Pat Martin

[Diamond Anniversary, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I am very pleased to extend congratulations, sincere best wishes and kindest regards to Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, on this, the 60th anniversary of their wedding, their diamond anniversary.

People all across Canada and throughout the Commonwealth join together in recognizing and paying tribute to a remarkable achievement of 60 years of marriage. Indeed, the whole world watched the magnificent ceremony at Westminster Abbey yesterday to mark the longest royal marriage in known history.

All weddings are public affairs but some couples more than others have to live in the full light of public life, no one more than the Queen and Prince Philip, as recent years have proved. The poet laureate of Great Britain spoke these words at the ceremony yesterday:

Love found a voice and spoke two names aloud--
two private names, though breezed through public air--

I speak for those of us in public life who have often marvelled at the poise, the dignity, and the character demonstrated by the Queen and Prince Philip as they performed their many duties, duties that often took them to this country.

Many Canadians have enjoyed seeing our Queen celebrate a trio of milestones in recent years: her Golden Jubilee marking 50 years of her reign, her 80th birthday, and now her 60th wedding anniversary.

The Queen and Prince Philip have earned our admiration, our affection and our esteem as an example of unwavering devotion, dedication, sense of duty and integrity. They are an inspiration to the loyal subjects in Canada and the Commonwealth.

In fact, Her Majesty has been a dutiful and steadfast influence and beacon of stability in a rapidly changing world.

On behalf of the NDP and the many Canadians who feel deeply proud of their monarchy, may they continue to share with us as they enjoy many more years of health, happiness and companionship.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate, now from the three opposition parties, I am a little surprised to learn, judging from the comments, that the NDP is the only party that will be opposing Bill C-3 at this stage.

I want to ask my colleague in the last minutes we have left in the debate on this subject today if my understanding is correct. Even though the Supreme Court overturned the security certificate provisions of the 1990s, when the Conservatives reintroduced Bill C-3, there were still the same controversial parts of this security certificate process, such as secret hearings, detention without charge or conviction, detention without knowing the evidence against a person, and a lack of an appeal process.

It seems to me, and I would ask my colleague to confirm this, that these are an affront to natural justice by anyone's definition and in any developed nation. Could he clarify that those are some of the reasons why the NDP cannot support this bill at this stage? Even if amendments may be possible at committee, these points alone are justifiable grounds to oppose this bill at second reading.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, it would appear that the NDP is the only party in the House that is opposing Bill C-3 at this stage. The others seem willing at least to allow it to go to committee to chip away at anything they disagree with. I would like my colleague to share some of his rationale with us.

I am still struck by the controversial parts of Bill C-3 where, even after the old process was struck down by the courts, the current security certificate process as contemplated by Bill C-3 would still include secret hearings, unlimited detention without charge or conviction, detention without knowing the evidence against oneself, which offends natural justice in just about every developed nation that I know, and the lack of an appeal process.

Those are pretty compelling reasons to oppose the bill, I would think. My colleague from the Bloc, who is a reasonable and rational man and whose opinion I have come to respect over the years, does not seem troubled enough by those problems with the bill to vote against the bill. I would ask him to explain by what reasoning he could toss reason out the window and support Bill C-3.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that in Bill C-3, one of the compromises, I suppose we could say, made by the Conservative government when it introduced the bill is that there will be special advocates as part of the security certificate process. It claims this will be enough to ensure that someone is representing the rights and the concerns of the accused and that at least the special advocate will be told the nature of the charges and why the person is being detained.

However, my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas points out that in the U.K. and New Zealand, where they do have special advocates for people being held, that it has been woefully inadequate. In the U.K., a special advocate in fact has resigned in protest recently, citing that he felt that his office was being used as an excuse to detain people unfairly. In other words, the special advocate did start advocating on behalf of the people detained and resigned.

Does the party of the hon. member agree that the special advocate is not an adequate compromise to ensure the rights of the detainees are being represented?

[Petitions, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from literally thousands of Canadians from all over Canada. They draw the attention of the House to the fact that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known, and yet Canada remains one of the largest producers of asbestos in the world. Canada still allows asbestos to be used in construction materials, textile products and even children's toys. The United States Senate recently unanimously passed a bill to ban asbestos.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all its forms, to end all government subsidies of the asbestos industry, and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention.

[Airbus, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the public inquiry might never happen, and the terms of the 1997 payment to Mr. Mulroney clearly stated that Mr. Mulroney agreed there was no political interference or vendettas in the Schreiber affair.

Now he says people are “still conducting their vendetta” and the government House leader says, “It was a previous Liberal government that launched a political vendetta against one of their enemies, and it had to pay the price for it”.

The agreed to terms of settlement have been breached. Why wait? The government can commence the process to reclaim the $2.1 million. We want our money back and we want it now.

[Airbus, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the terms of the defamation settlement with Brian Mulroney have been breached by the government House leader and by the 18th Prime Minister himself. Canadians want their $2.1 million back, although they may be willing to accept a little less if it is in cash. We do not want to wait for a public inquiry that may never happen for this.

Has the government started proceedings to recoup our money, or at the very least an investigation into the breach of the terms of settlement with Brian Mulroney?

[Airbus, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Schreiber might be the poster boy for everything that is wrong with corporate lobbyists, but in today's Ottawa one cannot swing a cat without hitting a well-connected Conservative corporate lobbyist. They say that the difference between lobbying and influence peddling is about five years in prison.

We do not need a public inquiry to know that corporate lobbyists are bastardizing democracy in Ottawa today, the same way they did with brown envelopes with Karlheinz Schreiber.

Will the government agree today to implement the federal lobbyist registration changes in the Federal Accountability Act, so we can put an end to this infestation of--

[Airbus, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if Karlheinz Schreiber is deported on December 1, we might as well cancel the whole public inquiry. It will be a complete waste of time and money. Maybe that is what the government wants.

Except then, the stink of corruption will continue to foul the hallways of Parliament and Canadians will always think that Ottawa is infested with corporate lobbyists buying off Canadian prime ministers with brown paper bags full of money and kickback schemes.

For the sake of the integrity of the public's confidence in their democratic institutions, will the Minister of Justice stay the deportation and keep Schreiber in Canada?

[Airbus, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, all three opposition parties agree that the ethics committee should study the Mulroney Airbus kickback scandal as well, because aspects of it fall squarely within the mandate of ours to ensure that public office-holders conduct themselves at the highest possible standard of ethics.

Will the government guarantee that it will tell its committee members to leave their anarchist handbooks at home and that they will not sabotage and undermine the democratic will committee with their shenanigans, their mischief and their hijinks?