister has carried on the Liberal tradition of appointing senators. The Prime Minister has appointed 59 senators.

As we read reports in the media, the reports we get and the information that is before us right now, those appointments are very partisan. Not only that, once they are appointed, the senators are doing partisan party work.

My colleagues at that end of the aisle, the third party, their leader decided that the Liberal senators would no longer be members of their caucus. They can call a thorn any name they want or they can change the name, but unless they change the substance, a thorn is still a thorn. I will argue that the Senate has become a thorn in the side of Canadians.

It was interesting that when the senators met, they named themselves the Liberal senators. They still have a caucus that is very Liberal, and carries the name Liberal. My understanding is they still attend some of the partisan events. They are still running around collecting money. They have learned well from the Conservatives. They have learned well from each other.

They are going around doing all of these things. I hear from the party at the end how committed they are to reform and how we should make the Senate more accountable. When it comes to that party, however, I have always looked at their actions rather than the promises they make. They always make these grandiose promises, but once they are in government, and now in opposition, they suddenly do not reflect what they want to reflect when they are outside of the House.

With the media, the televised debates and social media, it is getting more and more difficult for members of that party to hide from the positions they take in this House.

There is a motion that was moved by my colleague, the hard-working member for Toronto—Danforth, on October 22, 2013. This will show that we are not dealing with a new problem. This has been going on and on. I am not going to expand on everything that has happened with Mr. Duffy, because all of that is out there. I just want to focus on what we needed to do.

The NDP is a pragmatic party that knows how to compromise when it has to, and then sticks to something that is good for Canadians and does not compromise on that. Our position on Bill C-51 is one example. Canadians' freedoms and privacy, and the invasion into their privacy, cannot be compromised away just because it is convenient for electoral purposes.

Let me get back to the motion that was voted on in this House on October 22. This is what the motion that was brought forward by the NDP said:

That, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate, and, therefore, this House call for the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings, and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business.

It can hardly be argued that this was a revolutionary motion. This was a very well thought out motion that was put forward to address some very specific concerns. This is the kind of motion that would pass the nod test. Quite honestly, I think this would even pass the kindergarten or grade one test. If we were to explain to the children that these are the senators, this is what we do not want them to do and this is what we want them to do, kids are smart and they would say, “That's good, isn't it”, but not my colleagues across the way.

What really shocked me after all the public grandstanding was that the third party—and I want to be very clear on this—would not support a motion that would limit senators' partisan activities. The Liberal senators were kicked out of caucus, so to speak, but that is just window dressing. The Liberals were not willing to end senators' partisan activities, so they formed a coalition with the Conservatives to vote this down, just as with Bill C-51, the Liberals formed a coalition with the Conservatives in order for that bill to pass through the House. This makes me wonder what the difference really is between the third party and the party in government. I see very little difference these days.

The New Democrats wanted to limit senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business. Surely, nobody in the House would have voted against that. However, the Conservatives did and, guess what, they were supported by the third party, their new-found friends across the way, the new Liberal-Con coalition.

When I look at all of this, nobody can say that the NDP, with the long-standing position of getting rid of the Senate, has not attempted to bring about accountability. I know the government across the way is allergic to accountability, transparency and answering serious questions, but it opposed the pragmatic solutions we put forward. If that motion had carried and the government and the Liberal Party of Canada had supported it, we might not be in this grandiose—I do not know what word to use, but I will say it is a crisis that we are in right now. It is an absolute embarrassment to be in my riding and try to explain to people all that is going on.

The leader of the NDP has been very clear. He is a lawyer. He knows how constitutions are changed. He also knows agreement is required from all the parties. I have not seen Mr. Harper meet with all the premiers that often, never mind consult them. We are prepared to consult them and move forward, but in the meantime, pragmatic solutions are required to fix the grandiose mess that exists in the Senate.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I would remind all hon. members not to reference other members by their given names.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about what first graders or young people would know. I want to let her know that I suspect most Canadians would know that when New Democrats are asked where an office is and they say Ottawa, it would not be appropriate to then funnel money to Montreal to support an illegal partisan office, like the NDP did, to the tune of $2.7 million. I suspect most Canadians would get that, but apparently not the members opposite.

The member referenced the fact that the leader of her party is a lawyer. I suggest that he probably, being from Montreal, knows the difference between Montreal and Ottawa, and that it would be inappropriate to funnel money to that office.

The member talked about having the support of Canadians to abolish the Senate, that members of her caucus have consulted with Canadians and this is the path forward. Every single member has been asked by me and a Liberal member of Parliament what the NDP process would be to abolish the Senate.

I am asking very clearly again. If you cannot get the support of the provinces for your referendum and the Canadian people turn their backs, what is the next step to abolishing the Senate?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Again, I would remind all other members to reference their questions to the Chair, not directly to their colleagues.

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for his question. He has been on a kind of gerbil's cage treadmill, because what I hear is the same preface to almost every question he asks.

Let me make it very clear to him. My kindergarten students and grade 1 students would understand that a kangaroo court is where two parties collude behind closed doors and give nobody a chance to present evidence or to present their case. Let us not go there.

Let me go on to say this. Our leader has been very clear about the process. We have a grandiose mess over there. What we need to do, and our our leader has made it very clear, is consult with Canadians and meet with the premiers of the provinces and territories. At least we are prepared to do something, not like that government and that party and just sit--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!