David Christopherson

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member taking the time to listen. At least the member said she heard me in the back lobby. The question though is whether other members were listening. That is the real issue. They may hear, but are they listening?

The member's question basically was asking me if I am a hypocrite by virtue of the nature of what I said. My answer would be that if there is any hypocrisy happening here, it has to be around a Prime Minister saying that one of his most important priorities, one of the sole purposes for him wanting to be the Prime Minister, is to address the democratic deficit. Then, by the same token, he turns around and denies, in a minority Parliament situation, an opportunity for all of the caucuses to work together in the interests of Canadians. To me, that is the final definition of hypocrisy.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on a very important motion. I wish to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

This is one of the more important things that we will debate during the time and life of this minority government, for the simple reason that we are trying to find an agreement on when we can hold the election. Nothing can be more important to the life of a Parliament than its ending, because at that point, of course, all stops.

That is the whole issue. We are trying to prevent the grinding down of the House to the point where nothing happens. We will quickly get to that point if we do not find an agreement. We are almost there. We now have the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP in agreement through a process of compromise. It has been stated by MPs from each of those other two caucuses and our caucus that everybody indeed gave a little. It is the nature of compromise. For the most part, it is what makes Canada tick.

Here we are, in the most Canadian tradition, three-quarters of the way to a compromise that would meet all the requirements that everyone has, at least to the point that they could live with it. Everybody gets their main points and gives a little on a few other things.

The Gomery report was mentioned by the previous speaker. Our compromise today allows that to come out. People will have the Gomery report, part two, even though I would say with all due respect that I could not imagine members of a caucus in the House saying that they are going to disagree with any recommendation that Justice Gomery makes in part two. Notwithstanding that, it will still come out prior to election day. The Prime Minister said that was important. We disagreed with him on his point, but the compromise provides that part two of Gomery will be in the hands of voters before they go into the balloting booth. That meets one of the government's requirements.

More important, this compromise allows us to get through a number of bills that we have all agreed need to get through the House. As an example, I will mention Bill C-55. Again, it is not a perfect piece of legislation, but thanks to the work of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, there are things in there that are definitely going to benefit working people. We are prepared to see that it gets through.

Now, with the amendment to it, I would hope that we are not going to get bogged down in voting procedures, but I hear that is possible. That would be a shame. It is an important bill. With the minor amendment, to which the government has agreed, we definitely will have moved the yardsticks forward, at least notionally.

It does not, however, address the issues that are contained in Bill C-281, the workers first bill. Again, it was introduced by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. This is the bill that in the case of a bankruptcy takes pensions and puts them to the top of the list so that workers and the decades of work that they have done are not lost and they are the first ones to receive whatever money might be available afterward. The banks, the suppliers and the government right now stand in line ahead of the workers. Bill C-55 does not do what Bill C-281 would, but it will make some improvements if the common sense compromise that the opposition is putting forward today passes that bill.

Another example is Bill C-66, the energy rebates. I do not imagine there is anybody in the House who is opposed to the notion that we would try get some relief to those individuals and families who are in most need given what is happening to fuel prices and the fact that we are heading into a Canadian winter. That bill can pass under this compromise. There are two other bills that are equally important to other Canadians. I will not get into the details. They will pass the House under this compromise.

We might ask ourselves why it is not happening. I would have to say it goes to the same reason why there was a Gomery report in the first place and why there is a rage across the land. It is the arrogance of the current governing Liberal Party. It is pure arrogance.

The Prime Minister of the day does not have the support of almost two-thirds of Canadians and almost two-thirds of the House, yet the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party believe that under their culture of entitlement they are entitled to govern as if they were almost imperial. They are there and there they shall stay, they believe.

All we are asking is for a little humility and a little compromise and for them to recognize the fact that even though they have been driving around in the limos for a dozen years without a break, in the last election the party that is currently in power was not returned with a majority. The people of Canada sent that party a message. The problem is that the Prime Minister will not listen to that message. He will not listen to Canadians. He will not listen to other parliamentarians. He will not listen to anyone except other Liberals and their strategists, who, by the way, are still doing quite well in Canada, thanks very much.

