Keith Martin

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 8th, 1998]

Could the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services explain: ( a ) what public tendering processes were used in the acquisition process for purchasing the M.V. Madeleine ; ( b ) how many passengers and cars this ship can carry; ( c ) how many passengers and cars this ship has carried since it came into service; and ( d ) what the annual subsidy is to keep this ship in service?

[Health, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last October 9, I introduced in the House Motion No. 222 which was designed to revamp the organ donor system. It will save lives, and it passed unanimously.

Last year, however, 122 people died while waiting for a transplant. Still, the Minister of Health has done nothing to ensure that this motion is adopted in whole or in part

The minister has the opportunity to take the necessary steps. Will he promise this House to implement the motion before the end of the year? People's lives are at stake.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the Group No. 2 motions in Bill C-19. We have all been speaking quite eloquently on Group No. 2 today.

It is instructive to look at history to see what this bill will do for the Canadian economy. Everybody in this House wants to improve the health and welfare of Canadians. Heaven knows that we have the worst structural unemployment problem of any OECD nation in the world. The number is over 9%. It is not a cyclical problem. It is a structural problem. Bill C-19 will only make that structural problem worse.

It is instructive to look at two countries that had to labour under labour laws which would be supported by Bill C-19, Britain and New Zealand. As my friends from the Liberal Party well know, back in the 1970s and the 1980s, New Zealand and Great Britain were labouring under rules and regulations that supported the unions and which caused a dramatic negative impact on unemployment. Their labour laws sought to crush their economies through various methods which I will get into later.

Bill C-19 will ban replacement workers. As the Sims report very clearly said, banning replacement workers will have a significant negative impact on our economy. It will increase the number of part time workers which will cause a decrease in investment, an increase in union premiums and a decrease in employment, that is, an increase in unemployment.

It causes a decrease in the reliance of permanent workers. Who would like to be in the situation of working part time job to part time job having to continually seek for a job? It causes an enormous amount of personal and economic uncertainty for Canadians. That is happening more. Instead of alleviating the problem, Bill C-19 will make that problem worse.

The proposed legislation would also provide for union reps to have the names and addresses of all offsite workers.

That is an infringement on and a violation of people's individual rights and freedoms. It will also cause an increase in union premiums and a decrease in investment. What has been clearly found, when we look at the impact of unionization on economic performance, is that there is no change or a decrease in productivity within an economy with an increasing in the strength of union rules and regulations.

Unions have done a tremendous job historically in providing job security, fair wages and clean and fair environments. But in the last few decades they have taken on an entirely different tone and tenure. Some unions are engaging in behaviours that produce and increase their political leadership rather than behaving in a way that is beneficial to their members. It is the members who pay the price.

If union wages are increased, if members are forced against their will to join a union, labour costs are increased. If labour costs are increased what happens? The employer is forced to increase the price it charges for goods and services. This causes a decrease in the competitiveness of that business. That causes a decrease in employment in that business. Unless wage increases are matched with increased productivity a firm becomes less competitive domestically and internationally.

This kind of bill will to decrease the competitiveness of our industry and will strengthen the structural unemployment problems we have. This is very serious.

There are a number of things we can do. It is constructive to look at what the United States has recently done. In many states right to work legislation has been introduced. For those states that have adopted right to work legislation, 75% of the new investment in the United States has gone to those states.

Is the individual worker better off with or without right to work legislation? The last thing we would want to do is in any way, shape or form harm the individual worker's ability to gain safe and secure employment. Facts prove that right to work legislation increases the amount of money that workers have in their pockets by almost $2,300 per person.

If we look at the historical evidence from Great Britain and New Zealand we see very clearly that the increasing strength of labour laws and regulations which strengthens unions within a country actually crushes the economy, increases unemployment and impedes the ability of workers to seek what people see as a necessary part of living, gainful, successful, enjoyable and safe employment. That is what Bill C-19 and Group 2 motions will do, except for the ones the Reform Party has introduced. They will improve Bill C-19.

There are other things we can do that are constructive. I will quote some from some labour laws and regulations that have actually strengthened and improved workers' positions. How can we protect individual workers rights? One, make it unfair to dismiss an employee for non-membership in all circumstances.

Two, give union members the right not to be disciplined by their union for not supporting industrial action. Three, make it unlawful to organize or threaten industrial action to establish or maintain a closed shop.

