Keith Martin

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last night in the debate on Afghanistan, the NDP members repeatedly made bizarre and erroneous comments on our military involvement in Afghanistan, labelling it as war making. They had real issues with the fact that our troops are there on the ground providing the security required by CIDA, the RCMP and foreign affairs members trying to enable the Afghani people to develop the security and the democratic, political and non-political infrastructure that is required for their country to enable them to stand on their own feet.

My question is on health care. The leader of the NDP received health care in a private clinic. Yet he gets on his high horse and lambastes the involvement of private health care in our global health care system in Canada.

I ask the member, does she or does she not support the presence of private health care within a mixed system in Canada involving a strengthened public health care system, but allowing private services to occur?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we will be looking very closely at the bill to ensure it is in the interest of the public. What is very important right now is that the government understand the difference between accountability and conduct. Conduct and accountability are not the same things. The danger of the bill is that it could wind up causing gridlock in the public service.

As every member of the government knows, when we were in government we introduced a whole collection of solutions with respect to dealing with accountability within the government. We introduced new measures for crown corporations and new measures in true accountability. As the official opposition, we will be looking very closely--

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, first, to correct the member, there are two leadership bodies in Afghanistan. One is Operation Enduring Freedom and the other is ISAF, under NATO. In two months, we will be moving underneath that umbrella.

Second, this is not a military intervention. This is a novel, integrated approach whereby the RCMP and our Canadian Forces are providing security and our diplomatic members under the foreign affairs department and our development workers under CIDA are enabling the Afghani people to provide the civil society for which they have been yearning for more than 30 years.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, let me tell my hon. colleague what we did when we were in government. The then minister of defence and current leader of my party went across the country articulating why we were in Afghanistan, what we were doing and what our objectives were. We stated those objectives very clearly.

General Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, whom we appointed, has also been very vocal and very explicit about the objectives of this particular intervention in Afghanistan.

Op-eds have been written.

A take note debate took place in the House when we were in government.

Also, I was the former parliamentary secretary of defence and I can tell the House that these questions were brought up repeatedly in the defence committee.

If the public is having difficulty with this, it is because of particular questions and doubts that have been foisted on them by the NDP and perhaps by the Bloc Québécois, about falsehoods they are portraying and complete mythologies they are putting out about this particular intervention. I am sure the public will listen to the very eloquent comments that have been made by members across the House about the truth of the matter.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, let us get right down to it since we only have five minutes. Why Afghanistan? Why Canada? And why now? People forget that in 9/11 al-Qaeda were the perpetrators of that horrific situation. Canadian citizens died in that event.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban controlled the country and they harboured al-Qaeda. We are there to get rid of the Taliban and particularly, we are there to get rid of al-Qaeda. If we do not do that then al-Qaeda would come back and use Afghanistan as a staging point to engage in activities against us and our allies. That is not an option. For the citizens who are watching out there, that is the crux of the matter. That is the bottom line as to why it is in Canada's interest to be in Afghanistan today, a world half away from our own.

The way we are doing it is an innovative 3D strategy that we put together utilizing foreign affairs, defence, our international development arm and also the RCMP. These provincial reconstruction teams are in Afghanistan right now to enable the Afghani people to build their schools, to build their clinics, to rebuild their economy, and to have their own and take over their own internal security. We are there to assist them. In particular, that is why our troops are there, not to engage, as the NDP would suggest, in some war-making fashion.

It actually irritates me to no end to think that individuals in our country today, sophisticated individuals in this House, somehow do not understand, as I said in my questions, that the milk of human kindness does not flow through everybody's veins. There are nasty people out there who behead people in Afghanistan, prevent people from going to school, kill the peacemakers and the moderates in that country, and destabilize the country.

Those people do not listen to diplomacy, as much as we would wish. We tried that as a first effort. We tried that as a second initiative, and a third. However, there are some people who will not listen to that. Our troops are there to provide the security, to provide the peace, and to enable the Afghani people to rebuild their country. They do it with honour, they do it with courage, and they do it with the full respect for them and their families for the sacrifices they make for our country every single day.

The end point for this is at the end of 2007, when this particular mission will be reassessed. That is the obligation that we made as part of the NATO backed UN supported force. The Afghani people asked us to be a part of ISAP. They asked us to go into Afghanistan and help them, which is completely different from the situation in Iraq and what our friends south of the border have got themselves into in that country.

As my friend from Mount Royal said, there are also other countries well deserving of interventions. The Minister for Public Safety spoke very eloquently and mentioned “what price freedom?”

I would ask the government, using the logic of my colleague, who is extremely experienced and a world leader in human rights, what about the Congo, where our troops in fact have actually been and have tried to maintain the peace? What about the Congo, where two million people have been killed, the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world next to Darfur? What about Uganda, which is the worst place in the world to be if one is a child?

