Bob Rae

[Canada Post, June 23rd, 2011]

They are an unruly bunch, Mr. Speaker, and there is not much we can do with them.

I wonder if the Prime Minister would recognize that one feature of the legislation that he is proposing is in a sense unprecedented. The way in which the arbitration process is set up is extremely interventionist. I wonder if the Prime Minister might consider, even at this late hour, some modification of the arbitration clauses in the legislation which might in fact provide us with the possibilities of a resolution of this conflict.

[Canada Post, June 23rd, 2011]

We would have come if we had been invited, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the current postal dispute, I wonder if the Prime Minister would—

[Air India, June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, early this morning, on the coast of Ireland, a few families will be lighting candles and sending them into the water.

In Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver today, people will come together and reflect on the terrible events of June 23, 1985 when hundreds of people were killed by bombs that were built and set in Canada.

The Air India bombing stands as a terrible act of violence and terror, an event that took Canadians far too long to recognize in its full significance.

We recognize the courage and dignity of those who died and those who lived. We dedicate ourselves to the struggle against extremism and against violence, and we remember the words that are found on each monument memorializing these lives:

Time flies, suns rise and shadows fall,
Let it pass by, love reigns forever over all.

[Government Accountability, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the funding discrepancy, the lack of a paper trail and the absence of any public servants are not an indication of problems related to the process, they are indications of an abuse of process.

Why not ask the Auditor General to conduct a value for money audit to explain how such an abuse of process occurred?

[Government Accountability, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister describes them as process failings. Let us try to understand what they were.

Either a minister alone or in company with other people made a decision without public servants being involved and giving advice with respect to the appropriateness of decisions, and without the benefit of professional advice. There is absolutely no paper trail with respect to how this decision was made.

The Prime Minister prides himself on efficiency and good governance. Any private board, any public company, in this country in which an official of the company made these kinds of decisions would be fired.

Why was the minister promoted and the person who condoned--

[Government Accountability, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the House has really heard, yet, an answer to a very simple question from the Prime Minister with respect to the Muskoka slush fund.

I wonder whether the Prime Minister could explain to the House why it is that there was no paper record kept of the discussions which led to the decisions and why it is that public servants were kept away from those discussions.

These are both findings of the Auditor General. They are not my conclusions or anyone else's.

Could the Prime Minister please explain how these two very abnormal, unusual, and troubling events took place?

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. Let the minister play around as much as he wants. He and members on his side claim they want to be civil, they want to be decent and they want to respect decorum, yet each and every day he comes into this House and says things which are preposterous. Now he has gone too far.

I would like to ask the Speaker, will you rule clearly, Madam Speaker, when somebody accuses other members of participating in criminal activity, is that something the Speaker of this House is going to allow or not?

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I distinctly asked the minister whether he would withdraw language which is not only unparliamentary, but if he said it outside it would be the subject of a lawsuit.

I would like to ask the minister, is he prepared, yes or no, to withdraw the absolutely unfair and disgraceful accusation that somehow members of the opposition, who disagree with him, are in favour of furthering criminal activity. Will you withdraw those words, yes or no?

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I think I distinctly heard the minister say that those people who were opposed to passing this bill in all stages as quickly as possible were in fact in favour of, or were interested in furthering criminal activity.

I wonder if the minister would reconsider those words and consider what in fact he is saying about members of Parliament who have a different point of view from him, and apologize to all of us and to the House.

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 21st, 2011]

Oops.