David Christopherson

[Federally Funded Health Research, September 28th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, what happened with the Qs and As?

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed the member wants to make this partisan. Most of us have tried all evening to not make this debate partisan. This is about Parliament. This is about Canada. It is not about Liberals, NDP, or Conservatives. It is about the Burmese people and what they are going through. I am not interested in going there, quite frankly, with all due to respect to the hon. member.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, all I can give is my opinion, and it is not a learned one. This is my own experience and my own heart. Do I think she hoodwinked us? No. Having spent time alone with her in a room with maybe six or eight people where we talked, no. I think what she has done is act like an ordinary politician, like us, and we expected more.

In the ramp up to the election, whenever this subject came up, the lady remained very quiet. We all saw what it was, those of us who are politicians, but we did not say anything either.

Again, we have to watch what kind of pedestal we climb on. However, I do think she is wrong, and it hurts to say that. I did have the same feelings about her that I have for Mandela, and I thought that was who she was. Maybe that means she has to be a better politician, or a better human being, or a better leader. I do not know, but better is required.

Do I think she is a fraud, that she hoodwinked us, and that is not really who she is? I hope I never have to eat these words, but I do not think so. I think she is the real deal. I think she is just showing that she is human, and it is up to us who care about her and love the country to respectfully put that pressure back on her, but ensure we tell the world that we know it is the military. She has a role, but we know that it is the military, and we will keep that focus on there too.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity, although, like many others, I rise with a very heavy heart, given what is happening to fellow human beings about whom we care.

Unlike most who have spoken, many either have a direct connection with Myanmar, Burma, or are on the human rights committee, or are on the foreign affairs committee, I am none of that. Therefore, I will not get into the details of what is going. It has been quite adequately put out there, certainly by the minister and my colleague, our critic.

However, unlike most people, I have the distinct honour of having met Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, in Myanmar. It was under the auspices of a committee put together by the former minister of foreign affairs, John Baird, who had a particular interest in this area. He put together and funded a small group of parliamentarians, and I think we had senators and a couple of clerks, to go over as an outreach, as we often do, Parliament to Parliament.

Part of the focus was on public accounts. Since that has been one of my mainstays here, I was asked if I wanted to go on that. What a great honour it was. That happened in February 2013. It is even more difficult when one has actually met the lady, has shook her hand, has looked her in the eyes, has had her look back, has talked with her, and has realized how special she really is.

Again, that is why it is difficult but important that even though many of us hold her on a bit of pedestal that there is also an obligation to speak out when something is wrong. Not only is what is going on in Myanmar, Burma, wrong, but the response of the government is wrong.

We find ourselves, those of us who care about the people of that country and the future of it, realize she is still by far the greatest hope they have. However, regardless of what party we carry in our pocket, the fact is that we are now looking at ethnic cleansing, or some call it genocide, or some say we are not quite there, that it is legal. I do not know that it matters what we call it at this point, given how many people are being slaughtered, how many people's homes are being destroyed, and how many people are being forced out of their own country. Whether we call it ethnic cleansing or genocide, the fact is that it is another horrible situation. That is why we are standing here tonight.

At the very least, this Parliament has to go on record as speaking out, holding our government to account to ensure it does absolutely as much as possible. To be fair, I enjoyed the minister's remarks. I thought the criticism that came from colleague was well placed, but it in no way took away from what the minister said in her remarks about how Canada viewed this.

I had no problem applauding the minister's remarks, particularly when she talked about the fact that Canadians were in support of the Rohingya Muslim minorities. She also said that we would hold Aung San Suu Kyi to account, but we would also ensure that the world would know that we held the military to account because we all understood exactly what was going on.

We understand the difficulty that the lady has. My heart breaks for that situation, but I have also had the opportunity to be in the same room as Nelson Mandela. although I did not get to meet him. I cannot imagine Nelson Mandela taking the politically expedient way out in any circumstance, not when it was this important.

