Keith Martin

[National Defence Act, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this important issue, particularly because the west coast Pacific command is situated in my riding of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

Over the last 30-odd years we have seen a continual lack of support for our military. Bill C-35 bespeaks to a reform process that has to take place. The fact that the government put forth a bill to amend the National Defence Act, remuneration of military judges, which deals with that and another couple of minor issues, demonstrates the complete lack of support the government has for our military.

Why would the government spend its resources and its time and the public sector's time bringing a bill like this forward when we have massive problems in our military? We do not have the troops to do the job. The military does not have the equipment nor the support. We have a disconnected foreign policy and a defence policy. Having a congruent defence and foreign policy, having enough troops to do the job both domestically and internationally and giving them the support and tools to do the job are issues that the House should be debating. The fact that the government put forth this bill bespeaks to its complete neglect of our military over the 10 years it has been in power.

This is important on a broad range of issues because our ability to engage internationally, to fight for what we need as Canadians and to be the best that we can be economically is intimately entwined with our ability to engage with our partners in this globalized era. Our ability to engage with NATO and the United States and to do what we are supposed to do under the United Nations are all exceedingly important for the health, welfare and economic stability of Canada.

Time after time and time and after umpteen studies we have heard that Canada has been living off the coattails of our partners, be it the U.S. or our other partners in NATO. The Canadian public does not necessarily know this because our government has given it the flawed methodology that we are a great peacekeeping country and that we are contributing to our international commitments.

The reality is we are 19th in the world in peacekeeping if we look at the 22 most developed countries. We used to be number one. Back in the era of Prime Minister Pearson, our troops could be put in the theatre. They could be moved in short order to where they were required by the teams of which we were a part. We can no longer do that. We saw that in Afghanistan. We cannot even maintain 800 troops in the theatre for a period of six months. That is below our requirements.

The government has admitted that not only can we not meet our international requirements, but more sadly, we cannot meet our domestic requirements. If we had a domestic catastrophe, if we had a large terrorist attack, if we had an act of God as we have had in the past with floods and the ice storm, could we engage enough troops to meet those domestic problems? The answer is a tragic no.

Professor Andrew Cohen of the School of Journalism at Carleton University has just written a very eloquent book on what has happened to our relationship with the U.S. and the international community. He puts at the heart of this one major issue. He says that our underfunding and lack of response to our military needs has greatly undermined our ability to be a player at the international table. Our government continues to tell Canadians that we are a great middle power, that we have strong moral authority. At one time that was true, but since 1969 we have seen a gradual and inexorable decline in our ability to influence and a decline in our ability to advocate for Canada at the international table.

About two or three years ago, the head of NATO admonished Canada in Toronto for a lack of response. He said at that time that as Canadians we had to support our military here at home and play our role internationally. If we would not pay the piper, then we would be sitting around at the table as a second rate country and we would have to pick up the pieces after all was said and done.

Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged that in previous speeches. He himself has acknowledged the need, as has our current defence minister. Why the lack of response? Documents have been put together by the Canadian Alliance. My colleague has put together a superb document on the deficits and needs in our defence forces, an eloquent specific plan of action, a call to arms, on exactly how we can fix the problems in our defence forces.

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague for this motion, which at its heart trumps human lives over international politics. That is what this is about: human lives. This motion is important, whether someone lives in Taiwan or China, because whether it is SARS or a much larger problem such as the pandemic of AIDS, the diseases spreading across borders today are an offshoot of globalization.

As our international community becomes more global and barriers fall, it is important for us to have an integrated health care response that will muster up an international response to international health care concerns. We have seen this with SARS. We have seen what is happening right now in Taiwan. We have seen what is happening in China. SARS is only one of a litany of problems that we have to deal with today and which we will have to deal with in the future.

