Debates of June 8th, 2015

Concurrence in Vote 1—The Senate

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

Mr. Speaker, part of the rationale the member had for eliminating the funding for the Senate was with respect to credentials. She also highlighted the expense issues. She highlighted nine senators' expenses as part of the rationale for killing the funding.

As we know, that is a member who owes the Canadian taxpayers $31,793 with respect to inappropriate expenses for an office that was an illegal partisan office in Montreal. These are resources that were to be spent in the member's particular riding but were redirected to an illegal partisan office in Montreal.

The member will probably recall that on September 22, when asked where the office would be, the member confirmed that the office would be in Ottawa, and then had those funds redirected to Montreal—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard on a point of order.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that we are debating the main estimates, specifically the $57 million and change allocated to the Senate. I would therefore remind him that for the time being, we are discussing this motion and his question should be related to the motion being studied by the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The Chair thanks the hon. member. As members will know, I have just taken the chair, and I understand this conversation began before I arrived.

I would make the statement that I have made many times in the past, that members are obliged to speak to the business that is before the House at all times, and the Chair often gives latitude for those who are making points related to what is before the House, but they cannot go too far afield.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary, as with all members, to keep the comments related to what is before the House. The time is almost up for the parliamentary secretary, so could he quickly put his question?

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

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that it was the member who actually talked about the Senate expenses, I wonder if the member would agree that the same standard she is applying to the Senate should apply to herself. Does she think that we should cut off her salary, her office funding and the salary of the other 67 members of the NDP caucus who owe money because of the example she cited with respect to the Senate and why she wants to kill the funding to the Senate.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my case the decision was made behind closed doors, even though we asked that the process be public. It was decided that my employee's salary was inappropriate, even though no one ever tried to speak to me and no one ever spoke to my employee. That was an absolutely partisan decision.

I am referring to expenses that were deemed inappropriate by an outside auditor, the Auditor General, who is not partisan. We asked that our case go to court. We even asked that it be referred directly to the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, we are talking about two completely different cases. On the one had, we have the Conservative MPs who decided to get into bed with the Liberals and rule that we had made partisan expenditures. On the other hand, I am talking about expenses that have been deemed inappropriate by the Auditor General, who is completely independent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that Canadians are looking for leadership on the Senate file.

The leader of the Liberal Party has very clearly indicated the opportunity for Canadians to have some sense of hope toward making changes to the Senate that do not require constitutional changes.

Would the member not support at the very least in the interim ideas like what the leader of the Liberal Party has been talking about, reforming the Senate wherever we can, where constitutional change is not required? In this way at the very least we would be providing an opportunity for Canadians to see something that they want to see, and that is a change in the Senate. It would seem to me to be a responsible way of approaching the Senate today.

Could the member provide some comment on that suggestion?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' plan is completely unrealistic and it is a 30-year plan.

The Liberals are saying that, when there are vacancies, they will appoint more qualified senators who will be less partisan. However, I would like to remind my colleague that most senators will be retiring when my baby goes to university.

I cannot wait 30 years for our country to have a Senate that might be somewhat less partisan. In any case, the plan has to work first, and that will not happen. Some senators will be there until 2043. The senators representing Quebec alone will not be retiring until 2024, 2024, 2049, 2039, 2021 and 2024.

Do we have time to wait for all of these senators to retire before we can hope that the Senate may begin to do its work in a less partisan manner? This plan does not make any sense and is unrealistic. It is not a solution. It is merely a band-aid for the problem, an attempt to find an easy solution. Most people do not understand that this plan will not work because there are senators who are not scheduled to retire for another 30 or 40 years.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate and before I go to the government House leader, I understand that there has been some back and forth this evening in terms of what is or is not relevant. I commented before the last question, but again, to remind all hon. members, the matter before the House, which has to do with the main estimates, is specifically related to Senate expenses. There is a certain irony here in that in most cases, questions about the Senate are out of order and the House is to be dealing with matters before the House.

