Pat Martin

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows and we are well aware that in the next few days, we are going to hear the rumbling of those big 10 tonne trucks that have portable shredding machines in the back. They are going to be backing up to the PMO and the PCO, and a tonne of shredding is going to go on. It does not take a rocket scientist to read the signs that there is going to be a regime change.

On the member's first question about why the House leader said we had ample opportunities to bring down the government, in actual fact we came here committed to making this minority Parliament work. There were opportunities, but every time we came close to exercising our right as the majority of the House of Commons in opposition, the House leader for the Liberal Party would do things like make our opposition days miraculously disappear. The Liberals undermined and thwarted the democratic process at every step of the way when it became obvious that they were in trouble.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the good people of the riding of Winnipeg Centre are justifiably furious over the revelations of the Gomery Commission's inquiry into the sponsorship scandal. Many of them have come to me and asked my party to do all we can to bring the government down and stop its ability to continue in the way it has. I am one of those furious individuals.

Just because our motion today is reasonable and is a compromise of position, I do not want anyone to think for one minute that there is not justifiable choleric and outrage on this side of the House over the degree of corruption and theft that took place in the sponsorship scandal and who knows where else.

When I read my remarks today in support of this reasonable compromise position, I do not want the fact to be lost that the organized theft in the sponsorship program in which the Liberals took part will go down in infamy as one of the most horrendous abuses of power in Canadian history.

Coming from the riding of Winnipeg Centre in the province of Manitoba, the sponsorship scandal, this organized theft, was not limited to Quebec. I have good reason to believe that the people of Winnipeg were ripped off in the sponsorship scandal in the 1999 Winnipeg Pan-Am Games. I feel good enough to say that both in the House and outside the House if necessary. Let me tell the House how that happened.

We were given a $2.3 million sponsorship contract through the sponsorship program but only $650,000 was delivered to the executive and organizers of the 1999 Winnipeg Pan-Am Games. The rest of the money was siphoned off as production costs by a Liberal advertising firm, the fourth largest beneficiary of all the sponsorship scandals in the Gomery inquiry. I am here to say that Winnipeg was ripped off in the sponsorship scandal as well, not just the good people of Quebec. It offended all of us right across the country.

I have said it before and I will say it again. I believe in my heart that the Liberal Party of Canada is institutionally psychopathic. It literally does not know the difference between right and wrong. It is so obsessed with keeping power at all costs that it is willing to disregard any social norms or mores or laws. In fact, it cut a swath through all things decent in order to maintain its grip on power.

I predict that when Mr. Gomery presents his second report his number one recommendation will be that the Liberal Party of Canada be disbanded out of disgrace. Just as the airborne regiment was disbanded after Somalia, the same thing will happen to the Liberal Party of Canada. We will kick them out of power first, I believe.

Some people are too thick-headed to be embarrassed. There is saying that some people cannot be embarrassed. We see the arrogance perpetuated even in the midst of this maelstrom where any person who is not psychopathic would have crumbled under the weight of the sheer disgrace. They would be on their knees in contrition. The Prime Minister of Canada should prostrate himself before Canadians like Jimmy Swaggart and beg their forgiveness. “Forgive me Lord for I have sinned”, is the kind of reaction we would expect from the Liberals, but all we see is arrogance, smugness and cockiness.

What the Liberals have said is that they know the Liberal Party stole from Canadians so they will make it right by giving some of the money back. That was their first tenuous position. Their second position was their admission that the Liberal government and the Liberal Party stole from Canadians and said that the reason they needed to be re-elected was to ensure no future Liberal government would ever be able to steal from Canadians in that way again.

That is the kind of pretzel, convoluted logic we on this side of the House have been asked to accept. It is galling to any reasonable person. It offends the sensibility of any thinking Canadian to try and buy into that logic. I am one of those who has said that we should blow their heads off at the first opportunity. I am one of the hawks in our party, I suppose.

Thankfully, reason prevailed. There are more statesmanlike people in my party who held a dominant position there. They said we do not bring down a government and trigger an election out of pure anger and polarity because that is the wrong motivation. I was told we have to consider the ramifications and the implications of what we are about to do because there are worthy, worthwhile things in the pipeline.

