Joe Comartin

[Canadian Wheat Board, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as Chief Justice of Alberta Catherine Fraser said in a ruling earlier this year, “When government does not comply with the law, this is not merely non-compliance with a particular law, it is an affront to the rule of law itself”.

We saw this yesterday when Justice Campbell said in the Wheat Board ruling that the Minister of Agriculture “be held accountable for his disregard for the rule of law”.

This is just the latest in a long list of similar incidents.

In 2006, the Conservatives exceeded their election budget in violation of the Canada Elections Act. They destroyed government files in violation of the Access to Information Act. They gave out private information about veterans in violation of the Privacy Act.

Now the Conservatives have refused to consult with western grain and barley farmers on the future of their livelihood in direct violation of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

With this arrogant and defensive Conservative government, it is one set of rules for it and one set of rules for everybody else.

[Fair Representation Act, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we are now at a stage where this has become almost farcical. It would be farcical if it were not so serious in terms of undermining a basic democratic process, which is the right of parliamentarians to have a full and complete debate on issues that confront the country, and the ability of citizens in this country to watch that debate and take part in it across the country.

I just want to recite these facts. The Conservative government has used time allocation or closure 12 times since the election, nine times since the House came back in September. It has used closure on seven different bills since the election, six since September. It has used time allocation 12 times in 62 sitting days, 9 times in the last 48 sitting days.

It is important to draw this into the historical context. The worst that we ever had before this was the Liberal government in the 2000-2004 Parliament. At that point, the Liberals took 122 days before they used closure or time allocation nine times in that one period. We are way beyond that.

How many more times will we have to put up with this undemocratic process?

[Business of the House, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would indeed like to ask the Thursday question. The government is continuing this week with its antidemocratic use of closure for the 11th time since the beginning of this session, this time, for Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill.

The end result of forcing bills like that through the House is that we end up with the ridiculous spectacle we had earlier this week of one minister of the Crown standing up and making amendments to the bill of another minister of the Crown and then having those amendments ruled out of order by you, Mr. Speaker. That is the end result of trying to force bills through the House this quickly.

We also end up with the result, if this bill does go through, of a severely flawed crime bill that will do this country absolutely no good.

Why does the House leader not agree with the official opposition, take the bill off the order paper and send it back to committee so it can be properly dealt with in an appropriate period of time?

We would also like to know when the last allotted day will be for this supply period and what will be the rest of the calendar for the coming week?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in its history, when the government was in opposition, it was highly critical of time allocation and closure motions and extremely critical of former governments that used this. As of earlier this week, the Conservatives set the all-time record. We had three time allocation motions prior to the summer break. We have now had eight, including the one we have today, bringing the total to eleven motions in a total of 57 sitting days. The Liberals, setting the all-time record prior to this, had nine time allocation motions or closure motions in 122 sitting days. Therefore, the Conservatives have the record.

We have to put this in a position with this bill. The government actually came forward with amendments on Bill C-10 therefore admitting this bill was flawed. How can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons possibly justify time allocation motions in those circumstances, a flawed bill, and repeated times. The government clearly has done undemocratic process in this Parliament on a regular basis?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, last week that minister was blaming the Attawapiskat community for the problems.

The crisis in Attawapiskat is just one example of what happens when the government turns its back on the first nations.

Half a million people live on reserves and many of them do not have heat or running water. The AFN estimates needs at $160 million a year.

Why does this deficit exist? Where is the plan to help Attawapiskat and other first nations communities?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it has taken a month-long state of emergency for the government to finally wake up to the crisis at Attawapiskat. Children and entire families are living in tents and dilapidated sheds with no heat and are now exposed to dropping temperatures. Attawapiskat families have lived like this for years. They need more than band-aid solutions.

Why will the government not work with the community on a long-term infrastructure solution before winter sets in, right now? Why is it letting the Red Cross do the job?

[Privilege, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken once before on this question of privilege. However, after hearing the Conservative member and now the member from the Liberal Party, whose question of privilege this is, I want to draw to your attention the complaint which came from the member for Windsor West with regard to a ten percenter, because I think it is exactly on point and fully supports the argument we just heard.

In that case, it was a member from the Conservative Party who had sent a ten percenter, which of course is no longer allowed, into the riding of Windsor West accusing the member for Windsor West of supporting a particular position. I think it was on a crime bill. The person who sent it was Monte Solberg. At the time I think he was a minister, but if not, he was certainly a member of the Conservative Party. In the ten percenter he accused in very strong language the member for Windsor West of supporting a particular position. In fact, it was a position I had taken as the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. The member for Windsor West had not taken a position on it. I think he was on the other side of the issue at the time. The material that went into the riding in the form of the ten percenter was false and misleading in terms of the position that the member for Windsor West had taken, although he may not have taken any position at all.

It is exactly the same situation here. The allegations we have heard have been confirmed. I do not think there is much of a dispute over the facts. The phone calls were clearly false and misleading as to whether the member was going to retire or in some respect was leaving his position. As was the case with the member for Windsor West, that does have a negative impact on the member's ability to perform his duties. The same thing happened. There were all sorts of emails, letters and phone calls to his office asking why he had taken this position, when in fact he had not. That is a direct interference. It is false, misleading and has a negative impact on the ability of the member of Parliament to do his or her job.

The ruling by Speaker Milliken is exactly on point with the situation we have here. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to make a decision that would find a prima facie case. Let us investigate it at the procedure and House affairs committee. Let us deal with it in an appropriate fashion, as we did in the other case.

There were repercussions with regard to Mr. Solberg in terms of having to apologize, et cetera. The same thing needs to be done in this case.

[Health, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the commitment on accountability was made in the last health accord.

We have spent $160 billion under the current accords. Are Canadians getting value for that money? The truth is that the Conservatives have failed to live up to the current accord. They failed to ensure proper reporting on what we got for that spending.

The meetings in Halifax are not going to advance that. The Conservatives just did not do the work. If the Conservatives are able to demonstrate some leadership and accountability, why not do it right now, rather than three years from now?

[Health, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to deliver on accountability under the current health accords. There is still time to fix that. We have at least two more years, in fact, for the government to deliver on its promises. Canadians do not have the information the federal government promised they would have on what was or was not achieved under the current health accords.

Will the Conservatives agree to bring in a full accounting, now, so that Canadians can have a meaningful debate on what the next health accord should accomplish for this country?

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga that he obviously is confused. In fact, 20 days of debate would be allowed. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you understood the motion which the member obviously did not. There is plenty of time. When he mentioned 19 sitting days, his math may be right on that, but the reality is that given the break period over the end of the year into February when we would expect the report back, it is more like 60 to 70 days. I realize some of those would be taken up as vacation time, but there would be plenty of time. Mr. Speaker, if you need any assistance in that regard in terms of preparing the report, I can assure you that my caucus colleagues and I will be available. Perhaps the member could acknowledge that.

I want to make one point about the 100 day promise that was made by the Prime Minister during the election. If he felt so compelled to keep that promise, why was he not feeling the same way about keeping the promise he and the finance minister made about when they would retire the deficit in the budget? They broke that promise about two weeks ago. If that one was not important enough, why was the other one?