Keith Martin

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister having the power to appoint every single deputy minister and minister is not politicization, then what is?

What we are trying to do is enable the people of this country, through their elected officials, to have some vetting procedure. Rather than having one person in the Prime Minister's Office appoint all these people in all of these important positions across the land, we are just saying to please put some faith into the House, for crying out loud. We suggest that all of us should have some input into these extremely important positions so that the cream will rise to the top and we will have an apolitical process whereby individuals will be chosen on the basis of merit.

We have fine deputy ministers in the country and very fine Supreme Court judges. I am sure that those people would also be selected by a two-thirds majority of the House. That is a lot fairer than having one person select those people without any accountability and without any transparency.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I compliment the Bloc Quebecois for its motion. Let us talk about the reality in Canada today and why this motion came about.

The expectations of Canadians when they elect a member of Parliament, they expect that person to come to the House and be free to intervene, implement legislation, affect legislation and fight for their concerns.

The reality is that we have a prime ministerial autocracy, an elected dictatorship. Parliament is controlled by the Prime Minister and the people in the Prime Minister's Office. Even the frontbench is powerless and is more like a collective focus group than individuals who can use their individual and collective talents to fight for the concerns of Canadians and their particular ministries. That is really sad.

The situation has become worse because there is no so-called democracy anywhere else in the world that has as much power centralized in one office, the Prime Minister's Office; not in Great Britain, the United States, nowhere. We have a Prime Minister that has powers more in keeping with a president without the internal checks and balances that a presidential system has. That makes Canada one sick democracy.

We need to change that. If we do not, then the ability for Canadians to vote for people who they want to send to the House to fight for their concerns will be gone. That is the situation we have today where the MPs do not have the power to represent their constituents. Even if they are in cabinet, the Prime Minister controls what happens in cabinet, tells the ministers what to say, what to do and when to do it. It is one person and a group of unelected people.

Part of this has to do with the way we select our Prime Minister. The prime minister is not selected by the members within the party. The person is selected by a small group within the party to become the leader of the party. The prime minister is not chosen by the people of our country.

The other point is the interface between the public and legislation. Personally I find this extremely disturbing and utterly disheartening. When we sit in committee, where the public has a chance to interact with members of Parliament and put forth constructive suggestions to change legislation, what happens is a sham. I will explain why.

When we attend committees, we deal with legislation or study issues. Members of the public who are learned, intent and focused come up with some fantastic suggestions and hopefully we adopt some of those suggestions for the public good. What is the reality? The reality is that we spend a lot of time, a lot of money and a lot of effort putting together documents with constructive suggestions that can help the public. Those studies get one day of press, then they are tossed into some warehouse to collect dust, never to be seen or heard from again, never to be implemented.

I will give some examples. We all know that the Kirby commission and the Romanow commission, supported by the Prime Minister, have been tasked to look for solutions to deal with the most important issue affecting Canadians; our health care system. However remember that in 1995 the Prime Minister put together a blue ribbon panel to address health care. Whatever became of that report? Whatever became of the solutions from that blue ribbon panel? Absolutely nothing.

Whatever came of the $60 million royal commission on aboriginal affairs, a thick document with umpteen good suggestions that could have addressed one of the most underprivileged and most needy groups within Canada, who desperately need our help? That document had solutions which needed to be implemented years ago for the betterment of these people? They are crying out for help. It is being used as little more than a doorstop in certain people's offices or is sitting in a room somewhere.

The bottom line is these reports, which cost the Canadian taxpayer millions of dollars and thousands of hours of time for people in the House and staff who work very hard to put these documents together, go absolutely nowhere because the Prime Minister's office is not concerned with the public good. It is concerned with polls.

The bottom line in Canadian politics is a structure controlled by the Prime Minister's office and the unelected people within that office, individuals who are primarily concerned with where they are in the polls and not with the public good. Where is the public good in all this? They prefer to study issues rather than deal with them. I call that one of the greatest diseases we have in the House, “study-itis”.

We have problems in Canada, some small, some large, some that are relatively benign, some that effect the lives of people and some that will cost the lives of people through our inaction.

There are solutions. A lot of this is not rocket science. Are those solutions implemented? No, they are not. The public wonders why. The ultimate legislative agenda has everything to do with where people are in the polls, specifically the government, and less to do with public policy. That is why important issues affecting Canadians are not dealt with.

