Keith Martin

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the debate do now adjourn.

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's statements. As I said before, the reality of what is going on here, which I think most Canadians recognize, is that this is a political exercise. The role of the opposition is to get to government. We know that.

However, I think all of us recognize that there is a higher purpose for being here. Unfortunately, the opposition is trying to subvert a process that is going on to try to get to the truth. We are trying to say that we are not afraid of an election, but for heaven's sake, let us just pass the budget because there are higher issues at risk. What is at risk here is our ability to implement solutions for the homeless, for the poor, for business, for health care and for veterans.

Do hon. members think for a moment that the veterans out there who need health care, who need care because they have suffered from PTSD, care whether or not we have an election now or nine months from now? Do hon. members think that the person who does not have a home cares whether or not we have an election now or nine months from now? Do they think the person who is waiting two years for an MRI scan cares whether we have an election now or nine months from now? I would submit that they do not care.

If we do not allow the budget to go through, we are abrogating and violating the responsibility of the House to do the right thing for the Canadian people.

This government and this Prime Minister implemented a series of solutions to address the issues that have been found in the sponsorship issues of Quebec. Nobody could have done more. The Prime Minister called in the RCMP. He put in the Gomery inquiry. He implemented a series of solutions called the comptroller system, of which most Canadians are not aware. A comptroller general or counterparts in every department will ensure there is an oversight mechanism for all government expenditures. That is the right thing to do.

I would ask the hon. member from the Conservative Party about the comptroller general system my government has put forth to ensure that government expenditures of people's money will be made more wisely and effectively? Does he not think that is a very good thing and that he and his party ought to support it?

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the profound tragedy of this motion is that it is a rabid political exercise designed for nothing more than for the opposition to gain power. We understand that is the rule and the name of the game with respect to being in opposition. We know that.

The bigger tragedy for most Canadians out there watching is the fact that there are people without jobs. There are people without houses. There are people without health care.

The government has implemented solutions to bring health care to Canadians. We want to put people back to work. The government has to keep our fiscal house in order. We want to bring housing to those who do not have houses. We must ensure that those who are least privileged in our society will have the privileges that they require. The government wants to put money in the ground for critical infrastructure for the municipalities. All this and more is what the government is trying to do.

Unfortunately, the opposition is simply trying to engage in this political exercise that is moving this House away from the real job that Canadians have sent us here to do, which is to deal with their problems.

I want to talk to the issue at hand and the motion. The measure of a government is the way in which it deals with the problem it is confronted with. Does the government ignore it? Does it hide it, or does it deal with the problem in a very pragmatic way? Without a shadow of a doubt, the public knows that the government has dealt with the problem it is faced with.

How has the government done that? The government has done it through the Gomery inquiry. It has done it through the comptroller system that has been introduced to ensure that every ministry will have another oversight mechanism. This will ensure that all public moneys are used in a rational, responsible, transparent and effective way.

My question for the member has two parts. Does the member believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty? If he believes that a person is innocent until proven guilty, would he subvert the Gomery inquiry and end it in the middle of its work before Justice Gomery has had a chance to tell Canadians the truth?

If the member believes in innocent until proven guilty and if he is trying to subvert the Gomery inquiry, which is what he is trying to do right now, then he is a hypocrite.

[Citizenship Act, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct that the United States spends a great deal more than we do on defence. However, we also do not have a massive deficit and we are not going to put our country into a deficit under any circumstances.

Having said that, the member also knows full well that we have put the largest investment into the forces in the last 20 years. We are doing that with a balanced budget. It is the responsible thing to do. Not only can we obligate that spending for our defence forces but as our economy continues to strengthen, we will be able to put even more money in the future toward training, personnel and equipment.

The member knows full well that Norad is the centrepiece of our relationship with the United States. We are committed to Norad. The U.S. is committed to Norad. We will continue to work with the United States for the defence of our country and for our North American community.

[Citizenship Act, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite intently to the hon. member's comments and they are profoundly flawed in much of what she said. She referred to two areas. One relates to the economic performance of the government and the other relates to the defence performance of the government. I am going to address them separately for her edification.

