Craig Scott

[Jack Layton, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the inspiring story of the late Jack Layton, the former leader of the federal NDP and my predecessor in Toronto—Danforth, is captured in a brand new movie, which is simply and appropriately titled Jack.

It is a moving film about a man's love for Canadians and Canada and his eternal optimism that by working together, we can build a better country.

As my friend Jack used to say, if we work together, we can create a fairer and more equitable Canada.

The movie will be airing this Sunday, March 10, at 8 p.m. across the country, and at 8:30 p.m. on the east coast.

I would like to salute the efforts of the producer of the movie, Laszlo Barna, his immensely talented crew and the CBC for making the movie possible. It is my sincere hope and belief that Jack's story and this movie will motivate us all to work together for a better and more caring society.

As Jack said, “Let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic and we will change the world.”

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was very well done, informative and well argued. At the same time, is he not being a little defeatist in his clear understanding that it is impossible to abolish the Senate? It is ultimately, yes, in the hands of the provinces and the people of the provinces, but we owe it to Canadians to work with the provinces to try to persuade them, assisted by Canadians in their outrage about what the Senate now represents.

If the Supreme Court does say 7/50 is the formula, it does become possible. I grant that if it is unanimous consent, it becomes very difficult, but 7/50 it is possible. As my colleague, the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Quebec just reminded me, Jack Layton always reminded Canadians, “don't let them tell you it can't be done”. With that in mind, is the member absolutely certain, for example, that Quebec would never support the idea of abolition?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the hon. minister could respond to a couple of comments.

The first is with respect to the House leader's attempt to seek unanimous consent and now the attempt by the minister, which is an obvious stunt. I just put that on the record. It is completely against the rule of law, even before going to committee with such an incredibly complex bill. That is clearly unconstitutional in that the government itself wants clarification from the Supreme Court. He wants the House to unanimously consent to a bill before the Supreme Court has told us whether it is constitutional. He knows it cannot be operationalized until we hear that. It is a stunt.

In terms of opening the Constitution, the Conservatives have done this without consulting the provinces. The bill they have put forward pretending that Parliament can pass it on its own is clearly unconstitutional. It is a complete disregard for the rule of law. The Prime Minister has done this as a cloak to be able to appoint 58 senators over the last six years.

This business about our wanting to appoint senators is complete nonsense. There is no need to appoint senators on the road to abolition. There can be vacancies in that House. They can be left open as we work toward abolition. We will work with existing senators while making sure the entire Senate knows it is illegitimate to block the will of the House.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, and I respect greatly the hon. member who has posed it, the work he has done for Canada, and where this question comes from. However, I profoundly disagree with the assumption that we know what Canadians and provinces, through their representatives, think on this matter. Things have changed a lot of late. Canadians are sick and tired of dysfunctional parliamentary politics. They understand that this House needs reform; they understand that the electoral system needs reform. They also understand that the Senate is a useless institution.

Coming from the province that the member represents through his own constituency, I say he should not presume to know what that provincial government's position will be on the question of abolition. Things can change, for example. Let us wait to see what will result from dialogue and talking to the provinces. If it turns out that abolition requires unanimous consent, his point will be well-taken; it will be difficult. However, if it is 7/50, it is going to be extremely possible to do.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before being a very privileged resident of Toronto—Danforth for the last 23 years, I came from Nova Scotia. I am completely confident that Atlantic Canadians, no different from other Canadians, understand what the Senate really is and that it has no representative function for them. It does not play that role.

That said, we have to listen to the provinces: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, in the Maritimes, and Newfoundland. We have to listen to what the provinces have to say through their own political processes. If indeed they want the Senate to remain, we are going to have to listen. However, I do not believe that is the sentiment, either politically or among the populace in Atlantic Canada. It is consultation that will determine that, not running away from talking to the provinces, which is the mode of the Prime Minister.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government of Canada, in consultation with the provinces and territories, should take immediate steps towards abolishing the unelected and unaccountable Senate of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to roll up the red carpet. It is my honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Toronto—Danforth to speak to this motion, which I will restate:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government of Canada, in consultation with the provinces and territories, should take immediate steps towards abolishing the unelected and unaccountable Senate of Canada.

To that motion I would like to add that the official opposition is fully prepared and ready to co-operate with the government in this task of consulting with the provinces and territories. We have enough experience with co-operation. Our leader, the member for Outremont, has led the way in starting to talk to the provinces as a mode of co-operative federalism. The means by which the Senate will be abolished can only proceed through that avenue.

The NDP has, since its very inception, been firmly in support of Senate abolition. Indeed, calls for abolition also came from our predecessor, the CCF. The NDP has also long believed that the people of Canada should be consulted as part of the abolition process. This remains important, but we need to start here, in the House of Commons. We need to send an extremely strong signal that the time has come. We are at a historic moment. People have come to realize that the Senate is an archaic, otiose institution, but we have to start here, in the House of Commons, and send the signal and begin to work with the provinces and territories, something it seems our Prime Minister seems allergic to.

