Matthew Kellway

[National Defence, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives committed to buying the F-35 multiple times. They told us it is on the right track multiple times.

According to the Pentagon, the F-35 needs a heated hanger in Florida. It cannot fly at night, and the pilots stay out of the clouds. They got the headrest wrong. How can the Conservatives claim to have a legitimate procurement process when they are pitting real fighter jets against paper planes?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have suggested it is the issue of normalization of risks that is, perhaps, responsible for the delay by the government in bringing forward the legislation. It is extremely disconcerting and concerning that such a delay exists, when one looks around the world at the fragility of states, the number of states that are precariously potentially failed states, the number of organizations, non-state actors, that advocate terrorist activities to see their objectives through.

In that context, for the government to delay bringing forward this important legislation is a matter of serious concern. I think that is why members hear me express those concerns in my speech. As well, many of my NDP colleagues are expressing that concern very unequivocally in the debate on the bill.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from my neighbouring riding and enjoy working cheek by jowl in the east end of Toronto with him.

On the latter question about why the Senate, I am confounded. The government claims to be concerned about the power of unelected and unaccountable officials and, yet, allows such an important bill to come forward from that chamber.

On the issue of Pickering, it has been a great advance in the legislation and the international conventions to include nuclear facilities. I spent a number of years working in the electricity industry in Ontario, representing nuclear workers. One thing one always needs to be careful of in matters of health, safety and public security is the normalization of risks.

While that is a tendency in workplaces and in the public, it is something that we in the House cannot allow to happen to us, especially with respect to issues of nuclear safety and security. I can only guess it is the issue of a normalization of risks that is the cause for the government taking so very long to bring forward this legislation. Public security, especially with respect to nuclear matters, should be a no-fail mission for any Government of Canada.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand up and speak a second time to Bill S-9. I would like to pick up where my colleague from St. John's East left off in talking about where the bill comes from. It emanates from the Senate, with the nomenclature “S”.

For seven years, the same Prime Minister has been promising Senate reform. He claims to have an issue with the fact that the chamber is unelected and unaccountable, all the while dragging his feet and ragging the puck on this for seven years. In that time, he has led 58 of his friends to comfortable seats in the Senate at extraordinary expense to the taxpayers of our country.

That is the same old conduct that has been practised in this place by both Liberal and Conservative governments since Confederation. It is cynical politics, and it is breeding a deep concern about our political system in those who can still bear to cast a gaze upon this place and the spectacle that it has become.

It is a particularly sad day today, waking up to the realization that just last night the entrenched interests in this place and in the Senate—those interested in retaining the status quo, the Conservatives and the Liberals—did not just let an opportunity for change slip by, but actually stood on their feet to defeat that opportunity, a motion from my NDP colleague from Toronto—Danforth to usher in real change, to begin a discussion about expunging from our political system unelected, unaccountable power in the hope of bringing a deeper democracy to Canada, one befitting a modern, hopeful country. Instead, we have the party of so-called reform allowing an important bill like Bill S-9 to emanate from that unaccountable chamber.

Suffice it to say that I am disappointed that this important legislation honouring Canada's commitment to co-operate with the rest of the international community in protecting nuclear material and combating nuclear terrorism should have come from the Senate chamber instead of our own.

Bill S-9, also known as the nuclear terrorism act, when implemented, would amend the Criminal Code to comply with Canada's international obligations with respect to two treaties: the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

My NDP colleagues and I support the bill, in the spirit of forging ahead with Canada's fulfillment of these international obligations and commitments.

The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, or CPPNM, dates back to 1980 and is deposited with the International Atomic Energy Agency. To quote the IAEA:

The Convention is the only international legally binding undertaking in the area of physical protection of nuclear material. It establishes measures related to the prevention, detection and punishment of offenses relating to nuclear material.

