David Christopherson

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, somebody else seems to want to have the floor—

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

I was wrong, Mr. Speaker, and you have probably done me a favour because I would have heard from my mom anyway. I apologize to both you and the only higher authority I would acknowledge on the planet, which would be my mom. I have to stop doing that. There is another word I use that I think is okay and it not okay. I stand corrected.

What is interesting and more troubling is that the government managed to get re-elected. This time Conservatives learned not to cheer quite so loud because there may be a part B, which there is. Because that kind of agenda of omnibus bills trampling on democratic rights, trampling on democratic traditions, those things matter to Canadians. Remember who we are. We are a people who pride ourselves on fairness, inclusiveness, justice and democracy in the fullness of the word.

That agenda over time gave them a second majority government, but it also led to their red tape commission where they would roll back protective regulations, which is by the way exactly what the Conservatives brought here federally. The reason they are not hooting and hollering right now is because that blind attitude to an ideological bottom line led to Walkerton. Does anybody want to start laughing about that?

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. I will begin by adding my voice to those who have complimented our colleague, the deputy critic for democratic reform, for doing an awesome job on a very complex file.

I will make reference to an article in The Globe and Mail that reads:

A dramatic confrontation in the Ontario Legislature ended yesterday in a major victory for the opposition parties and forced the Progressive Conservatives to agree to extensive public hearings on the government's sweeping omnibus legislation.

The victory occurred after an unusual standoff in which veteran Liberal MPP Alvin Curling delayed debate on the bill for 18 hours by refusing to leave the chamber when ordered to do so for violating parliamentary rules. Attempts to use force to remove Mr. Curling were thwarted by opposition politicians who blocked approaches to his desk and stayed all night to prevent authorities from reaching him.

The protest, an almost unprecedented act of civil disobedience for a politician, was undertaken by Liberals and New Democrats to force province-wide hearings next month on the omnibus legislation, known officially by its numerical title as Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act.

For those Canadians who live in our most populous province, they will probably remember that bill number because it was a major issue. I want to point out that the date on that article in The Globe and Mail by Mr. Martin Mittelstaedt was December 8, 1995.

I raise that for a number of reasons. Obviously, it ties into the motion before us, but when it states, “Attempts to use force to remove Mr. Curling were thwarted by opposition politicians who blocked approaches to his desk”, I was one of those politicians who was thwarting. I consider it a highlight and certainly one of the most memorable times.

The other reason I mention that and the reason that it is relevant is not just that it was the Conservatives' provincial cousins, other than a minor name change, but what is really interesting, and we never know how history will unfold, is that today I find myself sitting right across from three former colleagues of the Ontario legislature who now sit as senior members of the Prime Minister's cabinet. They were applauded back in that day too because they were also on the front bench of then premier Mike Harris's government that brought in bill 26.

Do I hear that caucus now saying that bill 26, as it was brought in originally without hearings, was the right thing to do? It just went kind of quiet because they only want to heckle the parts that they like. They should stay because we can have lots of fun on this. They should be a part of this.

The members talked about history. We have seen history repeat itself. Lo and behold, here we are today and those three senior cabinet ministers who were part of bill 26, the omnibus bill that they tried to ram through the Ontario legislature back in 1995, are here today in 2012, having rammed through one bill and getting ready to ram through another omnibus bill. It was unacceptable then and it is damn well unacceptable today.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the member has answered the question herself. The member is a lawyer, so she knows far more about this than I do.

As a layperson, I will just say this, when we pass a law it says to someone that they have been found wrong and that we are going to take action. There is going to be a penalty and it is going to hurt in some fashion in that person's life.

We are also big believers that the person should be given the opportunity to have an appeal, a second opportunity for justice if they believe it was not had in the first case.

When all that power is put in one human being, as flawed as we are, that is looking for trouble. It is looking for trouble if one goes at it with the right attitude, but we do not think the Conservatives even bring that to this issue.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my friend can play games about me being a conspiracy theorist, which is fine, but I fully confess that after spending eight years in a Conservative House, one becomes very concerned about conspiracies. I have no problem with that. However, what I really want to focus on is whether the minister should get more power and whether it is reasonable that we would be so concerned about giving him that power.

