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, I wanted to note that previously the member had suggested we could not talk about expenses. However, in the very first sentence of his speech, in the very opening remarks of his speech, he referred directly to Senate expenses as an issue. I think that I will seize upon that later on in debate and ask some very specific questions with respect to expenses.

However, something troubled me even more in his remarks that I think we have to get to, because this is something that the Leader of the Opposition has not wanted to talk about, but the member stated in his speech and I want him to be very clear on this. He suggested that it is policy of the NDP that it would, if it ever formed government, begin constitutional negotiations as a priority, to open up the Constitution to talk about how to reform the Senate.

I wonder if the hon. member would confirm that is a priority of the NDP, to open up constitutional negotiations, and if he could highlight for me what each of the individual premiers have told them their positions would be on that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the commitment has been, and it has been made very publicly as recently as this weekend, that the leader of the official opposition would consult with Canadians and would consult the premiers for the purposes of finding collective interests in abolishing the Senate and meeting the requisite numbers where the Senate could in fact be abolished, as per the lower chambers. All the provinces that used to have second chambers have gone bicameral, those will testify and admit that their lower chambers were not diminished by abolishing the upper chamber; in fact, they were strengthened.

However, the mandate of senators comes into question, too, and it needs to be addressed as it is part of the problem that we are facing today and part of the abuse that we are going to hear declared by the Auditor General when he releases his report tomorrow. It has to do with the fact that the mandate of senators, as they see it, is so open-ended that the mandate of a senator is anything the senator deems to be his or her mandate. They are spending money freely, without any oversight, without any scrutiny, without any control even by the rule of reporting.

If the ruling party has senators in its caucus, surely the ruling party could exercise some control over those senators so they do not abuse the system and abuse their expense accounts. Where is the accountability on the part of the ruling party and the Conservatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a very vigorous and substantial speech. He seems quite enthusiastic about the idea of reopening the Constitution.

I would like to know if he spoke on behalf of his leader when he said so; especially, when he said that the constitutional talks he is considering would not be limited to the Senate, but would touch a lot of issues, such as the three that he mentioned.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I was referring to was how much I enjoyed the exercise leading up to the Charlottetown accord. What an honour it was, as a carpenter by trade, to be chosen as an ordinary Canadian, going through what was an incredible learning experience, learning about the fabric of our country.

As my colleague knows, the Charlottetown accord was not limited to the future of the Senate or the reform of the Senate, although substantive recommendations were made. If my memory serves me, the accord proposed that each province would be assigned six senators and each territory one, and additional seats would be added for the representation of aboriginal peoples of Canada, an idea that we borrowed from the country of New Zealand, where the Maori have representation, and that elections would take place under the federal jurisdiction at the same time as elections in the House of Commons.

Those were interesting developments arrived at by consensus-building in six meetings across the country, talking to ordinary Canadians.

The initiative failed, but at least the government of the day did not put it on the too-hard-to-do pile. It embraced it as an issue and as a subject that Canadians wanted to talk about.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that hard-working Canadians who pay taxes are very concerned with what is happening in the other House. While in my riding this weekend, I heard they were strongly questioning what was going on in the Senate.

The Prime Minister said that he wanted to do away with the Senate. Could the member comment on how the Conservatives failed to deliver on a pre-election commitment that the Prime Minister often made?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have dropped the ball on the Senate, and I share the frustration. We have to give them credit for trying, and they did try. I went with the Prime Minister on the day he introduced the bill in the Senate regarding limiting the term to eight years. I was curious to see how the public and Senate would react. The fact is that it is now put on the too-hard-to-do pile. The Prime Minister has washed his hands of any commitment to reform the Senate.

I remember when the old Reform Party used to bring out the Mexican hat dance and the mariachi band, and play outside the Senate, criticizing those senators who spent all their time on the beach in Mexico. That was when we had people who were committed to reform the Senate, and we joined them in their enthusiasm.

However, the fact is that tonight we are voting on sending another $57 million to the Senate with no more accountability than the last pile of money that it abused.

Canadians have to ask themselves if they want us to spend their hard-earned tax dollars this way, and if so, why?