The first one deals primarily with the cooperation in the United States. Marpac, CFB Esquimalt is in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I can say that the relationship we have with the United States is quite extraordinary. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I can say that our relationship with the United States is not only a priority but we are also very pleased with the level of cooperation between our countries through our army, air force and navy.

We share communications and work. We cooperate. Indeed we will work together in the future. The new international policy statement states very clearly that the United States is our signature partner. We recognized that in history. We recognize that today and we will recognize that in the future. A large chunk of the international policy statement deals with our cooperation with the United States to fulfill our needs in Canada for Canadians.

We recognize that we share North America. Our responsibility together is the defence of our North American community. We work very well and closely with the United States on all of those levels, whether it is the defence of the north, the defence of our sea ports, or border security. We have done a great deal.

The Deputy Prime Minister works very closely with her counterpart in the United States in dealing with the protection of Canada for Canadians and the protection of the United States for its citizens. We work together for the benefit of both countries. This is a relationship born in history and will continue into the future. We have supported that with $13 billion of cold hard money to provide more troops, and to provide more equipment and training for our men and women in uniform.

On the economic issue, one of the reasons I left my former party was the issue of economics. The line in the sand which exists for me personally and I think for most Canadians is that we will not get into deficit spending. My former party, the party of the member across the way, has been standing for deep cuts and spending. Those do not add up. This is played out south of the border where the President of the United States has adopted a plan of deep cuts and spending which has resulted in record deficits in the United States. That is something we cannot countenance in our country.

Surplus spending and balanced budgets are integral to provide for our social programs, defence forces and indeed to pay down the debt so we can save money on the interest payments. That provides Canada with a strong, stable economy so our private sector can work well.

In closing, I want to assure the hon. member, although she knows very well, that the government has put forth eight consecutive surplus budgets. We have also committed to ensuring that our private sector community can bid in a competitive way with U.S. companies for U.S. contracts, which they are free to do.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is because I am standing by my principles that I made that move and that is why I changed.

It is time that I cut through the political hyperbole that the hon. member is extremely adept at using to obscure the facts. What I will do right now is let the member know the facts for his own edification. He should look very carefully at where he is sitting in his party.

When I joined the Reform Party I was proud to do it because the party was standing up for getting our fiscal House in order. Unfortunately, if the hon. member were to look at his party's last budgetary projections, he would see very clearly that his party stood for the same Bushenomics that is taking place south of the border where it will be engaging in deficit spending. What the Conservative Party is pursuing with its large tax cuts in combination with massive spending will crush the economy of this country.

This government will not tolerate that for one second because, in doing that, not only would we be compromising our social programs but we would eviscerate and damage the private sector, which is a major economic generator. That is something we will not tolerate.

I ask the member to look at the facts. He might want to look at the $41 billion we put into health care. He may want to look at the gas tax rebate that we worked on with the provinces and the municipalities. He may want to look at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that said very clearly that they were profoundly grateful, deeply honoured and pleased to be working with the government to ensure those moneys get down to the ground for the infrastructure needs that the member is talking about.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the budget of this year is a landmark budget. I think what some Canadians do not understand is the balance between fiscal responsibility and social programs. There are some who would suggest that we should spend, spend, spend.

On a certain level, that is perhaps attractive. We have many needs in our country such as homelessness, poverty, people who would like to find jobs, individuals with drug problems and children in poverty. There are a whole host of social issues with which we have to be grapple, as in any country. Some people would suggest that we should pour money into many different areas and spend without taking into consideration the bottom line.

Why is the bottom line important? Why does the Canadian government not print money? Why does the Canadian government not simply pour money into all these programs without due responsibility to the bottom line?

When our government came into power in 1993, we had a mess on our hands. We had massive deficits and huge debts that were left by a Progressive Conservative government. Those deficits were added on to a debt. What does that do to the social programs? What does that do to the most vulnerable in our society? What does that do to the major income generators in Canada, which is the private sector? It crushes all of those.

To be fiscally irresponsible is to be socially irresponsible. To spend more than we take in and to engage in deficit spending hurts the most vulnerable in our society, damages the private sector, eviscerates our competitiveness and it destroys the pool of funds that we receive from our private sector, our tax base. By deficit spending and increasing our debt, we increase the amount of money we must pay in interest. That takes money from the sharp edge of what we need for our social programs and puts it into debt repayment, on the interest on the debt. That is irresponsible.

