Pat Martin

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to join the debate on this critically important budget bill because in my view Canada is at a crossroads. We are at a fork in the road where as a nation we have a critically important choice to make. In fact, years from now people will look back at this date of May 19, 2005 as a crossroads date for the nationstate of Canada and the direction we want to go.

I am proud and honoured to be here as a member of Parliament for the riding of Winnipeg Centre, and equally honoured to follow my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie who just enlightened and focused the House better than I have heard before on the issues that are really important to Canadians. In our small corner of the House of Commons, in this little area that is relegated to the New Democratic Party, great wisdom and great contributions flow.

In my opinion we need more New Democrats in Parliament. It is an observation that I have to make because this budget bill is an example of what good things happen when the NDP forces the Liberals to act like Liberals.

Many people voted for the Liberal Party thinking that they would get a liberal agenda. They got suckered, frankly. It is like a big hook in their mouth being led down the garden path because we have seen what 10 years of majority Liberal government looks like. It looks a lot like a Conservative government.

In fact, our current Prime Minister, when he was the finance minister, was the most right wing finance minister we have ever seen. He took us places that the Conservative Party did not dare to go. If we thought that neo-conservatism was limited to Margaret Thatcher, Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan, no, neo-conservatism had an anchor in this country with our current Prime Minister. He is the champion of neo-conservatism.

As fate would have it, in the last federal election, we found ourselves in the happy circumstance where more New Democrats came to Ottawa, New Democrats with some influence and with some ideas. They had a novel idea to spend some of this incredible surplus on people. What a thought. Instead of paying a tithe to Bay Street, instead of squandering it on more corporate tax cuts for people that are showing record profits already, let us spend some money on people for a change. Is that so radical a concept? Is that so strange? Can people not get minds around the idea that maybe it is our turn to have some of our tax dollars spent on our needs?

For heaven's sake, this is what we are proposing. We were all asked to tighten our belts for 10 years of austerity. The current Prime Minister, when he was finance minister, said we were left with this unbelievable deficit left by the Conservatives, the most wasteful, spendthrift government in Canadian history. It jacked up the operating deficit to $42 billion a year and jacked up the debt to $500 billion from $125 billion. That was the Conservative legacy. Not that I am any great fan of the Liberal Party, but it inherited a disaster. When he was finance minister, the Prime Minister inherited a disaster left in the wake of the most wasteful government in Canadian history, the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney.

We were asked to tighten our belts. We were told to suck it up. There was no more money for health care and no more money for education and training. But ironically, there seemed to be lots of money to give to Bay Street in terms of corporate tax cuts. In three successive budgets the Liberals lowered taxes. They reduced services to us, took our tax money, denied us benefits, and gave it to Bay Street. That was their political philosophy. It seems absurd, but that is what they did.

Now we have reached a point of time in our history where we are saying enough is enough. We were asked to tighten our belts and do without at a period of time when Bay Street was showing record profits quarter after quarter through the whole 1990s. When there was not enough money for a single thing for us, there seemed to be lots of money for Bay Street. Now we are saying to turn that faucet back on a little bit, not excessively. The spending proposals negotiated by the NDP do not even get us back to the level of spending on social programs that we were at in 1993 when the Liberals took over. It only returns some modicum of balance. It is not over the top. It is not excessive. It is giving us back some of our money. What is wrong with that?

I cannot understand this party that sells itself as the grassroots party and the party of ordinary Canadians. In the west at least, that is how it would like to promote itself. Why is it a supplicant to Bay Street? Why is it a corporate shill instead of a champion for ordinary Canadians? That is what I find bizarre to understand.

We are trying to advocate, on behalf of the average family, that a little bit more money be put into affordable housing because there are communities, frankly, in Canada today where the average working family cannot even aspire to own their own home. That is wrong in a country as wealthy as Canada.

We have communities in Canada today where both members of the family have to work just to keep their heads above water. The husband and wife have to work these days, but they cannot find child care that they can trust, where they can feel safe leaving their children. That is wrong in a country as wealthy as Canada.

