Keith Martin

[Endangered Species Sanctuaries Act, April 11th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-475, an act respecting the creation of sanctuaries for endangered species of wildlife.

Mr. Speaker, the situation right now with respect to endangered species in Canada is deplorable. More than 300 endangered species exist in our country but there has been a decline in habitat which is critically important for the existence of these species for future generations.

This bill provides for the species to be defined by a scientific group under the auspices of COSEWIC. It provides for habitat protection by obligating the federal government to engage in negotiations with private land owners and provinces. In the case that negotiations are unable to proceed further, the land can be taken over as a sanctuary, as long as the groups are compensated for the land at fair market value. Finally, it provides that people who own lands that contain sensitive habitats for species can receive benefits under the Income Tax Act.

This bill will go a long way in protecting our endangered species for future generations to enjoy.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Export Development Corporation, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, sure they have rules. The problem is that they break them all the time. That is the problem. I have a list on my desk of over half a dozen gross environmental disasters that this government is using taxpayer dollars to support.

Once again my question is very simple. The government is using taxpayer dollars to fund these toxic megaprojects, which people say the government has no rules on. Why is the government wasting taxpayer dollars to fund projects that violate international norms and in fact violate the rules the member just mentioned?

[Export Development Corporation, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the government recognizes the many leaders we have in my party. the Export Development Corporation says that it will adhere to the highest standards of environmental protection.

My question is simple. Right now the former minister of HRD is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money o to fund clear-cutting companies in Indonesia and to fund gold companies in the Far East that are putting toxic tailings into the ocean. Why is the government wasting taxpayer dollars to fund environmental disasters?

[Endangered Species Sanctuaries Act, March 28th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-465, an act respecting the creation of sanctuaries for endangered species of wildlife.

Mr. Speaker, there are over 300 species in Canada today that are in danger of imminent extinction. What is the greatest failure in our not dealing with that? It is the failure to protect habitat.

This private member's bill will do just that through four mechanisms. The first is an objective identification of species at risk using COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which will recommend to the minister those species that are in imminent danger of extinction.

The second is to provide for the establishment of sanctuaries on federal land and for agreements with both provinces and private land owners.

The third is to provide for expropriation or restrictive cognizance to be placed on those lands when there has been a failure to negotiate in good faith. When that has occurred, compensation would be given to both the provinces and private land owners at fair market value.

The fourth is that it enables individuals to donate land that has been deemed to be sensitive habitat and they would get an income tax break for doing so. I hope the bill passes. It would go a long way toward protecting endangered species in Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Export Development Corporation, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of using Canadian taxpayer money wisely. Canadians who have cancer are waiting more than 14 weeks for the treatment they require because we do not have the money.

My question is simple. Why is the government lending taxpayer money to a failed U.S. company, a company that the U.S. government would not touch with a 10 foot pole, instead of spending it here in Canada for Canadians?

[Export Development Corporation, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. company Amtrak has been losing billions of dollars for many years. What happens? This government takes a billion dollars of taxpayer money and loans it secretly to this company.

My question is very simple. Why is this government lending billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars to a failed U.S. company?

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Elk Island for his very germane question. He is absolutely right. The members on the other side of the House should have a deep interest in ensuring that money that is available is spent wisely.

The auditor general is an apolitical institution. The auditor general is a man who has been giving very good advice for a long period of time to all governments to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' money is spent wisely. Is his advice ever adhered to? No, it is not. In fact, that is part of the problem. Despite the very effective solutions which the AG puts forth, the government completely ignores them. Why? Because the disposition of money has become highly politicized within the government. All members in the Liberal Party should be very concerned about this to make sure taxpayer money is spent wisely. If it is spent wisely, they will benefit politically and, more importantly, their constituents and all constituents will benefit effectively from it.

I would ask them to put away the partisan padding and the pork barrelling and use the money wisely. It would be in the government's best interest to pursue this.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the situation in Quebec hospitals is currently very serious. They have no money to care for patients.

Cancer patients in Quebec who are waiting 14 weeks for treatment are being sent south of the border because the province of Quebec does not have the money to pay for their treatment.

If the money in HRD was spent wisely, we would not have a problem. We hear the question: Why waste billions of dollars through HRD, EDC or CIDA? Why not make sure the money is spent wisely and maybe money will be left over so the patients in Quebec will have an opportunity to receive the medical treatment they require?

Yes, I would completely agree to a public inquiry into the spending of HRDC. I would extend it to involve CIDA, HRDC, EDC and aboriginal affairs.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

The Minister of National Defence says it earns a profit. Let us take a look at that. There is $22 billion in loans outstanding. The auditor general does not know where that money is. $2.8 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money has been forgiven. They do not know where this money has been loaned and they cannot get it back.

Furthermore the EDC, under the rules that the government agrees to, is forbidden to have access to information requests. We cannot find out what is happening in EDC. The public cannot find out what is happening in EDC with their money. Parliament cannot find out what is happening in the EDC. Yet the EDC sees in its good ways to lose $2.8 billion of taxpayers' money, and for what? So it can give it to China while our people in the armed forces cannot even put a roof over their heads half the time, while the private married quarters are falling down.

I met with the Canadian Police Association today in my riding in Colwood. They do not even have enough money to put their cars on the road. The RCMP does not have enough money to put cars on the road when they break down. In Vancouver they do not have money to put cars on the road. In east Vancouver, which is one area that is rife with crime, they do not have enough money for policing.