Notwithstanding Gomery, and I am not suggesting there is anything wrong, but boy it did raise the eyebrows when we saw another article today about another contract to Mr. David Herle, who is with Decima Research, to do work for the recent mini-budget.

I will just say parenthetically that what is interesting is the fact that the limit for having to go to tender is $25,000. Under that, contracts do not have to go to tender. Is that not interesting? It is pure coincidence, I am sure.

I am absolutely certain it is a mere coincidence that even though $25,000 is the limit, Mr. Herle managed to just tuck underneath at $23,112. Therefore, there was no need to bother going out to ask anyone else if they might want some of that work. The government can continue to give it to whom? To the key strategist for the Liberal Party of Canada. It does not stop.

The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party ask what the difference is. Eight weeks, they say, and they ask why the opposition is getting all cranked up about this. We are very concerned about continuing to give the keys to the Challenger jets and the limos and all the other perks and tools of office to a party that clearly is prepared to use Canadians' money for their own partisan purposes. We want to bring it to a halt. We think that Canadians want to bring all of this to a halt, but we will let the election decide that part of it.

It has been mentioned that this is somehow unconstitutional, that we are doing this horrible thing to the traditions of Parliament, that it is terrible what we are doing in breaking with tradition and almost being illegal in what we are doing.

First of all, let us make the record very clear. It has already been mentioned that a challenge to this motion was placed this morning. By whom? Let us ask ourselves who would challenge it. Oh, right, the Liberals. They challenged it and tried to deny this motion even coming to the floor. The Speaker ruled that it was entirely in order. Nothing that we are talking about right now vis-à-vis this motion is out of order.

As for the issue of the constitutionality of what we are attempting to do, I am not a parliamentary expert, but I was the Deputy Speaker in the Ontario legislature and I have some notion of how the rules of Parliament run. I have to say that when the Prime Minister stands up and makes a public commitment to a particular date or time period for an election, that is all it is. He does not have to follow that. The Prime Minister can change his mind any time he wants. There is nothing to hold him to that. There is no constitutional trigger, no legal lock-in, to this position. It is just that the Prime Minister has said that he is going to have this election sometime in the early spring.

All we are asking is that it be recalibrated. All we are asking is that the Prime Minister stand up and say that in the interests of Parliament, out of respect for the minority Parliament Canadians sent here, out of respect for the need to get these bills through, out of respect for the first ministers conference with the aboriginal leaders, out of respect for all those things, he is prepared to revise the date on which he said he would call the election, at which point he will trigger his constitutional authority and ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and issue the writs for an election. That is all.

It is not a big parliamentary deal, but it does seem to be a big personal deal for the Prime Minister. We are asking, we are imploring, we are pleading, and we are demanding that the Prime Minister of the day respect the majority of the House and the majority of the country. We are demanding that the Prime Minister give us an election timeframe that we can all live with, that is fair to everyone, and gets the important business of this House done. That is a good common sense compromise.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I did not agree with much of the address given by the member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour, but I did enjoy the delivery.

The member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour and other Liberals have said that it is in Canadians' interests to get the second Gomery report because the Prime Minister promised all the details of the Gomery inquiry would come out. That was very disingenuous, given that there will be no new details, no new facts, no new pronouncements in Gomery part 2.

Gomery part 2 is about recommendations to ensure what the Liberal Party did to this country will not happen again. Part 1 was about what the Liberals did, how they did it, and what they did with the money. Believe me, people will have that right in front of them whenever the election is held. To argue that Canadians need Gomery part 2 in order to have the whole picture is not accurate at all. It is not the point.

My question for the member is regarding the opposition days. The member and others have gone out of their way to say that the opposition has a constitutional means to put the question of confidence through non-confidence motions on opposition days. Fair enough, but it has to be underscored and people have to remember that the government has control of when those opposition days happen. The government chose to delay them and moved them later into the session. Why? Because it would bring us right up against Christmas if we tried to hold a non-confidence vote.

How can the hon. member suggest that the opposition has all the rights it needs to bring down the government through non-confidence motions when the government moves our opposition days into a time period when it would obviously run into Christmas? How can the member--

[Canada Elections Act, October 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Ottawa Centre for addressing the House on this issue, especially at a time when the front page of the local paper, the Ottawa Citizen , has a headline, “Integrity rivals health care as voters' issue”.