Canada is a signatory and had ratified the convention by the time it entered into force in 1987. The CPPNM was amended in 2005 to strengthen the provisions of the convention. The 2005 version seeks to extend protection measures to nuclear facilities in addition to protecting against the proliferation of nuclear materials. As well, it reinforces Canada's obligation under UN Security Council resolution 1540, passed in 2004, to enforce measures seeking to prevent the proliferation of such materials.

It is the strengthened requirements of this amendment that Bill S-9 seeks to fulfill in clearing the way for Canada's ratification of the strengthened agreement.

The second treaty addressed within the provisions of Bill S-9 is the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, or ICSANT. This agreement falls under the auspices of the United Nations and dates back to 2005 as well. This convention deals more specifically with the issue of nuclear terrorism; it calls on its signatories to establish criminal offences within their national laws for acts of nuclear terrorism and also introduces mandatory prosecution or extradition of offenders.

Bill S-9 would amend the Criminal Code to include four new offences that related to nuclear terrorism and thus fulfill Canada's obligation under the above mentioned conventions.

These new offences would make it illegal to: possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment; use or alter nuclear radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything, to commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear radioactive material, a nuclear radioactive device, or access or control of a nuclear facility; and, finally, to threaten or commit to do any of the above.

In addition to those four offences outlined above, the bill would amend the Criminal Code to allow for the prosecution in Canada of individuals who committed or attempted to commit these offences outside of Canada.

The bill would also amend the double jeopardy rule so that the person could be tried within Canada for an offence that he or she had previously been convicted of by a foreign court in the event that the foreign trial did not meet certain basic Canadian legal standards. The bill would also make amendments to wiretap provisions and would make the new offences primarily designated offences for the purpose of DNA warrants and collection orders.

Both the convention on the physical protection of nuclear material and the second convention outline in plain language the urgency of action. The CPPNM states:

—offences relating to nuclear material and nuclear facilities are a matter of grave concern and that there is an urgent need to adopt appropriate and effective measures, or to strengthen existing measures, to ensure the prevention, detection and punishment of such offences.

The ICSANT speaks of:

—the urgent need to enhance international cooperation between States in devising and adopting effective and practical measures for the prevention of such acts of terrorism and for the prosecution and punishment of their perpetrators.

This sense of urgency was underscored in 2010 and again in 2012 during the nuclear security summits. The first summit proposed by President Obama in 2009 and held the following year in Washington was known as the global nuclear security summit and called together world leaders from 47 countries for talks regarding the advancement of nuclear security and the responsibility of nations to maintain and enhance this security.

In March 2012 the second summit was held in Seoul, where participants renewed the commitments made in 2010 and again underscored the urgency of the issue. To quote the Seoul communiqué:

We stress the fundamental responsibility of States, consistent with their respective national and international obligations, to maintain effective security of all nuclear material, which includes nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons, and nuclear facilities under their control, and to prevent non-state actors from acquiring such materials and from obtaining information or technology required to use them for malicious purposes.

Bill S-9 would bring us closer to the ratification of those two conventions and thus to the fulfilment of Canada's international obligations with regard to nuclear security. Given the importance of the legislation and the urgency of putting in place an international regime to counter nuclear terrorism, one wonders why the legislation has been seven years in the making. International agreements aiming to prevent nuclear terrorism are not something we should take lightly and our ratification has been delayed for far too long.

The bill has the support of both sides of the House and the lack of legislation thus far speaks more to the apathy on the government side rather than any threat of political interference or controversy.

Canada has long been a leader in the field of international co-operation, although that reputation has been tainted under the Conservative government. We should maintain that reputation. For that reason, we support Bill S-9.

[National Defence, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives wired the statement of requirements to the F-35. They challenged the patriotism of anyone who dared question the need for them. Now they are talking about extending the life of the CF-18, even though the former chief of air staff said that the F-18 could not go beyond 2020.

Who are we to believe: the Minister of National Defence when he was allowed to talk about military procurement, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, or the former chief of air staff?

