Pat Martin

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from the Liberal Party how he squares the circle of speaking today about trafficking of human beings and introducing legislation to that effect, and the fact that the Government of Canada for years has been pimping for the underworld by bringing Romanian strippers to work in Canadian strip joints, some of them owned by prominent Liberal lawyers in Toronto, and then losing track of these women into the pornography and sex trade underworld in Canada.

I want to know how a Liberal member of Parliament can stand and talk about passing legislation on sex trafficking of women when the Government of Canada, by policy, has been pimping for underworld practitioners by dragging these exploited women from eastern European countries into brothels and strip joints owned by prominent Liberal immigration lawyers in the city of Toronto. How does he justify that?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as we are running out of time in the debate, my only concern is that the question the member seems to be asking seems to be directed to the previous speaker and not to me. I would very much like the opportunity to answer any questions he may have about the speech that I made.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me in these final moments of this stage of the debate on Bill C-38. I was watching the debate from the comfort of my office and noticed by the tone and the content of some of the comments being made by the members opposite that they might benefit from one simple point of view. I rushed over here to share that with them.

The message to them is simply this. If they do not support same sex marriage, they should not marry somebody of the same sex. They should marry somebody of the opposite sex. Then everyone would be happy and they would have less to be so cantankerous about. That is my simple advice. If they do not support same sex marriage, they should not marry somebody of the same sex. It really is quite simple.

There is another point that I wanted to share. It just came over the wire recently while I was in my office. It is a press release from the United Church of Canada. It was released today. The heading states, “United Church of Canada urges Parliament to vote in favour of same-sex marriage”. It reads:

In a statement released today, The United Church has called on the Canadian government to move in a timely way to end the debate on Bill C-38 and to vote in favour of same-sex marriage legislation.

“Marriage will be enhanced, not diminished, religious freedom will be protected, not threatened, and Canadian society will be strengthened, not weakened, as a result of this legislation”...

That was said by the chair of the justice, global and ecumenical relations unit of the United Church of Canada.

I ask my colleagues, whose points have been raised in at least a quasi-religious context, to please take note of this message from the United Church of Canada today.

The church goes on to say that:

further rancorous debate over this issue will only serve to polarize positions rather than contribute to building a strong civil society based on the values of inclusion, diversity, mutual respect and fairness.

These are strong sentiments coming from the leaders of the United Church of Canada, who have been watching, I can imagine, with the same sort of dismay that we all share when we see some of the points made today.

I think there is benefit in reading for members this viewpoint from the United Church. The chair of the justice, global and ecumenical relations unit said:

“Religious marriage is not and cannot be affected by this proposed legislation”...He says all religious communities in Canada, whatever their views on same-sex marriage, have the absolute right to determine for themselves who will be eligible for religious marriage within their communities.

Perhaps that gives some comfort to my colleagues, who are clearly upset about the advent of Bill C-38. The United Church also believes that:

the protection for conscientious objection to performing same-sex marriages, which is provided by the Charter and affirmed in the proposed legislation, does not conflict with the right of same sex-couples to marry.

“The enactment of the proposed legislation means that same-sex couples will be able to obtain civil marriage,” explains [the chair of the committee]. He adds that while same-sex couples may not be able to obtain religious marriage, depending on the views of a particular faith community, that is also the case for many other couples such as interfaith couples.

In the case of my own parents, the Catholic church would not marry my parents in the Catholic church because my father was about to marry a heathen Protestant, and the Catholic church would not have it at the time. It was not a charter issue. It was matter of religious freedom. They got married elsewhere.

I wanted to raise this matter tonight. I was not going to enter into the debate, but when this came across my fax machine just one hour ago I felt it necessary to share this because I thought it might bring some comfort to my colleagues, who are clearly not comfortable yet with what is going on today.

The closing line of the press release is particularly powerful. It states:

Freedom of religion does not trump equality, nor does equality trump freedom of religion; the rights must co-exist.

That is the balance we seek today. That is what we strive to achieve: to balance these competing interests. I do not view them as competing interests, but some do. One does not trump the other. They can and do and will co-exist and make our society stronger, not weaker.

Nothing about allowing same sex couples to marry diminishes in any way my heterosexual marriage. Equality is not some finite pie, that if we give more to one group, the other group has to do with less. In fact, my rights grow as they are extended to others. Freedom is only privilege extended until it is enjoyed by everyone. These are the basic fundamental concepts we are dealing with tonight.

I note that people have mobilized around the country on this issue. I wish they would mobilize about issues such as child poverty or global warming with the same degree of passion that they bring to this debate. However, from my point of view, I do not feel threatened when loving couples want to have their commitment to each other ratified and confirmed by an institution like the state of marriage. Others should not feel threatened by that either.

We should take some guidance from the United Church when it says also that it believes the protection for conscientious objection it guarantees, which is provided by the charter and affirmed by the proposed legislation, will not conflict with the right of same sex couples to marry.

