Craig Scott

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise to speak to Bill C-2, which I believe bears the short name of safer communities act, or something along those lines.

Once we get to committee, we will likely be wanting to move an amendment at the clause-by-clause stage. I think a more appropriate new name for the bill might be “an act to make it look like communities will be made safer by spreading drug users to the alleys, parks, and backyards of our cities while simultaneously undermining public health and individuals' rights to security of the person and life itself”. To me, that would be a much better title for this bill.

[Petitions, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition addressing the homophobic laws recently adopted by Russia's Duma.

Dozens and dozens of residents of Toronto—Danforth and its neighbour, Toronto Centre, signed this petition at the Old Nick on the Danforth. They are calling on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to institute a visa ban for the Russian parliamentarians who originated these repressive laws that have so much potential to not only deepen hate but to give a green light to violence against the LGBTQ community. This visa ban request from the petitioners is supported by over 100 human rights organizations in Canada. The petitioners specifically note that the New Democratic Party, the NDP, has requested that the minister put this ban in place.

I would end by noting that the visa ban measure was dismissively ridiculed, on national news, by the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned earlier that he spent some time in the Canadian Armed Forces. Therefore, I thought I would ask him his opinion on one aspect of Bill C-3 that we in the NDP think should be looked at carefully in committee.

In part 2, under section 19, it appears that the military is now being given the traditional Transportation Safety Board investigative powers in the event of an aviation accident involving the military. If we assume that might involve a military-civilian incident, the question then becomes whether the rules that the TSB used to have to follow, including making its report public, would apply to this new military process. At the moment it appears the military only has to report to the minister of defence.

Therefore, given his experience and interest in this kind of issue, does my colleague from Winnipeg North think we should make sure that reports of any incidents involving military and civilian aircraft are made public in the fashion of the TSB?

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, would my colleague like to comment on the extra dangers and risks that are involved with transporting diluted bitumen? We know that the Enbridge spill in Michigan on the Kalamazoo River has proven to stymie all sorts of normal methods of cleaning up oil spills and that it seems to have different properties from other kinds of oil.

Given that the whole question of tankers on the west coast is tied to the government trying to get diluted bitumen out to the west coast, I wonder if my colleague could comment.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member whether or not she is as disappointed as I am that the current budget does not seem to touch on the whole question of adequate benefits and pensions for seniors. When I talk to my constituents, this comes up constantly. We know that there is an active debate going on in this country, including with the premiers, about the need to enhance the CPP. One of my constituents whose name is Nancy actually talked to me about creating a national portable pension plan through the CPP and the need to increase the amount of the CPP and OAS. Another of my constituents said exactly the same thing.

I am wondering if she is as disappointed as I am that the only mention, it seems, in the budget bill with respect to this kind of question is the addition of three foreigners to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I am wondering if she is as surprised as I am to see that this budget bill includes a division on the Dominion Coal Blocks and procedures to allow the government sell off coal reserves.

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were stunned by Mike Duffy's speech to the Senate. They heard about a government being forced to face its deceit and an institution sinking under the weight of its corruption, just when Canadians thought Liberal Party and Liberal senator corruption were as bad as things could get. Members will recall the conviction and imprisonment of former Liberal Senator Lavigne and the conveniently timed resignation of Senator Mac Harb, and note the new allegations against a Liberal senator only yesterday. Then along came the Conservatives to lower the bar even further. Giving money to a sitting parliamentarian to ensure his silence is a crime. Engaging in a conspiracy to bribe a public official is a crime.

Mike Duffy has now said more in public about the whole affair than the Prime Minister. Canadians deserve better. Canadians are watching. Will the Prime Minister finally rise in his place and start telling Canadians the truth?

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, effectively the government has a set of reform proposals that we do not think it has taken seriously, but at least they are reforms. The NDP does indeed believe in abolition. With this motion, we want to have some interim measures before abolition takes place. However, we have heard nothing from the Liberals, frankly, besides various forms of defence of the status quo. What we have been hearing for ages from Liberals is that we are going to see tweaks, some proposals for an appointment system that would somehow, within the status quo, be a relevant change to the Senate.

I would like to hear more about this. Is this serious? When are we going to hear about it? What is taking so long?

Let us assume that the Liberals are serious. Surely any such system has to exclude partisanship as either the basis for appointments or the outcome. If that is the case, why will the Liberals not support the current motion to reach into the current chamber and try to effect the same results rather than pretending to have a system later? We have not heard what it would be. There would be non-partisan appointments that would only take effect in the future, because we are stuck with a hundred senators now. Will we hear anything at all about this fabled, vaunted system of appointments?

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time taken and the speech just given by my hon. colleague. I thought I would try to respond as well as I could on his two main points.

On the travel rules issue, with respect to the idea that travel for parliamentary business that is only directly and clearly connected to parliamentary business is already covered by the current Senate rules, unfortunately it is not to the extent that parliamentary business at the moment is defined throughout, at least under the administrative rules, and even the existing travel rules still, as including partisan trips.

The only thing that is excluded from the travel rules is travel for purposes of elections, going to elections. However, so many other things are still left open.

On the caucus front, yes, indeed, as someone with some constitutional law background, I have considered the constitutional issues. The first part is that the privilege within the House certainly is of equal force to the freedom of association norms in the charter. However, even if we do apply those norms, as I think we should, section 1 of the charter allows for demonstrable limits in a free and democratic society. As long as barring access to caucus is tied in the way I believe it is to the problem of partisanship in the Senate, then there is a rational connection it would be minimal infringement. There would be no constitutional violation.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

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.