Wayne Marston

[March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on December 7 I asked when the government was going to establish a plan to address the very serious plight of the manufacturing industry in our country. The response I got at that time from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry was full of rhetoric and complaints about the NDP. The response failed to address the question in a substantive way and resulted in my asking for further clarification tonight.

Since my question on December 7, Canada continues to lose manufacturing jobs and those left are hanging by a thread. In December there were 33,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in Canada than in the month of November.

I will also say that the parliamentary secretary was right when he said that the NDP supported measures and recommendations coming from the industry committee last year. However, one thing is clear, and that is that the budget has failed the manufacturing sector, but do not take my word for it. On February 26 Jay Myers, the president of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, said:

Manufacturing is the grassroots leader of innovation in this country, but I am not sure politicians are hearing that message.

He went on to say:

This budget worries me because it sends the message that a reduction in corporate tax rates is the silver bullet for the economy.

On February 27, Mr. Myers, again naming the finance minister, said he “doesn't seem to understand the seriousness of the problems facing industry in Canada today”.

On the same day, February 27, CAW president Buzz Hargrove was quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying:

This money should be the first part of a much bigger long term automotive strategy, not a one-time gesture to rally voters.

I hope the parliamentary secretary has come here tonight prepared to offer Canadian workers a better explanation of what his government intends to do to establish a forward looking, comprehensive manufacturing strategy that the industry says it needs and that Canadian workers expect from their federal government, a manufacturing strategy that not only protects existing jobs and helps prepare the industry for the job opportunities of tomorrow.

I look forward to the response from the parliamentary secretary.

[Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, multiple sclerosis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the central nervous system. Most commonly it begins in young adulthood. In Canada, it is the most common neurological disease affecting young adults.

When one learns that Canadians have one of the highest rates of MS in the world and that every day three more Canadians are diagnosed with MS, it would be easy to get discouraged. The dedicated volunteers and activists of the Hamilton chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada refuse to be discouraged. Their work in my community is inspiring.

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to attend a benefit for the Hamilton chapter. With over 500 people in attendance, it raised over $30,000 to fight MS in our community. I would like to recognize the work of John Fuca, whose family put on this eighth annual edition of this event in our community.

My sincerest thanks go out to Mr. Fuca and his family, along with the honorary MC, Angelo Mosca, former CFL player and member of the Canadian Football Hall of Fame, and all the other volunteers who made Sunday's event such an amazing success.

As a community, we can beat MS.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 28th, 2008]

With regards to sport infrastructure eligibility in the Building Canada program: (a) how has the government advertised and solicited applications for sport infrastructure projects; (b) how many applications have been received and where eligible; (c) what have been the infrastructure requests in the applications; (d) what is the total amount of funds dispersed for sport infrastructure under the Building Canada program; and (e) what applications have been accepted?

[The Environment, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday morning my constituents in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek awoke to a news story in the Hamilton Spectator, which announced that there would not be a full environmental assessment of Liberty Energy's plan to build and operate a power producing sludge, sewage and incinerator in East Hamilton. Environmentalists say that the potential exists for the plant to double Hamilton's level of cancer-causing dioxins and significantly increase other airborne toxins.

My constituents are worried. Citizens and environmentalists across Hamilton are also concerned that this plant would not only burn Hamilton's sludge, but we would see sludge-laden trucks on Hamilton's streets from Toronto and other areas.

Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has already had one debacle relative to incineration, namely the SWARU incinerator. Our citizens do not want a potential repeat with similar risk to our community as those which spewed from that high risk facility for years.

Hamilton city council unanimously called for a full environmental assessment. Local MPPs Andrea Horwath and Paul Miller have called for a full environmental assessment. Today I am joining the Hamilton city council, local MPPs—

[Petitions, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek citizens who share my concern about the environment.

The petitioners request that Parliament move quickly to expand Nahanni National Park Reserve to protect the entire South Nahanni watershed and Nahanni karst lands so as to secure this globally significant wilderness for future generations for Canadians and for the whole of the world.

[Credit Card Interest Rates, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants the government to show leadership and fairness by taking action for working and middle class families.

Hard-working Canadians deserve protection as consumers. The government should be capping credit card interest at no more than 5% above prime. Here are five reasons why credit card rates and the banks should be reined in.

One, today's interest rates are outrageous. Nineteen per cent or higher interest rates unfairly hurt working families.