I ask all members of Parliament if, deep in their own conscience, they are accurately reflecting the will of their constituents if they vote in favour of funding the undemocratic, unelected, under indictment Senate.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is exactly what the member for Winnipeg Centre has said, which is that we are voting on $57 million of expenditures for the Senate. It is up to members to figure out after the vote whether they want to show up for work.

The fact is that the Senate has not passed motions and legislation from the House of Commons. Therefore, why should we spend $57 million more? What is the $57 million reason for Canadians?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians may be even more concerned that the total budget for the Senate is more like $90 million. The House of Commons gets to vote on the $57 million in vote 1, which is the appropriation for the Senate, but some of its funding is in fact statutory.

The fact is that Canadians are wondering why they are paying anything for it. Not only has there been a pattern of abuse, but it serves as an undemocratic barrier to the will of the people as expressed by those elected representatives in the House of Commons, time and time again. There are 133 examples that the researchers at the Library of Parliament found for me where bills were vetoed by the Senate which were passed in the House of Commons.

Nobody elected those guys to make legislation. Senators should have no right to interfere with the will of the House of Commons, and they certainly should have no right to generate bills.

More and more bills that we are dealing with in the House of Commons, as members know, are not called Bill C-51, for example, but rather Bill S-6, Bill S-13, or Bill S-33. The bills are originating in the Senate. Here we are dutifully debating bills that are generated in the other chamber. It is completely upside down. It is completely absurd. If Canadians think about it, this is an affront to democracy and everything that is good and decent about our notion of democracy.

When Sir. John A. Macdonald first crafted the Senate, to cut him some slack, he was two years away from the American Civil War. He was looking south of the border thinking that he could not give too much authority without some checks and balances or God knows what could happen. North America was traumatized. However, that happened not in the last century, but the century before that.

We do not need to be bound by the limitations of John A. Macdonald's thinking when he made that terrible quote about how “We must protect the rights of minorities, and the rich are always fewer in number than the poor”.

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

Mr. Speaker, the review of the Senate budget should be done in a comprehensive way, not as an attempt to initiate an abolition of the Senate bit by bit, incrementally, as the NDP is trying to do today.

The Liberals strongly support any sound measures that increase frugality, openness and transparency in our parliamentary democracy. Our open Parliament plan specially called for a more detailed audit of the House of Commons by the Auditor General. It is our strong belief that House and Senate Boards of Internal Economy should work with the Auditor General to develop mandatory performance audits of the House of Commons and Senate administrations.

The Liberal leader and member for Papineau rightly said that parliamentarians had the privilege of serving Canadians, and Canadians rightly expected them to adhere to the highest ethical standards. This principle should guide all parliamentarians during a time when we really need to improve ethical standards in the House as well as in the Senate.

The Senate, in particular, needs to change. Not only is change needed to its rules around transparency and accountability processes, but the whole institution cannot stay the same. The status quo is unacceptable.

Three bold options to reform the Canadian Senate are on the table: abolish it, make it an elected body or make it more independent and less partisan.

Only the third option, proposed by Liberal leader, the member for Papineau, is the realistic option. The other two do not stand a chance. Why? Abolition or an elected Senate would both require constitutional amendments, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in its April 25, 2014, opinion. The court ruled that Parliament could not change the nature of the Senate unilaterally. Making it an elected chamber would require the agreement of Parliament and the concurrence of seven provinces representing 50% of the population of the provinces, the 7/50 rule. Abolishing the Senate would require the unanimous agreement of Parliament and the 10 provinces. Unanimity among provinces for abolition is out of reach. No more is there the majority concurrence required for making the Senate an elected chamber.

At least one province, Quebec, has declared that it will not enter into constitutional negotiations on the sole issue of Senate reform. There is an regional veto act that gives veto power over constitutional changes to the five regions of Canada. To abolish the Senate would require a referendum, constitutional negotiations and very likely a majority in every province of the country. Therefore, this will not happen.

That said, Canadians have had enough of the ethical and financial scandals created by the actions of certain senators. Canadians want no more of the favouritism and extreme partisanship that have tarnished the Senate’s reputation and reduced its usefulness, favouritism and partisanship pushed to unequalled and intolerable extremes by this Prime Minister.