A friend of mine was doing her Ph.D. out there. She wrote to me about child soldiers who were forced to hack off the lips and ears, and noses of women, and forced them to eat those parts of their own body, not to kill them but to terrorize them. She wrote about torture and horrendous acts against innocent civilians that we cannot hope to ever in our wildest nightmares imagine. That is what is going on there today.

What about Zimbabwe, where despotic Robert Mugabe is killing his people by another means entirely. He is preventing his people from eating. He is starving his people to death.

This intervention is fully backed by the Liberal Party. We sent our troops in there. We are deeply honoured and respectful, and grateful for the incredible work that they do. I hope, at the end of the debate, that we will see all party support, fulsome 110% support, for our troops and the work that they are doing over there, not only for the benefit of the Afghani people but also for the benefit of Canadians.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I have a news flash for the member across the way. First, this is a NATO-led UN-backed mission in which our troops are involved.

I have another news flash for her. How on earth will our aid workers protect civilians, enable people to go to school and enable the Afghani people to have an economy if they are not protected and do not have the security on the ground to do the job? The milk of human kindness is not flowing through the veins of everybody in Afghanistan, especially not the Taliban and particularly not al-Qaeda.

How on earth will our CIDA workers, RCMP officers and foreign affairs workers enable the Afghani people to build an economy, democratic institutions, health care institutions and schools and protect the rights of women, children and men in that country if they do not have the security on the ground and our troops cannot provide it? How will they do that?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to be speaking today in the House of Commons. As this is my first speech, I would like to thank the citizens of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for giving me the great honour of representing them once again.

Indeed, it is humbling to be in the House. As somebody once said, there is no bad seat in the House of Commons. There are only 308 of us here and there are over 30 million Canadians. It is indeed an honour. I think everybody here feels the same way about giving our best for the people of our communities and our great country.

Having said that, I must say that with regard to the Speech from the Throne one can always admire brevity, but our country is more than five points. What the Speech from the Throne had in it were five simple points that were good politics but bad policy.

One can see what the end game is. I think most people understand that this is a way of setting the bar extremely low so that at the end of the day the government can go to the public and say that it accomplished five things. Our country is more than five challenges. What I am going to do is take a look at each of those five policies, or as much as we have time for today, and take them apart piece by piece.

Let us take a look at the GST issue. It is wise to put money in the hands of taxpayers. Indeed, when the Liberals were in government, our finance minister took one million people off the tax rolls. We put forth and implemented in 2005 a plan that decreased the lowest tax bracket from 16% to 15% and increased the basic personal exemption.

I know that members on the other side are deeply interested in putting more money in the pockets of Canadians. In fact, and across all party lines, we would agree with that. The question is, what is the most effective way of accomplishing that goal? Is it really to lower the GST one percentage point versus a decrease in personal taxes?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley East.

Let us look at reducing the GST. Who primarily does it benefit? It benefits the people in the higher income tax brackets. For example, somebody who makes $150,000 a year would at the end of the day receive roughly $900 in benefits from a one percentage point decrease in the GST. If we were to look at the 43% of Canadians who make less than $40,000 a year, we would see that a GST reduction would result in about $190 in their pockets. Let us compare that to the Liberal plan, which would put into the same category those who make less than $40,000 a year. Those individuals would actually have about $380 in their pockets.

I would encourage the government to rethink its position on the GST, as I think members from across party lines would. While it may be attractive on a superficial level, it does not in fact put more money in the hands of individuals, particularly the poor and working poor, who need the money the most.

The child care tax issue has been looked at quite closely.

I also want to look at the issue of the military because I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence and had the honour, as others of us have had, of representing and working hard for those men and women who give their lives every day for the benefit and the defence of our country. All of us are strong supporters of them and their families.

It was disappointing, I may say, to see how little the military issue and our defence forces received in the Speech from the Throne. This is critically important. We are actually having a competing debate right now. The government is pursuing a 1980s course of action with respect to its plan for the Canadian Forces. It is completely different from the ones we laid out. It is different from the one we hammered out with General Hillier and his staff, one that is very attractive to the members of our Canadian Forces, a plan that in fact meets the asymmetric threats we are faced with today in this changing world of ours.

I would ask the members of the government to please look at the plan that the current Minister of National Defence is pursuing, because it does not reflect the asymmetric threats we have today. They are not the kinds of battles we will fight in the future. It is based on an old, obsolete cold war vision, a plan that was put forth in 1987 and was roundly defeated because it was unaffordable.

For example, the Canadian Forces do not need armoured icebreakers in the north right now but they do need other things. We went a long way to putting more boots on the ground and putting more resources in the hands of our forces, particularly in terms of equipment. We certainly hope the government pursues that course of action. However putting armoured icebreakers in the north would take away the valuable resources our forces need to engage in the quite exciting transformation in which they are engaged right now. I also hope that vision for the Canadian Forces will receive closer scrutiny.

