Keith Martin

[Zimbabwe, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Zimbabwe is poised to descend into a new hell. Once the breadbasket of Africa, it is now its basket case. Its despotic President Robert Mugabe's thugs just beat and tortured the head of the Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangirai, and tortured his twinned MP Job Sikhala.

With the world looking the other way, Zimbabwe's now on the precipice of a bloodbath for Mugabe just imported 2,500 members of an Angolan paramilitary death squad. He is going to unleash this force against his own people, much as he did when he ordered the slaughter of 18,000 civilians in Matabeleland in 1983.

To prevent this massacre from occurring, I call on our government to expel the Zimbabwean High Commissioner to Canada. I call on the African Union, especially South Africa, to strongly sanction Mr. Mugabe and his cronies and increase aid to Zimbabwean NGOs and human rights groups.

There is little time left. We must exercise our responsibility to protect and prevent a bloodbath from occurring in Zimbabwe.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there are far too many mythologies in the member's comments to be able to go through all of them but I will go through two.

The first one is on the military. When we were in government we actually had the biggest increase in spending on the military in more than 30 years. We appointed the current CDS, General Hillier, to engage in the reformation of our military. We probably cut too much in the 1990s but as a direct result of the mess that the Conservatives left us with, a huge debt and deficit that was driving our country into the ground, it prevented us from making the investments into the forces that were required. When we were government in 2004, we recognized that and started to pour more money into the Canadian forces. The money went up geometrically for our Canadian Forces and it was the right thing to do. We wish it had been more but we put in the biggest change in 30 years.

We also started the veterans charter, which was the biggest change in care for our veterans in 40 years. In terms of tax reductions, we lowered the tax on the--

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me read into the hon. member's statement a couple of questions.

The first question was on consumption tax versus income tax. The hon. member is quite right, tax credits for people who make the lowest amount of money are not worthwhile, but those individuals also do not benefit from a reduction in GST because they are using all of their meagre moneys to pay for rent and food, both of which are excluded from GST.

What the government should have done, which goes back to my original plea to the government, was to lower taxes on the poor so they could have more money in their pockets to pay for the basic needs that they cannot pay for now. That is the essence for his constituents and mine, and for everybody else in the House. The government did not do that and that is the failure.

A consumption tax benefits the rich because, by its very nature, it actually benefits those who are spending. The more one spends, the more one benefits. For the demographic the member is talking about, the poorest, they are not buying new cars or buying boats. Those people will not benefit from a consumption tax.

On child care, my province lost $480 million because of the government's mismanagement and, as a result of that, my constituents are not getting the child care they were promised.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great ironies of Canadian politics is the mythology that Conservatives are better money managers than Liberals. The fact is, and history bears this out, that the opposite is true. All one needs to do is go back and look at history and see the mess that was left to the Liberal government in 1993 after years of overspending and a debtload that was driving Canada into a place that was the equivalent of Argentina. The Finance Minister knows full well what that situation was about.

The tragedy of it all is that in this budget the government has increased spending three times the size of inflation. Is this an intelligent, tactical budget that invested in those things that will make our country more productive in an increasingly competitive world? No. Unfortunately, this is a budget that has at its roots a very cynical approach to use the taxpayers' money to essentially buy votes.

The tactical spending that the government has done is not with a view to improve the lot of all Canadians, but rather with a view to use the budget and the taxpayers' money to win a federal election.

The Times Columnist in my city of Victoria had a very telling cartoon showing the Prime Minister in galoshes, wearing a long overcoat and carrying a fishing rod. On the end of the fishing rod was a man on a hook and on the man's chest it read “Bought and hooked by your money”. In essence, what the cartoonist was saying was that the taxpayers have been bought and hooked by their own money. Unfortunately, that is what has happened.

During this time of surplus there was a great opportunity for the government to invest in those things that would thrust us to the forefront of being one of the great countries of the world. It could have ensured we were productive and had a strong economy and, as a result of that, the taxes to pay for those social programs on which Canadians rely.

The government knows full well that it only needs 40% of the public to vote for it in order to have a majority and surely the budget demonstrated that thinking very clearly. I will describe what the government should have done to have a budget that was fair, equitable and responsible, a budget that was responsible to the taxpayers and one that was in the public service, not in self-interest.

First, the government failed to address the real fiscal imbalance, the imbalance between those who have not and those who have. How on earth can Canadians who are making $9 or $10 an hour survive these days, particularly if they have a family? Does the budget actually address that demographic? Does it address those who are poorest in our society? The answer is a grim no. The government did not address those who are most vulnerable and, in not doing so, it failed in its greatest responsibility, which is to help those who are least privileged in our society.

