Pat Martin

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising the very pressing issue of the Kyoto agreement, which deals with greenhouse gas emissions, and the impact it will have on not only the budget but on the entire country.

In the absence of any other real plans on how we might achieve the targets in the Kyoto agreement that we signed, would the hon. member agree that one thing the federal government could and should have done in this budget was embark on a comprehensive energy retrofitting of the 68,000 federal government buildings that it owns?

I was part of the climate change task force that did comprehensive research in five different cities in this country and garnered the information needed to prove that we could reduce operating costs, harmful greenhouse gas emissions and create a great number of jobs by energy retrofitting those buildings, all at no upfront cost to the taxpayer. It would all be done by off balance sheet financing. Private sector investors, union pension funds for one, would pay for the retrofitting and be paid back slowly out of the energy savings, after which time the government would enjoy the benefit.

The best example in the hon. member's own area is the Harry Hayes building in downtown Calgary where just such a thing was done at a 40% saving and at no cost to the property owner.

Would the hon. member not agree that the one tangible thing the federal government could have done in this budget would have been to announce a comprehensive energy retrofit program for the buildings that it owns as an example to the owners of private buildings in the country to do the same thing?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona and I share one thing in the ridings we represent: a fairly high urban aboriginal population.

Both the red book and the Speech from the Throne gave hope and optimism to aboriginal people that this would be the budget in which their historic grievances would finally be dealt with. Would the hon. member comment on shortcomings he might see in the aboriginal file in the current budget?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing out many of the shortcomings in the most recent budget. On a number of points I find it easy to agree with him.

He mentioned many of the government cutbacks since the Liberal government took over in 1993 and that we had not even really caught up in terms of government spending. I think he was speaking specifically of the Canada health and social transfer, money which is transferred to the provinces. With modest increases in the current budget and over the last year or so we have not even reached the level of spending that we were at in 1993 when the Canadian people kicked out the Tory government in the hope and optimism that a Liberal government would listen to their plea and to their needs.

I would like to ask the hon. member about one issue that I am sure affects his riding as much as it affects mine. That is the fact that in low income ridings, especially like in the inner cities of Edmonton or Winnipeg, a great number of senior citizens are actually the poorest people in the population. Senior citizens, especially senior women living alone, statistically are of the lowest of the low income people. We have now learned that many of these people are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement but are not in receipt of it. Many have never applied for it.

It is our contention that the government, in the interests of addressing this segment of the population which is serious in need, should automatically grant the guaranteed income supplement to the these people as soon as they learn that the person is eligible by virtue of their income tax return, and that it should be retroactive.

Would the hon. member agree that, in the interests of helping people meet their basic needs in this era of cutbacks in federal government spending, the guaranteed income supplement should automatically be given to eligible seniors as soon as the federal government is made aware that such eligibility exists?

[Foreign Affairs, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a Philippine congressman says that Placer Dome is giving Canada a black eye in his country. That is because a massive leak of toxic tailings has caused the biggest environmental disaster in that country's history, and a bigger spill is looming as we speak.

The president of the Philippines is in this country tonight for a state dinner. What will the Prime Minister tell President Arroyo to restore Canada's reputation in that country and what will he do to rein in this Canadian corporation whose polluting activities are embarrassing Canada?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Just give them what you owe them.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst for being a consistent champion on behalf of people on the issue of EI. No one in this place knows the issue better than he does and no one is more passionate in their advocacy than he is.

I would ask him one thing. The changes to EI pulled $20 million a year out of my riding of Winnipeg Centre alone. What is the impact, the dollar figure per year, of the changes to EI in the riding of Acadie--Bathurst?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising the pertinent and timely issue of the guaranteed income supplement. He pointed out that there could be as many as 250,000 senior citizens who would be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, but who have never applied for whatever reason. It could be due to literacy or mental competency, or if they are very senior perhaps they have no family member to advocate for them.

When Revenue Canada realizes by a person's income tax form that he or she is a senior citizen who is eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, why does the Government of Canada not automatically issue it, just like it does with the GST rebate when a person is of an income level that is so low, and a person has to be really poor to be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement? Why not just give it retroactively? Would the hon. member agree with that?

