Ralph Goodale

[Finance, February 27th, 2007]

Cut taxes for the first time.

[Government of Canada, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government tells Canadians to trust it to respect their rights but its behaviour screams the opposite.

From police investigations to smears about child pornography and the fight against terror, the Prime Minister uses slander as his standard tactic of first resort. He tries to politicize the public service, the police, the courts and even the military. So, yes, Canadians are concerned.

When will the government stop poisoning the atmosphere and killing the trust of decent Canadians?

[Government of Canada, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, instead of serious work on public security and individual rights, the government resorts to Nixon like manipulation. It is carefully orchestrated.

The Prime Minister misuses a news clipping to smear an MP, which is totally wrong. The Conservative caucus chair then stretches that smear into an accusation about a potential suspect, which is totally wrong. Two rabid parliamentary secretaries then slander the opposition as harbour for terrorists, which is also totally wrong.

How can Canadians trust their rights to such an expedient government of such obviously low character?

[Security Information, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the United States, Karl Rove, the Republican hatchet man in the White House, disclosed secret security information to personally smear certain individuals. Mr. Rove may pay a heavy price for that. One of his associates has already been indicted.

Now in Canada we have seen here the disclosure of secret security information to personally smear a member of Parliament. Canadians need to know who in the government is responsible. Who is the Canadian Conservative Karl Rove?

[Security Information, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the despicable events of last Wednesday were no accident. At the very moment the Prime Minister was on his feet slurring the member for Mississauga—Brampton South, his press office was sending copies of that newspaper story to all the media. From beginning to end, this was contrived, premeditated slander.

Let us go right to the source. Who in the government disclosed secret security information? Was it or was it not the Prime Minister's Office?

[Security Information, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the newspaper story used by the Prime Minister this week in a disgusting drive-by smear against a member of Parliament contained assertions about alleged police proceedings of a highly secret nature. They are secret to ensure the integrity of those proceedings and yet the information, true or not, was made public.

Why did the government deem it appropriate to publish secret security information? Does that disclosure, in itself, not constitute breaking the law?

[Railway Operations Legislation, February 23rd, 2007]

Are you sure you want to wait, Mr. Speaker?

[Railway Operations Legislation, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I point out for the minister that it was yesterday when I raised the question about the timing of the government's approach during the course of the regular Thursday afternoon question about House proceedings.

The issue is one of how quickly the government has been able or unable to assemble the necessary provisions to proceed. It is still open to the government, having commenced this debate today, to proceed on Monday, not on Tuesday, if the situation is as dire as the minister has described. We have heard the representations of a great many Canadians, just like he has. Therefore, we would agree that the situation is very serious.

It is terribly unfortunate that the problem has deteriorated to this level, but those are the facts we are dealing with today. It seems to me that it would be important for the government to reconsider, in its own scheduling, whether it wants to wait until next Tuesday or whether it would be prepared to proceed on Monday, which is an option that is still available to it.

[Railway Operations Legislation, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I have a few brief remarks to bring to the debate this morning.

It is clear that the unfortunate strike at CN Rail is having a large and escalating impact on a great many Canadians and on the Canadian economy overall. It has a number of industries and sectors of our economy in a difficult position over a wide spectrum. I am sure we have all heard from many of those affected Canadians, grain producers and shippers, the auto industry, fuel suppliers and consumers, manufacturers of many kinds, potash and fertilizer producers, the mining industry and others, and indeed employees of CN Rail.

After some 10 days of this strike, the government made its first move with the appointment of a mediator to work with the parties. The mediator, I understand, met quickly with both sides, and just one day after being appointed, the mediator had both parties back at the bargaining table. In a strange twist, however, the same day the government appointed mediator got the parties back to the table, the Minister of Labour announced that he would immediately introduce back to work legislation because of the huge and growing economic impact of the situation. The mediation process therefore was nullified.

We in the Liberal Party do not question the severity of the impact of this strike, and I think that is obvious. We do have questions about the government's apparently erratic approach to the strike, and that is troubling. This was further demonstrated by the fact that the Minister of Labour said, on Tuesday, February 20, that this was an economic emergency that required immediate action. Yet, it appears it will be seven days later, on Tuesday, February 27, before the government will actually present the legislation for debate in the House. That delay is problematic.

Subject to that legislation being in appropriate and fair form from a legal and policy point of view, and I understand we may have an opportunity to see the legislation later today, the Liberal Party will be supporting it when it is finally presented to the House. However, it is troubling, as I said, that the government's approach has been apparently incoherent to the situation. The government will have taken a full week to address what the labour minister himself described as an emergency last Tuesday.

Liberals have never believed that Parliament should be regarded as a regular integral part of the industrial relations process. The Canada Labour Code governs that process, and it usually functions pretty effectively. We note that in those rare instances when Parliament does have to be asked to intervene, it is because one or more of the parties to the dispute fail to participate in a constructive and effective manner. This could be management, it could be the union leadership, it could be the ineptitude on the part of the government in managing the mediation process, or it could be a combination of all three.

We will not attempt today to pass any judgment on the question of where this process broke down in this case, leading to the troubling circumstances with which we now have to deal. In the course of considering the actual bill, we will most certainly be probing the government's role, or non-role, in this failure of the normal free collective bargaining process.

We further invite the government to consider the timing it has proposed for this legislation, which I assume is sometime next week, probably to begin on Tuesday. Perhaps it might consider advancing that schedule. Notwithstanding current timing agreements before the House on other matters, it might consider bringing forward the legislation on Monday rather than Tuesday.

[Railway Operations Legislation, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few brief remarks that I would like to bring to the discussion this morning—