OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 005 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, October 22, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 22, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 005 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 005 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 005 (Version officielle) 147 005 22 10 2013 2013/10/22 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (for the Minister of Finance) Bill C-4. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Business of the House Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Motion Mr. Speaker, I have a motion for which I believe you will find unanimous consent of the parties. That, at the conclusion of today’s debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Toronto-Danforth, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, October 23, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Question Period. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

[ English ] Petitions Nuclear Weapons Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of the residents of Regina, who expressed deep concern about the continuing threat posed by nuclear weapons across the globe. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to call upon national governments to negotiate a treaty banning nuclear weapons, leading to their complete elimination.

Mining Industry Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, approximately 75% of the world's mining and exploration companies are registered in Canada. Various indigenous and non-indigenous communities, both in Canada and abroad, have raised serious concerns regarding the impact of mining activities in their communities, including by certain Canadian companies. These concerns include environmental destruction, weak environmental assessments, failure to fully and adequately secure the consent of local communities, complicity in human rights violations and the use of government-sanctioned militias.

In response to partner organizations in affected countries, the United Church of Canada is asking the Canadian government to implement binding legislation that will, among other things, regulate the activities of Canadian mining companies abroad, allow Canadian courts to hear claims originating overseas, and ensure compliance within our national human rights standards to promote long-standing Canadian values of respect for the rule of law, good governance and democracy. I am proud to table this petition that has the signature of many hundreds of people across this country.

Cell Towers Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of constituents in Guelph with regard to the Rogers proposal for a 40-metre tall cellphone tower at 987 Gordon Street. My constituents are very concerned about the possible health concerns, including cancer, of the proposed tower, which lies 120 metres from residences in an area populated by many families with young children. They are also concerned about the negative impact on the value of residential properties in close proximity to the proposed tower.

Residents and the Guelph city council are against the proposed tower. The petitioners are calling on the Minister of Industry to stop the building of the proposed tower.

Human Rights Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The petitions are in response to a delegation of 14 Canadians from across the country, led by the Rev. Shaun Fryday of the Beaconsfield United Church, to study the impact of Canadian mining interests on indigenous peoples of the Cordillera region in the Philippines. The report, known as the Beaconsfield initiative, contains recommendations including for the calling of this petition and other representations, which were made to the international subcommittee on human rights in May 2012.

Mining Industry Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. As with other members who have risen today to present a petition, I have one that has literally hundreds and hundreds of signatures from Canadians from coast to coast, from Nova Scotia, Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec. It is calling on the Government of Canada to take action to regulate Canadian mining company operations abroad. It has several parts. In

summary, it asks the government to establish a forum for non-Canadians to make claims if they have been negatively affected by overseas operations of Canadian companies; to adopt a legally binding mechanism for greater accountability; to ensure that the export development corporation is mindful of the negative impact of extraction processes abroad; to ensure that all projects funded by CIDA meet the criteria for the ODA Accountability Act; and to adopt legislation to ensure that bilateral agreements such as FIPAs are also protective of rights in the countries in which Canadian mining companies operate.

Genetically Modified Organisms Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is by petitioners who are mostly from British Columbia, from Comox, Vancouver, and Burnaby. It is calling for legislation to ensure that all products containing genetically modified organisms be properly labelled.

Public Safety Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Somali community left a war-torn country to come to our peaceful country only to have many of their children die at the hand of violence. Almost 50 young Somali Canadian males have been killed in Ontario and Alberta since 2006. In 2012, 6 of 33 Toronto shooting homicides befell Somali Canadian men. The petitioners call upon the government to investigate these deaths through the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, develop federal-provincial job programs, particularly with the RCMP, and examine witness protection.

(1010) [ Translation ] Mining Industry Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present a petition signed by many Quebeckers who are deeply concerned about Canadian mining companies abroad. They are concerned about the environment as well as the living conditions of indigenous peoples. The petitioners are simply calling for binding legislation to govern the activities of these companies abroad so that they comply with international human rights standards, which promote values we all share. I am very proud to be presenting this petition, which is also sponsored by the United Church of Canada.

[ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Business of Supply [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Senate Accountability Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) moved: That, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate, and, therefore, this House call for the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings, and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business. Motion He said: Mr.

Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay . I rise today to present to this House our practical suggestions for making the Senate more accountable to Canadians. When the Prime Minister and the Conservatives were elected, they promised to reform the Senate. They also promised to clean up the appointments process. Now, seven years later, the only thing that has been done in that regard is that the Prime Minister has appointed 59 senators.

The Liberals and the Conservatives claim that the Senate is essential to our parliamentary system because, in their opinion, the Senate is the chamber of sober second thought and it gives the regions a voice. In reality, the Senate is a haven for Liberal and Conservative Party organizers, contributors and fundraisers and, most of the time, these individuals act in the interest of their political party. Canadians have had enough and are fed up with the unelected and unaccountable Senate, which is always under investigation. More and more Canadians agree with the NDP that the Senate should be abolished.

Abolishing the Senate has been part of the NDP's broader vision of democratic reform for a long time. This idea is still a key component of our agenda, and more and more Canadians agree with us. In the meantime, while we work toward abolishing the Senate, the Conservatives and the Liberals must take measures to correct their mistakes because the status quo is no longer good enough. The NDP is standing up for Canadians by moving this motion and proposing practical measures to make the Senate more accountable to Canadians.

There is no acceptable reason for unelected individuals to use taxpayers' money and Senate resources for partisan purposes. The Liberals and the Conservatives are defending the Senate, claiming that it is the chamber of sober second thought. If that is the case, senators, as appointed rather than elected officials, should drop their partisan talking points and examine legislation in an impartial, non-partisan way. Like judges and other public servants who are also paid by taxpayers, they have a very specific job to do.

They should start doing that job in an impartial and non-partisan manner. (1015) [ English ] Allow me, now, to share with members some very perceptive observations of a century ago, recorded literally half a century ago in Robert Mackay's classic book, The Unreformed Senate of Canada . The quotation from 1913, published in the The National Review in London, is from a certain gentleman named Professor Stephen Leacock, who stated: Liberals and Conservatives combined, we made our Senate, not a superior council of the nation, but a refuge of place-hunting politicians and a reward for partisan adherence. Mr.

Mackay, in his book, goes on to say: Such statements, though rhetorical, are on the whole still true. He is speaking in 1963. Appointment of party supporters is an all but unbroken tradition. During his nineteen years of office Sir John Macdonald appointed only one Liberal and one Independent; Sir Wilfrid Laurier appointed none but Liberals... Mr.

MacKay then went on to draw attention to a debate in the House of Commons in 1906, where the prime minister at the time, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was asked the following question: Does the right hon. gentleman...say that under our present constitution he feels he must select appointees of his own party when choosing them. That was the question asked of the prime minister, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier responded: ...if I have to select between a Tory and a Liberal, I feel I can serve the country better by appointing a Liberal than a Conservative...

Nothing better conveys the connection between prime ministerial prerogative, patronage, and the undue hyper-partisanship of the chamber we call the Senate. I end by citing where Mr. MacKay says: Senatorships have often been granted as pensions to the “deserving poor” among party supporters in the House of Commons and provincial legislatures, or as honours to editors of the faithful press, party organizers, or to contributors to the “war chest.” What has changed? My colleagues today will lay out how too many current Conservative and Liberal senators fit this tradition all too well.

I will not go into those details, but one figure perhaps tells all. In the government's own factum before the Supreme Court in the reference on the question of Senate reform and abolition, the government itself tells us that 95% of the appointments to the Senate since the Senate began have been of persons of the same party as the appointing Prime Minister. Nothing has changed from those quotations from 1913 and 1963.

Canadians would be interested to know about the Senate administrative rules of 2004, which are not online and are not available for Canadians to see unless they go to a special effort to ask for a copy to be sent to them. In

chapter 1, clause 3, various principles of parliamentary life are set out: The following principles of parliamentary life apply in the administration of the Senate:.. (

b) partisan activities are an inherent and essential part of the parliamentary functions of a Senator; How so? I cannot wait to hear today from the members of the other parties how partisanship aids in fulfilling the supposed purposes of the Senate let alone how it is an inherent and essential function. The Senate has not bothered to remove this provision, even though last year it did amend some of the administrative rules on travel. In the principles: a Senator is entitled to receive financial resources and administrative services to carry out the Senator's parliamentary functions...

Also: a Senator is entitled to have full discretion over and control of the work performed on the Senator's behalf...in carrying out the [Senator's] parliamentary functions... The whole question of parliamentary functions continues throughout the rules. Basically, a senator is prohibited from using his or her offices and other resources for anything but parliamentary functions, but the definition and the approach to parliamentary functions throughout the document, and what we know through the long-standing practice of the Senate, is to include almost everything but the kitchen sink.

The rules go into some detail to exclude certain things as expenses that can be recovered. For example: No Senator shall request the copying or printing of material by the Senate that...is partisan because it is on a party letterhead or includes a party logo.... It continues: A Senator may not charge the following expenses to the Senator's office budget: (

a) payments to partisan organizations; Wow. Another provision under travel says that one cannot actually use Senate money to campaign during an outside election. These specifications are clear in what they exclude. They exclude from partisanship almost nothing. Parliamentary functions of the Senate include almost everything. I would end there by making one final comment. It is not a lot better, in fact it is no better at all, if senators travel around the country as propagandists for the sitting government.

If they go around the country showing up on behalf of the government on the Senate dime, not on the government dime, it is not so different from the way the government is using advertising through government dollars to convey a partisan message. There is so much more I could say, but I will leave it to my hon. colleagues, who will no doubt say it much better than I.

(1020) Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up something I heard yesterday that, I have to admit, was a bit of a surprise to me. The member for Oak Ridges—Markham , in answering a question in question period, talked about how the NDP had once asked for six senators. I was totally flabbergasted by this, but maybe it was because I have only been here for five years. Can the member enlighten us on either the truth or the falsity of that particular comment? Mr. Craig Scott : Mr.

Speaker, I can, indeed, enlighten the House on the total, complete, and utter falsity of that claim. I would not like to know that it was knowingly propagated no fewer than three or four times by the member. At the time in question, when there were discussions about a possible coalition between the party of the member who just asked the question and the NDP, the NDP asked for six cabinet positions, which is somewhat different from asking for six senators. New Democrats never asked for a senator. We have never wanted a senator in the Senate.

