Pat Martin

[Petitions, March 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table today a petition signed by thousands of Canadians who call upon Parliament to take note of the fact that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. In fact, they point out that more Canadians die from asbestos than from all other causes combined in the workplace.

They also point out that, in spite of this, Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world, dumping nearly 200,000 tonnes per year into underdeveloped and third world countries.

Therefore, these petitioners from all over Canada call upon the government to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for the workers who still work in that industry, to end all government subsidies to 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.

[Petitions, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by literally thousands of Canadians who call upon the House of Commons to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known and yet Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters in the world, dumping nearly 200,000 tonnes of asbestos into underdeveloped countries every year.

The petitioners point out that Canada also spends millions of dollars subsidizing the industry and blocking international efforts to curb its use.

The petitioners call upon the government to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for asbestos workers who may be put out of work and for the communities they live in; to end all government subsidies of asbestos both in Canada and abroad; to stop blocking international conventions, such as the Rotterdam convention, which are designed to protect workers from asbestos; and also, as the United States Senate has done, to recognize April 1 as asbestos disease awareness day.

[Government Contracts, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as the NDP critic for public works, I am thankful the minister raised this issue in the House today. I, too, was taken aback at the lack of notice, but she has shared with us some very useful information to shine light on perhaps the untoward influence of lobbyists in policy-making, at least in the years of the early 2000s, prior to the introduction of the Federal Accountability Act, for which the NDP was proud to vote.

We did not see a printed copy of the statement, but the words that jumped out at me was when the minister mentioned the contingency fees, the success fees, paid out to Wallding International Inc. I note that the key principal of Wallding International Inc. is none other than former senior Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall, who had well-known and long-standing connections to big pharma in his former capacity as a minister in the Liberal government.

For a Liberal minister of the Crown to cease his duties as a cabinet minister and within a year, go out and influence peddle with big pharma for a sole-source contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars for a pre-set contingency fee is not only fundamentally wrong, it is illegal in my view. The only difference between lobbying and influence peddling is about five years in prison, and influence peddling or selling one's influence, one's access to a company, is nothing short of influence peddling.

The minister has done us a great service by shining a light on this sorry bit of Canadian history. We have all known about the very cozy relationship between the Liberals and big pharma. We have all wondered about the drug patent laws, which were in fact the biggest corporate giveaway since the CPR in terms of giving big pharma almost unlimited drug patent laws. The has been essentially draining the coffers of health care budgets ever since, handing billions of dollars to the select, well connected, influential group of pharmaceutical companies that the Liberals used so well.

We all took note of senior Liberal staffers who were like a revolving door. One day they were working in the minister's office. The next day they were working for Pfizer. The next day they were working for a lobbying company. The next day they were back in the office of the Liberals. It was like a revolving door, which we noticed time and time again, ministerial staff going into big pharma and then back out again, or going into the lobbying industry and selling influence like this.

This is perhaps the most graphic illustration of the rot that crept into the Liberal regime in those years than we have seen since the sponsorship scandal. Mr. Dingwall, who was entitled to his entitlements, clearly thought one of his entitlements was to pillage the health care system by selling this privileged access to big pharma and lining his own pockets in the process. It is fundamentally wrong and I can assure members that our parliamentary committee will be seized of this issue, at the earliest opportunity, to conduct an indepth study of these kinds of shenanigans to ensure they can never happen again.

[Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, would the parliamentary secretary agree with me that perhaps he should have prefaced his comments with the statement that this House of Commons, this Parliament believes that the Indian Act is a paternalistic, obnoxious instrument of oppression that is unworthy of any western democracy and, in fact, is unworthy of any civilized free society?

I believe that the parliamentary secretary could have prefaced his remarks by recognizing that the social condition and the status of aboriginal people in our culture is perhaps Canada's greatest shame, and that there is and should be a sense of urgency to remedy some of the historic atrocities contained within the Indian Act.

Perhaps he should have acknowledged that the Indian Act was really designed as an instrument, not only of oppression but of extinction. In fact, it had recipes for extinction built into it. For instance, when a 6(1)(a) Indian, they categorized rights as 6, chapter (1) section (a), and a 6, chapter (1), section (c), marry. the results shall have a 6(1)(c) that forfeits their rights. It is not called disenfranchised. It is called enfranchising because they then become full status human beings as non-Indians.

I would just like my colleague to acknowledge and perhaps explain the position of his government. Does he acknowledge that Bill C-3 does not confer rights on aboriginal women, that this bill recognizes and finally acknowledges the inherent rights of those people who gained those rights by their birthright not bestowed upon by the government?

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I was not even listening. I thought my time was up. I am sorry I missed my colleague's question. Perhaps, she could ask me later in the lobby.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, honestly, the member for Malpeque has more gall than Caesar and he had all Gaul.

