Mathieu Ravignat

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, getting rid of its funding is not an issue that is before the Supreme Court.

The motion, and I am sure my hon. colleague has read it, is about cutting the funding to the Senate, and that is completely possible.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, from coast to coast to coast, I have had support for this motion from ordinary Canadians. It is not all that difficult to recognize that spending $92.5 million on a House in which the majority of people do not do their job is not worth taxpayers' money.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what I do understand is that we can always count on a Liberal to defend entitlements and patronage. That is exactly what the Liberals are doing. That is exactly what their leader did. Canadians deserve better. They deserve that the institution be put to bed.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what I can tell my hon. colleague is that all it has been is inaction for the last two years on behalf of the Conservative government. Conservatives were elected on a promise they would do something about the Senate. What have they done? Nothing.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2013]

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

I am pleased to rise in the House to begin debate on my motion regarding funding for the Senate.

As hon. members know, the Senate dates back to the time of Confederation. The Fathers of Confederation gave that chamber the mission of reviewing and improving legislation passed by the House of Commons. The Senate was also designed to ensure that the provinces and regions are represented in the federal legislative process. Thus, the Constitution Act of 1867 divides the country into four regions—Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and the western provinces—and sets out the number of senators that represent each of those regions.

That was the vision, but the problem is that the Fathers of Confederation also decided that the Senate would be made up of unelected, partisan members. That is the problem. Unfortunately, there is a fundamental contradiction between the duties of the Senate and its partisan nature. This contradiction has now become a democratic crisis. We are at a turning point in the history of this institution and the democracy of our country. Today, senators more and more frequently vote along party lines rather than in the interest of the region that they are supposed to be representing. What is more, they refuse to pass bills that were carefully considered by the House and its committees.

Unfortunately, today, many of the senators were appointed to the Senate not on their merit, but as payback for their loyal service to the party in power. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have both appointed defeated candidates, campaign managers, close friends and party donors to the Senate.

We can talk at length about the democratic deficiencies of this outdated institution, but as the Treasury Board critic, I will let my colleagues add their important contribution to the debate and focus instead on the financial side of the issue.

Before moving this motion I asked myself the following questions: is the Senate a good deal? Is the Senate a good investment for Canadian taxpayers? I will show in the rest of my speech that the answer to these questions is a categorical no.

The reality is that the Senate costs Canadians a lot of money, more than $90 million a year. While the Conservatives have reduced the House of Commons budget, the budget of the duly elected members, they have just increased the Senate budget to a total of $92.5 million.

We are spending $92.5 million for an upper chamber when the provincial senates have been abolished since 1968. The provinces are getting along quite well without a senate. No one has convinced me that the difference between federal and provincial governance is enough to justify spending $92 million for a senate.

I would also remind Canadians that the senators worked only 71 days last year, roughly three months out of 12, and that they earn a salary of more than $130,000 a year, in addition to all their benefits. What is more, 31 senators were absent for 25% of those 71 working days.

As incredible as it may seem, it takes the annual taxes paid by more than 8,000 families to pay for the Senate. Just by way of example, the total of other shady expenses, in other words, those claimed by Senator Wallin, are equivalent to the federal taxes paid by 28 Canadian families. The senator's $350,000 in travel expenses would be enough to pay for old age security for 57 seniors for one year.

Between now and the end of his term, Senator Duffy, who is at the centre of a scandal, will pocket a further $1.3 million in salary. Between now and the end of his term, Mr. Brazeau, who is himself involved in a scandal, will earn $7 million. The total future payroll for the senators appointed by the Prime Minister is $116 million.

Senator absenteeism has become a problem. The average number of days worked by a senator in 2011-12 was only 56, which is not even two months of work.

If that is not convincing enough, several senators are double-dipping by claiming a residence that they do not really use.

According to the Constitution, senators must reside in the province they represent. Under section 31 of the Constitution Act of 1867, a senator's seat shall become vacant if “he ceases to be qualified in respect of property or of residence”.

Senators must also own a minimum of $4,000 worth of land in their home province, and according to internal regulations at the Senate, senators who live more than 100 kilometres from Ottawa are entitled to be reimbursed for travel expenses and to a $21,000 annual housing allowance.

The problem is that several senators have declared second residences in Ottawa when these residences are actually their primary places of residence.

For example, in 2012 Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau declared that his primary residence was in Maniwaki, Quebec, thus enabling him to claim a housing allowance for a secondary residence in the national capital region. Maniwaki is 130 kilometres from Ottawa. Media reports indicate that the residence in question is in fact the home of Patrick Brazeau's father. Brazeau resigned from the Conservative caucus and is now sitting as an independent.

On May 9, the Deloitte audit and the Senate committee on internal economy's report ordered Senator Brazeau to repay $48,000 in unjustifiable claims.

