Keith Martin

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice. Everybody should know that without the member for Nepean--Carleton in the House this bill would not have come about. He deserves a huge amount of credit and accolades for the hard work he has done in one of the most underprivileged and, I am sure, emotionally gruelling places in the world to work, that being Sierra Leone. I thank him for the work he has done and compliment him for it.

I have a couple of questions for the member. First, in the Kimberley process one of the loopholes that exists is in regard to a lack of import-export permits, basically export permits on the part of producing countries, and the lack of controls in those countries. I am talking especially about the Congo, where anarchy is pervasive. What does he think ought to be done in terms of strengthening the export permits that are required from diamond producing countries? I think that strengthening would hopefully would block off what is in my view a major loophole in the Kimberley process.

Second, would an Ottawa process like intervention, which will enable this bill to be adopted and ratified by the greatest number of countries in order to come into force internationally, be something that he would propose to his government?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend two questions that relate to Vancouver Island and by extension the country. The first deals with the softwood lumber issue. I would like him to describe roughly the actual numbers of individuals who have been affected by this, who have lost their jobs, in contrast to the government's position and claim that very few people, if any, have lost their jobs over this. Second, on the same area in relation to softwood lumber, because of government inaction the damage has already been done to our softwood lumber industry. I would like him to tell us what we can do, what the government should have done, and more important, what we need to do now to give our softwood lumber industry the chance to save peoples' jobs and to get back on its feet and be competitive.

The second question deals with the transport issue and the airport tax. The government has levied a $24 airport tax that is destroying smaller communities across the country. It is impeding economics because people are not flying. They cannot afford it. The money has gone into general revenues, not into security. I ask the hon. member whether he would agree with the notion that the airport tax should be cut down to a more reasonable $8 to $9, which is in keeping with what there is in the U.S. That tax is directed right toward security, including for security personnel on the front lines, for equipment, for training and for wages. Lastly, I wonder whether the member is going to make an initiative with other political parties to get that airport tax down to $10 so we can save the economies of small rural communities, not only in B.C. but across this country, and of the airlines, which are having a very difficult time enduring this airport tax.

[Zimbabwe, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has hired thugs to rape, torture and murder innocent black civilians in his country. He has engineered a famine that is going to kill six million people in the next few months. These actions have been met with a stony silence on the part of the government.

Why has the government which likes to tout its African agenda not mentioned one word about this holocaust that is taking place in Zimbabwe?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government member.

Many organizations and people, like the Conference of Defence Associations, the admiral of the fleet and the chair of the defence committee, have said repeatedly that they urgently need resources for our defence forces now, if we are to play our role internationally.

The Speech from the Throne had a non-sentence referring to defence. Will the member take to his government an urgent plea for funds and support for our defence forces now? If we do not, we will be unable to play our role internationally and unable to meet our domestic needs if we have a problem here at home.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the first five minutes of my reply to the Speech from the Throne, if the Prime Minister wants to have a true legacy he has 16 months in order to act for the public good and to implement changes for the public good that will dramatically improve the lives of Canadians. I have spoken before on health care with regard to amending and modernizing the Canada Health Act, implementing a plan for a manpower strategy for nurses, doctors and technicians and also a plan I proferred the last time I spoke which would enable those people to be redistributed to rural areas to work.

On the issue of economics, if the Prime Minister truly wants to affect the poor the objective is not to throw money at the situation but to give them the tools to do the job. Certainly there are many individuals who cannot work for various reasons and those people need to be taken care of. That is the purpose of social programs. What we need to do is give people the tools so they are able to work and provide for themselves.

One thing the Prime Minister could do is raise the basic minimum people have to pay taxes on to $18,000 a year. No one in the country who is making less than $18,000 a year should be paying any tax. A person can barely survive on that.

On the issue of drugs in health care, what the Prime Minister ought to do is implement a strategy that works to prevent drug use and criminal use and also gets tough with those parasites in our society, particularly organized crime gangs, who are involved in drug trafficking, prostitution and money laundering. They are preying upon our society, using our weak laws that enable them to do it.