Four, make it unlawful to refuse employment on grounds related to trade union membership. Job advertisements cannot specify union membership.

Five, make unions responsible for unofficial strikes. Unofficial strikers can be dismissed. There is no immunity for industrial action to support a dismissed striker.

We could also do the following that was in the trade union employment act in Great Britain. We could establish a commissioner for the protection against unlawful industrial action. We could also require unions to provide all members with annual statements of financial affairs, including pay and benefits of union leaders. Hundreds of millions of dollars go into union coffers every year. Does anybody know where that money goes? Do the workers know where that money goes? No.

They pay out a lot of money and many union workers tell me they wish we could find out where that money goes. They pay a lot of money out of their pockets but do not know where it goes. They are concerned that money goes into the pockets of the leadership of the unions or for the leadership of the union's benefit and not for the people.

An audit of these moneys making the ultimate outcome of the union dues transparent to all members is a useful thing for the membership and would strengthen and safeguard those union leaders who are honourable and trying to do the best for their workers.

We could also give individuals the right to join the union of their choice. Right now they do not have that choice at all. We could also require employers to seek an individual written consent to the checkoff of trade union subscriptions from pay every three years.

All these things could strengthen labour laws, strengthen the individual's position rather than strengthening the position of the union leadership.

No one in this House, in particular members of the Reform Party, wants to see in any way, shape or form individual rights compromised. That is why our members are working very hard to quash this bill or at the very least change it so that individual worker rights are put ahead of the rights of union leaderships. How can anybody argue with that? I ask members to join us in producing a bill that will strengthen the position of the workers and not the leaders.

[Points Of Order, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order with regard to an incident that occurred today at the Standing Committee on Health.

The standing committee adopted a motion restricting members from introducing motions in the official language of choice contrary to the rules of this House and the Official Languages Act. While I voluntarily agreed to submit a motion with the committee in both languages, I am concerned with the committee formalizing this as a requirement in its procedures.

Standing Order 65 outlines the procedure for moving motions. It states:

All motions shall be in writing...before being debated or put from the Chair....it shall be read in English and in French by the Speaker, if he or she be familiar with both languages; if not, the Speaker shall read the motion in one language and direct the Clerk of the Table to read it in the other—

Standing Order 116 states that in a standing committee the standing orders shall apply. Standing Order 116 lists some exceptions such as the election of the Speaker, seconding of motions and times of speaking. However moving motions in the official language of choice is not an exception. Moving motions in either official language is a right granted to members by the authority of this House and by law.

Subsection 4(1) of the Official Languages Act reads as follows:

English and French are the official languages of Parliament, and everyone has the right to use either of those languages in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.

This subsection defines the rights of members of parliament to speak and submit documents in their language of choice in parliamentary proceedings.

The Commissioner of Official Languages in his report to parliament in 1996 recommended that “the Speaker of the House advise committee chairs, referring particularly to subsection 4(1) of the Official Languages Act, that language should not be an obstacle to members of Parliament in the performance of their duties”.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you of two important rulings with regard to committees and the standing orders of the House. On June 20, 1994 and November 7, 1996 the Speaker ruled:

While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

In closing, the committee by adopting a procedure restricting members from introducing a motion in the official language of their choice has established a procedure which goes beyond the powers conferred upon it by the House. This committee is in breach of the standing orders and the law.

[Hepatitis C, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, nobody in the House disagrees that this is a difficult decision. Everybody on this opposition side and indeed most of the people in the minister's party want to see a resolution for these people.

Watching today is Jennifer from my constituency who contracted hepatitis C after surgery. Once again, is the Minister of Health going to close the door on these people or is he going to give them a window of opportunity and some hope by providing compensation while they are unable to work, while they are unable to—

[Hepatitis C, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I had a question prepared today but I am not going to ask it.

Thousands of Canadians are watching on these cameras, thousands of people infected by hepatitis C. The Minister of Health said he was going to put up for these people. Is he going to put up for those victims or is he going to tell them to shut up like he has told us?

[Bosnia, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on this debate. It hearkens back to what we were doing four years ago at the beginning of our first term in Parliament. Many of us made our first speech in the House of Commons in an emergency debate concerning the crisis that was taking place in Bosnia.

