David Christopherson

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

Mr. Speaker, may I offer my congratulations to you on your election to the chair? I want to go a step further and say I speak for the whole House, I bet. Certainly anyone who has been around here any length of time would appreciate the values you bring to this position. Without an effective speaker or deputy speakers, this place cannot function, especially for us in opposition. We need our rights upheld. Yet the government has rights too. This is not about stifling the government's right to govern. I think you are the perfect choice to make that judgment, and you certainly have my respect and the respect of this entire House as you go about this difficult job.

In the short time I have been in the House today, I have been pleasantly surprised and pleased by the lack of “we care more about victims than you do” or “you are soft on crime”. There has been none of that rhetoric, at least not while I have been here. Maybe it happened before and it may happen as soon as I sit down, but so far I have not heard it, and it is a breath of fresh air for everyone, particularly Canadians who follow this place, to see that there really are some places where we can set aside partisanship and talk about ideas, constructive ideas and even constructive criticism. When we talk about our precious criminal justice system, is there anything more important to which we could possibly bring the notion of rolling up our sleeves as MPs and doing as good a job as we possibly can collectively?

I say to my colleagues, to government members, members of the third party and the independents that, if we can hold this kind tenor through most of our debates, we will actually increase the way all of us are viewed and the way politics is viewed because right now the slippery slope of politics being seen as dirty, underhanded and not positive is not healthy. But we are the ones who set the image people watch to make those determinations.

Our caucus will be supporting the bill going to committee. We are okay with the notion of increasing the victim surcharge. It was almost 20 years ago to the day that I became a provincial minister responsible for part of the justice system, so not only do I know how important this issue is in terms of identifying the rights of victims and the need for government to step in and be there for victims to the degree that it can, but it also made me very much aware of the respect Canada has around the world in terms of its criminal justice system.

It is not perfect, and there are headlines almost every day that remind us it is not perfect. It cannot be perfect because it has human beings involved. However, given how bad some criminal justice systems are—the word “justice” ought not even be in there—we should remind ourselves and take pride in the fact that we do have one of the finest, if not the finest, most respected, effective criminal justice systems in the world. Although we see in the newspaper where it fails, we do not see the literally hundreds and thousands of cases where the system does do what it is supposed to do, fairly and even-handedly.

One of our concerns is not with the doubling of the surcharge, because we believe it is an important concept. Again, 20 years ago I was part of a provincial government, and the parliamentary secretary referenced Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan as examples of provinces that have made this an issue and have made a success of it. However, everything needs increased money because costs go up, so we are good with that. It is the notion of taking away the discretionary powers, especially since they are already there. That really troubles me and will cause many Canadians to scratch their heads and not quite get it.

I am not a lawyer, but the government is proposing that, in addition to doubling the fines, the judge would retain the discretion to increase the surcharge, if he or she believed it was warranted and that the convicted person had the means to pay it and that it was the right thing to do. The government wants to leave that in there. It is not a question of really taking away discretion, because it is leaving it in there. It is just that the judges could only use discretion to increase it. The government is taking away the discretion that now exists for a judge to say, “It's one step beyond for me, in terms of applying a fair criminal justice system, to now add this surcharge and, therefore, I am going to exercise my rights to waive that”.

I do not have the time nor do I think I need to go through all of the examples where a rational ordinary person would look at a case and say that he or she deserved a break. Therefore, we think that ought to remain.

I am glad the bill is going to committee. I would hope witnesses will be brought in and we will go through it. If the government is right that we should change it, hopefully that will become self-explanatory as the meeting unfolds. However if not, I hope the government would be willing to stay open-minded on that issue, again in the spirit of the kind of debate and discussion we are having here now.

I know my time is rapidly expiring, so with those few remarks I shall conclude.

[Committees of the House, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 8th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in relation to its study of the Public Accounts of Canada, 2011.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Committees of the House, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to its study of the main estimates, 2012-13, vote 20 under Finance.

