Jamie Nicholls

[Government Appointments, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am an NDP member. We have never taken federal power and so we look at the long game and often go to history to see the mistakes made in the past.

There is a famous saying by one of the major figures in Canadian politics. It was “You had an option, sir.” Those famous words were what cleared out the Liberal government at the tail end of the Trudeau era. They were words uttered by former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, then only a candidate, debating former prime minister John Turner about a raft of patronage appointments that had been made.

The member across who will probably speak to this would have probably been tucked into his bed at that time, when the debate was televised. That might account for the lack of historical awareness of this pivotal debate. Those words were credited with bringing down years of Liberal arrogance, to usher in the greatest Tory majority that Canada had seen.

Mr. Mulroney, we would come to learn, would have ethical challenges of his own. Therefore, nobody's hands were clean in the end. Eventually he, too, was swept from power, leaving his party in tatters.

Often what undoes a party is a lapse in ethical judgment concerning appointments, what is called patronage.

What I am going to say tonight here in this place is a warning to members across. They too are vulnerable to the will of Canadians. The member across has a bright future, but the electors do not look favourably upon the political class when we give our friends plum positions at the expense of taxpayers. No one would denigrate the competence of these people, but their closely linked past with the party leads one to question if the appointment was based on merit or favouritism. It puts it into question and it taints the appointment itself.

The Prime Minister used to call the Senate a dumping ground for political cronies. I guess he has caved in to the rotten precedent set by Liberal and Tory administrations of past years.

In the words of our former leader:

He has declared to the Canadian public that he would not name unelected people to the Senate....His word means less and less every day he's in office, and he's behaving more and more like the Liberals.

These appointments are not limited to the Senate only, but through a whole range of public positions. I only have four minutes, so I would never be able to get through all the appointments. Let me look at the ones that stand out.

Doug Finley, husband of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, was the former campaign manager of the Conservative Party. He was at the head of the campaign during the in and out scandal. Wow, nice reward, a plum Senate position.

Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, the Prime Minister's communications assistant, was given a Senate job.

Don Plett, former president of the Conservative Party of Canada, was given a Senate job.

Elmer Derrick is not a Conservative, so I guess my theory is, but wait a second, he signed a deal to support Enbridge's $5.5 billion oil pipeline. He was appointed director of the Prince Rupert Port Authority.

Bernard Généreux, former Conservative MP, was appointed to the Quebec Port Authority conseil d'administration.

Jean Pierre Blackburn, former Conservative cabinet minister, was appointed as ambassador to UNESCO.

Larry Smith, failed Conservative candidate in Lac-Saint-Louis, was given a plum job in the Senate. He had the gall to complain about his pay cut.

Josée Verner, former Conservative cabinet minister, was given a plum Senate job.

Jennifer Clarke, a Vancouver Tory who failed in the 2011 election, was named director of the Prince Rupert Port Authority. Wow, Prince Rupert is really hopping.

Mark Wright, former assistant to a Conservative MP, found himself appointed to the Thunder Bay Port Authority.

Andrew Paterson, who massively donated to the Conservatives, was named to a well-paying job with Canada Post.

The list could go on and on. “I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine” works between buddies, but it is not a valid framework for public appointments. It has become so bad that Canadians have lost faith in the political class. Whether it is the Liberals or Cons, they always come in promising—

[Canada Post Corporation Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand in the House today to talk about Bill C-321. I salute the member for Brandon—Souris for his work on this bill and for the many years that he has tried to pass the bill through the House. I would like to underline that I will miss his chairmanship now that I am no longer on the same committee. I was vice-chair of the committee on which he is chair. I have always found him to be a very fair member and that his ideas are very practical and pragmatic. He takes a balanced approach to public administration. I know he has tried to pass this bill in the House many times. Therefore, it gives me pleasure to say that our party will be supporting this bill at second reading.

We will be supporting this bill at second reading because it is a practical proposition. We believe that rural communities are dependent on this postal rate. In order to give access to everyone across Canada and fill the gap between the rural and the urban, we need measures like this so that people in rural communities are not deprived of library materials. We believe this bill would allow Canadians to get the library materials they need and would allow Canada Post to do it at a reduced rate.

