David Christopherson

[Business of Supply, March 17th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would agree very much that Canadians are looking for this. We do not get very many opposition days and that is why we used up one of our precious opposition days on this issue. I agree with the member and made the comment in my remarks about the young people and how they were particularly angered. That is the word that comes to mind, but they were a lot more than that. They viscerally felt how wrong, unfair and undemocratic it was to unilaterally shut down their Parliament for the sole purpose of running away from answering questions. Our role as the opposition is to check and balance. Our system is that we ask the government questions every day and hold the ministers accountable every day. They do not do that in the congressional system in the United States. They do it very differently. They have their own checks and balances.

What we are saying is that at this point in time in Canada we need to tweak the rules just a bit around prorogation because we have clear evidence of abuse. We have things that we can do to change it and it is up to us to utilize our power as the majority in the House to change those rules on behalf of the Canadians who saw their House shut down.

[Business of Supply, March 17th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am very surprised that member would want to talk about histrionics and things that are over the top given his own personal track record.

Having said that, let us tackle this head on. I made the comment in my remarks that it is the House that decides who the prime minister will be. What happened a year ago and what happened in every election before then is entirely consistent with the democratic procedures and the history of all democracies across the Commonwealth.

[Business of Supply, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to our motion.

The most pivotal word in the motion is “abuse”. We are not talking about denying a prime minister the right to prorogue. As my leader has pointed out, we accept that it is an important part of parliamentary democracy and it is used quite often in appropriate ways. In fact, in my own home province of Ontario there recently was a prorogation. I suspect there was a plan for a little longer one earlier and it was changed but I am no longer in the Ontario legislature and I do not want to inject myself into its politics. However, my point is that it was a four day prorogation, which is consistent with what we are talking about.

I did not hear a single constituent or anyone else where I went complaining about what happened at Queen's Park. There were the usual gripes. People were mad at the government for doing this, that and the other, but there was not a peep about it being unfair, undemocratic or unacceptable.

As to other governments, I was part of one too that prorogued for an awfully long time. However, under our change here, there should at the very least have been a motion on the floor. We should not kid ourselves. A majority government will win a vote 10 times out of 10. It would really be a pro forma matter in terms of informing the public through bringing it to the House by a majority government.

More important, at a time like this, when the Prime Minister has a minority government and has considerably less than 40% of the support of Canadian people, he feels that he is entitled to wield 100% of the power 100% of the time. That is not on.

We would not have prevented the Prime Minister from exercising his prerogative under the Constitution. I would liken this to an idea the government itself has been floating around for some time in terms of the Senate. I am not saying that this plan would work but it is what the government has been looking at and talking about. Rather than changing the Constitution, which we know would be all but impossible, the attempt was to change the rules underneath, what happens prior to the Prime Minister going to the Governor General.

Right now the Prime Minister can consult with whomever he wants or no one. He is not required to consult with anyone. The Prime Minister gives his Senate suggestions to the Governor General and asks for them to be considered in the polite fashion that we do around here. What the Prime Minister wants the Prime Minister gets.

We are talking about the same thing when it comes to prorogation. Prior to the prime minister of the day going to the Governor General, if it is going to be more than seven calendar days, we in this House who run our own House on behalf of the people, the supreme House with supreme power, would have an opportunity to deliberate. In a minority, a government might win but in a majority it would always win.

This does not affect the Constitution because the Constitution kicks in when we talk about the prime minister's prerogative to visit the Governor General and give whatever advice he or she wishes. What happens before then is pretty much silent. We are saying that we must build the silence because we have an abusive situation. If anyone doubts whether it was abusive or what the purpose was, we should remember what Mr. Tom Flanagan, a close confidant to the Prime Minister, said:

I think his problem is that the government's talking points really don't have much credibility. Everybody knows that Parliament was prorogued in order to shut down the Afghan inquiry and the trouble is that the government doesn't want to explain why that was necessary.

To be fair to Mr. Flanagan, he did go on to say that he thought it was defensible, but publicly he said that the reason for the prorogation was “to shut down the Afghan inquiry”. That is exactly the allegation that our leader has made from day one when prorogation was announced, which is that the government was hiding from Parliament and hiding from the Canadian people. Did the people respond?

We held a rally in Gore Park in my hometown of Hamilton and it was packed. What was really instructional was the number of young people who got this in one. They were not going to accept that this was some kind of parliamentary nicety or that they should mind their business and not worry because the Prime Minister and his folks would take care of everything. No, the young people understood that the government was running away and that it was abusing power, particularly in a minority situation.

All we are saying, which is totally non-radical, is that a prorogation should be no longer than seven calendar days. If it were, as Premier McGuinty did, a legitimate prorogation to shut down the House for a few days to provide a gap between the original session and the new one and to tee things up for a throne speech, that would make perfect sense. Nothing would encumber the prime minister of the day from continuing to do exactly that. The only difference would be that if it were to be more than seven days, it would need to be brought to the House, and, as my leader has pointed out, the House would decide whether that door gets padlocked, not one person unilaterally who does not even have a majority mandate.

We have not heard from the other opposition parties in terms of their positions. I know they had some other thinking about flipping it around and saying that the prime minister must come to the House under certain circumstances. However, that gets awfully convoluted and detailed and sets itself up for further loopholes and abuse down the road, which is why we have gone about it this way.

We are not trying to take away the prime minister's power or to change the Constitution through the back door. All we are trying to do is to ensure this House gets its rightful role in a decision that is so imperative, because, quite frankly, if the House is not sitting, then the people's representatives are not doing the job that they were elected to do, which is to meet as a House of Commons to consider the people's business.

