Erin O'Toole

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member spoke at considerable length about accountability. However, since I have had the honour of being in the House, any approach to accountability in the Senate from the NDP has really been a number of insincere or flippant motions, whether cutting the Senate budget or removing caucus members from the Senate, as we heard today.

I would urge the member to respond in terms of our reference to the Supreme Court that would have elections for the Senate and accountability through term limits. Why would the NDP not get behind these tangible reforms that would actually make the upper house more effective and more in touch with the modern age?

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

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.

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.

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—

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

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.

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—

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ended by talking about this issue being clouded in fog. I am trying to pierce through that fog to really see the position of the NDP on this issue. He talked a lot about victims and why some of the measures in this legislation were important.

I attended the justice committee and I attended Dr. Isabelle Gaston's session. I found her to be one of the most compelling witnesses I have heard in my time in Parliament. She was not just speaking as a victim, but also as a physician and somebody who was advocating on this issue. She asked critics to stop saying that she lacked empathy because she supported the legislation.

We have heard a lot about stigma tonight. Certainly that horrendous case in Quebec caused stigma.

Would it not reduce that stigma if victims and victims' families were to feel that the law addressed their concerns for public safety going forward?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member particularly in the way she was able to tie her passion tonight with her first speech in the House for a while.

As a lawyer, I am disappointed by her remarks and by the Canadian Bar Association's position on this because there really are a number of people clouding the issue here. This is not about moral blameworthiness. These people are not criminally responsible for a reason.

The bill would specifically address the re-release or the review of these people who were deemed to be in this high risk class and would really rebalance the equilibrium. Our justice system is built on pillars, whether it is sentencing or throughout rehabilitation and deterrents, punishment in some cases, but in rehabilitation and public safety. The very courts that will accept an offender as not criminally responsible are certainly equipped to then reassess, and that is what this bill would do.

Why does the member not trust the same courts that will allow somebody to avoid some of the criminal sanctions due to mental illness and, at the same time, not recognize those same courts in the process for parole?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand in this House today to not only pledge my support for Bill C-49 but also to tell my personal story in relation to my passion for history and why I totally agree with the vision and applaud our minister and his able parliamentary secretary for bringing the bill before this House for debate tonight.

The bill is known best as the bill that would establish the Canadian museum of history. Really, this would not re-create or re-establish an important national museum. In many ways, it would actually reassert its important mandate as a national institution in Canada. It would also extend that national mandate to all the small towns, villages, and cities across this great nation. History does not just belong in the nation's capital. Indeed, it belongs across the country.

In many ways, the bill is about one of the last crown jewels in the collection of important national museums our government has supported across Canada, going back to our support in 2008 for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, being established in Winnipeg, and, in 2010, to our government's reassertion of the importance of Pier 21 as Canada's national Museum of Immigration, in Halifax.

I had the good fortune to visit Pier 21 in its early years, thanks to the vision of the Goldblooms in Halifax, who brought that important institution to our country.

The day after my wedding, in Halifax, my wife and I, dreary-eyed as we might have been, with my parents, took my grandmother, Madge Hall, to Pier 21, where she first stepped into Canada with her husband and infant daughter, Molly, my mother, after World War II. Not only did we experience that museum but we looked up the manifest of the Lusitania, which they boarded to come to Canada and a tremendous new life. I only wish one of those three people was still here to see their grandson sitting in Canada's Parliament.

In many ways, the bill would refocus our national history museum. I will speak to why I think the national network this museum would create is even more important than the rebranding and refocusing of the institution in Ottawa.

It is indeed a travesty that 90% of our historic artifacts and treasures are in storage. It is time to free these important artifacts from the shackles of indifference and dust and to share them with the small towns across Canada, or indeed, the large museums, such as the ROM or the Royal British Columbia Museum, so that they too can feel an attachment to these important artifacts.

However, the converse is perhaps even more important than getting this national artifact network established. It is also important for museums such as Scugog Shores in Port Perry or the Clarington Archives or the Clarke Museum in Clarington or the Lucy Maud Montgomery museum in Uxbridge to share some of their local artifacts with our national institution in Ottawa.

Thanks to the vision behind Bill C-49, and our Minister of Canadian Heritage , we would have visitors to Canada exploring the Canadian museum of history and seeing the artifacts and the history of the small towns and villages in Durham at our national institution in Ottawa. That would be truly remarkable and important. There would be a dedicated permanent space for exhibits from over 2500 museums across this country.

It is also an honour for me to tell a bit of my personal story tonight, and in my first year, to utter only my second Winston Churchill quote. Churchill said, “Study history, study history. In history lie all the secrets of statecraft”.

My friends on this side of the House should really read more history to learn those secrets to try to take our side of the House. The very fact that they have not leaves me resting assured that we are going to maintain this side of the House, because we have followed the edict of one of the world's greatest parliamentarians.

My love of history started when I was an 18-year-old officer cadet crossing the parade square at Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario. We had a mandate, as young gentlemen and lady cadets of the college, to learn the history of that historic site.

We gazed at the RMC flag, which was designed by the dean of arts, George Stanley, who shared his vision for the nation's flag in 1964 with John Matheson, a distinguished gunner from the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and later the MP for Leeds. John Matheson is still alive and, at 95, is really one of our living veterans who truly tells the history of this great country.

George Stanley at RMC taught generations of historians who are with us today as leading voices. At RMC he taught Desmond Morton and Jack Granatstein.

In many ways, this debate on why Canada needs a national museum of history was started by one of George Stanley's students, Dr. Jack Granatstein, who, in 1998, wrote Who Killed Canadian History? In many ways, in the years since then, Canadian history has been given a new life. In many ways, this bill would give our national history museum a network of history and a life across the country.

It is my pleasure to rise today in full support of Bill C-49. Indeed, it is our government's answer to the question, "Who killed Canadian history?" We may not be able to answer that, but we certainly know who is breathing new life into the subject.