David Christopherson

[National Defence, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a letter from a constituent of mine. His son is a proud, fourth generation member of our Canadian Forces. He expressed anguish that the flag atop our Peace Tower would not be lowered to honour our fallen soldiers. He said:

The Parliament Buildings are for Canadians and not just dignitaries--and such Canadians who die serving this great country of ours should be granted to have the flag at half mast in their honour. It is time we made our own Canadian identity....

I could not agree more with my constituent. Will the minister revised his ill-conceived policy?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for York South--Weston and I recognize the minor error. I would just say that from the viewpoint of Hamilton, when we thought Toronto, we thought the hon. member. I was pleased to have been in the municipal world when the hon. member was there.

The member raises some very good points. I do not think I am in any way avoiding the answer, but to step it out one, Justice Gomery made quite a number of recommendations as a result of his inquiry. Many of those affected the public accounts committee. I am pleased to say that I am back on that committee again. I am looking forward to the work that will go on there.

However, I would say to the hon. member that there were a number of things flowing from the inquiry that could also be in Bill C-2. I recall that for the actual public accounts committee itself, Justice Gomery said there should be more resources and more independence. The member will recall that there times when we wanted to get further legal advice; it was more a matter of having a staff assignment rather than a question of whether or not they could be unbiased, and I want to be very clear about that. It was a matter of having the resources, in other words, of having a staff lawyer assigned to the committee who would be with us and know the corporate history and the issues and be able to give us advice along the way. Because it was a very legal process we went through, in that it involved personal information, people's rights, et cetera.

There is another thing that the committee would have been given the power to do had Bill C-2 incorporated those recommendations. The committee would have been given the power to ensure that deputy ministers were held accountable for their legal responsibility. Right now in terms of transparency and accountability, the minister rolls in and says, “I make the policy decisions and the department is run by the deputy, so I really cannot answer that one because it is about the mechanics of the ministry”. The minister says to speak to the deputy.

Okay, so we bring in the deputy minister. He rolls in and we ask the deputy, who says he can speak to some of the mechanics of what happened, but that most of this relates back to the policy and he does not make policy decisions, that the minister does. The deputy says we need to ask the minister. I am not making this up. This is how it works and anybody who was on the committee watched this.

Then we get to the second and third tiers of the bureaucrats in trying to get at the answer, and of course when it is a political issue, they are not going to get involved if they do not have to because there is no win. But deputy ministers have a legal framework of responsibility and Justice Gomery was saying that it should extend to going to the public accounts committee and answering for all decisions made by the deputy or his or her staff with regard to all areas of legal responsibility. It would end the ability to have this merry-go-round whereby one person comes in and says it is not really his or her job, but to ask so-and-so. When so-and-so comes in, the answer is no, we have to go back to someone else. We can go around and around with this.

Had Bill C-2 incorporated this, we could--

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate today. Obviously when dealing with accountability and ethics, as we are doing here with Bill C-2, one cannot get too far without bringing into the debate the opinions and contributions of the former member for Ottawa Centre, the hon. Ed Broadbent.

I will say as my own personal historical footnote, that I am not only honoured to have been returned to this place by my fellow citizens in Hamilton Centre, but I am also sitting in what was Ed Broadbent's seat in the House. I also have the honour of being in his former office. I feel somewhat responsible to ensure as much as I can, and it will be totally and woefully inadequate, that I present the thoughts of Mr. Broadbent. It is important that they be part of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, you may be familiar with the document that was put out by Mr. Broadbent and the NDP caucus before the last election entitled, “Cleaning Up Politics: Demanding Changes in Ethics and Accountability”. In the front of the document Mr. Broadbent stated:

When they find themselves in the midst of wrongdoing those with a vivid sense of right and wrong have feelings of remorse. On the other hand the defining characteristic of corruption is that feelings of remorse have been lost, replaced by the impulse to deny, perpetuate and cover-up. The Liberal party is losing its sense of remorse.

Certainly the Liberals lost a lot more than that in the last election.

Let us understand that the reason this is here is the scandal coming out of the previous government, the Liberal Party. When the Liberals were given the trust of the Canadian people to govern this great nation, they betrayed that trust. They not only had their fingers in the cookie jar, they had both hands, both feet, body and all, and a whole host of other Liberal members were into the cookie jar with them. It was disgraceful. It is one of the most outrageous scandals this nation has seen arguably since the great railway scandal. It is that big.

Today in this minority House we are attempting collectively to do the best we can to bring in rules that will deal with those who are dishonest. Honest politicians, like honest citizens, do not really need the laws or enforcement of them. They know what the laws are and they abide by them. It is the dishonest ones that require rules and oversight. We do that through transparency and accountability. I must say that to some degree Bill C-2 gets us going in that direction.

