Pat Martin

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to join with my many competent and capable colleagues who have spoken tonight. I want to recognize and pay tribute to some of the wisdom we have heard on this side of the House. It has been a truly stimulating debate. There have been a lot of good points and well argued.

If I could, I will pick up and preface my remarks to Bill C-15 by following through on the theme that was introduced most recently by my colleague from Davenport. I will focus on one word in the same context that he was speaking, and that word is “consultation”. We have members of our caucus on the front bench here who are experienced lawyers, and they know that the word “consultation” has legal weight. It is not just as simple as a conversation between two people. There is the duty to consult, and the Supreme Court of Canada has spoken at length to the meaning of true consultation in the context of first nations and aboriginal people. What the Supreme Court has arrived at is that true consultation not only includes the conversation and exchange of ideas, it includes the accommodation of some of the reasonable concerns brought forward by the other party.

I have been here 15 years now and I have noticed a couple of colleagues who have been here as long as I have, six terms. We used to do that extensively, even in majority governments. The majority government would consult with the opposition. If the members were sincere about moving a piece of legislation forward that they knew had merit and that there was a real public interest in achieving success of that legislation, the House leaders would meet and maybe even the leaders of the parties would meet and they would discuss what it would take and what was needed to make this work. It was not quite Camelot. It was not beautiful or anything, but it was functional. Parliament used to function that way.

What we are experiencing today, and my colleague from Vegreville will probably agree, is unprecedented. I do not think there is any precedent in Canadian history. I have talked to former leaders of our party going away back. Ed Broadbent shared with me how that was a not uncommon occurrence, that they would have dinner together. The leader of the NDP and the prime minister of the day would have dinner from time to time and talk over the legislative agenda coming up for that fall session. There would be some horse trading and some feeling out of each other. Accommodating the legitimate concerns brought forward by the other parties is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of maturity and the public would welcome it, the public expects it and I think the public misses it in this Parliament.

I caution my colleagues on the Conservative side. I am not a scholar or an academic but I have been here long enough to ascertain that our parliamentary democracy is a fragile construct. When it operates well it is the best system in the world. However, all parties have to stipulate themselves to a certain set of rules and part of that is accommodating one another's legitimate concerns because the very nature of our electoral system is that no one party represents all the people. However, when a party is lucky enough to form government, it has an obligation to represent all the people, even those who did not vote for it.

I learned from my friend Gary Dewar that the first thing a smart government does when it forms government is to try to convince the people who did not vote for it that it is not such a bad thing, that it is not the end of the world that their side lost and our side won because the government will accommodate some of the voters' legitimate concerns in the process of governing. There is no evidence of that whatsoever in this Parliament and that leads to the frustration felt on our side.

We, on this side of the House, represent roughly 60% of all Canadians. They elected us here to speak on their behalf and to bring their legitimate points of view into the debate for consideration by the ruling party. It has an obligation and I argue that it will do irreparable harm to the integrity of our democratic institutions if it fails to accommodate those legitimate concerns that we bring forward.

The integrity of our institutions is not like some kind of a light switch that can be turned off for a while and then turned back on at will. It cannot be corrected that easily.

At the same time that the government is undermining the integrity of our democratic institutions, it is fueling the cynicism of an already jaded electorate who already has a fairly low opinion of government and a lack of confidence that government can and should play an active role in the well-being of the economy and their quality of life issues. The neo-conservatives have told them time and time again that government is bad, that government should be reduced. The Conservatives are an anti-government government. The Conservative government is a government that does not believe in playing an active role.

I notice my colleague who was elected the same year I was is somehow still with us. We keep asking ourselves how we both keep getting re-elected. He believes firmly that less is more when it comes to government, that there is no role.

If that message is continually pounded home, more people will ask themselves why they should even bother voting because governments are bad things, governments never listen to legitimate concerns anyway. It is an unvirtuous, whatever that term is, downward spiral.

[Financial Literacy Leader Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is almost a cruel joke that the flip side of this same social policy initiative is the financial literacy leader. On the one hand, the Conservatives are telling Canadians they can no longer retire at age 65 and they are going to have to save more to work longer. However, the only idea they have to assist people with that impossible task is a highly paid bureaucrat who undoubtedly would be some washed-up Tory flack, a failed candidate from the last federal election with no mandate and no particular ability to actually help Canadians cope with the new reality that is being foisted on us.

[Financial Literacy Leader Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is true that Canadians need better government policy, not lectures by the government on how they should be saving more money. This report and the bill that stems from it heap blame on individuals and completely ignore the predatory behaviour of financial institutions.

My colleague made an interesting point. I am not sure that the inequality bothers the Conservatives. I am not even sure that equality is a stated policy objective of the government anymore, whereas it used to be a prime motivation in terms of social policy. Equality was the goal. Inequality seems to be accepted as perhaps just the way God wanted it. I do not know.