We do not have enough time to talk about the litany of abuses of power by the government, starting with our very democracy. This is the government that passed the law, and it loves laws, that said there would be an election on a specific date. That was it and it was final. It was decided and there was the law. The first thing it did was ignore that law and set it aside because it did not suit its purposes. That is the kind of thing we are worried about.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to think the member believes they are minor. Otherwise, he would have a private member's bill in the House that would turn everything into a penitentiary penalty.

The fact of the matter is that there is a difference between speeding and a minor offence for which a person would receive a four to six-month sentence versus someone who has been sent off to a penitentiary for 20 years. There is a distinction there. Yes, we want to have a discussion about whether that should justify that kind of unilateral action. That is the whole point.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add my comments to the debate.

We have said that we will support sending the bill to committee. Obviously a lot more information is needed. That has come out in the comments already, and I expect will continue for the balance of the afternoon.

As the government has heard, we have some strong feelings about this issue. We have further strong feels and concerns about why the Conservatives do this, the way they do it, the language they use and what their real intentions are. That comes from experience, watching the government in action.

However, we will be fair-minded and even-handed, but we will stand by the principles we believe in on the issue of new Canadians and those who are on the path to become new Canadians.

Let me say parenthetically before I get into the substantive part of my comments, let us recognize again that every jurisdiction in the country, whether it is federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, regional, townships or counties, recognizes that attracting new Canadians to our country is not just a Canadian value, which would be enough for most of us on this side of the House, but it is a necessary component of our ability to move forward and have the kind of economy that will provide the jobs and quality of life that we have come to enjoy, that we want to continue and that we want to make better for our children and our grandchildren.

We need to be the country in the world that everybody else looks to and says, “There is where I want to go. That is the country I want to go to because of the values of the country, the opportunities it would give me”. More than anything, I think it is fair to say most of those people would be thinking that this is where they want their children and grandchildren to be raised, to give them the maximum opportunity. It matters when we have these debates. It matters what language we use, because we send messages when we do that.

For the longest time, for the whole time I have been at the federal order of government, there has been a growing recognition that more and more new Canadians who come here find that the jobs they were told would be here are not, that the profession they were told they could continue in is no longer possible. When they see all the promises that have been made are not real, many of them do not stay.

Far too many are making the decision down the road, after six, 12, 18, 24, 36 months, that Canada is not what they thought it would be, that it is not the dream they thought they would live and they are sending that message back to their home country, to their family members and their friends and their colleagues, those who want to come to Canada because it is the place to be. They are being told that they might just want to slow down a bit because it is not always that way.

That kind of messaging is antithesis of what we need to send out if we are to attract the kind of new Canadians we want to come in here to be a part of our great nation and to help us fulfill and finish the job of building the kind of Canada that we want for our children and our grandchildren. This is the wrong message when we use language like this. The Conservatives love to say, “foreigners, criminals, crack down”.

I lived through eight years of that under Premier Mike Harris. It was the same language, the same hot button politics. It is not a coincidence that up until recently the chief of staff to the Prime Minister was the chief of staff to Mike Harris, or that three of the senior members of this current government were senior members of the Mike Harris government. Therefore, I have seen and heard a lot of this before.

It took a while, but eventually Ontarians got the message and understood what was really going on behind the names of bills that were the opposite of what they really would do, throwing out hot button words, trying to create emotions, moving people by emotion rather than reason. These were all good political ploys, but at the end of the day, Canadians figured it out and when they did, that premier could not face the electorate in the next election. In my opinion he was so unpopular that he had to step down and another fellow stepped in, but people knew by then it was not really just the leader, it was the whole government and the whole approach. Ontarians threw them out, and according to recent polls, they are not looking to bring them back any time soon.

A lot of my concern is about that kind of thing. We will have a lot more time at committee to look into these issues, that is why we sent things to committee. Hopefully we have an intelligent review, bring in experts, let the public hear and read what we read and then make our deliberations and decisions. Canadians can draw their conclusions and decide whether they want to send each of us back here or not.