The fact that Taiwan is simply asking for observer status shows that it has no interest whatsoever in thumbing its nose at China, in trying to give China a bad name or trying to disrespect it in some fashion. In the motion that my colleague has put forth, the people of Taiwan want to be a participant, not only for the people of Taiwan but also for the people of China. This motion will help the health of the people of China, it will help the people of Taiwan and it will help the international community.

What response has my colleague had so far from the government on this very fine motion?

[Parliament of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, my party has raised this issue at length, as have members from all political parties because it goes to the heart of our job. We obviously oppose what the government is doing because the ethics commissioner will not be truly independent as the government has mentioned.

The ethics commissioner will be chosen by the Prime Minister and ratified by the House. On the surface one may think that would be appropriate. The Prime Minister certainly has the right to appoint individuals, but the ethics commissioner is someone entirely different. The ethics commissioner will be a watchdog over all of us, including the Prime Minister.

The reason this came about is the number of debacles that have occurred with respect to cabinet ministers, some of whom have been forced to leave because of a breach in ethics.

The fact is that this institution needs firm guidelines on what we can and cannot do. All MPs would like that. If we know what the rules are, then we know what we can and cannot do. Intuitively we already know that. All of us on this side of the House are asking for an independent ethics commissioner, one not appointed by the Prime Minister, but one perhaps chosen from outside or a group of people chosen by cabinet who would then be ratified by the House in a secret ballot. In that way we could prevent the application of the Westminster type system, the whip system, which presently occurs in the House and which prevents individuals from voting their conscience and doing the right thing. I would like to expand on that thought.

Notwithstanding health care, the economy, the job losses that people have endured, the lack of support for education, the lack of support for our seniors, the lack of opportunity we have compared to other countries, notwithstanding all of those issues, the biggest problem we have is that we have an elected dictatorship in Canada. With so much power centred in the Prime Minister's Office, it prevents members across party lines from doing their job.

All of us in the House have talents, passions and desires. They are why we came to the House and what we wanted to do when we arrived here. We wanted to accomplish things for our constituents and for all Canadians. That is what Canadians want. They have asked us to come here. They pay our salaries to do their bidding. We are their public servants, but when we get here can we actually do what they ask? Can we fulfill that expectation? The tragic answer is no.

The Westminster system has been bastardized in Canada. We have a system where the Prime Minister's Office has so much power that even the Prime Minister's own cabinet members are unable to fulfill what they think needs to be done and what their respective departments think needs to be done. Cabinet takes its marching orders from people in the Prime Minister's Office, most of whom are unelected. Power is being wielded by unelected people. That is not a democracy. We have an executive with virtually unrestrained power. We have the worst of the presidential system and the worst of the Westminster system. An uncontrolled executive is not good for the country, it is not good for the House and it is not good for the executive itself.

The problems the Prime Minister and his cabinet are facing are in many ways a result of the structure created by the Prime Minister. He has uncontrolled power. The ability to encourage different viewpoints and have those viewpoints fleshed out in a manner that enables the best ideas to percolate to the top is absent. When there is an uncontrolled executive where contrary views do not act as a check and balance on what the Prime Minister and his people want to do, it creates not only an unhealthy situation but an entirely damaging situation for our nation, for the House and for the executive. If we look back in history, any time there was power centralized to such a degree among so few people, it created a situation rife with problems.

Many of our country's problems have not been dealt with in a meaningful fashion. There has also been an erosion of our country's democratic institutions and potential. Rather than doing what we are capable of and aiming high, we as a nation are shooting low. That is a violation of ourselves as individuals and worse, it is a violation of the people of our country.

We have not tapped into the potential in the House and the potential of our nation and indeed the potential of our public service to bring all those good minds together, to apply those minds to the problems of our nation. If all members of the House looked into their hearts, they would have to agree with that analysis. However, things can be done.

