Paul Martin

[Sponsorship Program, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member talks about having things in common, let us look at what we have in common: the elimination of the deficit and the creation of the national child benefit. Who was the person who said that we would not send troops into Iraq when he was trying to be forced by the Leader of the Opposition as he is involved in that?

Yes, I am very proud of what the last government did and I am very proud that I was part of it.

We will get to the bottom of what happened, which is why we created the Gomery commission.

[Sponsorship Program, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, by what strange logic does the member make his statements?

The fact is, this is the party, this is the government that set up the commission. We did it because we want to get to the bottom of all of those questions. We want an open and transparent process.

All we have seen since this all began has been the Leader of the Opposition standing up time after time, throwing obstacles in the way and trying to subvert the process of the commission. That is what he has done. Now all of a sudden he is trying to say that he supports it. It just does not wash.

[Lawrence O'Brien, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Lawrence O'Brien was Alice's husband. He was Michael and Amanda's father. He was one of many brothers and sisters, and his family was the centre of his life.

For eight years, Lawrence O'Brien was a member of this House. Before that, he was a teacher of children and adults and worked as a municipal councillor.

In each of these positions, all through his life, Lawrence served the people. He was someone who gave more than he took, and whose deepest motivation was to help the people of Labrador.

Last fall when the time came for the vote on the Speech from the Throne, it was going to be close. Lawrence O'Brien was in a hospital in Labrador battling cancer. I spoke to him on the phone. He told me he was coming in for the vote. I told him not to come, but he came anyway. He never listened.

Lawrence O'Brien was a passionate and tireless advocate for his beliefs. Those who knew him will know what an understatement it is to call his interventions vigorous and spirited. When he was done telling someone what the virtues and the importance of CFB Goose Bay were, that person was ready not only to defend the base in cabinet but ready to pick up a hammer and saw to build a new mess hall.

Lawrence O'Brien was a Labradorian. I remember his speech during the debate on the amendment that would change the name of his province to Newfoundland and Labrador. With everyone's permission, I would like to read a passage from it:

There are still some who believe and will say that Labrador is just a part of Newfoundland. They fail or refuse to recognize our special character and our unique place. However, when we see the broad expanse of Lake Melville, nearly as large as Prince Edward Island, stretching through the horizon, when we stand at the bottom of theSaglek Fjord with 3,000 foot cliffs towering overhead, when 25,000 caribou come streaming over a barren hill in back of Double Mer, when we drive across the seemingly endless iron hills of the interior, a landscape that inspired the Group of Seven, or when we find an arrowhead or chip that was left by our aboriginal forefathers 5,000 years ago, it is hard to accept that this is just another part of Newfoundland.

Our land and our people make us unique, not better, just unique. Our identity, just like that of Newfoundland, Quebec, Nunavut or Alberta, is worthy of celebrating and recognizing.

It is a small thing, a simple thing, but from today on there will never again be any reason for forgetting

Such was the passion in his words and the conviction in his voice that when Lawrence finished speaking the deputy speaker rose and said, “For a moment I thought maybe we were leading to an amendment that would state 'the province of Labrador and Newfoundland'”.

Lawrence O'Brien was a man of honour and compassion. He was a man of principle. He was a man of character and integrity. He was a man of Labrador. He will be missed by the House. He will be missed by all of Labrador. He will be missed very, very much by his family. He was my friend and I will miss him.

[Foreign Affairs, January 31st, 2005]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I raised the question of human rights. We left 10 specific cases with the Chinese authorities to respond to. I raised the question of human rights with the President. I raised them with the Prime Minister. I raised them with every single member of the Chinese government that I met with. The issue is that when the hon. member had the opportunity to do so, he turned tail and ran.

[Foreign Affairs, January 31st, 2005]

Yes, Mr. Speaker--

[Foreign Affairs, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member ought to do is take a look at the amendments that were brought in some six months ago and some of the nominations that were made. Is it an opposition such as ours that we have in our parliamentary system? No, but it is the beginning of an opposition.

I want to go back to the fundamental issue. There is an opportunity around the world for parliamentarians to debate with other parliamentarians, to make the views of Canadians felt. The hon. member took a trip halfway around the world and when it came time for him on behalf of the Canadian people along with other parliamentarians to defend human rights, he skipped town. That is what he did.

[Foreign Affairs, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the fight for human rights must take place at all levels.

The fact is that there was a meeting of parliamentarians from both sides, the Chinese side and our side. Those meetings took place and the hon. member was not there.

I was there for part of it. In fact the question of human rights was raised. The fact is that the hon. member was not there. When he should have been fighting for human rights in China, he was in the Maple Leaf Lounge in Hong Kong.

[Foreign Affairs, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the family members had expressed their request to the ambassador that in fact their grief be honoured and that this not be turned into a media event.

The hon. member has missed the point. While he wanted to go there with the media, the fundamental issue is on that day there were meetings held between parliamentarians on our side and parliamentarians on the Chinese side, during which questions of human rights were discussed and the hon. member refused to go. He did not go and sit down with the parliamentarians where he could have made his point. Then he took a plane and cut loose. He skipped town.

[The Environment, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government takes the whole Kyoto agenda very seriously. This is one of the most important international agreements that globalization has brought forth. With the Russian ratification, what it now says essentially is that the international community has as its goal a major environmental target and all countries must do everything they possibly can to ensure that it succeeds. Canada will certainly do its part.

[Sponsorship Program, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic to hear the Leader of the Opposition now standing up attempting to defend the commission when for the last six months he and his party have done every single thing they could to subvert what the commission is doing, by standing up in the House of Commons misstating evidence, contradicting testimony that has been given, and taking things out of context.

They have tried to throw every obstacle they can in the way of the commission. They have not succeeded and they will not succeed.