[Financial Literacy Leader Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, exactly; my colleague is getting the point that the Conservatives seem to be missing, that if they want to do something to protect consumers, they should do something to protect consumers. They should not embark on this public relations campaign that we are going to put in place this expensive bureaucrat with no mandate, no accountability, no reporting structure and no advisory committee to give him or her a sense of direction. We are just going to put this person in place and the Conservatives would say that they have done something to help Canadians protect themselves from being gouged. But they should look to the root of the problem. They must stop their friends on Bay Street from gouging Canadians. It is not that difficult if they would stand up on their hind legs. The great only appear great because we are on our knees.

[Financial Literacy Leader Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta for perhaps setting the tone of the debate as we enter the conversation about Bill C-28 and this notion of a new financial literacy leader.

It surprises me that we are having this debate. In this era of belt-tightening, the best thing that the Conservatives can come up with to address the issue of financial literacy is to create a high-level, expensive, bureaucratic position with no real plan and no guarantee that it will have any of the desired effects in elevating the financial literacy of the general population. It seems like a big PR campaign and, frankly, a phenomenal waste of money.

What is even more worrisome is that there this element of blame the victim that runs throughout this whole notion, which is that if we are seeing greater financial inequality, somehow it is the consumers who are to blame for getting themselves into this mess.

We should note that the notion of a financial literacy leader has its origins in a national task force on financial literacy that was criticized as soon as it got out of the gate because the chair was, of course, a banker. The majority of the members on the task force were either bankers, or in the financial sector, or associated with it. The recommendations they came up with had more to do with making Canadians into good customers for the banks rather than elevating the standard of living conditions or even the financial literacy of the general public. The recommendations were suspect from the very outset given the origins, the motivations and, I would say, the conflict of interest from the principals chosen to be on this task force.

Even he recommendations that came out of the task force were ignored when it came to putting them into a bill. The task force recommended that this new financial literacy leader be guided by input from an advisory council made up of industry, unions, educators, volunteer organizations, et cetera. However, there is no mention of that whatsoever in Bill C-28. It seemed reasonable to have an advisory committee to at least steer, give some direction and some sense of purpose to this new expensive bureaucracy, but that notion was ignored.

The other thing the task force recommended was that the financial literacy leader should be accessible to the general public through reports tabled by the Minister of Finance in Parliament. That did not find its way into the bill either.

Therefore, the financial literacy leader would be operating in isolation doing we do not know what, having the effect of, we do not know what. Who will audit the efficacy of the financial literacy leader?

Those are some of the things that bother me. This is an urgent issue but the problem lies more with the lack of protection for consumers than it does the consumers' personal education.

I want to talk for a minute about what the government could be doing.

There used to be a time within living memory, and I am not that old but I remember, when there was a minister of consumer and corporate affairs. It was a whole department with a fairly high-profile minister. This was not just a small portfolio in cabinet. There were heavyweights like André Ouellet. Big names in Canadian politics were the ministers of consumer and corporate affairs. Their stated mandate was to protect the best interests of the consumer, not the financial sector, not the predatory lenders and not the gougers and users who charge 10 and 15 points above prime for credit card lending rates.

If the government really wanted to do something for the consumers' best interest against predatory lending, why would it not cap the credit rates to 6 points above prime and never mind 18 points above prime? Why does it not enforce the Financial Administration Act and the Bank Act to make banks live up to their charter and provide reasonable access to Canadians to basic financial services, and if they will not live up to their charter, why do we not pull their charters?

The banks have an exclusive monopoly on some very lucrative financial transactions, like cashing cheques and credit cards, in exchange for providing basic services to Canadians, even when it is not the most profitable thing in the world. However, what do they do? They close down bank branches in every neighbourhood in this country.

In my riding alone, 15 bank branches have closed down. That is a vote of non-confidence in my neighbourhood and it is an abrogation of their obligation under their charter. We have charter banks for a reason. We should pull their charters if they are not going to live up to their financial obligations. Every time a bank pulls out of my neighbourhood, do members know what pops up? Another Money Mart or another Payday lender, and it is not charging interest at 60%, that is in the Criminal Code. If a lender charges more than 60% per annum, it is a criminal offence called usury. The interest rate at these Payday lenders is not 1,000% or 2,000%. It is as high as 10,000% per annum. People cannot make that kind of money selling cocaine but yet it is happening on the street corners of every major city in this country because the banks have reneged on their obligation to provide basic financial services. They are charging 3% to cash a government cheque. It is against the law and the government will not enforce it.

Members can walk to the Sparks Street Mall right now and some moneylender in a Money Mart will charge them 3% to cash a government cheque. It is illegal but the government does nothing to enforce it. Instead, it will put in place this expensive bureaucrat, God knows who. I presume some failed Conservative candidate is in line to be the new financial literacy leader.

This is the most appalling thing. I believe this is all part of the whole notion of driving down Canadians' expectations. The government believes in a low-wage, low-cost economy and a low-wage, low cost economy is a recipe for poverty, mark my words.

Forty-seven percent of the children in my riding live below the poverty line, and members heard me correctly. The child poverty rate in Norway, Denmark and Sweden is less than 3% because they do not have this notion of a low-wage, low-cost economy. They do not see it virtuous to drive down workers' wages. They do not see it as virtuous to smash unions.

