Pat Martin

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for raising two issues that are dear to my heart. It serves as an example of how we share many important interests among the provinces.

There are two things my colleague raised that I would like to focus on. The first is the aerospace industry, which I can say for my own riding is a matter of great concern. I represent Bristol Aerospace, Boeing, Standard Aero, quite a few aerospace manufacturers that are struggling to compete internationally and which rely on the support of the federal government to ensure they can contribute in the way that they do.

How would my colleague feel about a policy from the federal government that would ensure a buy Canadian first policy and not the lowest price at all costs policy as we endure today?

Also, how does he feel about the technology partnerships loan program? Even though it was of great value to the aerospace industry, the program was open to abuse in that very few of the technology partnerships loans were ever paid back.

I come from the province of Manitoba, which is obviously a keystone province that is built on agriculture and relies on agriculture. Can we as members of Parliament agree that we will embrace the well-being of our agriculture industry in this 39th Parliament? Can we agree on that cooperatively?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from P.E.I. for his comments and remarks. I enjoyed his speech. He spoke at length about accountability because that seems to be the theme, the centrepiece, of the legislative package we are being promised by the newly elected Conservative government.

He did raise the seeming contradiction of having an unelected senator serving as the Minister of Public Works, with an unprecedented budget for giving out contracts and spending money, and limited access, oversight and scrutiny opportunities for the activities and operations of that new minister.

Another issue along those lines came up as well. We are all filling out our declarations of personal assets to file with the Ethics Commissioner as we speak, but we do not really know what guidelines or unique status the senator may enjoy. Is it the Senate ethical guidelines that apply? Is it the House of Commons ethical guidelines? What declaration is the senator supposed to make?

I understand that senators are allowed to sit on the boards of directors of companies, which MPs are not allowed to do. Senators in fact are doing so. Does that mean that our new Minister of Public Works is sitting on the boards of directors of 10 or 12 different companies, some of which may run into conflict because they seek contracts with the federal government? It is just a bad precedent, in my view, and I would like my hon. colleague's comments on that.

While I have the floor, I would also like to ask his views on the idea that the federal government has now stripped the access to information provisions out of the accountability act, which I believe will be the kiss of death to this access to information reform package. He and I have seen this movie before. This is like déjà vu for us because we got snookered once by his government on access to information. I want to know if he thinks it is happening again.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating you for the honour of presiding in that chair. I have every confidence that your judgment will be as good as your eyesight when you recognize the NDP way down in this corner where we reside.

My congratulations, too, to the Minister of Transport for accepting this important role.

I think the minister would agree with me that freedom of information is the oxygen that democracy breathes. I know he has experience in government and would agree with me that access to information is one of those rights that we enshrine in Canada and is one of the instruments by which we shine a light on the operations of government and feature open government as one of the cornerstones of our democracy.

Could the minister explain why his government has seen fit, under its new accountability, act to strip out the access to information reform that was the centrepiece of that piece of legislation? Why is his government going to ground, as it were, and slamming the door on true transparency and openness when surely he knows, as everyone in this country knows, that transparency and accountability have become the buzzwords of Ottawa today? If we had true access to information laws and open government, we would have 30 million auditors scrutinizing the operations of government rather than one overworked Auditor General.

[Members of Parliament, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government believes in true transparency and accountability any more than the last gang did. The Prime Minister will not even talk to the media. He holds his secret cabinet meetings at midnight in the Diefenbunker and he is stripping out the ATI provisions from the accountability act.

There is plenty of room in the accountability act to answer this serious concern that Canadians have. They care about this. They want the practice stopped. Will he commit today to ending the practice of floor crossing once and for all?

[Members of Parliament, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a democratic right to be represented by the political party that they elect to represent them. The Prime Minister offended all Canadians when he seduced the member for Vancouver Kingsway over into his camp and talked him into crossing the floor.

Floor crossing undermines the democratic process and fuels cynicism. Will the Prime Minister use his new accountability act to put an end to floor crossing and these musical chairs once and for all?

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his sensitive remarks about the well-being of our Canadian producers. Again I want to compliment the Bloc for bringing the motion forward today. It is so fitting that in the twilight days of this 38th Parliament we are talking about the well-being of our farmers, our dairy producers and our egg producers, et cetera.

The issue of subsidies and tariffs comes up frequently yet is rarely debated in the House of Commons by legislators who actually have some direction and control over it. What has always irritated me is that the international community has agreed that we must do something to eliminate subsidies and tariffs, yet Canada seems to be the only one that has unilaterally and voluntarily begun to roll these back.