There is an acute gross shortage of police officers in this country. Why? Because there is not enough money. What does the government do? The government takes the Canadian taxpayers' money and says “We're not going to invest in our military. We're not going to invest in our police force. We're not going to give the hepatitis C people a package”, which is currently $95 million short. These are the people who were infected innocently in the hepatitis C scandal that is $95 million short which the government saw fit to exclude in its compensation package. While the government will not even spend that for Canadians who are sick with hepatitis C, it sees fit to lose $2.8 billion to foreign companies, foreign governments, foreign agencies, the Chinese government and American companies that have lost money and on and on it goes.

I could go on and on but I welcome questions from the other side. Suffice it to say our objective in the Reform Party is to make sure that the Canadian dollar is spent wisely and what money is there is going to be used for creating jobs and that the government stop wasting Canadian taxpayers' money.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Bloc motion today. At the outset, the objective of the motion and of all of the people in the opposition, is to make sure that taxpayers' money is being spent wisely. That is the beginning and end of this motion. I will articulate how and why this motion came about, and the reason the opposition parties have been so critical of the government over the last month and a half.

The motion condemns the government for the very poor management of the Department of Human Resources Development which was brought to the attention of the minister.

The motion can actually be used as a stepping stone to describe growth and widespread abuse by the government of the taxpayers' money. This is not the government's money. It is the taxpayers' money and I am going to demonstrate how and why that happened.

We have seen the grants put forth by HRDC supposedly to rescue jobs, save jobs and make jobs. We would agree that has to happen in this country, but we disagree on how it happens. Where were those jobs created?

One example is in the minister's own riding. It has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. The Minister of Human Resources Development received grants that were three times the national average. Why is it that the Minister of HRD, whose riding has unemployment rates much lower than the national average, received grants three times higher than the national average? Why is that so?

Also, the Prime Minister's riding received more grant money than that of any prairie province. We have seen the devastation that has been wrought upon the farmers in the prairies. We have seen that farmers, the salt of the earth of this country, have lost their farms, their homes, their families, their jobs and their futures and lost hope. Yet, HRD pours money into the riding of the Prime Minister or that of the Minister of HRD, which has a rate of unemployment far less than the average and far less than in the prairie provinces which have been crying out for help for so long.

HRD officials say that they were forced to break the rules and instructed to approve grants in the Prime Minister's riding. If that is not enough to make the public go ballistic, then I do not know what is. That is part of the reason why we and other parties have been bringing this issue to the front. We want this problem fixed and we want it fixed now. We are sick and tired of the half answers or no answers that we have been getting for so long.

It is not only HRD. Let us take a look at the Export Development Corporation. This crown corporation uses the taxpayers' money to loan funds to Canadian companies. But who does it lend to? It lends to 5% of the companies that export, which represents less than 10% of the companies in the country today.

What kind of companies? Bombardier. Bombardier received $1 billion in loans. Bombardier, which has $5.6 billion in assets and $11 billion in revenues, received a $1 billion indirect loan through EDC to support Amtrak. The Canadian government supported $1 billion of the taxpayers' money to be given to Amtrak, an American company that the U.S. government would not even put money into because it has been running deficits for a long time. That is what the EDC has done. That is what the government has done with the taxpayers' money. The public should be aware that it is out there slaving away and its money is being used to put into an American company, Amtrak. That company has lost billions of dollars and the U.S. government has said it is not going to give it any money. Yet EDC steps in with Canadian taxpayers' resources and says it is going to give money to Bombardier, which makes $11.5 billion, so it can get a contract. What justification is there for that?

What justification is there for the Canadian government using the taxpayers' money to give money to China, which is building a superheated military complex as we speak and which has a $5 billion surplus with Canada? We have given money to it to do what? We have given money to it so it can build the Three Gorges dam which sits on a fault line. The Canadian government is loaning China money to build the Three Gorges dam on an earthquake fault line. The U.S. said it would not have anything to do with this program. The World Bank said it would not have anything to do with it. It is rife with corruption. It is an environmental disaster currently and waiting to happen. It is going to displace 1.3 million people. Yet what does the Canadian government government do? It takes millions of dollars of the Canadian taxpayers' money and loans it to China, which is building a superheated military complex as we speak. We do not have enough money to buy choppers. We do not have enough money to buy search and rescue and anti-submarine warfare choppers. Our military people are falling out of the sky in choppers that are 25 plus years old. On the other hand the Canadian government is saying to China, “We'll give you money to invest in the Three Gorges Dam that the U.S. has walked away from, that the World Bank has walked away from”. That is what the government is doing with Canadian taxpayers' money. That is what the government is doing with the money that Canadians have slaved for.

What else has happened? With respect to the Three Gorges Dam the Prime Minister violated the Export Development Corporation's own environmental code of conduct and said “We're going to invest money in this project”, completely ignoring the comments by the non-governmental organizations, by international observers, by the World Bank. When those organizations chose not to go, and for obvious reasons, Canada chose to lend Canadian taxpayers' money. If that is not rot, I do not know what is.

With respect to the money, there is $22 billion in outstanding loans from EDC. Who is on the hook for this? What does the EDC do? It loans money on the good name of the Canadian taxpayer.