To be fair, the whole lot of us did not put too much pressure on that issue when the election was coming up, for the very same reasons I suspect she is not saying what we need her to say right now, and that is that there is a broader purpose, a broader goal. The democracy and future of Burma, of Myanmar, is at stake. We understand that. However, when we hold someone out that special, there are certain expectations. While her title is State Councillor, we all know she is the defacto president. We also know she has very little influence let alone control with the military. It is a tough spot.

However, we need more from the lady. We need more from the world. We need just a smidgen more from the Canadian government. This is the time when we go to the speeches.

I have also been to Rwanda. Any of us who go to Holocaust events, or to Rwanda events, or if people have been to Rwanda, begin to understand the dimensions of that kind of death, violence, hate, and inhumanity. Every time we go to those events, every one of us says “never again”, yet there is always another again.

At the very least, I want to thank our Speaker for agreeing to this emergency debate. This is Canada. As difficult as it is to speak out against an ally, Aung San Suu Kyi, the issue is so important, particularly to the Rohingya Muslim minority who want to know whether they matter. We are here tonight in the Canadian Parliament to say, yes, they matter. They matter like every other human being. When atrocities happen, we will stand and we will do what we can. We are not the biggest, most powerful country in the world, but we do have some influence, and we are prepared to put some of that credibility on the line. We are doing that tonight.

The lady put out a statement on September 5, which really shook me. She used the term “fake news”. Really? I agree with our friends who put out a statement today. It was put out by quite a list of really credible, important human rights organizations and individuals. I will not read it now because I am running out of time, but they go out of their way to pretty much say it in much better, tight, concise language than I did. It is pretty much that same argument, that we need more, that we expect more. We understand the circumstance, but this is “never again” territory.

On September 19, Aung San Suu Kyi, instead of going to the UN, gave a political briefing in Myanmar. She closed it this way:

As I said earlier, this is a diplomatic briefing....But in some ways, it is more than just a diplomatic briefing. It is a friendly appeal to all those who wish Myanmar well. A friendly appeal to help us to achieve the ends that I think, you would agree are desirable, not just for this particular country, but for countries all over the world.

I think we stand behind that desire on the part of Aung San Suu Kyi for her people, but it is important for us to stand and hold everyone to account when we are either on the brink or in the midst of ethnic cleansing.

I wanted to add my personal remarks and experience, and to recommit my efforts and myself to the interests of Burma, particularly to the Rohingya Muslim minorities who are being slaughtered. Somehow Canada has to do both. We have to stand with the country, we have to criticize when necessary, and we need to provide moral leadership by example on this file. If we do not, this Parliament and other Parliaments are going to hear over and over “never again”, yet it happens again. At some point, as a humanity, we have to mean it.

[Arnold Chan, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my leader and all members of the New Democratic Party, I also rise in the House today to pay tribute to our friend, Arnold Chan, the late hon. member of Parliament for Scarborough—Agincourt.

I want to begin by expressing our most sincere condolences to his wife, Jean, Arnold's three children, Nathaniel, Ethan, and Theodore, and the members of his family and all the close friends who have been affected.

Everyone here knows the sacrifices that are made when one enters political life. Arnold understood this as well. We would like to thank his family for its understanding and its willingness to share Arnold with his constituents and with us here in Parliament. It was a sacrifice of time, made all the more precious by his early passing.

In Arnold's farewell speech, which has been referenced many times in the House, the sincerity and humility in his words, and the clear love and gratitude he showed for his family struck a chord across the entire country. Yet, for those of us who had a chance to know Arnold well, nothing he said came as a surprise. In fact, they are a wonderful reflection of the person he was and how he lived his life.

In his speech, he called for political opponents to respect one another, to listen to one another, and to engage with each other in dialogue beyond mere talking points because “It is the basic common civility we share with each other that is fundamental.”

