Keith Martin

[Health, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when they were in opposition, the Liberals were calling for compensation for all thalidomide victims and all people infected with HIV from tainted blood.

Justice Krever said “Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot, in my opinion, be justified”. Today, we have learned that there is $900 million available to compensate all of the victims of the tainted blood scandal.

Does this government have a heart?

[George Marcello, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, each year 160 Canadians die while waiting for an organ transplant. Canada has one of the lowest organ donor rates in the entire world. Half of all usable organs are never transplanted as too many people forget to sign their cards and tell their loved ones.

George Marcello, only days from death in 1995 from liver failure, received a new liver as a result of a family's tragedy. Six people's lives were saved as a result of this gift of life. To draw attention to this, George has walked throughout Canada and will complete his Canada 769 Day Walk in Toronto this year. Thousands have carried his torch of life from community to community to educate people on our need to sign our organ donor cards and tell our family members.

George has given hope to the 4,000 Canadians awaiting the gift of life. I salute a Canadian hero, George Marcello, who is in Ottawa today.

[House of Commons, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I find myself standing here before the House at the bar but it is understandable that I find myself here.

It was wrong for me to take the Mace, the symbol of the dignity and authority of the House, into my hands as a gesture of protest. I have reflected on my actions and have had the benefit of hearing my colleagues speak eloquently about this place and about the respect that must be accorded to it.

I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all members of the House for my actions. I ask that you accept this apology in the spirit in which it is afforded.

[Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, April 22nd, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-446, an act to amend the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.

Madam Speaker, Canada is known as a major trafficking conduit for endangered species from all over the world. In fact Canadians would be shocked to know that this situation exists. By allowing it to exist we become part of the problem in the decimation of endangered species from all over the world, such as Siberian tigers, Bengal tigers, Javan rhinos and a wide array of species.

The bill deals with the control of the international trade in wildlife. It calls for import and export permits to ensure that there are permits from the country authorizing the trade in these animals. It adds protection for wildlife in transit and ensures that proper care is available for them. It requires full records to be maintained by law, which goes to our obligations under CITES. It requires the mandatory marking of specimens to be imported and exported. It also requires that there be an organization within the Department of the Environment to ensure that our obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species be fulfilled.

The bill would go a long way in ensuring that our obligations under CITES are respected. It would go a long way in ending the debacle in our country that allows us to continue to be part of the problem in the trafficking of endangered species.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, April 22nd, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-445, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of child before birth)

Madam Speaker, fetal alcohol syndrome is one of the most devastating problems in our country today. Tens of thousands of children are born with this preventable problem. In fact fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in children.

The bill seeks to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome by ensuring that a woman who is pregnant and who consumes harmful substances that are injurious to her fetus but refuses all forms of treatment can be put into a treatment facility against her wishes for the protection of herself and more important, for the protection of the fetus. This is only for a woman who has chosen to carry the fetus to term and clearly has nothing to do with the issue of abortion.

This law has its roots in the ability of physicians to put people who are injurious to themselves or others and cannot take care of themselves in a treatment facility against their wishes if necessary. The bill would give caregivers and medical personnel, specifically physicians, the ability to do that for the protection of the woman and to ensure that no more children are born with the devastating problem of fetal alcohol syndrome.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is the time for questions and comments on the minister's speech and I have every right to ask questions. The minister should do the right thing and respond to the questions with answers instead of trying to deflect them, because this goes to the heart of the issue. I am again going to ask the hon. Minister of Transport a very simple question.

The minister mentioned within his speech that he held to his heart that the very basis of the House, the most important things in this House are the basic rights of members of parliament. The basic rights of members of parliament are what we have to uphold as members of parliament. I will ask the hon. minister once again: Does he believe that the Mace is the basis of parliament and that we should uphold the Mace, or does the minister believe that we should uphold a much more important democratic tradition and right of all of us, the right to vote? Which is it, the Mace or the vote?

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed the minister's comments and how off base the poor gentleman is in not understanding the basic fundamentals of what took place last Wednesday.

I would ask to clarify my position on the apology, for his edification and for the House. I apologized to the Speaker for violating the traditions of the House. Apologizing to you, Mr. Speaker, and indeed to members of the House, is different from not regretting the act of actually picking up the Mace. The difference is that the hon. minister brought to light the fundamental reason why the Mace was picked up. The Mace was picked up because, as the hon. minister mentioned, the basic rights of MPs were violated.

