Keith Martin

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to a question I asked the parliamentary secretary earlier. It dealt with the issue of the simple possession of soft drugs. Will his party support decriminalization of the simple possession of marijuana given the fact that the application of this law across the country is extremely varied? It is inhumane when individuals who are 18 or 19 years old are picked up, prosecuted and receive a criminal record that will affect them for their entire lives. This has even been stated by such varied groups as various police groups and the Canadian Medical Association.

My second question deals with prosecution. As the parliamentary secretary knows, what charges are to be laid varies across the country. In some jurisdictions, police forces lay the charges. In others, the crown prosecutors do. I would like to know from the hon. member how the government is going to square this circle in terms of ensuring that there is homogeneity across the country in that charges to be laid will fall either on the arresting officers or on the crown prosecutors.

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the parliamentary secretary on this very important subject. All of us are affected by this in our communities and we all have had our constituents address this subject.

My first question for the parliamentary secretary relates to the issue of drugs. His leader has repeatedly mentioned on the record his aversion toward safe injection sites, and he also has mentioned looking at people who have substance abuse issues as committing a criminal offence rather than having a medical problem. Does his party believe that people who have substance abuse problems have a judicial problem rather than a medical problem? As for individuals who are caught with possession of soft drugs like marijuana, does the government want to pursue that through the courts as a non-indictable offence?

My second question relates to the issue of conditional sentencing. Does my colleague believe that crown prosecutors will pursue more non-indictable offences, taking an offence to a non-indictable stage and trying to pursue a summary conviction as opposed to continuing with an indictable offence if the judge feels obligated to force them to engage in a penalty that may not be warranted under the circumstances?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the government whip. We share a lot of interests in this issue. I appreciate the conversations that we had in the past on this. I look forward to the government, with his influence, implementing such a program.

I did not leave my former party to be more effective. My former party left me.

I will give the hon. member some examples of that because he came from the same roots as I did, reform. I can ask him some rhetorical questions. How can tolerate the cluttering of our tax system and the increases in taxes to the poor? How can he tolerate the undemocratic ways of his government, the muzzling of his ministers, the muzzling of his MPs and the thin legislative agenda on five points? Given his reform roots, surely he cannot condone the undemocratic measures which his government is putting in. Quite frankly, true Reformers would be rolling over in their graves to know what the current Conservative government is doing, which is not the Reform Party of old. In fact, it is violating some very basic principles on democratic reform, which the members who voted for the Conservative Party would find egregious.

On the head start program, we had an early learning child care program. The early learning program was not simply a place for children to be put in a room for six hours to eights a day. It was a place where children would get quality early learning, where a lot of the influences would occur and where parents would be involved.

As the member probably knows, because we come from the same province, the early learning program put forward by the former minister was an individual program per province. Flexibility was built into the program for every province. I spoke to our provincial counterparts in British Columbia and that was the quid pro quo for our success in signing on so many provinces. The early learning program we had was not simply a day care program; it did involve an early learning component.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the budget implementation act.

I want to make a few constructive suggestions that I hope will help the government change some of its plans and focus some of its initiatives in ways that could help the Canadian public. I am sure they would receive widespread support in our House.

There are a couple of quite egregious shortcomings. One the government's move in its budgetary projections to stop the planned and successive reduction of the income tax burden on the poor and the middle class, particularly the poor. One of our primary jobs is to make sure that the least fortunate in our society are able to have as much money as possible in their pockets consistent with how much they make.

For example, someone who makes $20,000 a year is taxed about $1,800. That is not right. Eighteen hundred dollars is an awful lot of money for somebody who is making $20,000 a year. The government could have put in measures to address that. Instead it decreased the basic personal exemption, the amount of money that is tax free. It also increased the lowest tax bracket. The Liberals had reduced it to 15% from 16%. The government is going to increase it from 15% to 15.5% and then on to 16%.

Does that make sense? Is that beneficial to those who make the least amount of money? Almost every economist in the country says very clearly that this is not a wise move. The best thing to do is to make sure that people have the money in their pockets as opposed to giving the bits and pieces of so-called tax breaks which the government introduced.

For example, the $500 textbook tax break sounds good on the surface, but the question is whether it really puts $500 into the pockets of the students. The answer is no, because it is calculated by the lowest tax break. In effect they would not be receiving $500. They would be receiving 15.5% of $500, which is $155. That needs to be known. Similarly with the $1,000 tax break for working individuals, they would only receive $155 in their pockets, not $1,000.

There are some glaring omissions in the budget. Number one is health care. Health care is the number one issue for Canadians from coast to coast. With our aging population, demands on our public health care system are very high. When we were in government, the former prime minister negotiated a landmark deal with the provinces to put $42 billion into the hands of the provinces for the health care of Canadians. It is difficult to get the provinces on side collectively at any time, but we accomplished that and we put money behind it.

Money is not the entire solution, but I think all Canadians and indeed members of this House were clearly looking for some leadership and solutions on the part of the government on the most important issue affecting Canadians. Did we see it? We did not. The government needs to take leadership. It is more than money. There are other areas that can be worked on in health care.

For example, why not bring together the provincial ministers of education and work to ensure that physical activity for children is part of the school curriculum from kindergarten right to grade 11 or 12? It is critically important to address the epidemic of childhood obesity, which we believe is going to shorten the lifespan of a generation of children. For the first time the longevity of Canadians will actually decline, we think as a result of the epidemic of childhood obesity.

Another way would be through the head start program. From Montreal, Quebec to Ypsilanti, Michigan the Y's head start program has had a good impact. There is also the work that our former MP, Claudette Bradshaw, did with respect to the head start program in Moncton, New Brunswick. That program should be integrated into an early learning program across the country. It strengthens the parent-child bond and has proven to have a profound impact upon an array of social issues, challenges such as teen pregnancies and youth crimes, issues that concern all of us.