When a person appointed to the Senate has claimed to be an NDPer, we have asked that person not to stay in our caucus. It is a complete and utter untruth, and I hope it is not more than that. I hope to see the member rise in the House at some point to correct the record. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for an excellent motion. I certainly plan to vote for it. I appreciate the focus on getting rid of the hyper-partisan atmosphere in the Senate. I would like to get rid of the hyper-partisan atmosphere in the House.

Both are threats to democracy in this country. My question is slightly off-point of the motion, but as the other place is debating something, and my colleague from Toronto—Danforth has a distinguished background in law, I am wondering if he is prepared to share any personal views on whether the motion for gross negligence against three individuals offends principles of natural justice. I am deeply troubled by it.

I have no use for the misuse of public funds, but a rush to judgment and a vindictive stoning in the public square of certain individuals, without getting to the bottom of what actually transpired, offends me. I wonder if my friend from Toronto—Danforth has any thoughts. Mr. Craig Scott : Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that I am speaking entirely for myself in the spirit of the question. I am myself troubled by the procedure. I think it is nothing but veiled, vindictive politics. The Senate has to look at its own procedures.

Its procedures with respect to finding a senator guilty of a criminal offence are much more protective of the individual than what is about to happen in the Senate. I have no time at all, from what I know, for the senators in question, but the process being followed in the Senate has to look at the Senate's own rules. That is simply my view. Whether it is actually the case, one thing everybody should know is that one lawyer's view is often matched by the opposite view from another lawyer. (1025) [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to point out that over 600 constituents in the riding of LaSalle—Émard have voiced support for abolishing the Senate. I would also like to congratulate my colleague on his opposition motion, because there is an urgent need to put an end to all partisan activities. I would like him to expand on this in order to reinforce the importance of the motion he is moving here today regarding measures to end partisan activities and the urgent need to do so immediately. Mr. Craig Scott : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. All I can say is that, yes, this is really urgent.

Waiting until the Senate is abolished is out of the question. Canadians deserve good governance, including a government and a Parliament that work, as much as possible, in the best possible way. Therefore, yes, this really needs to be done right now, as soon as possible. [ English ] Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise as the elected representative of the people of Timmins—James Bay who have given me their trust to speak on their behalf in the House of Commons.

I make this speech today recognizing that the democratic life of this country is at an all-time low. There is an incredible amount of political cynicism out there among ordinary Canadians, who look to this House, which is supposed to be the democratic House of the commons, for the common people of Canada, at a time when we see a government that has undermined the basic principles of accountable democracy.

There has been the suspension and shutting down of the independent organizations that provide information, the muzzling of scientists and researchers, and the fact that under this first-past-the-post system, a mere 5,000 votes across 15 ridings gave the present Conservative government its so-called stable and very corrupt majority. One can look at how electoral fraud and robocalls were used in ridings where some members were winning by six or seven votes. Phone calls were made misdirecting Canadian people from their right to vote, such as in Nipissing and other areas.

No wonder Canadians are frustrated with the democratic system. Even more so, Canadians look at the squalid example of the so-called upper chamber. These are the people who are supposed to be above the fray, who are so important, these senators, that we are supposed to just trust whatever they say, trust whatever they do, because they have the bigger picture. They are not supposed to be sullied by the ordinary partisan nature of politics.

We see today that they are debating in this so-called upper chamber—it is even in the language of the chambers; we are the lower people and they are upper people—the fact that three to four members completely misappropriated funds and completely abused the system. We are being told that well, they are senators. If a senator says that he or she is entitled to money, he or she is entitled to it. Senator George Baker the other day stated in the press that “The Senate is above all rules”. Senators can set their own parameters for rules.

Senator Baker thought it was really unfair that because these senators could set their own rules and decide what they want we would actually suspend senators for stealing money. We had Senator Wallin's lawyer say that the move to suspend her for her abuse of the public trust was “...an affront to...democracy”. I was trying to find a comparison to an unelected and unaccountable senator who cannot be fired but can abuse the system. They cannot do anything with her except cut off her pay, and that is somehow an affront to democracy.

It goes much further, as we learned yesterday with the latest revelations from Mike Duffy. We now have a widening picture of a Prime Minister involved with his key fundraiser, Mr. Mike Duffy. They were threatening each other, blackmailing each other, and working out a deal to make a payoff with hush money. There were numerous senators involved, and part of the payoff for this hush money was that they were not going to actually comply or work with the Senate audit. Of course, within the Senate, we did not believe that they were out doing the right thing with the audit anyway, because it was the old boys' club.

However, we found out that in the Prime Minister's Office, the sitting Prime Minister had access to all of Mike Duffy's travel records, which is what the auditors did not have. Their knowledge of what Mike Duffy was up to was extensive. It is unprecedented that we have a case of a police investigation into a sitting prime minister. It is unprecedented the legitimacy crisis we are seeing in the Senate. The New Democrat position is well known.

We believe that the Senate is an anachronistic institution that has been full of people who flipped pancakes at fundraisers for the Liberals over the years and got appointed or flipped pancakes for the Conservatives and were party hacks. They were paid off and were made men. We know that. However, the issue, if we are not going to move to abolition, is to look at what has been the poison in the Senate. That poison is the partisan work they do for the parties. By being made men in the Senate, they work for their political leaders.

(1030) I want to give an example of this idea of sober second thought. Canadians need to reflect that for the next 12 to 15 years, the sock puppets and hacks appointed by the Prime Minister will continue to interfere with, undermine, and potentially derail the democratic decisions of an elected House of Commons. That is what sober second thought means in Canada. It allows the Liberals their veto when they are kicked out: they will still have their party hacks doing the party work above the rights of the elected House. Perhaps we will not move to abolition right away.

However, the Senate has completely breached faith with the Canadian people, and the Canadian people are fed up with the abuse that has gone on. We see the bleeding of their friends, who are asking about due process and about these poor senators who have a right not only to rip off people, not only to claim whatever they want, not only to claim that they live in Saskatchewan or Prince Edward Island just because they say so, but also to get the money and not be held accountable.

It will take a lot to clean up that mess, but one way we can begin is by imposing on all senators the same rules that the Senate has applied to Ms. Wallin. If they are here to do the work of sober second thought, then by all means they can travel to Ottawa and charge for their stay here if the charges are legitimate and they legitimately live 100 kilometres outside the city and they are not running some kind of scam. If they are doing Senate committee work, they can travel. They have a budget for that.

However, the days when senators could stand up and claim that they travelled across Canada to do the cheerleading and the fundraising for their political party have to end. The days when senators could travel across the country and attend their various corporate boards and charge it to the taxpayer have to end. If the Senate is to have any credibility in this age, then the senators have to stop being the partisan puppets who do the heavy lifting. It has to end. Hiring campaign organizers, fundraisers, and bagmen and putting them in the Senate has to end.

In what possible alternate universe would anyone think that Leo Housakos would be someone to put in a so-called upper chamber for life because he would put the interests of the people of Canada above his own partisan interests? It is unfathomable. The man was a Montreal bagman. That is why he is in the Senate. Those days have to end. My colleagues in the Senate are feeling bad that Canadians are noticing how much they have been ripping them off. They feel that nobody has ever paid attention to what they have gotten away with.

I am asking my colleagues in the Senate to come forward as well, because they have a responsibility. What we are seeing with the latest allegations against Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright is that Nigel Wright told Mike Duffy they would not give him a hard time about the fact that he was as much a resident of Prince Edward Island as I am because if they went after Mike Duffy, then Nigel would be asking about all of the other senators who are employing the same scheme.

That was the so-called honour system, or dishonour system, of these made men and women, who claimed that if they were entitled to the money, they would get it. The Senate is now in a situation in which Canadians are fed up. We are trying to offer an alternative here, which is to clip their wings. Let us say that we will end the poison in the Senate until the day comes when Canadians get a vote on replacing that anachronistic institution. The poison in the Senate is the fact it has been a partisan dumping ground and is doing partisan work.

All of the other work it is doing has become a facade for its real purpose, which is as a party political machine, and it has to end.

(1035) Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about honour and accountability. We hear him talk about this regularly. We on this side would suggest that he is making things up rather than being accountable and honourable himself. Two weeks ago he accused me of clearly breaching the ethical guidelines of the House of Commons. He did it outside of the House. I received a response from the Ethics Commissioner that said my letter to the CRTC was entirely appropriate.

Will the member stand up right now, do the honourable thing, be accountable, and apologize to me for the remarks that he made in the media? Mr. Charlie Angus : Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious issue when a parliamentary secretary writes to a semi-judicial body, because it is against the rules of cabinet. I am very glad that my hon. colleague has had this issue dealt with and I am glad for him. I will continue to ask questions about whether or not these are breaches, but the fact that he has been found okay is good news for him. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's remarks. I have read the motion several times. There is a lot in the motion that is of merit, leaving aside the NDP's choice to bring this motion on its first opposition day in this new sitting. The area that I am having the most difficulty with is the question of senators participating in caucus meetings. What is the rationale behind the NDP's call for senators not to be able to participate in caucus meetings? The member knows full well that although caucus meetings are occasionally political and partisan, they are also very much policy-based.

They are discussions about the merits of bills, they are internal meetings about private members' bills, and, for that matter, about motions like this one being debated today that has been put forward by the NDP. Would the NDP agree that if we preclude senators from participating in caucus meetings of their own party and if we want senators to be non-partisan, why do we not say to senators that they should participate in all caucus meetings, including caucus meetings of the NDP? Mr. Charlie Angus : Mr.

Speaker, part of the problem for my Liberal colleagues is that they do not have the ability to step back and see the problems being caused by the poison that runs through this system. An example is Mac Harb. Mac Harb was an hon. member of the Liberal caucus. On June 9, 2013, the present Liberal leader defended his caucus member, because a caucus has to defend its own. He said that what Mac Harb did was an honest mistake and that all Mac Harb had to do was pay the money back and he would be welcomed back into the Liberal caucus.

