Keith Martin

[National Defence, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last year the government made a huge flourish about giving raises to our military families. What it is doing next month with much less flourish is to slash and cut the cost of living allowance of military families making them substantially worse off this year than last.

What kind of a government do we have that while we are sending our troops off to a potential war, and their families are dealing with that, the government has chosen to slash their incomes?

I ask the Minister of National Defence, will he halt next month's cuts to their cost of living allowance? Yes or no.

[National Defence, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that the Liberal government has been chronically underfunding and neglecting our defence forces since it was elected, but what it is now doing to our military families while we are on the cusp of war is truly despicable.

In November the government increased the rents of our soldiers' homes $100 a month. Next month it will cut their cost of living allowance $150 a month. Even with their raises, our soldiers this year will be much worse off than last year. What kind of government do we have that gives a raise to our troops with one hand and then slyly takes much more money away from them while they are on deployment? This is atrocious policy and appalling timing. At our naval base in Esquimalt this has been greatly demoralizing.

To the government: do the right thing, freeze the rents on our military families' homes, stop cutting their PLD, and treat our military and its families with respect.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the Conservative Party for his eloquent suggestions.

I want to close by asking him one other question. As a lawyer, does the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough think the government's misrepresentation of the gun registry is a criminal abuse of power and a criminal misuse of the Canadian taxpayer money?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party a question with regard to his comment about the misuse of public funds.

There is an endemic disease in our Parliament called study-itis. It has become an epidemic. When we have a problem, do we deal with the problem? No. We study it, survey it and consult on it. Once we have done that, what do we do next? Do we act on it? No. We study the studies. This is study-itis. It is rampant, it is epidemic and it is an enormous waste of taxpayer money.

My colleague mentioned a vast array of problems. Does he feel the reason for study-itis is because Parliament has become irrelevant to the decision making process in Canada, that Parliament is no longer the real legislative body and that legislation is controlled by the Prime Minister's Office which tells cabinet what to do?

The government is using hard earned taxpayer money to buy votes and is giving the illusion that it is dealing with the problems about which people are concerned. In effect the government is pulling the wool over the eyes of people and is using taxpayer money to buy votes and create more studies rather than fessing up to the problems which Canadians care about and acting on constructive solutions to deal with them.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, these are prebudget consultations, yet no one who will be making up the budget will be listening to a word that is said in the House. The fact of the matter is that those who make the decisions have already done the work. What happens in the House is largely irrelevant to what happens at the decision making level on policies in Canada.

The government often equates the amount of money it is throwing at something with the effect. If we ask what the government is doing about fetal alcohol syndrome or what it is doing about defence, it will say that it has put x millions of dollars toward the issue. That does not answer the question.

With respect to her innovation agenda, would my colleague support a lowering of taxes, a lowering of rules and regulations, and an investment in education, the three best things that could be done for innovation in Canada?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, these are prebudget consultations, but no one is listening because the budget has already been written.

My question for the member is, rather than using public moneys to deal with the sharp edge of issues that would relieve suffering and improve people's ability to live, why does the government pursue more studies, more surveys, more inaction in the face of the pressing needs in this country, be it from health, defence, the environment and so on?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech which I thought was very good. He raised a number of very constructive suggestions. I want to add something to what he said.

Today in our country there is a vast number of individuals on fixed incomes, particularly those with incomes of less than $19,000 a year such as people who are retired. Those people are taxed.

I wonder, in keeping with the member's statements, would he approach the finance minister with the suggestion that people who make under $19,000 a year not pay any tax? In my view, people who are below the poverty line should not pay any tax. Allowing them to keep their money would go a long way in helping them to provide for themselves.

Also, what has the finance minister's response been to the member's proposed changes to the tax system?

[Petitions, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Troy Francis, Vicky Ogren and more than 60 other constituents of mine, they call upon Parliament to strongly oppose any efforts by the Government of Canada to raise the GST from 7%.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleagues, the member for Surrey North, the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, and the member for Blackstrap.

I believe that climate change is a reality. I believe that global warming is occurring and I believe it is due to greenhouse gas emissions. Some would disagree with that, but I am prepared to associate my comments with the precautionary principle. I am prepared to err on the side of caution.

I am opposed to the Kyoto accord because it is a shell game. Why is it a shell game? Because of the emissions trading credit scheme which would allow us to give money to another country, such as Russia, in exchange for the ability to produce greenhouse gases. This does not achieve our end objective which is the reduction of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases.

According to the International Panel on Climate Change, carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere has increased a whopping 31% since 1760. Methane gas has increased by 151%. Global temperatures have increased .6°C in the last 100 years, the largest increase we have seen in 1,000 years.

The question we have to ask is, will Kyoto accomplish the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? The answer is a resounding no, because the accord allows money to be given to countries such as Russia in exchange for the ability to produce greenhouse gases.

Now we come to the issue of how to reduce those emissions. It has to follow a few precautionary principles. We have to follow a few key policy principles in order to reduce those emissions.

The first principle is that energy developed must be in response to demand and not produced just for its own sake.

Second, an emissions reduction strategy should be based on existing technologies that have been shown to be effective and economical, not what we may believe will exist in the future.

Third, the implementation plan should not rely on punitive energy taxes. However any changes that should occur should reflect the true cost of energy options.

Last, energy from local small scale sources should be encouraged to produce greater self-reliance. That would insulate us from the geopolitical crises that can affect our energy sources, particularly those in the Middle East.

Given those existing principles, what can we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Based on current assumptions we can double the thermal efficiency of residential and commercial buildings. We can double the fuel efficiency of our truck fleets and triple the efficiency of our passenger car fleets. We can double the average efficiency of electrical devices, including lighting, motors and appliances. We can achieve a 1% per year improvement in the energy efficiency of industrial outputs. We could see a phasing out of coal powered electrical generating plants and produce an increased demand for new cogeneration and renewable energy opportunities.

The plan would enable us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond the required 6% from 1990 levels. In actuality this is 22% from our current levels. We have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions a whopping 22% if we are going to meet the agreement.

The government's plan will not do that. The Prime Minister said, “We will come out with a plan by the year 2012”. The reductions must be done by 2012. We need a plan now.

If we ascribe to the key principles that I have given along with using existing technologies, we will be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The most important source of new energy, the most important tool that we have to improve our energy output and reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is our ability to improve productivity through conservation. Conservation has been and will be the most powerful tool to reduce our energy dependence on coal and other sources of energy that produce greenhouse gas emissions. If we ascribe to the principles and the tools that we have today, we can go beyond Kyoto and meet those commitments by 2030 which is what our end game is supposed to be.

[Question No. 39, December 6th, 2002]

With respect to the Air Travellers Security Charge announced in the December 2001 Budget that took affect on May 1, 2002, and subsequent announcements by the Ministers of Finance and Transport that the tax would be adjusted downward if the government collected more revenue than necessary to improve air security: ( a ) what are the revenues from the tax; ( b ) how much of the revenue collected since May 1, 2002 has gone into (i) the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, and (ii) general revenue; ( c ) if monies have gone into general revenue, how has this money been spent to improve air security; and ( d ) when will the Minister of Finance announce an adjustment to the tax?