There was a 50% to 60% reduction in youth crime with the introduction of a head start program for kids. The program works with parents and children to provide parents with good parenting skills and provide children with some basic knowledge in life skills. The savings are $7 for every $1 invested. A 25 year retrospective analysis was done on these programs around the world and the findings are consistent around the world. They will actually affect the very social challenges the government and indeed we in opposition are concerned about. They are pragmatic, affordable and doable. I urge the government to proceed in that way.

Turning to national defence, when we were in government we committed $13.7 billion over five years for our defence forces. All of us applaud and thank from the bottom of our hearts the hard work that has been done by the Canadian Forces not only here at home but also in Afghanistan. We thank them profoundly for what they are doing for us.

The Conservative government put in $1.1 billion over two years and $5 billion over five. That is a stark difference from the $13.7 billion that we committed over five years. Indeed in my one year as parliamentary secretary, our commitment over and beyond the base budget actually went to $1.1 billion for one year. I would ask the government to look at a more significant investment in the Canadian Forces.

I did not have a chance to speak during the recent debate on Afghanistan. I said to the government prior to that debate that we needed more than 36 hours' notice to make a decision on that which is arguably the most difficult and important decision any of us has to make, which concerns putting the lives of our troops in harm's way. We needed more than 36 hours, not because we are opposed to the mission, not because we do not support our troops, but because it is our moral responsibility to ask the questions that the troops and the Canadian public cannot ask on the mission's two year extension.

A case in point was that 12 hours after we heard that there was going to be a debate for six hours and then a vote, on the front page of the Globe and Mail there was a statement that NATO had requested that Canada take on the entire mission in Afghanistan. That is a very significant piece of information. We did not know about that until we read it in the Globe and Mail.

I said to the government that we needed a couple of weeks, not a long time, to get the information and briefings from national defence, foreign affairs and CIDA. We wanted to know the facts, to make sure that the conditions were there for the success of the mission for our troops. That is our responsibility. I would like answers to some questions.

First, in order for the success of our troops in Kandahar, the civil-military cooperation component, the CIMIC component, has to be there and completely funded. What are the plans for the CIMIC component? What moneys have been put into Kandahar? When I asked the Minister of International Cooperation she could not give me an answer.

The success of the CIMIC component is intimately entwined with the success of the mission. If I were a Canadian Forces member on the ground in Kandahar working my butt off in the interests of our country, putting my life on the line as they are doing for our country, I would want to make sure that the CIMIC component was there and fully funded. It is absolutely essential for the bottom line security conditions that are needed on the ground.

Second, how is the training going for the domestic security forces, the Afghan police and the army? Our exit strategy is predicated on the ability of the Afghan security forces to retain control over a reasonable part of their country so that the Taliban and al-Qaeda cannot take root again. That is the domestic interest in our being there. That is the end goal. I do not know how far we have got, but I simply want to have answers to those questions from the department officials.

I have run out of time and I have a list of questions. They are questions based on fact. They are not political but they are questions that I feel it is my responsibility to ask and to get answers to.

I support our troops, as do the vast majority of members in the House. The members of my party firmly support our troops, but we want to receive the answers to our questions that are critically important for us to be able to look CF family members in the eye and answer their questions directly.

It is a real shame the government did not take it upon itself to give us that opportunity to have those questions answered and execute our responsibilities and duties in a fair and fulsome manner.

[Foreign Affairs, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's response must be focused, clear, strong and unequivocal. I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, will he bring the matter up at the United Nations Security Council? If this comes to pass, will he then call for an international ban on the purchase of Iranian oil?

[Foreign Affairs, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, but he must also recognize that this is Hitler's shadow stalking the earth, that this is the same regime in Iran that has denied the Holocaust and has state sponsored persecution of members of the Baha'i faith. Quite frankly, words are not enough.

I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs if, at the very least, he has called in the Iranian ambassador to Canada to express Canada's disgust over these actions in Iran.

[International Aid, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is the budget for Afghanistan. It is not the budget for Kandahar where the bulk of our troops are, where the bulk of our troops are paying the price, and where their lives are on the line. This issue is critically important to the success of our troops on the ground in Kandahar and the minister knows this.

Will the minister tell the House specifically, how much money will CIDA invest in Kandahar over the next two years with the extension of this proposed mission? Can she specifically tell us how much now?

[International Aid, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is demanding that Parliament make an important decision on sending our troops into harms way for another two years without an opportunity to get briefings from foreign affairs, CIDA and defence, so we can make a decision based on the facts. This is utterly irresponsible. Aid is critically important for the success of the superb job our troops are doing in Afghanistan.

Will the Minister of International Cooperation tell the House how much money CIDA is going to invest in Kandahar over the next two years?

[Arms Exports, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, every year, half a million people, mostly civilians, die of small arms. They are a major health hazard from Darfur to the Congo.

My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will he task his officials this summer at the UN world summit on small arms and light weapons to support an international arms trade treaty to ensure that the principles for each state's authorization of small arms exports be added to the UN program of action?

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to look at those studies and I welcome the hon. member's willingness to produce them. I will look at them with the same unjaundiced, objective eye as we would look at any studies in this House that come to us.

At the root of this is the notion that all of us would like to ensure that whatever legislative initiatives we are pursuing are pursued on the basis of good facts and good science. Sometimes it is difficult to parse out what is good science and what is not because some individuals will throw out things under the guise of so-called science when, if we look at the methodology of what they have done, it is deeply flawed.

It is a difficult thing to parse out because very few of us are experts in the scientific method and to analyze these studies is sometimes difficult, which is why we hope that all of these studies will be peer reviewed studies that are well-established and well-documented in respected journals.