Although many people in the House spoke eloquently about the issue, we failed miserably. Despots were prepared to rape, murder, pillage and use their power as leaders to pit brother against brother and cause the worst genocide that Europe and in fact the world had seen since World War II. The bloodletting has not finished.

The Dayton peace accord ensured that the former Yugoslavia would fracture. It ensured that Bosnia would exist.

Through force we have managed to keep the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims together. It is only by force that we have managed to do this. One thing we have to realize in this House is that Bosnia only stays together through the power of international intervention by force. If that force is removed, Bosnia will descend into the same bloodshed which existed four years ago. The killings will continue. At the highest levels of policy making in the world, leaders recognize that. We have to recognize that.

I support completely the use of our soldiers in Bosnia at this time. However unless we want another Cyprus in our midst, because that is what Bosnia is going to be, we have to recognize that the only long term future for Bosnia is for Bosnia to fracture peacefully.

The Dayton peace accord was the proverbial finger in the dyke. It served to prevent further conflict at that time and through force we have prevented that. We have largely prevented further bloodshed. In the future no conflict is going to be prevented in the long term unless Bosnia fractures into two or three separate groups and unless we are prepared to sit there for time immemorial. So much blood has been spilled under the bridge that people there will never forget that. As a result if we leave, SFOR leaves and the killings will resume.

We can see it happening now. Again Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo has started a war against the ethnic Albanians. He started a war against the Serbian president in Bosnia. He has also started to stir up problems and is in a cold war against the leader of Montenegro. This is only an example of some of the future conflicts that are stirring in this pot we call the Balkans and which we have barely managed to keep a lid on.

Unless we are prepared to stay there forever, we have to enter into peaceful negotiations to ensure that Bosnia fractures through negotiations and not at the end of an AK-47. There is much we can do.

If we accept the fact that Bosnia has to fracture peacefully for long term peace, then I challenge the minister to work with his compatriots in the OSCE, in the UN and the members of the contact group to accept that realization. Work toward a negotiated split of Bosnia and separate the ethnic groups peacefully forever.

We also have to realize there are other issues taking place. Yugoslavia represents the most egregious example in Europe in recent memory. Conflict such as that in Yugoslavia sits under our nose like a ticking time bomb for years before it blows up. The genocide that took place in the former Yugoslavia represents a very clear realization that we have learned nothing from the concentration camps of Dachau and Auschwitz. We have proven once again that we are impotent in dealing with impending conflict when it is in our face. We have tools that can solve this problem.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has developed a great deal of capital over the last two years through his work in banning land mines, through his work on human rights in China and through other foreign policy initiatives he has produced. With that capital he can work with other countries to deal with the larger problem of conflict prevention.

There is a saying in medicine that prevention is a worth a lot more than a cure. Preventing conflict is a lot cheaper, a lot more effective and infinitely more humane than managing the conflict after it has occurred.

I have presented a private member's motion in the House of Commons. It calls on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to bring like-minded nations together, as we did on the land mines issue, in Ottawa or wherever to identify the precursors to conflict and to put in the tools to address them. If we can build this nucleus of like-minded nations, other nations will come on board.

Clearly it is in the best interest of any nation not to sit beside or have conflict within their sphere of influence. Indeed a conflict that may occur halfway around the world will come to roost within our own borders either through the egress of refugees and demands on our own social policies or demands on our defence and aid budgets.

It is also important to realize that if a conflict blows up, all the incredibly valuable work our Canadian soldiers are heroically doing will be washed away within a period of days, weeks or months when war breaks out.

If we revamp the International Monetary Fund, it can be used as a tool, not only as a carrot but also as a stick. Wars need money. If we choke off the supply of money then we choke off the ability of a despot to engage in war. Most of the countries today that are under the threat of war rely on money from the IMF. The IMF can prevent despots from using that money. It can freeze their assets.

The IMF can use its power as a carrot to supply money to moderate groups that are prepared to work together with disparate groups to build bridges of tolerance and understanding. It would reward those who are engaged in peacemaking. It would reward those individuals who would face despots and say “No, you are not going to turn my country into a hell-hole. You are not going to turn this into another civil war. You are not going to pit brother against brother. You are not going to cause my people to be killed”.