Another Conservative senator, Pamela Wallin, is supposed to represent Saskatchewan, but her primary residence is in Toronto and she holds an Ontario health insurance card. Since 2010 she has claimed $300,000 worth of travel expenses not related to travel to her province of origin and has been seen at numerous Conservative fundraising events.

In question period on February 13, 2013, the Prime Minister confirmed that he had seen the senator's travel expenses and that they were normal.

However, Deloitte is still examining the senator's expenses. On May 17, 2013, the senator left the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent.

Mike Duffy is supposed to represent Prince Edward Island, where he owns a cottage, but he does not have a P.E.I. health insurance card. His primary residence is in Ontario. On March 26, Deloitte confirmed they had received a letter from Mike Duffy's lawyer stating that Duffy had repaid $90,000 and would no longer participate in the audit, and we know how that went.

All of these senators were named by the current Prime Minister, but to show that the problem is not limited to the governing party, Liberal Senator Mac Harb has claimed $31,237 in living expenses since 2010. Even though he is supposed to represent the riding of Ottawa Centre in the House of Commons, he has not been living in Ottawa for a long time and has now confirmed that he lives in Pembroke, Ontario, a 90-minute drive from Ottawa.

Deloitte's audit and the Senate committee on internal economy's report made public on May 9 ordered Mac Harb to repay $51,000, after which the senator resigned from the Liberal caucus in shame.

These are only examples that we know of, and the secretive way the Senate functions may very well mean that there are hidden abuses that we do not know about. These cases may just be the tip of the iceberg.

In his 2012 audit of Senate expenses, the Auditor General audited the housing allowance and travel expense claims for a number of senators. The Auditor General recommended as follows:

The Senate Administration should ensure that it has sufficient documentation to clearly demonstrate that expenses are appropriate.

We on this side of the House agree with him, but this is like putting a Band-Aid on an amputation. The problem is that senators are really on a different planet than most Canadians, and we cannot expect them to police themselves.

Here is the proof that the Senate cannot investigate itself. On February 28, 2013, the Senate committee on internal economy determined at the outcome of its investigation that senators' housing allowances, including those of Mike Duffy, were in compliance with the rules.

Well, that is convenient.

Let us not forget that the Senate committee on internal economy removed paragraphs in its report that criticized Mike Duffy because he had supposedly reimbursed the amount that he owed.

No, the institution is outdated and fundamentally anti-democratic and non-elected senators are entrusted with duties similar to those of elected officials. This is the very definition of redundancy. Its continued existence just cannot pass the test of good value for money. It is time to solve the issue once and for all. Let us do Canadians and our democracy a favour and let us shut off the tap and empty the trough.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2013]

moved:

That all funding should cease to be provided to the Senate beginning on July 1, 2013.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I admit I am particularly pleased and happy to rise in the House this evening to contribute to a debate on Bill S-209 because this is a golden opportunity to talk about one of my passions, Meibukan karate, an art that I have practised for 25 years and that I teach to children in my riding. What a coincidence that I will be giving a course at the Cascades Sports Club in Chelsea this evening.

However, even though I am the sensei of a karate dojo, I admit I hesitated for a long time to support this bill. Some may find that strange, but the fact that I practise martial arts does not necessarily mean I automatically support professional combative sports or that I support a bill that will have the effect of enabling professional mixed martial arts and MMA fights to spread more easily.

I would inform the House that there is a significant difference between the sports approach to martial arts and the traditional approach. A distinction must be drawn between a sport and an art. I follow the traditional and most ancient path in martial arts. Like many karatekas, I am guided by moral and spiritual principles. Those principles have been left to us by the grand masters of the past. Being a disciple of the way of the warrior, I am required to observe them. Grand master Miyagi Chojun Sensei, the sensei of my grand master, Meitoku Yagi, and the founder of the Goju-Ryu style of karate, wrote the following to his students before he died: "Strike no one. Let no one strike you. No incident should occur. These are the fundamental laws of my teaching."

Gichin Funakoshi, grand master of the Shotokan style of karate, has left us 20 principles, many of which are of a moral nature, such as never forget that karate begins and ends with respect; there is no first attack in karate; karate forges honesty and promotes mental technique; karate is the journey of an entire lifetime; and constantly polish your mind.

It is important to note that the opponent in traditional martial arts is not others or a competitor, but oneself: our pride, our self-esteem, our vulgarity and our immorality.

In the traditional approach, martial arts are as much a quest for self-improvement as for physical or competitive improvement. As a result of that approach, I admit I initially found the sport of MMA violent and vulgar, unworthy of the noble values I had learned in the martial arts and of the way of the warrior, which I strove and still strive to follow.

Today, however, I am pleased to say that I have changed my mind because the sport has changed considerably, and athletes such as Canadian Georges St-Pierre, or GSP, have become excellent role models for young people who practise martial arts. I have also had the opportunity to associate with and teach several MMA athletes, and I have observed their respect for the traditional martial arts.