On the issue of foreign policy, the Prime Minister said he wants to have an African agenda. He has said some very nice words but has not backed them up with facts. He has not acted on Zimbabwe. He has not mentioned a word on the crisis in Zimbabwe, where half the population of that country, six million people, is going to die in the next six months unless the international community mobilizes against President Mugabe. Although this is not about land reform at all, President Mugabe is using the land reform issue and racial politics as a shield to hide his true objective, which is to brutalize the black population. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the people in Zimbabwe are black and he is going to kill six million of them by depriving them of food in a politically engineered famine over the next six months. This is not on anyone's radar screen.

Another seven million are going to die in politically engineered famines in five other countries. In Angola we have a narrow window of opportunity to help that country in a multilateral effort to engage with President dos Santos and use the billions of dollars in oil money for health and education, de-mining and infrastructure. This would go a long way toward saving that country. If we do not engage in Angola in the next six months as an international community, that country will become a failed state like Somalia. The country will fracture and we will never, ever be able to pick that up again.

On the issue of AIDS, 30% and sometimes up to 50% of the population in some countries is HIV positive. This is going to wipe out half the population of some countries. The economic backbone of these countries will wither away. The Prime Minister feels that the answer is to throw money at the situation. The irony of the continent is that it is an extraordinarily rich continent. It has incredible resources in diamonds, minerals, coltan, hydro power, agriculture and timber. It has incredible resources and yet it has the poorest people on the planet.

Throwing money at the situation is not the same as having an effect. What we need to do is implement policies that are going to affect people and deal with the three major issues that are affecting the development of that continent: corruption and lack of governance; conflict; and a lack of capacitance in primary health and education, as well as of course AIDS. Affect those three, work with the resources on the continent, enable capacitance to take place, defeat corruption and have good governance, and our country would have a foreign policy that truly would be an African agenda which the Prime Minister could be proud of and would affect the lives of these people.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate to explain to the people who are listening what this means. Basically, the way the government has organized this to meet our Kyoto requirements, we as a country will give taxpayer money to a country like Russia. In exchange we will receive the ability to produce more carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. Then we can say we have met our obligations but we have not in effect reduced our greenhouse gas emissions at all.

In short, we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by doubling the thermal efficiency of residential and commercial buildings, doubling the fuel efficiency of truck fleets, tripling the efficiency of car fleets and doubling the average efficiency of electrical devices including lighting, motors and appliances. If we do that we will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and we will go beyond Kyoto.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me preface my comments by saying that my colleague and friend is the coach of our soccer team and did an exemplary job of leading us. We will do better the next time.

The reason our party does not want to support Kyoto is not because we are against reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We want a plan that will truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions without negatively affecting our economy.

Can it be done? Absolutely. That is what I articulated in this plan today. The technology exists today to meet our greenhouse gas emission targets while not affecting our economy. If we use that technology we will be able to do that.

Unfortunately Kyoto is a shell game. My friend knows full well that the government has made this into a shell game. We are to pay countries like Russia to buy the ability to produce greenhouse gases. We will produce the same amount of greenhouse gases and say disingenuously that we have met our commitments.

We have not met our commitments. All we have done is shunted our greenhouse gas emissions to another country by giving it the money to produce more greenhouse gases. That will do absolutely nothing to reduce greenhouse gases.

I ask the member to look at some of the work that has been done. The Sierra Club has done some good work. Ralph Torrie has done some good work. Others have done some excellent work in our country articulating specific solutions that can improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from homes, cars and trucks. If we employ them we will meet our commitments and go beyond them.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate in the House on an exceedingly important issue, given the fact that Parliament will be asked to ratify or not to ratify the Kyoto accord.

I draw the attention of the House to a very important fact. There is a lot of misinformation or misnomers about nuclear power. It has its upsides and downsides, particularly with respect to effete fuel rods that are byproducts of nuclear power.

We are concerned about the reduction of pollution of not only greenhouse gas emissions which are not pollution because they are primarily carbon dioxide. However pollution from coal burning generators that produce various particulate matter causes many health problems particularly in southern Ontario and border states.