When MPs are elected, they come to the House with great desire to do things for their constituents and indeed for their country. Yet they find once in the House that they are told to shut up, to do what they are told or else. That goes from top to bottom. Those who try to innovate are labelled as renegades or rebels and relegated to some place out in left field. Certainly they will not be used by leadership.

What we need is a transformation of leadership one which will use people with different viewpoints and use the House as a place where there is vigorous and aggressive debate and challenges each of us to bring forth the best solutions to address the problems of our nation. Ultimately the best solutions will percolate to the top so that they can be applied for the people of our country. It is sad to say that does not occur.

I hope in our lifetimes, whether inside the House or outside, that we will come to the day when MPs will have true free votes in the House. I hope we will have electronic voting in the House which will be an asset in voting freely across party lines. I hope committees will be at arm's length from the political masters and will have the ability to deal with legislation first so the public can have creative input into that legislation before it goes to the House, rather than being an institution where legislation is rubber stamped.

We also need a to take away the ability of the Prime Minister to make appointments. The public would be interested to know that the Prime Minister appoints cabinet, the deputy ministers, the assistants to the ministers, which is very important, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the heads of Crown corporations. We have one individual who has a whole swath of people controlling the major central organizations which are beholding to that person. That is not a democracy.

The Bloc is saying is this, and I think members across party lines would agree. Members on the other side know full well, too, if they look into their hearts, that they need this as much as we do. They need to democratize the House as much as we do, because they cannot do their jobs for their constituents and neither can we.

Would it not be healthier if we listened to the motion of the Bloc Quebecois and adopted it right away? It is very important that this happens. I would challenge members on the other side to work with us across party lines to institute the changes on how appointments are made and how committees are structured and that there are reforms to private members' business and other things. If we do that, then Canada will be a democracy and not the autocracy that we have today. We will get rid of this elected dictatorship that is a blight and a pox on all our houses.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments about this bill which amends the Lobbyists Registration Act. Our major problem with the bill is it goes to the heart of the ethics issue because who is responsible for enforcing this toothless act? It is the ethics counsellor, who is appointed by none other than the Prime Minister and who is answerable to none other than the Prime Minister. That is a serious problem.

The government is pretending to roll this act into its “new ethics package”. However members from all the opposition parties, and indeed many government members, have repeatedly asked the Prime Minister for an independent ethics counsellor, one who is appointed not by the Prime Minister and his office but appointed by the majority of the members in this House who are here because of the wishes of the Canadian public.

This also speaks to a larger problem in Canada, which is that we do not have a democracy. This country is ruled by a king who sits in the Prime Minister's Office. He appoints not only the ethics counsellor but every cabinet member on the front bench. He appoints the deputy ministers. He appoints the senators. He appoints the supreme court justices. He appoints the assistants to every cabinet member. The public would be shocked to learn that the assistants to the ministers are appointed by none other than the Prime Minister's Office. That is not a democracy.

The best thing that could happen would be for the government to listen to members across the House and implement solutions that would democratize the Parliament of Canada. Then the Canadian people would have a voice through their elected officials, and not the current situation where cabinet members are answerable to and are forced to do what the Prime Minister's Office tells them to do.

Cabinet is toothless and impotent to implement solutions to deal with in a meaningful fashion the problems Canadians care about. Whether it is health care, economics or the environment, cabinet members cannot do their job right now. They cannot innovate, no matter how good it is, because they get their marching orders from the Prime Minister's Office.

Today in Canada today we see a clash between the old way of doing politics and hopefully, a new way of doing politics. With the old way a party in power says, “We will buy the votes of the Canadian public by pouring money into constituencies, by favouring people who sponsor and put money back into the party”. In return, people get electoral favours when the party gets voted in.

We have seen that occur in the Department of Public Works and Government Services, and in the Department of Human Resources Development. That also exists unfortunately in CIDA where large sums of money which were supposed to go toward helping the most impoverished people around the world ended up in the hands of people mostly here in Canada. The Canadian public would be shocked to know that most of our aid money is actually being spent here as opposed to dealing with the big problems of corruption, conflict and lack of capacity in primary health care and education that the most impoverished people in the world are facing.