It strikes the Chair that the argument is that because the Senate is before this place, we cannot link it to the House. First of all, obviously it is the opposite of what we normally deal with, but I think the discussion about expenses in the Senate inevitably leads to discussions more broadly about expenses, and it would seem a very narrow drawing of relevance to suggest that members making reference to things that go on in the House of Commons is not allowed because we are only talking about the Senate.

I again go back to my earlier comment, which is that the rules are there not so that members can do whatever they can to get as close to the line as possible. The Standing Orders and the rules were agreed upon by all members to guide and manage debate in this place, and relevance is a part of that. The issue really is not what a member can get away with; it is about members being professional and parliamentary in terms of staying within what is relevant to what is before the House, and if all hon. members made a good faith effort to do that, I believe that this and all other debates would go more smoothly.

The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.

Bill S-7--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at the report stage and third reading stage of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at a future sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings of the said stages of the said bill.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.

Concurrence in Vote 1 — Senate

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party. I am particularly proud to stand on the shoulders of giants like J.S. Woodsworth and Stanley Knowles. I am also particularly proud to see my colleague from Winnipeg Centre carry on the tradition of questioning the institution we call the Senate.

This evening we have talked about our Constitution and about the institution we know as the Senate. We have also discussed Senate reform; these discussions are nothing new. We also talked about the Constitution, a topic that does not come up often for fear of having to open up the Constitution or talk about it.

This evening we are talking about allocating $57 million to the Senate. I must admit that I am opposed to sending this amount of money to the Senate because we have hit a bit of a dead end in our talks about Senate reform. One option we still have in the House of Commons is deciding how to allocate money to the various departments. In this case, I think that in recent years the Senate has proven that it does not take its duties seriously when it comes to spending and the way it spends money.

Once again, I have to say that not necessarily all senators are at fault. However, over the past years and decades, the Senate has lost its purpose. I think that is the fault of a series of prime ministers who made partisan Senate appointments.

I have to say that when I came to the Parliament of Canada, I was pretty innocent. I had absolutely no idea that senators attended MPs' caucus meetings. I found that totally outrageous. Why did senators, who were supposed to be objective, attend MPs' caucus meetings every week? That suggested some almost insidious connections within the old parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. Because of those connections, people from the upper chamber, who were supposed to be non-partisan, attended Liberal and Conservative caucus meetings. That has been going on for decades.

It is very clear that senators appointed in recent years were put to use by the Conservative Party. Those appointments were made solely to help the Conservative Party line its coffers. Senators were sent from riding to riding to raise funds for Conservative MPs. That is outrageous. I could not believe it. They also carried on the Liberal tradition of raising funds and participating in election campaigns with impunity.

It is truly extraordinary and surprising that the NDP, without the help of any senators who specialize in fundraising and travel all over Canada, became the official opposition in 2011. That is to our credit. We succeeded in forming the official opposition in the Parliament of Canada because we worked hard and met with Canadians.

This evening we are doing what we have been doing for quite some time. As the official opposition, we are in proposal mode. On October 22, 2013, my colleague from Toronto—Danforth moved a motion. It is interesting, because our Liberal colleagues like to brag about being the first party to present a plan for thoughtful Senate reform. However, they voted against our motion, which stated:

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.

That is a motion that we moved in 2013. The Liberals, who are supposedly newly converted to Senate reform, voted against that measure to make the current senators less partisan.

We are carrying on the tradition of proposing changes to the Senate. One of the first things to do is to oppose the $57 million included in the main estimates. We are simply saying no. That is one of the first things we can do right now.

As Campbell Clark of The Globe and Mail said this morning, this is the first step toward reform. This is something the members of the House can control. They can say no to this transfer of funds to the Senate.

