Wayne Marston

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I am a little bit lost because I did not know it was the member's birthday. Congratulations and happy birthday. I am thrilled to hear it. We will not talk about her age, as she has already done that once.

In my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek this summer, as members heard in my statement earlier today, I was approached by many seniors who were extremely upset, in fact in tears, because they were getting an increase in a government pension of only 42¢ a month. Can we imagine what that felt like? Seniors expected more from the government, and they needed more. I would like to know from the member, what was the reaction in her community to this minuscule raise?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am little confused when I hear the member opposite talking about fiscal capacity when it was his leader who spoke to the Canadian Club and demanded that the government lower corporate taxes even further than it was planning on in the last budget.

Which side are you on?

[Seniors, November 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I proudly rise in the House today, I want to thank the electors of Hamilton East--Stoney Creek for voting to once again honour me with their trust to represent them in this place.

Members will know that many seniors have only their government pensions to sustain them. Earlier this summer, my staff received numerous complaints from seniors who began receiving letters from the government announcing their pensions were increasing by 42¢ a month. Members heard it correctly, a mere 42¢ a month. How insulting.

Now with this huge economic downturn facing Canada, we hear that Canadians must bail out this bank or that corporation. What can seniors expect from the government? History shows us that in hard economic times, the poor and the seniors on fixed incomes suffer the most, prices go up and their buying power goes down and they slip farther and farther behind.

The government needs to put a strategy forward for seniors, and I will fight to ensure that it does.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, did my Bloc friend across the way have the same sense of missed opportunity that I did when I first heard the throne speech?

Canadians were hoping for a dynamic document, something that would inspire people in these terrible times that we are going into. The throne speech offered nothing for seniors. It offered no child care for young families, no affordable housing and the jobs that would come with it.

Liberals will ask us on this side if we will vote against this and risk an election. My principles say that I am here to stand up for my constituents, the seniors and young families of Hamilton East--Stoney Creek. I definitely will be voting against something as uninspiring as the throne speech.

[Justice, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the incoming U.S. administration has been very clear about its intentions to get rid of the prison at Guantanamo. The president-elect has called it a “sad chapter in U.S. history”.

One citizen of one western country, only one, is still locked up there, a Canadian, Omar Khadr.

Would the Prime Minister rather Omar Khadr be extradited to the U.S. to be locked up in Leavenworth maximum security? Why would the Prime Minister not rather bring the tortured, young, broken boy back home to face the Canadian justice system?

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate our new friend from Thunder Bay—Superior North and welcome him to this place.

After hearing his first speech and his reference to the shocking lack of doctors in his community, it is similar across the country but it seems particularly terrible there.

We heard a lot of talk today about deficit and deficit spending. My colleague referred to the fact that corporate tax cuts for the big oil companies and banks were scheduled over the next number of years at the rate of about $14 billion a year. It would probably be a good idea if the government rescinded those.

I heard him also talk about loan guarantees. On the weekend past, I was in the Dewildt Chrysler dealership in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek talking to the owners about the problems they were having. Earlier today a government member talked about the number of auto sales. Where the issue is for the folks in these businesses is the restocking of their vehicles. They have been selling in fairly large numbers, but they need the investment money for restocking, bringing in the next models that they are going to put on the market.

Another member spoke as well about the rate of unemployment being 6.1%. Those were figures well over a month and a half ago and I am sure they are dramatically worse. Could the member tell us if the figure has been dramatically worse in the last six weeks in his riding as it has in mine?

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member from the Bloc heard the throne speech, was he as dismayed as I was? I waited to hear something around pensions, something for seniors, and it seemed to be lacking.

Is this not an opportune time for some kind of dynamic change to our employment insurance system? The reality is there is inequity about how many weeks people can be on EI, depending on what part of the country they are from. Quebec and Ontario workers seem to be penalized compared to other parts of the country.

I would put another point specifically for the member. Hearing the reports, it looks like the Prime Minister has now targeted the civil servants of our country and has made them scapegoats to divert attention from the real crisis we have at hand.

[Address in Reply, November 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the constituents of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for returning me to this place. They sent me here with the understanding that we would do better.

As I listened to the Speech from the Throne today, I realized that Canadians were hoping for more and New Democrats were certainly expecting more. I waited to hear about affordable housing, child care or an increase to the pensions of Canadians.

Just a few days before the election, a citizen came into my office. He brought a pronouncement from the government which informed him that his pension would increase by 42¢ a month. In times such as these, it takes me back to the late days of the Harris government in Ontario when one of its ministers said, “Let the poor eat tuna”. Are we returning to that?

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for the work she has done on the foreign affairs committee, her assistance on this report and for her very valued judgment and opinions.

If Omar Khadr is convicted, there is a good chance that he will spend the rest of his life in an American prison, perhaps even a military prison, which would be even worse for the young man.

If he comes back to Canada, Omar Khadr has a chance to prove to the world that he is salvageable, that he was simply a child combatant, a victim of the circumstances and a victim, to some extent, of his own father and his father's aspirations.