Most of those measures were in fact generated because of pressure from the opposition parties in this minority Parliament. There were things of merit that were half-way done. The Liberal government said that it did not want to have an election now because of all these worthwhile things.

We have accommodated every consideration that the Liberals raised, every reason not to blow their heads off. We have taken that into account, and considered and proposed a reasonable compromise solution which the Liberals dismiss.

First, the government said it was unconstitutional and it could not be done. We dealt with that argument in a matter of 15 minutes or so. Then the government said it was unparliamentary and there was no precedent to call upon the Governor General at some future time. We disregarded that. There is no such argument. We have the authorities that indicate what we are proposing is completely within the purview of Parliament and completely constitutionally correct.

Now the Liberals are objecting for the sake of objecting, so that they can hang on to power for another two or three months to bribe Canadians with their own tax dollars. The government is trying to blackmail Canadians when the threat of bringing down the government becomes a reality.

This is what is really offensive and perhaps what offends me most about the whole last couple of weeks. The government went to first nations and said, “You know how you've been waiting for social justice for the last 150 years or so? You know how the Indian Act has been 130 years of social tragedy? Guess what, we're going to fix all that”. However, the government said that the NDP and the opposition parties are going to bring down the government before it can get a chance. It was finally going to address the despair and the misery that first nations deal with. It was just about to get around to that and now the big, bad NDP, the Conservatives and the Bloc are going to stop the government from solving all the social ills of first nations.

The government dispatched the PMO right across the country to contact every aboriginal leader, every first nation, Métis and Inuit leader to phone us and say, “The Liberals say if you guys bring down the government we are never going to get any social spending to solve this human tragedy that we are experiencing”.

Imagine exploiting the most underprivileged people in our society. How low does a government get to exploit human misery? My colleague says it is similar to stealing the nickels from a blind man's cup. It is disgraceful.

I want to make it clear right here and now that we did everything necessary to ensure that the first ministers meeting does in fact take place. This is what our proposal says. Those same aboriginal leaders should be calling the Liberal government and the Prime Minister, and saying, “Accept the opposition parties' reasonable proposal because that's the way we will ensure that the first ministers meeting does in fact take place”. The government is being completely disingenuous with how it spins this.

Frankly, these are the tactics that make my blood boil. I have tried to be reasonable in the eight years that I have been a member of Parliament. I have tried not to get angry about these issues. It has been an exercise in frustration to get this government to accommodate any of the reasonable positions that we bring forward.

Let us put it on the record today that it is the Liberal government that is threatening the success of the first ministers meeting, not the opposition parties. We have found a way to accommodate that and give the Canadian people a way to vent their spleen on the Liberal Party.

My final point is that there is no way on God's earth that this Liberal government should have the exclusive right to dictate the terms and conditions of its own day of reckoning. That is for the Canadian people to decide, not for a corrupt Liberal government.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having this opportunity to speak to this private member's bill. I compliment my colleague for putting this issue forward.

Speaking on behalf of the citizens in the riding of Winnipeg Centre, let me point out that the top of mind issues for them are crime and violence and safety on the streets.

I am not a bleeding heart. I believe the pendulum has swung too far the other way to the point where the emphasis is too much on the rights of the criminal and not enough on the rights of the victim. I say that with no fear of contradiction of my own party's policy.

This private member's bill speaks specifically of the impact that criminals have when operating near a school yard. It asks for special emphasis in terms of the criminal justice system in recognizing that added social threat. I can speak to that from personal experience. There are regions in the inner city core area of downtown Winnipeg where street crime and violence have reached epic proportions. People are absolutely fed up. Right next door to some of the worst hot spots for outbreaks of crime and violence are elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools and the University of Winnipeg.

Those individuals operating under the radar so to speak, whether they are dealing drugs, organizing prostitution or exploiting our youth in the sex trade, et cetera, and are doing so within the proximity of a school, should be treated with extra vigour by the courts through the criminal justice system.