It seems to me that this is as much about integrity as it is about electoral reform and I just want to know if I have it straight. The impression I am getting, both from the speech by the member for Ottawa Centre and other discussions I have had with him, is that the government made commitments. A minister of the Crown had off the record, or off-line discussions with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, and made very clear commitments. The member for Ottawa Centre brought those back to our caucus. He went out on a limb and then was stabbed in the back.

I would like to know whether or not it is that cut and dried, that the government said yes to starting the work, to getting the caucus on side, that it was prepared to do it, and then at the last minute pulled away and was not prepared to move on it. It sounds to me like it is a clear case of back stabbing. I would like the hon. member for Ottawa Centre to perhaps correct me if I am wrong or again make the point that this is as much about betrayal and about integrity as it is about democratic renewal.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I want to congratulate and compliment our colleague, the member for Shefford, on this bill. We will be supporting it. It is good for working people. It is good for moms. It is good for kids. It is hard to believe there is a need for a huge debate.

I understand some of the trepidations that have been expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and my counterpart in the Conservative Party about the legalities of dealing with two jurisdictions, overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities, et cetera, but quite frankly, once those things have been straightened out from a policy perspective by this place they can be stickhandled by the legal people. They can make these things happen. They sure seem to be able to do it when income tax time comes around. When people fill out their income tax forms, wherever there are two choices, they are given the opportunity to put down the figure that works best for the government, either the bottom line figure or the lesser of some other number. It is done all the time.

In a parliamentary system, in a confederation, it is not unusual that there would be jurisdictional clashes. Take all the major ministries. Certainly the Ministry of the Environment comes to mind. There are bound to be overlaps but that does not stop us from making changes that improve things for the people who sent us here.

I would like to take this back to its root issue as we in the NDP see it. It is about the children. It is about the unborn child and our nation doing the best it can to provide nurturing support to the mom, the mom to be and to the child. Where we have an opportunity to give better support, why would we not do it? I really have some difficulty understanding what the big deal is.

The situation was very well described by my colleague from Shefford. Two neighbours in exactly the same situation go out to work every day and work hard as honest law-abiding folk. They have two different sets of benefits, one better than the other, purely by the chance of where they work, either under federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction. It really depends upon where they fall under a decision that was made back in 1867 in terms of how the powers within the new nation were divided. That is the only difference, yet there is the possibility that one family unit, one child, one mom would be given lesser benefits than the other.

What is wrong with saying that they have a choice when they are in this kind of situation? It does not affect that many people. It is a pretty small percentage of the working population that is actually covered by the federal labour code. I do know this very well. I was the provincial labour critic for a number of years at Queen's Park. I fully understand that the overwhelming number of labour issues and the people covered are at the provincial level, but because of constitutional issues and other matters, a small number of folks come under the federal level.

A female worker is pregnant and there are two opportunities in terms of which benefit package she might go to. It is great that we could give her that choice. What is important here is not the legal niceties of how we break out Confederation. It is not whether it is one jurisdiction or about leaving it to the other level of government to pay. None of those things matter. All that matters is the child.

The parliamentary secretary expressed some concerns and I understand that. I jotted down some of her words. She thought it was premature to pass Bill C-380. She thought that there needed to be more research and review in light of the fact that part III of the Canada Labour Code is currently under review. I understand her point, but it really sounded like more of a dodge.

I was very pleased to hear the comments of the Conservative labour critic, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. We had a chance to chat very briefly before we entered the House. I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. The member said that he had many concerns and that he could see a lot of work being done at committee. This is fair enough. I understand that the member is a lawyer, so he understands and actually enjoys all the legalities. That is fine because that is what we do at committee.

There is nothing at all to preclude the House from sending a message that we want the best possible protection and support for unborn children and for moms and that therefore, we are going to pass this bill and between this bill and the review of part III we will make it better for working moms.

