Craig Scott

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for outlining the government's position. I do not doubt his sincerity in putting it forward, but unfortunately we are really sidestepping the question. Throughout the presentation, the hon. member did more to reinforce our position than I think he realized because he spent so much time talking about how election and accountability were tied together.

Basically, the idea of an appointed partisan Senate is completely at odds with everything he claims the government and his party stand for. Therefore, all his argument amounts to is saying that the perfect, at least in the Conservatives' vision of the world, is the enemy of the good. Why, for goodness sake, can we not at least take some steps in the direction that we have been asking?

The Senate really is unduly partial to parties and political power. Partisanship has meant it has never been a serious defender of either principle or the provinces, let alone the people. That is so obvious. However, all we get is a half-measure reform that has been sitting on the books for well over seven years and that is used as an excuse for no action at the moment.

I would like to ask the member if you cannot join us in making the Senate somewhat better now until either your reform or our goal of abolition takes place.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

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

All I can say is that, yes, this is really urgent. Waiting until the Senate is abolished is out of the question.

Canadians deserve good governance, including a government and a Parliament that work, as much as possible, in the best possible way. Therefore, yes, this really needs to be done right now, as soon as possible.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that I am speaking entirely for myself in the spirit of the question.

I am myself troubled by the procedure. I think it is nothing but veiled, vindictive politics. The Senate has to look at its own procedures. Its procedures with respect to finding a senator guilty of a criminal offence are much more protective of the individual than what is about to happen in the Senate. I have no time at all, from what I know, for the senators in question, but the process being followed in the Senate has to look at the Senate's own rules. That is simply my view. Whether it is actually the case, one thing everybody should know is that one lawyer's view is often matched by the opposite view from another lawyer.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I can, indeed, enlighten the House on the total, complete, and utter falsity of that claim. I would not like to know that it was knowingly propagated no fewer than three or four times by the member.

At the time in question, when there were discussions about a possible coalition between the party of the member who just asked the question and the NDP, the NDP asked for six cabinet positions, which is somewhat different from asking for six senators. New Democrats never asked for a senator. We have never wanted a senator in the Senate. When a person appointed to the Senate has claimed to be an NDPer, we have asked that person not to stay in our caucus. It is a complete and utter untruth, and I hope it is not more than that. I hope to see the member rise in the House at some point to correct the record.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

I rise today to present to this House our practical suggestions for making the Senate more accountable to Canadians.

When the Prime Minister and the Conservatives were elected, they promised to reform the Senate. They also promised to clean up the appointments process. Now, seven years later, the only thing that has been done in that regard is that the Prime Minister has appointed 59 senators.

The Liberals and the Conservatives claim that the Senate is essential to our parliamentary system because, in their opinion, the Senate is the chamber of sober second thought and it gives the regions a voice.

In reality, the Senate is a haven for Liberal and Conservative Party organizers, contributors and fundraisers and, most of the time, these individuals act in the interest of their political party. Canadians have had enough and are fed up with the unelected and unaccountable Senate, which is always under investigation.

More and more Canadians agree with the NDP that the Senate should be abolished. Abolishing the Senate has been part of the NDP's broader vision of democratic reform for a long time. This idea is still a key component of our agenda, and more and more Canadians agree with us.

In the meantime, while we work toward abolishing the Senate, the Conservatives and the Liberals must take measures to correct their mistakes because the status quo is no longer good enough. The NDP is standing up for Canadians by moving this motion and proposing practical measures to make the Senate more accountable to Canadians.

There is no acceptable reason for unelected individuals to use taxpayers' money and Senate resources for partisan purposes. The Liberals and the Conservatives are defending the Senate, claiming that it is the chamber of sober second thought.

If that is the case, senators, as appointed rather than elected officials, should drop their partisan talking points and examine legislation in an impartial, non-partisan way. Like judges and other public servants who are also paid by taxpayers, they have a very specific job to do. They should start doing that job in an impartial and non-partisan manner.

Allow me, now, to share with members some very perceptive observations of a century ago, recorded literally half a century ago in Robert Mackay's classic book, The Unreformed Senate of Canada.

The quotation from 1913, published in the The National Review in London, is from a certain gentleman named Professor Stephen Leacock, who stated:

Liberals and Conservatives combined, we made our Senate, not a superior council of the nation, but a refuge of place-hunting politicians and a reward for partisan adherence.

Mr. Mackay, in his book, goes on to say:

Such statements, though rhetorical, are on the whole still true.

He is speaking in 1963.

Appointment of party supporters is an all but unbroken tradition. During his nineteen years of office Sir John Macdonald appointed only one Liberal and one Independent; Sir Wilfrid Laurier appointed none but Liberals...

Mr. MacKay then went on to draw attention to a debate in the House of Commons in 1906, where the prime minister at the time, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was asked the following question:

Does the right hon. gentleman...say that under our present constitution he feels he must select appointees of his own party when choosing them.

That was the question asked of the prime minister, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier responded:

...if I have to select between a Tory and a Liberal, I feel I can serve the country better by appointing a Liberal than a Conservative...

Nothing better conveys the connection between prime ministerial prerogative, patronage, and the undue hyper-partisanship of the chamber we call the Senate.

