Mike Sullivan

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my Toronto neighbour, but once again the government has focused, apparently, on something about fraud. He, above all, should know that fraud was not an issue. He was the one person whose election results were threatened by the notion that there were some discrepancies in the voting that took place in Etobicoke Centre in 2011, where there was only a 26-vote difference between the winner and the loser. That was where we discovered that the training for the elections officers was not sufficient to allow them to maintain the data properly. However, I would remind the member, and maybe he would comment, that there were zero cases of fraud in both of the court cases involving his election.

Would he like to comment on how many cases of fraud the government can actually bring forward?

[Petitions, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition signed by residents in my riding objecting to the cuts to Canada Post services.

[Petitions, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by my constituents and people from all over Toronto asking the government to reject Canada Post's plan to reduce services, and calling on it to explore other options by updating Canada Post's business plan and returning Canada Post to its function as an essential public service.

[Petitions, March 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from residents of Toronto in my riding of York South—Weston, who are concerned that the government is breaking its promise to better protect consumers, that between 6,000 and 8,000 Canada Post workers will lose their jobs, and that the reduction of service could lead to the privatization of Canada Post, an essential public service, according to the government. Therefore, they call upon the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan for reduced services and explore other options for updating Canada Post's business plan.

[Employment, February 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the employment minister may think a “my way or the highway” ultimatum makes him look good, but his refusal to negotiate is hurting some of Canada's most vulnerable.

The Collaborative Partnership Network provides crucial support for hundreds of people with disabilities, but the failure to reach a new funding agreement will mean the layoff of 200 disabled Nova Scotians on March 31.

Will the minister commit today, at the very least, to providing this network with the bridge funding it needs to continue its work?

[The Budget, February 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments about atomic energy and how clean a fuel it is.

However, I wonder if she or the residents of her riding really understand that the fuel that is stored near the Chalk River nuclear facility needs to be managed, and it needs to be managed for 500,000 years.

What is the economic action plan going to say about managing spent fuel for 500,000 years?

[Petitions, February 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a petition signed by many residents of York South—Weston. Members on the other side of the House have brought forward similar petitions.

These petitioners call upon the federal government to reject Canada Post's plan to reduce services and explore other options for updating Canada Post's business plan to better protect consumers, to protect jobs, and to protect an essential public service.

[Canada Post, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Toronto's city council passed a motion declaring its opposition to the end of door-to-door mail delivery. It was particularly concerned about the impact on seniors and persons living with disabilities. It recognized the important role that mail plays in helping persons living with disabilities overcome barriers and exclusion.

What is the minister responsible for persons living with disabilities doing to ensure that these Canadians are not hurt by Canada Post's deplorable decision?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

We are talking about the single most important right in our charter and are dealing with a government that wants suppress everything dealing with that right. The Conservatives were accused of suppressing votes in the last election. They have suppressed debate on the bill by moving closure, and now they want to suppress citizen participation.

We have suggested, and I think most Canadians would agree with us, that wide consultation on the bill, which does dramatic things to our laws that affect our vote, would be the best thing, wide consultation with a number of Canadians across Canada. That will not happen no matter how many days of hearings we have. At hearings in Ottawa, we will not even get to 1% of the 120,000 people who had to be vouched for in the last election. We will not even get one-tenth of 1%, or one-one-hundredth of 1%, of those people to show up, whereas if we went around from community to community, we could actually talk to those people in the course of discussing the bill.

In this country we have made it easier to vote and have enfranchised more and more people at every step of our history. We have gone from people having to own property to now having to own no property to vote. There was a time when voting was by a show of hands. Now it is a secret ballot. Voting was on different days in different ridings. Women did not have the right to vote. There were no advance polls. People who were too poor to have a fixed address could not vote. We fixed that. Certain races, such as Japanese Canadians, could not vote. We fixed that. Aboriginal Canadians could not vote. We fixed that. At every step of the way, we have made it easier to vote. Now we will make it more difficult for at least 120,000 Canadians.

I know, because I have dealt with some of the individuals who have no way of proving their address, absolutely none, despite several of the members opposite suggesting that changes to subsection 143(4) would fix that. There is no change to subsection 143(4). It will have exactly the same words as the Canada Elections Act has today. All that has been removed is the reference to vouching; that is the only thing that has been changed.

The Conservatives suggest that somehow it is some kind of gift to allow a deputy returning officer to amend the regulations to allow someone to vote. It is an absolute and outright falsehood to suggest that. That is not what is happening here. At least 120,000 will not be able to vote in the next election if the bill goes through unamended. I do not believe the Conservatives would allow any such amendment. They are not very gracious with amendments to any of the bills they have brought forward, and I doubt we could find 10 amendments to all of the bills that have come forward and been amended by the opposition.

This is about vote suppression, plain and simple. It is about changing the rules so that certain individuals may find it easier to cheat. We are not suggesting that raising the penalty is not a good thing, but if we cannot catch anyone because they can escape prosecution or being investigated, and do not have to testify, and do not have to give evidence under oath, all of the penalties in the world will not fix the system.

I would urge those opposite to vote in favour of the motion so that Canadians across the country can have their voices heard.

[Petitions, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have with me a petition on behalf of residents of the area of Toronto. It asks that the government protect land around the healthy and sustainable Rouge National Park; that it ensure it strengthens and implements the ecological vision, policies, and integrity of the plans, the green belt plan, the Rouge national heritage action plan, and the Oak Ridges Moraine convention plan; that it protect and restore the 600-metre wide wooded main ecological corridor linking Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine and Rouge National Park; and that it conduct a rational, scientific, and transparent public planning process to create Rouge National Park's boundaries, legislation, and strategic plan and include first nations and Friends of the Rouge Watershed on a Rouge National Park planning and advisory board.