Pat Martin

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have had phone calls from prairie grain producers who admit they voted for Conservatives but who are furious that they are going to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

The grain producers told me they were always led to understand that the minister would allow them to have a vote, as the legislation says, on the future of how they want to market their grain.

If the government wants to give prairie farmers more choice in how they get to market their grain, why will it not let them have the democratic vote that is statutorily theirs in the legislation?

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it made sense, in a way, when I learned last week that the Minister of Agriculture is actually an ostrich farmer because he surely has his head in the sand when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board.

He has displayed a wilful blindness to any reason, or logic, or democracy, or even economics when it comes to his irrational, ideological crusade to legislate out of business the largest and most successful grain marketing company in the world.

If the government is so determined to destroy this great Canadian institution, where is the business case? Where is the cost benefit analysis? Where is the impact study? Where is the liability assessment?

[Business of Supply, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Huron—Bruce says he is passionate about this issue. However, I detected a distinct absence of passion and perhaps even an absence of recognition that we are facing a demographic crisis in this country as an aging population is left with insufficient resources to enjoy the dignified senior years that he was waxing eloquently about a couple of minutes ago.

Let me ask him about the double whammy that is facing us.

In the post-war years, we tried to address seniors' poverty and we did put in place measures that drastically reduced seniors' poverty. However, that curve has turned. It has hit bottom and is rising back up again. At a time that we have this exploding demographic blip of baby boomers reaching their retirement years, we have an assault on pensions; not only an unwillingness to increase the state-sponsored pensions but Thomas d'Aquino, in his wisdom, 10 years ago declared war on the defined benefit pension system and then he systematically set about to attack it at every turn. Now they are blaming so-called legacy costs on lack of productivity. It is an attack on pensions just when the demographics of the country indicate and dictate that we should be expanding, broadening and enhancing pensions.

How does the member explain this contradiction and a lack of action by his government on either of those fronts?

[Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, seeing that we have a couple of minutes left, I think it is incumbent upon us to explore the innovations put forward in the bill to the greatest extent possible.

I am particularly interested in the theme of the proceeds of crime that my colleague was just addressing. It is a big ball of wax if we start to reverse the onus on people. I am just wondering how, in the context of her initiatives, she dealt with the implied infringement of civil liberties associated with seizing the assets. How is the burden of proof measured? What is the test they would contemplate in proving that the goodies one plays with are not the proceeds of crime? We need to establish these things and it is worth--

[Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, agree that Quebec has taken some extraordinary necessary steps to deal with organized crime because the province of Quebec has been plagued with extraordinary problems with biker gangs. I sympathize with that fully. My province of Manitoba is similarly cursed with the overwhelming influence of organized crime in the form of biker gangs.

Would the hon. member briefly comment on another initiative in this same vein, whereby we could seize the proceeds of crime from bikers? Nothing bothers police and criminal justice officials more than driving past a biker leader's house to see that he has a boat, a car, a Ski-Doo, a Cadillac, an Escalade and no visible means of support for the last 20 years. Would she agree that we should be able to put a reverse onus bikers? If the bikers cannot prove where they got the money to buy all that stuff, we should be able to seize it from them, auction it off and put that money toward further prosecutions?

[Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's opinion and views I have the utmost respect for. He speaks from vast experience and knowledge of the criminal justice system when he shares his views today on the problems we face with these megatrials collapsing under their own weight.

I am wondering if my colleague has taken note and observed the problem in the province of Manitoba of actively trying to curb the activities of the criminal element of bikers. Some of the worst biker wars the country has ever seen, second only perhaps to Montreal, were playing out on the streets of Winnipeg. We should stop calling them biker gangs as it has kind of a cachet to it. This is one gang of organized criminals fighting another gang of organized criminals over the same turf.

After years and years of detailed investigation, when we finally compiled enough evidence to lay charges, 30 and 40 charges at a time, we built a separate courthouse. We were so concerned about the safety of witnesses, et cetera, we built an independent, free-standing courthouse. I believe it cost $28 million for the courthouse alone. Because of the bogging down of proceedings, et cetera, this trial collapsed under its own weight, the courthouse was never even used and not a single person ever gave testimony because the lawyers played the system to the point where the criminals thumbed their nose at us and walked away.

I would ask my colleague to share with us whether he is satisfied that the bill we are going to give speedy passage to today would satisfy the concerns that led to the farce in Manitoba where the bikers won and the public lost.

[Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor for making reference in his comments to the terrible time that we have had in the province of Manitoba, which I suppose leads toward the argument for the need of this bill. Until now and until the time we get this bill passed, it does concern me that organized crime is laughing at us. It really is.

In my industry of construction, we have now learned that to a huge extent the bikers, especially, have infiltrated it as a perfect way to launder drug money. These guys have warehouses of $20 bills that they cannot use because they are hot dollars. They are called “labour pimps” because they become labour brokers. They contract out 20 or 30 illegal immigrants to legitimate contractors as cheap labour. They pay them $20 an hour with drug money, half the going rate, and then get reimbursed by the contractor with real dollars. It is ubiquitous across British Columbia. It is undermining the integrity of the entire tendering and contracting process in British Columbia because if contractors do not use the biker “labour pimps”, they will not win a contract because their labour costs will be legitimate while their labour costs are paid with drug money.

The biker trial, the “show trial”, in Manitoba collapsed under its own weight. Could the hon. member assure us that this bill that we have agreed to fast track and support will ameliorate this embarrassment where these bikers are thumbing their noses at Canadians knowing full well that we do not have the capacity to bring justice through our court system as it currently stands?

[Petitions, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I read this petition every day in exactly the same format. If it does not offend the minister over and over again the hundreds of times he has heard it, I do not know why it offends him now.

These petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad, and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention being debated this week, in fact, in Europe.

[Petitions, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by literally thousands of Canadians from all over Canada who call upon Parliament to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known.

The petitioners point out that more Canadians now die from asbestos than from all other industrial and occupational causes combined. They also point out that Canada still remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world and spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry. These signatories call it, “corporate welfare for corporate serial killers”. They criticize the government for blocking international efforts designed to curb its use.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for all asbestos workers who may be displaced--

[Petitions, June 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of literally thousands of Canadians from all across Canada who call upon Parliament to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. In fact, they point out that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined and yet they say that Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world. Not only that, they say that Canada spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry, which these signatories refer to as corporate welfare for corporate serial killers, and it blocks international efforts to curb its use.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all its forms and to institute a just transition program for any asbestos workers laid off. They also call upon the government to end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad.

Finally, the petitioners call upon the government to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.