Here is a very important and interesting fact. With 40% of the global market share Canadian uranium is powering commercial reactors that void over one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

If we want to reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions the question arises about how we will do it. It will not magically happen by virtue of doing nothing. We have an obligation to meet our power obligations and the energy requirements of a growing population. How are we to do it?

The answer that we can perhaps adopt is one that involves the adoption of a large array of different energy sources including nuclear power. The utilization of nuclear power in an appropriate setting will reduce pollution, will reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, and will enable us to meet our energy demands.

It is not the whole answer by any means. As I mentioned we have to dispose of the fuel rods. That is a significant problem. There is a potential risk of problems with the reactor that can happen in any event, but we have to accept the fact that nuclear power is here to stay. We must use it in appropriate amounts and in balance with other energy sources.

The other side of the coin is how we meet our Kyoto requirements. How do we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions which are not, I might add, pollution as we have come to know it?

It is sad that Kyoto is a shell game. The way Canada has actually adopted Kyoto is not to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide that we as a country are supposed to do. Through an energy trading scheme we will actually enable our country to produce more greenhouse gas emissions in exchange for giving money to other countries that have larger carbon sinks, which are basically forests. That is what is happening.

All members of the House, including the public who is watching, want to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Will Kyoto as we have organized it do that? The answer is a flat no because it is a shell game of moving around the ability of producing greenhouse gas emissions in exchange for paying money to other countries that do not produce as much as we do.

In effect, if Canada signs on to Kyoto we as a country will not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. That is counterintuitive on the surface but those are the facts. Then the question arises of how we manage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Last week I attended a very interesting breakfast meeting with a gentleman by the name of Mr. Anderson who runs a large company in the U.S. His company, a very energy demanding company, produces carpets. It managed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. How did the company do that? It did that by being able to conserve energy and increase the efficiencies of the process that entailed less demand.

His thesis is as follows. First, Canada can meet its greenhouse gas emissions under Kyoto and beyond by using available technologies to save energy. In the manner in which we build our buildings using existing technologies we can save huge amounts of money and huge amounts of energy utilization

Second, we need to use existing technologies in a manner in which other industries actually use their energy. There is much we can do in conservation, much we can do in efficiencies of energy utilization, much we can do in terms of increasing the carbon sinks that take carbon dioxide out of the environment and actually turn it into an innocent substance, water. If we crunch the numbers we will be able to meet our Kyoto requirements and beyond.

A man by the name of Ralph Torrie in Ottawa has crunched the numbers. He has come up with a very provocative set of solutions that will enable us to meet and go beyond those emissions standards, which is what we have to do anyway, and not take on the oil patch, interestingly enough. In the end 95% of our Kyoto requirements can be met by using energy resources more efficiently and using existing technologies to save energy, for example, in the manner in which we build buildings. There is much that can be done to build buildings in a way that conserves energy more efficiently. If we do that the energy savings are massive.

If we look back in history we see the manner in which we have employed new technologies to make buildings more efficient and to save energy, particularly with cars. We find that the bulk savings in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution are so large that they dwarf our commitments under Kyoto, which is very interesting.

We are saying that there are solutions out there. People have done the work in our country which demonstrates very clearly that we have the industrial capabilities and the technology to meet our Kyoto requirements and go beyond them. We know our Kyoto requirements will only affect a very small percentage of what we ought to be dealing with in terms of our emissions.

In summary, Canada must employ some key policy initiatives. First, in a rational economy energy should be developed and used in response to the demand for goods and services, not to produce energy for its own sake.

Second, emissions reduction strategies should be based on existing technologies that have been shown to be effective and economic.

Third, in the future Canadians will continue to expect economic growth and social mobility. Our low carbon scenario anticipates that we can have a 50% per capita reduction in GDP.

The implementation plan should not rely on punitive energy taxes. However a good plan should reflect the full cost of each energy option, including the subsidies that currently flow to petroleum and nuclear production, as well as health and environmental costs.