The prime minister in waiting, if I can call him that, has spoken about the democratic deficit. The democratic deficit must be dealt with. If it is not, then we will not see action on health care to ensure that Canadians get access to better health care. We will not decrease our unemployment. We will not increase salaries. We will not release the potential of our private sector. We will not improve the education system in Canada. We will not have better relations between the feds and the provinces. We will not have more efficient government. We will not see the reform of the public sector that is so desperately needed. None of that is going to happen because the great minds in our country cannot apply their ideas to those pressing problems.

If whoever takes the helm of this country chooses to deal with that democratic deficit, that person would leave a mark and a legacy that would be remembered for many, many years to come. It would be the most significant change our country has seen in decades. That is something that whoever takes over the helm in the future may give pause for thought.

It will not be good enough to merely pay lip service to this in the time up to when that person is chosen. It will not be good enough to speak about it in generalities. The only thing that will be good enough is if that person gives specific solutions to deal with the democratic deficit of our country so that we will reform our system and change it from an elected dictatorship to a true democracy. That is our duty as individuals and it is the duty of the Prime Minister.

Think of what we could do if that changed. Think of what we would have if we had free votes in the House of Commons, true free votes done in an electronic system like it is done in many other countries. Developing countries have an electronic voting system that is efficient, timely, cost saving, effective and democratic. A person's voting record could be released when a writ is dropped. The person's constituents would know how that person voted on various bills.

Reform of the committee system is needed. It is no longer acceptable for committees merely to be make work projects for MPs. No longer is it acceptable for the government to use taxpayers' money to merely keep MPs running around and around in circles doing studies that nobody listens to. No longer is it effective and worthy for the government to tolerate a system that merely makes the vast majority of the people in this House run around like chickens with their heads cut off, and do not use the good work that they have done.

There is tremendous potential in the House. Much of it is drawn from the constituents who brought us here. All of us use the ideas that our constituents give us. We bring them to the House. What if those ideas were able to have life? What if those ideas were employed as public policy, even as a pilot project? Imagine what we could do as a nation domestically. Imagine what we could do internationally.

I have given some suggestions that my party and members from across party lines have put forward. We can only hope that the government listens for the collective good of all of us.

[Foreign Affairs, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, notes do not save lives. Here is another example of the government's continued inability to deal with a crisis.

Morgan Tsvangirai is on trial in Zimbabwe for treason. The government has an RCMP report that needs to be released. It said in the House that this report would be released and was released months ago. In an e-mail from Tsvangirai's defence team it states “The Canadian government is not prepared to release the findings of the police report”.

Why did the government tell the House that this police report was released when it was not, and when will it release this police report that will save three people--

[Foreign Affairs, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, four Canadians are being held hostage on Nigerian oil wells. One of the hostages wrote an e-mail saying “Make no mistake of the danger we are in. If they have lost everything, they will make sure we lose everything and that means our lives”.

All the government has done is simply confirmed that the hostages were taken. My question is simple. Will the government ask President Obasanjo to personally intervene in the release of these hostages?

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to my friend's speech. I want to ask him a question on the issue of right to work legislation.

A few years ago a group did a very interesting analysis. It looked at states in the U.S. and compared those states that had right to work legislation and those that did not. What it found was that in those states where right to work legislation did occur a couple of interesting things happened. One was that the income in those states that had right to work legislation was significantly higher, in the order of $3,000 plus per year per worker.

The other interesting thing it found was that the rate of employment was also higher when one compared those states that had right to work legislation to those that did not.

In the interest of workers, in the interest of employment and in the interest of getting the maximum amount of money for workers in Canada, would the member support right to work legislation in Canada?

[Organ Donations, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, over 3,500 Canadians are waiting for an organ transplant and 150 of them will die every single year. Tragically, we have among the lowest organ donor rates of any country in the developed world. Six years ago the government passed an action plan to fix this problem, yet it has not been implemented.

