Keith Martin

[Huntingdon Port of Entry, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this goes directly to the heart of the motion because the purpose of the motion is to improve economic development in Abbotsford.

Let us talk about Abbotsford and the fact that house prices there are also over half a million dollars. What will people do who want to buy a house in Abbotsford if the HST increases the cost of a house by 7%? In my area, the average cost of a home is more than half a million dollars. That is $35,000 extra a year.

With respect to the border issues in Abbotsford, the purpose of the motion is a wise move to improve tourism in the area. One of the reasons people would pass through there is to capitalize on our sports fishing opportunities within British Colombia.

The government has introduced an initiative to identify the collapse of the sports fishing industry by calling for a judicial inquiry. This is a good thing. The problem, though, is there have been four inquiries in the last 20 years with respect to the collapse of our salmon stocks. I wonder what the people of Abbotsford will say to the people coming through the new border crossing about why the government has failed to implement the solutions that already exist to deal with the collapse of our salmon stock.

I will give one example. DFO has allowed commercial fishermen to take fish stocks as they come to the mouth of river before they can escape up the river. Therefore, fish stocks do not have the minimum numbers to go up the river to spawn. Commercial fishermen are vacuuming up the fish before the fish have a chance to return, destroying the ability of the fish to spawn and the ability of a particular stream or river to have an adequate return downstream later on. This is a very serious problem.

The other thing is that DFO, in terms of water rights, is not actually exercising its rights—

[Huntingdon Port of Entry, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on an issue affecting my province of British Columbia.

Motion No. 391 states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should direct the Canada Border Services Agency to change the name of the Huntingdon Port of Entry to “Abbotsford-Huntingdon Port of Entry”.

I am pleased to announce that the Liberal Party of Canada will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Abbotsford council, with the Abbotsford tourism agency, and with the chamber of commerce to support this initiative. We understand, that although Huntingdon is a community within Abbotsford, there has been some confusion with respect to this because it really is not on any map.

This will improve the ability of the community to maximize its tourism capabilities and reduce confusion for those who wish to travel to beautiful Abbotsford.

However, this belies the situation of the government's lack of support for and ignorance of multiple issues affecting my province of British Columbia.

Let us take a look at the HST for example. This will benefit some, to be sure, but it is going to hurt many. Why is the government not saying to the province of British Columbia that the $1.6 billion incentive package that it proposed to give to the Government of British Columbia, that it just does not say to Premier Campbell, “You, sir, can have this until you can resolve this with the people of British Columbia to make sure that we minimize it for those people who are going to be hurt”.

Yes, people are going to be hurt. Who is going to be hurt? Those who have modest means. How is this going to happen? It is going to increase a selective tax burden on those who have modest means.

This tax is going to apply not only to that which the PST applied to but that which the PST did not apply to. We are going to have a huge tax burden that will be on the shoulders of everyone for basic things: some medications, some foodstuffs, heating and services. When people go to get a service, whether they are making $100,000 or they are making $30,000, they will pay the same amount.

That is why this is going to hurt many people of modest means. The government cannot simply blightfully walk along and suggest for a moment that it simply will be “all is well” and it will benefit everyone. It will benefit some groups, but it is going to hurt a lot. It is going to hurt those groups which have the most modest means.

It will hurt huge sectors that in my province are extremely important: tourism, home building, restaurant services, even schools. Imagine, my province has estimated that it is going to cost the school boards of British Columbia an extra $24 million a year in increased taxes. They do not have the money right now to pay for the basic needs of our students. They are scrimping and saving on programs that children need to be able to maximize their experience in schools.

Many critical programs, from music to the arts, have been cut because school boards do not have the money. We can imagine that this is going to be an extra $24 million for the school boards in British Columbia, which will be chiselled out of the programs for our students. At the end of the day it will be our students in British Columbia who are going to be hurt.

Imagine if we wanted to buy a house. In my area in Victoria the average house price exceeds $500,000--

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has done a fantastic job on this file. The government has made an appalling series of errors in terms of being unable or unwilling to dispel the fear and myths that we have heard in our country regarding adjuvant and non-adjuvant, and the presence of small amounts of mercury in the vaccines.

