IN THE HOUSE ~ Questions and Comments ~ Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act
April 22nd, 2010 - 4:00am
40th Parliament, 3rd Session
Context : Questions and Comments
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech.
I found the minister's question a few moments ago disingenuous at best. As we all know the government, not only this government but previous governments, has denied dozens of transfers. That was something that existed under the old act. The current act allows for that and the current act tells the minister what criteria must be given consideration.
What we have is a framework that has worked in all cases except one. In that one case now, in a typical Conservative case of absolute legislative overkill beyond belief they are now taking up House of Commons time for one case where the judge found that the minister had not done his homework, had not done his due diligence.
Therefore they crafted this up on the back of a napkin, throw it into the House and with the due disregard for democracy that we have seen through the numbers of prorogations over the last few years we see just another middle finger given to Canadians generally. A bill is brought in, even though the need for it comes from one case where a judge, quite rightly, found that the minister had not done his homework. Now we are spending parliamentary time working through this.
I know the member has long experience in this regard and has intervened a number of times. What does the member think is behind this Conservative attempt to eat up parliamentary time and what he thinks of the Conservatives' hypocrisy on crime issues, for example, this week we had a Conservative member calling police officers and chief of police a cult, because they disagree with the Conservative government?
Context : Questions and Comments
M. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NPD): Madame la Présidente, j'ai beaucoup aimé le discours du député de Jeanne-Le Ber. En principe, le projet de loi C-5 vise à centraliser tout le pouvoir décisionnel chez les ministres conservateurs, encore une fois. Cette semaine, on a vu l'attitude du « tout m'est dû » du gouvernement conservateur et des ministres conservateurs. Ce projet de loi est basé sur le fait que, dans un certain cas, on a questionné le jugement du ministre — un seul cas où le ministre n'a pas fait son devoir. Dès lors, le résultat est qu'on a passé des heures et des heures à débattre de la question. Pourtant ce projet de loi n'a pas besoin d'être amendé, et surtout pas d'être amendé de cette façon.
J'aimerais poser une question à mon collègue. Étant donné cette attitude du « tout m'est dû », cette attitude identifiée par le juge Gomery au sujet de l'ancien gouvernement libéral, mon collègue pense-t-il que l'attitude conservatrice du « tout m'est dû » dépasse celle qu'avait anciennement les libéraux?
(in English)Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech delivered by the member for Jeanne-Le Ber.
Basically, Bill C-5 seeks to concentrate decision-making power in the hands of Conservative ministers yet again. Over the past few months, and especially this week, the government and its ministers have certainly displayed their culture of entitlement.
This bill was introduced because one judge presiding over one case questioned the minister's judgment. This was one case in which the minister did not do his job, and as a result, hours and hours were spent debating a law that does not need to be amended, and certainly not like this.
I have a question for my colleague. Does he think that the Conservatives' sense of entitlement is even greater than that which Justice Gomery observed in the former Liberal government?