What is more, the idea was already out there. The Conservative MPs are in favour of reforming the Senate, and the Prime Minister has been talking about Senate reform since the 1980s, but they voted against our motion, which simply said that we must adopt urgent measures to end partisanship in the Senate. That is a very important first step. The motion also said that senators should not attend caucus meetings, among other things.

I must also point out how unfair these measures are. We made a careful choice based on principle. We do not want any senators. There are no NDP senators, and I am very proud of that. In fact, the two old parties have always campaigned by using their senators to raise money. All their old campaign organizers are in the Senate, in any case. This must stop and we must cut off this $57 million. It is a good step toward real reform of the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments intently. One of the rationales she used with respect to eliminating funding for the Senate was, in her words, careless spending, being careless with money. We know that this is a member who owes $27,866 to the Canadian people because of inappropriate spending. This is a member who, on September 22, authorized a certain amount of funds, to be spent, as she said in her authorization, in an Ottawa office, but unfortunately, she redirected them to a Montreal office.

I hope that she certainly uses—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you just ruled on the fact that we are supposed to stay on the issue before us. My hon. colleague across the way is just throwing mud on issues that have nothing to do with the debate before us. I think if you are going to apply a ruling, we have to actually make sure that the ruling is sustained on both sides.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The matter before the House tonight relates to the main estimates and specifically a motion from the official opposition to defund the Senate. That is the matter that is before the House. I have listened carefully to the member's speech and the member's speech touched on lack of justification for the Senate. If and when members make arguments that the Senate ought to be defunded because money is improperly or unwisely used, and the government members respond with a question that relates to the spending of money in other parts of the estimates, including in the House of Commons, this is where we sit. There is no specific Standing Order that relates to this. It would appear that the parliamentary secretary is intent on asking essentially a similar question to different members when they do this.

I go back to the point that I made a couple of minutes ago which is that the point of the rules is not to put an absolute limit on where you are allowed to go, but it is to guide behaviour of members in the House. I would ask members, including the parliamentary secretary, to keep the questions focused on the business that is before the House as it relates to the Senate. His contention that a standard that is being applied in the Senate ought to be or could be applied in the House of Commons is a rhetorical question. I am not sure that the parliamentary secretary needs to get into all of the specific details in order to make that point, if that is the point that he wants to make. If he wants to ask that rhetorical question, that would be acceptable, but to get into the detail of matters that are before the House that do not relate directly to the Senate will be ruled out of order by this Chair.

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to put his question to the hon. member. For all hon. members that ask questions subsequently, again I would ask for members' co-operation to stick to the matter that is before the House related to Senate expenses.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it speaks to motive. I am trying to understand the rationale for what the member opposite is trying to get at. We have heard NDP member after NDP member suggest that it is time to open up the Constitution of Canada to immediately convene a constitutional conference with respect to reforming the Senate. I wonder if the hon. member could further explain that process which the NDP members have made a priority. I wonder if she could outline, if the NDP formed government, when a constitutional conference would be called and when a referendum would be held and what the referendum question would be since they have highlighted that as a priority of any future NDP government.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always dumbfounded by the false information that the parliamentary secretary provides, in particular, how he can distort what I can try—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member opposite just accused me of providing false information. I would be delighted to table for the House and to read specifically when the member suggested that those funds would be sent to an Ottawa office and to provide the supporting documents that show it was sent to an illegal partisan office in Montreal. If that is the member's desire, I could certainly do that with the—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I agree, there is a circus on both sides of the House, not just one.

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I said I was against sending $57 million to the Senate, in one sense, it was a first step towards some kind of reform.

When I spoke about the motion put forward by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, it was also a way to try, in this case, to make certain changes in the immediate future. As for the rest, I do not think it is useful, when we hold debates in the House and we try to explain quite complex ideas, to turn them around and reduce them to simplistic terms.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Senate is a part of Canada's Constitution.

My question is related to the motion. If the motion were to pass, obviously it would change what takes place in the Senate virtually overnight.