The following are the most important recommendations: first, make an organ donor form available in every patient's chart in every family doctor's office in Canada; second, set up a real time database for potential organ donors and recipients; third, appoint a national organ transplant coordinator and ensure that brain death reporting to that coordinator is mandatory; fourth, ensure a pool of funds is available to ensure that all transplants are carried out; and fifth, make EI available for all living donors during their convalescence.

April 20 to 27 is organ donor week. It is a good time for the government to implement this plan.

[Canada Pension Plan, April 9th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-428, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (adjusted pension for persons with other income above the level at which the second percentage of income tax applies).

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest issues affecting Canadians that the House has not dealt with is demographic impact upon our social programs.As our population ages, the demand that will be placed on social programs will make many of them unsustainable in the future.

One of those areas is the CPP. Bill C-428 would enable individuals to work after the age of 65 and collect a graded percentage of their CPP. In other words, at the age of 65 they would collect 40% of their CPP, at 66, 50%, and all the way up to 69, if they so choose to also work and earn money.

In other words, this would encourage people to stay in the workforce. It would encourage them to work and make money, but also would enable them to collect a percentage of that CPP. The benefits? Increasing our workforce and decreasing demands on our CPP, a win-win situation for all concerned.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, April 9th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-427, an act to amend the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Canada is a major conduit in the trafficking of endangered species. For years the government has not lived up to our obligations under the convention on international trade in endangered species, also known as CITES.

Bill C-427 would strengthen the ability of our country to allow the import and export of species in a fair and safe manner. It would also ensure that the export and import of those species would be done in a manner that is fair and safe to those animals; as we know, a vast majority of them actually die in transport. It would also ensure that the government lives up to its commitments under CITES so that we would no longer be a country that is ashamed of our international reputation with respect to the international trade in endangered species.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill.

Everyone in the House knows that our responsibility is the responsible expenditure of the people's money. It is not our money. It is not the House's money. It is the people's money.

When I watched the budget being introduced in the House, my heart sank. It sank because I thought that the government had an enormous opportunity to really close the gap with our major competitor, the United States.

President Bush has been spending money, I would say recklessly. The U.S. has turned a massive surplus into a massive deficit. The tax difference between us and the U.S. has been wide. Its competitiveness historically has been better. We had a grand opportunity when we were dealing with surplus budgets to close that gap dramatically, strengthen the Canadian dollar, improve investment into Canada and reverse the brain drain.

Sadly for all Canadians, the government chose to make the budget a political instrument. It chose to disburse money in an unfocused, shotgun approach, doling out money without firm objectives. That is utterly irresponsible on the part of the government. We missed a grand opportunity to strengthen our economy and thereby strengthen our social programs.

I will deal with just a few points which I think the government could have dealt with if it had chosen to. There are four major spending priorities the government ought to have addressed in 2003: health care, education, infrastructure and defence.

It is a good thing the government chose to split the CHST into two transfers. The Canadian public will know where the moneys are going from a federal perspective. The way to get around the moneys being spent irresponsibly is for the federal government to ask the provinces what their spending priorities are and to ensure that federal expenditures are congruent with that. In other words, the money would go to the sharp edge of patient care on the ground. It is simply intolerable for Canadians to have to wait a year to a year and a half for essential surgeries or for poor or middle class Canadians to do without essential health care services, but that is what is happening.

On education, we cannot build a strong economy without the people of our country having the educational opportunities to be the best they can be. It is not something that simply ends in their 20s; rather it is a process that will go on throughout most of their lives, given the changing demographics and our changing economy.

The government should have provided the provinces the flexibility to do that. It has an opportunity to ensure that workers have a chance to upgrade their skills without leaving their jobs and those who need to acquire skills can do so without being hurt. If we do not enable people to acquire the skills to be integrated members of our economy, those people will become a drain on our social programs.

People do not want that. People want to work. They want to use their talents to the best of their abilities. They want to contribute to Canada, but the system we have now is so ossified it does not enable them to do that. There is a chance through EI to provide that.