We Liberals agree that reforms are needed to return the Senate to the role assigned to it: the chamber of sober second thought. We are committed to doing everything possible to ensure that the Senate does the best it can to fulfil the responsibility entrusted to it by the Fathers of Confederation: to scrutinize bills carefully and to identify errors, flaws and inaccuracies, and on that basis, to propose useful amendments.

We Liberals will ensure that the Senate plays its constitutional role as an upper chamber that is attentive to the needs and aspirations of the regions and to minorities in our diverse country, including the first nations and the official language minority communities.

We Liberals will ensure that we have the Senate that is needed, an institution that is more serene and more independent and is composed of first class legislators who are competent, ethical and highly qualified, and are chosen through a non-partisan procedure.

A more independent Senate: this is the challenge that the Liberal leader is committed to undertaking.

The Liberal plan has two components. The first has already been realized; the second will be if Canadians elect a Liberal government in the next federal election in 2015.

The first component became a reality on January 29, 2014. Since that date, there have been no senators in the Liberal caucus; it consists of members of Parliament only.

The Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party of Canada no longer have a direct relationship with senators who, like any citizen, may belong to the political party of their choice.

Senators have thus been relieved of all partisan duties and are better able to devote themselves to their duties as parliamentarians and legislators. The Liberal leader did invite the Prime Minister to do the same in his own caucus. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Prime Minister refused.

We therefore now have a Liberal caucus with no senators, and senators with no partisan obligations. In a swift and decisive move, the Liberal leader accomplished the most important reform made to the Senate since Confederation. In a single morning, he did more to reform the Senate than the Prime Minister has done in nearly ten years in power, and the Liberal leader will go even further along the road to reform if Canadians elect him as their next prime minister.

The second component of Liberal reform of the Senate provides for the implementation of a non-partisan appointment process through which the upper chamber will at all times be composed of eminent, dedicated and highly qualified legislators. Some constitutional experts recommend setting up a senatorial advisory committee, somewhat like what has been put in place for the selection of certain members of the upper chamber in the United Kingdom.

The advisory committee would be responsible for providing the Prime Minister with informed and objective advice on potential candidates for the Senate. In my opinion, this model should be among those considered. In this model, the committee would base its recommendations on serious, objective, non-partisan criteria.

To be recommended, a candidate would have to show a long list of qualities: exceptional skill in his field; an indisputable connection to the province concerned; a record of exceptional service to his community; exceptional work habits; flawless honesty and integrity; open-mindedness; the wisdom and good judgment we expect from a legislator; and a thorough understanding of the role of a chamber of sober second thought. Senators would be expected to propose improvements to bills without challenging or usurping the legitimate and dominant role of the elected House within a democracy.

The committee would take care to ensure equal representation of women and minorities, including first nations and official language minority communities that have historic ties to the Senate.

How might the senator selection process take place? What I am describing is one possible way.

In accordance with constitutional conventions, the Prime Minister would make the final recommendation to the Governor General from a short list prepared by the advisory committee.

If the Prime Minister felt unable to appoint someone from the list, he would have to explain himself to Parliament and ask the advisory committee to come up with a new list.

An act of Parliament enacting such a selection process would be fully constitutional. It would not change the Senate's fundamental nature and role, a nature and role that, according to a 2014 Supreme Court opinion, section 52, Parliament has no right to alter unilaterally. In contrast, the court confirmed that making the Senate an elected chamber would fundamentally alter its nature and role, thus requiring that the 7/50 provincial approval threshold be met.

The court noted, in section 65 of its 2014 opinion, that the framers of the Constitution Act, 1982 extended the constitutional protection provided by the general amending procedure to the entire process by which senators were selected. This means that the entire process must be considered in order to assess if it changes the fundamental nature and role of the Senate.

If the entire process only aims to make the prime minister's choices less partisan and more objective, as the Liberal proposal does, it does nothing to change the fundamental nature of the institution. To the contrary, it reinforces the likelihood that the Senate will actually correspond with the court's definition of the upper house's fundamental nature.