We do not see that in industry. If the government were really interested in implementing solutions that are good for industry and therefore for jobs, it would lower our taxes. It would also remove the existing onerous restrictions that prevent business from moving forward and creating jobs so we can build a tax base to pay for health care and the other social programs we enjoy in Canada. That is something useful the government should do.

Over the last few years we have also seen what can only be termed as the massive theft of savings from the middle class through scandals such as Enron, Livent, Andersen accounting, and many others. A small number of individuals have removed billions and billions of dollars from the hard-earned savings and moneys that the middle class, the poor and indeed the rich have acquired over the last few years. This was done knowingly. We do not have a system that protects the hard-earned money and savings of Canadian citizens. This ties into the Lobbyists Registration Act and I will explain why.

We need an act that will protect Canadians from the rapacious, illegal theft of their hard-earned savings which took place by the aforementioned companies and many more. The impact has been massive. There has been the loss of jobs, the loss of capital, and the loss of confidence and a disruption in the stock markets. There has been a massive downward trend, a massive downward pressure on our economy. This was done by a very small number of individuals in this country and south of the border who stole money from innocent investors.

What needs to be done? We need provisions that will protect people from this type of white collar crime. I would recommend that we look at the Sarbanes-Oxley act which came out in 2002 in the United States. There are 11 parts to the rather large 1,100 page bill.

There are a few major points I wish to make. The first is that the government ought to establish an independent auditing oversight board in this country for security. Second, it should beef up penalties for wrongdoers so those who steal money will meet with stiff penalties. Third, it should require faster and more extensive financial disclosure on the part of companies. Fourth, it should create avenues of recourse for aggrieved shareholders.

The Canadian public would be shocked to know that we are one of very few western countries where auditors make the accounting rules. It is a bit like having the fox guard the chicken coop. That is what we have today. We have a system with a lack of protection for investors and one which does not have the proper controls.

The following are things the government could employ in an act to protect investors and by extension, the savings of Canadians. One is that there be a public accounting overseeing board that is absolutely independent from those who are involved in securities issues. Two is that there be an independent auditor to analyze the issues. Three is that there be a code of corporate responsibility that is transparent and doable. Four is that there be a system of enhanced financial disclosure. Five is that there be a system that clearly articulates conflict of interest rules. Six is that there be a system of corporate and criminal fraud accountability. Seven is that there be a system of white collar crime penalty enforcement. Eight is that there be corporate tax return rules that are clearer and more transparent. Nine is that there be corporate fraud and accountability provisions within our legal system.

In closing, if the government were truly interested in having a system that is more accountable and transparent and which protects the public and enables the House to do its job and by extension enables we parliamentarians to do the job for the Canadian public, the people who sent us here and who pay our salaries, the government would implement a package of solutions. That package would democratize the House of Commons.

That package would have a Lobbyists Registration Act that had a clear code of conduct for lobbyists and for members of Parliament. It would have a governance act that deals with corporate governance in the private sector. Investors would know exactly what was happening. Financial accounting statements would be transparent and believable and would truly represent what was going on in the company.

If we had that type of package, we would have a stronger economy and a stronger democracy.

[National Defence, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence refused to acknowledge in this House that our military needed more resources.

Well, today is another day. In his speech to the Toronto Board of Trade, the minister said, “We should be spending more than is currently planned”. He went on to say, “Our most valuable members of our forces will quit if this issue is not addressed”.

My question for the Minister of Finance is simple. Will he invest the $1.5 billion his defence minister, the head of the navy and others are asking for so that our--

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend is one of the most committed environmentalists in the House but we have significant concerns over Kyoto and particularly the emissions trading scheme embedded in it. What the public should know is that the emissions trading scheme gives allows us to buy the ability to produce more greenhouse gas emissions by giving money to countries like Russia.

Does my colleague believe that a better way to deal with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions would be to utilize existing technologies that focus on conservation and more efficient use of energy? If we look back historically we will find that conservation and the use of technology to conserve and burn energy more efficiently and the use of alternative sources is by far a more efficient and more effective way of not only meeting our Kyoto agreement greenhouse gas emissions but going beyond that. Kyoto will not allow Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 23rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the member obviously does not know one orifice from a hole in the ground. I will refer him to the facts about the MP pension plan.

