Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the clarification provided by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

Can he respond to the allegations being made by his colleagues and Liberal members, who are saying that voting on this motion would completely shut the Senate down for good? We heard these allegations that were being made by most of his colleagues.

Can he confirm or deny that the motion we will be voting on later will cut $58 million in funding and force the Senate to change its ways and become accountable to the public and that this evening's vote is not designed to shut down the Senate?

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board a question.

The timing is good because today we are talking about the main estimates 2014-15 and, more specifically, about the voted appropriations under “The Senate”. We are talking about voted appropriations and statutory appropriations. Voted appropriations account for $58 million and statutory appropriations account for $34 million.

My question will be straightforward because whenever I ask an even slightly complicated question, I often do not get a response. Can my colleague talk about the difference between discretionary and statutory items? As the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board he should be more than able to answer that question.

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent question.

If he had listened to one of my very first remarks, he would know that consultations were not necessary because today's debate is about the $58 million in funding that has already been voted. Parliament does not have the right to question statutory appropriations.

This motion is designed to make those in the other chamber aware that they will have to improve accountability in the short term. We have a different long-term vision for the Senate. However, for the time being, the senators need to be more accountable to Canadians, including the people of Sherbrooke, for the $92 million that they are given each year.

We did not need to hold consultations because the motion is designed to take $58 million away from the Senate. It will still have $34 million. The Senate will exist in the short term, even though that is not our goal in the long term. This will send a clear message to the Senate that it needs to be accountable so that Canadians know that their money is being spent in a transparent way. That is basic when an institution is spending taxpayers' money.

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, the great defenders of the status quo are the Liberals.

The Conservatives have been swearing to us for 10 years that they want to reform the Senate. However, we might think that they are also in favour of the status quo, given their poor results since they first promised to reform the Senate.

The only ones who do not want to change anything are the Liberals, with the exception of the Liberal senators, or rather the senators who are Liberal. That is the big Liberal reform.

In my view, the Liberals are advocating for the status quo. They might provide explanations, but the fact is that they do not want to change anything. They let scandals come and go and tell themselves that there are no problems. They do not see the need for reform. According to them, everything is perfect. The only thing that is going to change is that the Liberal senators will now be called “senators who are Liberal”. That is the big Liberal reform.

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to the main estimates this evening and specifically to the Senate appropriations. Before I go into more detail about the subject at hand, I have to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Brome—Missisquoi, an outstanding member whose riding is near Sherbrooke.

My colleague from Timmins—James Bay already mentioned one of the important points I wanted to raise: the difference between voted and statutory appropriations. Both Conservative and Liberal members have a hard time telling the difference between the two. There is a fundamental difference between appropriations voted here in the House and statutory appropriations. As my colleague said, the government allocates $58 million for voted appropriations—I rounded the number, obviously—and $34 million for statutory appropriations.

I just wanted to set the record straight before getting started. The few people who spoke before me seemed to have a hard time telling the difference between these two kinds of appropriations, a difference that is nevertheless very clear when we look at the voting process for appropriations in the House.

The Senate will cost $92.5 million, which is more than in past years. The main estimates list the previous year's spending and the forecast spending. From 2012-13 to 2013-14, Senate spending increased by about $3.8 million, or nearly $4 million. In contrast to all of the government departments and agencies that are tightening their belts at the behest of the Conservative government, the Senate has been increasing its budget year after year. The Treasury Board is asking all government departments and agencies to cut spending, but the Senate is making no effort to spend less. It is a shame that the Senate is once again taking advantage of this money to make expenditures that could be described as hard to justify. Later on, I can comment further on everything that has been going on in the Senate recently.

Before I begin, I would like to put some numbers in perspective. What does $92.5 million represent? It represents the taxes paid by 8,000 families who are footing the bill for the Senate. Another significant fact I would like to point out is that the Prime Minister promised he would not appoint any unelected senators. That was back in March 2004. How many senators have been appointed since then? More than 57. If my math is right, the total is now 60.

The Prime Minister also said that an appointed Senate is a relic of the 19th century. However, senators are still being appointed. As I said, the Prime Minister appoints senators every year. It is interesting to look at who is being appointed. A former campaign strategist, a former president of the Conservative Party, party fundraisers and failed Conservative candidates have all been appointed. There are very recent examples of this, dating back to just 2011. Conservative candidates who did not win the election were then appointed to the Senate. That is quite the gift. It seems that Conservative candidates who lose an election can get a gift from the Prime Minister and be appointed to the Senate, where they can remain until they are 75 and pocket all the money that comes with that, obviously.

Meanwhile, the third party and the government are trying to sell us nice ideas about how the Senate is a place for sober thought and reflection. I believe the Supreme Court ruling referred to a chamber of “sober second thought”.

For the last little while, members have been trying to convince us that the Senate engages in sober second thought, when most of the senators, who have been appointed by either a Liberal or a Conservative prime minister, are people who have close ties with the party and obey their prime minister. That is therefore not true. No one can convince me this evening that the Senate is a chamber of sober second thought. I think those are the words the Supreme Court used. In reality, senators are controlled by the Prime Minister's Office, whether the prime minister is Liberal or Conservative.

Here is another interesting statistic about appointed senators. To whom are they accountable? I do not think they are accountable to the public. In fact, 51 of the 57 senators appointed by the Prime Minister made donations to the Conservative Party. I would like to believe that this is just a coincidence, but I have my doubts.