Mac Harb was under investigation for breach of trust and possible fraud, but because he was within the caucus, the present Liberal leader had to defend him. I would point out to my hon. colleague that we found out that Mac Harb's housing scheme included a plan through which he basically bought an unlivable house in Cobden. What would an unlivable house in Cobden cost? Then he sold it and kept a .01% stake in that house. What would that be? Let us say it is a $50,000 house; that would be a $50 investment.

He could not even get a can of paint to fix up that unlivable house, so for the $50 that he owned in the house he could collect $20,000 a year. I disagree with the leader of the Liberal Party. That is not an honest mistake. If we are going to continue to have these people sitting in caucus, then we are going to continue to see the massive distortions in ethics that will go from the so-called upper chamber right into the Liberal Party caucus. I am trying to help my colleagues in the corner get out of that ethical morass. I would ask them to come with us into the 21st century.

(1040) Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, ironically, although this motion from the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth decries the partisan activities in the Senate, who does he have to speak in the House for the NDP on the motion? He has the most hyperpartisan and flippant parliamentarian in Ottawa, the member for Timmins—James Bay . I just sat through the member's speech and heard him refer to parliamentarians as pancake flippers and sock puppets. These are words on a motion that is critical of partisanship and demands accountability.

Well, I am demanding that same level of accountability and civility from the NDP. I truly hope that the member for Timmins—James Bay discovers a way to advocate for his constituents without diminishing the level of debate in the House and without slipping into name-calling and chicanery. However, as my colleagues and I on this side will explain today, our government believes that the measures proposed in the motion are not the appropriate way to proceed. In fact, like many of the pronouncements made on the Senate by the NDP, this motion truly is flippant and is not a sincere measure to reform that institution.

Canadians want to see reform of the Senate and a meaningful role for that House in our bicameral parliamentary democracy. Canadians expect much from the men and women who serve them as parliamentarians. In fact, this debate reminds me of the famous Canadian political quote about what characteristics are needed for serving in public office: “You need the stamina of a water buffalo, the hide of a rhino, and the energy of a go-go dancer.” Who said that?

It was Stan Waters, a retired lieutenant-general from the Canadian Forces, a distinguished World War II veteran, and most interestingly, the first elected senator in the Canadian Senate. With that quote by the first elected senator in mind, I would like to devote my remarks to highlighting a major step taken by our government to ensure that Canadians' desire for Senate reform becomes a reality. This major step is the reference on Senate reform that will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in November of this year.

Reference questions to the Supreme Court of Canada are an important part of our legal development as a nation.

Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act provides for this ability, and there have been 75 federal references since 1892. Such questions have been posed for tax clarity, national securities regulation, individual rights, and numerous issues of national importance. Reform of the Senate is another issue of national importance that only this side of the House is taking seriously.

While the last 20 to 30 weeks have understandably led to some public disappointment in the Senate, we are actually sending this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada as a result of the last 20 to 30 years of desire for serious reform of the Senate. I do not exaggerate when I suggest that Canadians have been demanding more accountability and modernity in the Senate for the last 20 to 30 years. I quoted Stan Waters earlier in my remarks. He was elected by voters in Alberta in 1991 and served in the Senate with distinction. One of my former colleagues, Senator Bert Brown, retired from the Senate just months ago.

For 30 years, he led the campaign for a triple-E Senate that we will all remember. Bert was perhaps most famous for ploughing “Triple E or Else” into a farmer's field in Alberta. Interestingly enough, it was actually his neighbour's field, so hopefully he got permission before carving that message to Canadians. However, it really was a cry from a number of people who were not being heard in the national discourse in Ottawa, and for 20 to 30 years people like Bert Brown, Stan Waters, and the voters in Alberta have been asking for change.

(1045) What is the common thread between these Canadians pushing for the reform of the Senate over the last 30 years? They are all Conservatives. The triple-E Senate proposals came out of Alberta during the early 1980s. These approaches called for changing the method of selecting senators to one based on elections and for changing the distribution of senators among the provinces, as well as changing the powers of the Senate. In other words, the triple-E Senate would have been elected, equal and effective. Truly, it would have been the reform of the Senate that has been called for over 30 years.

After many years of promoting this reform on the national stage, the movement truly took root in public discourse in Canada. First came the appointment of the elected Stan Waters by then-prime minister Brian Mulroney. Following that, in the early 1990s, many of the key elements raised by Bert Brown and Stan Waters in the triple-E discussions found their way into constitutional discussions in our country at that time surrounding the Meech Lake and Charlottetown constitutional accords. In fact, the Charlottetown accord would have resulted in a fundamentally reformed Senate.

It would have been elected with an equal number of senators for each province and with some limitations on the powers of the Senate. We all know what happened. The rejection of the Charlottetown accord in the 1992 referendum was a setback for the prospects of fundamental, constitutional and Senate reform for many years. The public dialogue in discussion for Senate reform only ended, however, with the election of the Liberal government in 1993.

The Chrétien Liberals did not continue the approach of appointing elected Albertan senators-in-waiting, despite the fact that Albertans had chosen people who they wanted to serve in the Senate. They returned to the older custom of appointing the few Albertans perhaps brave enough to declare themselves as Liberal supporters in Alberta at that time. While the 13 years of Liberal government saw the movement for an elected and accountable Senate sidelined for more than a decade, the desire for reform continued to germinate in the public consciousness and in public opinion.

Following the defeat of the Liberals in 2006, our government made Senate reform one of its key democratic reform priorities and brought forward proposals to implement term limits for senators and a process to consult Canadians on Senate nominees. In fact, the only province continuing to elect senators, Alberta, has seen some of those elected senators sit in our upper chamber because Prime Minister Harper appointed them as per the direction of the Albertans— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The member has been here long enough to know that he cannot use the name of a sitting member of the House. Mr.

Erin O'Toole : My apologies, Mr. Speaker. My passion for this speech sidelined my adherence to the rules for a moment. Our government believes that the Senate must be reformed, or as with its provincial counterparts, if we cannot reform it, it should vanish. Our government is committed to reforming the Senate so that it better reflects the democratic values that Canadians have grown to expect and that is why we introduced the Senate reform act . The Senate reform act contained two important elements. First, it would limit senators' terms to one non-renewable term of nine years.

Second, it provided for a framework that provinces and territories could use to consult their populations on Senate nominees. While we know Alberta has been electing its senators for some time, other provinces have considered it, with the province of New Brunswick talking about electing its senators some time in the next few years. However, in our federal Parliament, despite our best efforts, progress on our Senate reform initiatives have been stalled by continued questions really about the constitutionality of that legislation from the lower house reforming the upper house.

While we remain confident that Parliament alone does have the authority to proceed with the amendments found in the Senate reform act , it appears that any progress will continue to be stalled until we can put these important constitutional questions to rest. That brings us to our Supreme Court reference. On February 1, our government launched this reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada to gain clarity on the constitutionality of the Senate reform act as well as on a broader range of Senate reform questions and issues.

The clarity achieved as a result of the reference will allow debate in the House to proceed on the basis of the merits of reform and without the uncertainty surrounding the constitutionality of the act. Ultimately, by addressing these questions now, we can move forward and accelerate the pace of reform. If all the questions and hyperbole in the House are any indication, truly there must be a desire to reform and to look forward, not to the past. The reference process poses six questions concerning the amending procedures of

part V of the Constitution Act, 1982. The first two questions ask the court to confirm the constitutionality of the provision for nine-year non-renewable term limits for senators and a non-binding framework for provinces and territories to establish their own processes to consult voters on the selection of Senate nominees. Our government remains confident that these measures separately and together may be accomplished by Parliament acting alone, pursuant to

section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The remaining questions focus on the appropriate amending procedures for a number of other issues that have been prominent in the Senate reform debate, being mindful as I said at the outset that this debate has been going on for 30 years. These additional issues include a national Senate appointments consultation process, real property and net worth qualifications for senators, and as a last resort, a question will be posed for consideration of outright Senate abolition.

Canadians deserve a more democratic Senate and the Supreme Court reference will help advance our progress toward that goal. We have been pursuing that goal since assuming government some years ago. At this point, I will introduce and outline, in some broad strokes, the key arguments that our government is putting forward in the Supreme Court reference on Senate reform. The Constitution comprehensively sets out the rules for achieving Senate reform.

Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, exhaustively describes the procedures for implementing any proposed constitutional reforms and sets out amendments that require provincial consent. In relation to the Senate, four changes require provincial consent: the powers of the Senate, the method of selecting senators, the number of senators to which each province is entitled, and residency qualifications.

(1050) Any other changes to the Senate can be made by Parliament alone. The plain language of sections 38 to 44 of

part V of the Constitution, the history of the Senate and amending procedure reform, and the ordinary rules of statutory

interpretation, all support Parliament's authority to make the reforms proposed in the Senate reform act without obtaining the consent of the provinces. It is our government's position that except for the four matters mentioned explicitly in

section 42, Parliament has the exclusive authority to make laws amending the Constitution in relation to the Senate. Term limits, consultation processes on appointments and the removal of property requirements are not among the four matters set out in

section 42 of the act. Therefore, Parliament alone can make these real changes to that institution. These real and tangible changes related to accountability and reform have been asked for by Canadians for 30 years. Our government looks forward to receiving the Supreme Court's opinion on this matter. Arguments will be made next month on this important national reference question. Our government received a strong mandate to pursue Senate reform, and the Supreme Court reference represents another concrete step toward the goal of making the Senate a more democratic, elected and representative place.

Our government strongly supports measures to improve accountability in the Senate, but we do not believe that the motion before the House today would bring us any closer to achieving that objective. In fact, the motion today and the partisanship and hyperbole it has already generated from the opposition members actually undermines the very principles that the motion purports to represent.

To have a serious discussion on democratic reform or potential amendments to the Constitution or on constitutional questions and removing partisanship from the upper house, and to try to advocate for those things through partisanship in the lower house does not seem to me to be a way to really engage the House in a serious debate about Senate reform, or indeed, to engage Canadians, Canadians such as Bert Brown or the late Stan Waters, who worked tirelessly for decades to reform that institution.

Motions that promote partisanship and promote division among Canadians in parts of this country undermine our parliamentary democracy. Therefore we certainly oppose the motion today, and I encourage all members, including the member for Toronto—Danforth , to encourage his colleagues to speak about reform of that institution in a meaningful and serious way, as Canadians have been asking. As I said at the outset, Stan Waters was the first elected senator from the province of Alberta. There have been several since.