When our government came into power, we had to make some very difficult choices. We had to engage in a process of belt tightening to ensure we could get into a surplus situation. The Liberal government has over the last eight years produced those surpluses.

If we look at this internationally, it is very intriguing. The last few Economist magazines have shown that Canada is leading in the G-8 countries in terms of our economy, and that is exceedingly important. By having a strong economy, we can provide the tax base and engage in what are called the ying and the yang of what this job is all about: having strong fiscal management and a strong tax base which provides us with the moneys to provide the social programs that our neediest require. That is the responsible thing to do.

To do the alternative, which is to overspend, as some people would wish, or to go ahead and spend moneys that we do not have would only hurt the most vulnerable and damage our ability to pay for needed services.

I was formerly a part of the Conservative government. One of the reasons I left was the income and the economic plans for that party were absolutely irresponsible. Quite frankly, it shocked me.

A parallel to this is what is happening south of the border. The Republican party, a party that one would think would be right of centre and would have good fiscal management, is doing the exact opposite. It has engaged in a $470 billion deficit spending this year. That will crush the economic backbone of the United States. It is an irresponsible thing to do.

Mr. Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States, came out in the last 48 hours and made a very strong statement to the U.S. government, saying, “You must get your spending under control”.

That is what I found in the Conservative Party's missive before the last election. The economic budgetary plans for a Conservative government would have put us into a deficit situation. That is a line that we absolutely cannot cross.

It is simple to be in opposition and promise the earth, as the Conservatives did in its defence plans. One reason I left them was that their defence plans were so large and expensive. In combination with the massive tax cuts in the spending priorities, that they would have put the country into a profound deficit situation. This would have eroded and removed the ability of a government to pay for needed programs, including defence. That is something a government in the 21st century simply cannot allow.

We need a government that spends within its means so it can do what it has to do. Indeed, we have made promises and we have fulfilled them.

Just this week we introduced a comprehensive veterans' benefit package, the best package in decades. We are helping those veterans and their families who have given so much for our country, a wonderful country in which to live. These Canadians have given their lives to preserve our peace and security.

We owe them for their service and our government delivered on that promise this week. Much of the information in the package came from veterans, many of whom live in my area of Victoria, British Columbia and my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I am profoundly grateful for the input of those veterans.

As well, we have delivered on a balanced budget for the eighth year in a row. We also will introduce new legislation for homelessness. This will happen in the next few weeks.

We have put into place the largest investment in defence in the last 20 years to ensure our men and women in uniform, who do a yeoman's job, will have the personnel, the equipment, the training and be taken care of when they do their job for our nation.

We have done a lot more. We have reduced taxes for some of the poorest people to address poverty. The Minister of Social Development and others are working on plans with respect to child care and early learning. To ensure our children have the best chances for the future, we must reduce the number of social problems such as fetal alcohol syndrome and youth crime. We must ensure that children stay in school longer and that they have a healthy start, or head start. They need to live in a loving and caring environment that is secure, with discipline parameters and good nutrition. They need to be engaged by their parents or parents.

We are working on this with the provinces, and we are committed to doing that. By engaging in that healthy start, that head start program, we will ensure that a whole host of social issues and challenges will be reduced.

I have seen that clinically on the ground as a physician. We can look at the work that has been done in the last 20 years, from programs in Ypsilanti, Michigan to the work done by former labour minister of New Brunswick and her husband Doug. This will ensure that kids will become well-adjusted, functional adults and that social problems will be reduced substantially.

Also, my province of B.C., of which I am very proud, is the first province to sign on with respect to the gas tax rebate. Those moneys will go directly to the municipalities for critical infrastructure. This is extremely important because the needs on the ground are extensive. Municipalities know the needs in their areas. The moneys will be directed to these critical infrastructure needs, in cooperation with the province and the municipalities. I want to thank the minister involved for that.

I am very proud of the budget put forward by our government. For the eighth year in a row we have surplus budget, which is the perfect compromise and match of good fiscal responsibility and social responsibility. I think all Canadians will see that in the future and they will see it in the next election.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I think most people in the House know very clearly, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois, is that our country is better than the sum of its parts. The province of Quebec, my province of British Columbia and all provinces in this wonderful nation, including the territories, are better together than individually.