I do not understand what the huge problem is. I would think that the Liberals would have some difficulty explaining why they were not prepared to extend benefits to pregnant women because of some jurisdictional difficulty. Perhaps this will be another one of those times when they say, “Yes, we will do it” and then 12 years go by and nothing has happened. That is the real concern.

Given that this is a private member's bill, the government backbenchers are entirely free to vote any way they want. That is the way we run this place on private members' bills. I do not know about the other caucuses, but certainly our caucus reviews them. We attempt to reach a consensus. It is always best to come in united at any time. Given that it is private members' business it is fully understood and supported that members of the NDP caucus may vote any way their heart, conscience or riding needs dictate and there will be no recrimination whatsoever.

I caution the backbenchers in the government party that they may have to answer to this. The nice little pat answer of the parliamentary secretary and the procedural dance around the issue may not work so well in debates or on the doorsteps, particularly because this is about children. It is about working women who are going to have children and making sure that one of the richest states in the world provides the best supportive programs that it can.

My sense from the motivation of the hon. member for Shefford is to do just that. To his credit he has identified an inequity that exists under the current legislation. He is doing what every member was sent here to do and that is to fix things that are wrong and make things better for working people. That is what this is about. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why anyone would not want to stand in their place and say, “I support legislation that helps moms, that helps working people and most important, helps children”.

This House should pass this bill.

[Ramadan, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as Muslims around the world commence their most holy month, I would like to wish them a blessed Ramadan. For our Muslim community, this is a time of worship and contemplation. It is a time to strengthen family and community ties.

In my hometown of Hamilton, the Muslim community is one of our most vibrant and active. Hamilton Centre is a riding where many new Canadians first settle and so it is a place where we learn from each other and about each other. An important part of making diversity work is the sharing and celebration of each other's beliefs and cultures.

I recently had the opportunity to celebrate Hamilton events with communities ranging from the Taoist Tai Chi Society, the Polish community and the Turkish community to an event co-sponsored by our Italian and Jewish communities and the reopening of the Hindu Samaj Temple, destroyed by arsonists and rebuilt with the support of Hamiltonians of all cultures.

I wish my Muslim friends a joyous Ramadan, with happiness, health and success always. Ramdan mubarak .

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, there is a duality of responsibility. The reason the pension protection which normally is regulated at the provincial level ends up here is that the bankruptcy legislation is federal. Oftentimes the provinces say, “We do not need to do anything with the pensions beyond just monitoring, regulating, making sure the payments are being made and providing an accounting of accounts, et cetera. The real legislation has to be changed at the federal level, the bankruptcy level”.

Quite frankly, the labour movement and workers have been chasing their tails and have been sent around in a spin. That is why we are creating a beachhead on this issue and saying that once and for all, in the case of a bankruptcy, let us make sure that pensions are the top priority. It is that straight up.

Relating to that, and this is important because I know it is easy to mislead folks on this one, in Ontario the Bob Rae government brought in a bill that was known as too big to fail, meaning that the super large corporations like General Motors and Algoma are not going to fail, and upon application would be allowed to defer some pension payments.

I am glad I have a chance to clarify this between federal and provincial. Under that legislation a corporation had to make an actual written proposal. Within that proposal it had to show how much money it was going to defer, how long it was going to take to catch up and by what date will it not only have kept current accounts going in the latter years of the plan but by what date will it give an absolute 100% catch-up on that. It was meant to be an interim measure.

When we were in government a couple of proposals were put in front of us under our structural legislation and we approved them. To the best of my knowledge every one of those proposals did exactly what they purported to do, which was to provide a little cash flow in the short term but over the medium term the money was entirely paid back and those funds are now where they should be.

What happened in the case of Stelco, which unfortunately is the poster child for people getting screwed out of their pensions, was that a proposal was made by Stelco after the Rae government had been defeated and Mike Harris had taken over. Mike Harris approved the Stelco plan and there was nothing in it about when the money would be paid back. There was no time period for catch-up. There was nothing. It was merely Stelco asking if it could avoid paying its pension payments for a while under a certain clause and the Mike Harris government very nicely rubber stamped it and said yes. A few years later, bingo, we are into this jackpot.