Certainly there are good things in Bill C-2. We in the NDP would like to see some changes. Hopefully, there will be some improvements at the committee stage and we can make some amendments, but notwithstanding that, this is a good start. Unless there are major changes to it, the NDP caucus will support that good start. Make no mistake that there is a long way to go. I only have a few moments and I want to pick up on at least two issues not in the bill that we in the NDP believe have to find their way into legislation if we are truly going to deal with the issues coming out of the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

The issue of floor crossing is huge. In fact, Ed Broadbent made it number one in his recommendations. He made it number one before the last election, before any of us knew anything about what the member for Vancouver Kingsway was about to do.

Let me say something that needs to be said over and over. Let us understand exactly what happened. Historians are going to have their breath taken away by this. We sort of lose track a bit because we move on. People in Vancouver have not forgotten it, but for the rest of the country things go on. People will look back and will see that before the official count was in, before he had even packed up his campaign office, the member crossed the floor, took a cabinet position and had the audacity to say that he was doing it out of the goodness of his heart for his constituents, that he did it for them. Such sacrifice is beyond what any one person should be asked to give in the service of Canadians, but we are lucky that the hon. member saw fit to put his constituents ahead of the election process, a minor little detail.

What did Ed say about this? Certainly we know how the people of Vancouver Kingsway feel. If we listen to other members from my caucus who are in that area, those constituents are angry. We may not hear it every day in Ottawa but believe me, they are not taking this lying down.

There are an awful lot of people who gave money, who worked hard and gave up their weekends and vacations to help that member get elected. Why? Because they loved the member? Some probably did, but we can bet there were an awful lot of people who were there because they believed in the platform that was put forward.

Our system is very different from the American one. In large part the American Congress is almost like a large city council. My friend the former mayor of Toronto would know much about this in terms of the wheeling and dealing that happens. We do not get elected on the same kind of platform here. That is why it matters what party we belong to, because our platform is our party's platform. In the U.S. it is a lot looser. It is not unusual for Republicans and Democrats to have personal platforms in their material that is contrary to their party, or more consistent with the other party, but that is what works in their electoral area and so that is what they go with.

What did Ed Broadbent say about floor crossing, recognizing that this was before we saw the wishes of over 80% of the people in Vancouver Kingsway being ignored? He said:

Democratic accountability should mean no M.P. can ignore his/her voters and wheel and deal for personal gain: No MP should be permitted to ignore their voters' wishes, change parties, cross the floor, and become a member of another party without first resigning their seats and running in a by-election.

Some feel that is unfair and that it is a little too restrictive, but two weeks after the election? We are not saying that members are prisoners of their caucuses, if we approve the proposal put forward by Ed Broadbent and the NDP. We would say that for whatever reason, if a member feels the need to leave his or her caucus, the member would have that mechanism. The member could sit as an independent and finish the term and choose to do what he or she wanted to do after that.

We are not captives of our caucus. If caucus is doing or saying something or taking a position that members cannot live with or is not in the best interests of their constituents, then they may sit as independents. But if members want to make the big sacrifice that the member for Vancouver Kingsway did and go to cabinet and be forced to take another $60,000 or $70,000 a year, if that is their lot in life, then they have to go back to their constituents and get their okay. That is not unreasonable, not when we think about the implications. Let us look at this House, at one vote and how it matters. This is an area that needs serious consideration.

My time is rapidly winding down, but I also want to talk about another key area. This is very big. The fact is that there are still not the kinds of controls and transparency we need around party leadership races. As Ed Broadbent and the NDP said:

Set spending limits and transparency conditions on leadership contests within political parties: Parties are largely financed by the [taxpayer] and the same principles pertinent to the public good should apply to the internal affairs of parties as they do to electoral competition between parties.

That certainly is true when the person who wins that party leadership becomes the prime minister of Canada; it is not unreasonable for the House to say that the mechanism by which one can become the prime minister will have as much control, whether it is through a general election or whether it is done inside one's own party. The fact remains that there must be accountability. Money still plays far too big a role in Canadian politics. I like the idea that we are no longer allowing union or corporate contributions. In my opinion, the further we keep politicians away from money, the better the democracy we are going to have.

These are just a few of the areas that we believe need a lot more work. Certainly out of respect for the work that Mr. Broadbent did in this place and the commitment that our leader and the NDP caucus have around these issues, we are going to be on top of the bill. We are going to follow it very closely. We are going to push really hard. Hopefully members of other caucuses will be open to some of the amendments that we want to make because we want to improve this. We are here to get something done. We are here to make things better. Bill C-2 is a good start, but there is more to do and the NDP is ready to roll up its sleeves and get that work done.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Burlington. I have known him for a number of years. In his former capacity as a Burlington city councillor and with my background as a Hamilton city councillor, our paths have crossed many times. I acknowledge that his predecessor has left big shoes to fill. She was well known as someone who fought for her riding and took care of her constituents, but I am sure the member is up to that challenge. I look forward to working with him in a non-partisan way and wish him all the best in this place. I am sure he has much to contribute.

My question to him is very similar to the one I asked the member on the other side of the House. It has to do with the cities agenda. The member was good enough to mention my hometown of Hamilton. Burlington is now our closest neighbour given the new boundaries of the City of Hamilton. Obviously a lot of what happens in the community of Burlington affects what happens in Hamilton and vice versa. Our futures are very much linked in terms of economic strength. He would certainly know better than I the challenges that exist in Burlington in terms of infrastructure and public transit, the very things that are crucial to the success of my hometown of Hamilton.

