Ryan Cleary

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are thinking about right now is how to get rid of the Conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

I rise today to speak in support of the opposition day motion put forward by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, a very fine member. There needs to be accountability in the Senate. That is obvious. Measures should also be taken to end partisan activities of senators, including participation in caucus meetings, and to limit senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business. I do not think that is asking too much. I see the motion as common sense, as good for Canadian democracy and as asking for what is right.

As member of Parliament for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, I tend to view the parliamentary world through a Newfoundland and Labrador lens. I make it my mission, actually. It is how I am wired. I consider how this legislation, this bill, this body, this agreement, discussion, debate impacts Newfoundland and Labrador. How does anything impact Newfoundland and Labrador, including this question?

How do the partisan activities of senators impact Newfoundland and Labrador? They do in so many ways. Let me give a glimpse of one senator through the Newfoundland and Labrador lens. Conservative Senator Fabian Manning was a Conservative member of Parliament. He lost his seat after he was defeated in the 2008 general election. He was appointed right after that to the Senate. Then Fabian Manning was cherry-picked for the 2011 election to run again for the Conservatives in the federal riding of Avalon. Manning lost again in that general election. It was his second defeat. Then he was appointed again to the Senate.

Let me summarize. We have a sitting senator who was rejected by the people, my people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not once but twice. We have him speaking on behalf of the Conservative government all over my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl. Yes, Senator Manning represents the Government of Canada in my riding at funding announcements and official functions. I have asked this question in the House before. Is Senator Manning supposed to be Newfoundland and Labrador's voice? He is not. We are supposed to represent Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa. We are not supposed to be representatives of Ottawa in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not supposed to work that way, but it does. That is the reality. The reality is that senators represent the parties that put them there. Liberal senators for Newfoundland and Labrador represent the Liberal Party of Canada, not necessarily the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. Conservative senators for Newfoundland and Labrador represent the Conservative Party of Canada, not necessarily the best interests of my province.

I have heard this question asked: Why would New Democrats want to abolish the Senate, to eliminate the upper house when Newfoundland and Labrador would end up with fewer voices? That is not the case. Senators represent the parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, that put them there. Their voice is not the voice of the people, not the voice of Canadians. Their voice is not the voice of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

When the fathers of Confederation assigned the Senate to review and scrutinize legislation passed by this House of Commons, the Senate was supposed to act as a chamber of sober second thought. The Senate was supposed to be less partisan and to ensure representation of minorities, provinces and regions. The Senate was supposed to offset the House of Commons with its representation by population so that the interests of smaller provinces, like Newfoundland and Labrador, would be protected, defended and looked after.

That is not the way it works. Senators vote according to the interests of the parties they represent rather than the regions they are supposed to represent. The Senate has become a home for Conservative and Liberal Party organizers, bagmen and bagwomen and failed candidates. Senators act in the narrow interests of their political parties. Senators attend weekly party caucuses where they are handed party lines. That should stop. Senators participate in party fundraising. That should stop. Senators have publicly advocated on behalf of a political party or parties using Senate resources. That should stop. It should stop right now for the good of democracy and for the health of Canadian democracy.

I used to say that we had a triple-u Senate, triple-u as in unaccountable, unelected and under investigation. However, there are two more u's. The fourth is unapologetic and the fifth is useless. Unaccountable, unelected, under investigation, unapologetic and useless makes five u's. Now it is time for a u-turn toward abolishment of the Senate. That is our firm commitment. At the same time, we do not believe Canadians should be forced to wait for accountability, not when something can be done right now.

The Senate will cost taxpayers $92.5 million this year. That is $92.5 million for a gold-plated retirement home, a gated country club, a political pasture and golden handshake for the politically connected, party bagmen and women, failed candidates and party lackeys. A lackey is a yes man or a yes woman. That is $92.5 million that could be better spent on seniors, on the unemployed and on eliminating student debt. The list is endless and that list does not include the Senate.

The Senate is an embarrassment to Canadians from one end of the country to the other. It is an embarrassment to real politicians like the elected members of Parliament in the House today, the real politicians. Senators do not have to run for election. They are not accountable to anyone. They do not have to apologize to anyone when they fleece the taxpayer. We have seen example after example of that. The Senate should absolutely be abolished.

Canadians should not be forced to wait for accountability when something can be done now, right at this moment, today in the House.