When will they put in place a process Canadians can trust?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would say the inequality, in fact, goes to the lack of democratic legitimacy of the institution. I would not distinguish between those two principles. A fundamental concept under democracy is one of at least equity and equality. What the member raises is the fact that the promises made by the Conservatives in 2006 when they formed government have been broken and they have dragged this out while they have put 58 of their own patronage appointments into the Senate. Their proposal about democratic reform has proven not to be a serious proposal.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as per the motion, this is about starting a process to abolish the Senate that involves consultation with the provinces and territories. Clearly, the first step would be to have those consultations and fully canvass the views and concerns of the other orders of government in this country.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

The answer is simply yes, Mr. Speaker. An NDP government would be a fully competent and capable government that believes in engaging other orders of government in this country in mature discussion about our future as a country and principles of governance. We are a party that believes, unlike the Liberals, that one can focus on more than one issue at a time. A fully competent and capable NDP government is a government that would have discussion about constitutional issues with Canadians, about the fact that we have an unacceptable and, in the terms of the member, undemocratic institution in the Government of Canada that we need to abolish, while, at the same time, focusing on the economy of this country and creating jobs for Canadians.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to comment on the fine speech from my colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. She is a member of this House, not yet old enough to serve in the Senate. I think that is evidence enough in support of this motion, a sufficiently compelling argument on which to actually rest my case.

However there is yet more evidence, so I will not rest it there. I am sure she and my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, whose motion this is, have greater expectations of me.

If I might, I will say what a pleasure it is to share the privilege of representing the citizens of the east end of Toronto with the member for Toronto—Danforth. We stand back to back in our common cause of serving the people of the east end of the city. I stand with him today in full support of this motion.

Today's motion is part of a larger progressive vision and plan that we in the NDP have for reforming the electoral and parliamentary systems of Canada.

This is about bringing a more fulsome democracy to Canada, about making representation more meaningful and real, about making sure we have a system whereby the citizens of this country can be sure that they are able to remove us from this place when those of us who occupy this place fail to do our job properly. It is this latter point that is relevant, I believe, to today's motion, to this part of our democracy project.

Let me say at the outset of this speech that it is my desire as an MP to always conduct myself in a dignified and civil manner as befitting this institution. Whatever one wants to say about the conduct and language that is appropriate to this place does not really matter because there are, in any case, some very clear, explicit expectations of my constituents for my conduct.

A speech about the Senate poses a huge challenge to that, because the subject matter is not in fact dignified and is not civil. The institution has become ugly, crude and sordid, and an argument for its abolition cannot avoid but shine a light on that and speak in plain terms about that.

As a new MP, I am not so used to and familiar with this place yet that the Senate and the senator seem normal to me. There is something quite unusual about this collection of people who have made this place home till kingdom come or they are 75 years old. This ought to be a place where we are able to be, only by the will and grace of those who sent us here. We ought to feel lucky about that. We ought to never take for granted the privilege we have to be in this House to represent the views of our constituents on the important issues of the day.

We ought to be well aware, every day, that the privilege is in our constituents' hands to withdraw or withhold should we slip and fail in our duty, or should they change their minds, or should time and events simply overtake us and our usefulness to them.

It was a very strange experience early on in my tenure here—and strange perhaps that I remember it really well—the day I sat down on a joint House of Commons-Senate committee, substituting for one my colleagues, next to a senator. Here was this man, sitting on this committee nominally for the same purpose as the rest of us sitting around the table, reviewing and scrutinizing legislation, studying the issues of the day, with no one to go back to, no one to account to, no constituency, no events that weekend to get back to the riding for, just collecting a salary until the inevitable. He was entirely unaccountable.

This is to argue that the institution is fundamentally undemocratic and that it represents a deep distrust of democracy. It is and it does. It is a comforting backstop for those who are concerned about the wisdom of the elected, and by extension the wisdom of the electors. There are facts aplenty served up over the course of time to undermine the justifications of that institution.