The government should have reversed the tax increase that it made on the poorest in the 2006 budget. Unbeknownst to most Canadians, until they do their taxes, is that the government raised the taxes on the poor, which is unthinkable. Instead, it dropped the GST. Why? It is because it sounds good. Everybody knows that a cut in a consumption tax is a cut that will not benefit the poorest. It is a cut that will help the richest. The Finance Minister knows this. The cut to the GST was nothing more than a cynical ploy to curry favour with a certain demographic within society because it does not help the poorest. It helps the richest.

It also benefits, in terms of transfers to the provinces, selectively one province. Forty per cent of the money will go to the province of Quebec. Nobody begrudges any province its ability to get moneys from the federal government but all of us in every one of our provinces know full well that every province must be treated fairly. The budget fails that test dismally. Why? I think the people of Quebec know that the government is using their money and the money from Canadians all across this country to bribe the taxpayers in Quebec. That is as simple as it gets. The people in my province of British Columbia know this full well.

Did the government invest in productivity? Did it lower taxes? Did it invest in research and development? No, it did not. Rather, it used the people's money to selectively pander to certain demographics in our society. That is a cynical act and most people know that.

The government promised Canadians that it would invest in child care spaces. Did it do that? No, it did not, and to the exclusion of ensuring that hard-working Canadian families have money in their pockets to take care of their children if they want to take care of them at home. All of us recognize the importance of that. We all want to ensure that families have that ability. The government did not. Canadians from coast to coast to coast, not just in my province of British Columbia, want the opportunity to have child care. They do not want $2 in their pockets as the finance minister has given them. They want the ability and the choice to put their kids into child care. This is not only an option issue, this is an economic issue and a fairness issue. This is about giving people the opportunity to go to school, get skills and elevate their status in life. That is what Canadians want.

Why did the government not lower personal income tax to give Canadians the choice to save, to invest or to spend? Why does the government want to pick winners and losers? Why does it not give hard-working taxpayers the opportunity to keep more money in their pockets?

Why did the minister not simplify the tax system rather than complicating it? He did that in total violation of what his party supposedly stood for which was to simplify the tax system. Why did the Conservatives complicate the tax system? The finance minister can laugh all he wants but he knows full well that this is part of a cynical ploy to win a majority in the next federal election. It is not smart economics and it is not responsible economics. This is not being responsible to the taxpayer and the minister knows that full well.

I have some solutions and I hope the minister listens because he might be able to employ some useful things.

Why does the minister not employ a Canadian low income tax supplement that would give $2,000 to every Canadian making less than $20,000 a year? Why does he not use more tax shifting so Canadians could adopt green technologies? Why does he not fully fund the EnerGuide program? Why does he not fully fund the Pacific Gateway strategy in my province of British Columbia?

Why did his government discard Liberal policies and then reinvigorate them under a different name in a watered down version, call them its own and then claim it was doing something good for Canadians? The fact is that part of the government's ploy is to remove policies that were made by the previous government, water them down, make them weaker than they were and then call them their own. That is an abysmal, an abominable and pathetic ploy from a person who is supposed to be a servant of the public.

Had the government been smart, it would have seen that the policies were good and it would have resurrected them. If the government wanted to make them better, then it should have, but, for heaven's sake, it should not have been so disingenuous as to remove good policies in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers, water them down, call them its own and say that it was doing a good thing. The Conservatives are not doing a good thing and taxpayers should know this.

Why did the government not work with the provinces to develop a national strategy for health care workers? We do not have that and it is something we need. A smart thing for the minister to do would have been to work with his counterpart, the Minister of Health, and do this.

Why did he not provide more training spaces for immigrants who have come here to improve their skills and trade? Why did he not announce that he wants to reduce barriers to east-west trade in our country? Why did he not do something intelligent like that? Why did he not reduce federal gas taxes? We did that. Gas taxes are sky high right now and they are going up. The Minister of Finance should have decreased that.

I can give the minister all kinds of solutions. Many members on this side would be happy to provide him with umpteen numbers of constructive solutions. We are happy to work with him--

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

The member brought up an issue that all of us as members of Parliament have heard about from our constituents. We have heard loud and clear that there is a failure with respect to the government in terms of child care. The Conservatives promised 25,000 spaces. They did not deliver.

It is important not only to give people choice, because certainly in regard to the $1 or $2 a day the government has given Canadian families with children under the age of six, all of us know that $2 a day does not buy child care. This is important because some Canadians want to take care of their children at home and some cannot take care of their children at home. For economic reasons, some have to go out and work.

I want to ask my hon. colleague about two points. First, can she possibly fathom how the government failed to give low income Canadians a tax break and instead raised their taxes in the 2006 election? Could she describe for this House and for the viewers out there why it is important for Canadians to have a choice in terms of child care? For example, in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, why on our military base are there 29 spots for children and a waiting list of 92 children? This is as important for our Canadian Forces families as it is for others.