I end by citing where Mr. MacKay says:

Senatorships have often been granted as pensions to the “deserving poor” among party supporters in the House of Commons and provincial legislatures, or as honours to editors of the faithful press, party organizers, or to contributors to the “war chest.”

What has changed? My colleagues today will lay out how too many current Conservative and Liberal senators fit this tradition all too well. I will not go into those details, but one figure perhaps tells all. In the government's own factum before the Supreme Court in the reference on the question of Senate reform and abolition, the government itself tells us that 95% of the appointments to the Senate since the Senate began have been of persons of the same party as the appointing Prime Minister. Nothing has changed from those quotations from 1913 and 1963.

Canadians would be interested to know about the Senate administrative rules of 2004, which are not online and are not available for Canadians to see unless they go to a special effort to ask for a copy to be sent to them. In chapter 1, clause 3, various principles of parliamentary life are set out:

The following principles of parliamentary life apply in the administration of the Senate:..

(b) partisan activities are an inherent and essential part of the parliamentary functions of a Senator;

How so? I cannot wait to hear today from the members of the other parties how partisanship aids in fulfilling the supposed purposes of the Senate let alone how it is an inherent and essential function. The Senate has not bothered to remove this provision, even though last year it did amend some of the administrative rules on travel. In the principles:

a Senator is entitled to receive financial resources and administrative services to carry out the Senator's parliamentary functions...

Also:

a Senator is entitled to have full discretion over and control of the work performed on the Senator's behalf...in carrying out the [Senator's] parliamentary functions...

The whole question of parliamentary functions continues throughout the rules. Basically, a senator is prohibited from using his or her offices and other resources for anything but parliamentary functions, but the definition and the approach to parliamentary functions throughout the document, and what we know through the long-standing practice of the Senate, is to include almost everything but the kitchen sink. The rules go into some detail to exclude certain things as expenses that can be recovered. For example:

No Senator shall request the copying or printing of material by the Senate that...is partisan because it is on a party letterhead or includes a party logo....

It continues:

A Senator may not charge the following expenses to the Senator's office budget:

(a) payments to partisan organizations;

Wow.

Another provision under travel says that one cannot actually use Senate money to campaign during an outside election.

These specifications are clear in what they exclude. They exclude from partisanship almost nothing. Parliamentary functions of the Senate include almost everything.

I would end there by making one final comment. It is not a lot better, in fact it is no better at all, if senators travel around the country as propagandists for the sitting government. If they go around the country showing up on behalf of the government on the Senate dime, not on the government dime, it is not so different from the way the government is using advertising through government dollars to convey a partisan message. There is so much more I could say, but I will leave it to my hon. colleagues, who will no doubt say it much better than I.

[Election of Committee Chairs, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Toronto—Danforth, and the parliamentary and democratic reform critic for the NDP, I am pleased to stand and speak again on Motion No. 431, moved by my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt. It is a simple and worthwhile motion. It is also an especially welcome motion coming from a Conservative MP, and I would hazard a guess, without the full support of the government, at least at the moment.

I would emphasize in my remarks, to take up the offer of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, general parliamentary reform, which his motion could help nurture.

With respect to this particular motion, it is important to note that it would be something that would temper the dominating influence of the Prime Minister's Office, and other parties' central apparatus, on aspects of parliamentary life and MPs themselves. I see that as a knock-on effect to the motion that needs to be taken into account.

I would also note that, partly along the lines of comments we heard earlier from the members for Saanich—Gulf Islands and Kings—Hants, the last two years have given rise to certain concerns on the part of the opposition about how some committees have been working. It does appear that some chairs have been unable to manage committee business in such a way as to give members a fair opportunity to prepare for meetings involving witnesses or to present amendments with sufficient notice. Those are just minor examples.

I was earlier looking across the way at the chair for PROC, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, and most assuredly I am not speaking of that hon. member, who is chairing PROC with prowess, good faith, and in the spirit of what we want to see with elected chairs.

The NDP is in favour of improving a number of parliamentary practices to achieve a better balance between legislative and executive power and to relax the strict control that has evolved over the years, not simply under the current government, of the Prime Minister's Office over parliamentary life. Even though some parliamentary reforms and some of the ones I am about to mention are more of a priority than the one currently before us, there is nothing stopping us from taking a serious look at the issue of House election of committee chairs.

The NDP has always advocated for a more open and more transparent democracy. I believe that Canadians know that. This study would have the benefit of helping stimulate debate on the wider issue of healthy democratic practice, both on this particular issue and on wider questions on the openness and transparency of Parliament in general. For that reason, as a member of PROC, I look forward to participating in the process, if indeed this motion is adopted, and, as I have made clear, I hope it is.

As noted, it is PROC that would be examining this motion, if passed. The study would be added to an already fairly long list of proposed amendments this committee has before it to examine with respect to the functioning of the House of Commons. Given that the initiative here before us is from the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, perhaps we will see more interest in these general parliamentary reform questions from the Conservative MPs who are his colleagues, and perhaps even from the party as a whole, which is presently in government. We will see, obviously.

