Pat Martin

[Committees of the House, June 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the co-chair of the civility committee was here to witness this, but I will do my best alone.

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in relation to its study of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012.

I am pleased to report that the committee considered votes under National Defence referred to it and reports the same here today.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in relation to its study of the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012.

I am pleased to report that the committee considered a vote on supplementary estimates (A) under the National Defence referred to it and reports the same.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, from the minister's answer, he does not have these documents. He has not done even the fundamental research on the impact studies.

Can anyone Imagine legislating a multi-billion dollar corporation out of existence without even doing the basic fundamental research? The only sure outcome of this ideological crusade is taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the pockets of Prairie grain producers and putting it into the pockets of the shareholders, of the very robber barons who used to gouge them for a century until we created the Canadian Wheat Board.

if the minister has evidence that it is a good deal, why will he not table it here in the House?

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in the private sector it would be unthinkable to dismantle the largest and most successful grain marketing company in the world without at least a comprehensive cost benefit analysis, without impact studies to measure the impact on the Prairie communities and without an assessment of liabilities, like broken contracts for ships that are already on order. Some would say that it would even be foolish.

I do not think the minister of agriculture is a fool by any means, an ideological zealot maybe but not a fool. Would he table these analyses to defend his principles if he so believes--

[Petitions, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on behalf of literally thousands of Canadians from all across Canada who call upon Parliament to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. In fact, they point out that more Canadians now die from asbestos than from all other industrial causes combined and yet they criticize the fact that the Government of Canada is still one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world. They suggest that we are exporting human misery on a monumental scale.

The petitioners also point out that Canada spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry. These petitioners call this corporate welfare for corporate serial killers.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms and to institute a just transition program for asbestos workers who may be laid off as a result. They also call upon government to end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad.

Finally, the petitioners call upon the government to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention that is coming up later this month and which Canada consistently sabotages with teams of Department of Justice lawyers like globe-trotting propagandists for the asbestos industry. They insist that the Government of Canada stops this promoting of asbestos.

[Petitions, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by thousands of Canadians from all across Canada who call upon the House to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known. In fact, they point out that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial causes combined. Yet they further point out that Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world, and they note that Canada spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry, a move that they call “corporate welfare for corporate serial killers”. They also point out that Canada is blocking international efforts to curb its use.

Therefore, these petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for any asbestos workers who may be laid off; 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 United Nations' Rotterdam Convention.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think the Conservatives view Canadian taxpayers the way P.T. Barnum used to view circus-goers, because there has been a bait and switch in this budget. There has been a sleight of hand. It is like pulling a sedated bunny out of some tattered old top hat and trying to convince Canadians there is something good and new and magic about this.

In fact, the bait and switch came with a series of little rinky-dink populist tax breaks that very few people will avail themselves of, certainly not those in need, and not the 52% of children in my riding who live below the poverty line. Not a single one of them will play hockey because of the rinky-dink, little tax credits.

The really big ticket items, the really expensive items, in this budget are the billions of dollars of jets and billions of dollars of prisons and billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts. All of their little accumulative, minor tax credits pale in comparison to the one big corporate tax cut, which, frankly, will do nothing to elevate the citizens of my riding out of poverty.

Would he not agree with me there is something P.T. Barnum-like about the Conservatives with their sedated bunnies and their tattered top hats?

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is far too good a member of Parliament to actually believe the talking points that he was sent in here to read today. The arguments are full of holes and lack any empirical evidence to back up the claims that he is making regarding, especially, the tax credits.

I would say, by way of a preface to my question, that we are in the process of doing an analysis, perhaps the first in-depth analysis, of many of the tiny incremental tax credits that the Conservatives have offered Canadians over the last two or even three budget. We are breaking this down by quintile to see who is actually availing themselves of the tax credits being offered.

What we are finding, and it is not ready for publication yet because it is not quite finished, is that the tax credits that are targeted for the sports tax credit or the children's art and music tax credit, for instance, will probably not help many poor kids participate in sports who would not otherwise be participating or participate in music, dance, theatre or art who would not otherwise be participating. It is those who are availing themselves of it who are already participating in that program.

If we take the cumulative total of all the small incremented, badly targeted tax breaks of the past three, four or five budgets, they do not add up to the untargeted scattergun $6 billion corporate tax cut, explain the--

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London to imagine with us, to dream with us, just how much better Canada could be if the Conservatives had applied some of the rhetoric that they espouse now post-budget into the actual document.

I would remind my colleague that the sum total of all of the social spending and the goodies, of which there were crumbs from the table that fell into much needed social spending, pales in comparison to the gargantuan $6 billion corporate tax cuts that the government is allowing to go through uninterrupted even though both of the opposition parties have been urging it to reconsider this.

The NDP is not against a tax cut for small business. I would ask my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London if he knows what the small business tax is in the socialist paradise of Manitoba? When the NDP took power in Manitoba in 1999, the small business tax was 11%, but incrementally over 10 years we have put it down from 11% to 10% to 9% to 8% to 7% to 6%. Guess what it is now? It is a big fat goose egg, zero.

My colleague should not say that we are against tax cuts for small business or that we are the tax and spend party. When we have the chance we actually give small businesses a break on their taxes but we are vehemently opposed to the largest corporate giveaway since the CP Railroad and this wheelbarrow full of cash the Conservatives are dumping into corporate Canada for no appreciable benefit and for no good reason with no strings attached.

[Petitions, June 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition put forward by literally thousands of Canadians who call upon Parliament to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known and that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial causes combined. Yet they point out that Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world.

The petitioners point out, as well, that Canada spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry, using our foreign missions and embassies for trade purposes and that teams of Department of Justice lawyers travel the world like globe-trotting propagandists for the asbestos industry.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to ban asbestos in all of its forms, to institute a just transition program for asbestos workers 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.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there is no business case for abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board. It is an ideological crusade that defies reason, logic and even economics.

Before the Conservatives use the heavy hand of the state to deny farmers their democratic right to vote, will they at least table any cost benefit analysis, any research they might have, any impact study on the Port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay line in northern Manitoba, the rural economic base for rural communities?

Surely the Conservatives would have done this research before they would undermine the Prairie economy by destroying this great Canadian institution. Will they table it here today?