Could my hon. colleague please tell the House what she would recommend in terms of what the government ought to have done to provide Canadians the child care spots they want?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's speech.

The minister is a thoughtful individual. She knows full well, as do the rest of us, that the real fiscal imbalance is the imbalance between the rich and the poor, the imbalance between the federal government's powers of taxation and the individual who pays the tax. There is only one taxpayer. We all have them in our ridings. We are all taxpayers.

I want to ask the minister a simple question. Given the fact that she sees in her riding and all of our ridings, the increasing difficulty of those who are in the poorest groups within our society, those who make less than $20,000 a year, why was there absolutely nothing in the budget for the people who are the most vulnerable in our society, those who make less than $20,000 a year? Why did she not try to influence the finance minister to reverse the change that was made, which was to increase the lowest tax rate? It is unfathomable and unthinkable to any member in the House, or it ought to be, as to why on earth the government chose to increase the taxes on the poorest in our society.

I ask the member, for whom I have a lot of respect, why did her government not deal with the real fiscal imbalance, the imbalance between the rich and the poor? Why in the budget was there absolutely nothing, a big fat zero for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society?

[Points of Order, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this relates to comments made by the finance minister during question period.

It relates to my voting behaviour on the upcoming budget. I want to correct the hon. member and any suggestions that I am voting for this budget. It is rooted in voodoo economics and one which shafts my province of British Columbia in favour of the government's cheap electioneering in other parts of the country. It is one that I would never support.

Therefore, I am not supporting or voting for this budget. I hope this corrects any delusions that the finance minister may have on this point.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 19th, 2007]

With respect to the recent wind storms in British Columbia and the need for disaster relief funding other than for Stanley Park, how much has the government committed to the Province of British Columbia for disaster relief?

[Development Assistance Accountability Act, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, on this exceptional bill, Bill C-293, on an issue that I think is of interest to many Canadians.

It deals with international development and how we can make it more effective. Why do we want to do this? As a matter of course to the taxpayer. However, the people we are dealing with are some of the most underprivileged people in the entire world and, quite frankly, it is a matter of life and death for many of them.

I will focus on Africa. Why? Because it is the only part of the world where the social parameters and economies are in decline. It is ironic that 40% of the world's natural resources are in the continent of Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, yet we see the worst cases of poverty on the entire globe.

In the 24 times that I have gone to Africa to work as a physician and engage in other aid and development projects on the ground, I can tell the House, and all of those who have been there know full well, that the people there are the most industrious, caring, compassionate and resourceful individuals. Acts of absolutely breathtaking charity and kindness are exercised by these people in the midst of abject poverty. It is extraordinary to see and humbling, coming from the west.

All the more ironic and heart-rending is the fact that there are massive resources of extraordinary amounts. The tragic irony is some of the poorest people live in the richest countries in the world, with resources of oil, diamonds, gold, minerals, timber and hydro in abundance. Why do we evidence all of these resources on one hand, but on the other hand we see abject poverty?

Let us go through some of the challenges and problems.

First is corruption. Corruption is the cancer that has eroded the continent. The fact that we as western countries have chosen to neglect this is a pox on our houses. We have chosen to neglect the gross excesses of leaders, from Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe to the Angolan government that has massive surpluses from oil, yet it is one of the worst places in the world for children to live. There are areas where there are conflicts, from Darfur to Chad, to the CAR and the Congo. We have seen countries ripped to pieces, innocent civilians caught in the cross-fire between groups that are fighting over resources, in part supported by western interests. We have done absolutely nothing. We have turned a blind eye.

How can we make our aid and development work better? I spoke of the problem of corruption, of a lack of capacity. We have umpteen numbers of solutions and frameworks that take place. We spend millions of dollars and those frameworks go absolutely no where. How on earth can we implement a framework if we do not have the people on the ground who have the capacity to execute them? It is an absolutely absurd situation, yet we expect these countries to get on their feet by giving them a framework that they cannot implement. They do not have the resources nor the people to do that. We give them the framework, we walk away and we are happy, with no effect on the ground. That is what we are talking about today.

There is a lack of basic infrastructure, human capacity and basic needs. When conflict arises and is in full force in front of us, when it is entirely possible to prevent those conflicts what have we done? Absolutely nothing. I have mentioned Darfur, Chad, CAR, Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and the list goes on.

Aid is like a funnel. Money goes in one end and trickles out the other end to the people. Our aid is scattered, unfocused, disorganized, within government, between governments and within countries of need. Can we fix it? Absolutely. This is in no way a mark on the very good people who we have in CIDA. They have been labouring under umpteen numbers of troubles through decades, but we can and we must fix this.

For example, we do not support the partnership branch, which supports the smaller NGOs that do exceptional work on the ground. Rather, we give huge tranches of funds to large international NGOs, and we lose accountability and effect. Again, it is the funnel effect with huge amounts of money through large NGOs, international organizations, with a trickle down to the people on the ground.