However, even though I am delighted that the sport has become healthier, I want to say that my first responsibility as a member of Parliament is to protect the safety of Canadians and athletes involved in combative sports, not to promote one sport or another. It is with that in mind that I am contributing to this debate today

Professional boxing is already legal, and concussions and their impact on the health of boxers are proven facts. A legitimate question therefore arises: is the sport of MMA more dangerous than boxing?

I am pleased to learn that the answer is no. In the area of head injuries and concussions, the sport of MMA fighting is comparable to boxing, the only sport excluded from the current Criminal Code definition of “prize fight”. Knockout rates are lower in MMA competitions than in boxing, a fact that suggests a lower risk of traumatic brain injury in MMA fights than in other combative sports.

The very nature of the discipline, in which, unlike in boxing, a fight can be terminated otherwise than by a blow to the head, including by means of submission techniques, also results in lower rates of traumatic brain injury per competition. That is good news.

Furthermore, the gloves used in MMA are less substantial and lighter, which significantly reduces the number of knockouts and the after-effects of concussions for MMA athletes.

It is also important to point out that experts say that in the field of sports regulation and in medical terms, the practice of mixed martial arts is now subject to good oversight. Medically, I am happy to say that this sport has significantly cleaned up its practices and now uses the highest standards in the combative sports industry world. I personally know that athletes who practise this sport are subject to ongoing medical assessments, just as in boxing and in other sports.

Medically, and specifically with regard to concussions and the return of competitors to competition, mixed martial arts combative sports are now also subject to strict provincial regulations. For example, Ontario has regulations on non-issuance and the suspension of licences when medical requirements are not respected.

The City of Edmonton, for example, via the Edmonton Combative Sports Commission, also has strict medical regulations for mixed martial arts combative sports. Therefore, on the basis of safety, there are good reasons to change the existing law. It is truly bad that section 83(2) of the Criminal Code concerning prize fights has not been amended since 1934.

Bill S-209 would modernize the definition of prize fighting and would expand the exemptions to the definition of prize fighting to reflect today's reality and, among other things, would allow for better legal oversight at the provincial level of mixed martial arts contests everywhere in Canada. The bill would allow Canadians to enjoy mixed martial arts by changing the law in two important ways.

First, Bill S-209 would amend the definition of prize fighting by adding “feet” to the definition of prize fight. The amendment reads as follows: ““Prize fight” means an encounter or fight with fists, hands or feet...”. The addition of feet would expand the definition of prize fighting to reflect the reality of combative sports today.

Second, Bill S-209 would expand the exemptions to the definition of prize fighting to make Olympic combative sports like boxing, fencing, wrestling, free-style combat, judo or tae kwon do legal. However, mixed martial arts or MMA, a combative sport that emerged some 20 years ago, would also be exempted and is becoming rapidly popular, both in Canada and internationally.

The regulation of mixed martial arts, as I said, falls under provincial jurisdiction, but Bill S-209, by establishing a clear, updated legal framework and applying it nationally, would allow the provinces to better regulate this emerging sport throughout the country.

Canadians, whether as athletes or supporters, have fully participated in the emergence of this new sport. Canadian mixed martial arts athletes are among the best in the world. Mixed martial arts events in Canada now draw record crowds and provide significant economic benefits for the provinces and towns that host them.

The NDP therefore wants to allow this sport to benefit from this clear updated legal framework at the federal level so that provinces—and it is important to point out that it is the provinces that will be deciding—can apply their own regulations with the goal of better regulating this sport and ensuring the health and safety of its athletes.

This is why I am happy to rise in this chamber and support the bill.

[Government Expenditures, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of this government's lack of transparency. It has put over $1 billion into Atomic Energy of Canada Limited over the past few years, including $362 million this year alone. If there is wrongdoing within this organization, then Canadians deserve to know.

Can the minister tell us when exactly he heard about the bid rigging at AECL and can he tell us why Canadians are just learning about this now?

[Government Expenditures, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about yet another Deloitte audit into Conservative misuse of public funds. Former employees of Atomic Energy Canada are blowing the whistle on bid-rigging, inappropriate gifts and the misuse of public money. These whistle-blowers say evidence of wrongdoing provoked a major audit of AECL's procurement in 2008, but it appears that it was covered up.

Is it true that such an audit was conducted by Deloitte? If so, will the government now release it?

[Government Expenditures, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Parole Board's last meeting in Edmonton cost Canadian taxpayers a whopping $250,000. It flew in guest speakers and put everyone up in a five-star hotel. Then the government footed the bill to Canadians. This is yet another example of the Conservative government's double standards. The Conservatives are playing favourites by wasting resources on a three-day meeting for the Parole Board while they tell ministries to cut budgets and front-line staff.

For a government that is so set on reducing spending, how could the Conservatives let this happen?