I saw a bumper sticker the last time I was in Washington, DC. that read, “At least the war on the middle-class is going well”. That government has embarked on a comprehensive detailed attack on labour and the left, just like the neo-Conservatives in Canada have followed suit, eliminating things like the Fair Wages Act, enabling the Merit shop contractors and the non-union sector to flourish and prosper.

This is the way to drive down the middle-class. This is the way to drive down wages and drive down expectations. Then the government will blame people for not saving their money and, instead of having a real pension plan, they can have one of these pooled pension plans that the employer does not have to pay into, only the worker.

It is all part of picture. The Conservatives' vision of Canada is to recreate Canada in the image of the United States, and t is not a model we want to follow. I have been to the United States recently where in North Carolina a decent job pays $9 to $10 an hour. Is that the economy and the vision of the Conservatives where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and then some guy is getting gouged by these financial institutions?

My colleague from Newton—North Delta had a good point. No amount of financial literacy will help somebody understand how to sell short on a derivative of a hedge fund or understand some of these arcane financial instruments that these financial engineers put in place to deliberately obfuscate and make it impossible to make an informed choice or decision. I challenge any stockbroker on Bay Street to explain some of these derivative hedge fund monstrosities that were actually a great cause of the demise in the most recent downturn.

If we had kids going to engineering school and actually learning how to build things instead of going to financial engineering school to learn how to construct these incomprehensible financial instruments, we would be a lot better off. We would have a generation of young people who could do things instead of a generation of young people who are trained to cheat people and help the financial sector cheat Canadians.

We want to see consumer protection in its purest form. As I said, we do not have to look very far back in Canadian history to when we had a minister of consumer and corporate affairs who was a champion for Canadians, not a shill for the financial sector. That is what we are seeing here.

We cannot support this bill. We disagree profoundly with the Conservative vision of any kind of enhancing or enabling of people to cope with the financial services sector.

[CANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I was shocked to learn in my research on the subject that there are almost 400,000 corporations registered in Panama, which is four times the number of corporations that we have in Canada. It makes one think that this is not just another developing nation but quite a unique developing nation.

I listened to the member's remarks regarding her fears about money laundering, the tax haven situation and the lack of tax treaties. Would she not agree that Panama itself, through a deliberate strategy, has become a magnate for these corporations that are trying to hide behind the lack of reporting requirements and the lack of transparency? Transparency International has spoken out about countries like Panama.

Did the hon. member watch the national news on TV last night? It had an exposé on Canadian mining companies and what they were doing in Panama. Does she make any kind of connection between Bill C-300 in the last Parliament, which was sponsored by her colleague, about corporate social responsibility and the egregious, outrageous behaviour of Canadian mining companies--

[Petitions, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by literally tens of thousands of Canadians. They call upon the House of Commons to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known and that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial causes combined. These petitioners also point out that Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world, spending millions of dollars subsidizing the industry and blocking international efforts to curb its use.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to ban asbestos in all its forms and to institute a just transition program for asbestos workers and the communities they live in, to end all government subsidies of asbestos both in Canada and abroad, and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention.

[Riel House National Historic Site of Canada, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Louis Riel was a hero, not a traitor, a champion to the Métis nation, the founder of Manitoba, a Father of Confederation murdered by the crown, and some even argue the best member for Provencher that Canada has ever elected.

Riel House will not survive without the stable core funding that was reduced to zero in the brutal budget bill. Is $60,000 a year too much to honour the memory of the best member for Provencher ever elected, to honour this great Canadian hero, this icon?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex is too good a member of Parliament to actually believe the speech that he was sent in here to read dutifully, like a parrot, because it is the same speech we have heard over and over again. I want to tell him how much I profoundly disagree with every word that he just said.

If my colleague were any kind of a democrat, he would have prefaced his remarks by apologizing to the House of Commons and the Canadian people for the outrageous affront to democracy that Bill C-38 is. Because the government moved closure yet again and is denying us the opportunity to debate the many aspects of this bill, we will not have time to point out all the shortcomings of what he just read into the record in the House of Commons. However, I want to begin with just one point, which is all we will have time for.

Does the member believe, as I do, that fair wages benefit the whole community? If so, why would his government use this Trojan Horse to repeal a bill called the Fair Wages and Hours of Work Act? What does he have against Canadians who work—

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if we are trading quotes, I will read what this guy from the EES Financial Services, a mutual fund fee organization, said. He stated:

In general terms, the PRPP program is no different than an RRSP. Contributions generate tax deductions, enable tax-deferred growth, tax is payable on withdrawals and for the most part, will be invested in mutual funds – pooled investments that according to a 2006 report...are subject to far higher fees in Canada than in any other country. It’s no wonder the investment and insurance industries are applauding the introduction of PRPPs.

It is like handing over a gift to Bay Street. It is like giving it a half a billion dollars worth of management fees per year to manage the investment of this new mutual fund. All this is is a glorified mutual fund. If people did not have enough money to buy an RRSP before, they probably will not have enough money to participate in this PRPP baloney.