Two, consumer debt is six times higher than in the 1980s, at $300 billion, and total household debt driven by high interest debt is over $1 trillion.

Three, families that used to be able to save 15% to 20% of their income now can only save an average of 2%. That will not be enough to retire on.

Four, the high costs of medications, training and of course child care are driving up the cost of essential items, forcing more hard-working families into debt.

Five, big banks are making record profits and are heading toward another $20 billion year as they gouge consumers.

The Conservative government has given massive corporate tax cuts that have benefited the big banks. The NDP wants to see the banks reined in, with capped credit card interest rates so that hard-working Canadians can meet the needs of their families.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the thing that is very striking about what we hear in the community is this. I will give one example that my caucus mates have shared. All of us have heard from teachers. Because of the tone in this place, they no longer wish to bring their students here.

The member asks me what I believe the long term effect of that will be. If people do not experience this place, if schools no longer want to talk about this place, if we do not encourage the democratic process for which this place should stand, then the young people will not learn and they will not want to be part of this process.

All the things that minimize democracy have to be challenged. That is what brought me to the point of raising my remarks earlier.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the question of the member for Halifax is insightful. In my remarks I referred to the fact that there was a chill across the country. It is in primarily our diverse communities. They feel they are being abandoned.

How the government members and the government itself can ignore the expert advice that came before the committee is beyond understanding. Clearly people are frightened for the well-being of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They see this as the beginning of the undermining of that charter.

It is baffling. The warnings that were given, and I used the word before, were cavalierly tossed aside by the government.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks, and in fact today in this House, we have seen some extraordinary things happen.

The House of Commons, in my estimation, should always be a place of debates that enhance and ensure that the expectations of Canadians of their justice system are met and exceeded. This place should always be a home of motions and bills and debates that raise the bar on human rights as well as the rights of citizens. Bill C-3 and its expected outcome would do just the opposite.

However, in this place, the tone of debate on Bill C-3 often mirrors a mediocrity and a nasty tone that one never would expect of parliamentarians present. We hear derisive remarks. We hear catcalls. We heard baiting in the form of the questions put forward on this bill that were they not so amateurish, might well have stood in the 1950s and been used by Senator McCarthy of the U.S.

Parliamentarians must reach to do better. We must move to a place in our debates that illuminates rather than obscures the makeup of any bill. As I said, Canadians expect this of their elected representatives. It is our responsibility to meet that expectation.

When I last spoke on Bill C-3, I advised the House of an occasion last summer when I had visited a Muslim friendship centre in Edmonton. At the centre, I met some new Canadians as well as some more-established Canadians from that Muslim community. Our discussions were wide-ranging and the topic of racism and discrimination came up.

A gentleman who had been in Canada some 30 years spoke up. He was well established. He said he had been contributing to the Edmonton society. From the other people in the room, it was very clear he was a leader who was well respected in his community and the broader community. The gentlemen told the story of how over the ensuing years following the tragic events of 9/11 investigative officers from CSIS would drop by to speak to him. He said that they wanted to know about all the money he was sending to his homeland and the terrorist groups he was supporting. He told them Canada was his homeland, but as a dutiful son, he had sent money home for 30 years to raise the standard of living of his family in his former country.

Some 40 years ago this year, I moved from New Brunswick to Ontario. For me, coming to Ontario, in the 1960s in particular, was something like moving to a new world. However, like the man in Alberta, many good Canadians from our own east coast send money home to their families to help support them back east.

In my opinion, what is happening to us as a country is nothing short of tragic. In my opinion as well, what is happening in the name of national security is an affront to our democratic processes.

As Canada rushed to follow the Americans' approach to, in their words, fight terrorism, we cast aside some of the most fundamental beliefs of Canadians. Just consider Bill C-3 and how it conflicts with the fundamental belief of Canadians that in Canada one has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I stand here today speaking on security certificates, and I regret that I am doing this. In our country, once so rightfully proud of our human rights record, our justice system and our positioning in the world, how did we reach this point?

After Bill C-3, Canadians will not be more free. And because of Bill C-3, they certainly should not feel any more secure. I believe, along with the rest of the NDP caucus, that Bill C-3 would continue to fail Canada and to fail Canadians.

The NDP opposes Bill C-3 for the most fundamental of reasons. Repeatedly, we have spoken to the fact that measures in our Criminal Code already give law enforcement the tools they need to deal with crimes against Canada and crimes against Canadians.