This brings me to the topic of the people to whom senators are accountable once they are appointed and they arrive in the other chamber, where they can remain until they are 75. To whom are they accountable?

It is a valid question. We may ask to whom they are accountable if, for example, a senator is involved in misconduct, has acted badly or has incurred inappropriate expenses. I do not think I have to go on at length about senators' expenses. Everyone watching at home knows what I am talking about.

Senators are paid by taxpayers, and it takes 8,000 Canadian families to pay the Senate's bills. To whom are senators accountable, then? They are accountable only to the prime minister who appointed them.

That really is true. In theory, one could argue that it is not the case, that they are free to think and act as they want and that they are not accountable to the prime minister.

However, in fact, senators are accountable to the Prime Minister's Office only. We saw that during the Senate scandal. The Prime Minister's Office exercises immense control over the senators, including the leader of the Senate, who, if I am not mistaken, meets regularly with the Prime Minister. We have also seen how certain tactics that were used in the upper house were directly linked to instructions from the Prime Minister.

Do not try to convince me that the Senate is a chamber of sober second thought. Only one person controls it all: the Prime Minister and the people in his office.

Do not try to tell me I should believe the Conservatives, either, when they talk of reforming the Senate. They have been promising to reform it for more than 10 years. The hon. member for Wild Rose said that it was the opposition's fault that the matter has been dragging on for 10 years.

The only person to blame is the Prime Minister, because, in his vision of Senate reform, his only intention was to avoid talking to the provinces. The only thing in his mind was to get his reform through without having to talk to the provinces.

As a result, the only person to blame if there has been no Senate reform for 10 years is the Prime Minister. He promised reform, though. He never wanted to consult the provinces. He always wanted to do it all by himself without ever consulting, and the Supreme Court told him that things do not work that way.

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

The Prime Minister said that on March 14, 2004, Mr. Speaker.

He also said on December 14, 2005, that an appointed Senate is a “relic of the 19th century”.

The hon. member talks about reform and says that the Conservative Party has always wanted reform. How is it that the Conservatives have been talking about reform since 2004 and yet nothing has happened? They have not come up with anything. How does the hon. member expect us to believe now that the Conservatives really want to bring in reforms when they have been telling us for 10 years that they are going to do this?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister often said that if reform was not possible, they would abolish the Senate. Everyone will remember that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister repeated that message.

When will reform no longer be possible and when are they going to abolish the Senate?

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech tonight on the Senate. I am hearing conflicting messages from the Conservative member about the other messages from his party and his Prime Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is sending different messages. I would remind the hon. member that in 2004, the Prime Minister said, “I will not name appointed people to the Senate”.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

There are very significant concerns about human rights. There are people who are working to improve the situation in Honduras but it is very dangerous for them. It does not make any sense for the Government of Canada to say that it wants to increase trade with one of the world's most violent countries.

On one hand, the government has decided to impose economic and political sanctions on countries that do not respect human rights or honour international treaties, such as Russia, Iran and North Korea. On the other, it has decided to sign a trade agreement with Honduras, the worst country in the world. I do not understand it at all.

I wish nothing more than for the situation in Honduras to improve for the sake of its citizens. They are entitled to a fair and transparent government that respects human rights, as well as to a fair and equitable justice system. I do hope things will improve in Honduras, but I do not believe it is in Canada's best interests to sign a trade agreement with a country while turning a blind eye to everything that is happening there.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

I am somewhat disappointed that he would ask me this question, because I spent most of my allotted time, 15 of my 20 minutes, answering that exact same question that he just put to one of my colleagues. I did focus on the three criteria to use to determine if the trade deal would benefit Canada. I can go over them again, if that is what he wants.

First, does the proposed partner respect democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If not, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals?

Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada?

Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

Where this agreement with Honduras is concerned, the answer to all three questions is no. The reason why we oppose this bill is pretty obvious. We did support other economic and trade agreements. We supported the trade deal with Jordan because it met those three criteria. On the trade agreement between Canada and Europe, we are still waiting to find out the answer to the third question: are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

We have yet to see the terms of the deal. We cannot take a stand without seeing the details of the agreement. In principle, we have nothing against increased trade between Canada and Europe, but at this point in time the Conservatives are refusing to give us any details.

Our position is clear. The problem stems from the members opposite, who cannot bear to hear the truth.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that question has many elements.

I would have liked my Conservative colleagues to ask me some questions. I would have been pleased to hear what they had to say about this. However, they wanted to continue the debate until the bill is disposed of. However long it takes, I will defend human rights around the world at any hour of the day on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not showing up for work. We saw that this evening. Not one Conservative spoke to Bill C-24, which we debated a little earlier. As far as Bill C-20 is concerned, not one Conservative will defend their bill.

It is unfortunate, because I would have liked to have a debate of ideas on Bill C-20, but clearly, when the Conservatives adopted the motion to extend sitting hours until midnight, it was a licence for laziness. We see that today. The Conservatives are barely asking any questions, and they do not have the nerve to defend their bills. Then they will go back to their ridings, claiming that they worked late and hard and saying that they passed many bills. In fact, they did nothing. So far, they have missed almost 70 opportunities to speak and stand up for their constituents.

I would be disappointed if I lived in a Conservative riding and saw my MP unable to speak in the House and defend my interests. I would really be very disappointed for that and many other reasons.

Obviously, the Liberals, who are complacent about this bill—