House of Commons Hansard #130 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was offenders.

Topics

Motion that debate be not further adjournedDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Madam Speaker, the minister may have inadvertently misled the House in trying to explain why the government in this ad hoc coalition with the Bloc Québécois is going to cut off debate on this bill by saying that the bill has been languishing in committee. That is not true. The government's own motion says that this motion is to cut off debate at second reading. The bill has not even been sent to committee yet.

Why are we considering this egregious act of cutting off debate in the House based on misleading information provided by the Minister of Justice?

Motion that debate be not further adjournedDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Madam Speaker, the member will know that Bill C-39 has been at committee. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the white collar crime bill. We have hived off part of the bill in an attempt to get it passed. That is what I am talking about. I am talking about standing up for the victims of white collar crime. The bill has been languishing at committee. It is not being debated. We have taken away part of the bill. We have split it in two. In effect, we have created a new bill.

Now we are calling upon coalition members to stand together and stand up for victims of white collar crime. That is exactly what they should do. They would feel better for it in the long run.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Motion that debate be not further adjournedDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

All those opposed will please say nay.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #179

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from February 11 consideration of the motion.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member from Trinity—Spadina

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious in this House of Commons that we are now facing probably the most undemocratic government of all time. It is bad enough that the Conservatives got elected, but ever since they have been elected they have displayed a level of arrogance that is beyond the pale.

It took over 13 years for the Liberal Party of Canada in power to develop that level of arrogance. It took the Conservatives over 13 days. Since then, we have seen an unprecedented level of attack on Canadians and the Canadian system in the history of our country.

It starts with the Conservative government reversing itself when it comes to closure. I remember a time when the Conservative Party of Canada, the Reform Party and the Alliance Party went nuts over the Liberal government every time it invoked closure. Every time that happened they stood up and screamed and yelled. Now they turn around and do it themselves. In fact, they do it in such a way that is really quite sad because the bill they brought forward has no accounting mechanism whatsoever.

We in the opposition have asked quite clearly what the cost of that initiative will be but the government has refused to give it. Why would a government, so hell bent on passing legislation that it has to rush it down the throats of parliamentarians, in this case with their coalition partners, the Bloc Québécois, not tell the House of Commons or the Canadian taxpayer how much it will cost?

Let us go through the past couple of months of the Conservative government.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism attacked the judiciary. Just recently, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke attacked the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador by saying that they should be responsible for their own safety when it comes to the waters off the east coast. The Conservatives have attacked public servants and one of the finest people in the nuclear industry, Ms. Keen. In fact, every time people disagree with the government, they get attacked, and viciously I might add. The list goes on and on.

The Conservatives have given us record deficits, a record debt and yet they continue on without any accounting methods whatsoever. They are just basically saying to heck with the rest of us. They tell us what they will do and then say that we can bring them down if we want. Well that day may come very soon.

I think Canadians are tired of the level of arrogance that the Conservative government has displayed. In my 13 and a half years I have yet to see this level of disgust by a party over there, especially when it is the governing party.

The ironic thing is that we have men and women serving overseas in many countries bringing forward peace, freedom and democracy to many other people who have never had democracy and yet the Conservatives step on democracy because they do not even like it.

I remember very clearly that every time closure was brought in by the Liberals, the Conservatives yelled and screamed. Now they turn around and do it themselves. They attack the judiciary, public servants and disagree with people they hire. When the veterans ombudsman, Colonel Pat Stogran, issued a scathing report over the Department of Veterans Affairs they attacked him. The government did not attack the message, but the messenger because the truth hurts.

The reality is that the government's time is on a very short leash. I, for one, hope the Canadian people in this country rise up to say that this is enough. The good people of Egypt rose up against Mubarak and many of them died to get democracy in Egypt. I would hope that they are not looking at our democracy right now.

What the heck is going on? The government does not even respect the fact that there is an opposition, which is something the Conservatives wanted when they were in opposition. In fact, several pieces of legislation have passed the majority of the House of Commons only to go to an unelected, unaccountable Senate to die.

Bill C-311 was a classic example of how the Conservative Party of Canada trampled on the democratic rights of the majority of the House of Commons. The majority of the House clearly voted for Bill C-311. In fact, the Prime Minister himself said that when the majority of the House democratically votes on a legislation or motion, then the government is honour bound to honour that bill or motion. Those were his own words.

However, when the House did that on several occasions, it went to the unelected, unaccountable Senate, which, by the way, the Conservatives said they would never do. They stood here in the House and screamed and yelled against the Liberal-appointed senators holding up legislation.

When we look at the facts, at least the Liberals were honest about their view of the Senate. They liked it just the way it was. The Conservatives screamed and yelled about that. The minute they put enough their cronies and bag people in there, they started changing the rules.

Without even having a witness and without even having one word of debate, the Conservative senators killed Bill C-311 without even any discussion.

The Senate is supposed to do two things and two things only: peer review legislation that comes from the House of Commons and work on in-depth reports facing the issues of the day. It is not supposed to fundraise. It is not supposed to send ten percenters out, slamming members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Its members are not supposed to be flying across the country in business class on the taxpayers' dime raising funds for the Conservative Party. That is not what the Senate is about.