To focus on the issue of accountability seems a bit naive. There is an unassailable truth to those arguments, but there is a bigger truth that seems to make those finer, higher arguments somewhat moot.

The Prime Minister once described the Senate as a relic of the 19th century. Were it only that, then there may be something pointedly historical about it and some historical justification for keeping it alive, for reforming it, for modernizing it perhaps. This argument might take the shape of tradition versus more modern democratic notions about institutions.

However, it is actually substantially worse and considerably sadder than simply that. The institution, even for what it was, has degenerated and become corrupted beyond rehabilitation. It is not even about what the senators are doing here, or what terms and conditions they operate under, but what they have done to get here.

The Senate is the pension. The work has already been done, their masters have been served and this is the deferred compensation for that work.

I am not a historian, and maybe the institution knew better times. Maybe someone took seriously—and apparently the Liberals still do—the notion of second sober thought. On the other hand, some people say that it has always been thus, and I enjoyed the quote from my colleague by Sir John A. Macdonald about this being the chamber of the propertied. I only know what the Senate has been throughout my adult life: a crass, crude and corrupted institution.

Look what we have there.

We have Senator Doug Finley who is the former national campaign director and director of political operations for the Conservative Party in 2006 and 2008. He was charged for overspending the Canada Elections Act spending limit and falsifying tax claims in the 2006 election. Over the last three years, he has cost the taxpayer just shy of $730,000.

We have Senator Irving Gerstein, chief fundraiser and chair of the Conservative Fund Canada. He is the largest fundraiser for the Conservative Party and was charged in 2011 with violating the Canada Elections Act. He was involved in filing false tax claims and exceeding federal spending limits on campaign advertisements. Senator Gerstein has cost the taxpayer just shy of $1 million over the last three years.

The list goes on, of course, with bagmen, backroom boys and failed candidates in the Senate.

Not to be outdone, the Liberals have enshrined their own set of past political operatives in the Senate. For example, Senator David Smith is a former national Liberal campaign co-chair. He cost the taxpayers $935,000 over the last three years. Senators Cowan, Robichaud, Mitchell, Campbell, all former Liberal Party operatives, each cost the taxpayers either side of a million bucks over the last years, and the list goes on.

The Senate was never justified on any grounds, but at least the red chamber had the facade and aura of dignity. However, that is no more. That has fallen away and with it has gone the possibility of recovery. A seat in the red chamber is the crude patronage of a twisted cynical political game that has been played out between those two parties since Confederation. It is the pork of political bagmen and operatives of Liberals and Conservatives. The party that wins the election gets to bring its insiders to feed at the trough of the Canadian Senate; wealthy enough men and women gorging themselves at the expense of the taxpayer for doing the dirty work of their party.

Senate reform has been the mantra of this Prime Minister, but there has been no rush, we note. He has had seven years to deliver on that promise, but what he has delivered instead was 58 of his own to feed at the Senate trough; taking a seat as the head of all of but six other prime ministers in the pantheon of patronage.

With Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Mac Harb, it has come down to audits and investigations over housing allowances and travel expenses. Do senators live where they say they live?

It makes one wish we could go back to debating the principles and the value of the relic. Perhaps it is a debate without a different conclusion, but at least a debate of a higher order. However, the plumbing is backed up on this relic. There is no reviving it or getting rid of the stench. This unconstitutional, undemocratic relic deserves better than the crass feeding trough it has become.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay today.

It has been quite an unsurprising day so far in the House. We have listened to the Minister of State for Democratic Reform spouting conspiracy theories and pulling a stunt like asking for unanimous consent when having just sent the government bill off to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. The Liberal member gave his great discourse on the dangers of democracy, while supporting the status quo. We have had two great speeches from NDP members.

Let me comment in particular on the speech given by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, a member of the House not yet—