The government has failed to communicate a clear and concise message to the public to answer these fears. Does she not think that this is an appalling failure on the part of this minister and the government?

[The Environment, November 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this Friday is the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflicts.

War poisons the air, water and land. It destroys governance and conservation efforts and leads to the exploitation of natural resources and the mass killing of species, driving them to extinction.

The world has a responsibility to protect but it does not have an obligation to act. We have a judicial mechanism but no enforcement mechanism. One of the great challenges we have is to establish that enforcement mechanism.

Canada and the Liberal government were leaders in the establishment of a responsibility to protect. The Conservative government has failed to lead on after that, to lead and develop a responsibility to protect. If we do not do it, the people and the environments in conflict will pay a fatal price. This we must not allow to occur.

[The Environment, October 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is International Climate Action Day, a stark reminder of the Conservative government's anemic and irresponsible approach to global warming which is: no plan, strive for lower emission targets, obstruct international efforts in striking a deal, or simply to wait and see what others do. This is a pathetic abdication of leadership, despite the outstanding climate scientists we have and that we are on the cusp of the Copenhagen talks.

Even security depends on environmental security. Biodiversity losses due to habitat loss threaten human health.

To tackle these problems, Parliament's all-party international conservation caucus now in its second year, connects top environmental scientists with legislators, NGOs, bureaucrats and the media. Only by doing this using science to forge an effective plan and having the courage to lead will we be able to tackle global warming, the single greatest threat to the survival of our planet and ourselves.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague in terms of the economic tsunami that we all saw and what appeared to be the deplorable behaviour by industry leaders. There seemed to be a failure on the part of the board of directors in terms of the oversight mechanism they must engage in, which is their responsibility with respect to their companies.

Does the government have any plans to provide guidelines or mechanisms in terms of trying to ensure that boards of directors are accountable and responsible for executing the duties they failed to execute in many cases during the tsunami?

[International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Friday was International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.

Currently, up to 6.2 million Canadians live in poverty and many cannot afford life's essentials. A shocking one in seven children live in low income situations. Sadly, poverty rates have seen a continuous increase in recent years, especially among aboriginal people, those with disabilities, recent immigrants and the one in four Canadians who toil in low-paying, often part-time jobs.

Just last month, the Conference Board of Canada gave Canada a C for its progress in child poverty and a D for its work in addressing the working poor, which is why I introduced Bill C-414, the Canadian low income supplement. This bill would virtually eliminate federal taxes for those who make less than $20,000 a year and puts real money in the hands of those who need it the most.

However, we also need a national affordable housing strategy, a productivity agenda, and we must enable people to access the skills they need to break out of the poverty cycle and achieve their dreams. Inaction is not an option.

[Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, does the member not think that one of the primary issues that is being ignored right now is the possibility of feedback loops and that the melting of the polar ice caps and the release of methane will cause a feedback loop that will feed into the increase of temperature of our oceans and their inability to absorb carbon dioxide?

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to actually look at the history of what his government did. When times were good, his government took a contingency fund that the Liberals had in place when they were in government and burned through it.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservative government, in good times, actually spent at a rate that was two and a half times larger than the rate of increase in GDP, the largest spending increase by any government in Canadian history. It combined this with a reduction in taxes, causing a massive imbalance and putting us to the brink of the precipice of a deficit budget during good times.

So, when times turn sour, this absolutely irresponsible misuse of the economic levers of our country has caused us to be plunged into a deficit that is much larger than we would ever have had and the Prime Minister has put a large burden on the children of our country.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether or not the member wants to invoke an election at this time, but I know most Canadians do not want that.

However, on the issue of the HST, on the $1.6 billion carrot that the federal government has put in front of the face of Premier Campbell, this is the silent hand that is driving the HST issue.

What I have said in my province is that the federal government, the Prime Minister, must say to the premier of British Columbia that the government is going to keep that $1.6 billion on the table until the premier has had a chance to consult with both consumers and producers to ensure that the negative parts of the HST have been mitigated, including an assurance that it only applies to that which the PST applies to, that there is proper consultation, and that there is a streamlining of the process. The status quo cannot exist because it is going to hurt vulnerable British Columbians