He was not here in 1993 when we were first elected. The then reform party was the only party, including the member's party which only had two members, to talk about the MP pension plan. We forced the government to bring the MP pension plan which was more lucrative than any other pension plan in this country into line with the pension plans of senior bureaucrats in the public service.

Members of my party opted out of the MP pension plan the first time there was an option to do so. The second time, when many of us were eligible for the pension plan after having served six years, the Prime Minister gave members who had opted out the option of opting out again. As I have already indicated, my party was the only political party whose members opted out the first time around and chose to opt out again. We opted out again while we were eligible to do so.

The third time around the Prime Minister forced all MPs in the House back into the pension plan whether they liked it or not.

Those are the facts. My party was the only party who had MPs who had opted out not once, but twice, even though we were eligible for the plan. No members in his party did that.

The public should know that it was the Canadian Alliance Party, the reform party back then, that forced the government to come up with an MP pension plan that was in line with one in the public service. That is something we are proud of, and the public should know we did that.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 23rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I was a bit dismayed at my colleague's comment about preventing and inhibiting foreign content or limiting foreign content in our RRSPs. That flies in the face of the opinion of most experts involved in the pension system. Why does he think that the federal government should play Big Brother to individuals choosing to take care of their own retirement plans by investing internationally?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 23rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, one of the ways is to lower the overall tax rate. The principle is to enable people to provide for themselves and for those who cannot provide for themselves we should have a social program and a pension system that will provide through the tax system for those who are most impoverished. That is the principle of any safety net and I think that is the original intent.

One of the problems we have is that the amount allowed for those individuals who can contribute is less than what it ought to be. There is no harm in increasing the maximum amount that one can contribute to $20,000 a year, which is what we should do. We should also increase the foreign content up to 50%. That is generally recognized as constructive in enabling people to provide for themselves.

Therefore it is a twofold approach. For those who can invest, allow them to do that. We should also educate people on the importance of being able to provide for themselves and on how much money they will require when they retire. I know my hon. colleague knows full well that many people today do not understand the amount of money they require in order to retire.

I know the banks have a very innovative program for educating high school students on basic money management and the importance of saving. I think that kind of program should be encouraged across the country so that teenagers can have good, sound economic advice and management on what their future economic needs will be, which we were not taught at all when we were in high school. If we were to do that people would put money into an RRSP for their retirement.

We must rationalize the OAS to provide for those seniors who right now are living below the poverty line and who truly endure lives of quiet suffering, which should not really happen in our country at all.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 23rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I suggest the member ask the Leader of the Opposition that himself.

I want to remind the member and the House that when our party was elected in 1993 as the Reform Party, it was the only political party in the House to offer constructive solutions to save Canada's pension plan. We were the only party that brought the issue forward and warned that in the future our country would slam into a brick wall when it came to our pensions. We did our best to offer constructive solutions to save our pension plan because nobody else was doing that.

For heaven's sake, the member should understand that at least we, in the Alliance now, and then when it was the Reform Party, are trying our best to offer constructive solutions to save our pension fund. If we did one thing, we at least put on the board that we cannot dawdle on our pension plans and allow our impoverished seniors to suffer.

If the member and his party have more constructive solutions they should bring them to the House so we can battle them out. The best solutions can actually then come to the top for the benefit of the people.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 23rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I was speaking personally in my speech and not behalf of my party. We have a plan on pensions, which we have actually put forth in the past, and I think it is quite innovative. It is called super RRSPs and they go beyond the current system.

I just want to preface what my friend has said on thee issue of the medical manpower crisis and how Yukon has handled it. Yukon has been able to fund a certain number of students to become doctors, nurses and technicians in return for an equal number of years of service in a rural setting. I hope he will ask his colleagues in Yukon to show the rest of the country how that works because it does work there and it will work everywhere else.

The second issue is pharmacare. The 20 year patent stays. We support the 20 year patent. We also support the closure of loopholes that enable some drug companies to extend their patent beyond 20 years. The pharmaceutical companies have said very clearly that they want the same patent protection that exists in the rest of the world, which is 20 years for the most part. We support that and the government should be supporting that. In fact, it should work with us to close those loopholes to make it a firm 20 years.

On the OAS solution, it was a solution that I was simply offering for the government to consider, pouring the OAS savings between $60,000 and $100,000 income earners into those who are making less than $20,000.