Keith Martin

[Afghanistan, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, most of those are members of our honourable and brave defence forces. They are the ones who are putting their backs into this. The reality is that the government has failed on its development package. It has failed on telling the Canadian public how it is training Afghan security forces. It has failed in dealing with the insurgency coming from Pakistan.

Again my question is simple. Since we are in charge of the reconstruction teams in Kandahar, how many clinics and how many schools have our PRT personnel built in Afghanistan specifically and in Kandahar also?

[Afghanistan, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence said that it is impossible to defeat the Taliban “militarily”. The chief of the defence staff confirmed this by saying that the winning strategy will be based on reconstruction, but the government has dropped the ball on the development package.

My question for the Minister of International Cooperation is very simple. How many CIDA personnel does she have on the ground working in Afghanistan generally and in Kandahar specifically?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about transparency and accountability with respect to the bill. I wonder if he knows that when we were in government, we introduced the comptroller general system and we put a large chunk of crown corporations under greater public scrutiny. I wonder if he would acknowledge that.

I also wonder if he would agree that this particular bill does not have anything to do with public accountability. It has to do with conduct. This is a conduct bill.

The Auditor General said very clearly that we do not need more layers of rules and regulations. There are enough rules and regulations. Failures did not occur because rules and regulations were flawed; problems happened because people did not follow the law.

There is nothing we can do to prevent an individual who wants to commit theft from committing theft. We have sufficient rules and regulations and when people do it, they are caught and prosecuted. The fact that people have been caught and are being prosecuted is a testimony to the laws that are already in existence.

I wonder if the hon. member would simply comment on the fact that the bill will put layers and layers of regulations on the public service and will cause gridlock in the public service. It will in fact drive good people away from the public service. Who in their right mind would want to join the public service with those kinds of rules and regulations? It will also damage or destroy the innovation that is absolutely essential for our public servants to do the extraordinary job they do day in and day out.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Both members who spoke are incorrect. I never crossed the floor. I left my former party, sat as an independent and ran as an Liberal, but I never crossed the floor.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with great interest. I want to go through three parts of his comments and ask him a question at the end.

The member made an absolutely staggering comment. He said that accountability cannot be defined. That is a remarkable statement for someone in a government, professing to put forth an accountability act. How can the member possibly support an accountability act when, in his own words, he cannot define accountability?

My second point is the member spoke about access to information. If he is in favour of access to information, then he should take it up with his Prime Minister as to why he is muzzling the media, why he is muzzling his cabinet, why he is muzzling his members of Parliament and why he is trying to muzzle the public service from doing its job as an apolitical institution.

My third point is on the issue of what Canadians want. They want the same as all of us want because all of us are taxpayers. Canadians want their money to be spent wisely and effectively in the interests of the public.

According to Henry McCandless, an expert on this matter from the Auditor General's office, accountability is the obligation of elected officials to tell the public what they are doing. Bill C-2 will cause a gridlock.

Does the hon. member not admit that this bill, a bill that he cannot define, will cause gridlock in the public service and drive good, young smart people away from joining the public service at a time--

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for her fine oratory skills in outlining the massive deficits in Bill C-2.

It is interesting that with a title like “public accountability”, who could possibly disagree with that? One could only disagree with the bill if the bill did not deal with public accountability.

The major flaw and the big lie with respect to this bill, because let us call what it is, it is an effort to tie the whole bill into the big lie which will somehow lambaste the previous government and the Liberal Party for being corrupt, which everybody knows is not true. The reality is vastly different. However, to the government's credit, it successfully rode on that pony to government and history is what it was.

This is a much more serious issue than petty politics because this bill, if passed, will have a profound impact upon the lives of Canadians and the functioning of our public service.

If this bill were to improve the public service and improve accountability, that would be a useful thing. I venture to say that the bill has nothing to do with accountability because true public accountability is the obligation on the part of elected officials and senior government officials to tell the public what they are doing.

Does the hon. member not think that this bill would cause gridlock in the public service by all the--

[Points of Order, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege that arises out of question period and the comments made by the Minister of National Defence, who said during his response to my question that I did not support our troops. In my riding, which has a Canadian Forces base, this is exceedingly important. The defence minister--

[Afghanistan, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, an essential component to the success of our mission in Afghanistan is the ability of the Afghan security forces to provide security within their own country and yet we have heard nothing from the government in terms of how many Afghan security forces are needed and how many will be trained.

My question for the government is simple and it is important for the exit strategy for our troops. Over the next two and a half years how many Afghan security forces will be trained by the government and how many will be needed for the Afghan people to provide their own security?

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to help the poorest in our country. It calls on the Government of Canada to introduce a low income tax free supplement of $2,000 for all Canadians who have gross earnings of less or equal to $20,000 a year. For those whose gross income is above $20,000 a year, a supplement would be 10% of gross earnings, less $4,000. If that amount is negative, they receive the grant in that amount to a maximum of $2,000. If the amount is positive, they do not.

[Citizenship Act, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. I have a question for her that deals with the immigration portfolio. It is an issue that relates to the situation with respect to work permits in Canada.

Because we have a significant work skills shortage, I want to ask my colleague if she thinks that the government should consult with other groups and develop a better system of work permits to address the skilled trades shortage we have in our country right now and to bring immigrants in certain skilled trades to Canada to address this deficit.