I was fortunate to have spent the past few years working alongside Arnold on the procedure and House affairs committee, and this is where I really had a chance to see Arnold up close and get to know him. Although every committee will hit bumps along the road, I truly believe Arnold's contributions were a big part of any of the successes that our committee has had.

Arnold was not interested in playing political games. He understood the strength and value that came from a report or a recommendation that all members supported and he was always looking to build bridges and find common consensus. This approach, combined with his sharp intellect and a great sense of humour, made him a natural leader on our committee, and a voice of reason in a place where sometimes reason can be in short supply.

Canadians are so used to seeing leading news clips of us, usually fighting, yelling, throwing insults at one another, trying to make our point, and we do do a lot of that. Therefore, it is not a wonder that this is what they see. However, it does not take too long before people realize there are many more dimensions to this place, and many more dimensions to the work we do. Much of that takes place at committee, and it is under the radar

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I just want to read a couple of quotes from Hansard, at our committee, that will put on the formal record an example of how Arnold approached this, not talk, not speeches. This is in committee, in full flight, and we are going at it. This is how Arnold approached things. The issue at hand here was the rule for going in camera, which, as members will know, was kind of controversial in the last few Parliaments. This had the potential to explode. To me, it underscores Mr. Chan and his approach, and why we feel the way we do and why what looks to me like not one member of the House has left since question period to pay that respect.

I started by saying:

On a related issue, I want to advise colleagues that we're now starting to get into some of the areas where our lack of definition about being in camera could play out. I want to update everyone that Mr. Chan and I are continuing discussions and are hoping to have back here....

Mr. Chan said, “I know that we did switch topics, but I want to go back to” the hon. member for Hamilton Centre. I will just say Hamilton Centre from now on when it is a reference to me. We use our first names in committee, but we cannot do that here This is Mr. Chan to me, introducing something that is not good or comfortable for the government.

This was his response:

First of all, I thank him for the courtesy of allowing me the opportunity to have that conversation. Again, I will also defer, to some degree, to the Conservative members of this committee. Once we have that appropriate language, if we can come to a consensus and can get unanimity, we could dispose of it fairly quickly.

Moving on, a month later, Mr. Chan said:

I know that [the member for Hamilton Centre] is not available, so I want to put it on the record that we're continuing our conversations. I think we're very close to a resolution, [and I want to have that opportunity to continue].

In June, I said:

Chair, my intent would be to read the motion. I formally withdraw all of my former documents in relation to this, and I assume Mr. Chan will do the same. We've got a clean slate, and there's been consultations with the government and with the official opposition. My hope is that we finally can get this cleaned up before we rise. So here we go.

The Chair: Hold it.... Hold it.

[The member for Hamilton Centre]: Sorry. Yes, I agree.

The Chair: Do I have unanimous agreement to withdraw all the previous motions on this?

Mr. Arnold Chan: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay.

[The member for Hamilton Centre]: Thanks, Chair, I appreciate that.....

Mr. Arnold Chan: I have nothing to add, other than I am prepared to proceed on unanimous consent, unless the official opposition has anything to add.

The Chair: Okay....

The Chair: Mr. Chan, go ahead.

Mr. Chan ended by saying:

I also want to thank [the member for Hamilton Centre] for working collaboratively with the government on this. At the end of the day, we meant what we said.

You know what? Arnold did always mean everything he said.

I conclude my statement by sharing a few more words from Arnold's farewell speech because I hope we take these words to heart today and each day going forward, and I note that the Prime Minister was reflecting on exactly the same line of thinking. This is what Mr. Chan said:

I believe strongly that despite what we see in this place, what gives us strength is the fact that we can actually do it. We can actually engage in this process without fundamental rancour, without fundamental disagreement, and without violence. That is the difference, and that is why I so love this place.

That is the challenge he has left for us.

I just want to say on a very personal note that I have served with hundreds of elected people in my time, and Mr. Chan was one of the most amazing elected Canadians I have ever had the honour to serve with. I want to look directly at his family and say to them that their husband and dad was a remarkable man, a good man, and he made a difference in this Parliament and made our country a better place. We thank them for sharing him with us.

