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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

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, Conservative, 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.