Keith Martin

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I wish the world was as simple as the member across the way suggests it could be. If we could go and axe the tax instituted by the province of Ontario, that would be wonderful, but unfortunately, as she knows full well, the world does not work that way. We do not have the power to go in and remove a tax instituted by a provincial government.

Having said that, as I said before, the post living differential is one way that we are trying to ensure that there is acute immediate relief to the men and women who serve our country in Ontario. In order for the member to understand what the PLD is, it is payable at specific locations and is determined by comparing the cost of living of those who live in other areas of the country.

The member should know that full well because I brought up the subject before. We are working to address this through the PLD. We are working to address this directly through the provincial government and the minister is working full time on this.

We agree perfectly well that this tax is completely unfair. We are not going to stop until we can convince the provincial government to remove it or we are going to ensure that every man and woman who works in the forces, and the families who live in Ontario, are going to have redress in some sort of way through the PLD or in another fashion.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way asked this question last week and it is a very good question. It is an issue that gripped us as soon as the provincial government in Ontario put forth this tax, which in my view is grossly unfair when it applies to our Canadian Forces members. The Minister of National Defence feels the same way.

In fact, I spoke to the Minister of National Defence today and he was drafting another stern response to the provincial minister of health asking him to drop this particular tax against those Canadian Forces members who live in Ontario and have been charged this tax.

The member knows full well that the provincial government does what it wishes to do. We do not control the provincial government and when it instituted this tax, our recourse was to address the issue immediately with it, which is what was done by the Minister of National Defence in 2004.

The premium, as the member correctly pointed out, applies to all individuals in the province of Ontario, and I might say bizarrely, whether or not they have access to the health care system or not. Nevertheless, the minister has approached both the minister of health and the minister of finance in Ontario to highlight the gross unfairness of this tax as it applies to Canadian Forces members.

What have we done? The minister has addressed it exactly the same way that the member mentioned, through the post living differential. We have also applied it through increases in wages across the board to CF members. In fact, if the member were to take note and look at the wages of the CF members over the last two to three years, the wages of CF members have gone up quite considerably as a result of our government's initiative to support the men and women, and their families in the great work that they do in the defence of our country and in the defence of our interests abroad.

Specifically, with CF members and their families in Ontario, we are trying to deal with the post living differential which is a cost of living allowance in a way. It is called the PLD. We use the PLD to develop some kind of fairness across the board, so that persons living in a high expense area will be compensated for that because they are moved around at the request of the defence department.

One of the ways that we are trying to accommodate and address this situation is through the PLD. Beyond that the minister, as I said, is working very hard to put pressure on the provincial government to stop and remove this grossly unfair tax on our CF members in Ontario.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's statement. He is the former defence critic for the opposition and an individual who, as he said, is very aware of the issues surrounding Bill C-25.

It is important to reiterate some of the important points that were touched on by the previous speaker. Not only is this bill important from a security aspect, which I will get to in a moment, but it is also extremely important from an environmental aspect.

Global warming is taking place. We have heard of the contraction of the ice cap in the north and what effect that is going to have. We know about the different changes that are occurring with respect to our waterways, the changing weather patterns that are occurring and the effect on the ground. Vegetation is changing. Vegetation mapping is important from a scientific perspective and an environmental perspective, but it is also exceedingly important to the member's province of Alberta and my province of British Columbia. Understanding the changing environment on the ground with respect to the forest cover is exceptionally important from environmental and economic perspectives.

I also want to touch on an important issue that I know is close to the member's heart, as it is for me and the government. That is the issue of defence. To those who would criticize Bill C-25, I say watch out. This bill is extremely important for our troops, for their protection and their ability to do their work within Canada and abroad. Bill C-25 and the RADARSATs are extremely important for us to enable them to do their work and also to protect them.

I would ask those who would oppose this bill to think about whether it is rational at all to deprive our armed forces, our men and women on the ground who are doing a yeoman's job abroad, of this information and capability. We must have it for their protection and their service to our nation. It is a rhetorical question which deserves but one answer, and that is yes. This bill is important for their security and the work that they do for our country and Canadians here and abroad.

Given the hon. member's experience as the previous defence critic for his party, could he expand upon where this RADARSAT technology may wish to go in the future for our armed forces?

[Justice, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there have been some serious misrepresentations in the House by the opposition against the government position on some very important judicial matters and in particular the protection of children. It is time to set the record straight.