Can the member indicate to the House what provinces she and the leader of the New Democratic Party have on side that are actually supporting the motion? I am sure she would understand the implications, and no doubt the NDP would have solicited some support from the provinces. Could she indicate which provinces actually would support what the NDP is doing here this evening?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing this evening is simply an item in the main estimates.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House as an elected member representing the people of Timmins—James Bay. Elected members are accountable to the people who vote for them. They go back every two years. I have gone back once at 18 months, at two years and at four years. It is a job interview, and if the people decide they do not like an elected member's record, they vote the member out. That is what democracy is.

Here tonight in a democratic House, we are talking about people who have no democratic mandate, people who believe themselves to be superior to the people of Canada. We are talking about a group of people who show such outrage over questions of accountability because they have never had to show accountability to anyone except their political masters, the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties who appointed them.

This motion we are debating tonight comes on the eve of the most explosive political scandal with the Senate in Canadian history. It is certainly one of the great political scandals. This is not just about the abuse of public trust. This is not just about fraud. This is about people who actually constitutionally may not even be allowed to sit in that upper chamber and yet they have the right under this present system to overrule the democratically elected voices of the people of Canada.

We saw that when Pamela Wallin helped galvanize her cronies to defeat Jack Layton's climate change bill. Pamela Wallin at that time was sitting on the boards of all manner of corporations, including tar sands development corporate interests. It was considered okay that she could take her role as a senator and also receive the financial interests for doing tar sands development, and yet kill a climate change bill that was voted on with the support of the people of this country.

The issues of how we are going to deal with this unelected and unaccountable Senate are things that this House needs to deal with. It is fascinating to watch the behaviour of the members of the other two old parties. The Liberals were born as the party of cronyism and corruption. That is their baby in the upper chamber. It is not a surprise that so many Liberal senators are up to their necks in this scandal, because that was how the Liberal machine was done. It was a system of cronyism. It was a system of patronage. It was a system of the old boys' club. If people flipped pancakes at Liberal fundraisers, they might some day end up in the Senate, and then they could travel around the world and do whatever they wanted and never have to be checked. I am not surprised at the Liberal intransigence and their deep desire to defend the Senate.

Certainly, from having been elected here in 2004, the behaviour of the Conservatives is something to see. I remember a different Conservative Party, a Reform Party that believed that the cronies in the upper chamber were an abomination to Canadians. They sold themselves in western Canada as being the ones who were going to bring accountability, but they never did. Instead of bringing accountability, the Conservatives brought us Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Carolyn Stewart Olsen, and the rest of that crew. Now we see them doing whatever they can to change the channel on the endemic corruption that is in that institution.

I could do a long litany of Senate abuse going back through the ages to Senator Andy Thompson who lived in Mexico and collected a paycheque and showed up in Canada maybe once a year. That went on year after year. We were told back then that he was a senator and could not be touched. I could talk about Raymond Lavigne, the Liberal senator who was convicted of fraud and was sent off to the hoosegow, and all the red flags that were raised by the RCMP at the time of his incarceration, which the Senate ignored.

I could talk about numerous failed candidates and party organizers and bagmen over the years who have been dumped in that upper chamber where, for the rest of their lives, taxpayers paid them to work for the parties. However, let us just focus on how we came to this present corruption scandal. The Conservatives are doing everything they can to change the channel on how we got there.

This debate tonight is so important because it begins with the notorious three of Wallin, Brazeau, Duffy and the appointment of the three of them by the Prime Minister back in December 2008.

At that time, questions were immediately raised that Senator Pamela Wallin and Senator Mike Duffy were not eligible to sit in the Senate. In fact, at the time, when the media asked how Mike Duffy could be a senator for Prince Edward Island when everyone knew he lived in Kanata, Dimitri Soudas told the media that all of the nominees would meet their residency requirements. This was the beginning. This was the original sin that led us to where we are tonight.