Usually from the government side we see a desire to privatize public services such as Canada Post. We often hear rhetoric about how the government should not get involved with these arm's-length corporations. We are glad that the government is not taking that approach with this bill. We believe that government does have a role to play and that it can make practical propositions to benefit all Canadians. A crown corporation does not necessarily need to be privatized in order to achieve those aims. Therefore, we are delighted with the fact that members on the government side are willing to make propositions that make sense and are pragmatic.

The one provision I would like to see explored at committee is the five year time limit for the first definition of library materials. In other words, the definition would be decided In five years' time and after that it would be ten years' time.

We never know the pace of technological change. Ten years ago we did not have resources such as YouTube. Then, from 1992 to 2002, technological change went crazy. Therefore, we have put a question mark on the period for the review of library materials just because the pace of technology change in the past 20 years has been fairly accelerated and we would not want libraries to lose out on this reduced rate just because the review period is too long.

Other than that, we believe the bill, as it is, with some minor discussions at committee, will probably pass quite quickly. We do not see any roadblocks. I am sure the member for Brandon—Souris is quite happy that this bill will finally see royal assent.

As a member of this place, I am sure it is a great pleasure to see a bill that comes from one's heart make it through all of the stages of legislation and finally gets passed. That is a great achievement and the member for Brandon—Souris can be proud of that achievement. We salute him.

Other than the things I have mentioned, which perhaps need to be discussed at committee, we plan on supporting the bill.

[Safer Railways Act, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned rail accidents quite a few times. In the 1960s, my riding had a very tragic rail accident where a bus was hit by a train and many children died.

Would it not be good if in this bill there were a mechanism that allowed the federal government to get together with the rail companies, the municipalities and the province to sort out safety issues and other nuisance issues that exist? Could the member speak to this question?

[The Budget, April 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the impacts of Katimavik. Anyone growing up in the 1970s and 1980s would realize that sometimes there have been tensions in this country between groups, between French and English. I had the privilege of being with a family in a park in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce at one time. The father had participated in Katimavik and we had a friendly conversation.

Does my colleague think that the elimination of this program will create tensions and reduce understanding between groups in this country?

[Air Canada, April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the closure of Aveos has endangered Canada's reputation as a leader in the aerospace industry. Some investors have expressed interest but they need assurances that they will get contracts from Air Canada. The municipalities affected want to find a solution, as do the provincial governments.

Will this government work with the municipalities, the provinces, Air Canada and investors in order to find a solution?

[Petitions, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition calling for a national public transit strategy.

As members know, the riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges has experienced strong growth over the past 15 years. There are pressing public transit needs.

The petitioners point out that Canada is the only member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that does not have a national public transit strategy and that the needs are pressing.

[Air Canada, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is refusing to do anything and has the nerve to say that he has no plan to protect thousands of jobs.

Air Canada president and CEO sure has a good friend in the Conservative government. The $5 million man will get his bonus, but what about the thousands of middle-class families who were left behind?

Worse, the Conservatives voted against our motion to have the CEO of Aveos appear at committee.

The minister hides behind an army of lawyers. Is it all a part of avoiding accountability? Why will the minister not enforce the law and actually hold Air Canada to account to save thousands of good Canadian jobs?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I lived in Turkey for five years, where the Roma people live in much worse conditions than the general population. From what I understand, the conditions are even worse in eastern European countries. We need to remember that the Roma live in difficult circumstances even if they live in a democracy with a relatively strong economy and a responsible government. In many such countries, there are populations, like the Roma, who are persecuted in a more clandestine manner.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across mentioned demagogy.

The NDP believes it is better to have experts and evidence backing up policy. To have a panel of experts who would develop the designated countries list is much better than having the demagogy of one immigration minister and his cronies saying which countries are safe and which are not.

I would trust experts and evidence much more than the political whims of a certain minister during a certain day.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, now I am being smeared as an anarchist, even though I sit in this chamber.

My belief is that even if we make the mistake on one person, that person goes back and gets tortured and persecuted. If the person loses his or her life due to the intolerance and the decisions of the government, if any child gets separated from his or her family, is taken care of by the Canadian state and gets psychologically damaged in any way, then the government is responsible.

This is what I am saying. If we make a mistake with even one person due to the intolerance of the government and this legislation, then we will have failed and will have to apologize in the future for those actions.