I asked for the opportunity to join in the debate today to point out that some regions have made some progress by giving special authority to police officers and the courts to address regional outbursts. I am thinking specifically of Montreal. When gang violence was reaching epic proportions, the city augmented the authority of police officers so they might curtail that activity and not be hog-tied as it were and not have to fold their arms and watch the activity take place and have to meet a stringent burden of proof in order to interrupt that activity. That is what I am calling for in the riding of Winnipeg Centre.

Recently I wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice asking him to meet with the Attorney General of Manitoba to authorize special powers, even on an interim basis, so that police officers could do their job more effectively. That means something as simple as being able to interrupt that activity without meeting the burden of proof which exists today. Some would call this an infringement on rights and freedoms, but I think it is a fair trade-off in the case of some of the outrageous activity that goes on in my riding, in the inner city in close proximity to elementary schools and junior high schools.

If it ever comes to choosing between the rights of the criminal and the rights of kids to go to school free of interference by criminals in their neighbourhood, I will err on the side of the kids every time.There should not even be a debate about it in the House of Commons.

The member who put forward this bill did so in good faith to address a specific nuisance in his own community. I am here to tell everyone that same situation can be found all across Canada, from the downtown east side in Vancouver to the inner city of Winnipeg, to Toronto, to Montreal. We have to interrupt this growing trend.

If there is any lesson we can learn from the inner cities of other countries, and I sometimes look at the crime and violence in the United States that has blighted communities, it is that we need to intervene now while the problem is still manageable.

I am not proud of this but I have had residents come to my office to tell me that they do not allow their children to sleep in bedrooms with outside walls for fear of stray bullets coming through the walls and hurting their children. It is terrible to have to consider that the drug related gun play in some communities has reached the point that a mother has to consider where in the house the child will sleep that night to be free from danger stemming from the gun play going on.

I am not saying that it is gun play that always results in someone being hurt. Sometimes it is just these guys playing with their guns in the back alleys. Almost every night gunfire can be heard on the streets of the inner city of Winnipeg and it is punks firing off their guns in the back lanes virtually free of interference.

I will vote and be proud to vote for anything that will give our law enforcement officers the right tools to curtail this activity, and I see no contradiction in that.

I cannot imagine anyone in the House speaking openly against an initiative that would give our law enforcement officers the tools they need. The beauty of private members' business is that it is always a free vote, in my party at least. Some people have different ideas and believe we need to deal with the crime and the root causes of crime. However if we are going to look at a lasting solution, obviously we need to have balance in the way we view these things.

However there does come a time when citizens need to put down their foot and say, “We have been patient, we have been understanding and we have tried our best to meet the social ills that may be the underlying root causes of the violence that is breaking out on our streets but it is time to put safety first”. Once the streets are safe, then we can address the underlying root causes.

I do not think we can fix the problem in the midst of the maelstrom of illegal activity that happens on a day to day basis. We need to move in with swift and harsh justice to make the streets safe and then take a step back and put in place the foundations for addressing the underlying root causes of poverty, poor housing, et cetera, which may be what generated the social ills that we see in the inner city.

I wanted to take this opportunity today in the twilight moments of this Parliament to emphasize, once and for all, that when I hear the citizens of the inner city riding of Winnipeg Centre tell me that their number one concern is crime and safety on the streets, I will do all I can to support measures that will address their concerns so they can raise their children in an environment that is safe and not feel threatened in their own back yard.

[Pacific Gateway Act, November 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask my colleague from St. Boniface a few things regarding his speech. Bill C-68, with the new gateway strategy, has some merit in that we are all hoping that we can diversify our trade alliances and not be quite as reliant as we have been on the north-south traffic as the overwhelming dominant force in our trade strategy.

I would ask the hon. member if that trade strategy with China and India and developing nations would take in more than just trade documents and trade agreements? It would take infrastructure as well.