It is very important that this young man be given the opportunity to save what is left of his life.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented to the House on Tuesday, June 17, be concurred in.

This morning I will be sharing my time with my good friend from Windsor—Tecumseh.

On March 11 of this year, at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, I moved a motion to review the case of Omar Khadr and to report to the foreign affairs committee with recommendations to the government.

I did so for no political points, as has been suggested by the government. I did so because the handling of this case is so fundamental to Canadians' sense of what is just and their expectations that Canada will assume its responsibilities under the international covenants it signs.

As we know, the foreign affairs committee has tabled the subcommittee's report with the addition of the government's dissenting opinion.

At my first intervention in the committee, I said the fact that Omar Khadr's country has not given him the help that all Canadian citizens deserve is absolutely unacceptable. Omar Khadr was a boy, a child soldier of 15 years of age, when he was shot twice in the back and almost executed by American special forces.

Since that time, he has been held as a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay. While in custody, Omar has had to cope with what the American government refers to as enhanced interrogation techniques. For the past six years at Guantanamo, he has been held with adult detainees, and now Omar faces the very real possibility of a life sentence.

I have some quotes I would like to bring to this House from the committee report. They are from public testimony in our committee.

As was reported, Senator Roméo Dallaire said that:

Canada is heading down a slippery slope by failing to obey the United Nations conventions on child soldiers to which it is a signatory....

Senator Dallaire went on to say:

--the minute you start playing with human rights, with conventions, and with civil liberties in order to say you're doing it to protect yourself...you are no better than the guy who doesn't believe in them at all.

Former prosecutor David Crane, who was the Sierra Leone prosecutor for the United Nations, testified that he believes Khadr should be treated as a child soldier. Mr. Crane also said that he thought it important to bring Khadr back “and have his case fairly and openly considered in Canada”. Mr. Crane went on to testify further that “any child...just doesn't have the requisite mental capability to choose this particular situation, regardless of whether they volunteer or not”.

Democracy is a very, very fragile thing and often Canadians fail to realize this point. Perhaps that is because to get our Constitution all we had to do was write a nice letter to the Queen. Veterans of Canada's wars will tell us very quickly what the costs are of protecting and sustaining our democracy.

Our military forces in Afghanistan are tasked with enhancing the conditions under which a democracy might flourish there. Is it not ironic that a government with Canadian troops fighting in Afghanistan to protect the rights of the Afghani people will not protect the rights, under United Nations covenants, of Omar Khadr?

Recently released internal reports from Canadian officials say that Omar Khadr is “a good kid” and that he has not been radicalized. According to these reports, Mr. Khadr understands that he is in Guantanamo because of his family.

At this point, I would like to reiterate the committee's recommendations.

The committee recommended “that the Government of Canada demand the immediate termination of Military Commission proceedings against Omar Khadr”.

The committee expressed “its objection to the position stated by the United States that it reserves the right to detain Omar Khadr as an 'enemy combatant', notwithstanding an acquittal or the possible termination of proceedings”.

The committee recommended “that the Government of Canada demand Omar Khadr's release from US custody at Guantanamo Bay to the custody of Canadian law enforcement officers as soon as practical”.

The committee called “on the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate, and, if warranted, prosecute Omar Khadr for offences under Canadian [criminal] law”.

The committee went on to recommend “that the Government of Canada take such measures as are necessary to ensure that possible security concerns are appropriately and adequately addressed upon the repatriation of Omar Khadr”.

The committee called on “the Government of Canada to take appropriate measures that are consistent with Canada's obligations under Article 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and with Canadian law”.

In particular, the subcommittee called on “the relevant Canadian authorities to ensure that an appropriate rehabilitation and reintegration program is developed for Omar Khadr, which takes into account legitimate security concerns. To the extent necessary, such a program could place judicially enforceable conditions on Omar Khadr's conduct”.

Mr. Khadr's military lawyer, Lieutenant Commander Kuebler, has stated that “he would like to see Omar go from Guantanamo Bay to some situation in Canada where he has access to the rehabilitative services he needs to eventually transition and adjust and become a functioning member of society”.

Mr. Khadr's legal representative in Canada has put together a plan for his reintegration into Canadian society.

The proposed plan includes psychiatric treatment at the Toronto Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, religious counselling from an imam and a tiered integration program that would see Khadr closely monitored for as long as four years.

I submit to the House that Omar Khadr is salvageable. All he wants from his country, from his government, is another chance. Witness after witness at the subcommittee on human rights have said that Canada must petition the United States to repatriate Omar Khadr to Canada.

The Supreme Court has said that Omar Khadr's rights have been violated. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that the rights of detainees in Guantanamo have been violated.

Canadian officials are saying that Omar Khadr is not a threat and, instead, is a victim of his upbringing.

After six years of two successive governments failing Omar Khadr, it is time for his government to do the right thing and to help this young man salvage the rest of his life.

I will close today with a question asked so many times in various forms in the House. When will the Prime Minister listen to the committee, listen to Canadians and petition the United States government to release Omar Khadr to Canada?