The excuse we get from the Government of Canada is that even though Revenue Canada is aware of the senior's income situation, it would be a breach of that person's privacy under the Privacy Act to share that information with HRDC.

The inverse is not true. If individuals collecting EI leave the country to go cross-border shopping, Customs Canada turns them in to EI upon their return. So it is not a breach of privacy to rat them out when they are cheating by leaving the country when they are on EI, but it is a breach of privacy to tell senior citizens about this wonderful benefit that they are eligible for. Would the hon. member agree that it should be automatic when the tax form reveals that they are eligible?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Algoma--Manitoulin. It strikes me that even though he represents a rural and northern riding and I represent an inner city riding, we have a great deal in common.

The hon. member mentioned he has 32 first nations communities within his riding. He would be interested to know that the riding of Winnipeg Centre has 11,000 first nations people living within the core area of the inner city of Winnipeg.

I would like to ask the hon. member to share some of his views on how the budget impacts the issues facing aboriginal people in both of our ridings. By way of introducing the idea, I point out to him that aboriginal people all across the country had reasonable expectations in this era of budgetary surpluses. As the member pointed out, we have had five balanced budgets and five budgetary surpluses. Therefore, surely this was the time to address some of the historic grievances and injustices facing aboriginal people.

Would he not agree that if we do not act promptly on these issues, we are in danger of creating a permanent underclass in our society and that the issue only compounds from year to year the longer the government puts off dealing realistically with the needs of aboriginal people?

Would the hon. member agree that society moves forward only when we all move forward together? This budget failed to bring along with us the 20% of people who are marginalized, many of whom are the aboriginal people living in his riding and mine.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for an interesting speech full of nothing short of boosterism for the most recent budget. I am rising to say that I disagree with the hon. member's optimism that the most recent budget in fact will meet the goals he states.

The reason I stand today is to ask him just what the measurement is that the Liberal government uses in trying to determine if the budget in fact is meeting the goals and objectives, or what is the yardstick it uses to measure progress by? By any realistic evaluation of the real social problems facing the country, it has failed to move the debate along that yardstick one iota. The current budget again ignores the huge compiled social deficit that has developed over a decade of cutbacks to social spending.

I would ask him, given the promises made in the throne speech, the promises made in the red book and given the business plan that is the most recent budget, because a budget is in fact a business plan, by what yardstick does he measure the progress he has so proudly spoken of in the country today? What meaningful impact has it had in trying to elevate the standards and to flatten out the gaps between the rich and poor?

Also, the ultimate question is, how can he stand and say that we are meeting these goals when in fact there is no empirical evidence at all to show that we have done anything to move forward what is rapidly becoming a permanent socioeconomic underclass of low income, very marginalized people in the economy?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg South for an interesting speech. While I do not share his views nor his boosterism about the current budget, I am reluctantly compelled to acknowledge the work that he has done in the area of e-government and information technology and his efforts to bring that to the attention of the House of Commons, the subject of which occupied the bulk of his speech.

I would like to ask the hon. member one question dealing with an issue that he raised on information technology, privacy and access, and I will tie it to the budget.

The issue deals with the wrestling match that we have between information stored by government, a person's right to access to it and another person's right to privacy. The context in which I wish to raise it is the guaranteed income supplement.

Another issue in my low income riding of Winnipeg Centre is that we now know there are many senior citizens who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, have never applied for it and are who not getting it. As many as 10,000 people are being shortchanged in this way.

The government knows who these people are by virtue of their income tax returns. It knows their income levels and that they are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. We have challenged the minister of HRDC and the minister of revenue. We have asked these questions. If one minister knows who these people and the other minister is responsible to get these low income seniors the benefits they deserve, why does one department not tell the other department and share that information? The answer has been it would be a violation of the senior citizen's privacy for the revenue minister to tell the HRDC minister.

Does the hon. member think that is a bastardization of the interpretation of the Privacy Act? Does he think that would be a fair thing to do, in terms of juggling privacy and access to information?