Kevin Lamoureux

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there are a great deal of students across Canada who are quite concerned with regard to a potential impact of the bill if it were to pass as is. Would the member expand on this point?

For years, thousands of university students have done their reports and their studies at university. Now there is this whole cloud of confusion regarding what the obligation is as to whether they can retain their notes.

Could the member comment on the point that the legislation seems to imply that students will have to get rid of their studies after a 30-day period of time?

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Report, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to what has just taken place. I look at the order paper where it says that debate is limited to two hours, pursuant to section 28(11) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. That is reflecting the amount of debate that should have been allowed on this particular issue.

That is the reason I stand on a point of order. It is important to note that the NDP had moved a motion that was supposed to be entitled to two hours of debate and before any other member was even afforded the opportunity to speak to the motion, the government, using its majority, made the—

[Senate Reform Act, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to come to Winnipeg North and we will host a public meeting so he can hear first hand.

I suggest that if he goes into a local legion or a local hall, he will find a good number of people cannot even list their school trustees, their local city councillors or their members of Parliament, which might be a little difficult on our egos.

Generally speaking, we have to cut a little slack, provide a few more facts on the table, approach it with an open mind and see the value that the Senate could contribute in the future. That is the challenge, and I know it is a big challenge for the New Democratic Party.

[Senate Reform Act, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. In a nutshell, we would have figured the government would have conducted consultations.

With regard to the provinces conducting elections, under the bill that cost would be passed on to the provinces. The provinces would have to come up with the funding.

I was on the task force for the province Manitoba. In the dialogue we had with the Conservatives and the NDP, they insisted that Ottawa should pay for it, not the provinces. We can tell the government really has not done the consultation that one would have expected prior to introducing the bill to the chamber.

[Senate Reform Act, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that would have to be taken into consideration is this. If we move toward any form of elected Senate and we dissolve the power or the authority to see those senators getting elected to the provinces, there will be a very important aspect in terms of spending limits and the degree to which a senator will be able to receive corporate or union donations. There will be a whole new realm of responsibilities regarding the finances.

The legislation before us does not really touch on that. This is just a thought that the Prime Minister had so he could go back to western Canada and say that the government wanted more democracy and this bill would do that.

The bill falls short by a long shot. If the Prime Minister were legitimately concerned and wanted to make a difference, he would first deal with the most important issues, such as jobs, health care and so forth. However, this will really involve constitutional reform.

[Senate Reform Act, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the New Democrats is they have an issue of consistency and an issue with regard to hypocrisy. At the end of the day, the New Democrats, because they believe they can capture more votes by slamming the Senate, says who cares about the real value of the Senate, that it does not matter. They believe they can score a political votes.

The reality of the situation is, and even one of the member's colleagues earlier today said this, that 35% or 36% of Canadians support abolishing the Senate. However, a majority of Canadians see the value of the Senate, unlike the New Democrats.

We recognize the importance in the role that the Senate can play into the future. We in the Liberal Party are not prepared to write off the future of the Senate because the New Democrats feel that they can score a few political votes as a result of the position they have taken.

[Senate Reform Act, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member was quite right when he said that jobs and the economy are what are important to Canadians today. There is no doubt about that.

The bill before us tries to provide a bit of hope in terms of democratic reform but in reality that is not the case.

I was living on the Prairies back in the 1990s during the time of the Reform Party. There was a sense of the need to reform the Senate back then. New Democrats were saying that the Senate had to be abolished. The Reform Party wanted an equal, elected and effective Senate. There was an expectation that the Reformers, now known as the Conservatives, were going to make huge gains in terms of achieving a triple-E Senate. Truth be known, the government has failed in its delivery of a triple-E Senate.

There is a great deal of merit in looking at the most effective way for the Senate to operate. There is a great deal of value to the Senate.

I participated in an all-party task force in the province of Manitoba. We toured the entire province, from Flin Flon to Russell to Winnipeg. We listened to many presenters talk about Senate reform. There was no unanimous opinion that it had to be an elected Senate or that it had to be abolished. Many believed there was merit in having an appointed Senate.

It would be wonderful for us to deal with the issue of the Senate in a more open fashion as to what value a reformed Senate could have.

Some New Democratic colleagues have no problem bashing the Senate. They would abolish it, even though the majority of Canadians see the value of the Senate. To say that it is useless and does absolutely nothing is just not fair.

The Senate has done many studies and reports of great value. There was reference to a couple of them in the last hour of debate. There have been reports regarding poverty in Canada, mental health, palliative care. The Senate has taken upon itself to investigate these issues and to provide information and input in terms of government policy, policy which could save millions of dollars.

One concern that was mentioned earlier by a New Democratic member of Parliament was the cost of $100 million. The NDP has no problem increasing the number of members of Parliament from 308 to 338 which has a substantial cost. Those members thought there should be even more members of Parliament. The cost of the Senate is not necessarily the issue. The bigger issue is the value. There are a great many Canadians who, if provided the opportunity to be representatives in the Senate, could serve our country well.

I have had the opportunity to sit down with Senator Carstairs. I have had the opportunity to listen to other senators present at an all-party committee. What sort of feedback was provided and some of the things that came from the committee can be found in the Manitoba Hansard. A Senate page and several senators and lay people participated at the committee. What members of all political parties found was interesting was that there was a sense that the Senate has some value.

Time is a very scarce commodity for parliamentarians. In fact, time management is a very important issue for each and every one of us in the House. The Senate on occasion represents Canada outside Canada and has done notable work on the democracy front. I am aware of some of the efforts Senator Carstairs has been involved in personally as a senator representing Canada. She has gone abroad to countries like the Philippines on a democracy watch, to look at why some individuals are incarcerated. I have heard many touching stories of how our senators have gone abroad to represent Parliament and Canadians.