It is the Liberals who do not show up for votes on key critical votes. We have a policy in our party: we vote for things we believe in and we vote against things we do not believe in. That is why people trust us. That is why we are honest brokers in this place.

We never know where the Liberals are going to come from. Faced with something that may adversely affect them, they either hide under their desks or they bolt behind the curtains. There he goes right now, bolting behind the curtains, rather than facing real debate.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Thank goodness, Mr. Speaker, somebody has come to the aid of the Bronfman family and the K.C. Irving family, and the persecution that they suffer under our tax regime. We should have a tag day for the Irvings, the Bronfmans, and the Paul Martins who have spirited their family fortunes out of the country.

For the member to imply that I am against tax breaks for Canadian families by suggesting that those Canadian families should pay their fair share of taxes is so absurd it is pretty well comical.

What I did not get to explain to this member about those offshore tax havens is that the current Canadian law also allows them to spend 180 days a year within Canada, enjoying all of our benefits, and it still allows them to bring their family back over here if they have a chronic illness and they need the benefits of our health care system.

This was a law written for the hog-troughers of days gone by. It is a loophole that should have been plugged years ago. We have asked the Liberals to do it, we have asked the Conservatives to do it, and neither of them will do it, neither of them will even talk about it.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on the Liberal Party's opposition day motion regarding eliminating government waste, balancing the books, et cetera. I should serve notice that I would like to share my time with my colleague from Vancouver East.

We are being asked to look at ways that we can once again tighten our belts to assist in balancing the budget. We heard the Minister of Finance deliver a budget recently and conspicuously nowhere in his budget or in the opposition day motion put forward by the Liberals today do we hear any reference whatsoever of going after the real architects of the fiscal meltdown that we find ourselves in today. Nowhere in the federal government budget or in the Liberal opposition day motion do we hear any reference to the corporate greed and wretched excess that caused us to plummet and spiral into this financial mess we are in today.

While we do not disagree with the Liberals that we should be shaking every bush and turning over every stone to look for ways to come back to a balanced budget, we have to take note that the current government and previous governments squandered Canada's fiscal capacity to cope with periods of predictable periods of financial downturn which were built into a fair tax regime that existed and developed, and put us into a balanced budget situation.

Nowhere in the federal budget or the opposition day's motion does it acknowledge that we squandered in a reckless and irresponsible fashion the fiscal capacity to cope with a financial crisis, and it leaves us $50 billion in the hole. The government gave that fiscal capacity away to its friends in the corporate community in the blind faith and hope that it would pull us out of the financial mess we are in. It does not.

Part of the Liberal Party's opposition day motion today deals with government communications and criticizes the government for what it spends on government communications. Let us be honest, government communications has always been a cesspool of abuse and fraud in successive federal governments going back to the Mulroney and Chrétien years. Do I have to remind members of the name Chuck Guité for Heaven's sake? As we visit this notion that government communications today may be taking liberties with taxpayers' dollars, let us be honest with ourselves and take note that it has always been problematic.

If the federal government were truly interested in balancing the books, it would be more creative. All we have heard from the President of the Treasury Board so far is that the Conservatives are going to balance the books by freezing public sector wages. In other words, this whole financial crisis is now our problem, it is now ordinary Canadians' fault. We are the ones who are going to have to tighten our belts. They are even going after public sector pensions as a way to balance the books. Talk about a complete absence of any creative thought in terms of dealing with a financial crisis.

In the short time that I have let me raise one suggestion that has conveniently been overlooked by both the Liberals and the Conservatives. This is tax time. Most of us are filling out our tax forms. Year after year, Parliament after Parliament, government after government, I have been harping on the same theme: “tax motivated expatriation” is the term chartered accountants use. “Sleazy, tax cheating loopholes” is the term that I use. Big enough offshore tax havens exist big enough to sink a yacht and believe me, that is what is going on, to an estimated $7 billion worth of lost revenue.

Instead of going after the nickel and dime small potatoes that the Liberals suggest today and instead of going after public service pension plans, the government is again willingly overlooking $7 billion in lost revenue so that its friends in the corporate sector, the high rollers, the architects of the fiscal problems we are having today can continue to enjoy their tax-free status without compromising or sacrificing all the benefits of being a Canadian.

I learned from a book that I recently read called Who Owns Canada Now: Old Money, New Money and The Future of Canadian Business by a right-wing columnist, and I do not think she would mind being called right-wing, Diane Frances, a frequent contributor to The Financial Post et cetera. She points out that Canada allows its wealthy families to go offshore paying a one-time departure tax on their wealth of a 25% capital gains tax, thereby avoiding the 46% taxes they would pay if they withdrew any of that money in this country. From that day forward any money that pocket of money generates exists tax-free and can be repatriated into the country tax-free.