What can we do? Let us focus on the millennium development goals: 12 countries; primary health; primary education; water security; food security; governance; and anti-corruption work. Let us focus on these six particular areas and we will have an effect.

How do we execute them? From an administrative perspective, we should use the “Three Ones” that has been championed by UN aids, one framework, one implementing mechanism and one oversight mechanism. We can do that with CIDA and through our programs abroad.

When look at health care, which is a particular interest of mine, we should focus on maternal health. Why? If we get maternal health right, we will have our health care personnel, our medications, clinics, water and food. If we affect the maternal mortality statistics, we will know our health care systems are essentially correct and this will affect the entire population.

It is a mistake to focus on a silo mechanism for dealing with health care internationally, for example, A's focus only on antiretrovirals. If we simply deal with diseases as silos, but we do not have the health care personnel, the diagnostics, the treatment facilities, the clean water and the nutrition, how on earth will we have an effect on the ground? How will we affect those parameters and the people who have been ripped to pieces by the worst scourge that has ever affected humanity.

What else can we do? Why do we not take the Canada Corps, which is a moribund, rump of an organization within CIDA. Why not tap into the potential within our own country, Canadians who desperately want to work abroad, both young people and those who are part of the early retirement group? They have the desire, the will, the time and the expertise to do this.

How would this work? The Canada Corps would be the interface between a country and our people at home. Our CIDA people would then be on the ground and they could ask the people what they need. How many nurses, doctors, engineers, judicial experts, agronomists, hydrologists and veterinarians do they need? It then brings a list back to Canada. The corps then asks various groups, such as the Canadian Medical Association, the nursing association, Lawyers Without Borders, Doctors Without Borders, the Canadian Teachers Association, to fill those areas. If we do that, a big gap will be filled. Those people would not only provide care, but they could also teach people in those countries how to be veterinarians, doctors, nurses or agronomists. A long term stable effect would be felt on the ground.

We need to focus on the partnership branch. We need to increase moneys to it and ensure Canadian NGOs are used. They do incredible work on the ground. People here in the House as well as their families are involved in this work.

In the end, the big answer to Africa is the private sector. How can we provide an environment with infrastructure where people will invest in developing countries, an environment where people can use the ample resources for their benefit and not for the benefit of the leaders who swan around in Mercédes-Benzs while their people live in gutters. That is happening right now. We can do this.

I encourage members to look at the example of what Sir Seretse Khama did in Botswana. He was a leader for the continent. He had the resources and he ensured that they were tapped into and his people benefited from that. Despite the fact that Botswana has tragic levels of HIV-AIDS, it has a relatively stable economically, and it is to the credit of Sir Seretse Khama and other African leaders like him who were able to do this.

I encourage the government not to ignore Africa because it is a continent of great hope and potential. It has extraordinary people who can definitely change the course of their future. They do not want handouts. They want a hand up. All they want is the same as all of us. They do not want to be shot. They do not want to be killed. They do not want their children to be abused. They do not want to have a leadership that robs their country blind.

They want to have clean water. They want to have access to clean food that they can get themselves. They want education for their children. They want roads that are clear and free of landmines.

They want a stable playing field, and if we enable them to have that, if we do not give it to them, there will be an opportunity where these people will be able to take care of themselves. They have the internal personal resources. They have the capability to do this themselves. They just want an opportunity.

[Committees of the House, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I like parts of the member's speech, in particular the breadth of the issues about which he spoke. There is a number of things with which we disagree.

I want to offer my friend a number of suggestions, and I would appreciate his input on them. We both share ridings and constituencies that are on coasts. My riding is on the west coast; his is on the east coast.

My first suggestion deals with shipbuilding. I think the government ought to adopt this solution. Why does the government not take the import tax on ships purchased abroad and use that with a combined fund, to which the private sector can contribute, to help refurbish and upgrade our shipbuilding infrastructure? In other words, the government should take that import tax and rather than dump it into general revenues, put it into a shipbuilding restructuring infrastructure program that would have an equal amount of money from the private sector.

My second question deals with immigrants who are in Canada illegally and who have been here for a long time. Would his party approve of those immigrants being able to access work permits, renewable on a yearly basis? Then those people can get out from the cold, start paying taxes and ultimately, if they are able to do this over a period of years, they can apply to become citizens and be a part of our wonderful country?

My last question is on the issue of China. Is he in favour of erecting trade barriers against China? The Liberal Party is not in favour of that. It would violate many of our international agreements.

Does the hon. member think the government should invest in the elements of productivity, such as education, access to education, infrastructure, a cities agenda, which we adopted, that would allow us to make the strategic investments with other players to improve our productivity?