We are in an unusual position as a nation. Canada has an unusual role to play in the international community. We have the ability to act as negotiator to bring countries together to work through multilateral measures to change the IMF and use it as a tool for peace.

The United Nations needs a renaissance. It was effective when it was put together at the end of World War II but it does not have the ability to address the security threats that we as a country and the international community face in the future.

The UN needs a renaissance. Many countries feel the same way but they are looking for a leader. We can be that leader. There are very potent, cogent, economic, reasonable and pragmatic reasons for getting involved and changing these institutions. War hurts everybody. It costs us. It costs the countries involved. It costs everybody and everybody loses.

I ask the government to work with other members of the House so that we can use Canada's power as a force in changing these multilateral organizations into tools of peace to address security threats, be they military, environmental or otherwise.

In closing, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Burundi, Burma, India, Kenya and Indonesia represent security threats in the future. We need to deal with them now for everybody's sake. I challenge the Minister of Foreign Affairs to work with us in doing just that.

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, 80% of those people who are infected with hepatitis C get liver cancer, become unhealthy and die prematurely. Robert is one of those members in my constituency. Since he has been infected he has lost his house, he has lost his health and he has lost his life.

When the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health talk of fairness and compassion, why is the Prime Minister forcing his members to vote against their conscience, to vote against Robert and to vote against victims like him?

[Income Tax Act, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-223 put forth by the member for Portage—Lisgar. I think he deserves an enormous amount of credit for putting forth his private member's bill, which goes to the heart of a very serious issue affecting members of the lower socio-economic groups as well as middle income groups, to enable individuals to obtain their first home, to move from the large pool of renters to the pool of home ownership, thereby ensuring their ability to have a roof over their heads.

Bill C-223 does just that. Its purpose is to provide for the deduction of interest paid by taxpayers on the the first $100,000 on a mortgage loan secured on the first qualifying home acquired by taxpayers.

My colleague from Portage—Lisgar spoke about this matter in the first hour of debate and made a very eloquent argument in favour of the bill. I would like to support what he said.

The bill addresses a number of concerns and illustrates a number of benefits. For example, it would lower the tax burdens of individuals and would ensure people would have more money in their pockets. This is particularly important in view of the fact that over the last several years individuals have been living with fixed incomes. Their disposable income has been eroded over time through bracket creep and the introduction of some 34 tax increases over the last four years. Therefore they have less money in their pockets to provide for basics such as home ownership. Bill C-223 would increase the amount of home ownership and housing affordability.

In my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca the issue of affordable homes is extremely important. There is a large pool of individuals who would like to own homes but cannot.

Contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said in his speech, that a taxpayer's choice of accommodation, owning versus renting, is a personal choice, for many people it is not a personal choice. For those people who are in the lower socio-economic groups owning or renting is not an option. They do not make enough money to own a house.

How do we ensure that these people have enough money to eventually have the security of home ownership? Bill C-223 does just that. It would enable people to deduct the interest on the first $100,000 of mortgage from their taxes. This will not benefit the rich. It will not benefit the speculator. The bill specifically states that it only deals with the first $100,000. The bill specifically deals with those individuals in the lower socio-economic groups and those individuals who are first time homeowners.

The bill also provides an economic stimulus to the economy. It will increase the number of housing starts, put people back to work and generate more money through the economy.

The bill put forth by my friend from Portage—Lisgar is a win, win bill. It should not have any opposition. If one looks at the arguments put forward by members of the government, one sees that their concerns were addressed by my colleague. They are understandable questions from the government, but they are questions that have been answered and meet the objective not only of our party but of the government to ensure that people, particularly those with the middle and lower incomes, are able to finally own homes.

Renting is not something that people in lower socio-economic groups want. They want the security of home ownership. They do not like to rent. Renting takes away from the disposal income that they could use for other necessities such as food, clothing for their children and education needs. All these things would benefit those people who need it. Bill C-233 does just that.

The bill would also provide equity between homeowners with mortgages and those who do not have mortgages. Arguments against the bill have been that it would likely increase the price of houses. The price of houses is a function of supply and demand. We have an enormous demand but we do not have the supply. Bill C-223 would provide an influx of money that would provide a stimulus to the job market.

There are other issues to deal with. The bill can be seen as a backdrop against the declining disposal income of all people, the decrease in affordable housing and the declining economic situation of people from coast to coast.

