Keith Martin

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed on a number of counts that are inexplicable to those of us who want to ensure that we have a productive economy.

The first count deals with research and development, not only in the forestry field but with industry in general. Why on earth has the government not given the support that previous governments have given to research and development in this country?

There are two major areas in which this can be done, as the minister knows. One is through public funds, public institutions, and the second is to use innovative tax policies to enable the private sector to invest more wisely within its companies. The minister knows full well that one of the deficits in our private sector has been the inability of the private sector to invest in the research and development that would allow it to be competitive, not only domestically but also internationally.

The second count I want to address is the issue of Asia-Pacific. Asia-Pacific is an area that I believe, as most of us do, is being ignored by the government. It has not received the attention that the burgeoning economies there deserve.

Lastly, I want to address an issue in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. In Jordan River, there has been a massive sell-off of public lands. These lands are being sold off, which could result in environmental devastation in Jordan River and the area around it.

Will the minister involve himself specifically in ensuring that the areas--

[UNICEF, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party congratulate UNICEF on the one year anniversary of its Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF campaign. This program encourages Canadian students to act as global citizens and raise funds for humanitarian projects. This year the focus is on the Schools for Africa program.

However, UNICEF's efforts stand in stark contrast to those of the Conservative government which, while acquiring a huge surplus of taxpayers' money, has failed to articulate any poverty reduction strategy here at home or abroad. There is no mention of how to target resources to address poor health, lack of housing and access to education that stalk the least fortunate in Canada. There is no mention of investing in access to clean water, food security, health care, primary education, and anti-corruption measures in developing countries.

We in the Liberal Party congratulate UNICEF for its leadership and challenge the Conservative government to show some of its own by assisting those who struggle mightily day in and day out just to survive. This is one of the highest responsibilities the government has, a responsibility--

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member's comments. I honour him for his contribution to Canada as a former police officer.

Nobody has a hammerlock on public protection and the interest that we all have in reducing crime in our communities and across the country. Where we differ, perhaps, is in how we want to accomplish that goal.

My colleague from Mount Royal, in fact, if we want to talk about facts, actually was part and parcel of introducing the child sex offender registry and some of the toughest anti-porn laws in the entire world against children. He is an individual who has contributed mightily to public security.

We want to work with the government to enhance that, so I would ask my hon. colleague a couple of questions.

Why on earth would his government end the early learning head start program that the Liberal government put forward, a program asked for by the police, a program which ensures that children have their basic needs met and, in so doing, reduces youth crime by 60%?

My second question is in regard to drugs. Yes, drugs are a scourge in our country and we want to decrease drug use. Why on earth would his government attempt to challenge and try to eliminate the Insite supervised injection program in Vancouver and the NAOMI project, also in Vancouver? These are projects that have worked spectacularly well at reducing drug use among some of the toughest, most intractable drug users in Canada, at bringing these people into treatment, reducing crime, reducing harm, reducing public disturbances, saving the taxpayer money, and reducing demands on our health care system. It is a win-win situation for all concerned.

Will the member support the Insite supervised injection program for three more years? Will the government have a broader expansion of that program and the NAOMI narcotic replacement program for drug addicts in Vancouver and allow that to spread across Canada for those people who have a drug problem that should be treated as a medical problem, not a judicial problem?

[Income Tax Act, October 17th, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-462, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (refundable tax credit for low-income earners).

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest responsibilities any government has is its duty to help those who are most underprivileged in our society. Homelessness, lower education levels and poor health outcomes saps hope and destroys futures. Within Canada there is a group of the poor that has to labour underneath that. Within that group are nearly one million children who labour under poverty.

It is for this reason that it is my honour to introduce in the House a private member's bill that would introduce the Canadian low income supplement. This supplement would put $2,000 in the hands of every family that earns under $20,000 a year, declining to zero for those families that earn less than $40,000. It puts real money in the hands of those who are most underprivileged in our society.

The government is enjoying a $14 billion surplus. Conservatives failed to introduce any credible poverty reduction plan in the Speech from the Throne and, quite frankly, have increased taxes on the poor. This is remarkable and unconscionable.

Therefore, I ask the government to support and quickly pass this private member's bill, pass the Canadian low income supplement, put real money in the hands of those Canadians who are underprivileged and ensure that they have the hope and the future to which all Canadians aspire.

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

[Darfur, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we know words will not save lives in Darfur; only action will. Mass murders and rapes continue. The situation is getting worse in that part of the Sudan.

The United Nations Secretary General has pleaded for the resources for troops and for air and ground transport. Without these assets, the mission will likely fail.