Our government has continued to treat all provinces and individuals, be they from Quebec or from any other part of this wonderful country, as precious Canadians, as individuals to be respected. We have ensured that the concerns of all Canadians, be they individuals in Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia, the Yukon, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, immigrant or non-immigrant, are handled with grace and tact.

With respect to the Gomery inquiry, our government wants to lay out all the facts about something any member of Parliament or Canadian would find distasteful, where a small group of people misappropriated funds. The Prime Minister opened an inquiry to ensure that all Canadians would understand what went on, and the person who would be responsible for that inquiry would be Judge Gomery, an independent individual. I do not know anything more that anyone else could possibly do.

Last night's speech by the Prime Minister was a superb intervention directly to the Canadian public. He talked about what he had done to get to the bottom of this. He also underlined the fact that he had asked the RCMP to investigate and that he would try to recover the money. He has made a promise to all Canadians that if any moneys, down to the dollar, have fallen into the hands of our party or into the hands of anyone else in an illegal fashion, it would be returned the Canadian public. That is the honest thing to do.

Could the member describe to me in honesty how our government has not treated the people of Quebec with absolute fairness and respect by ensuring that their social and economic concerns are met? I think he will be very hard pressed to come up with any credible criticism of that whatsoever.

[Property Rights, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member may believe those moneys are not getting through but that is not the information we have. That is not what we have done for our farmers.

I want to reiterate and summarize the actual dollars that we have given to farmers. We have given them $5.5 million over five years to assess and manage their business risks. This money is in addition to a $3.5 billion package from the provinces and territories. The five year federal, provincial and territorial commitment is $9 billion.

In addition, we have committed an additional $312 million through the BSE recovery program, $120 million through the cull animal program, $930 million through the transitional industry support program and $488 million for Canada's beef and cattle industry to succeed in the post-BSE era.

Those are the moneys that we have dispersed or will disperse. If the member feels that his constituents are not receiving those moneys, then he should please let us know and we will make sure we get the money to them.

[Property Rights, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments and also his concern on the issue which is extremely important to our farmers.

I want to assure him that the minister and the government are extremely dedicated, committed and concerned about the plight of farmers. That is why our government has introduced a number of initiatives. I hope I will be able to provide him with the answers to the very fundamental questions that he has posed.

The minister is acutely aware of the impact that BSE and low commodity prices have had on our farmers. That is why the minister has implemented a number of initiatives through the business risk management programs, to help them manage the immediate financial crisis such as the one raised by the member, the tragic case of one of his constituents. I would like to know, and I am sure the minister would too, why that particular farmer was not able to access the programs, or whether he did access the programs I am going to speak about today.

The government and the minister have put out ongoing financial assistance of $5.5 billion since 2003 running through to 2007-08 through existing business risk management programs, such as the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, production insurance and the cash advance programs. This amounts to $1.1 billion a year, but it is not something that is fixed in stone. There is a lot of flexibility built into it. More demand in one particular year would enable our farmers to access a larger chunk of those moneys.

I think the minister has shown through his actions, and through this in particular, that we have provided moneys directly for exactly the type of person the hon. member is talking about. When a farmer and his family are running into problems, that is what this money is for.

The minister is also aware of the concerns regarding the methodology and timing of payments under CAIS. The deposit announcement in the 2005 budget and the minister's March 23 announcement on CAIS interim measures show he is very much listening to the producers and others in the industry and is continuing to commit to work to improve the responsiveness of this program.

In fact the CAIS program paid out more than $1.2 billion in its first 15 months of operation. With the provincial counterparts, the total amount is nearly $2 billion in ad hoc BSE moneys and transitionally related assistance to the industry since 2003. Add to this the March 29 announcement of a further $1 billion in federal spending. These moneys clearly are going to the producers this April through the farm income payment program.

Through programs such as this, the producers received a total of $4.8 billion in 2003. This figure increased to $4.9 billion in 2004. These record levels of program payments reflect the commitment of the government to the issues raised by the hon. member.

I think our government has committed record amounts of money for farmers and their families to deal with the very difficult circumstances they are in today.

If the member has other solutions that we could employ to help our farmers, I would be very interested to hear about them.