It will not come as a big shock that my first concern is loading up another minister with even more power. I realize that the concept of benevolent dictator exists and one can only hope, but that is all we are left with is hope. That is not really the way we do things in Canada. Removing checks and balances, making decisions unilaterally, pushing more into the political arena, sometimes these are the right things to do, but we have real concerns about it in this application. Again, that is why we want to send it to committee so we can look at these issues.

Make no mistake, there are many Canadians right now if asked point-blank would they be in favour of giving the Prime Minister's ministers more power, yes or no, some would say yes, but I think the vast majority would, if not say no, would ask why. That is where we are. We are at the why.

I am getting comments and I have some concerns about going down that road overall. However, at committee we will have an opportunity to answer the question of why. What are the reasons the government is giving for wanting increased unilateral powers for the minister to have and do and do they hold up against an examination of the problem they are trying to solve? There are problems everywhere. The solutions, however, can either be appropriate to the problem, or they can be overwhelmingly way over the top, or it can be a nice little fig leaf to put out in front because behind there are other reasons why they want these powers.

All these things are unknown at this point. We are highly suspicious and not just because we are the official opposition, but because we know the Conservatives. However, again, we will send it to committee and have a look at it.

Finally, I would point out it was the whole idea that suddenly someone could be removed without an appeal when they went to a federal prison, but now we will move it down to six months. There is a reason deuce less a day exists. There is a reason some people go to provincial institutions on a sentence of two years less a day and other people are sent to the penitentiary where they will be for many years, possibly decades, possibly the rest of their life. These are two completely different worlds of criminal behaviour. We need to ask the questions and we will. Why is it necessary to make such a dramatic change that results in unilateral action taken against people by removing their right to appeal? Part of the Canadian way is to give people their say, let them have their day in court.

I do not have to time to get into what the Conservatives attempted to do in terms of health care for refugees or the fact that they can bring in foreign workers and pay them 15% less. There are a whole lot of reasons why we have some serious concerns with what has been proposed, but we will support it going to committee. We will roll up our sleeves and do the work. If it is a good idea, we will support it and if it is not, we will take it on with every breath that we have.

[100th Anniversary Celebrations, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, constituents throughout my riding of Hamilton Centre have recently had the good fortune to participate in 100th anniversary celebrations, not just once, not even twice, but three times this past month.

Early last month, I was pleased to attend the 100th anniversary of the founding of St. Stanislaus Church. St. Stans continues to provide spiritual leadership and guidance and is a cornerstone of the Polish community in Hamilton.

Last week also saw the 100th anniversary of the ArcelorMittal Dofasco Hamilton operations. Anyone who knows anything about Hamilton knows the important role that steel and ArcelorMittal Dofasco have played in the development and history of our city.

Finally, this past weekend I joined with Cathedral High School as it celebrated a century of excellence. The full weekend of events brought former staff and students back to the school and highlighted Cathedral High School's many significant achievements.

I congratulate these three outstanding organizations on their historic anniversaries and I wish them all another 100 years of success.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is not fair. It takes me that long to clear my throat.

Let me just quickly say that I agree with almost everything my friend said. I cannot answer the last part. That really is kind of a legal procedural question as to where its next step ought to be in the system.

However, let me just say that I do think, in this particular case, it is going to be very difficult for the government to argue that discretion should be removed in one part and yet remain in a piece of legislation where it is already there.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will now fall back on the good will I hope I generated when I spoke to you earlier. I would ask you to recognize that I neglected to say at the beginning of my remarks that I will be splitting my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. I hope you will accept that now.

Let me just say that one of the unsung jobs in our country is that of a correctional officer. It just as difficult a job in its own way as those of police officers and people who put on other uniforms. It is not an easy place to work. It is not necessarily a fun place to work. I just want to tip my hat to all those who perform that function for us. It is not something we want to need, but we do, and let me just say that individuals like my hon. friend and others do commendable work for Canadians every day, while we are off doing other things, to make sure that sentences are carried out and that people are treated humanely. Again, that is why our criminal justice system stands out. It is so easy to be the other way, to be hard about it, to turn our mind to say, “Well, this is a clear case so we'll just lock the door and throw away the key”. That might feel good for a few moments, but that is not where the real world is.

To directly answer the member's question, I would hope the committee could take the time to explore other options beyond just a fine because, when a punishment is based on a fine, are the rich really being fined?