[Restoring Rail Service Act, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would say that I hope historians take particular note, when they are reviewing this period of Canadian history, and factor in the implications of a government that is prepared to turn the whole House of Commons upside down, run roughshod over workers' rights and questionably violate the rights workers have under the charter, all in the interest of making sure the trains run on time. Historians should note that the minister shouted “hear, hear” on that comment. It must be late. Not many got that reference, but they ought to think about the fact that this is all about making the trains run on time. That is the priority.

The minister mentioned the amount of legislation that has been used, but since 1950 this kind of legislation has been used, on average, once every two years. The Conservatives have done it four times in the first year. Four times in the first year they have already brought in back-to-work legislation, denying workers their right to stand up and fight for their rights in a democratic fashion, exercising those charter rights.

What is interesting is what the government did not do in terms of bringing in back-to-work legislation. The government allowed in my home town, for instance, U.S. Steel to buy Stelco. Supposedly, the government found there was some net benefit to Canada, and yet not long after it bought Stelco and entered into negotiations, U.S. Steel did not like the way the negotiations were going and locked the workers out. We implored the government to step in and do something. If it wanted to bring in back-to-work legislation, we wanted it to bring that legislation in and put those Hamiltonians back to work, who did absolutely nothing wrong. They were locked out and, as a result, their pensions have been gutted and they have lost rights. That is the track record of the government in terms of workers' rights and workers' right to bargain collectively.

If we listen to the government, the union is so evil. It wanted so much, was greedy and selfish. That is the implication. I see the minister shaking her head no, no, no. Yet her colleagues are quite willing to throw around “union bosses” at a drop of a hat. Nobody is fooled by any of that. What is the strike really about? It is about pension rights. Is there a Canadian right now who is not frightened and worried about pension rights and willing to do anything, including standing up and fighting and exercising his or her right to strike?

Two of the issues are fatigue management and rail safety. How many derailments have there been in the last while? Rail safety is an issue, and a lot of changes have been advantageous to the railways. When the railways are unsafe, just like when classrooms are dirty, which is not just where people work but where children learn, public safety is at risk when there are fatigue issues in terms of the people who are running those trains. Why is that so wrong?

One of the last items was work rules. Trying to get fairness in terms of rules at work ought not to be seen as some kind of revolutionary tactic that brings down the weight of the entire federal government on people's heads because they want to have some decent and fair work rules.

Those are the three main issues. Why are they not mentioned by the government? Why does the government not have some sympathy for the workers who stand to lose tens of thousands of dollars in pensionable income and earning income in the ensuing years? Why has anybody not talked about that over there? Why has anyone over there not talked about managing fatigue as a public safety issue? Conservatives rant and rave about law and order and public safety. This is just as much a public safety issue as any other that the justice minister may bring forward. Yet the government wants to run roughshod over that, too.

Ten hours after the strike began, the government sent out a signal that it was prepared, if necessary, to step in with back-to-work legislation.

We do not need to have years at the bargaining table to guess what happened at that point. The negotiations broke down. The company is sitting at the table with its workers saying that it wants to negotiate a fair agreement but then it gets some help from its big buddy in Ottawa who says, “Hey, don't worry. If it doesn't go well we'll just order them all back to work.” Well, at that point bargaining is done. It is over. It is dead.

No one should be surprised that is what happened because that is what the government wanted to happen. Every employer in this country right now believes that they have a friend in the government, particularly when it comes to going after their own employees. Why? Because they can make more profit if they take away people's wages. That would be a fair trade-off as far as the government is concerned.

We have already heard that it is a profitable private corporation engaged in fair collective bargaining and after 10 hours the government effectively killed bargaining at that table. The government is responsible for where we are today, not the union. The current government brought us to where we are today.

It is interesting to mention that the government, from time to time, when it is necessary, will say things like, “We respect collective bargaining”. Sometimes it even goes so far as to recognize that it is a right that Canadians have. Canadians have that right because the Supreme Court has ruled that the charter provides that protection. What the government cannot stand is not Canadians who have rights, it is Canadians who would dare to stand up and demand those rights. That is what the current government cannot stand.