Yet, when the Senate was asked to actually do its job, it did not even do that. It killed legislation before it even discussed it. Why? It is because we have a female senator of the Conservative persuasion who says, “Why would we vote for anything that wasn't in the throne speech---

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been sitting here listening and I am a little puzzled. I am trying to understand why it is that the member is debating what the Senate did to Bill C-311.

It is my understanding that the rules require a certain amount of relevance in a member's comments. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call the member to order and ask him to speak to the subject at hand.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I am sure the hon. member will tie his remarks in to the motion currently before the House. The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the fairly new member is trying to get a Senate spot here. If he keeps that up, maybe the Prime Minister and his cronies will appoint him to the Senate. As a member of the Parliament with the rest of them, they are certainly not doing their elected duties by respecting the will of the House of Commons.

The debate is quite clear. It is the trend of the Conservative Party and its members to trample on democracy, to ignore the will of Parliament and to continue on its merry way. The list goes on and on.

I just heard today about the new coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. It just happened. It is the same coalition that they had during the 2006 budget when the Conservatives invited the Bloc Québécois to get it through.

I know the Conservative counterparts do not want it hear it because it does not make them feel good. They do not like it when what they said they would do when they got into government gets thrown back in their face. The fact is that they have attacked civil servants, the judiciary and literally everyone who gets in their way.

The one that puzzles me the most is the trampling of citizens. I know a lot of the folks in the Conservative Party are of the Christian faith. One would think that those of the Christian faith would stand up for a group like KAIROS, but, no. What we get is a doctored document with three signatures on it. We still cannot get the minister to stand and tell us exactly who did that.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has had an admonition, I believe from the Speaker, on this very speech about the fact that he must remain relevant. What he is talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of debate.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask the member to be at least a bit relevant.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has one minute to conclude and bring his comments back to the topic.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, it is very relevant. What we are trying to talk about is the closure that was just forced upon this House of Commons, which is a very undemocratic rule that the Conservatives use in the House in order to trample on the rights of members of Parliament. Since when have they been afraid of debate? Since when have they been afraid of discussion? It is almost as if they are saying that if we do not like their way, then we can take the highway.

The truth hurts. The fact is that the current Conservative Party is the most undemocratic party that I have seen in my 13 and a half years here. If we look at the history of this Parliament, I could almost assure members that over the last five years we have witnessed the most undemocratic group of parliamentarians on the Conservative side to ever grace this beautiful House of Commons.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his efforts to point out to the House and Canadians that we are dealing with some very important issues and that the government has turned down debate, saying that it will not be delayed any further.

The relevance here is that there was a question of privilege last week in the House that the government has refused to provide costing of its justice bills, claiming cabinet confidence. Again, it is secrecy over how members of Parliament will be able to do their jobs. In fact, without that information, how can we make an informed decision? How can we make good laws when the government is not even going to be open with the House of Commons about the details relating to an important piece of legislation?

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct.

One of the greatest oxymorons of all time is a “fiscal Conservative“. One would assume that any Conservative worth his or her weight in gold would quickly advise the Canadian taxpayer, and especially the House of Commons, how much a particular piece of legislation would cost.

I suspect the Conservatives know the true cost of this legislation and they do not want to tell the opposition, and they certainly do not want to tell the Canadian people. It is much easier to put these things in a soundbite, make it sound easy, and hope that the Canadian people never read the details, because they are quite scary.

However, it would be nice, once and for all, if the Government of Canada, on any of its legislation, put forward the true cost of its measures before introducing the legislation.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I have listened to this member go on at great length about how closure is non-democratic.

I wonder if the member is aware that the environment committee right now is subject to a closure rule on an NDP bill that is being considered, Bill C-469, giving every Conservative member on that committee one and a half minutes to speak to each clause of that bill.

Would the member be willing to have his leader instruct the NDP member on the environment committee to abolish that closure rule so that we could have some good discussion about what is really a revolutionary bill in the environment committee, and do it in a nice, democratic way?

In light of the member's comments today about how closure is non-democratic, will he push to open up that debate in the environment committee?

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, I think if we checked the records, we will see that the member talked about relevancy and he knows very well that the House of Commons cannot tell a committee what to do.

Here is the truth: even if there were no closure on the bill, even if the bill came forward, any NDP amendments or anything of that nature would be defeated by the unelected, unaccountable Senate. And who put those people in there? It was the Conservative Party of Canada.

The reality is that if the Conservatives truly wished to have a fair, open and democratic debate, we would love to have it with them. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a whole whack of people over there who just do not believe in fair, open and honest debate.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Madam Speaker, I heard the presentation given by my colleague who, once again, levelled the most outrageous accusation we have heard recently in the House regarding the forming of coalitions. He mentioned that the Bloc voted with the Conservatives. Are we to assume that there is a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP because they voted the same way? Come on. Let us be serious.

I wonder if my colleague is aware that there are four parties in the House and that we can only vote for or against something. So mathematically, it would be impossible for there not to be two parties voting for the same thing in the House every time.

The purpose of this debate is to determine whether we are ready to vote or not. For four years now the Bloc Québécois has been talking about abolishing parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served. We are ready to vote. In his speech, the member—

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActDisposition of Abolition of Early Parole ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I must give the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore equal time, that is, 30 seconds, to respond.