Energy from local small scale sources will encourage greater self-reliance and insulate consumers from geopolitical crises such as what we are seeing in the Middle East and large scale system failures as we have seen in other countries.

Working with these principles, Canada can achieve the following using existing technologies with current economic assumptions. The first is a doubling of the thermal efficiency of residential and commercial buildings. This again means using current technologies in the manner in which we build buildings that increase efficiencies in energy savings.

The second is a doubling of the fuel efficiency of truck fleets. There are technologies that can be applied to trucks that can greatly reduce pollution coming out the other end.

The third involves a tripling of the efficiency of the passenger car fleet and a doubling of the average efficiency of electrical devices including lighting, motors and appliances, a 1% per year improvement in the energy efficiency of industrial output, a phasing out of coal and less demands on other generating plants.

If we do that we will meet our economic targets, save money, meet our environmental standards and have a healthier environment.

[Petitions, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of some 400 constituents in my riding of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca who would like changes to the Coast Guard diving regulations.

The petitioners would like to see the Coast Guard made an independent body, whose priority is the saving of lives, separate from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with all the necessary resources for staffing and equipment, including a new Hovercraft, to enable it to perform the rescues of those in peril.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had a great opportunity to build a legacy. Unfortunately, the Speech from the Throne is a massive missed opportunity. The Prime Minister failed in his ability to articulate a legacy that he could leave with pride. He had a great opportunity. He has nothing to lose. He is here for 12 months, maybe 18 months at the most. He had an opportunity to do that and he failed to do it. There is a list of things the Prime Minister could still do that would enable him to leave an enormous positive impact on the lives of Canadians.

First, the biggest problem is our lack of democracy. The House is not a democracy; it is an elected dictatorship. It is not run by cabinet, it is not run by members of Parliament, and certainly it is not run by the public. It is run by a small cabal of unelected people in the Prime Minister's Office. That must change. If we fail to change that, the disengagement of the public that we see today will continue and the House will become a farce.

What should the Prime Minister do? He should allow free votes on all non-money bills. All bills should go to committee first before they come to the House. In that way the public would have positive, effective input into the construction of those bills. All private members' bills must be made votable. We also need to have an elected Senate. There are lessons we can learn from Australia. Significant reform was implemented in Australia and the same could make this House far more democratic.

My second point is with regard to health care. Few people would agree that the Canada Health Act in its current form can sustain the impact of an aging population and more expensive technologies. The Canada Health Act has been violated in every province across the country. Every single principle has been violated by every single province. The Canada Health Act is broken. The way to fix it is to modernize it.

A headstart program should be implemented. That headstart program should be the cornerstone of the government's children's agenda. It would be the most effective measure for prevention. It would ensure that the basic needs of children were met and would strengthen the parent-child bond.

My colleague from Montreal mentioned the manpower crisis. It could be alleviated by opening up more spaces for health care personnel not only in medical schools but in nursing schools and technical schools as well. A portion of those positions should be paid for in a cost sharing agreement between the feds and the provinces. Some of those individuals would have to spend an equal number of years in an underserviced area. That would enable us to deal with the incredible problem of getting medical personnel into underserviced areas.

My third point deals with economics. The government should flatten the tax system, make it simpler and perhaps shave off a percentage point on the GST. It could increase the minimum amount of money that somebody makes before they have to pay tax. No one making less than $18,000 should be required to pay tax in Canada.

Fourth, the government has been neglecting defence and as a result there is an absolute crisis. The government has been told about this repeatedly. Its failure to give economic and moral support to our military is eroding not only our standard here at home but our stature abroad.

How do we fix it? We need to increase the manpower to 75,000. We need to put $1.5 billion to $2 billion per year for the next five years directly into manpower, training and equipment. We also need to stop increasing our military personnel's rent.

Fifth, we need an integrated foreign policy and defence policy. How can we have a congruent foreign policy and defence policy if they are constructed in two separate silos? We need to take a leaf from Australia's book and ensure that we have an integrated defence policy and foreign policy so that our defence forces have the tools to do what our foreign policy dictates.

I see that my time has run out, but I will finish the rest of my speech at the next sitting of the House.