I have a simple question for the government. Will the government contribute to these assets for the UN, or will it turn its back and allow Darfur's agony to continue?

[World Refugee Day, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today marks World Refugee Day, a celebration of the contributions refugees have made and a plea to halt the conflicts, famines and persecutions that produce them.

Unfortunately, there are some 40 million refugees worldwide, a number that is increasing precipitously as conflicts in the Sudan, the Palestinian territories, Iraq and other areas intensify.

At a time when action from the international community is critical, the minority Conservative government is slowly dismantling Canada's refugee system and has ignored playing an active role as a peacemaker.

By failing to fill the growing number of vacancies on the Immigration and Refugee Board, the government has created a mounting backlog of refugee cases that are lingering in limbo. Why the delay? Seemingly because the government wants to insert politics in a non-partisan process.

I urge the government in the spirit of World Refugee Day to do what is right, fill the vacancies, clear the backlog, stop putting partisan politics before those struggling to find a safe place to live, and bring Canada back to being an international peacekeeper.

[Africa, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the information is from the government's own estimates. The Conservatives should look at it sometime.

According to Debt AIDS Trade Africa, the Canadian government is short 50% of being on track to double aid to Africa by 2010.

Why is the finance minister, who is the highest spending finance minister in Canada's history, willing to keep Canada's wallet welded shut when the hat gets passed around to save lives and double aid to Africa?

[Africa, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, at the Gleneagles summit in 2005, G-8 leaders committed to double aid to Africa by 2010.

Appalling reports are coming out of Germany that our Prime Minister is actually blocking any specific financial commitment to Africa.

Estimates show that the government is putting in less than 20% of its commitment to the continent.

Why has the government offered only a fraction of the money needed to save lives and double aid to Africa?

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety's question is a difficult one, an impossible one really, to answer. To determine which police officers are actually accessing the CPIC system to ascertain whether or not a house or dwelling they are going to has guns is very difficult. Police officers should be asked that question.

I have asked police officers and as I said, the information that I received from police officers was that it is accessed thousands of times. I asked that question only in the context of firearms. I asked how many times they access the registry for the purpose of determining whether an individual or group has firearms. The minister is correct. It is an imperfect system. That is why in part we see the difference in answers between the urban police officers and the rural police officers.

I also want to say to the minister that very clearly my leader has supported more police officers and investment in better training in those areas. The minister articulated some of the more penalty focused initiatives which we support. However, he also has to recognize that if he only does that, if he does not deal with the harm reduction aspects of drug policy, if he does not direct investment into substance abuse rehabilitation, if he does not provide access for psychiatric therapies and treatments, if he does not provide skills training for individuals who have gone down that road, then he will be creating a system that is not going to make our streets any safer in the long run. He is not going to prevent people from going down that road.

I would argue that it is a lot cheaper to go down the road of addressing both of those elements than to simply focus on one. In fact it is incumbent on the government to take both of those duties very seriously and implement both of the solutions that I articulated in my speech.

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government has not put Bill C-21 back on the legislative agenda. It is not there. When it brings it forward we will be able to discuss it.

The member's question on the issue of the long gun registry was a good one. I have asked a lot of police officers about it. Regarding the operating costs for the gun registry, the economic cost of supporting it, one has to question whether that money would best be used where it is today in the long gun registry or whether it would best be used somewhere else.

I argued against the long gun registry. In fact, I went in front of the justice committee to argue against having it. If it were reintroduced today I would not support it. However, we have it. I have asked police officers should we or should we not get rid of the long gun registry and I have received two answers.

Police officers who work in urban areas say we should keep it because they access it quite frequently. There are thousands of hits on the registry every single day. I have received that answer from that population of police officers.

The other population of police officers to whom I spoke are those who work in rural areas. They say they do not need it. They do not use it. They respond to a situation with the presumption that there are guns in the house. They always do that. The rural police offers say that the registry is not needed.

At the end of the day, I have to say I am in a quandary. The overriding principle as to whether or not I support the abolition of the long gun registry resides in a simple question. What is in the best interests of the police who have to deal with people in a very dangerous situation and what is in the best interests of the Canadian public? It boils down to whether or not the money is best spent doing something else as the hon. member quite rightly said, or since the money has been spent on creating the registry, is it better to have the money there so that the police who are working in an urban area can access the registry? I would not advocating and I am sure that nobody in the House would advocate doing anything that would increase the insecurity and danger to our police officers. At the end of the day, that is the question that we all have to answer.