David Christopherson

[Infrastructure, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with concern over the government's arbitrary March 2011 deadline for project completion under the infrastructure stimulus fund. It is the government's position that consideration will be given to extending municipal projects on a case by case basis in a fair and reasonable way.

That is anything but fair and reasonable. Why do municipalities have to come here on bended knee when they are equal partners? Why the assumption that municipalities are doing something wrong or have made mistakes? The policy ought to be a blanket extension and then look at those projects that there are problems with on a case by case basis.

In my hometown of Hamilton there are 6 of 15 projects, for a total of $28 million, that are now at risk. It is unacceptable for a federal program to be brought in that is supposed to help municipalities and that program could leave them millions of dollars in debt. It is unacceptable, unfair and unreasonable.

[Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this motion.

First, I commend my colleague fromWellington—Halton Hills. In the context of Canada, he is a neighbour from Hamilton. I must say that in the short time that I have known him, like many people here, the member has left a very positive impression, and this is just another indication of that. I give him a very non-partisan personal acknowledgement for bringing this forward and the thoughtfulness behind it.

I am someone who believes in this place and its tradition, having now served seven years here and, prior to that, serving at Queen's Park for thirteen years. During that time I had the chance to try different places around the House. I spent some time as a minister answering questions, as a backbencher watching others answer questions, as the House leader for a while and as a deputy speaker.

Therefore, the traditions and what this place means, like everyone here, touches me deeply. When we talk about this place and what we do here, it goes beyond any of us and our time here. I give every serious consideration to this.

I will be making some positive comments and some negative ones around the issue, not the motion, but around the issue. We will be supporting the motion to have it go to committee so we can have the kind of fulsome discussion that I know the member wants.

I have just a few thoughts because we will do the detailed work at committee. First, a lot of the outrageous behaviour depends on what is happening on the floor. Quite frankly, there are times when there is a bit of an uprising, and it is warranted. If somebody inadvertently, never mind if they meant it, insults someone, something, a province, a community, a body of water or a mountain and that negative impression is hurled across the floor, there will be a reaction.

Depending on what was said, particularly if it is borderline offensive to what we would call Canadian values and Canadian standards, the public would expect, in a case like that, that there would be some kind of reaction. Canadians would be mortified if certain sexist or racist comments, as unintentional as they may be, are mentioned on the floor of the House of Commons. I think the Canadian people expect us to at least react in some fashion that causes that to be corrected. If it is outrageous enough, then the reaction is instant and, in most cases, the member usually, not always, is on his or her feet apologizing because he or she did not mean it.

That would be an example of a bit of an uproar that would be, dare I say, appropriate or at least understandable in the context of this place.

I will tell the House what is not acceptable. I am in the fourth party so I am quite a way from the other end of the House. It is difficult sometimes to feel a part of the action when one is at one of the ends but so be it. However, I have every right, as does anyone else in the House, that when the Prime Minister of Canada stands up I should be able to hear him. When the Leader of the Opposition stands up in his place I ought to be able to hear him or her too. It is not that I should not be able to hear everyone, but when the leaders are speaking, and I apply that to the Bloc and, of course, to my own leader from Toronto—Danforth, I want to heard them. I am speaking now as a non-partisan parliamentarian.

It is wrong that we collectively would make so much noise that even with our earpiece we cannot hear the Prime Minister of Canada on the floor of the House of Commons answer a question. That is not right.

Equally, there are some members of the House who happen to be soft-spoken and all it takes is three or four people who can clearly gang up and drown them out. I have never had that problem. I am always heard. I am not always agreed with but I am always heard, so I am not in that category and I am not complaining for myself.

However, it is inappropriate for a member to feel that he or she is not being given sufficient time on the floor. It is even more worse if we cannot pick up an earpiece and hear what someone is saying.

All the power resides in the Speaker; the Speaker for the most part is sovereign. The Speaker has all the power at his or her disposal. The question is whether we will permit the Speaker to use those powers in ways that we have not before.

I have not seen anybody tossed out of the chamber since I have been here, not that it's is a measure of anything, except when I add it up the number of times that I could not hear the Prime Minister. It is outrageous the number of times that I have seen members in the House, particularly women members but soft-voiced men as well, drowned out as soon as they get on their feet and say one controversial thing. When that happens, for the next three minutes, we cannot hear a word. That is not right.

I hope we will agree that we want something done about this. When the Speaker stands up and brings things to order, even when I am the focus of being out of order, I am pleased. If I do not have the right to do what I am doing right now and no one else has that guarantee, then our democracy is not what we say it is.

Much of this has to do with the public reaction. For 20 years, I have been hearing that teachers do not want to bring their kids here, because of the decorum and the behaviour. But I would argue that the problem is not so much that members react.

My friend from Sault Ste. Marie, whom I have known since I was elected to Queen's Park in 1990, has been an advocate for the poor every day of his elected life. I do not think anyone would doubt the sincerity and hard work that this member puts in on the issue of poverty. If somebody on the other side inadvertently says something negative about the poor, or says something to the effect that it is their fault, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who is soft-spoken by nature, when he meets with something that actually hurts people in poverty more than they are already suffering, will react appropriately. And when that happens, we would not want to be sitting close to him.

The second the Speaker sees something going beyond the moment of reaction, the Speaker needs to be on the floor, shutting that person down and asking for an apology. If he does not get it, the Speaker should threaten to throw the person out. If the person refuses to retract, then the Speaker should have the person thrown out.

Some people might think this kind of thing makes them a hero back home. I do not think, however, that anybody will be getting votes for getting thrown out of the House of Commons for conduct unbecoming a member.