People who were not eligible to sit in the Senate were appointed to the Senate. Why? It was because they were going to do the heavy lifting for the Conservative machinery in terms of fundraising. That was Duffy's role. That was Wallin's role. That was even Patrick Brazeau's role.

There were flags raised because Pamela Wallin did not live in Wadena, Saskatchewan; she lived in a condo in Toronto. Section 31 of the Constitution is clear that a senator will be disqualified if he or she “ceases to be qualified in respect of Property..”. What the Conservatives have attempted to claim is that only $4,000 worth of property will make an individual eligible to sit in the Senate, but that is not what the Constitution says. It says that a senator “shall be resident in the Province for which [they represent]”.

The Prime Minister knew that they were not qualified to sit in the Senate. This is the beginning of all of the issues with Mike Duffy. We have seen numerous prevarications from my colleagues, particularly from the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, who said that the rules have been clear for 150 years but will not explain what the rules are.

If we look at the RCMP investigation into the Mike Duffy affair, it keeps coming back to the fact that Mike Duffy was well aware that he was not eligible to sit in the Senate and he wanted that issue dealt with. He was told not to worry because nobody has ever been thrown out of the Senate. That is true, because it is an old boys' club. It is like being a made man. Once they are in the Senate, they are looked after. However, Duffy was aware of that issue.

The issues were raised on numerous occasions. On February 15, 2013, Nigel Wright wrote to Benjamin Perrin, saying:

I am gravely concerned that Sen. Duffy would be considered a resident of Ontario...Possibly Sen. [Dennis] Patterson in BC too.

Wait a minute. Is Senator Patterson not supposed to represent Nunavut? Wright went on to say:

If this were adopted as the Senate’s view about whether the constitutional qualification were met, the consequences are obvious.

Nigel Wright was writing to the Prime Minister's lawyer on February 15, 2013, that if the word got out that Duffy was not eligible to sit, what about the other senators? Constitutionally, they knew that they were not even eligible to sit. That sitting gave them the power to override a democratically elected House.

The Prime Minister's Office pressured the Senate rules committee to remove the definition to protect the caucus, and to secure Duffy's own repayment of expenses. The PMO said it would cut the cheque for Duffy if that was “all that stands in the way of Sen. Duffy paying back his $32,000 and closing out his situation”. However, Duffy did not owe $32,000. He owed $90,000.

Nigel Wright said:

If the [Rules] and Procedures Committee doesn’t have the right membership, then the Senate by motion should constitute a special committee that will have the right Senators on board. We cannot rely on the Senate Leader's office to get this right…have to do this in a way that does not lead to the Chinese water torture of new facts in the public domain, that the PM does not want....

The Prime Minister's right hand was saying that they could not trust the Senate to get this right and to protect this cover-up. To defend the Prime Minister, they were going to have to make sure that they would, through the Prime Minister's Office, start appointing people to handle the audit.

What does that have to do with tonight? This has to do with the fact that, according to the RCMP, key senators, the Prime Minister's Office, and the Prime Minister's staff recognized that they had to come up with a scam to cover up the fact that Duffy was ineligible to sit in the Senate, and it would lead to whitewashing the audit.

Nigel Wright then said:

I will advise Sen. LeBreton that we will not take any steps in the Senate to address residency...unless anyone challenges the qualification of any of our Senators, in which case we will defend (and defeat any motion regarding) any Senator who owns property in the correct province...

He said “defeat” because they had the majority. He went on to say:

I will advise Sen. Duffy that we will defeat any challenge to his residency…and advise him to settle the expenses matter promptly.

He was going to tell Duffy that they would deal with the residency thing and get the money paid back. Wright then said:

I think we should lay out the approach in a brief memo to the PM...

...because getting confirmation of qualification residency is all that is needed to close out the Duffy situation.