These are Canadians that not only step up wanting to serve the public in the unique capacity of our upper house, but they are asking the public to support them in their pursuit of public office. As any members of the House would know from knocking on the thousands of doors, which I know we all knock on in elections, that degree of connection and accountability that we seek on the doorsteps of Canadians translates into accountability in elected office.

The very act of going to Albertans, asking for their votes, while knowing that senators will not serve beyond the end of their terms, would build accountability into each seat in the upper chamber. In fact, fighting against reform, which the opposition appears to do, particularly my friends in the Liberal caucus, would breed the opposite result.

(1055) How can we truly believe that any Canadian, man or woman, from any region of the country, any territory, if they never have to ask Canadians for their support and they could technically sit in the upper chamber for 30 or more years, how can we really expect accountability to exist in every case? As any elected member of the lower House knows, going and seeking the trust of voters through an election builds accountability and term limits will build in accountability and respect for the institution in a way that has not been seen. I should note that reform of the Senate is truly what Canadians want.

It can be done in a way that I have outlined in my remarks. Many of the changes can be done by the House alone and effective senators can play a significant role. As I said yesterday in some remarks on the subject, while I was in the Canadian Forces during the Chrétien Liberal government, the Canadian Forces was being dismantled. There were morale problems. The only—

(1100) Mr. Royal Galipeau : The decade of darkness. Mr. Erin O'Toole : The decade of darkness. The only people who spoke for the Canadian Forces were two senators, the late Senator Forestall, a Conservative senator, and, with respect, Senator Kenny, a Liberal senator, who took it upon themselves to advocate for this institution. This side of the House wants serious reform. This side of the House has been advocating for that for many years. We wait with heated anticipation for the Supreme Court reference in November that we hope will give the House, and all members in it, a road map for reform of our Senate. Mr.

Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for outlining the government's position. I do not doubt his sincerity in putting it forward, but unfortunately we are really sidestepping the question. Throughout the presentation, the hon. member did more to reinforce our position than I think he realized because he spent so much time talking about how election and accountability were tied together. Basically, the idea of an appointed partisan Senate is completely at odds with everything he claims the government and his party stand for.

Therefore, all his argument amounts to is saying that the perfect, at least in the Conservatives' vision of the world, is the enemy of the good. Why, for goodness sake, can we not at least take some steps in the direction that we have been asking? The Senate really is unduly partial to parties and political power. Partisanship has meant it has never been a serious defender of either principle or the provinces, let alone the people. That is so obvious. However, all we get is a half-measure reform that has been sitting on the books for well over seven years and that is used as an excuse for no action at the moment.

I would like to ask the member if you cannot join us in making the Senate somewhat better now until either your reform or our goal of abolition takes place. The Deputy Speaker : I would remind all members, including the member for Toronto—Danforth , to direct questions through the Chair rather than directly to members. The hon. parliamentary secretary. Mr. Erin O'Toole : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member covered a bit of ground in that question/statement, so I will try to pull two issues from it. First, he talked about our Senate reform act having been on the books and having not advanced in some time.

I would remind the hon. member that the Supreme Court reference is occurring in November. As a learned law professor from one of our fine institutions before his election to Parliament, I would urge him to consider a proactive step in the reform debate. He should get involved. He should make a submission. The NDP could intervene and try to add to the debate of that reference where serious discussion will occur. With respect to his remarks about partisanship, certainly the upper house and those elected senators I spoke about in my speech did sit in a caucus, as we all do as parliamentarians.

I think it shows how really insincere the motion is when one would say that such caucuses could not exist in the upper house when elected senators in Alberta are running on principles as Conservatives. Therefore, certainly, the caucus structure in the Westminster system is important and I hope the hon. member acknowledges that.

(1105) Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my question for the member across the way is very simple. We have watched that party, since it came to power, appoint 57 senators, including Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau, and there is a problem. That is 2% of the Senate that the Conservatives appointed. When the member sits in caucus, has the Prime Minister revealed some of the information that we have seen now between Mr. Duffy and the Prime Minister? Has the Prime Minister revealed to caucus members when Mr. Duffy and Pamela Wallin were going across the country during the election?

Was he also part and parcel of that? Did he benefit from Mr. Duffy going to his riding to speak? Do Conservative members know what is going on in the Prime Minister 's Office, since they sit in caucus, or are they in the dark, too? Mr. Erin O'Toole : Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Agincourt talked about what happens in caucus. I cannot speak about what happens in caucus, other than the fact that the our caucus is truly united on a desire to reform that institution. That is a singular common thread on this side of the House.

I would remind the hon. member that it was actually Prime Minister Chrétien who stopped the tradition of appointing elected senators. Albertans had expressed the desire to send elected upper house parliamentarians to Ottawa. That was done by Prime Minister Mulroney. Liberals actually stopped the movement for Senate reform. I think back to famous former Liberal senator Andrew Thompson, who set new standards for bringing the respect of the House down. I would encourage the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt to work within his caucus.

I do not need to know what he says, but he should work within his caucus to get Liberals serious about Senate reform and catching up on the ground lost under their government. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague for his speech. He explained in large part the government's position on the Senate. It is important to remember why the Senate was created and how the Fathers of Confederation initially envisioned it. It was supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought. That is not the case today.

The upper chamber is just as partisan as the House of Commons, if not more so. I heard my colleague complaining about the partisan nature of the House of Commons and the role of the party system. The second chamber, the upper chamber, was in fact created to offset the partisanship in the House of Commons. I wonder if the government thinks that an elected upper chamber—which is what it is seeking and will argue in favour of in court in November—would solve the problem of partisanship. After all, if senators are elected, they will still have a political allegiance.

This will not solve the partisanship problem that we take issue with when the upper chamber was supposed to function as a chamber of sober second thought. Having elected senators will not achieve that and, what is more, it will create a dysfunctional chemistry between the two chambers. We will have two elected chambers with no clear sense of which is best positioned to draft bills. That is a whole other matter. I would like the hon. member to elaborate on that. [ English ] Mr. Erin O'Toole : Mr.

Speaker, a few times in his question, the member for Sherbrooke mentioned the Senate as a chamber of sober second thought. In my remarks, I briefly talked about some of the good work done by the Senate in the last number of decades. It can be effective and I think will be more effective when senators are elected and accountable for their regions. I mentioned Senators Forrestall and Kenny advocating for defence and military members and their families during the decade of indifference.

I think of another Liberal senator, and here I am being non-partisan, Michael Kirby, and some of his work on health care, another important public policy element. I am also thinking of Senator Hugh Segal, who I met while I was a cadet at the Royal Military College of Canada, the only senator who talked about engaging foreign policy and all these sorts of things, defence procurement, a number of the issues that were not in the media to the same degree they are now. He was advocating for them then, and, in fact, was appointed by a Liberal prime minister. There can be effectiveness in the Senate.

It is our government's firm belief that it has been Canadians' desire for the last 30 years for accountability through election and term limits that will make the Senate even more effective and a complement to parliamentarians in both Houses.

(1110) Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to identify the part of the NDP motion that the Liberal caucus supports and the parts that we find are wrong and that we cannot support. The motion reads, “That, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate” and we agree, but we should add “in the Senate and in the House”. It goes on to say, “and, therefore, this House call for the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings”. Well, that is ridiculous.

It is certainly against the Constitution. It continues, “and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business”. Can we also ask the same of the members of Parliament? The Liberal Party agrees with the first part of the motion “to improve accountability in the Senate”, but also in the House. We believe Canadians want to see improved accountability in both the Senate and the House of Commons, which is why we have taken the lead on making that happen.

As of today, Liberal senators and MPs are the only ones who have begun to proactively disclose the details of their travel and hospitality expenses online for Canadians to see. In fact, Liberal senators are now far more accountable for their spending than NDP MPs, who continue to hide how they spend taxpayer dollars from their constituents. Today what Canadians are wondering is why the NDP members will not disclose their expenses. Is it that they have something to hide, or maybe it is in their political culture to be accountable for others but not for themselves?

Why would those members not unanimously support the four measures our Liberal leader proposed publicly some months ago: hospitality expenses made by MPs and senators and their staff be disclosed; introduce legislation to make meetings of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons open and transparent to the public; create a quarterly and more detailed online expense report for spending by members of Parliament and the Senate that is also more easily accessed and usable by the public from the home page of the Parliament of Canada website; and the House and Senate Boards of Internal Economy should work with the Auditor General to develop mandatory performance audits of the House of Commons and Senate administration every three years.

Is that agreed, unanimously? Certainly, I am sure my colleagues will applaud that, if they want to be as accountable themselves as they want the Senate to be. The second part of this motion cannot be supported by the Liberals, “to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings”. That would certainly be against the Constitution. I want to explain this to my NDP colleague who is so surprised.

We have no right to say today that there are two kinds of parliamentarians, some with some powers and prerogatives and others without powers and prerogatives when it is not written in the Constitution of Canada. It is as simple as that. We cannot say “You are a parliamentarian, but not the same as the ones in the House. You cannot be part of your caucus”.

This would change the character of the Senate, its relationship with the House and it would be a constitutional problem. (1115) [ Translation ] It is very amateurish on the part of our NDP colleagues to be constantly introducing motions in the House that make no sense and waste time. It really is a basic thing to know that one house cannot restrict the powers and prerogatives of another house. [ English ] That is why we cannot support it. I think I have made my point clear.

Another example of the NDP amateurism in all these issues is that in June 2013 we had a debate of the opposition day motion that called for the complete defunding of the Senate. I doubt MPs are asking for that. The Liberals opposed this motion on the grounds that a defunded Senate could not achieve its constitutional mandate. Can we agree about that? The New Democrats are falling into the trap that the Prime Minister has set.

They are making it a constitutional issue rather than an issue about the Prime Minister's judgment in his appointments, and it distracts from scandal and cover-up in the PMO on the Wright–Duffy affair. Yesterday, we learned that Mike Duffy was told to take the $90,000, keep his mouth shut and go along with the cover-up, or Conservative senators would kick him out of the Senate. On June 5, the Prime Minister said in the House: ...it was Mr. Wright who made the decision to take his personal funds and give those to Mr. Duffy.... [It was] not communicated to me or to members of my office. That is what he said.