I would ask the hon. minister, does he believe that the Mace represents the basis of parliament or does the minister believe that the right of MPs to vote is a far more important right and a far more important basis of this House?

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member made my point quite eloquently with the case of Mr. Waddell. Mr. Waddell's right to vote was violated. Last Wednesday the rights of not just one MP were violated, but the rights of every member of parliament were violated in that we could not vote. That is the problem. I am glad the member realizes that.

I will make another point. That member and many members of the House in this debate are out of step with the public. The public is our boss. The fact is this parliament has become the purview of the Prime Minister's office. Taxpayer money, the money the public gives to this House and to this institution, is being used by the Prime Minister's Office for its own gain.

I am making a plea. Oliver Cromwell in Great Britain asked for the removal of the mace. Oliver Cromwell said: “Take away that bauble, ye are no longer a parliament”. He did that because at that time Great Britain did not have a parliament. There were no public servants. There were no people working for the public good. Members of parliament were operating for their own good.

We do not have an institution here where members of parliament are operating for their own benefit. We have a Prime Minister's Office that is operating this House like a dictatorship. That is the fundamental problem we have.

I make a plea to every member of parliament in the House to have the guts and the courage to stand up for democracy, to stand up for the rights of their constituents, to stand up for their own rights and to vote against the government's efforts to censure me, not because I did not do anything wrong, because I did. I picked up the Mace and it was premeditated.

All hon. members should vote for the amendment and against the government's proposal. In doing so every member of parliament will say to the Prime Minister's Office that we are not taking it any more, that we have had it with this lack of democracy, that we have had it with this dictatorship and that we will move forward and build this institution by Canadians, for Canadians forever.

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the other side should listen to his previous comments. He said that this is the greatest democracy in the world. In fact the member cited quite eloquently that his private member's bill was destroyed. He demonstrated the fact that his private member's bill, which should have been votable and which should have had its fair hearing, was destroyed because this institution was not a democracy anymore.

The member drives home the point, albeit unwittingly, that I have been trying to make, that this is not about me or the opposition. It is about all members of parliament and in particular the members on the other side. Of the 239 private member's bills that have gone through, none from the government side have been votable. That is an egregious violation of their rights as it is for us.

What we have is a situation, and the member and all members should understand this, that this is about our democratic rights. This is about the democratic rights of our constituents, and this is about Canada. This is about being able to vote. This is about doing our job as an MP. It is the essence of the most pure and fundamental rights.

That is what this is about. This is a protest to draw attention to the fundamental violation of our rights. The essence of the bills are immaterial. What is very relevant and essential is the fact that the rights of members, the rights of every person in the House, have been violated for nine years. Those violations are becoming more extensive and move egregious.

The member also has a significant disconnect with the public. The public desperately wants to see this place democratized. We saw today in the headlines that 69% of the pubic sees this place as being corrupt. It is not corrupt. It is just not a democracy. It is a dictatorship.

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week I disrupted the House. Last week I violated the traditions of the House, for which I immediately stood to apologize to you personally, out of respect not only for your office but for you as an individual whom I respect.

However I would argue, and indeed Canadians across the country know very well, that a far greater violation has taken place in this nation, the violation by the government of our basic democratic right to vote. The government, specifically the Prime Minister's Office, has tied the arms and hands of every member of parliament together, bound them so tightly that we are unable to do any constructive work for the public good. We have become voting machines, and the members on the other side should be equally aggrieved by this situation.

This is an opportunity for every member in the House, from every political party including the government, to stand and say “we are not taking this anymore” and to take a stand for democracy, for our own consciences, for our constituents and for our country. If every member of parliament in the House does that, we will break the back of the control that the Prime Minister's Office has over the House and democratize parliament for all members of all political parties, so that one day this institution can truly be a democratic one where we can use our individual talents as MPs, and by God every member has that, to advocate and work for the Canadian public, for Canada and for the future.

If we do not stand for democracy then we become a victim of our circumstances. We become a part of the problem. We do not become a friend of democracy, we become its enemy and insidiously we become a friend of draconian, undemocratic, dictatorial, fascist behaviour that will make our country a mere shadow of what it can be.

I accuse the government of being undemocratic. I accuse the government of being a dictatorship. I accuse the government of being fascist.