Pat Martin

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I felt that I had to challenge the veracity of some of the comments made by my colleague.

In the introduction to my colleague's speech, he would have members believe that the reason he and his party were thrown out of office, still picking the feathers off their butt from being tarred and feathered and run out on a rail, was because the NDP kicked them out. For the record, it was actually the people of Canada who kicked them out. The reason they are now isolated in their shame and the reason they are sitting way over there isolated is because the people of Canada were well aware that they broke faith with the Canadian people. They lost their confidence and therefore they lost their jobs.

My colleague is living in some kind of state of denial if he thinks it was the NDP that kicked them out of office. In actual fact, the NDP members are doing their job as opposition MPs and criticizing the budget we are debating today, the budget implementation act. We oppose the bill and the budget and we are speaking against it in a constructive way.

Would my colleague not agree that if there were any opposition party on which we should be casting any blame, it would be the Bloc Québécois because five minutes after the budget was tabled in the House of Commons, the leader of the Bloc Québécois walked out of these chambers, stepped in front of a TV camera and said that he liked it and that he would vote for it? At that very moment all negotiations ended because in a minority Parliament the opposition parties could effect some fairly constructive positive changes if one of them did not bail out on the rest of us.

Would he not agree that if there is any choleric to be vented at this stage of the implementation of the budget, it should be directed toward the Bloc Québécois and its rampant self-interest?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for his concern for seniors and specifically for veterans.

It is not often that we get a letter from the Prime Minister promising something in writing, and we have it right here in our own hands, but my colleague was talking about a program called the veterans independence program, a tiny little program that costs pennies on the global scale of things and helps veterans and their survivors stay a little longer in their own homes before they have to be put into nursing homes, et cetera.

I have here a letter from the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, saying:

You will be pleased to know that a Conservative government would immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the Veteran died or how long they had been receiving the benefit before they passed away.

That is not just a campaign promise. That is a promise dated October 4, 2005. Why was that not in this budget? That tiny little budget line, this promise made, why was this not in the column of promises kept?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think we would like to take the cliché one step further. When people say tough on crime, it has become so commonly used that it has become almost meaningless. We prefer to say that we are smart on crime because our activities and our directions are results-oriented.

However, I will give one example where we are working at committee to strengthen one of the crime bills where we think the Conservative government was too soft, and that is the proceeds of crime components of the money laundering bill. We believe the federal government should be able to seize the assets of known criminals who are associated with criminal gangs, not just their bank accounts but their homes, their luxury cars, their luxury motorboats, et cetera. If they cannot show that those luxury items were bought with legitimately earned moneys, then the items should be seized and the reverse onus put on them to prove to us that the items were not the proceeds of crime.

That would be getting tough on crime and that would ensure that crime does not pay. It would go a long way to send a message to the biker gangs and the criminal organizations that flaunt their wealth and their luxury items right under the noses of the police officers. We believe in giving the police the tools they need to do their jobs and to make the case that crime does not in fact pay.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague say that. He should perhaps look at the problems in Manitoba and the examples of where there is no contradiction between being a social democrat and being tough on crime. There is no connection between being soft on crime and being NDP.

In actual fact, the leader of our party, during the election campaign, was within, I believe, six months in the debate arguing about mandatory minimum sentences. The policy of the Conservatives and the policy of the NDP on mandatory minimum sentences were six months apart. It is not such a big bridge.

I cannot understand why the Conservatives missed the connection, when talking about being tough on crime, in clamping down on these tax havens. I call it economic treason when a company undermines the best interest of Canada, even though it is enjoying the benefits of the Canadian corporate structure and the stability of our great nation. That wholesale tax avoidance should be deemed to be criminal, in my mind.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Barbados is the one they left remaining, exactly where the former prime minister, the current member for LaSalle—Émard, has nine of his dummy shell companies shielded from paying Canadian taxes in that particular tax haven. That is offensive to me. One would think a prime minister of Canada would be proud to pay his taxes in this country. I am not going to dwell on that because that is the past.

We now have a new Conservative government. Surely, it sees what is wrong when tax fugitives can use this blatant tax avoidance by setting up dummy companies. Some estimates say that the lost revenue is $7 billion a year. Why would the government nickel and dime all the little social programs that are important and critical to communities when it leaves $7 billion on the table? Who is it worried about offending?

The interesting thing about the changes to the election financing act is that big business can no longer buy elections or buy politicians. Who are we worried about offending by slamming the door shut on this last outrageous loophole? Big business cannot hurt anyone any more would be my message. We do not have to be afraid of Bay Street any more. We have been liberated. Why do we not stand up on our own hind legs and say that there will be no more freeloading and that companies can no longer be tax fugitives.

I got my information from this book that I will be happy to table. Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America is the name of the book. I agree. Corporate greed, run rampant, is undermining democracy and certainly undermining the ability of elected officials like us to implement plans, programs and strategies because it is starving us of resources.

I cannot understand why this budget did not deal with the outrageous issue of this tax loophole of tax havens. In the textbooks at Revenue Canada it is called “tax motivated expatriation”. That is the nice title for what we call sleazy, tax cheating loopholes. We demand that they be plugged and we will not let up until we close that last tax haven loophole.