Now he saying that it was his best knowledge at the time. What a change. A lot of questions come from that. The Prime Minister , shamefully, does not want to answer to Canadians. That is completely unacceptable. Who told him that at that time? If somebody told him that only Mr. Wright was aware of the $90,000 cheque, who told him that? The Prime Minister should give names and should explain why these people misled him, if that is the case. If it is not he who misled Canadians, he should explain himself. The fact that he is not explaining himself is completely a scandal and an attack against our democracy.

The fact is that my Conservative colleagues accept that, day after day, the Prime Minister stands up and, instead of answering specific questions, deflects all the questions. They should be very impressed that this is the Prime Minister of Canada behaving this way. Let me say that as a minister I always answered questions in this House. The opposition may not have always been pleased by my answers, but as a matter of respect, if they asked me questions on something, I gave an answer. Most of these ministers do the same as the Prime Minister.

When we come with a specific question on anything, most of them are pleased to read their notes and they give an answer that has nothing to do with the question. When they do not answer questions from the opposition, it is not only this House that they are not respecting; it is the people of Canada. [ Translation ] To get back to my NDP colleagues, they are not at their best when they talk about the Senate. First, there is this entire matter of abolishing the Senate because some senators misappropriated their budgets. Senator Duffy seems to have scoffed at the basic rules of respect for taxpayers.

It is absolutely staggering that the NDP is proposing to reopen the Constitution on that basis, because that is what we would be obliged to do. This party would be obliged to tell Canadians that the economy is doing very poorly, that the government has so mismanaged the economy that it has become anemic, but that that is not its priority. Its priority is to ask the Prime Minister of Canada, the premiers of the provinces, the House of Commons and all the provincial legislative assemblies to undertake a huge constitutional negotiation for the purpose of abolishing the Senate.

The Supreme Court will very likely tell us that that will require all or at least seven provinces with 50% of the population, but that is a relatively minor difference because, unless the NDP members rise and say they are prepared to abolish the veto on constitutional change that this House granted Quebec, 7/50 and unanimity are more or less equivalent. The NDP members have never explained themselves on that point. Perhaps they should do so since they want to talk about the Constitution at all costs instead of talking about the Prime Minister’s accountability.

If Quebec’s veto on constitutional change is a joke to them, then 7/50 is equivalent to unanimity among the provinces. That is their fate and that is the debate we would have.

(1120) Obviously, one province will say it wants certain things if we abolish the Senate. We would embark on an enormous negotiation that would no doubt turn out badly and would be a huge waste of time. That is the NDP’s irresponsibility.

As for the Conservatives, their irresponsibility on this issue lies in their wish to elect the Senate without changing anything else in the Constitution of Canada, as though the provinces had nothing to say on the matter and a Senate elected without any mechanism for resolving conflict with the House of Commons would not lead to the same repeated paralysis we see in the United States. The Prime Minister of Canada wants to import many things from the United States, including parliamentary paralysis. The whistle has to be blown on that.

Furthermore, if the Senate were elected, the Prime Minister would focus on his own province and British Columbia, since those two provinces are highly under-represented in the Senate. Since the Senate is not elected but plays a useful role, which, most of the time, consists in leaving the last word to the House of Commons, the problem of the under-representation of Alberta and British Columbia is controllable.

However, if the Senate were elected, all its members would have only one idea in mind: to get themselves re-elected and to serve out their terms, and the under-representation of British Columbia and Alberta would be utterly intolerable. We do not know which province would volunteer to give them more senators. Would it be the Atlantic provinces? That is highly unlikely; their weight in the House of Commons is steadily declining. Would it be Quebec? No, Quebec is a nation. We can forget about that. Ontario is quite under-represented in the Senate and the House of Commons, so that is highly unlikely.

Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories have no senators to give away. Consequently, we would find ourselves in an enormous constitutional crisis with the ill-considered plan of an irresponsible Prime Minister who still refuses to conduct himself in a transparent manner with Canadians. [ English ] The Liberal Party of Canada is the only party with a comprehensive plan to make Parliament more accountable and transparent, and publicly disclosing our expenses is just the first step.

With the return of Parliament, Canadians can count on the Liberal Party and its leader to continue pushing for measures to prevent ethical breaches, increase openness and transparency and strengthen the integrity of our electoral system and our great democracy. [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to point out that the member had his facts wrong. The NDP was the first to post the expenses of its members online. My colleague failed to mention this. This is the first thing he addressed, but contrary to what he claims, we do this.

The NDP started doing it even before the Liberals made an attempt to do so. In addition, this motion has to do with the Senate. If anyone in the House wishes to move a motion on how the government or anyone else uses the House of Commons, they may also bring forward a motion on that. However, today's motion refers to the Senate. There is no need to confuse the issue, when there is no argument. This is my reading of the situation. The Liberals have no argument with respect to the Senate. They still want to maintain the status quo on this issue.

Let us stop confusing the issue and talk about what is on the table right now, namely the motion on the Senate. Should any members in the House wish to move a motion dealing with the House of Commons, they can do so, and that motion can then be debated and voted on. I just wanted to comment on the Liberal member's misleading claims.

(1125) Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, if the member is claiming that he posts all his expenses online and that his caucus does too, Canadians would be very interested to know this, since we have not seen them. Furthermore, if the New Democrats are indeed volunteering to show transparency, why do they not vote unanimously for the Liberal leader's proposals, which they have refused to support? As for the Senate, I put forward a whole series of arguments. I do not understand why he did not make any, but I will try to reiterate my own.

We cannot abolish the Senate without the agreement of the provinces and Quebec—unless the member wishes to get rid of Quebec's veto. He did not really explain this. This is not a priority for Canadians. It is irresponsible to make us waste so much energy on this when we should be focusing on more serious issues such as the economy and the environment. This motion is unconstitutional. We cannot limit the prerogatives of a group of parliamentarians through a House of Commons motion.

It is completely amateurish of his party to bring forth a motion like this today, when there are so many urgent issues to discuss, including the Prime Minister 's refusal to address serious allegations of a cover-up. [ English ] Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, normally I hold my counsel, but I really do have to take exception to being called an amateur on a point of law from someone who has proven to have no serious training in the law in his positions on constitutional matters. The question is that the House take urgent steps. It is not actually saying what steps to take.

It could well be by calling on the Senate later to adopt these measures itself. It could be for the parties to actively make sure senators do not sit in the caucus. As for the earlier claim that the constitution is violated by this, I would urge the member to read the case of New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia. It makes it very clear that the privileges of the House block any application of the rest of the Constitution. Secondly, I would urge him to read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and understand how

section 1 works. Reasonable limits on rights in the Constitution are absolutely possible. The idea of making sure that senators do not sit in caucus has everything to do with de-partisanizing the Senate. Therefore, the rational objective, the minimal infringement on such prerogatives as sitting inside the House and caucus, is not touched upon. I would ask him to read the case of Osborne v. Canada, in which the Supreme Court said that high functionaries of the civil service themselves can be prohibited from engaging in partisan activities, and that would not violate the charter.

Therefore, rather than these broad sweeping claims from the member who does not know anything about constitutional law, I would prefer he make his precise arguments. Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have made my colleague go out of his mind like this. Sometimes jurists have difficulties with political scientists. It is true, but I am very proud to be a political scientist. To speak for my profession, we know a lot about the Constitution and the political consequences of some of the legalities involved.

A political consequence is to reopen the Constitution because we saw Duffy mismanage his budget enormously. Certainly it is amateur to pretend the contrary. I should not say that anymore. Okay, my colleague is not amateur. I withdraw this word. My colleague is wrong on this issue, for example, when he put an equivalency in the ruling on the top bureaucrats and parliamentarians, because a senator is a parliamentarian according the Constitution.

To say that there are limits on the ability to express one's political opinion and preferences when one works for the government as a public servant, and to say because of that we are entitled to deprive a parliamentarian of being a part of his or her caucus, is something that does not make sense and will not reach first base in baseball. (1130) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question. He seemed to get his facts mixed up during his speech. I will also reiterate what my colleague from Toronto—Danforth said.

According to the motion as it stands now, senators would no longer have party affiliations. It is therefore not unconstitutional to ask them not to sit in a caucus, since the motion proposes to eliminate all partisanship among senators. If they are not partisan, they can create a non-partisan caucus. However, we do not think that they should belong to a partisan caucus, since we do not want them to be partisan. Therefore, constitutionality is not an issue. The member claimed that our desire to abolish the Senate came about in recent years, but that is completely untrue.

We have been calling for the abolition of the Senate for over 50 years. This is not some revelation we had in response to the Senate scandals. This brings me to my question. I would like to know whether the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville agrees with us or whether he supports all senators travelling to participate in partisan activities. Does the member agree that senators—both Liberals and Conservatives—should travel around the country to campaign during elections?

Does he agree with this level of partisanship and does he agree that senators should be allowed to use taxpayer money to participate in partisan activities? Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, I am 100% opposed to any misuse of public funds and any use of parliamentary funds for partisan activities, whether in the Senate or the House of Commons. That is why I am surprised that the NDP members are putting forward a motion that applies only to senators and not to themselves. This clearly demonstrates that, in political culture, it seems to be more important to demand accountability of other people than of oneself.

If we want to really work together to ensure that past abuses committed by unscrupulous parliamentarians never happen again, the Liberal leader has a very clear proposal. Unfortunately, it was rejected by our NDP colleagues. I would also like to ask them why they have not yet stated their position on respecting Quebec's right to veto any constitutional amendments. [ English ] Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate. I think most Canadians, and anyone watching this debate, understand that the member's integrity and opinions are beyond reproach.

One thing that he garnered a lot of recognition for, and justifiably so, was the work he did as the minister of intergovernmental affairs in past governments. He certainly worked hard at gaining an understanding of all the provinces and their positions on the Senate. I fully appreciate his comments on accountability, and in this motion I think it is fair to point the guns at the NDP and ask why the New Democrats have not been more accountable. However, we are concerned and confused about other aspects of the motion.

