Bob Rae

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is right. When we look at this legislation, the particular bill that is being proposed by the government that they want us to deal with today, the government is saying to us that we have to get this through right away, that it is absolutely vital that we get the bill through because we are going to be making the streets safer.

This legislation will have no impact until 2025 or 2026. It is not urgent legislation. It is important to get it right. It is important to make sure that the people who are the victims of violent crime are given full information, which is what one of the amendments in this legislation is all about.

I do not know why we would not take that approach.

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I respond to it by saying that the member is full of hot air. I respond to him very directly by saying that.

What we have said is very clear. If we believe for one second that the whole panoply of prime measures that are being brought forward by the government actually address the issue of crime, actually address the question of safety on our streets, actually looked at the problems that people are facing in our communities, we will respond. We will respond in an effective manner.

However, when we are told, as we were told by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert that we should not be bringing forward any amendments because it is very inconvenient for the government, and the bill might have to go back to the Senate again, we have to say that nothing is being delayed. Issues are being debated. Issues are being discussed. We have an issue in the House for the simple reason that the government will not accept amendments. There has not been an amendment proposed that it has ever accepted.

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, December 10th, 2010]

I have only been here for years and I cannot get used to not using the phrase “you guys“. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I can only say that the approach to criminal justice that is being taken by the government is an approach that is not going to reduce the level of crime one iota. Every jurisdiction in the United States which has attempted the approach that is now being taken on by the Government of Canada is saying to us, “Please do not do what we did”.

British politicians are telling us emphatically that their prisons are overflowing, that they did not realize what the impact of some of their legislation was going to be. They ask us how we have managed to keep things under control. I look at them and say that we did manage for a considerable period of time with a crime rate that has been going down and not up and with protection of the public that has been going up and not down.

The only message the government over there knows is fear, fear and fear again, which has nothing to do with the reality on the ground and with the need to prevent. Does it have a crime prevention strategy? No. Is it encouraging those communities that want to prevent crime? No. Is it working with the provinces to make sure that we deal with gangs in schools and with violence on our streets? No, it is not.

Its only answer is to lock people up, throw away the key, be done with it, minimum sentences, et cetera. That is the only approach the government knows. It is not an approach worthy of the name. It does not pass muster when it comes to dealing with the challenges and problems we have as a country and it does not deal effectively with the problem that we have.

Do we have a problem of crime? Every country has a problem of crime, a problem of crime that comes out of poverty, a problem of crime that comes out of insecurity, a problem of crime that comes out of addiction, a problem of crime that comes out of drug dependence, a problem of crime that comes out of alcohol dependence, a problem of crime that comes out of hopelessness and no opportunity. The government does not get that. The government's answer to those people is to say it is simply going to lock them up and throw away the key.

Yes, the Liberals are going to be moving amendments to this particular bill. We are going to be hoping that our colleagues in the opposition and whoever has the will to stand on the other side will stand and deal with it. If the government says it is very inconvenient because it got this crystal clear bill through the Senate with no amendments and no discussion and there was no problem, as we say in French, tant pis, too bad.

That is the government's problem, not ours. Our duty, as the opposition, is to ask questions, propose amendments and listen to the witnesses who testify before committees, as is the case here. We need to continue to have a positive and responsible approach to tackling crime, instead of all these things that the government is proposing in the House.

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am participating in the debate today for two reasons. One reason is that I am concerned about the general approach the government is taking toward the House of Commons and toward the process of debate, discussion and amendment in a minority House. I will come back to that point in a minute. The other reason is our concern about the way in which the government is handling criminal justice legislation.

On the first point, my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert made much of the fact that this bill has gone through the Senate, which the government now effectively controls, and the House of Commons is now receiving the bill.

The government decided to put the bill in the Senate, not us. It decided to put the bill in the Senate and, miracle of miracles, because the government controls the makeup of the Senate, the bill managed to get through without any changes or amendments.

Then when the legislation comes to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons decides that it should be amended, if that is what the House of Commons decides, it is what the committee decided and we will see whether or not it is what the House of Commons decides, at that point the government takes great offence and says that if we amend this bill, that effectively means it has to go back to the Senate again. This is the government's most powerful reason for not providing any amendments.

To say that I am unimpressed with this approach is putting it mildly. The problem we have had with the government in both of its apparitions, the first apparition in 2006 and the second apparition in 2008, is that it has never understood what it means to govern in a minority Parliament.

It is clear that the government has never accepted the fact that it is a minority government. But it has no choice but to accept the possibility that amendments will be made to its legislation if it wants to create legislation on any given subject.

That is why I spoke today about the democracy deficit, which has been a problem with this government since it took power. The performance of the ministers answering questions in the House of Commons is deplorable. They never answer the questions, they just attack anyone who asks a question and there is never any substance to their answers. All they do is attack non-stop. This has nothing to do with democratic dialogue. I would know, because I have been in politics for over 30 years now. In my political life, I have never seen such a performance from a government that is supposed to support the notion of democracy.

I have never seen such a performance as I have seen by the government since my election to this place in 2008. The Conservatives never answer a question of substance. They never deal with an issue of substance. The only method they know to deal with any question is to attack. They attack the character, attack the personality, attack history, attack some other point.

