Pat Martin

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my namesake from Sault Ste. Marie one pointed question. He is well aware that Manitoba benefited greatly from a former infrastructure program. In fact, the Red River floodway, which is the massive Duff's ditch, as we call it, was the largest single engineering job since the Panama Canal. That ditch is now being dug deeper in a tripartite cooperative measure using money from the former infrastructure program.

Are some of the infrastructure initiatives in his area geared toward a tripartite approach? In other words, does provincial money need to be matched federally before it can roll? Does he see the need for a new infrastructure tripartite program from the Conservative government to make up for the dismantling, or now the loss, of the one we were enjoying under the Liberal government?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, April 28th, 2006]

It should be the capital.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that for as long as I have been an MP the NDP members from Windsor had been appealing to the former Liberal government to do something about the Ambassador Bridge and the billions of dollars of lost trade and opportunity that stems from the inadequacy of that vital crossing. I was shocked to learn as an MP that the Ambassador Bridge is actually privately owned. Neither the provincial government nor the federal government owns the Ambassador Bridge. Some individual owns it.

The Liberal government had this problem. It was supposed to be seized of this problem for all those years and yet to this day, there is a backup of semi-trailers waiting to take our exports to the United States. Those semi-trailers sit there with their engines idling, poisoning the good citizens of Windsor West. The lost opportunity is staggering and it is on the member's former government for failing to do anything for 13 years with that border crossing.

The member spent a lot of time in his speech talking about the Canada infrastructure fund. The Liberal administration of the Canada infrastructure fund was like some shady ring toss on a carnival midway. That is how it was treated. It was a setup. It was politicized and used as an instrument for throwing partisan freebies and goodies around the country. I do not lament the end of the administration of that particular infrastructure program one bit.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the Ambassador Bridge issue, as well as his government's stance on solving the softwood lumber crisis. Its stance was on its knees. We have a saying in the labour movement that the great only appear great to us because we are on our knees. That was the Liberal approach. When the Liberals sent negotiators to Washington for all those years it was as sycophants or something. They did not deliver the bacon. It is hard to hear the member pontificate about the job the Liberals did on the softwood lumber file when nothing was delivered.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague from Timmins just ended his speech when the prime ministerial speech began. Would it not be in order to go back to the questions and comments period that generally follows the regular speeches?

[Privilege, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege. I maintain that the privileges of the House as a collective have been breached in that the government has assumed direction and control over when parliamentary precinct flags will be lowered to half-mast, when, according to the authorities that I have researched, that choice in fact should be the jurisdiction of the Speaker on behalf of Parliament.

On page 275 of Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 7, it states:

One of the fundamental privileges of the House is to regulate its own internal affairs, holding exclusive jurisdiction over its premises....

Notwithstanding that certain government departments have a role in the upkeep and maintenance of the buildings in the precinct, ultimately even those tasks are the duties and responsibilities of you, sir.

I argue, and I ask you to consider, that it should not be up to the protocol office of the Departments of Heritage or Public Works and Government Services to dictate when the flag is lowered. It should be you on behalf of my colleagues in the Parliament of Canada.

I would like to quote as well for your consideration page 170 of the book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, by Joseph Maingot. It states:

--the House of Commons is not a department of the government of Canada, but exists as a constituent element of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find it instructive that in today's question period, when asked again to lower the flag, the Minister of National Defence said, “government has decided”, “government has its policy and is sticking to it”.

Neither the Minister of National Defence nor the Prime Minister representing the executive branch of government has primacy over the will of Parliament. I believe their unilateral and arbitrary actions pertaining to the treatment of the flag flying over the Peace Tower usurps the authority and undermines privileges of members of Parliament. Our collective privilege as MPs should have primacy over any minister, even the Prime Minister.

Therefore I believe that my rights as a member have been offended and limited. I respectfully point out and remind you, sir, that according to Marleau and Montpetit it is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of all the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution.

I quote lastly page 170 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by Maingot which states:

Each House of Parliament is entitled to the administration of affairs within its own precincts free from interference.... Control of the accommodation and services within the Parliament Buildings is therefore vested in the Speakers...on behalf of their respective Houses. Thus Public Works and Government Services and other government departments act only on the advice of officials of each House.

I read this to say, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you agree, that it should be the Speaker on behalf of members of Parliament who should determine if and when the flag flies at half-mast.

The government taking upon itself the authority to tell staff whether or not they should lower the flag to half-mast is an appropriation of the powers of Parliament and violates the privilege of each member here. I ask that you to find a prima facie case of privilege in this argument.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, recently we learned, contrary to the contents of the federal accountability act, that the Conservatives have been engaging in a practice that would seem to contradict what they state. A member of the transition team, which hired the new Conservative government officials, chiefs of staff, deputy ministers, et cetera, is now a senior lobbyist in Ottawa, lobbying the very people who she hired for the government.

Clearly, this is either an oversight or a blatant undermining of the spirit of the accountability act. Would the hon. member agree with me that this type of lobbying should be outlawed, barred and specifically cited in the federal accountability act?

[Gomery Commission, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that does not really answer my question.

I want the President of the Treasury Board to tell us here, within the privilege of the House, whether there were any other people fingered by the Gomery Commission? Were people like Alfonso Gagliano, Ran Quail, Chuck Guité, Benoit Corbeîl, Jacques Corriveau, Jean-Marc Bard, any of these guys, given money for their additional legal expenses? Is anybody fingered in the Gomery Commission still enjoying the Liberal largesse as they appeal being named in the Gomery Commission?

[Gomery Commission, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are also horrified that in the last twilight moments, as the helicopters were airlifting the final evacuees from the Treasury Board, its president was sitting there cutting a big fat cheque to one of his Liberal cronies. Were there any others? Did the Liberal largesse go beyond just Jean Pelletier? Did it in fact go to other people who were fingered by the Gomery Commission?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are sitting alone in their shame and their disgrace. They are sitting alone because no one wants to be associated with them. It is like in a school lunch room where they are sitting at their own little table and all the other kids are sitting at other tables and there is good reason for it. They broke faith with the Canadian people and shamed themselves. If it does feel lonely in his corner, there is good reason for it.

When people get caught with both hands in the cookie jar and they get busted for it, they will be punished, and I do not think that punishment is finished. I do not think the Liberal Party has bottomed out in terms of the public's lack of confidence and no leadership race will change that as much as the Liberals might hope.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are not opposed to limiting the dollar value of contributions to $1,000 per person. We believe we are following the Quebec model of no contributions from business or unions at all. It should be that way and that is the way the Liberals should have done it when they first introduced it in 2003.

As for whistleblowing, I share my colleague's reservations about a reward for whistleblowers. In fact, we have talked about it in our caucus meeting and we are opposed to the idea. It is the wrong motivation if money is involved. Any compensation should be based on damages that the whistleblower may have suffered in terms of lost opportunity, et cetera, but not a reward. It is vigilantism. I do not think $1,000 will change anyone's mind. If they are reluctant to come forward because of fear for their job or something, a lousy $1,000 would not be enough to motivate them. It is the wrong thing to do. It is the American system and we do not like it.