In protecting children, our government has enacted some of the toughest laws in the world against the exploitation of children, against child pornography and against Internet luring.

Bill C-2, which received royal assent on July 20, criminalizes the sexual exploitation of children, particularly between the ages of 14 and 17. It looks at the age difference. It looks at the age of the young person and the nature of the relationship and whether there is any exploitation.

In reality, the age of consent is actually 18 years of age in our country. We will not criminalize the sexual relations that occur between young people. We have also enacted Bill C-27 and Bill C-51, which go further in supporting and protecting our children.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments were well received and well researched. As he knows, the government has put forward this wage earner protection plan for the protection of workers across the country who from time to time are confronted with the horrible situation where the company they work for has gone into receivership or bankruptcy.

Our government has listened very carefully to those workers and has come up with a plan to try to address a concern that grips them at the very heart and soul of their being. The particular problem workers are confronted with, which is the loss of their pension plan, is something that affects their future security. That is why we have come up with the wage earner protection plan to address this issue.

The minister estimates that the amount that workers will receive will cost the taxpayer and the government's coffers about $50 million. We think this is money well spent. It is being spent on workers, as I said before, who are confronted by a horrific situation where their future income security and pension security is being compromised.

If the hon. member disagrees with the amount of money that the minister and our government has proposed a worker would receive, what money would he propose that a worker receive? Would he put a cap on it? How would he figure this out? What moneys would he give to a worker confronted by this problem?

[Income Tax Act, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member, and most importantly the people from Gagetown who may be affected by this, that the bottom line is we want answers. We are committed to finding those answers, so we can deal with the problem.

For the member's information, herbicides are used all over Canada. There are certain herbicides that were used a long time ago that pose a danger. We do not know what herbicides were being used in Gagetown or how much. It is important for us to find out what types were used, how much and who was affected. That is what we are trying to do.

We will only be able to serve the people who may have been affected by this by dealing with the facts and ensuring that whatever they need will be provided, but we have to do that based on the facts.

[Income Tax Act, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is always wise, particularly given the sensitivity of this issue, to deal with the facts. We should remove politics from this for a moment and deal with the facts. I will attempt to do that right now because this is a very sensitive issue for a lot of people who are concerned and scared. They need to get the facts, so I will just deal with that for a moment because this is very important.

I was there from the beginning and I can tell members that the department moved very quickly on this issue. I know that the assistant deputy minister involved went immediately to the area and listened to the people's concerns on the ground. This was televised, so that all Canadians knew what was going on at that particular time. We were determined to uncover the facts regarding herbicide spraying, not from 1956 but from 1952, to address the problem. As I said, we have to deal with the facts.

We have developed a comprehensive plan to deal with this, and as the hon. member mentioned, we did appoint an individual to act as an inquirer. We also send our sympathies to him and his family, and we hope that he gets well very quickly.

Our strategy includes three points. The first is to identify the CF members and the employees who were there at the time and present when the herbicides were being sprayed. The second is to collect data on the use, disposal and management of those herbicides that were used. The third is to ascertain the relationship between herbicides and illness.

It is not a simple thing to say that herbicides cause cancer and others do not. There are dose-related responses that have to be dealt with. It is not a simple thing at all, but we want to get to the bottom of it. That is why we are conducting this contracted, external analysis of what has gone on because we want to get the answers. We are not going to rush to unsubstantiated conclusions which will compromise this entire process.

We are reporting on something that happened 50 years ago. We must have a very clear picture and we need to gather all the information. That is why a fact finding analysis, rigorous and scientifically based, will enable us to get the answers, and assuage the concerns of those people on the ground who may have been subjected to these herbicides. They need the answers and the facts. We are deeply committed to finding the right solution.

I might also say that there were reasons why herbicides were sprayed. They were sprayed to remove brush in Gagetown. If brush were not removed, there could be a fire hazard and a fire hazard could kill people. There are CF members who work and engage in activities in Gagetown. If that brush is simply allowed to stay there, it poses a health risk for them. We know people who get injured and they can get killed under those circumstances.

We are performing this analysis. Those three areas are going to be looked at. The findings will be released publicly and we will have answers, most importantly for the people who are affected.

[Income Tax Act, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish life were that simple, that we as the federal government could simply axe a tax implemented by the Ontario provincial government, but the member knows fully well that we cannot.