They have the scheme. They have the plan. They are going to appoint the people to the Senate board that is dealing with the audit. They just need to get the sign-off from the Prime Minister to say that Duffy is a resident, which everyone knew he was not.

On February 20, Nigel Wright sent an email to Chris Woodcock, Benjamin Perrin, and other PMO staff. It states:

...I have spoken again with Sen. Duffy. Tomorrow morning I shall receive by courier redacted copies of his diaries and other info to back up his claim to have “PEI” (as opposed to his home in Cavendish) as his primary residence. Our team will have to look at that to see if there is anything in it that we would not want his lawyer to send to the Senate steering committee. Maybe it will persuade us to let him [take] his chances with Deloitte's findings. If not, then I have told him I will be back on his case about repayment.

They are already planning what they are going to share with the audit committee.

Then they approach Senator Tkachuk, approach LeBreton, and they are talking about whitewashing an audit into potential fraud. This is the Prime Minister of the country of Canada and his staff cooking up a scheme to whitewash an audit into fraud.

This was the deal. It was their five-point deal. The big issue that held up the deal was that Duffy “will repay, with a couple of conditions, including that admitting to a primary residence in Ottawa does not disqualify him from representing [Prince Edward Island] in the Senate”.

They are just making the Constitution up. That is part of the deal.

Nigel Wright said:

...(I have been specific with Sen. Duffy that a “senior government source” will make a statement on the day of his statement to the effect that there is no doubt he is qualified to sit as a Senator.... The PM[O] will also give this answer [if he] is asked, as will other authorized...people for the Government.

He talked to Benjamin Perrin. He said I have to go to the Prime Minister. I have to run this deal by him. Then he came back and said it is good to go. Then the Prime Minister of Canada stands up in this House and repeats verbatim what was in the plan to get Mike Duffy off the hook, which is that Mike Duffy, a man who lives in Kanata, Ontario, somehow qualifies to be in the Senate representing Prince Edward Island.

They thought they were going to get away with this. However, the questions continued to be asked. Then, once the RCMP became involved, we began to see an attempt to whitewash the audit, to interfere with the Deloitte audit.

Are Canadians to trust the Senate on this latest scandal? Are they going to trust the Prime Minister? Hardly.

We now have the Auditor General's report brought in. LeBreton, Tkachuk, Stewart-Olsen have been disgraced for having been involved in this scheme. They are all still in the Senate. They cannot be fired. Who replaces them? Leo Housakos, the Prime Minister's Montreal bagman, was appointed to the Senate. Suddenly he was appointed by the Prime Minister as the Speaker of the Senate.

Senator James Cowan, the Liberal leader, and Senator Carignan, who received letters that they have spending problems, step forward to the Senate to tell the senators that they will set up a process to deal with this. When the Auditor General comes up with findings, that will be the process. We are in this crazy alternate universe where the Senate and the Conservative Party have created views that this is just the Auditor General's opinion so they have to set up another process.

I have never heard of the Auditor General investigating any department and being told that was just the Auditor General's opinion, that within the department where they found all of these problems, they will set up another internal process run by their own department to show that the Auditor General is wrong. However, that is what the Senate claims it will do. Who will run that? Leo Housakos, James Cowan, and Mr. Carignan step in to announce that they will set up this other process that they will oversee, at a time when they knew they were under investigation.

We should ask the Canadian people if that has any credibility. With the pattern we have seen of abuse of public trust here, is there any reason for them to trust?

We still have not dealt with the fact from the ITO that there are a number of senators who are not living in places that they claim to represent and may not even be eligible.

On May 15, 2015, the Senate invoked privilege to keep secret a document about whether senators are even eligible to sit in the upper chamber. This is a complete abuse of the Canadian people, and senators get away with it because they do not believe they are accountable to the Canadian people. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that a democratically elected House is told there is nothing it can do about this gang because whatever they decide is their own ticket.