Does my colleague believe that Canadian negotiators in this coming WTO round should be given the mandate to hold fast to the system of supply management that we have today and not yield to the pressure that is already being applied to our negotiators to buckle and crumble and systematically dismantle the supply management regime we enjoy?

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc for choosing this topic for today's opposition day. I think it is very fitting that in these twilight days of the 38th Parliament we are seized with the issue of trying to protect our Canadian farmers and producers.

I want to register one point of fact that I think we should be aware of and concerned with. Last year, 11,000 farmers on the three prairie provinces abandoned their farms and gave up farming. That is partly because of the lack of support that our producers get from the federal government in its international relations with the WTO and in the deals it signs.

I want my colleague to comment on one point that he raised. One of our chief negotiators confided in members of Parliament at a briefing that the sensitive products basket really needs a duty protection of about 11%. The Americans want that reduced to 1%. He advised our colleagues that the negotiators would probably settle somewhere in the middle. In other words, even before they have gone to the negotiating table, he has already conceded that he is going to cut the level of support by about 50%. What kind of negotiator is that?

If I were in a trade union bargaining relationship and had to tell the membership of my union that the employer wanted a $2 wage cut and we probably would be able to reduce it to only half of that and thus take a $1 cut in pay, the membership would hang me from the highest tree. I would be dragged into the streets and shot.

Who is representing us if our negotiators have given up before they have even started?

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it has been my experience, as an observer of these things, that Canada's stance, going into these WTO negotiations, has been hopeless in representing the interests of Canadian producers, at least in my prairie region.

I have heard it said that Canada's negotiating stance going into these things is on its knees. It does not come from a position of strength. It is the European Union and the U.S. that dictate the direction that these negotiations take.

We have heard from my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. He said that he had spoken to a chief Canadian negotiator, who will represent us at this round. In this one segment the Americans are looking for 1% and we are at 11%. However, the negotiator tried to assure our member not to worry. He said that Canada would carve off somewhere in the middle. In other words, Canada will go into a round knowing that it will probably have its share chipped away or eroded by 5% or 6%, but we should be pleased because it will not yield the entire thing. This is before the bargaining even starts.

I am a former union negotiator. If I represented my people in that way, I would be out on my ear. It seems like we are trading the family cow for three beans, none of which ever seem to sprout for us. It is just a bad deal.

As the government goes into the Hong Kong round, this is Canada's bargaining stance, “Please, leave us with some of our integrity as Canadian producers. Please EU, don't take it all”. Is that our bargaining stance?

[Criminal Code, November 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it was an interesting and well delivered speech by my colleague from Yukon. We have stirred up a great deal of interest in this issue. My colleagues from Timmins—James Bay and from Ottawa Centre and now my colleague from Yukon have all spoken to this issue which speaks to something deep inside. This resonates with a basic sense of Canadian fairness.

Perhaps my colleague could expand on an aspect of the bill that I find most interesting. It extends Canadian law beyond our domestic jurisdiction into the international arena. It might be one of those cases where Canada could lead by example, at least with the countries that are signatory to the protocol which is affected by this.

I think of Greece and its struggle to have the Elgin marbles repatriated to that country. I think of the Royal Museum in London, England which is the repository of literally thousands of cultural and religious artifacts from all around the world. I am not trying to overstate this, but they are being held selfishly by the British people with full recognition and knowledge of the cultural and heritage importance of those pieces.

My question for my colleague from the Yukon is more about a pattern that we see developing here, the precedent of extending Canadian values and Canadian laws beyond our domestic jurisdiction into the international arena.

I cite the one example of the tourism sex trade. Canadians can now be prosecuted under Canadian law in foreign lands if they are engaged in the sexual exploitation of children. I for one celebrate this idea and it is an excellent practice.

I would ask my colleague if he would agree with me that the principles such as those found in the Westray bill regarding criminal culpability for workplace accidents, that kind of legislation should apply to Canadian mining companies operating abroad in foreign countries. In other words, would he be willing to extend the same logic that applies to what we in this country believe is wrong to the foreign activities of Canadian mining companies when they are engaged abroad?

[Criminal Code, November 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have been quite moved by the debate. I want to thank my colleague for the points he has added from experience in his culture, his background and history and the obvious passion he holds for the subject.

I am interested in the bill itself. It originated in the Senate, so we have not had as much opportunity as we might have had to be involved as the bill evolved. The NDP generally objects to bills that originate in the unelected other place, but I will not dwell on that today.

I am more interested in an aspect of the bill which seems to, if I understand it correctly, extend the arm of the law beyond our geographic boundaries, much like the prosecution of Canadians abroad who sexually exploit children.

Is my understanding correct that the bill contemplates enforcement of these principles for Canadians operating abroad?