The government had a chance to change taxes. It had a chance to reduce payroll taxes and reduce personal and corporate income taxes. Instead it has kept them at an unacceptably high level.

The government continues to trot out the notion that Canada has a low tax rate. Anybody who has looked at the tax rates of the OECD or our G-7 an G-8 partners knows full well that we have the highest tax rates among the G-7 and G-8 nations. We are in the highest third of tax rates among the OECD nations. That affects our ability to be competitive. It affects our ability to contribute to the strong social programs that will enable us to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

On the issue of infrastructure, the pathetic and small investment in infrastructure will only hurt our country. The federal government has a role to work with the provinces to deal with the acute infrastructure needs of our nation. Our country has at a minimum a deficit of $130 billion yet the government has put in a paltry $1.2 billion into infrastructure, something that does not even scratch the surface.

No wonder the municipalities were beside themselves, as were the provinces. The chronic deterioration of our infrastructure in terms of our transportation is something that would substantially and significantly affect our ability as a country to have a strong, dynamic and competitive economy. This can be reversed. That is a choice that the government must make. I would suggest that it work with its partners at all other levels of government to ensure it happens.

I have a base in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I can tell the House that the men and women in uniform who give their lives to protect us here at home and abroad have been doing a yeoman's job. In fact, they have been giving much more consideration to our country than the government has given to them.

For the last 10 years the government has underfunded and disrespected our military by not giving our people the tools to do the job. As the PC member mentioned, the helicopter is but one issue. We can go through manpower, equipment and training. Our people are wanting at every level. They have the desire and the will to do the job, but they do not have the tools.

The Canadian public would be shocked to know that many of our service people are spending upward of 11 out of 12 months abroad, away from their families. Why? Because the government has gutted our military and our manpower is so low that it does not have the ability to put the people that we require into the field to do the job of our nation.

This is important not only on a security level. If we do not contribute internationally to security issues governed by the UN, NATO, and our partners, then when we come to the table in terms of our ability to negotiate on economic issues, we will be taking a back seat to those who do contribute. That is the cold, hard reality.

For too long we have been living off the coattails of our allies on the international security concerns that we all share. The NATO secretary general mentioned two years ago that Canada must come up to the plate and contribute. That, sad to say, has fallen on deaf ears on the part of the government.

There have been umpteen numbers of constructive suggestions from members across this nation and the military. The top levels of the military have said clearly that we should invest in our military now or we will not be able to do the job to protect Canadians here at home. It will affect us in our pocketbooks.

The $800 million that the government put forth is but a tiny sliver of what our military needs now. We will need even more in the future. I would strongly impress upon the government, and especially the Prime Minister's Office where a lot of this is held up, that it listens to the cold, objective analysis of the situation and make the investment that the Canadian public wants, that our military wants, and that our partners want.

What else can we do? Part of the responsibility of the government is to spend our money wisely. Unfortunately, it tends to have ill-conceived objectives or an absence of objectives. It does not know what it wants to do. It does not measure what it is doing. Therefore, it does not know what its output should be. Furthermore, a lot of moneys are spent to curry favour in certain ridings to make the government look good. This is a characteristic of governments everywhere.

Surely the government can do a much better job of ensuring that our moneys are spent effectively. The government should identify its objectives, measure its output, and ensure that the moneys will be spent wisely, efficiently and effectively. We have not, sad to say, seen this. From the gun registry to the Groupaction debacle to the HRDC $1 billion boondoggle, sadly Canadians have seen the abysmal mismanagement of their moneys for far too long.

It is not rocket science. The Auditor General, people in the public service, and people in the public who know how to manage money properly have given clear and constructive solutions to the government as to what our objectives ought to be to ensure that the people's money will be spent wisely and effectively.

They have not been listened to. Moneys are used to curry political gain. The government looks to see which way the wind is shifting and moves in that direction. It needs to show leadership and use public moneys wisely and effectively. Only then will we build a stronger country.