Rest in peace, my friend.

[Amendments to Standing Orders, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting speech from the parliamentary secretary. It reminds me of the mouse that roared, when I think of all the promises the government made about all the changes it was going to make.

By the way, let me also say that if anybody should be as upset as opposition members, it ought to be the backbench members of the government who are now in a position of ramming through unilateral changes to our Standing Orders against our tradition, with content that amounts to cotton batting. They should be really upset.

I could pick any issue for my question, but I will pick prorogation. The member said and the Liberals promised that they would end the improper use of prorogation. What they want to put in place is that, after the fact, there has to be an excuse given. I was here when a prime minister used prorogation to run away from a confidence vote, the most egregious misuse of prorogation. I would like to know what aspect of what the government is bringing in now would have any impact on a prime minister abusing prorogation in that fashion?

[Amendments to Standing Orders, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I, unfortunately, have been one of those who had a ringside seat for this whole process from beginning to end and I agree with the member entirely when he does a recap. This whole thing speaks to complete ineptitude on the part of the government. All the problems we have had here have come from the government and most of them because the Liberals do not seem to know what the heck they are doing.

They brought in Motion No. 6, and as was pointed out, the Prime Minister's actions caused that to be reversed pretty darn quick. Then they brought out their famous discussion paper and it is absolutely true that the motion that followed was within hours and it had a deadline. They then pulled that back after we wasted six weeks on a filibuster that the opposition did not call for. The government caused that 24/7 filibuster and the Liberals know it was their doing.

What did the Liberals do at the end of six weeks? They withdrew the whole thing. It seems to me that when we finally looked at what is in front of us, it looks to me like the first thing the government did was fold, then it refolded on the second go-around, now it seems to have folded on the refold of the fold. Could the member comment on how much folding the government seems to be doing here?

[Bill Thompson, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today with great sadness, on behalf of me and the member for Hamilton Mountain, to pay tribute to our good friend Bill Thompson, who passed away suddenly last week.

Bill was a well-known figure in the Hamilton community and a beloved member of our labour and NDP family. A dedicated social justice advocate, Bill fought tirelessly for important issues, such as co-op and affordable housing, poverty reduction, economic equality, and the environment. I had the honour to know and work with Bill for more than 40 years, as members of the Hamilton and District Labour Council executive in the late 1970s, as an assistant to Ontario minister Richard Allen, and through his lifelong dedication to fairness and equality. Nobody enjoyed a knock-down, drag-'em-out political debate better than Bill, yet his relentless positivity, sense of humour, and deep compassion endeared him to everyone he met.

On behalf of our NDP caucus and family, I would like to extend our sincerest condolences to Bill's family and friends. He will be greatly missed.

Rest in peace, brother.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my friend's excellent speech was well thought out, and accurately portrayed some of the trepidations that people have while recognizing that going forward is the right thing.

It may be that the member cannot answer my question and I accept that, but one of the things that struck me about this is that ideally what we would all like to have is the same as we have with the breathalyzer: a reliable, legally calibrated breathalyzer that will stand the test. Everybody was hoping that would be found for THC, and it has not. Maybe the government needs to answer my question, not my friend, but if he knows I would like to hear his thoughts.

Maybe it is happening, but I am surprised that some of the jurisdictions around the world have not pooled their efforts together to try to find this scientific solution, rather than each of so many countries reinventing the wheel in terms of trying to identify some way of accurately finding out what THC levels are in anyone who happens to be pulled over.

[Finance, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General regularly exposes government negligence and incompetence, and today is no exception. The latest report also reveals that the Liberals refused to give the Auditor General the information he requested. The power to access information is crucial to the AG's independence and is, in fact, protected in law. After being elected on promises of openness and transparency, the Liberals have deliberately stonewalled the Auditor General.

Why is the government undermining the Auditor General, and what exactly is it trying to hide from Canadians?