I wish I had time to ask my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie some more questions because early childhood development is the single most important investment we can make. Those years between zero and five are when a child's future is determined. That is when his or her destiny is shaped. If children are in substandard, inadequate, warehouse-style, big-box day cares, they are not going to flourish and reach their full potential. We know that for a fact. This is not a left-wing prospect. This is not some fabrication by the pinkos down at this end of the House.

Charles Coffey, former vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada, a darling of Bay Street, has written perhaps the most definitive policy paper on early childhood development, flagging this as an urgent issue for Canada to spend some money on.

We are faced with these record budget surpluses every year and the NDP, using what influence it has, manages to negotiate into that budget some spending for ordinary Canadians. What is wrong with that? How can anybody vote against that? They would have to be out of their minds.

How do they go back to their constituents and explain that. I see some Conservative MPs from Manitoba right here right now. I have in fact done the number crunching on the $4.6 billion that the NDP negotiated as a part of this budget. The $80 million will come to Manitoba for affordable housing and $65 million will come to Manitoba for post-secondary education tuition. How could that be a bad thing? Were we not sent here to bring home the bacon? Is it not our job to try and wrestle a bit of money out of Ottawa and bring it back to our constituencies? That is what we have done.

We have used the little political influence that we have down at this end of the House to negotiate something good for Canadians and now the Conservatives are threatening to vote against it. They are the ones who are going to have a tough time on the doorstep because I am going to remind people every time I go to a doorstep in the province of Manitoba that the Conservatives were opposed to bringing back $80 million for affordable housing in the province of Manitoba.

I see members who represent rural ridings in Manitoba saying that none of that money will go to their ridings. That is not true. In fact, members do not know that for a fact. They are inventing this because they are ideologically opposed to spending taxpayer money on taxpayers. They would rather give it to Bay Street. This is what is frustrating to me.

I am glad I had the opportunity to share some of my views with these people because I am astounded by their naivety and their inability to count, for one thing. Maybe if they cannot count that high, they should take their shoes off because if they have to count higher than 10, they seem unable to do that because the Conservatives were bad money managers.

The Conservatives, throughout history, have driven deficits through the ceiling. Here are some good examples. Saskatchewan and Grant Devine had seven deficit budgets in a row, whereas Allan Blakeney had nine balanced budgets in a row. The NDP knows how to balance the books, these guys do not.

[Housing, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am simply saying that if the Minister of Labour and Housing looked in his own attic he might find it full of deadly asbestos laden Zonolite, like hundreds of thousands of other homeowners.

When UFFI foam insulation was a problem, the government put in place a comprehensive program to help homeowners remove it. It also forced homeowners to disclose it if they had it when they sold their homes. UFFI was only irritating but Zonolite is deadly.

Why will the Minister of Labour and Housing not put in place a Zonolite removal home program to help homeowners get rid of this deadly material?

[Housing, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour and Housing should get his head out of the sand and stick it up his attic because if he looked he might find it full of deadly asbestos laden--

[Credit Ombudsman Act, May 12th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-389, an act to establish the position and Office of the Credit Ombudsman, who shall be an advocate of the interests of consumers and small businesses in credit matters and who shall investigate and report on the provision, by financial institutions, of consumer and small-business credit on a community basis and on an industry basis, in order to ensure equity in the distribution of credit resources.

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly try to be brief because I know you do not like it when I go on too long, but I was trying to explain the four key elements of my previous bill.

The bill that I have just introduced is an act to establish the office of a credit ombudsman simply because there has been a growing demand for access to credit from people. The greatest evidence of that is the burgeoning growth of the private payday loan operations and Money Marts.

The purpose of the bill is to establish the office of a credit ombudsman to be an advocate for the interests of consumers in all credit matters and to ensure that ordinary Canadians have access to adequate credit when they need it. When the banks really have this obligation and payday loans are having to fill that void, we need an ombudsman to whom Canadians can complain.

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

(Bill C-40. On the Order: Government Orders:)

May 12, 2005--the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food--report stage and third reading of Bill C-40, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, May 12th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-388, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 (protection of the assets).

Mr. Speaker, there is just so much work to do and so many things that need to be done in this Parliament that I am taking this opportunity to present another issue of critical importance to working people all over the country.