These are important principles. I hope that this has some calming influence on my colleagues. Maybe they will sleep better tonight when they know that one of the major religious institutions of the country is urging Parliament to vote in favour of same sex marriage. It is calling upon the Canadian government to move in a timely fashion to end the debate on Bill C-38, which is what we did only an hour earlier when we voted to limit the amount of time we commit to this, and urging again for all members of Parliament to vote in favour of the same sex marriage legislation.

If that is useful to my colleagues, I offer that as providing some comfort to them. If they have any questions, I would be happy to expand on it. I will reiterate one last time that those who do not support same sex marriage should not marry somebody of the same sex, and then perhaps they will not be so conflicted with what is going on today. They should marry somebody of the opposite sex.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for his enlightening words. I must say that it is always a pleasure to listen to such a cultivated individual as my colleague from the Yukon as he shares his views in such an eloquent fashion.

I would like his views on one aspect of what is known as the NDP's better balanced budget deal, an aspect that is not raised as frequently as it should be. It is the element that I am perhaps most proud of and is something that is not found so much in Bill C-48 as it is in Bill C-55: the wage protection fund.

The workers' wage protection fund was part of the negotiations between the NDP and the Liberals. It is a special fund whereby in the event of bankruptcy workers would not have to wait their turn with the other unsecured creditors when the trustee is discharging the proceeds from the assets of the bankrupt company.

This is important because there are many commercial bankruptcies in Canada in which the employees are owed back wages, holiday pay or pension contributions. I think it was an incredibly compassionate move on the part of the two principal parties who negotiated this deal to include these unemployed workers who may be owed back wages, et cetera. This will find itself in Bill C-55.

I would ask my colleague from Yukon if he could enlighten me as to how a party that used to call itself the grassroots party could turn its back on unemployed, grassroots, individual workers who were victims of a bankruptcy and who would not get their back wages. Now they will. I wonder if he could enlighten me on how any party that professes to stand up for working people could vote against a wage protection fund on behalf of working people.

[Treaties Act, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to wade into the debate on treaties and the jurisdiction associated with entering into them. I have been listening to the debate and feel that I understand the motivation of the member who put the bill forward.

Many of us have said openly and clearly that we wish as parliamentarians that we had more input into the treaty-making process, the executive right to enter into bilateral treaties, not only in the ratification process but the development stages as well. Many of us feel that the most influential treaties of our time would have benefited greatly had there been more parliamentary oversight and more input prior to putting pen on paper.

I am mindful of the fact that there are complications dealing with federal-provincial jurisdictions. There are sensitive areas associated with this particular bill which we should be very cautious about. In our interest in having more input and more say as parliamentarians, we do not welcome opening the door to interfering with the rights and the authorities of the federal government to act in the public interest. We do not want self-interest to get in the way of the common interest of the nation state of Canada.

We understand that treaties are international relationships. One that has been top of mind for me in recent years has been the Boundary Waters Treaty between Canada and the United States. It is one of the earliest treaties on record between our two countries and one of the most necessary.

We are all aware that throughout history downstream water rights have been fundamental and critically important in developing and maintaining the relationship between Canada and the United States. As long ago in history as the Magna Carta there was reference to downstream water rights. It is critical. Good neighbours have to be mindful of the rights and the interests of those downstream.

We have seen treaties develop. We have seen trade agreements develop in more recent years without very much input from parliamentarians. Even with the ratification process, many people feel that we would benefit from more involvement and more input of elected officials and not just the executive branch of government.

It is incumbent on the nation state of Canada to ensure that its provinces are in compliance with international treaties. It is as critical that the United States keep a tight rein on its individual states so they stay in compliance with the treaty relationship.

With respect to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, we are seeing one rogue state, North Dakota, threatening to violate it by diverting water from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River into the Red River, and ultimately into Lake Winnipeg. That is not only contrary to the laws of nature in that the interbasin transfer of water is surely a violation of the normal scheme of things and a dangerous precedent, but it is also a violation of our national sovereignty.

This interference with our downstream water rights is devastating to our well-being. It is also a violation of Mother Nature. It is a catastrophic environmental idea because of the invasive species and biota that may be introduced into a whole other ecosystem, an ecosystem that has been separated since the last ice age, where unique individual species have developed in these two watersheds.

I cannot overstate how catastrophic this could be. Aggressive, invasive species, once they are into Lake Winnipeg and the watershed that flows into Hudson Bay, could also work their way back across Saskatchewan, across Alberta, because this watershed, this basin is one of the largest in the world.

The catchment area that flows into all of the Hudson Bay region could be affected by the biota, by the parasites that we know to exist in Devils Lake that exist nowhere else. They are parasites that sucker themselves onto the gills of fish. They are parasites that could wipe out the largest freshwater fishery in all of North America. The largest freshwater fishery in North America is in Lake Winnipeg. It is at risk. There are real environmental consequences and real economic consequences for the province of Manitoba should this Boundary Waters Treaty be violated.

No one province should have too much control over a national treaty. This is where I find fault with the bill we are debating. There are good reasons that no one rogue province and no one rogue state should be able to unilaterally alter or compromise international treaties that exist between nation-states. There is only one nation-state that we are dealing with in the Parliament of Canada. It is the nation-state of Canada. That is all there is. I do not want to encourage or lend succour or support in any way to anyone who envisions some other nation-state within these hallowed chambers.