Before I continue, I should say that I am going to be splitting my time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

It is important to note that the government has put a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the question of abolition is one of the questions. It is also important to clear up confusion. The Supreme Court will not be deciding one way or the other whether the Senate should be abolished. That is a political decision we are starting to initiate here, but it will tell us what the correct amending formula under the Constitution is. There is debate on that. It is almost certain that it is not less than 7/50; that is, seven provinces with 50% of the population. The Constitutional Amendments act will also come into play where certain provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, have to be involved in the amendment. However, it could also be unanimous consent of the provinces along with the federal Parliament. We will wait to see what the Supreme Court says. We will be very interested to see what the Supreme Court says.

The key is to note that with either of those formulas—unanimous consent or 7/50—ultimately the Senate does not have to consent to its own abolishment. With either of those formulas, the Senate can resist, according to the 1982 Constitution Act, but it cannot ultimately block its own abolition, unlike the method the Prime Minister is using with his Bill C-7, in which he is purporting to amend the Constitution by only going to the Parliament with an ill-conceived scheme, when he knows that the Senate's consent is necessary. Under that form of amendment, amendment by the Parliament of Canada alone—which again is not applicable here, and the Prime Minister knows it; that is why he has finally gone to the Supreme Court to get clarity—we need the Senate's consent.

It is a nice turn that the Supreme Court will tell us which amending formula applies, and when we eventually work with the provinces to get the necessary number of provinces and legislatures on board, we will not ultimately be blocked by our friends in the Senate.

Like an Edsel, the Senate was obsolete almost from the moment it was built. Somehow, however, this one is still on the road. However, its lights are broken, the body is totally corroded, the wheels are wobbly and the engine has all but been seized up by dirty oil. It may still have a very plush interior, but it is time to send it to the scrapyard.

The Senate has long ceased to have any meaningful connection to the supposed original reasons for its existence. One of those reasons is the principle of representing the regions, four different regions, and the provinces within the regions.

From as early as the 1930s, reaffirmed in the 1950s and the 1960s, commentators noted that this never was a function seriously carried out by the Senate. It was not built for that. It did not operate in that way. Indeed, over time, in fact, very early on, it was the Privy Council, and it was then taken over by the Supreme Court of Canada, that served as the institution that protected federalism within our constitutional structure. We do not need the Senate for that purpose.

Only a handful of senators, 12, 15 or perhaps 20, make a serious contribution to sober second thought, which is the other major function. They do good work. They are assisted by good staff. They are conscientious. I can bet that they resent the presence of many of their colleagues in the Senate who have brought this institution down around their own ears.

There are good senators. We hope to work with those senators if abolition does not occur before this party forms government in 2015. There are good senators we hope to work with, and I believe we will work with, who generally act in a thoughtful, non-partisan fashion but who, most important, realize, whatever their political stripe—very strongly Conservative, very strongly Liberal, independent—that the Senate is an illegitimate body when it comes to blocking bills coming from the House of Commons. It is those senators with whom we will work on the road to abolition and in any period in which we have to govern with the Senate still in place.

Meanwhile, last year, while whatever the number of senators, 100 or so with the few vacancies that are still there, basked in the comfort of, frankly, sinecure, appearing on average 56 days a year in the Senate, we in the House of Commons were doing the work for the people of Canada.

It is important to note all the controversy over residence and everything else, which my colleagues will speak to in more detail. The senators have no constituency responsibilities, yet they have budgets and they spend much more than we do, frankly, when we add up all their travel expenses. They have no constituency responsibilities. Nobody expects them to engage in that, and they do not do it, yet many of them roam around the country, racking up the miles with no role on the ground that has any legitimacy, and—I will not say “except”—they are great fundraisers. We know many senators come from fundraising backgrounds. They come from a party background. They are there only as a favour for what they did for their party in the past, and they continue in that role.

One of the most significant features of what I would call the structural corruption of the Senate—I am not going to the ethics of individual senators; I am talking about the structural corruption of the body—is how it has served and continues to serve as the means by which two parties, in particular, send out a virtual phalanx of publicly paid individuals to raise money for their parties. One party is doing that a lot better than the other these days. I acknowledge that. The party in power uses its senators extremely deftly. I would be extremely interested to know what, for example, an Auditor General's audit of the Senate would reveal about the use of parliamentary travel funds for fundraising purposes. Let us just say that the Senate is very good at hiding the reasons for travel. At the moment, we do not know the exact reasons some senators have racked up amazing travel budgets.

I indicated at the beginning that the Senate is, frankly, an Edsel. It is an Edsel in a couple of respects. From the beginning, thoughtful commentators knew that it would be a hyperpartisan body that would not be fulfilling the functions originally envisaged.