Security certificates themselves fail Canadians in a grand fashion. A security certificate does not allow for the presentation of evidence that would support accusations against a person accused or suspected of terrorist activity. Instead, the security certificate simply removes the individual from Canada. In doing so, it fails Canadians.

When an individual is believed to be guilty of an offence against Canada or Canadians, then the Criminal Code must be used to deal with that accusation. A security certificate does not offer, nor support, justice for either the accused or for Canadians. In fact, as I have said repeatedly, security certificates in themselves are an affront to Canada's national sense of justice.

If the accused is guilty, the person should be charged and tried under our Criminal Code and the appropriate penalties applied. Only then, following those penalties being served, should the person be deported. Bill C-3 would allow people to be held in detention without the opportunity to face their accusers or see the evidence against them.

We should consider, for a moment, that people in detention who proclaim their innocence will never have the chance to speak to the evidence in a court of law. If they are allowed to go through our Criminal Code procedures, our courts, our justice system, and were found innocent, they would have had the right to return to a Canadian life, to pick up where they left off, to pick up the pieces.

Under security certificates, many will spend years upon years in detention, and they have already. They have not seen the evidence against them. Nor have they had the chance to refute the evidence against them. As a result, the most fundamental tenets of our justice system will have been sacrificed. The existence and the use of security certificates has put a chill across our country.

I alluded to the individual in Edmonton, Alberta, but there are more cases than that individual, cases where Canada has failed its citizens. We should talk to Mr. Almalki about his time in Syria. He was detained in a cell, which was more like a coffin, for three months. We should talk to Mahar Arar about how Canadian officials let him down when he was abandoned to be rendered to another country to be tortured when certain people knew that would happen. Canadians know that Canada failed these men. Bill C-3 is setting ourselves up for further failure.

I was raised to take great pride in our justice system, and I do. The fact that innocent people can face their accusers and the evidence against them, and because of that process, the innocent one day can walk free.

It is crucially important to the sense of justice that all Canadians have that the people in this place pause, stop the rhetoric and think about the deterioration of our justice system and our human rights system if we gerrymander the process with Bill C-3, if we put into place a process like this, which is so ugly and disgusting. I truly cannot understand how anybody in this place can support it.

Our Criminal Code is among the best in the world. Our justice system is among the best in the world. Canada even sends people to other parts of the world to teach them about our justice system. One of the few ways we can keep that pride in our system and our institutions is to ensure individual rights and the rights of all people to face their accuser and the evidence against them.

For the NDP, the security certificate is an affront to civil liberties. We understand, with Bill C-3, the Conservative government is trying to address what is seen as a flaw in the process, and the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the charter. Clearly, what the government has tried to do with Bill C-3 is move around something that has been deemed by the Supreme Court as a violation of the charter.

We must think about the rights and freedoms for a moment. We must think about the individuals detained in our country. Their freedom has been taken away and they have no rights.

It is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we must protect. Imagine the setting aside of well respected fundamental terms of justice and how this is being done so cavalierly. The detainees have not seen any critical evidence against them. Their legal representatives have not seen the evidence against them. Let us just say tomorrow, for whatever reason, it is deemed acceptable that they return to Canadian society, that there had indeed been an error. They will also be besmirched by the fact that they have been detained. Because of Bill C-3 and the security certificates, they will always be subject to suspicion.

I spoke harshly because I was upset with what I had heard in a committee about the tone of this place. I know when I speak to many members here, they want to see us all rise above rhetoric and beyond the point scoring process that seems to happen here daily. That challenge is being put to us by Canadians and they want us clearly to reflect what they believe.

With that, I will close with a line that has been heard in this place many times before. We must remember, for the rest of the world, what we ask for ourselves, we wish for all. That is what makes Canada the place to which many people from all over the world seek to come.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity deserves an opportunity to respond to allegations made recently by Ezra Lavant, who is head over heels for the Liberal motion that would gut the Canadian Human Rights Act. Mr. Levant says that the Secretary of State supports his view that “these commissions are violating human rights, not protecting them”.

Knowing their shared history and personal relationship, I thought it best to clarify the Conservative position on this illogical Liberal motion.

Could the Secretary of State clearly state today that all Conservative MPs will vote against the motion and that he personally condemns the motion in the strongest possible terms?