When we contemplate treaties, we contemplate treaties between the nation-state of Canada and the nation-state, in the case of the Boundary Waters Treaty, of the United States. Perhaps the best graphic illustration of why there should not be provincial jurisdiction over national treaties is what is happening in North Dakota today.

Here is an example. This is happening to us because one rogue state is not listening to its nation-state in the United States. In the state of North Dakota, the governor is stubbornly refusing to comply with a treaty that his national government, that he should respect, entered into in 1909.

The issue of treaties is all about respect in the truest sense. If we respect our neighbours, we make treaty with them. This is how aboriginal people talk about it, making treaty. A treaty is not just a piece of paper; making treaty is a compact. It goes beyond the written word.

The physical manifestation of the treaty is the least of the treaty. It is the smallest part of the treaty. The real component of a treaty is the trust relationship that one is entering into that goes beyond. It is up to the federal government to enter into that treaty on behalf of all of its component parts, the individual provinces. It is up to the nation of the United States on behalf of all of its component elements in a federal state.

That is why federal states are the most difficult to hold together. I suppose there is good reason that there are less than 20 federal states, federal countries in the world. Federalism is difficult at the best of times. There are diverse views being cobbled together with a loosely knit coalition. That is what federalism is.

In recent memory, of those 20 federalist states, three have blown themselves apart: Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and Canada has come very, very close. Federations are precious entities. They are the realization of a collective will to build something that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is a precious thing for which we should all have respect. Treaties should be respected nation to nation and not be allowed to be diminished or undermined by any one rogue province or rogue state.

[Zonolite Insulation, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I inform the House that Zonolite insulation has claimed another life. Yesterday morning, my constituent Rebecca Bruce died of mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. She was only 47 and will be sadly missed by her husband Dennis and her two sons, Sidney and Shawn.

Rebecca's sister, Raven Thundersky, has struggled for years to have the health risks of asbestos-laden Zonolite addressed. They grew up on the Poplar River Indian Reserve in a house insulated with Zonolite, and now this Zonolite is killing them at an alarming rate. Rebecca is the fourth to die in a family of eight.

Today we honour the spirit of Rebecca Bruce, another aboriginal woman forced to live in substandard housing, another aboriginal woman murdered by the W.R. Grace Company, which sold Zonolite long after it knew it was contaminated with deadly tremolite asbestos.

Tomorrow, in her memory, we pledge to fight for all asbestos victims and to continue the fight to protect Canadians from deadly Zonolite insulation.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the tone of this debate worries me. We are only an hour into it and the partisan jabs are taking away from the seriousness of this issue.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is right that the government has been on this file as long as the Government of Manitoba has been on this file. I personally went to Washington with the former minister of foreign affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, in 1999 to make our case at that time. We stated that whatever model the Americans were proposing would be catastrophic because the interbasin transfer of water is something we have to speak out against and we have to demand respect for the Boundary Waters Treaty.

We are at the 11th hour and this is not a time for partisan bickering from the Tories. I was hoping that we could stand united as the Canadian House of Commons and send that united message to our negotiators in the United States, federal and provincial, so that they can convince their American counterparts that Canada is seized of this issue and that our Parliament is speaking with one voice to implore them to reverse this catastrophic decision.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to question my colleague from St. John's East on some of the misinformation that he has been spreading today. I know that my colleague is a former ironworker as I am a former carpenter, both former representatives of the building trades. I am wondering how he is going to explain to the working people in his riding that his party is opposed to just two examples of our better balanced budget, Bill C-48.

One example is the energy retrofit fund. Homeowners in St. John's will be able to retrofit their homes, creating jobs for building trades workers, reducing their operating costs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They will get a grant to do that. I wonder if he has canvassed the working people in St. John's East to see if they would be critical of that.

The second thing that he would have a hard time explaining voting against would be the wage protection fund that the NDP managed to negotiate on behalf of working people in Canada. In the event of bankruptcy there would be a fund whereby people could draw the back wages owing to them instead of having to wait for years for the trustees in bankruptcy to discharge the assets of the bankrupt company.

How does he explain to the good people of St. John's that he is going to vote against those two very good ideas?

[Petitions, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of many residents of Winnipeg Centre who have put forward this issue, I would like to present a petition which recognizes that juvenile gang activity in Winnipeg has reached epic, crisis proportions.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to enforce the current provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to amend the act so that youths of 13 years of age and over may be charged as adults and that parents be held accountable for the criminal activities of their children aged 12 and under. The petitioners draw the attention of Parliament to this issue.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kootenay--Columbia is too good an MP to honestly believe the speech that he was sent in here to read. He knows and I know, and I think most are aware, that it is so packed full of misinformation that it really constitutes their gnashing of teeth and shaking their fists from the sidelines because they have been left out of what is really going on in Parliament today.

I would only ask my hon. colleague if he would not agree that it is the role of a good opposition party to use whatever political leverage and political capital it may have to advance its legislative agenda. Would he not agree that that is what the NDP has done, whereas his own party, with even more seats, has failed to do so?