Now the government turns around and says it is not prepared to deal with the amendments to this legislation. I have news for the government. There will be lots of amendments to legislation that it proposes. There will be lots of discussions and there may from time to time even be defeats if it persists in its approach of saying, “It is our way or the highway”.

It is not the way to conduct the public affairs of a country. It is the not the way to conduct the public affairs of a province. It is not the way to conduct the public business of Canada. We see day by day the corrosive effect of the attitude which the government continues to display. The way in which it continues to present itself to the House and the people of Canada increasingly attacks the very notion.

I find it so ironic that it was the Reform Party that came to the House with all of its ideas about how it was going to restore democracy. The government has shown a systematic contempt for parliamentary democracy. It knows nothing of respect for the parliamentary process. It complains about amendments being brought forward by the opposition. Of course there will be amendments. It is our right and our responsibility to bring forward amendments.

The government says it will not deal with them, it will never compromise, it will not negotiate, it will not make any arrangements to allow legislation to go through and that is the way it is going to govern. That is tough because if that is the way it is going to govern, then we have no option but to say we will stand in our places and fight and fight and fight again because this is an approach to democracy which simply cannot be allowed to stand.

The government claims that it is concerned about the economy. The member for Peterborough was up on his feet yesterday asking why we would bring up issues of the charter when we should be worrying about jobs. I would say to the member for Peterborough, show me the legislation you are bringing forward that deals with jobs, every single item. The Criminal Code is going to be bigger than the Encyclopedia Britannica if you guys are allowed to get away with this—

[Canada-U.S. Border, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is the lack of respect for democracy in Canada and the lack of respect for the work of the House of Commons. That is the issue before us today.

Clearly, the government is contemplating a comprehensive agreement with the United States that will affect our sovereignty, immigration, refugee system and security intelligence.

How can the government do this without once consulting the House of Commons? How is this possible?

[Canada-U.S. Border, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government about the democracy deficit syndrome from which it still continues to suffer.

I wonder if the Minister of Foreign Affairs could tell us how the government could be contemplating signing an agreement with the United States that will impact immigration, will impact refugees, will impact intelligence, will impact security, will impact trade. In fact, it will impact all of our relationships with the United States.

Why would the government contemplate doing that without first of all discussing it with the House of Commons right here in Canada?

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, on the court challenges program, it has been fundamental to our approach as Liberals to say that not only do we support the charter and the Constitution, but we also support the need for people to have access to the courts so they can have their rights enforced and the minorities who have been abandoned by the majority have a chance to have their say in court.

This program is of fundamental importance to minority groups and language groups alike because it enables them to go to court to ensure that our governments respect their rights. It is very important for people to get this support from their government. I await the return of a Liberal government so that we can reinstate a program to guarantee access to the courts.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, actually, I have those concerns on my mind all the time and I think the member for Peterborough knows that. I think he also knows it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Sometimes when I listen to the answers from the members opposite in question period, I am not always sure that is the case.

With respect to the member's first point, I can only say that I have known Julian Fantino for a very long time. I have read his book. There are parts of the book that I agree with and there are parts of it that I disagree with.

I disagree very strongly with Mr. Fantino's points about the charter, not because the charter has not at some times been interpreted in a way that affects trials and the outcome of some trials, but because I think it is fundamentally wrong to take those outcomes, which could have happened without the charter, and I can give lots of examples where the courts could well do these things without the charter, and then say that it is the charter that is the problem. That is really where I disagree, because that begins to undermine the public sense that the police and others fully and deeply appreciate their obligation to conduct themselves under the Constitution and under the rule of law. That is where I disagree with Mr. Fantino.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I do not think anyone who saw what happened or who listened to the comments and explanations for what took place in Toronto at the events surrounding the summit could come away without being deeply troubled.

I do not know how the federal government can avoid its share of responsibility, because everyone in this chamber knows, and if they do not, they should know, that all of the activities of the police with respect to the conduct of how they would manage crowds and demonstrations was determined under the leadership of the RCMP and under the leadership of the Minister of Public Safety's department.

This was not some local decision taken by the Toronto police or by the Ontario Provincial Police. These decisions were made from a command headquarters at which the RCMP and the minister's office and people reporting to the minister were involved every second of the day. It is impossible for the federal government to say that it has no knowledge or responsibility in this matter and that it had nothing to say at all about how decisions were made and how certain incidents were handled. That is what is troubling me, that we do not have the sense of responsibility that should be widely shared.

The other thing I want to reinforce is the comment that was made by the member for Vancouver Kingsway's colleague who said that it is wrong to argue that it is only the courts which have responsibility for the charter. Every single one of us has a responsibility for the charter.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, whenever I listen to a Conservative talk about going around in circles, I am always reminded that when one has two right wings, it is impossible to go in any other direction.

The member has equated two things that have nothing to do with one another. First, the hard fact about Bill C-49, which the member cannot get around, is that the government has for the first time in Canadian history decided that it is, by itself, going to designate what kind of refugees people are as soon as they land on the shore.

The member opposite has no idea who those people are. The member opposite has no idea whether they are economic refugees, political refugees or any other kinds of refugees, and neither do I. The determination process for that is independent of the government, independent of the minister and independent of me. The government is the one declaring who is an economic refugee and who is not, not me.

The question with respect to what are the rights or not on reserves is an important issue because it touches on the issue of the connection between equality rights and the aboriginal rights that are set out in the charter, which is a completely separate issue.