Finally, there is a bigger debate taking shape in the country about a need for democratic reform. A bigger debate about how smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, with a population of 514,000 people, half the population of the city of Ottawa, can have an equal seat at the Confederation table with larger provinces like Ontario and Quebec that have more representation because they have bigger populations. The question is this. How do we ensure that smaller provinces have an equal say at the Confederation table? How do we look after the interests of smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Saskatchewan?

From Newfoundland and Labrador and the smaller provinces' perspective that is a debate that must happen, a debate that is destined to happen.

[Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, hiding behind the integrity commissioner's investigation is not a response to blatant Conservative patronage.

The Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation is just the tip of the patronage iceberg. ACOA has become a home for Conservative mismanagement, a home for ethical breaches and rigged hiring processes.

The Minister of National Defence is playing political puppet master, while hiding behind a report into Conservative patronage that his chief of staff tried to whitewash.

I have a simple question. When are the Conservatives going to stop treating Atlantic Canadians like fools?

[Government Appointments, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let us see. Aside from illegitimate hirings, subsequent dismissals and cover-up at ACOA, we now see scandal at Enterprise Cape Breton. The CEO, described as a close friend of the defence minister, has hired former ministerial staffers and failed Conservative candidates. Some have since returned to the defence minister's office. In case the minister forgot, these are taxpayer-funded regional government agencies, not Conservative job banks.

When will the minister take responsibility for the inappropriate interventions and hiring practices at ACOA?

[Canadian Federation of Students, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the average student debt in this country, in terms of federal and provincial loans, stands at $28,000. That is how Canadian students are expected to begin their careers. I say “expected” because if the debt is not bad enough, the unemployment rate for young Canadians is 14.5%, more than double other age groups.

This is the first generation of young Canadians who will not live as well as their parents. For example, pensions and benefits are under constant attack.

Canadian students have much to talk about, and they will get the chance to do that this week during the annual general meeting of the Canadian Federation of Students, Canada's oldest and largest student organization.

On behalf of New Democrats, I welcome student representatives from across the country and say to them that their fight, the fight for affordable and accessible education for all Canadians, is our fight.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 29th, 2013]

With regard to foreign fishing vessels: (a) how many foreign fishing vessels have had permission to fish inside Canada's 200-mile limit off the east coast of Canada since 2003; (b) what are the names of the foreign vessels and their home countries; (c) what species have the foreign vessels fished; (d) of the foreign vessels that have fished inside Canada's 200-mile limit since 2003, have any been cited for illegal fishing violations; and (e) what are the names of the Canadian companies that have chartered the foreign fishing vessels since 2003?

[Government Appointments, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canadians want economic development. Instead, ACOA is becoming a home for Conservative mismanagement and ethical breaches.

Yesterday, Conservatives had the audacity to claim that they did not rig the ACOA hiring process, but the report clearly stated that “decisions in the (hiring) process were based on Mr. MacAdam's circumstances as a minister’s staff member”.

Then the defence minister's chief of staff interfered, and he changed the report.

So let us try again today. What consequences did the minister's chief of staff face for this attempted cover-up?

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the concern here is that the Conservative government is going to define our history and our past and will have the say in the exhibits and the museum. It should not be left to Conservative politicians. It should be left to knowledgeable people within the whole museum sphere. That is who it should be left to.

Too often in the past, the government has tried to define who we are as a country and who we are as a people, and it has absolutely failed.

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, although I do not thank the hon. member for his tone throughout this whole debate this evening.

The member talked about whether or not NDP MPs have read the bill. Of course, we have read the bill. I could not have prepared a speech unless I had read the bill.

The member talks about the emphasis still being on exhibits, but one of the many concerns here is that the emphasis is going to be off, for example, international exhibits; that is not going to happen. That is a real concern.

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very real concern.

That is why I pointed out in my speech that the task of defining the content of the Museum of Civilization must be left to museum professionals, historians, anthropologists, archivists and librarians. It should not be left to Conservative politicians. It should never be left to Conservative politicians to write their own history.

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the task of defining the content of the Museum of Civilization must be left to museum professionals—historians, anthropologists, archivists, librarians—not to politicians. I repeat, not to politicians. The face of Canada has changed under the Conservative government. The face of Canada has changed so that Canadians barely recognize what we have become, at home and on the world stage. The last thing that should ever happen is that the Conservatives be allowed to tamper with our history, to tamper with the definition of who we are and where we come from.