Would these issues have come forward during his days as the minister for intergovernmental affairs? Would the issues around the Senate and Senate reform have been issues that premiers would have come to him with? Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, certainly issues about accountability, transparency, and honesty have always been important. That is why our caucus is so motivated to improve these matters, which are so important to Canadians here in the House as much as in the Senate. We would be very willing to go ahead, and we wish that our colleagues from the other parties would be as motivated as we are about it.

Regarding constitutional reform, I must admit that Canadians have come to the conclusion that we may make a lot of improvements on many issues without starting mega-constitutional changes and negotiations that may deprive us of the ability to focus on the very concrete issues that we have today. It is irresponsible of the New Democrats and the Conservatives to suggest today that we need to reopen the Constitution, when we may improve the Senate's accountability and ability to work as a chamber of sober second thought, a chamber of scrutiny.

The obligation of the Prime Minister is to justify his choices, not in press releases on a Friday afternoon but in a speech in the House on the Senate, explaining why he made these choices. He should also provide an ironclad guarantee that when he is appointing a senator, this senator really does live in the province he is supposed to represent. (1135) [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with my honourable colleague from Newton—North Delta .

After being locked out of the House of Commons for five weeks by the Conservative government, I am unabashedly delighted to be back in this chamber to resume our debates. I always enjoy listening to what my colleagues have to say. Not long ago I had the good fortune to hear my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville refer to Liberal and Conservative senators as “dishonest parliamentarians” for allegedly dipping into the till and misappropriating public funds, actions which the RCMP are investigating. That is interesting. Clearly they are guilty of some dishonesty.

One of the attacks heard earlier today concerned the motion tabled by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth . I would like to thank him for that motion. MPs do not have the same burden to bear as senators. The NDP's position on this matter is perfectly consistent. MPs should not regulate themselves. It is precisely for that reason that we need a third party to investigate whether MPs are indeed honest and spend taxpayer dollars properly in the interests of their constituents. The NDP believes in the need for transparency, but unlike the Liberals, we do not believe that we must also be judge and jury.

As everyone knows, for the past two years, we have been dealing with a majority Conservative government that appears to disregard the people and their needs and turn a blind eye to the scandals piling up around it week after week, day after day. Thank goodness we have opposition days that enable us to raise issues that are important to our constituents. I think my colleague from Toronto—Danforth took a step in the right direction by tabling a motion today that would improve transparency and perhaps restore the public’s trust in the Senate which today, unfortunately, is a sick institution.

We need to remember the reason why the Westminster system initially provided for the establishment of both an upper and a lower house. The objective originally was to have the wise, appointed members of the upper house act as a counterbalance and ensure that the lower house had done its legislative work properly and not screwed up. It was a noble objective. In fact, the idea at the outset was not bad one. The Senate could have remained a chamber of sober second thought where wise individuals reflected on legislation passed by the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, in recent decades, an institutional shift has taken place thanks to the Liberals and Conservatives. The chamber of sober second thought has become a repository for friends. Liberal and Conservative party supporters are rewarded. They need only make their way to the other side of the building to receive a salary to the age of 75. In years past, they were guaranteed a salary for life. When the voters reject a former MP or minister in an election, the Prime Minister appoints him to the Senate. When an MP is rejected by the voters, he is rewarded with a Senate appointment.

The old parties in power gradually changed the very meaning of the upper house and made it a repository for friends of the regime, a place where people are rewarded with partisan appointments. Those partisan appointments are not based in any way on expertise, but often on reputation. The appointments are partisan, and the work is partisan. Celebrities are appointed to the Senate to do the job on the ground, to raise funds in our towns, villages and communities. Should that really be the work of someone who is appointed to the Senate? We do not think so.

We also think that the institution is so far gone that it should be abolished. Lastly, we also think that, in the meantime, we could remove some of the biggest irritants from the Senate. The point of the NDP motion introduced today is to restrict partisan work.

(1140) Why use public funds to travel across the country to give talks and raise money for the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party? Does that really serve the public interest? Why not move forward immediately with the motion the NDP has introduced to improve the situation and correct the problem that has crept in over the years, over the decades. The member for Sherbrooke mentioned it earlier. This is not a new idea in the NDP. We believe that the Senate is superfluous and that we could easily do without it, especially given how sick it is and all the partisan appointments that have been made.

Remember that, when the current Prime Minister was in opposition, he said he would never, ever, appoint unelected senators. He has appointed 59 of them. That is what you call packing a chamber, and it works. We think this institution, which is undemocratic, archaic and obsolete, deserves to be forgotten and relegated to the dustbin of history. In the meantime, however, before we see how and when we can do that, perhaps we can improve matters. That is what the NDP is doing: actually trying to improve matters. The upper chamber, or the red chamber, as it used to be called in Quebec, was abolished in 1968.

Nova Scotia's Ssnate was abolished in 1928. I know those dates by heart. I do not believe many people will demonstrate in the streets of Quebec demanding that the senate, the red chamber, be restored. That will not be the case in Nova Scotia either. People often demonstrate in Montreal and Quebec. We are very civic-minded, but I have never heard that demand made. This summer, my team and I knocked on thousands of doors in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, collecting signatures for a petition calling for the abolition of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, you should have seen the enthusiasm of some of my constituents.

Many asked me whether they could sign twice. I said no because that is not ethical or legal. They could sign only once, but I said I would definitely pass on the message for them. People are fed up. They are exasperated with this government's partisan politics and partisan appointments and with those of the previous government. People are incensed to see the appointees, those who are supposed to be the sages of this country, embezzle public funds and use them solely for their own political parties or, even worse, for their personal interests.

That is the case with the saga involving Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, Mac Harb and Mike Duffy who, it seems, may be at the centre of a cover-up attempt orchestrated and organized by the Prime Minister 's Office. The NDP asked the Speaker to rule on whether the Prime Minister had misled the House on June 5 when answering our questions. That would be very serious. In light of the current Senate mess, we believe that it is time to eliminate the partisan work of the hundred or so senators and to have them do what they are supposed to do, namely, to review laws and sometimes enhance, improve, or correct them.

This happened last year with private member's Bill C-377 , which is an abomination. Senators were able to make amendments that, quite frankly, were very important to the protection of the public interest, privacy, and unions. We are hoping for changes to be made quickly. We do not need to dither and debate the issue for weeks. The motion moved by the NDP today can be implemented very quickly to bring about change. If the Liberals and the Conservatives were to act in good faith and really wanted to improve things, I do not see why they would vote against the NDP motion.

It would help restore Canadians' and Quebeckers' confidence in an institution that needs it after being rocked by all these scandals, after all the partisan appointments of senators, who apparently used public money for private purposes and were reimbursed for expenses to which they were not entitled.

(1145) Therefore, in the interest of transparency and in order to restore people's confidence and put an end to the crass partisan activities of Liberal or Conservative senators, I am asking everyone in the House to support the motion moved by the member for Toronto—Danforth . Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate my colleague on his excellent presentation. I am not a complete amateur, in my opinion, contrary to what the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville thinks. Moreover, being called an amateur does not bother me too much.

Anyone can see that my back is broad, and there is a reason for that. All summer long, I travelled throughout my constituency of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, the second-largest in Canada. My constituency is highly diversified. I have 14 Inuit communities, nine Cree communities and two Algonquin communities. I have logging and mining towns and villages throughout the riding. Wherever I went, people talked to me about the Senate and the need to abolish that outdated institution.

When someone calls me an amateur, it does not bother me, but when he calls my constituents amateurs, I have a small problem with that. I would like to know whether my colleague heard the same thing in his constituency. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his very relevant comments. People read the papers and keep up with the news. At some point, there is a kind of scandal overload with respect to politicians. We need only think of the Charbonneau commission in Quebec and what we have witnessed at the municipal level in some Quebec localities.

It is absolutely deplorable. Then at the federal level, we note the appointments made by the current Conservative government and the scandals at the other end of this building. It really undermines the respect Canadians may have for men and women in politics. This is being seen and felt everywhere in our communities. People are talking to us about it on their home turf. They are asking us when this Conservative government will be thrown out. The time is coming.

People are also asking us when the rules will be changed to stop the scandals and prevent politicians from stuffing their pockets with money belonging to their fellow citizens and taxpayers. The exasperation is palpable, and we have to respond to it. We have to put measures in place to improve transparency and accountability. People are yearning for it. They are yearning for justice and honesty on the part of their politicians. Let us adopt the NDP motion and—please—take partisan activities out of the Senate. Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask him whether he agrees that members and senators should proactively disclose travel and representation expenses, that meetings of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons should be public and transparent, that a more detailed quarterly report on the spending of members and senators should be posted on the website, and that the House of Commons and Senate should work together with the auditor general to have regular, mandatory audits.

(1150) Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for his very specific question with its grocery list of point ( a ), point ( b ), point (

c) and point ( d ). I will not go into detail on each of his proposals because that might make him all too delighted and it is too close to noon for that. However I can say that the office expenses of the NDP members are public. They are on the website. If the hon. member has not been to look at them, that is another kettle of fish. I have a first-rate neighbour here in the House, by the way. The newspapers, including La Presse , have reported on our expenses and how the information is disclosed and published promptly.

However, I think it is important to point out that the papers have made generalizations that can be misleading. As we have done with our members’ office expenses, we will be proactive in order to be transparent, so that people know exactly how their money has been spent. We would be more than happy to work with the auditor general, other bodies or third parties that can examine our expenses and ensure that the rules have been properly applied. [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say what a delight it is to be back here in the House of Commons.

I am a little bit disappointed that we were not back here a month earlier to deal with the business of the people and major concerns I heard in my riding, but let me also assure members that I have had a wonderful time in Newton—North Delta listening to the concerns of citizens as they worry about their future, whether it is high youth unemployment or the lack of decent-paying jobs. I would say the Senate and issues surrounding the Senate were the key focus in many of the conversations I had in my riding, whether in a grocery store, at official meetings, or even at social gatherings.

I also want to thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for bringing forward a motion that is practical and that tackles the issue of the Senate one step at a time. I say that it is practical because everyone knows that I fully support the abolition of the Senate. I can think of a myriad of ways to spend the $92.5 million: addressing the high student debt load and high youth unemployment, putting more money into skills training, addressing our seniors, and addressing our veterans. I can think of a million ways to spend that money the way Canadians would like to have it spent.