I have another thing I want to raise. I cannot understand how the government failed to make the connection between two of its strategic goals and that is that it missed the opportunity to address job creation through energy conservation, or these burgeoning new economic opportunities coming from the necessary reality that we need to conserve energy in order to save the planet.

There is a connection to be made there and progressive countries and political parties around the world are recognizing that saving the planet through energy conservation is not a negative and not an economic job killer. The job creation potential is enormous. The technological development potential is enormous.

I argue that there should have been some kind of policy statement through this budget from the government that Canada should lay claim to this new burgeoning technology. We should become a centre of excellence of energy conservation technology to show the world. It frustrates me. We have a cold, northern, winter climate and we could demonstrate to the world how we do not have to freeze in the dark to conserve energy. There is an appetite in the country that our R and D could lead the way to saving the planet from global warming. Why we did not make that connection with the opportunity of this budget frustrates me to no end.

I will close where I started by saying that regrettably the NDP cannot support Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

The one high profile example in this country that irritates me to no end is the fact that when the Liberals were in power they tore up 10 out of 11 tax havens but left one remaining.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the NDP caucus to serve notice that we will not support the budget implementation act, Bill C-28.

My time does not permit me to outline the many shortcomings of the budget but let me at least say that I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity to manoeuvre or negotiate any benefits through the budget because five minutes after the budget was tabled in the House of Commons, the leader of the Bloc Québécois walked outside into the scrum area and told all and sundry that it sounded good to him and that he would take it.

All the Conservatives needed was a dance partner and they got their dance partner first off, which is when all negotiations stopped. Normally in a minority Parliament there are opportunities for the opposition parties to do a little bit of horse trading. We were denied that opportunity because one party cashed in all its chips before the bargaining even started.

I will simply preface my remarks by saying how disappointed I am as an opposition member of one of the opposition parties that this minority Parliament was not even allowed to function the way minority Parliaments are supposed to operate because of the self-interest and selfish action on the part of the Bloc Québécois.

Let me touch on two reasons why we are disappointed in the budget because time does not permit any more detail than that. I come from the riding of Winnipeg Centre that used to be represented by Stanley Knowles. Stanley Knowles has a reputation as one of the founders, the father perhaps, of the Canadian pension system. I can safely say that Stanley Knowles would be doing flip-flops in his grave today if he knew that after nine years of surplus budgets by two senior parties in the country, old age security paycheques for low income seniors are actually going down as a result of the budget.

It sounds shocking. Some would challenge me perhaps to the veracity of those facts. I had to do a lot of research to plough through our arcane and complicated tax system but here are the facts. In actual fact, seniors have walked into my office with their July OAS cheque and their September OAS cheque. It is $10 a month lower. The government actually lowered the basic personal exemption for OAS and GIS senior pensioners. In other words, pensioners are paying tax on $400 a year more than they were last year, which, at a rate of 15.25%, is $60 per year or $5 per month. However, because it is for this six months, it was doubled to average it out over the year. It is $10 a month for this six month period.

This only applies to seniors who, because they have such a low income and no other source of revenue, they qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. There is an offsetting pension credit in another category for private pension plans. However, if the person is one of those many low income seniors in my riding who are trying to survive on just his or her old age security and CPP, the person will get less this month than he or she did last month.

Maybe it is a byproduct or maybe it was an unforeseen consequence, I do not know. I am not accusing anybody of trying to starve low income seniors but that was the result and I cannot support it. I cannot do anything but condemn that result and consequence. The Conservatives should really rethink this. Surely, in a time of prosperity and record surpluses, we could do something for our low income seniors.

I talked with some anti-poverty groups and they said that the $10 a month probably represents four or even five days of a grocery budget for a low income senior. It is not quite one full week but what they have left over to spend for food, $10 a month is a significant drop. At the very least, it is a quality of life issue. It is one less thing that they will be able to do with their income.

That is one of the reasons I cannot support the budget. The other reason is perhaps what is not in the budget. I cannot understand for the life of me why in the first Conservative budget of a newly formed government, the Conservatives would not have done something to plug the outrageous tax loophole that allows Canadian companies to set up dummy companies offshore to avoid paying their taxes in Canada.

[Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate on the bill on behalf of the NDP caucus and specifically my colleague from Skeena, the environment critic for the NDP who has a very similar bill put in place, dealing with a different series of chemicals but virtually identical in its motivation to try to protect Canadian consumers and citizens by eliminating some of the more harmful chemicals.

Where we have knowledge that these products can hurt Canadians, there is no good or compelling reason, be it commercial or any other reason, why they should not be eliminated and put on the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I am glad to rise in this context simply because Canadians have to take more seriously the environmental threats to public health.

I saw the recent Wendy Mesley program on CBC where she, in a very touching way, dealt with her own personal brush with cancer and the frustration she felt. More and more she felt the medical community was throwing the blame back on the individual. Maybe it was something she did. Maybe she smoked too much. Maybe she did not eat the right foods. Maybe she did not get enough exercise. In actual fact, maybe we are being subjected to such a chemical soup every day that we are being poisoned, not to use too strong a word, by our environment.