With the few minutes I have left I want to draw attention to the issue of economic productivity. In order for our country to continue on the course of action that we hammered out, we gave the government the best books that any incoming government has ever received in the history of our country, with the lowest unemployment rate we have had in 30 years, the lowest interest rates we have had and a growth rate that is the envy of the OECD. That is the plate the government now has.

What the government cannot do is compromise the wonderful gift it has. I have to say that it is disappointing that more specific references were not made to a productivity agenda that would include strategic investments into human capital, that would involve the continued reduction in taxes that we started off, both for individuals and the private sector, and a comprehensive plan that the government could offer the Canadian public that would do something to ensure that we will continue the economic productivity that has been taking place over the last few years.

On the issue of health care, the wait time strategy nibbles at the edges of a problem that is vexing most Canadians. In fact, it is the number one issue that challenges all of us. We cannot shy away from our aging population. To simply talk about wait time guarantees is not enough. What is the point of having a guarantee if we do not have the resources to pay for what we are guaranteeing? That is the central problem.

Health care expenditures are growing at 8% per year and our GDP is at 3% per year. The gap between supply and demand is widening and it is the poor and the middle class who fall through the cracks. It is utterly unacceptable that in the Speech from the Throne we cannot have a more comprehensive, dynamic and intelligent series of solutions that will address this problem. It affects all of us and all of us are willing to put our backs into solving this for every person out there who needs care now or will need it in the future.

As I said before, our aging population and the more expensive technologies will only create a widening gap. The rich will not suffer because they will always be able to find care. It is the poor and the middle class who have justifiable fear. For heaven's sake, let us stop the shopworn non-debate that has been taking place in health care for far too long. Let us talk about the facts and about the reality on the ground. Let us listen to the health care workers and to the patients and their families.

Every person in the House, themselves or their families and certainly their constituents, knows full well what is taking place on the ground in health care. For God's sake, let us ensure that we talk about the reality on the ground and have the courage to implement the solutions and talk about the truth so that at the end of the day we will have a public health care system that is accessible, affordable and ensures that Canadians will get timely access to quality care across the country and that it is portable.

We should work with the provinces to implement those changes that are within our purview, as well as implement strategic preventive solutions. Some effective preventive solutions will decrease demand on our health care system, such as the issue of childhood obesity.

I know that members of the government will find in the opposition a vast array of individuals across all party lines who are willing to work together for the benefit of our country and to implement solutions that are based on fact, not on cheap politics.

[World Health Day, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today is World Health Day. Every day, 40,000 children perish and 1,500 women die in childbirth. In Africa, one child in six dies before turning five years old.

The number of people who will die of AIDS will be in excess of 200 million. Two million people die every year from malaria and an equivalent number die from tuberculosis. This is shocking, considering that most of these deaths are preventable, manageable or treatable.

Here at home the number of people with dementia and other chronic diseases is escalating, and childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions.

None of these challenges were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.

Simple measures and simple interventions properly implemented and coordinated with a long term view to capacity building would save millions of lives.

The new government should recognize that the world has more than five priorities. The massive challenges to global health must be one of the government's top priorities.

[Foreign Affairs, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, genocide is being committed in Darfur right now where 200,000 people have been murdered and the situation is getting out of control. The United Nations has called this the worst humanitarian catastrophe in world. Bartering with the butchers from Khartoum will not end this problem.

My question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs is simple. Will he call on the United Nations quickly to push for, assemble and deploy a rapid reaction force to Darfur as soon as possible to save these people's lives?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your new posting. I also congratulate my colleague from the other side on his re-election.

We could not agree more in putting our partisan swords aside and trying to work continually for the benefit of all Canadians. I think that is a common theme that we have all heard today.

Let us talk about some of the facts with respect to the Speech from the Throne and delve into them. Those will be the basis of the questions that I have for the hon. member. My first remark relates to a common theme that we all have and that is how we manage to reduce the tax base and the tax burden on the poor and the working poor.

The government has said very clearly that it feels that the best way of doing that is to reduce the GST. Members from the other side have said that hundreds of dollars will be saved by Canadians. Is that actually the truth?

If the hon. member were to look at the facts he would find that 43% of Canadians make less than $40,000 a year. The savings for those people would be about $190 per year. If that amount were compared to a reduction in the basic personal exemption, with the lowest base going from 16% down to 15%, an increase in the basic personal exemption by $500 and a reduction in the lowest tax bracket from 16% to 15%, we would find in the same group that they would save about $390 per year.

Does my hon. colleague believe that a reduction in the GST by one percentage point will put more money in the hands of the poor and the working poor than an increase in the basic personal exemption of $500, as the Liberals did the last time, and reducing the lowest tax bracket from 16% to 15%?