The Liberal government is currently engaged in the sale of the Prince Rupert terminal under a cloud of secrecy, a veil of secrecy. Perhaps he can answer this and shed some light on it. It looks as though a fixture worth hundreds of millions of dollars, a public asset, will be sold for $3 million or $4 million as the going price, with no open tendering practice, and no ability to ensure that we are getting the best value possible for our crown asset that is the Prince Rupert terminal.

Would the hon. member explain to me how this kind of secrecy and this kind of treatment of our public assets is in keeping with the overall impetus to expand the trade and the gateway?

[Question No. 213, November 16th, 2005]

With regard to soldiers affected by Order in Council 1946-3264: ( a ) how many soldiers were affected by this Order in Council; ( b ) how many of these soldiers are still alive; ( c ) how much money did the government save by deeming these soldiers never to have served in the Canadian Forces; ( d ) how much would it cost for the government to rescind Order in Council 1946-3264 and extend veteran's benefits to those affected; and ( e ) has the government received requests from individual soldiers, or their respective families, to overturn this Order in Council and/or have their record changed to reflect their service in the Canadian Forces and therefore their eligibility for veterans' benefits and, if so, how many requests of this nature has the government received since August 14, 1946?

(Return tabled)

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon made many interesting points in his address. He does an excellent job in chairing the committee on access to information when the chair, the member for Westlock—St. Paul, is not able to be in Ottawa.

He commented that he doubts if the Liberal government is interested in bringing true transparency to Ottawa. I would ask him for his views on the fact that in reaction to the sponsorship scandal, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works have introduced no fewer than 273 measures adding to the complexity of an already mind-numbingly complex government administration. If anything, rather than implementing meaningful changes to the Access to Information Act and in fact deputizing 30 million auditors who could scrutinize the workings of government, they have added to the complexity to make it almost incomprehensible what really goes on in Ottawa. Could the member comment on that glaring contradiction?

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière not only for his excellent speech but for his longstanding commitment to the issue of freedom of information, something we all recognize and appreciate.

He and I have both listened to the speakers from the Liberal Party on the subject of this opposition day motion. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister stated in his remarks that “the various components of this complex subject must be studied first before we proceed”.

I would ask the hon. member to comment. Does he not agree with me that this subject has been studied and studied ad nauseam, ad infinitum? We have studied this issue to death for a decade or more.

Does he not agree that it was offensive when the Minister of Justice came before our committee and tabled a discussion paper so that we might begin the process of studying the issue rather than proceeding with legislation? Would he agree with me that the Liberals deliberately stalled, undermined and sabotaged meaningful reform by taking this route?

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the parliamentary secretary. Now that we have the official party line from my colleague, what does he really think? I would like to know what his gut feelings are about the freedom of information laws as they affect the larger picture of the health of our democracy.

I did not hear a lot of passion in his comments. They were more technical answers to the specific language in the motion put forward by the Conservative Party. I am wondering if the member shares the passion of other members of Parliament as they spoke about how critically important and vital freedom of information is to the health and well-being of our democratic system and how the paucity of freedom of information has led to the culture of secrecy that has allowed corruption to flourish.

I would like to hear from my colleague in his own words if he shares our view that the single most important thing we could do in these twilight days of the 38th Parliament would be to reform the access to information laws completely so that freedom of information, transparency and accountability are no longer buzzwords in Ottawa, but in actual fact are practised.

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his remarks. In reading the motion put forward by the Conservative Party, it gives me a sense of hope that we may be able to smash down the barrier put up by 13 years of Liberal obstinance and stubbornness on the issue of access to information.

Would the member give us an indication if his sentiments are shared by his entire caucus and the leadership of his party? We are at the death rattle of the government and we will witness a new government being formed. If a new government is put in place in the coming days, is the member able to commit to us that his government will put in place meaningful access to information reform as the number one priority item in a new regime of a new Conservative minority government?

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the secrecy has translated into lost opportunity on more than one level; first, the administration and control over our crown public assets; and, second, the lack of confidence in investors. For example, we do not know if $3 million is the best possible price we can get for an asset that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be useful to shine the light of day, shine some sunlight, on that particular deal. It is a good graphic illustration where freedom of information and the right to know may have a material benefit for Canadians.