This bill would amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act in such a way that there would be mandatory equal representation on the board of trustees of pensions so that the representation should allow for pension beneficiaries and pension plan membership. This is currently not mandatory across the country.

It would also limit the amount that employers are allowed to underfund pension plans. Currently almost an emergency across the country is the situation of underfunded pension plans. We believe that this practice has to stop and we believe that Canadians want us to take action to limit this so that in the event of a bankruptcy we do not want to find that a pension plan is 50% underfunded.

It would also prevent members and beneficiaries from being limited from trading in the employer's shares and stocks unless the directors and officers of the company are similarly limited. In other words, no more of the practice of the officers and board members of a company being able to trade in the shares of that company and the beneficiaries of the plan being barred from doing so.

The final thing that this particular bill to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act would do is protect members and beneficiaries by providing that they must--

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

[Competition Act, May 12th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-387, an act to amend the Competition Act (investigations by Commissioner and class proceedings) and to make a related amendment to another Act.

Mr. Speaker, it again gives me great pleasure to introduce a bill that we have been working on for some time in consultation with a number of stakeholder groups across the country.

The bill would make changes to the Competition Act regarding the investigation by the commissioner and also regarding class action suits.

The interesting change that the bill would make is that the commissioner of competition would be able to cause an inquiry upon application by 100 or more persons who are of the view that there exists in any sector of the Canadian economy an arrangement or relationship that may constitute an offence. In other words, the commissioner would be allowed to take action and undertake a full inquiry on a petition of 100 or more Canadians who are of that view.

Just as critically, it also would provide that class actions for compensation by any of those who under normal circumstances can demonstrate that they have suffered losses as a result of a contravention of provisions of the act, that such class actions would be allowed an avenue of redress for those who may feel that they have suffered damages under an absence of competition.

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

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, May 12th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-386, an act to amend the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act (appointment of permanent members).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill today and in that way demonstrate that some of us are still interested in continuing to work in this Parliament.

In this particular instance, this is an issue of great importance to working people because the Canadian International Trade Tribunal is a very influential body and currently there is no labour representation on this panel.

We believe that this critically vital panel should be in a balanced tripartite initiative with business, labour and industry represented on the tribunal to ensure the interests of all of the stakeholders are in fact looked after.

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

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I put forward Bill C-281 because there are 10,000 bankruptcies a year in this country and more often than not, or all too frequently at least, workers are left owed back wages, benefits and, most important, pension contributions from underfunded pensions.

Hearing the debate today and even in the first hour of debate, I have to remind my colleagues that we are in the House of Commons. This is the place where we are supposed to be advocating on behalf of ordinary Canadians, the common folk, and what I hear are apologists for the banks more than anything else, frankly.

Those who are opposed to the idea of bankruptcy protection for ordinary Canadians are acting like corporate shills for the banks by saying that we need a tag day for them and we need to ensure they get everything that is owed to them in order of priority over and above the needs of the working people. Something is terribly backwards with this tone and this attitude.

In actual fact, there is money in most bankruptcies to pay the employees. My bill seeks to put workers first on the list of priority when we are distributing the assets or the proceeds from a bankruptcy instead of dead last where they are now. I do not see what is so revolutionary about that concept. Were we not all sent here by ordinary Canadians to advocate on their behalf?

Somehow things got so screwed up in Ottawa. Big money has been running things here for so long that all of the legislation seems crafted in such a way as to serve the interests of big money. Here we have an opportunity to do what is right for ordinary grassroots Canadians and put them first and we hear people saying that it might interfere with the banks' ability to be secure, blah, blah, blah. Honestly, I could spit with anger. It really makes me angry.

We have recent concrete examples. My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst was explaining perhaps the most egregious example of what is wrong with the bankruptcy legislation in the country. He spoke about the Nackawic pulp mill where people with 35 years' service were getting zero of their pension contributions, while $100 million of assets were being distributed among the creditors. Workers are not viewed as creditors.