In my last two minutes I will mention that the official opposition, under the leadership of the member for Outremont, was here in this place every time the government attacked workers, and today is no different. We will continue to stand up and fight for the rights of Canadians to have a decent income, especially when it is a profit-making corporation, and to have decent pensions that they can count on. This business of taking people's pension rights away, sometimes just a few years before they are about to retire, is disgraceful. It is disgraceful to do that to Canadians.

However, we ought not be surprised. We just need to look at what the government did with OAS. The Prime Minister said, “Oh, we won't touch pensions. We'll just kind of kill them a little bit.” And somehow that is okay.

The fact that pensions were on the bargaining table to be negotiated is something the government would see as almost evil. How dare anyone go against the government when it is trying to lower pensions. Anyone in Canada who has any other ideas, except its buddies over there, had better forget about it because, if necessary, look where we are, one o'clock in the morning and we are ramming through back-to-work legislation so that the government can do the bidding of the people who called upon it to do it. In every one of those cases where the government ordered workers back to work, that is what the corporation wanted.

In the case of U.S. Steel, the corporation wanted those workers outside because it locked them out. We sure were not standing here at one o'clock in the morning debating legislation to order them back to work. It is not going to happen because the corporations are setting the agenda and Canadians are beginning to catch on as to who will pay the price at the end of the day.

If it takes until one o'clock in the morning, three o'clock in the morning, five o'clock in the morning or 24/7 standing beside workers and defending their rights to free collective bargaining, then Canadians can count on the fact that the NDP, the official opposition in Ottawa, will be there and will take on the government every time.

[Standing Committee on Public Accounts, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will try again.

The first part of the answer to his question is that his motion was out of order. The member does not want to accept that, but that is not my problem.

On the second issue, there is another point of order. I committed to undertake to review that and come back with a determination that will happen on Thursday, and that is exactly what will take place.

[Standing Committee on Public Accounts, May 29th, 2012]

Let me answer the question.

The first part of the answer is that--

[Standing Committee on Public Accounts, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question.

First, notwithstanding the fact that he is referring to matters that were dealt with in an in camera meeting and he understands the rules around that--

[Poverty, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, next Thursday in my riding of Hamilton Centre, the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction, the Hamilton Legal Clinic, and the McMaster Poverty Initiative will be co-sponsoring an event entitled Claiming and Enforcing the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living.

Born from a sense of frustration with the continued cuts to services by both federal and provincial governments and of frustration with the diminishing ability of social programs to keep our most marginalized citizens from falling further into poverty, the event will also discuss the Conservative government's increasing trend of refusing to live up to its obligations under international agreements.

This special evening will include a talk from international law and human rights expert Bruce Porter from the Social Rights and Advocacy Centre, as well as a panel that will include economist and McMaster University professor Dr. Atif Kubursi and poverty round table member Laura Cattari.

I congratulate these groups, wish them a successful event, and thank them for their continued compassion and unrelenting efforts to eradicate the scourge of poverty in our community and in our country.

[Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking specifically about China. Of course, our neighbours to the south are now paying the price for that whole China approach. They decided they would do as much of their manufacturing as they possibly could over in China at a fraction of the cost of doing it in the United States. That worked really well for the first few years, until finally so many jobs were gone—and we are not immune from this at all—that they have no more manufacturing sector. Now, when the Americans are trying to rebuild their economy, where is the basis for it?

In terms of the government and what it is willing to do, let us remember that this is a government that is still prepared to send asbestos from Canada to India and other countries. I guarantee members that not one of my constituents would stand by that policy and say it is okay. They would say that it is not okay to poison people around the world in the interest of the almighty dollar. That is not the Canadian way.

[Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things I could say to that . I would be glad to answer those questions if either the member wants to ask again or somebody else wants to, but with that kind of preamble to the question, I am not responding any further than I just have.