As he is a new member I do not expect him to stand up and spout off a list of things that he has done, but I would like to hear in his own words his commitment to ensuring that he will do everything he can along with those of us in the opposition parties to get the investments we need in our cities so that we can turn around the economic issues and the quality of life issues. Getting our local economy going is an absolute priority in my riding of Hamilton Centre given the poverty numbers that unfortunately exist.

I wonder if he would be kind enough to give the people in Hamilton the kind of assurances we would like to hear that the cities agenda and infrastructure and public transit will be a priority for him. Will he do everything he can from inside the government to effect change so that hopefully we can move forward on this file?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time on my feet in the 39th Parliament I would like to extend my thanks to my constituents for returning me to this place. I am deeply honoured and hope I live up to the trust they have placed in me.

For the most part, I agree with what the member for Beaches—East York had to say. I thought it was interesting that the member specifically talked about cities. Being from Toronto, of course, the hon. member would know the importance of a city's agenda.

It took 12 years to get to the point where the federal Liberals finally acknowledged that one cannot have healthy regional, provincial and federal economies without having healthy local, municipal economies. They were finally ready to start putting some money there, many thanks to the NDP budget, Bill C-48, which actually flowed serious money into that agenda.

The member's interim leader said in the past that the Liberals would be absolutely opposed to anything the government did and that they would vote against it. If, through negotiation, we could actually get something in front of this House that advanced the cities' agenda in a serious way, would the Liberals step down from this petulant position and be prepared to vote and actually pass legislation that would help cities or will they just continue with their arms crossed, holding their breath, stamping their feet, saying they want to be back in government and that until that changes they are not prepared to do anything positive?

[Immigration, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Edith Kaggwa is a hard-working registered practical nurse at St. Peter's Hospital in my riding. She has four daughters aged 12, 9, 6 and 5, three of them born here in Canada.

Edith is an active member of her church and a well liked member of the hospital staff, but next week she faces possible deportation to Uganda, one of the most dangerous places on Earth. Edith is so afraid that she would rather put her daughters in the care of the Children's Aid Society than take them to Uganda.

Amnesty International reports that thousands of Ugandan girls as young as eight years old are used as domestic slaves, raped and assigned as wives by the Lord's Resistance Army.

Edith's husband was deported to Uganda five years ago and no one has heard from him since.

The Hamilton community is rallying in support of Edith Kaggwa. On their behalf, I call on the immigration minister today to help Edith and her family. Let them remain safe and sound in Canada, their adopted home.

[Bank Act, November 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few brief words about the bill before the House. The caucus of the NDP will be supporting this bill and I will take a moment to underscore one of the main reasons why.

People know that the predecessor to the NDP was the CCF. Cooperative was part of the name of that party. One of the things that we like most about this legislation is the fact that there is now going to be an alignment of the Cooperative Credit Associations Act and the Bank Act.

That is important because the bill would allow cooperatively structured companies to receive the same treatment in terms of their share requirements as those afforded other traditionally structured organizations. As the current legislation stands, this treatment apparently does not happen because of outdated limitations.

In passing this bill we are supporting and promoting cooperatively structured corporations and companies. We believe that is a good thing. The more cooperative structured entities we have then the greater the differences in terms of the raison d'être of corporations.

On the one hand corporations are dollar driven and profit driven only. That is the be all to end all and that is the way things are structured. Often a cooperatively structured company still needs to make money and still has to profit from being in existence. Usually, with a cooperatively structured company or entity of any sort, there are other reasons why that company is active in terms of the work it does or the services it provides. Often there is a benefit that goes way beyond that of just increased profits, and that is good for the economy. It provides further diversification and a difference in the kinds of engines that are driving our economy and the results that we are getting from them.

This is an area that still needs work as far as my party is concerned. It is not complete. The bill is positive in enough areas like the one I have just mentioned that we are comfortable in giving our support to it and we will reflect that when it comes time to vote.

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 21st, 2005]

That was going to be your spot.

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 21st, 2005]

What did Belinda cost?

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for taking the time to rise and ask the question.

All of us remain totally perplexed by the messages that come out. On the one hand, the government House leader and the Prime Minister continue to say they want to get something done. They want to work with Parliament. As the member has noted, they want to continue governing. What better opportunity, in a minority situation, to actually sit down with the leaders of the opposition party and try to come to an agreement?

The history has been that the ministers each of us have been dealing with have been fairly good about giving us briefing sessions on what they are doing. However, there has never really been a mindset on the part of the Liberals, as government, that they no longer can make whatever decisions they want by virtue of the imperial rule that a majority gives them. They have never really understood that in a minority government, they have to work with others. They have to get along with the other kids in the playground.

There has been no desire on the part of the government to work together. Is it any surprise? If I had a concern going into this, one of them would be that the Liberals might actually look more agreeable than they have been all along and turn the tables, but they could not even step down from their arrogance long enough to see that.