We are in a situation where the Auditor General has brought out a report that was immediately leaked, in all manner of areas, by the senators under investigation. They gave themselves four or five days of damage control to undermine the Auditor General of this country. James Cowan, Liberal leader in the Senate, came out and started attacking the work of the Auditor General while saying he is going to make sure the process is trustworthy.

Canadians have no faith in that. Canadians are fed up. They have dealt with this institution for too long. They have been told that there is nothing we can do about them, that they can write their own ticket, and that they can do whatever they want. It is like the honour system in there.

What I am seeing from my colleagues in the Conservative Party is absolutely no leadership whatsoever on tackling this. This is the great scandal of our generation. The Conservatives have gone to ground because the scandal continues to go back to the Prime Minister's Office. It is in the RCMP ITO, the cover-up, the naming of senators who were not eligible, the fact that they had decided they could not trust the Senate itself to do the cover-up for the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister' Office would choose who was going to be on the committee.

Carolyn Stewart-Olsen was appointed to the Senate. What are her qualifications? She was a communications flak for the Prime Minister. She was put on the board to oversee this. The Prime Minister puts in all of his key people.

This is no longer a government that has anything to do with the legacy of Preston Manning and the promise of reform, and that were going to deal with the Senate and look for alternatives that could have the trust of the Canadian people. This is now a government in absolute damage control.

The Conservative government is mired, locked in step with the corruption in the Senate. The Prime Minister has decided that he can get better deals by appointing people who are not eligible to sit in the Senate to do party work, something he railed against in opposition. Right now, this is the Conservative plan.

The Conservative government does not want to deal with this, so it is going to try to ride this out. I do not think it is possible anymore. We are being told again and again—here we are in 2015—that the Canadian people have no ability. We are just the little peons and we have no ability to stand up to this culture of entitlement.

Tonight we actually have an opportunity. We can say sorry, enough is enough. If they want to continue sitting in the Senate, we are going to cut off the taps. Then we are going to start talking. We are going to talk about establishing a clear set of rules for an unelected and unaccountable group.

I would like to see the senators gone tomorrow, but in the meantime, I would like to see clear ethical standards set in place for them, unlike with Mike Duffy, where we saw a diary full of lobbying and potential illegal lobbying, which is not his business. His business should be reviewing legislation. He should not be travelling around the country doing this.

I would like to end with a quote:

Obviously the government thinks it is being clever by appointing [men and] women. But the real concern is, whether it's women or men or French or English or whatever, these people inevitably don't represent anybody but the prime minister who appoints them.

We don't think that [party] patronage has any place in the Parliament of Canada.

I have never agreed with the Prime Minister of this country before, but I certainly agreed with his sentiments when he said that in 1995. I want to ask, what happened to that Prime Minister? Why did he lose his way? Why did he lead Canadians directly into the corruption scandal that we are in today because of his desire to hang out with the Senate?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the speech of the hon. member across the way, but O'Brien and Bosc provides guidance to the House through the rules of the House. The debate is a fair question. Should the Senate be funded? Should all funding be removed? That is a fair debate for us to consider, but I am troubled by the language that we have heard in the House.

I would like to reference chapter 13 of O'Brien and Bosc, under “Reflections of the House and the Senate”. It states:

Disrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House and the Senate [as component parts of Parliament] ...are not permitted. Members of the House and the Senate are also protected by this rule. In debate, the Senate is generally referred to as “the other place” and Senators as “members of the other place”. References to Senate debates and proceedings are discouraged and it is out of order to question a Senator's integrity, honesty or character.

It goes on to say:

This “prevents fruitless arguments between Members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the other party”.

It is important that we respect the other House. Some members are being considered by the RCMP and by Senate on questionable expenses. That may or may not, and likely will, reflect on our debate. However, I would reflect that comments that are made that call into question the integrity of individuals or the Senate as a whole are not appropriate and break the rules.

I would ask that we show respectful language in the House and that the debate is respectful.