Let us look at the types of appointments to the Senate that we have seen in the past. Who would question the appointment of Senator Dallaire? He is an incredible individual who has a great deal to offer in the Senate chamber and in committees. His position as a senator affords better opportunities to travel across Canada and talk about the issues that are important to all Canadians.

There is a great deal of value to the Senate. Some members have said there are premiers and MLAs to ensure that regional interests are being represented. I will use the Canadian Wheat Board as a great example. There are three prairie premiers and I would challenge each and every one of them to come to the House of Commons committees. Where were they on the whole issue of saving the Canadian Wheat Board? There was representation from at least a couple of senators who wanted to deal with this issue. They see it as a regional issue.

I do not have any problem with Senate reform; in fact, I encourage it. Let us recognize that in order to achieve Senate reform we have to look at it in terms of changes to the Constitution. Today, the vast majority of Canadians do not want us to be debating the Constitution and the need for constitutional reform. They want us to be talking about jobs, the economy, health care, and seniors' pensions. Those are the issues they want us to be talking about today.

The government has brought forward a bill. It says it is about democratic reform and that in order to achieve this the provinces are going to have to pay for the election of senators inside each province. In my province and from the task force that I was on, I can tell the government, and it can do its own consultation with the New Democrats and the Conservatives there, the feeling is that Ottawa should be paying for the election of senators.

The government needs to refocus on the whole idea of Senate reform. Today, I think we need to focus on the issues that matter most to Canadians, the issues which I just mentioned.

[Senate Reform Act, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly straightforward question.

If a majority of Canadians wanted to see the Senate retained, but changed so that there would be more value to it, what would the position of the New Democratic Party then be? Would it still oppose and want to abolish it, even if a majority of Canadians wanted to retain it?

[Senate Reform Act, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to tour the province of Manitoba on a Senate reform committee. It was a committee that was dominated by the New Democratic Party and what we heard time and again was that there is great potential value to a reformed Senate, that we do not have to abolish the Senate, and that there is great value in terms of reforming it.

My NDP colleague in the front row made reference to Michael Kirby's mental health report. I could talk about Sharon Carstairs' palliative care. There are a number of examples that are there where the Senate has provided fine work which has been accepted by provincial jurisdictions and been acknowledged outside of the House, outside of Parliament Hill.

Does the member not recognize that adding value to the Senate is achievable if the political will were there? To abolish it is to wipe out the opportunity to get some gains that we would not be able to achieve, that only an appointed Senate can, such as looking for senators with an expertise to contribute to the many works that could still be done. Yes to reform, but does it have to be abolished?

[Points of Order, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I would be inclined to disagree with the government representative.

As has been cited by my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the House does have a role to play when a committee is behaving in the manner in which it is currently behaving. He articulated quite well why it is that we have a role to play. We need to recognize the whole issue that was brought up by the member for Peterborough. One could look at it in terms of the motivations. However, for now let us strictly speak in terms of what has actually taken place because of this motion.

We all recognize the importance of judicial independence and respect for our courts. We recognize the role played by the law clerk and parliamentary counsel. We also recognize the role that we play in the House and the role that our committees are supposed to play. At times, I suspect we see actions that are lacking in respect of one of those jurisdictions. I believe, as the NDP House leader has pointed out, that we have witnessed that taking place over the last little while.

It is true that our standing committees have a great deal of freedom and discretion to do a wide variety of things. We do not question that; rather, we encourage it. However, when a committee crosses the line it is our responsibility to look into the matter and ensure that corrective action is taken. That is why we within the Liberal Party support the point that has been brought forward by the New Democratic House leader.

I would suggest the House does have the authority to look over what has taken place in the committee and to take action in order to make sure that there is respect for judicial independence. We know that the issue before us is before the Federal Court. There is ongoing litigation. A lot of details will be put before the court. To be open and fair, to have the committee perform in the way in which it has been shows a lack of respect for that judicial independence.

I will quote specifically from Mr. Walsh, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, who stated:

A Committee should not, in my view, take on the role of a court--or even appear to take on the role of a court--by addressing whether the position taken by a party to a pending legal dispute is correct. To do so is to encroach upon--or appear to encroach upon--the constitutional function of the courts which would offend the sub judice convention, the principle of the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative functions and possibly call into question the validity of the Committee's proceedings.

Mr. Walsh is not a partisan individual. He is indeed the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. We should all make note of what he is saying and acknowledge that the committee has gone too far.

I make reference to the motion itself. One could call into question its motivation. To say the least, we all know that the government has not been friendly in terms of the CBC. Many within the government's ranks would like to see the demise of the CBC. I believe there might be a hidden agenda behind that motion. That is why I believe that, at the end of the day, we have to ensure that the right thing is done here.

Mr. Speaker, the government has stepped over the line. We suggest that the government do the honourable thing because I suspect that it has put you and others in a fairly awkward position.

I believe that if the government read the letter that our law clerk has provided, it would come to the same conclusions as the Liberals and the New Democrats already have, and that is that the motion is not appropriate.

In coming up with that conclusion, I would suggest that the government House leader and the government of the day would be doing a service to the House if they would just agree to withdraw or suspend, do whatever is necessary in order to resolve this matter so that we are more in keeping with the spirit of the importance of judicial independence and respect of our courts.

We stand in support of the point of order that has been raised by the House leader of the official opposition.