That is a goal and that is what we will keep pushing for, but in the meantime, the NDP prides itself that we are not here just to critique what the government does but to put forward solutions. Here is a solution put forward to address—in the short term, in a very practical way—some of the serious problems in the Senate. I am not saying that this motion is going to address the problems around some of the scandals that escalated yesterday with all the allegations.

What this motion actually does is try to take away some of this energy and some of this confrontation between the government and some of its own appointees. It puts forward a practical first step to address some of the abuses and some of the partisanship. Our colleague from Toronto—Danforth has put forward a very simple resolution that I cannot imagine any member could be opposed to, whether they sit on one side of the House or the other and no matter which political party they belong to. It is that “urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate”.

Surely we all want that, and it sets out how some of that could be done. The motion states that the whole House calls for: ...the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings, and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business. We have heard every political party say there is a need for change. The motion before the House today does not require a constitutional change. This is a practical step that the House could take.

It could then go over to the Senate, and with the kind of partisanship that exists rights now, this issue could be addressed very quickly. First of all, every person has said that. There are some people who think they can do doublespeak, and I was thinking of the person who made this quote. I puzzled over it as an English teacher. This is a direct quote from a member of Parliament in the second opposition: It would unbalance so many things that we just have to focus on making it a better quality Senate rather than trying to change the Senate.

(1155) When I read quotes like that, the first thing that comes to my mind is how to go about making it a better-quality Senate without making some changes, because obviously the status quo is not working, and it is not working because there is so much partisanship. It is the House of sober second thought. Do we really believe that Canadians across this beautiful country now believe that the Senate is a House of sober second thought?

The institution has been very badly damaged, and this motion that the official opposition has brought forward goes partway toward taking some short-term steps, which, by the way, are very straightforward. Before we get into a discussion about all these people being independent and being appointed because of their skill sets and being representative of the diversity of our great country, which actually was the goal at the beginning, let us think about who was actually appointed to the Senate.

I will not read a long list, but it includes Irving Gerstein, chief fundraiser and chair of Conservative Fund Canada; Judith Seidman, Quebec co-chair of the Prime Minister 's leadership bid; and Donald Plett, Conservative Party president. The list goes on and on. I do not want my friends in the far corner on the other side to think that some of the appointments they made are exempt. They include David Smith, national campaign co-chair; James Cowan, Nova Scotia campaign co-chair; and Grant Mitchell, Leader's Alberta Outreach Coordinator.

Let us call the Senate what it is: it is appointees, and the appointees are either failed candidates, big-time fundraisers, or big operators within their respective parties. Both parties, Conservative and Liberal, have to take responsibility for the damage they have done to the institution of the Senate. I do not know how they can even say it is an institution of sober second thought. I just do not see how they can say that. Let us get back to the motion. As I said, it contains very small steps, but very significant steps, and I am sure everybody will support them. One of them is for senators not to take

part in caucus meetings. I find it absolutely bizarre that anybody thinks that caucus meetings that occur for all the parties in the House are not partisan. It is bizarre. If they are not partisan, why are they not happening in the public eye, in the media, and why can we not walk into each other's caucus meetings whenever we wish to, depending on what is being discussed?

I am not saying there is anything wrong with political parties having caucus meetings, but surely we do not want senators, who are non-partisan and provide independent sober second thought once they are appointed, to be present as caucus meetings unfold. We would have to go a long way to convince even my granddaughter in grade 12 that they are anything but partisan. Let us look at the second aspect of this motion, which is to limit travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business.

Let us remember that we are not talking about elected people who travel around to speak to their constituents and hear from them about legislation and so on. They are also talking to their constituents about issues that are important to them. We are only talking about limiting travel allowances to those activities that are related to parliamentary business and putting an end to campaigning and fundraising junkets. I hear a lot from different parties to the effect that we need to do something.

I hear my colleagues across the way saying that they are waiting to hear from the Supreme Court; well, there is nothing the Supreme Court is going to say that will stop them from voting on this issue. Therefore, I urge every member in the House to vote for this motion.

(1200) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which reminds us of certain important facts. The upper chamber, the Senate, is supposed to be a chamber that scrutinizes bills passed by the House of Commons, with the aim of offsetting the partisanship that can exist in the House. Our motion is therefore very reasonable, in that it ensures that senators will be obliged to stop participating in purely partisan activities such as caucus meetings. This is a very reasonable way to prevent excessive partisanship.

The main purpose of a caucus is to bring the party together to discuss its position and then emerge with the party’s points of argument. I would like to know if my colleague agrees that these measures, which are applicable immediately—it is important to note—are quite reasonable. It is important that the members of the House of Commons adopt these measures in the hours ahead. [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, I am always impressed by my colleague's thoughtfulness, both at committee and in the House, and by the way he does his research, speaks on issues, and represents his riding.

The motion before us today is so reasonable that I find it hard to understand why anybody would be opposed to taking these very simple first steps while we wait to hear from the Supreme Court and while we look at abolition and other dramatic changes, as some parties want to do. We have been hearing from the Liberal Party for ages that it has tweaks to the status quo, such as a new appointment system, but we have heard nothing so far. Let us assume that the Liberals are serious. Surely any such system would have to exclude partisanship as either the basis or the outcome of appointments.

If that is so, the Liberals should embrace today's motion, because it would try to make a dent in the problem of partisanship for current senators, unless they are just waiting out the time and delaying, which is the Liberal's favourite pastime. Rather than delaying, let us pass the motion so that we can show the Canadian public that we are taking steps to protect their tax dollars and to limit the abuses in the Senate. (1205) [ Translation ] Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member shares my opinion.

If we were to pass this motion today, if the Senate were to start doing the work senators are paid to do, and if the Senate began to fulfill its mission, the Senate itself would be completely useless, not for us, but for the Liberals and Conservatives. The Senate would lose its partisan, biased bent. [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, the member is another hardworking member of Parliament who I know is much loved in his riding because of the amazing work he does for his constituents.

It appears that it is in the interest of the current government and the other party in the House to keep partisanship alive. If that were not so, they would support the motion. If we want the Senate to be that sober second thought institution, then everybody should be supporting the motion. The motion is not about abolition, although that is what I favour. All it says is that senators should not go to caucus meetings, should travel only on parliamentary business, and should stop their fundraising and partisan politics across this country. It is very simple. [ Translation ] Mrs.

Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand the motion. I agree with the first part of the motion because we are in need of accountability. However, we are also talking about partisanship in an appointed Senate. We agree that senators are appointed through a partisan process. I have a hard time understanding how, under the current system, senators that are appointed by various governments could cease to be partisan. It is normal that they are partisan, that they participate in caucus and so on. The other aspect that I do not understand is the link between partisanship and dishonesty.

I understand that they want to do away with partisanship in the hope that it will result in accountability. I do not understand that though because members here in the House are partisan, yet I believe that we all have a strong sense of honesty. There are a number of aspects in the motion that I do not understand. [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely partisan about this, but at the same time, we are elected. Every four years, we go back to our constituents, who either send us back here or not. That is where our accountability comes in. Senators are appointed.

By the way, I am not in favour of appointments. I am not even in favour of the Senate. However, what the motion does is stop the overt and active partisanship in going to caucus meetings, travelling around the country fundraising, and working during election campaigns on the taxpayers' dollar, which I do not think is right. If each party wants to pay people to campaign for them, that is a separate issue altogether. However, what we are talking about is senators doing this in their role, using government money. Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to get up in the House of Commons to speak to the issues people elected us to speak to. I am particularly happy to be up today to talk about this. It is an opportunity for us to not only to highlight some of the inconsistencies in the NDP messaging on this but to highlight the significant reforms we have put on the table with respect to the Senate to try to move it into the 21st century and make it an institution accountable to Canadians that Canadians can again be proud of.

One of the most important things any of us can do as parliamentarians is make sure that Canadians have pride not only in their country but in the institutions that serve their country and make it such a great place to live. I will quote the motion. I do not want to get it wrong. The NDP motion says: ...urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate... If this is so important, I have to ask myself why the NDP, since we have been elected, has chosen not to support any of the reforms we have put on the table with respect to the Senate.

We have been in office eight years, but the vast majority of that time was spent in a minority government, when we needed the support of one or both opposition parties to move legislation through this House and into the Senate. Quite often, that was not the case when it came to the Senate. We put in place a number of significant proposals that Canadians have long been asking for. We have been consistently frustrated, in part because the NDP for so long has maintained one position. That position is that the Senate needs to be abolished.

However, today the NDP members have changed their minds yet again and now have moved to say that the Senate actually needs to be reformed. There are some of the inconsistencies. The member for Outremont , the leader of the NDP, has also brought a bill forward in this House that would actually give the Senate even more powers. In the span of a short period of time, we have seen the NDP move, with respect to Senate reform, in all kinds of different directions. It is very confusing, and it is very hard to understand what the NDP actually wants with respect to Senate reform.

One of the discussions we have been having is with respect to non-partisanship in the Senate, which I think was brought up by the former leader of the Liberal Party and the former Bloc member, now an independent member. This is very difficult to understand. The only way one could actually guarantee that a senator would be non-partisan would be to strip the right of that senator to vote in an election. Every senator has the right to vote in an election. By their nature, they are going to be making decisions, whether we strip them of their rights to come to a caucus meeting or not.

I hope that the NDP is not suggesting that we need to strip senators of their right to vote in elections to ensure that they remain non-partisan. I think this reflects the immature nature of the NDP approach to this, or as was said earlier by a Liberal member, the amateurish nature of this motion. It is another attempt to waste time in Parliament. The reason it is wasting time in Parliament is that we have so many serious things we should be talking about right now. That is not to minimize the events that have occurred in the Senate over the last number of months.

Canadians have expressed that they are very disappointed in what they have seen in the Senate, as they should be, and not just recently but for a long period of time. It is the lack of accountability in the Senate. It is the lack of transparency in senators' spending, our inability to extract accountability from our Senate colleagues, and Canadians' inability to extract accountability because senators are not elected and there are very few opportunities for them to be removed.

(1210) We have also seen in the recent past the sad spectacle of one senator who was being tried with respect to spending infractions and was being paid the entire time it took to get this case through court. He was subsequently found guilty and sent to jail, but throughout that period he was still receiving a paycheque from the people of Canada, despite the fact that he was unable to attend the Senate or perform any of the functions that we would expect of our senators.