I would like to read from a wonderfully named book, The Unreformed Senate of Canada, page 45, an objection from the opposition at the time, in 1866-1867, by David Reesor, when he said:

[W]e know what the tendency is in England, and what it was in this country when the Government had the appointment of the...Legislative Council; the effect will be to find a place in this House for men distinguished for the aid they have given at elections to certain men or parties, and not as a reward of true merit or legislative ability.

Nothing has changed, nor have the words of Sir John A. Macdonald. He said:

There should be a large property qualification for the Upper house which is then the representative of property.

The Senate, having voted down the former leader's climate change accountability act, has shown that it is the continuation of the defence of property that Sir John A. Macdonald wanted the institution to be so many years ago. It is time for that to end.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleague gave an extremely informative debate with respect to putting this bill in the context of previous legislation.

I wonder if he could elaborate a bit on his concern that the courts do not really have the expertise to engage in what the bill seems to want them to do. I would be grateful if he could inform us a bit more on that point.

[Ethics, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government is circling the wagons to defend the Senate's cozy entitlements.

The government is deliberately telescoping the Constitution's archaic property qualifications onto residence requirements.

On February 9, retired Senator Lowell Murray stated that if any senator files an income return in a province that he or she is not representing in the Senate, “Then they are finished”. His is a respected voice. Why is this Conservative government so deceitfully distorting its responsibility to uphold the Constitution?

[Clarity Act, February 28th, 2013]

The hon. member for Outremont

...was there with me in the trenches, fighting for Canadian unity and passionately making the case then - as he does now - for Canada, in Quebec.

He then goes on to say:

When the so-called Clarity Act was adopted by Parliament in 2000, some federalists breathed a sigh of relief. We were told this was the solution to repeated attempts by Quebec sovereigntists to break up the country we cherish.... But the new law failed to provide clarity and became yet another flash point in the ongoing constitutional debate.... But with a clear question, 50 per cent plus one becomes the unambiguous and democratic expression of the electorate. As the Supreme Court made clear, if we agree that Canada must be held together by motivating its people to stay together, and not by force, then there is no other path. So how do we so motivate them? For one thing, we pass clear laws that avoid the kind of arbitrary after-the-fact shifting of the goalposts that has been met with such anger by Quebeckers. Independentists in Quebec have few effective battle horses left, which is why they're trying to exploit this issue, as we see with the Bloc Quebecois motion in the House of Commons. As a federalist, my message to all Canadians who want this country to stay together is simple: Let's not help the Bloc by perpetuating the confusions of the Clarity Act. This is why I believe that rewriting this act to add clarity is helpful to the cause of unity.

I can only subscribe to the comments of Charles Taylor.

[Clarity Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my honour to rise to speak in this debate and say a few words on Bill C-470, An Act respecting democratic constitutional change, which is part of the NDP's forward-looking vision for Canadian provinces and the federal government, alongside territorial and aboriginal governments, to work together toward building an even stronger country than we have now.

As I said when tabling the bill, the NDP is all about building sustainable and co-operative relationships as the essence of a democratic federalism.

Since the NDP adopted the Sherbrooke Declaration under the leadership of Jack Layton in 2006, it has clearly indicated its desire to play a leading role in establishing a constructive relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

That is why Quebeckers, embracing Jack Layton's unifying vision, elected almost 60 NDP members.

Bill C-470 rejects the bill tabled by the Bloc Québécois, which seeks to repeal the Clarity Act, the result of which would be a legal void on the question of secession.

At the same time, the NDP supports the idea that fair and clear rules for democratic constitutional change deserve to be in place, and so we focused on replacing the problematic Clarity Act with a framework that is more faithful to the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in the Quebec secession reference, a vision oriented to unifying and not dividing Canada.

The bill also reflects the House of Commons recognition in 2006 that the Québécois constitute a nation within a united Canada.

The NDP appears to be the only party in this House that believes that the will of Parliament, as expressed in that motion, cannot be treated as empty words.

It is very important to know that the focus of this bill is not simply secession but more the recognition of Quebec's aspiration to have its distinctiveness much better integrated into Canadian federal arrangements. The bill applies to democratic constitutional changes of all sorts. It could just as well outline the process for a rapprochement of Quebec with the Constitution Act of 1982, therefore helping to build a stronger Canada.

Let me be clear about one thing. I firmly believe that secession is made less likely by this bill, in comparison to the approach taken in the Clarity Act.

Bill C-470 emphasizes the importance of any referendum question being both clear and fairly determined. Unlike the Clarity Act, for example, our bill places emphasis on clear questions by suggesting wording that would prevent misleading statements or confusion on the meaning of the question. Because of the clarity of a question like “Should Quebec separate and become a sovereign country?”, and also because a simple majority is the threshold for triggering negotiations, voters will know exactly what is at stake when casting their vote, and they will take their vote very seriously.

I would like to share a few words from Charles Taylor, who is probably Canada's leading moral and political philosopher of the last half century. He wrote the following in The Globe and Mail:

Let me be clear: I am a federalist and a Quebecker. I campaigned on the No side in 1980 and 1995. And Thomas Mulcair was there with us in the trenches, fighting—