When we know, as we do from Mr. Flanagan and others, that the government was just running and hiding, then we need to do something. We need to put in place a rule that makes it very clear that if it is more than one calendar week, it needs to come back to the House. We must remember that the government played games with this around a year ago.

Under our system, the people do not directly elect the prime minister or the government. They elect their representative in their riding. When we all meet, we decide by a confidence vote who the prime minister will be and, once that person has achieved the confidence of the House, then he or she can act as the prime minister. However, that authority did not directly come from the ballot box. The authority to set up house at 24 Sussex is decided by the MPs in the House.

The reason we do not see that so often is that when we are in a majority, it is a given who will win every vote, so there is no big buildup to the confidence question. It looks as if there was a direct election of the executive council but there was not.

This House is supreme and we are asking all members, but particularly our opposition colleagues, to join with us in making a significant but relatively simple change that would bring democracy to this place that the Canadian people demand. That is why we have this motion here and hopefully it will carry.

[The Budget, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while the government is slashing corporate taxes, corporations are slashing jobs. Yesterday, 550 hard-working people at the 115-year-old Hamilton Siemens turbine plant were shocked to learn that their jobs were gone, shipped south of the border.

Just days after a budget that “promised” to help Canadian workers find and keep their jobs, 550 more workers have been thrown overboard. It is now time to keep that promise.

What exactly will the government do to help keep those jobs in Hamilton?

[Petitions, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to introduce two petitions from Canadians who have growing concerns over activities taking place within the post office.

The first one, if I might, calls on the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to maintain and improve its network of public post offices and to consult with the public, their elected representatives, postal unions, and other major stakeholders to develop a uniform and democratic process for making changes to this network.

The other petition also speaks to the pending legislation that has been in front of this House twice. We are expecting it a third time. It calls on the Government of Canada to maintain the moratorium on post office closures and withdraw the legislation to legalize remailers. If the Liberals would join with the NDP and the Bloc, we could kill that bill.

It also calls upon the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to maintain, expand and improve postal service, a position that the NDP caucus has taken and will continue to hold.

[Mark Anthony Graham, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Hamilton City Council, under the leadership of Mayor Fred Eisenberger, with particular recognition to ward 8 councillor, Terry Whitehead, in changing the name of Olympic Park located on the West Mountain portion of my riding to the Mark Anthony Graham Memorial Olympic Park in honour of a respected Hamilton soldier who died tragically four years ago in Afghanistan.

Born in Jamaica, Mark grew up in Hamilton. He attended Chedoke Middle School and Sir Allan MacNab Secondary School, and in 1992 represented Canada at the Barcelona Summer Olympics in the 4x400 metre relay team. Even after his renowned success at the University of Nebraska and Kent State as a track and field athlete, Mark returned to Sir Allan MacNab Secondary School to help coach the next generation of local track athletes.

Mark Anthony Graham went on to serve in the 1st Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment. He was deployed to Afghanistan where, on September 4, 2006, he made the ultimate sacrifice.

Renaming this park affords our community a fitting tribute to this outstanding Hamiltonian. We will remember his legacy both as a gifted athlete and a soldier who selflessly served our city and our country.

[Prorogation of Parliament, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have watched in shock, anger and disbelief as the Prime Minister shut down their Parliament for a second time in a year. For two months, our democracy was forced to remain silent, while families struggled to make ends meet, workers lost their pensions and seniors fell into poverty.

Canadians are proud of our polite, courteous reputation, but as these Olympics have shown, we have gold-standard patriotism. Sensing a threat to their democracy, Canadians took to the Internet and streets by the tens of thousands to stand up to this hijacking of Canada's Parliament. Canadians have asked New Democrats to bring their voices and their message to the floor of their House of Commons to demand that all future prorogations be put to a vote by their representatives in their Parliament.

Forget all this prorogation, recalibration and obfuscation, Canadians need help. What they do not need is a Prime Minister who just sings of a little help from my friends. They need one who actually budgets it.

[Petitions, December 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to present a petition signed by hundreds of citizens from Newfoundland who add their voices to those from across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, who are opposed to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

Newfoundlanders understand, as well as everyone else in Canada, that this is an embarrassment to our nation in terms of the values we hold. That the kind of human rights violations we see in Colombia would in any way lead this country to enter into some kind of a preferred trade arrangement is something Canadians reject.

This petition, from one of our important coasts, reflects that it is a truly national reflection that Canadians do not want this Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

[Petitions, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to present petitions signed by hundreds of Ontarians regarding the direction in which the government is taking Canada Post.

The petitioners, in part, call upon the government to instruct Canada Post to maintain, expand and improve postal services, as well to maintain the moratorium on post office closures. Most important, they call upon the government to withdraw Bill C-44, which would privatize Canada Post through the back door, and Canadians want no part of it.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose there is a long list of reasons why the Liberals might not be supporting it but what matters to Canadians is that they are not supporting us in stopping the bill and staying with the tradition. They have a tradition and I will go so far as to say that it is one they can be relatively proud of in the past with Canada Post. Why on earth are they throwing that overboard to appease a handful of private interests in Canada? We do not understand.

I will read another quote from the 1996 review mandate. It states in part that private companies would concentrate on high density urban areas and ignore rural and remote markets “because the combination of sparse population, low mail volumes and numerous distribution points is one that offers little prospect of profitability”.

Canada Post is about providing an important service to Canadians. The private business interest is to make money. The two do not go together. Why are we denying Canada Post the ability to be financially viable without costing taxpayers a single dime beyond what they pay directly for the postal service?

The Liberals need to answer to Canadians on why they would even consider letting the bill go through and do that kind of damage to Canada Post?