The Conservatives to this day still blame Bob Rae for bringing in the structural legislation. That legislation did what it was supposed to do. It was the government of the day that did not do its job to protect those pensions and workers. That is why we are here today, to fix at the federal level what cannot be fixed at the provincial level.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for the leadership he has shown on this issue and on Bill C-281, the workers first bill, which does actually speak to the issue of protecting pensions in a real and meaningful way.

I want to break out a couple of the pieces that my colleague has already raised and dissect them a little more. First, I would like to join with my colleague in setting the record straight. I was reading yesterday's Hansard where the minister said in his opening comments, referring to Bill C-55 and wage protection, “This type of program is not radical or new, but it is for our country”.

On a technicality, on a federal basis it is, but within our nation, within the country, my friend from Winnipeg Centre is absolutely right. The Bob Rae government, the first NDP government in Ontario, brought in as its very first bill an employee wage protection plan that did exactly what Bill C-55 speaks about. In fact, it went a little further. Let us understand that the NDP has a track record of taking commitments on these issues, putting them into legislation and making them real, and doing it long before other parties in this place have seen it as a priority and enacted it.

What is important in this story, though, in addition to setting the record straight as to whether or not this is ground breaking legislation, is to understand that in the Province of Ontario right now, as a I stand in this place, that law has gone. That protection for workers has gone. That law was ripped out and that protection does not exist in Ontario right now. Why? Because the Conservative government of Mike Harris eliminated it and took away those rights. Let us understand that when it comes to workers' rights, really, at the end of the day, we are either with them or we are against them. It is clear where Harris was and where the NDP and Bob Rae were. It is good that this is happening. Parts of the bill are important and do provide protection, but it is far from ground breaking in the context of Canada as a nation.

Again, the bill has some good elements in it. There is no question about that. It needs serious work in committee and we are hoping we will get the commitment from all the other parties. Certainly, today, it sounds like our colleagues in the Bloc are prepared to roll up their sleeves and make the amendments necessary to give effect to what Bill C-55 purports to do, but without that work, the bill will fall short. However, we will support it. There are some good things in the bill and we will make it better, but it does not protect pensions.

I am emphasizing the comments of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre that it does not protect pensions. It will take Bill C-281, the workers first bill or one like it to do that. Let us remember that in the case of a bankruptcy, again articulated by my friend, under the currently law, if our pensions are not totally funded, we are at the bottom of the list. The banks, the creditors and the government come first. Workers are at the bottom.

It is interesting that the minister said in his comments yesterday: “--protection of workers whose employers undergo restructuring and become bankrupt. I am very passionate about this topic”. Great. Let us see some passion behind Bill C-281 and make some real changes that provide real protection for workers. That is the kind of passion we want to see from the Minister of Labour.

In the last couple of moments I want to deal with section 33. My colleague has talked about that. The minister made some reference to it where he said:

Canadian workers suffer lost wages, reduced pension benefits and uncertainty that their collective agreements may be unilaterally changed by a court.

The working assumption right now is that federal judges do have the power. That is the current wording. That is somewhat unclear and the first thing that the committee has to do is establish whether or not judges currently have that power. If that takes us into some legal battle, so be it. However, we cannot adequately deal with section 33 until there is an absolute determination as to whether or not, under existing legislation in its entirety, a judge is allowed the power to step in, in the case of bankruptcies and restructuring, and unilaterally order that collective agreements be changed. Let me say parenthetically that they are never changed to the benefit of workers, they are always changed to reduce the benefits that are in those collective agreements. That is the worry.

If they do have that power now, then subsections 33(1) and 33(2) take us two-thirds of the way, but there needs to be another amendment, an amendment that we would call the local 1005 steelworkers amendment. In the question and answer part of the package the minister released, there is the kind of protection that my friend from Winnipeg Centre spoke of. It says that a judge, upon application of the employer, can give a court order that negotiations can begin and it forces the two parties to sit down.

In the context of judges having unilateral power, if that is now curtailed to only direct an order that there be a negotiation at a table, then that is a good thing because it would then be more restrictive. It is taking away the authority and putting it into bargaining. What is missing is what is included in the questions and answers. It is missing in the legislation and it asks, what happens if they cannot agree to any concessions?