I can understand the Speaker's reluctance to be heavy-handed, if he is concerned about where the House is. After all, as the Speaker says so often, he is a servant of the House. So it is always back to us. What are the boundaries that we want?

I do not believe for a minute that anyone expects us to sit like schoolchildren in grade 3 with our hands folded together, nice and neat, and not react at all. That is just not the real world. In days gone by, it was soldiers and blood on the battlefield. We wanted to change that in this place, with dialogue and rules.

Let us understand that there will be a motion, there will be reactions, but collectively, we need to recalibrate the parameters of what is acceptable and what is not, and I think the member, by putting this motion forward, has gone a long way towards helping us help ourselves to make a better House for the people we serve.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 20th, 2010]

What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2004-2005 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Hamilton Centre, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount, including the date the funding was allocated?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I heard two parts to the remarks of the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

On the parts where he gave his opinion on prorogation and what it ought to be and ought not to be, I disagree with just about every word of that, which he would expect and it is part of the dynamics of this place.

On the other half, however, I want to affirm that, as the chair of the committee, I believe the hon. member has done an excellent job. He bends over backwards to be fair. He brings humour to the role, to deal with tensions, so it really is a good committee doing good work. The tough stuff is going to come when we get in camera and start battling out the report, but we are not there yet. The whole point is the committee is alive and well and doing the work that it was charged to do by this place.

The time frames the Liberals have put forward, both the ridiculous one of June 23 in their original motion, would mean this committee would have to be up and running, do its work, finish and deliver the report in six days. Now they amended date of November 2. However, some of us on the committee have said that the odds of us being done in time to meet a November 2 deadline are just ridiculous.

Recognizing we are having a partisan debate, nonetheless, would the chair give his opinion on whether the newly amended date of November 2 would actually solve the problem? Is that a workable date as opposed to June 23 date, which clearly is not?

[Stewart Memorial Church, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, throughout this year, the Stewart Memorial Church in my riding of Hamilton Centre will be celebrating its 175th anniversary.

Founded in 1835 by fugitive slaves who came to Hamilton on the underground railroad, Stewart Memorial Church remains as one of the oldest predominantly black churches in Canada.

Stewart Memorial has played a significant role in Hamilton's history as a centre for outreach and celebration and a positive force for change in our community. As a gathering place, it has brought people together for various events, and it remains an important institution in Hamilton's black community.

On August 14 and 15, the church will be holding its homecoming 2010 celebrations, which will include a street festival, a cultural marketplace and music and dance performances. More information about the anniversary celebrations can be found at www.stewartmemorialchurch.com.

On behalf of all members, I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to Stewart Memorial Church and wish it continued success for many years to come.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the comments by my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, who sits on the committee that is dealing with prorogation. People can see where we completely disagree on some fundamentals about prorogation, but on the process, I believe we are like-minded.

There have been other comments by other members. Can the hon. member recall even one occasion when the Liberal members on the committee expressed any kind of concern whatsoever that the work we were doing was not adequate, was not fulsome, that the mandate was not big enough, that the committee was not working? Does he recall any comments at all from the Liberals about the conduct and the ongoing business of the committee already seized with the issue of prorogation?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Ditto.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We could pick any number of issues, as my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek did. We could pick an issue that matters to any of our constituents and put together an opposition day motion. It does not take that long if we have to do it at the last minute. It is easy to find issues that are important and bring them forward. However, to do this is what is so insulting.

We have an opportunity. Prorogation and the abuse of it is really important, but as my colleague said, so is health care, so is the environment, so are jobs. Those are things that are not being dealt with in a way that is acceptable right now.

The prorogation issue is in committee. We will have the fights. It is being dealt with in the way it would. Why are we not dealing with are matters with which we have not dealt yet? There is enough of those issues around.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, although my colleague has not been in this place a long time, he served in the Manitoba legislature for the better part of 25, 30 years. It is like when we refer to rank, we always give people a higher one, never a low one. If we are not sure what their rank is, they are a general. The hon. member was there for 30 years until I hear different.

The fact remains that he understands how the process works. We do not know exactly when we will report. I only said that I doubted we would be finished until November and if we were, it would only have been by a few weeks. Whether it would come before or after an election, I do not know. The parliamentary secretary made reference to the respect in the way the committee was working. No one is playing any games. We do not know when the election is coming. At this point, no one is saying let us get it done sooner or later to shaft this party or that party. None of that is going on. At this point, all we are doing is hearing from experts. We are getting close to finishing that. It is the first stage of our work. When that is done, we will begin to deliberate.

The hon. member will know that once we are into deliberations, there is no way to know how long. It is like a jury. We could wrap it up in one day or it could take a year. There could be majority reports, minority reports. All I know, in my opinion as the member on the committee for our party, is the committee is doing the work that is necessary. It will deliver a report and the rest of this is just nonsense.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member probably found the only way we could have managed to get the word “inspire” into this debate. I congratulate him on that.

Again, it is the date. If I can pick up on the hon. member's comments, I believe the new date in the amendment is November 2. However, it is unlikely that our committee will be done its work. If we follow this nonsensical thinking, it would suggest that once we are done our work, then this new committee would pick up and go from there. It would be responsible for getting a report back to us by November 2 of this year.

We are not going to be done by then. If we were, it would only be by a matter of weeks. It would be virtually impossible for that deadline to be met. Not only do the Liberals' have a stale-dated delivery date in the original motion, but their spiffy, spanking new shiny amendment, which is meant to fix everything, still does not fix it.

It reminds me of Mike Harris when he brought in a planning act and it took seven further bills to amend each of the mistakes he made in the preceding one. That is what I am seeing here, with these kinds of dates moving around. They still have not been thought through.