Let me now talk about some of these parliamentary reforms the current motion would help us focus on as well at some point. The first would be to limit the systematic use, and I have to say, unfortunately, abuse of in camera proceedings in committees, which decreases transparency and the impartiality with which committees can do their work.

The NDP has taken the lead on this most recently. Last Thursday we announced that each one of the committees of the House would be presented with the following motion related to in camera proceedings by NDP members.

Each committee will be asked to adopt a motion that states:

That the Committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing:

(a) wages, salaries and other employee benefits;

(b) contracts and contract negotiations;

(c) labour relations and personnel matters;

(d) draft reports;

(e) briefings concerning national security;

Added to the motion was the following:

That all votes taken in camera be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested.

This is one effort on our part to do something that parallels the effort of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, who has expressed his concern that perceptions of how Parliament works are as important as how Parliament actually works. The perception of what the generalized practice of so frequently going in camera has done to this House really has to be taken seriously.

A second reform would limit the government's use, and I would say again, abuse, of time allocation motions to stop the party in power, especially a majority power, obviously, from systematically limiting debate in the House of Commons. In this regard, it is important to note the November 2011 motion moved by the NDP member for Windsor—Tecumseh, which would give the Speaker of the House of Commons the authority to determine whether the grounds for the time allocation were, in fact, reasonable.

A third reform would create some discipline over the use of prorogation. I do not think I have to actually add “and abuse of prorogation” in the chamber. Most people would know that this follows with recent practice. We know how often it has been abused by the present Prime Minister and in the past by other prime ministers, such as when Jean Chrétien prorogued to take the heat off him during one phase of the Liberal corruption scandal around sponsorship money. No doubt we can find ways to structure the Governor General's discretion by legislation, but one initial reform would at least prevent the government from using prorogation as a cloak for shutting down Parliament without having to at least get Parliament's support.

It is for that reason that in March 2010, the former leader of the NDP and of the official opposition for a period in 2011, Jack Layton, tabled a motion, which was adopted by the House, that required that the Prime Minister “shall not advise the Governor General to prorogue any session of any Parliament for longer than seven calendar days without a specific resolution of the House of Commons to support such prorogation”. Last week I attempted to seek unanimous consent to move this motion again and reaffirm it, but unfortunately, there was no such support in the House. I believe that we should be looking seriously at this quite minor reform, in the broader scheme of things, at least to get us looking at the whole institution of prorogation.

A fourth reform would modernize the process for tabling petitions to allow for online petitions and perhaps to allow the House to get somewhat creative with what we do with petitions. What kinds of proceedings in the House might be triggered by such petitions, or e-petitions? As most in the chamber will know, a motion moved in February by my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, seeks to have the procedure and House affairs committee design such a system. I would encourage all members of the chamber, including my colleagues opposite, to support that motion or to at least give it very serious consideration.

A fifth reform would involve the reform of the procedure for making amendments in committee. This may not be just a procedural reform but may actually involve a cultural change. On the current Prime Minister's watch, in particular, almost none of the opposition's amendments in various committees seem to be able to make their way through to acceptance. This would be tied, of course, to overall greater independence of committees from the government, which is not at all distant from the rationale of the motion before us.

To conclude, these are only a few of many dozens of reforms that, collectively, those of us in the House could come up with that could make the functioning of the House and the perception of the House by the public much better than is currently the case. We need to change the prevailing parliamentary culture and resuscitate and deepen certain parliamentary traditions of collegiality, cross-party co-operation in the public interest, and civility. I believe that the motion by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt would contribute to that process, and for that reason, I will be particularly happy to support it.

[Election of Committee Chairs, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from across the aisle for again delivering an engaging speech. As a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, I do hope that the motion passes and that we will have a chance to study it.

My question is simple. Can the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt let us know whether he has drawn any particular lessons of his own from how a system such as he is proposing may have operated in any other Westminster system to this point? That is one of the points we would look at in the procedure and House affairs committee, but are signs good that this kind of system can work?

[Ethics, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we did not hear any answers to simple questions on the Wright-Duffy affair. I would like to ask a simple question. Has anybody in the PMO been contacted by the RCMP with respect to their investigation into the Wright-Duffy affair?

[Pensions, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, most seniors retiring today will not have the pension savings that experts recommend for a comfortable retirement. Sylvester wrote to me to say fixed pensions cannot compete with the rapid increases in the cots of living.

Jane had this to say: “As a senior renting an apartment in your riding my main concerns are affordable housing and security as a tenant. My rent rose 2.3% this year but my savings earned much less. I am not keeping up with inflation”.

The NDP is calling for concrete measures to increase the financial security of retirees. We must boost the coverage of the CPP, return OAS eligibility to age 65 from 67, increase the GIS to raise all seniors out of poverty and ensure that persons with disabilities receive adequate continuing support when they switch from provincial benefit plans to the federal pension plans.

Allow me to end by thanking all of the organizations in my riding of Toronto—Danforth that are continuously fighting for better living standards for seniors.

[Privilege, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, based on your ruling of a prima facie case of privilege, I move:

That the matter of the question of privilege related to the dispute between Elections Canada and the member for Selkirk—Interlake be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.