The definition reads as follows, to provide “sober second thought” on the legislation adopted by the popular representatives in the House of Commons”, to be “a thoroughly independent body which could canvass dispassionately the measures of the House of Commons, and “a complementary legislative body, rather than a perennial rival of the House of Commons in the legislative process”. It would be removed “from a partisan political arena”.

I believe it would be wise to experiment with the new process before entrenching it in an act of Parliament in order to test its uptake.

In closing, I would just like to say that the commitment made by the Liberal leader, namely to give Canada a more effective, less partisan and more independent upper chamber, is entirely realistic and particularly necessary.

Without changing a single word of the Constitution, he will create a Senate made up of senators who have the competencies, knowledge and skills to carry out the task that the Fathers of Confederation entrusted to the institution: to scrutinize and improve the bills passed in the House of Commons. The Trudeau plan to reform the Senate—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville named the Liberal Party leader. He may continue, but without referring to other members by name.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

The Liberal plan to reform the Senate will give us an upper chamber that will be a source of pride and confidence among Canadians—truly a chamber of sober second thought.

The time has come for bold actions. The time has come for an effective, non-partisan Senate. The time has come for a Liberal plan to reform the Senate.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to my hon. colleague. I have a question about regional and provincial representation. As a point, Prince Edward Island has about the same population as resides in my riding of Edmonton Centre, and it has four senators and four members of Parliament. That is the way it has been since Confederation.

Therefore, I would be interested in the thoughts of my colleague about how in his estimation they would re-order the representation of the Senate, if they could, to make it more regional and population based so it is not so out of balance. Having said that, if any proposal were to do that, does he think Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and P.E.I., particularly, who are very overrepresented in the Senate proportionately, would go along with that?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very valid question. I wish he would have asked the question of his Prime Minister when he wanted to elect the Senate without addressing this difficulty.

An elected Senate would be more powerful than the Senate of today. The under-representation of Alberta and British Columbia would be completely unacceptable with an elected Senate. That is why all of the prime ministers before the current Prime Minister were responsible enough to not propose to elect the Senate, as long as provinces did not agree between themselves about how many senators they may have by province. It was completely unreasonable and irresponsible for the Prime Minister to do so, especially as an Albertan.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville is invoking the Liberal Party's own turpitude as an excuse for doing nothing. It was the Liberals, in fact, who made the Constitution so hard to amend, and now they are using their own misdeeds as an excuse for not doing anything.

After listening carefully to the hon. member's presentation, it is clear that what he is recommending is an elitist Senate. It seems to me that he is saying that they would select those whom they deem to be intelligent enough to be members of that great, noble institution. Canadians see that institution as a parasite. Canadians want people who are accountable to them.

Why is it so hard to accept the idea that anyone who holds legislative authority should be accountable to the people?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague might be frustrated with the Constitution, but that is not going to solve the problem. To have an elected Senate, we need seven provinces and 50% of the population. To abolish the Senate, the provinces need to be unanimous. The member will have to ask his caucus and his leader whether in their plan to hold a referendum on this issue the required majority will be the majority in every province of our country. If the majority in some of the provinces vote the other way, then they will have veto power over the others. Does the hon. member really want to divide Canada in that way?

The other way to look at it is to realize that every great federation has two chambers. Our Parliament is not unicameral. There are two chambers, like in Australia, for example. Every federation has two chambers. Since we have an unelected chamber, can we come up with a way to ensure that that chamber is better chosen, in a non-partisan way, that it is more independent and that is better able to fulfill its responsibilities as the chamber of sober second thought, give careful consideration to the legislative work done by the House of Commons and propose useful amendments?

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the response that my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, gave to my NDP colleague's question. He is right to say that the Constitution has to be changed and only if there is unanimity. He is right. Where I do not see eye to eye with him is on his defeatism. He thinks it is a lost cause and accepts that we would not get a majority in every province of Canada.

I choose to believe that our Constitution is not a fixed law, it is not a sealed object for which we have thrown away the key. I choose to believe that this Constitution can be changed by future generations and that we can drive that change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to discuss this with my colleague during the election campaign. Is it really a public priority to nostalgically return to the time of the Charlottetown accord, as my colleague mentioned? Members need to understand that Canadians have no interest in reopening the Constitution just to deal with the Senate. The premier of Quebec clearly indicated that if the federal government approaches him about the Constitution, then he is going to put forward his demands for Quebec. Given the report published last week regarding aboriginal peoples in Canada, one can only imagine how long such a list could get.