What we can do and what the Minister of National Defence is doing is working very closely and putting a lot of pressure on the provincial government here in Ontario to axe this tax, to use her words, and relieve this pressure on our CF members. That is one way that we are working on it.

The other way, as I mentioned before, is to work through the post living differential that we have for our members within Ontario who are working here as part of the forces to ensure that we can use this particular benefit that we give, to ensure that CF members, regardless of where they live, will have their cost of living basically harmonized across the country through this post living differential, which is like a cost of living allowance.

We will use that if we have to in order to help our CF members in Ontario regardless. Their well-being, their income and their standard of living is of utmost importance to us. We are seized with trying to ensure that members who serve in Ontario are not penalized.

[Income Tax Act, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, personally, it is great to see you in the chair.

On the question to which the member spoke, I will clarify a few things. First, it is the Ontario provincial government that introduces health taxes, as the member fully knows. The federal government has no basis in that.

The federal government is fully committed to supporting the members of our Canadian Forces. The health and well-being of the men and women who serve in our forces and their families is of primary importance to the government. We recognize the contributions and sacrifices that all of those people have made, are making and will be making in the future, and we honour them. Their quality of life is of the utmost importance to all Canadians and, in particular, to the government.

We are proud to report that since 1996 the basic pay of non-commissioned members has increased 49%. The average wage of the forces now is about $52,000 a year. Base pay improvements, together with the introduction of other benefits, such as tax relief provisions, new allowances and annual pay improvements, are a clear demonstration that our government intends to support members of our Canadian Forces fully. We want to ensure that their cost of living is relatively stable and predictable across Canada regardless of where they live.

The introduction of the Ontario health premium by the provincial Government of Ontario is inconsistent with this principle. The Minister of National Defence has made this point crystal clear to the Province of Ontario. We are appalled by this and the minister is doing all that he can to rectify the problem. He is working with the Ontario provincial government to resolve the issue as soon as possible. He has approached both the ministers of finance and health in Ontario to highlight the unfairness of personnel in the Canadian Forces being charged the health tax when they already receive, as the member correctly pointed out, moneys from the federal government for members of the Canadian Forces and moneys through the negotiations that took place by the Minister of Health earlier this year with all provinces last year amounting to $42 billion.

In addition, departmental officials from the federal government have been working and conducting a review of the post living differential policy framework in order to ensure that CF members in Ontario will have this issue addressed one way or the other. Either we will support and help them or this tax will be negotiated out and removed on the part of the provincial government.

I join with all my colleagues in the government and the Minister of National Defence in reassuring the CF members who are listening today and the member who asked the question that we will do all that we can to rectify the situation for CF members and their families who live in Ontario.

On the issue of medical personnel, the member also should know that the government is working with the provinces to greatly expand the numbers of people in medical school right now. The Minister of Health has put in $50 million to help integrate existing medical personnel from abroad who currently live in Canada so they can get their skills up to speed and be able to work and supplement our current complement within Canada.

[Criminal Code, September 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we all know that organized crime is a parasitic creature that exists in our society. In fact, organized crime and criminal gangs are responsible for more than half of the grow operations and drug busts that occur in our country. Half of the moneys that go to organized crime is driven by the grow ops, crystal meth labs and the drug trade in general. It is a problem not only in the province of Quebec but it is a national problem.

Organized crime gangs are involved in a wide variety of issues, as we know, from gun running, people smuggling and alcohol. We need to have and we now have tougher laws with this particular bill.

We also need to be able to organize and work with our counterparts internationally. One of the things that the Minister of Justice has done is implement a series of additions to the code, putting the precursor substances to the making of some of these products on a schedule that will help us track their import and export. In doing that, we would be able to find the countries and groups that are involved in the production of cocaine, heroin and other substances involved in the production and contributing to the organized crime gangs and the drug trade that they ply.

My question to the hon. member is really a challenge for him and for the House. There is something we can do that is fairly simple, in addition to where we are going now, and that is working with the states, particularly those in the OAS, the Organization of American States, to implement international import-export permits for the precursor chemicals that go into manufacturing cocaine in particular and also in the production of crystal meth.

Would the hon. member's party support Canada taking a lead in trying to convince other countries, particularly in the OAS, to adopt an import-export permit system for the precursor chemicals that are used in the production of these illegal drugs that cause so much heartache, pain, death and suffering to so many innocent people?