The interesting thing is if the company has been operating for the last few months of its existence by ripping money out of the pension plan that makes workers creditors. They are investors in the company but unwillingly and unwittingly. They deserve a super priority, in my view, for that very reason.

There is a trust relationship between the employer-employee that is ancient and, I argue, is sacrosanct and should not be tampered with. That trust relationship is, “I will come to work every day and I will lay down my life to dedicate it to your financial enterprise and you pay me x amount of dollars”. That is the trust relationship that exists. However in the event of bankruptcy that gets tossed out the window and everybody gets their share before that employee gets a single cent and more often than not there is nothing left for them.

When I hear people acting as apologists for the banks over the interests of ordinary Canadians, it makes me wonder which side they are on in this very simple debate.

I will tell members where Canadians stand. In a recent Vector poll, 87% of Canadians said that the current bankruptcy laws were unfair, needed to be changed and were overdue to be changed. We have had commissions and studies for 30 years saying that our bankruptcies laws are unfair and do not represent the interests of workers.

The NDP for the last three Parliaments has submitted virtually the same bill. It came within four votes when my colleague from Churchill put it forward as a motion two Parliaments ago; that is, two people voting the other way and we could have had some satisfaction. The workers at the Nackawic mill would not have been screwed if we had listened to the member for Churchill back then.

Year after year, decade after decade goes by with no protection for employees in the event of bankruptcy. The number of bankruptcies is not going down and the protection of employees certainly is not changing.

I cannot believe anyone who was sent here by ordinary Canadians to advocate on their behalf would be a shill for Bay Street and an apologist for the banks, instead of an advocate for ordinary working Canadians. It is a shame.

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Madam Chair, my colleague made some really interesting observations about the possibility of Senate reform, an interest I share with my colleague. I know it is the official position of my party to abolish the Senate, but that is not my position. I hope that some day my party might see fit to pass a resolution that we would in fact support a Senate but an elected and equal Senate.

The member and I do share that interest. We also share an interest in the Charlottetown accord. I took part in the five “ordinary Canadian” meetings that took place across the country. I simply answered a letter in the Globe and Mail and said I was an interested Canadian. I was a carpenter by trade at that time. That was a fascinating introduction and education along these lines.

I am interested in one thing, which I wonder if my colleague could expand on, and that is the way the United States came to have an elected Senate. This is news to me. It is something I am learning about tonight; that in fact it began as a reform movement in one state and then spread throughout the whole country. Could my colleague expand on the importance of an elected Senate for progress as he sees it and how it came about in the United States so that we might be able to use it as a model for Canada?

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Chair, without kowtowing to the government, I do want to express appreciation for being able to speak to this issue tonight. It is a worthwhile activity and I think there is an appetite and a thirst to explore some of these very topics.

There are two items that I would like to comment on or at least ask for further expansion on from my colleague.

My colleague asked for input regarding constituency offices and how members of Parliament manage to expand the role of Parliament into the constituency, or the services at least offered by the House of Commons. I would simply inform him that my constituency office should be more properly called an immigration office. I will try to express the frustration I think members of Parliament feel with trying to deal with the enormous backlog of immigration issues.

As a government member I would ask him to take into consideration that this is a reflection of an immigration system that is not working very well, if so many people have to ask their members of Parliament to intervene for them for simple things, such as a visitor's visa, things that were otherwise a normal course of action which they applied for through the normal channels and received within a reasonable period of time. People now talk about months of delays for a simple visitor's visa.

I will not go on and on but I would ask him perhaps to take note, seeing as this is a take note debate, that we are frustrated as members of Parliament. It is a misnomer to call our offices constituency offices. They are immigration offices, plain and simple, in the inner city.

The other thing I would like to express an interest in is that I too am concerned about the rates of civic literacy and civic participation or engagement, the lack of engagement of ordinary Canadian citizens in this most important privilege that we have, and that is the democracy that we enjoy. It irritates me to no end but I do not see any specific action plan on behalf of the government. I understand the member wants input from us to give some direction to the government, I suppose, but I would encourage him strongly to have an active program to educate and invite the increased participation and engagement of citizens, whether that is at the high school level or whatever.

If he could take note of and comment on either of those two things I would appreciate it.