We need to be frank with Canadians and tell them that a vote for the NDP is a vote for a huge constitutional negotiation with a very slim chance of success.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the independence that the member talks about for the Senate is also good enough for the House of Commons, more specifically whether members for Cardigan, Scarborough—Guildwood, or Winnipeg North, or candidates coming into the House of Commons under the Liberal Party banner, ought to be free, for example, to vote their pro-life views?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a different and complicated topic. It is about party discipline and what kind of party discipline each caucus decides to have within its own rules.

In the Liberal Party, it is very clear. We have party discipline for everything that is linked to the basic philosophy of our party, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and everything that is linked to budget issues and to the commitments we have made in our party platform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the Liberals' famous plan for the Senate.

I do not know whether he looked at the list of senators, but while a number of them are retiring, the terms of others are not up until 2030, 2039 or 2026. Even if senators are appointed more carefully, it is still going to take at least 30 years for the Senate to be completely renewed.

Is the Liberal plan a 30-year plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, every time there is a vacancy in the Senate, the next senator will be chosen according to this non-partisan procedure, which will ensure that senators are more independent and better qualified.

From what I understand, the Prime Minister has no desire to appoint any more senators, so the next government will have a lot of appointments to make. If it is a Liberal government, those appointments will all be made according to this non-partisan procedure, which will benefit all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. However, I think we have to talk a bit further about this proposal from the Liberal Party, which would see an unelected, unaccountable Liberal Senate being appointed by an unelected, unaccountable group of people.

How does that type of Senate actually reflect the mood of Canadians, for one?

The second question is more important than the first one for now. I wonder if the member could touch on what we have heard today, that the new NDP position is to open up constitutional negotiations with respect to the Senate and to hold referendums. I know that he has been part of this in the past, and that strikes me as being a very vain, very dangerous proposal, especially at a time of global economic uncertainty. I wonder if he might comment on that very dangerous proposal of the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I prefer to debate the NDP proposal with the NDP. However, since my colleague has invited me to debate the Liberal proposal with him, I think he does not have the right information.

In our proposal, the prime minister would still be accountable for his or her choice, but through a process that would inform the prime minister in order to have candidates who would be highly recommended. If the prime minister did not accept the short list that is proposed to him, he may reject it and ask for another short list. However, the prime minister would have to justify his or her choices, and in the end would have to look at Canadians in the eye and say, “I chose this legislator in the proper process, and this person is a great legislator”.

It would not be done anymore by a press release on a Friday afternoon. It would be done in the House officially, and the prime minister would have to be accountable for his or her choices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion, which is totally inappropriate considering what is happening right now. A report will be tabled tomorrow. It will name 30 senators, some of them current senators and others who have retired. Nine of them—two of whom are still sitting and seven who have retired—have claimed expenses that have been deemed sufficiently inappropriate to be referred to the RCMP.

There is therefore a major problem, and the motion that was put forward to cut funding to the Senate was completely appropriate. Canadians are thoroughly discouraged by what is going on in the Senate. Of course there are the expenses, but there is also the way senators act.

A bill was passed at least two years ago now. It was introduced by my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and concerned the rights of transgender people. The bill has been sitting in the Senate since then. The government is well aware that, with the election coming, the bill is likely to die on the order paper. The members work hard on bills that may perhaps be rather controversial or that deal with sensitive issues. They make sure that they are amended and modified and they seek the opinion of their colleagues so that the bill can be accepted by everyone in the House and passed by the majority. Then, the government can turn around and tell the senators to make sure that it is never discussed and that in any case it will die on the order paper.

This makes no sense. The worst of it is that the government is doing this not only to the official opposition but also to its own caucus. The Conservatives are doing the same thing with the bill introduced by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills. He worked very hard. He conducted consultations. He came to speak with us and agreed to make some changes because we had some problems with the bill. Now, the bill has been completely amended and it is likely to die on the order paper. They are doing the same thing. They do not respect what goes on here in the House.