The questions and answers part of the package put out by the minister said that the agreement would then stand pat as it is. Every word, every comma and the expiry date, and that package, the collective agreement as it was, then goes in as part of the proposal that is put forward to the creditors as to whether or not that is acceptable. It may help the proposal float. It may sink it but nonetheless in law it would establish that judges will not unilaterally change it and that one cannot be forced to make changes at the bargaining table.

The employer representatives begin by saying their niceties, then the other side looks at them and says, we have no interest in changing anything in our collective agreement right now and we will meet you at the end of the expiry date and until then we do not need to talk about this collective agreement in terms of amendments any further. Period. End of meeting. The contract would stay in place. The powers of the federal judges would have been curtailed and the labour movement would have maintained the rights that it currently has to collectively bargain on behalf of its employees without a judge or anybody else unilaterally changing that.

If it is determined, however, that judges do not have that power right now and that it becomes the accepted interpretation by all, that they do not have it, then we want section 33 out of there because it means that we are now, through Bill C-55, giving judges the power to intervene in the collective bargaining process in a way that they currently do not have the power to do. We are not interested in amending section 33 with a new subsection 33(3) in that case. We want and will demand that the entire section 33 be removed. Make no mistake. This issue will be a major determinant as to whether or not the bill meets the test.

I have not heard from the minister. The minister said in his language that there is uncertainty. There is and that is why we want the uncertainty removed. It should be replaced by clarity, so that we know if judges have that power or not. Depending on the definitive answer to that, what will happen with section 33 will then make itself apparent in a way to which I have already spoken.

Bill C-55, as imperfect as it is, contains some benefits and is here for two reasons. One of them is not because the Liberals care that much about workers. The other is because the NDP through the member for Winnipeg Centre introduced Bill C-281 in terms of protecting pensions and putting them at the top of the creditors list, and the government was on the dime. It was on the spot and it had to do something.

To date, the government has not told us it is prepared to make that legislative change, although on the campaign trail the Liberals were all full of protection for workers and pensions. It was so motherhood and apple pie one would be shocked to believe it had not already become the law.

The second reason Bill C-55 is here is that it was ordered and demanded in the NDP budget amendment Bill C-48.

Those are the reasons it is here. The NDP drove this bill to be here. We will work with colleagues in the House to make this bill as good as it should be. We will continue to fight for Bill C-281. That is not going off the radar screen just because Bill C-55 is here. Those pensions will be protected.

[Petitions, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present on behalf of the community in Hamilton a petition flowing from a public event that was sponsored by the Hamilton Jewish Federation and the Muslim Association of Hamilton dealing with the issue of Darfur. I attended that meeting and spoke on behalf of my constituents. This petition is a reflection of the concern that Hamiltonians have. They call on the Liberal government to do much more in Darfur.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any members of the official opposition say that they were opposed to affordable housing, or public transit, or to money going into infrastructure for cities. I did not hear members of the official opposition say that they were opposed to cleaning up the environment or ensuring that our students have access to post-secondary education.

They did not talk about the content of the bill being problematic. They talked about everything around it. That is usually a good clue that they are nervous about their position vis-à-vis the content of the bill and the substantive matters before the House. One of the parliamentary tricks one uses in that circumstance is to start talking about procedure.

The hon. member asked me if I thought the official opposition needed more time. I think Canadians know that the official opposition is in a bind. The popularity of that party's leader is going through the basement. A few months ago it looked like the Conservatives were about to roll into power. Now they are on the way to rolling out maybe into oblivion, but I doubt that is going to happen.

That is a glum group over there compared to what they were a few short weeks ago. The Conservatives are desperate to find something so they want to take a stand and fight Bill C-48 because it is an NDP thing and that cannot be good. Therefore, they talk about procedures.

The reality is I have not heard members of the official opposition say that they do not think these are good investments or that they are investments that they do not want. I have not heard them say that this is not something that should be a priority for the country as a nation, in terms of taking care of our people and putting us on a strong footing for the future.

The fact that they are talking about procedure, I take it to mean they are desperately floundering around trying to show they stand for something when in reality all they are doing is standing in the way.