Since being elected, the Conservatives have put on the table very meaningful reforms with respect to the Senate because we understand the status quo is not an option for a country as great as Canada in the 21st century. It is not an option for a country that will be seizing on extraordinary opportunities, a country that will be leading in economic growth, a country that will be leading in so many different areas that are important, not only to Canadians but to people around the world. We are a country that will do its

part in making sure that Canadian values are protected, not only at home but abroad. To do that we also need to move forward and make some changes to the Senate. When we look at the Senate, we have two options. We could abolish the Senate and go through the process that is required to abolish the Senate, seeking the approval of the provinces to do so, or we could try to work within the constitution and reform the Senate. That is what we have brought forward. We brought forward some very positive proposals that would see us working with our provincial partners in order to have a more accountable Senate.

One of these initiatives is the selection of senators. Right now, senators are called by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister and they serve up to 45 years. In many instances, that happens without the consultation of the provinces. Within the current constitutional framework, we asked how we could reform the Senate so that we work with our provincial partners and we do not open the constitution, distracting Canadians from the real job that we need to do during this time of global economic downturn.

We want to continue to focus on creating jobs and opportunities but at the same time try to reform some of these institutions that Canadians are asking us to bring into the 21st century. In the Alberta model, Albertans elect senators. It has already been talked about by a number of my colleagues that a number of senators from Alberta have been elected. There are elected senators serving right now from Alberta.

Alberta has a selection process where the people of Alberta are consulted, an election takes place and that list is provided to the Prime Minister who then selects from the list of elected senators to fill vacancies for the province of Alberta in the Senate. The member for Durham quite eloquently talked about Stan Waters, the first elected senator. There was a lot of hope back then when former prime minister Mulroney appointed the first elected senator to the Senate, following this election or selection process. Unfortunately that stopped with the election of the Chrétien Liberals.

The Liberals had a different approach to the Senate. They also had their own challenges to face. They had a different approach. In some areas they are protective of the status quo. We came to power in 2006 with a different agenda. We consulted Canadians, and Canadians asked us to move forward with the selection process. We want to work with our provincial partners to see if this process, the Alberta model, could be brought in throughout Canada, thereby taking it out of the hands of the Prime Minister and putting it back in the hands of the Canadian people, making the Senate more accountable.

(1215) At the same time, in order to be truly accountable, to have the type of diversity that we need in the Senate and to have that sober second thought, which is a term that a lot of people use, we thought we would also bring in term limits for our senators. The proposal that we brought forward has a nine-year term. Canadian people would have the opportunity to select their senators, they would serve for one full term of nine years, and then there would be another selection process. What this did not do was force this system upon the provinces. In order to do that we would have to reopen the Constitution.

We would have to have a large, long, protracted negotiation with the provinces. A lot of provinces have different feelings with respect to what should actually happen in the Senate. However, this was a co-operative way of bringing about meaningful reform in the Senate. Having brought that forward when we were first elected in a minority government and trying to proceed along, seeking these reforms, we were quite often frustrated in the process by the opposition parties.

Obviously, as members know, in order for a government in a minority situation to pass legislation, it needs the support of other opposition parties. At the same time, of course, we were dealing with very difficult circumstances in terms of the global economy. There were a number of things we were trying to focus on, not only as a government but as parliamentarians together. There were two elections at that time, and the good people of Canada decided that we deserved a majority government. In the time since then, we have continued to move forward with meaningful Senate reform.

It is something that is not only important to us but it is important to Canadians. Just to go back to some of the rationale for what we are putting on the table as proposals with respect to the Senate, one of the things that we know we can do as parliamentarians without seeking constitutional amendments is making changes to how our systems work here. We can do that.

Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Parliament alone the power to “make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.” That is important. It is obviously a very important

section because that gives us, the House of Commons and the Senate together, the opportunity to make changes to how we operate, to make changes within our rules without having to seek the approval or the constitutional amendments that, as we know, have not always been successful in the past. They sometimes even divert government's attention away from what Canadians are asking us to do, especially right now in a time of global uncertainty, which is to focus on jobs and economic growth. That is a responsibility that we have through the Constitution, to make changes right here.

Having said that, we also know that some of the reforms we have put on the table are not universally accepted by either members of the opposition or some of the provinces. As I said earlier, some of the provinces have differences of opinion on what we should do with the Senate and how the Senate should be reformed. Individual members of Parliament, individual senators, all have a lot of different ideas. That is one of the reasons we referred a series of questions to the Supreme Court of Canada.

It was so that we could have a proper road map of what we could do, and how we could move forward with Senate reform in a way that is co-operative, in a way that does not open up the old constitutional battles of the past, and in a way that will not see the House being diverted from the main goals, which are to continue growing the economy, to continue tackling crime in our communities, to work with the provinces to expand and make our health care system better, to tackle the very urgent needs with respect to infrastructure, to do better things to build on the success of our Canadian Armed Forces over the last number of years and to provide them the appropriate equipment.

(1220) There is a lot of work that we need to do at the same time as we look at reforming the institutions of the House of Commons and the Senate. However, one thing that is very clear is that we need to move in the direction of reform. The status quo is no longer acceptable to anyone. I guess the circumstances or the activities of some senators over the last number of months have really highlighted for Canadians why it is so important that we reform the Senate. It has highlighted for Canadians why, since 2006, we have been so focused on trying to move forward this reform agenda with respect to the Senate.

I am now happy that I am hearing from the opposition, or at least from some of the opposition, that we need to move away from the status quo and make some changes to the Senate to expand accountability in the Senate and make it a more responsible institution for the 21st century. I think all of us in the House would agree that what we have seen over the last little while, with respect to the Senate, is not something that reflects poorly just on the Senate. It is something that reflects poorly on all of us as elected officials, as people who serve Canadians.

When we are given the awesome responsibility of serving people, whether it is through election or through an appointment to the Senate, we are given that responsibility by the Canadian taxpayers, who pay us a lot of money to do the jobs that we do. They entrust us with a lot of money in order to do those jobs. They expect that we would use those funds appropriately and that we would understand how hard they have worked in order to provide us with the resources we need to get our job done.

What we have seen lately in the Senate is an embarrassment not just to government, it is an embarrassment to all members of Parliament and it is an embarrassment to all senators. We have to get to the bottom of this. We have to work as best as we can as parliamentarians to reform that institution. If we cannot reform the Senate, I think we have to move forward, working with our provincial partners, and like all of the provinces have done, abolish the Senate.

At this point, it just is quite clear to us that Canadians have lost faith and trust in the Senate as an institution the way it is right now, so we are going to move forward with that reform agenda. However, at the same time, we can in no way support a motion such as this, because as was very eloquently said by the former leader of the Liberal Party, this is a very amateur motion. It is void of any substance whatsoever.

If we are to make real, meaningful changes with respect to an institution such as the Senate or the House of Commons, we have to do it properly and not in the spirit in which this was brought forward. (1225) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask a question of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister , who finished his speech by saying that the situation in the Senate is an embarrassment to all members of Parliament and that we have to get to the bottom of this. This leads me to my question.

Why did that same member of Parliament earn the distinction yesterday of providing the best “non-answer” to a question? One journalist described the hon. member's answer in question period yesterday as the most complete non-answer in the history of QP. The hon. member just told us that we have to get to the bottom of this situation that is an embarrassment to all members of Parliament. That is the same member of Parliament who changes the subject every day in the House of Commons when we ask questions in order to get to the bottom of this situation.

That is the same member of Parliament who diverts the attention of Canadians, who are also looking for answers. I wonder why he is unable to give us answers when we ask him questions in order to get to the bottom of this situation. [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra : Mr. Speaker, let me say how crushed I am that the press gallery is not supportive of me and that its members are somehow upset at the way I answer questions in the House of Commons. I will do better to make the press gallery happy with me.

I am just happy that those people do not live in my riding and that the press gallery will not be passing judgment on me in the next election. The reality is that the Prime Minister , with respect to the circumstances that have happened in the Senate, has answered all the questions that have been put forward to him with the information that he had available to him at the time. I have an email here from a constituent of mine, Carole. She is a senior, and she emailed me yesterday and said, if she wanted to watch Matlock , she would turn the TV on and watch repeats of Matlock .

She said it is time for us to get back to doing what we are supposed to be doing and working on constituents' behalf. I called her and asked her about that. She said to let the police do their job; let the authorities who are investigating the senators do their job. If there are charges that need to be brought forward, they will bring those charges forward. She said we should concentrate on jobs, growth and economic activity, and that is what we are going to continue to do.

(1230) Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I agree with many things he has said, though not all. I agree with him that the motion we have today from the NDP is amateurish. Not the sponsor of the motion—I have respect for him—but the motion as such is not at the level we should have as a first motion to discuss. I agree with the member that the misconduct of the last months by some parliamentarians is affecting all of us. However, I would insist that my colleague does not seem to realize how much of the situation is serious.

It is possible that the Prime Minister himself misled the House and Canadians. If it was he or I who was involved like that, I am sure I would answer to prove that it is not the case. I would give the facts. For example, the Prime Minister claims that he answered to the best of his knowledge when he said to the House that the $90,000 given to Mr. Duffy by Mr. Wright was the decision of Mr. Wright alone and nobody was aware, and now we know it is not true. He said that he answered at that time to the best of his knowledge. So the question is very clear: Who gave him this false information?

Why is it so impossible to have an answer to this very precise question? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, I would just like to ask the co-operation of all members to speak to the matter before the House and to ask questions related to it. In this context, while the subject matter clearly is relevant, asking for an explanation of an answer that was given in question period yesterday is severely straining that logic.

I will allow this question to go forward, but I ask members to stick to the matter before the House more narrowly than has been the case in the past few days. The hon. parliamentary secretary. Mr. Paul Calandra : Mr. Speaker, you know how much I value your opinion and how important I think the rules of the House are. I will abide by your decision and make sure I stick to the substance of the motion we are talking to today. I do agree with the hon. member in that I do have a lot of respect for the member opposite who has brought this motion forward.

He has been asked to do something by his party that he probably would not do if he were still practising law and representing a client. He