We especially should be using the precautionary principle. We should not have to wait until a specific chemical can be linked directly to a specific symptom we have before we throw up our arms and say that there is a connection. We should, proactively, based on the body of information when it reaches a certain critical mass, take the precautionary principle and say that we have a pretty good reason to believe the chemical is hazardous to our health and it should be put on the virtual elimination list.

That is the case with the compound PFOS. We are satisfied that the scientific community has investigated, analyzed and assessed the risk of harm that this chemical causes to people and wildlife. We are not satisfied that there are arguments to the contrary to anyone's satisfaction, other than those produced by the manufacturer of the chemical.

In that way, the chemical falls into the same category as another environmental hazard, which we raise frequently in the House, and that is the government's lack of action on asbestos, the greatest industrial hazard the world has ever known.

Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that Canada is now the second largest producer and exporter of asbestos in the world. The reason I raise it in this context is that we are seeking to have PFOS put on the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act while the world's developed nations are trying to have asbestos put on the Rotterdam Convention, which is the international list of hazardous chemicals that the world has put in place. Canada continues to oppose having asbestos put on the list of hazardous materials under the Rotterdam Convention. In fact, we spend a great deal of taxpayer money flying teams of lawyers around the world to argue against listing asbestos as a hazardous product.

It is in that same vein that we can make the argument that we should proactively list PFOSs on the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It frustrates me no end that we are not more aggressive and proactive with other products and other chemicals. Asbestos is only one. Those of us who were here in the last Parliament will remember that the NDP used one of its opposition days to call for the Government of Canada to take steps to eliminate the cosmetic use of pesticides, the non-agricultural, non-essential use of pesticides.

We use the same logic that unless it is absolutely necessary, we should be taking every precaution possible to minimize the exposure of Canadians to these chemicals, especially children, pregnant women and nursing women, or lactating women. Why would we put ourselves at risk? Why would we put our population at risk when we have good reason to believe that these products cause staggering health effects?

We know that leading environmental NGOs have campaigned for years to have this chemical banned in Canada. We also know it is one of the most common exposures because it is commonly used in fabrics as a stain repellant. I do not know if trade names such as Scotchgard apply, but we all know that it was a trend in recent years that furniture and even clothing, men's suits for instance, would be advertised as stain resistant. We are talking about that type of usage. It is reasonable to believe that not just workers are being exposed at a job site. Ordinary citizens in their homes and in the clothes they wear are exposed to this material.

Tests, which have indicated that it causes organ damage and developmental problems, were enough to prompt the United States Environmental Protection Agency to ban the substance. To those who would say that Canada is being too proactive, in actual fact we are lagging behind our neighbours to the south with this product. I never like being trumped by my neighbours to the south. In the case of environmental protection, I would like to think that Canada would be at the leading edge, at the vanguard of environmental protection. However, in this case , in recognizing the organic pollutant qualities of PFOS, clearly the United States is way out in front.

There are proactive steps that we can take that would improve the general state of public health. Rather than putting all our health dollars into trying to fix Canadian citizens after they have been broken, after they are sick, we have to start paying more attention to creating a generally healthier population.

In our NDP caucus we have often said that the Minister of Health is kind of a misnomer. The Minister of Health has very little to do with promoting health. The Minister of Health is all about fixing people after they are sick. We should be spending at least as much attention, energy and resources in preventative steps and measures that would lead to a healthier population where we would need less health care resources and dollars because, hopefully, less people would get sick.

This was the message that came through loud and clear to anyone who saw that compelling documentary put together by Wendy Mesley. To her great credit and that of CBC, it has been run and rerun many times to the point where most Canadians are probably aware of her tragic story. It took a great deal of courage for her to use her own personal experience to help make the point that environmental contaminants are a leading cause of many of the cancers. Who does not know someone in their personal life or within their circle of friends who has been diagnosed with or has passed away from cancer in recent years?

In closing, I was shocked to read that when my children's kids grow up, 50% of people will die of cancer. It never used to be like that. It is a recent phenomenon. It is since the industrial revolution and the petrochemical explosion of the post-war years that we are being exposed like never before to contaminants and pollutants.

I believe this is a common sense step. We will support Bill C-298 to put PFOSs on the virtual elimination list of CEPA.

[Offshore Tax Havens, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, tax motivated expatriation is the polite way of putting it when tax fugitives hide their earnings offshore in tax havens to avoid paying Canadian taxes. We call it something different. We call it a sleazy, tax cheating loophole, and we want it stopped.

The NDP is furious that Canadian companies are allowed to set up dummy companies offshore in Barbados and avoid paying their fair share of Canadian taxes.

If the government will not plug this outrageous tax loophole, at the very least it should stop allowing these tax fugitive companies to bid on Canadian government contracts. At the very least, these companies should be blacklisted as the traitors and economic treason perpetrators that they are. They should not be allowed to bid on Canadian government contracts until they repatriate their companies and pay their fair share of taxes in Canada.

These companies should be proud to pay their taxes in this country. We can all think back to the not too distant past when the prime minister of this country was exploiting one--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

Accountability.