I live in a city where housing is very expensive. There are a number of cities like that. This issue affects people who would like to own homes from Newfoundland to British Columbia. All provinces are affected.

The issue of affordable housing is serious. There has been declining funding for affordable housing because of the declining amount of resources governments have to spend. We understand that. We have to live within our means. If the government is to withdraw the amount of funding for affordable housing then it should at least give people the ability and the tools to provide for their own housing. Bill C-223 would do just that.

The government should consider other options like expanding the RRSP to allow for a registered home ownership plan of $5,000 beyond the current maximum for first time home owners, for those people who are purchasing homes for under $200,000. If they were able to do that perhaps they could put money away. Perhaps they would have the economic tools to finally own a home and provide security for themselves and their families.

The existing measures for RRSPs are not adequate. The Minister of Finance is considering carving away our RRSP maximum. That will take away the ability of people to provide for themselves.

It is good that RRSPs can be used toward the down payment of a first home. The government should be complimented on that. The government should also adopt Bill C-223, put forth by my colleague from Portage—Lisgar. It would be a fine complement to that measure.

Perhaps the government should also consider being innovative in providing tax shelters for individual Canadians who are prepared to invest in a home. Perhaps it should consider incentives for builders to provide affordable housing. This would remove the onus from the government and place it on the individual.

If governments are fiscally restrained, why not allow the individual to provide those funds? There is a large pool of funds in the private sector which could be used for investment. Those moneys could be targeted toward affordable housing. Why not provide a tax break for investors who are prepared to put up the money and fill the gap?

This is also a social situation. A home, a shelter, a roof over our heads is a basic necessity.

I support Bill C-223, which was put forward by my colleague from Portage—Lisgar. I would ask the government to support it for all individuals. The bill is primarily designed to address the huge need that exists for affordable housing, particularly for first time homeowners and those in the lower and middle income brackets.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-36, the budget implementation bill. I would like to deal with a number of issues. My colleagues have spoken quite eloquently on the faults of Bill C-36. I am going to deal with a few other issues and how we can revamp and rejuvenate our economy so that we can provide for a better future for all Canadians.

Bill C-36 is a microcosm of what this House does repeatedly. It nibbles around the edges of an issue rather than taking the bull by the horns and addressing the issue. Rather than dealing with the larger issues of debt reduction, poverty within our country, educational problems, problems of tax relief, egregious rules and regulations that choke off our private sector, the government has chosen to nibble around the edges and not really deal with the meat of the matter.

On the education issue, the millennium fund in principle is good. We have to provide moneys so our students can have the funds to be educated in post-secondary institutions. However, there are some significant failures within our education system which the government has an opportunity to deal with.

For example, a chasm exists between the needs of the private sector and the ability of our education system to fill those needs. Large numbers of jobs within our country go unfilled, primarily because there are no students to fill them. The government should work with the private sector and the educational institutions so that the students in the institutions today understand what are the future needs of the economy.

I was down in the United States recently. They have done some innovative work in that area. It is for that and other reasons many Canadians go south of the border to find employment. In many cases they find a more lucrative and challenging environment in which to work. That is a shame, because those students could stay within our country.

Look at the example of the United Kingdom. They have built some innovative links between industry and the private sector, the private sector, education and government.

For example, students should be provided with apprenticeship possibilities. Provide them with apprenticeships in professions that are going to be needed in the future. There are many needs the economy of the 21st century will require filled. We as a country have to look at the future, anticipate those needs and be aggressive enough to provide that information to our students. It is our role to provide those opportunities to the youth of today.

I compliment the government on its RESP and child tax benefit plans. These are things we have said are good. They will enable people within the private sector to have more moneys so as to provide for their needs and give them the ability to be functional members of our society.

With respect to our economy, the government could have addressed the issue of tax relief. Even in my province of British Columbia, if you can believe it, the NDP has actually taken the step to look at the successes of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario and has adopted a tax reduction strategy, albeit a timid one.

Why did the government not do that in any meaningful way? It has proven to work in country after country after country. High taxes kill jobs. Lower taxes will enable the private sector to be more aggressive and create jobs.

When we go into our communities and talk to the private sector, it tells us that the tax structure we have today is far too complicated and onerous and prevents it from hiring people.