So these wealthy families move all of the money in their trusts offshore. They leave their children in Canada, generate even further wealth with that money through investment offshore in a tax haven, and then support their families in this country tax-free. Their children pay no tax on it when it is repatriated and they pay no tax on it when it is generated outside of this country.

The United States of America is not that stupid. Every nickel that goes into the country as offshore earned capital is taxed. A beneficiary in the United States pays 35% tax on that money, yet we overlook this.

How did the Minister of Finance miss this? I do not think he missed it. I think the government deliberately overlooked it, just like the Liberal government overlooked this same situation when the former Prime Minister of Canada moved his entire Canada Steamship Lines to an offshore tax haven. He pays 2.5% tax in that country.

I urge members of Parliament to take note. While we chase our tail going after nickel and dime abuse of government communications programs, there are big fish to fry out there. There is big money, low hanging fruit, that the government could have, and should have, gone after. It could have plugged these outrageous offshore tax loopholes. Sometimes I think Liberal and Conservative governments view the taxpayers of Canada in the same way P.T. Barnum used to view circus-goers, as a bunch of suckers. Goodness knows, we have left a lot of money on the table and it is an outrageous situation.

In the minute that I have left I also want to remind members of Parliament that if we are serious about prudence and probity, and honesty and high ethical standards in governance, the most effective and efficient way to ensure those things on behalf of the people that we represent is through a robust access to information and freedom of information regime in this country.

We cannot legislate morality. We cannot legislate moral and ethical standards. It is the oversight and the scrutiny of an informed general public that encourages behaviour that we can be proud of in our public service. They are the only instruments by which we will elevate the standards of moral and ethical behaviour and good management of our money.

I have also seen in the years that I have been here successive federal governments ignore repeated requests from all sides of the House to make our freedom of information act work. We should change the name of that act to the public right to know act because the public has a right to know what its government is doing with its money, and now that information is being denied to them.

It was the shroud of secrecy that allowed corruption to flourish in the Liberal years, and that shroud of secrecy is alive and well in the present Conservative government. In fact, the government is obsessed with secrecy, obsessed with denying the public the right to know basic information about its budgets, about its behaviour overseas, about all of its activities. The government has built a barrier around itself unlike any we have ever seen.

Freedom of information is the oxygen that democracy breathes. We cannot have a robust democracy in this country without enforcing the public's right to know. It is in that way we will encourage good behaviour with our money, and it is in that way that we will eliminate the waste that the government is being accused of in the opposition day motion today.

[Kapyong Barracks, November 24th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, Kapyong Barracks is a former military base in Winnipeg that has sat idle and empty since 2004.

In spite of the base being prime real estate and in spite of a terrible shortage of affordable housing, 350 permanent married quarters there have been maintained and heated for five long winters and are sitting empty, likely the largest waste of urban landscape in the country.

Under treaty land entitlement provisions, first nations have a legal first option to purchase properties that are declared surplus by the federal government. At the very least, the government must consult with first nations before surplus property is sold.

Private developers are salivating over this prime property, but I call upon the Government of Canada to uphold the honour of the Crown and to stop the delaying tactics and legal appeals designed to deny Treaty No. 1 first nations their legal right to access this important economic development opportunity. This land should be developed by the first nations that are signatory to Treaty No. 1, and it should happen without delay, foot-dragging and stalling by the federal government.

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the point is that a bill or a piece of legislation should be able to succeed or fail on its own merits. If the government was proud of or confident in the merits of its bill, it should be able to survive robust debate and debate that is guided by all the facts and all the information on both sides. That is how we test the mettle of a piece of legislation. If it can survive robust debate from both sides, if it can survive the consultation process and the due diligence of a functional working committee, then it has been tested well and it deserves to come back to the House, and be reported to the House for third reading.

However, to undermine and to deny committee members their ability to do their job in a systematic way speaks to an insecurity of the government. I think the government knows full well that a lot of what it is putting forward is just fluff. It is pure political pablum, to buy votes not to in any way move forward the political life of Canada.

I began my speech, I believe, in a fairly generous tone, by saying that parliamentary committees are the backbone of our democracy and it is a pleasure when they are working well. I am glad that my colleague on the industry committee can say that he is satisfied that his committee functions the way it is meant to.

We used to be able to tell school teachers who brought their classes to Parliament, and were embarrassed by question period, that at least at the committees was where the real work of the people was done. I can no longer say that with any confidence because the committee process has been undermined, diminished and sabotaged by political interference. We are seeing another example of it today.

That is why we should support the amendment of my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh to refer Bill C-36 back to the justice committee, so that the committee can review the information that the minister has withheld from it, as the committee may want to amend Bill C-36 to make it better.