There are other rather strange goings-on among the current senators. Such is the case with Senator Don Meredith. I am going to quote an article that I found particularly interesting. It has not been discussed much. It is an article from the Huffington Post written by Zi-Ann Lum.

Entitled “Tory Senator Don Meredith Touts Degrees From Unaccredited Schools”, the article states:

A Conservative senator earmarked as one of the Senate's top spenders holds a master’s degree from a school whose phone number directs calls to a customer helpline for a website that sells iPads and printers.

Senator Don Meredith, a Toronto-area Pentecostal pastor, has a master's degree in religious studies from California State Christian University (CSCU)--an unaccredited and unregulated private institution that has shifted addresses at least four times within the last 10 years.

Further on, the article states:

Meredith also says he has an honorary doctorate from an association of Christian counsellors that has no standing as a degree-granting school. Since receiving this honorary doctorate, Meredith frequently signs his newsletters and press releases as “The Honourable Dr. Don Meredith.”

A few days after this article was published, Senator Don Meredith stopped using the title “doctor” in his blogs and letters.

It seems to me that anyone who twists reality in terms of his degrees and qualifications is not the kind of person that I am particularly proud to introduce. It appears that in the Senate, these kinds of things can go on with relatively few consequences. Don Meredith is still a senator. There is no problem, there are no consequences, despite the fact that he distorted the facts about his degrees, probably even when he had a discussion with the Prime Minister before being named to the Senate. This is surreal.

Let us talk about former senators. In one of his speeches, a Liberal senator decided to read his book in English from a to z, in order to obtain a French translation of it free of charge, since everything that is said in the two houses is translated, because this is a bilingual country. He obtained a French translation of his book free of charge and published the translation.

Is this really the kind of parliamentary work that Canadians deserve? I do not think so. Even in terms of the quality of the work, there are major problems.

There will be charges, or at least claims, for inappropriate expenses, but there is also a multitude of very debatable expenses about which we can do nothing.

For instance, questions should be asked when senators continually take return flights between Toronto and Ottawa in business class that take less than an hour and easily cost $2,000 to $3,000, and they are accompanied by their spouse.

In the House of Commons, the rules are clear about when we are entitled to fly business class and when we are not. Unfortunately, in the Senate, the rules are not clear. People regularly take short return flights in business class that cost the taxpayers a fortune. These expenses are not challenged because the senators have the right to do this. There is a problem in terms of the expenses that people legally have the right to claim.

The Senate is a major problem, and according to the list of appointments, a number of senators will be with us until 2027, 2037, 2026 and even 2040. The Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Housakos, will be in the Senate until 2043, and the Auditor General’s report pointed the finger at him. The Speaker of the Senate will be in office until 2043. He has clearly adopted the flawed attitudes that currently hold sway in the Senate.

How can we change an institution that is so flawed, where the senators can remain in office for all these years? My baby will be in university when the Speaker of the Senate retires. How can this change? We will have to wait a generation if we hope to pay a little more attention to Senate appointments. However, paying more attention to the appointments is not a solution. We have an institution here that is completely flawed.

In construction, if a house is too shoddy, there is nothing else to be done. There is no choice. When the foundations and the very structure of a house are too flawed, there is no choice but to tear it down, and this is precisely the problem with the Senate.

We have reached a point where we cannot simply hope to repair the damage. The repairs will be far too onerous in comparison with the problem. There is no choice. We must take action and tear this institution down in the hopes that we can get closer to what Canadians want. Many Canadians are disappointed with what is going on, and they do not understand how we can let it happen.

If someone in any private company distorted the facts about his degrees, would he keep his job and his degrees with no consequences? No. If an employee exaggerated his spending in order to claim huge expenses, would the company agreed to keep him? No.

We are at the point where the institution is so flawed that we have no choice but to tear it down, rebuild it and hope that the end result will be what Canadians want.

However, at present, based on what is on the table, I am not going to wait until my child is in university before at least trying to do something to improve the Senate.

In my opinion, even the Prime Minister knows that the Senate is no longer working, and there is a reason why he has not appointed any senators even though there are more than 20 vacant seats.