Rob Anders

[Dna Identification Act, November 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I speak today with regard to the DNA databank that is being proposed. Those who are innocent will applaud this legislation and this change. Those who are guilty will oppose it.

Today the Reform Party is proposing to make the bill more effective. We generally support the goals and objectives in setting up a DNA databank. The Reform Party was in favour of this before the election and even offered to fast track this bill before the election because Reform members saw it having significant importance in being able to identify criminals.

Since the bill did not pass and is now before us today in the new session, we would like to make some amendments to it. We believe it can be more effective. I will touch on three areas to identify them. First, samples should be taken from all accused; second, samples should be required for all indictable offences; and third, samples and analyses should be retained rather than destroyed.

Some will say that the bill treads on the idea of privacy. This is not as much an issue of personal privacy as it is of victims' rights. For those who argue the issue of personal privacy, surely those persons who are innocent, whether they be proven innocent by DNA, by fingerprints or by breath samples, are encouraged and supportive of these measures because fingerprints or breath samples or DNA are able to set them free if they have not committed the crime. I repeat, the innocent will applaud these changes, the guilty will oppose them.

Obviously DNA identification will be a valuable tool for eliminating a suspect if innocent. That is where the personal privacy aspects are negated. From what we know, DNA is probably the best way of eliminating somebody as a suspect of a crime. In the case of public safety, DNA identification is the most effective way of providing persuasive evidence of guilt. We support the idea of creating a databank for this.

If these changes are made, that is taking samples from all of the accused, requiring samples in all indictable offences and retaining these samples, we ameliorate or lessen the concern about people skipping bail in cases where they know they are guilty, where they suspect they may be found to be guilty so they try to quash their being subject to a DNA analysis which would occur during the case's proceedings. For the sake of justice we do not want to see that happen. That is why we believe it is important that these samples be retained. If people are charged these records will be put on the registry, not only if they are convicted.

If the specific charge collapses then a person's links to other crimes will not be revealed by taking the DNA sample at the time the charge is laid. As a result, it is important to keep a permanent register, that this be done not only in the case of a conviction but also in the case of somebody being charged.

The question on which many people focus is how many murderers and sex offenders have been allowed to remain out on our streets because this bill was not passed when it should have been. The Reform Party wanted to pass this bill before the last election. We support the bill but we would like to see it being more meaningful. We would like to see some slight changes made to the bill so it can have broader implications, and accomplish more of what it aims to do so that it can meet a broader definition in terms of its goals and objectives.

I will summarize by going over some of the three provisions we would like to see in the bill. First, samples should be taken from all of the accused. Second, that samples be required for all indictable offences. Third, that samples and analysis be retained rather than destroyed. With these changes the Reform Party would wholeheartedly support the idea of a DNA databank.

[Newfoundland Unemployment, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, nowhere in my speech did I ever mention that the people in Atlantic Canada should move.

[Newfoundland Unemployment, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that is so like the Tories to have caused the problem, to have started the fire and when they start to feel the heat of it what do they do? They say that it is a point of privilege and not a matter of debate. Well the world's smallest violin gets played for them.

The premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna said the federal government should stop giving grants to Atlantic Canadian businesses and use the savings to stimulate businesses in the region with lower tax rates. Sounds pretty logical to me. If I were operating a business in Atlantic Canada and I was taxed at the highest tax rates in the country, I would certainly consider moving if I could, because what is the point of keeping a business in an area where I would be taxed to death.

Both of those parties are complicit, indeed they are. Let us look at some of the taxes that these two wonderful governments, the Tory government and the Liberal government, have brought to the people of Atlantic Canada. Right now the federal government and its finance minister are more than happy to brag about the overpayment of taxes in terms of employment insurance. Right now there is a surplus of about $15 billion that they have sucked out of the Canadian economy and they brag that the budget has been balanced. It has been done on the backs of those people who are not getting work because of the high employment insurance tax.

Once again the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has called for a 25% cut in the EI premiums because it would create more jobs. Even Department of Finance studies indicate that high payroll taxes cut and restrict the number of jobs. But no, we do not hear those solutions coming from the Tories. Instead they try to say that the hon. member should be quiet and not mention their past blemished record. They did not have solutions then and they do not have solutions now. All they can propose is a study. Unfortunately a study is not going to cut it.

Then we look at something else that is coming down the pipe and it is payroll taxes once again, the Canada pension plan. The government is going to suck out $11 billion and it is proud to do it with a 9.9% roughly 10% tax. It thinks that somehow that is going to create jobs in Atlantic Canada. Surprise, surprise. Once again it is a failed government program that is not going to create jobs in Atlantic Canada. More taxes do not create jobs.

At the end of the day when we look through all of this, what do we have here? We have Tories who with their ministers in their previous government ignored environmental studies. We have people who kept taxes high. We have people who sucked off multimillion dollar pensions.

Then we look across the way hoping for another solution and we look to the Liberals. There we have the harmonized sales tax. They thought that by raising value added taxes it would be a benefit. They kept EI premiums high by taking out $15 billion more than they should have and they thought that would do good. Then they raised the Canada pension plan and they are going to be taking $11 billion out on that.

We have these two parties both proposing studies and raising taxes when they were in power. The Tories want a special study, a special committee to look at it and the Liberals have hired Eugene Harrigan to look after the problem that they created with the Atlantic groundfish strategy. Once again both of them are proposing more, new and expensive studies, both of them are raising and keeping taxes high and they expect that somehow the problem is going to be looked after.

[Newfoundland Unemployment, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the leader of the fifth party was in a tag team with John Crosbie to hide the fiasco that was the Atlantic fisheries when there was overfishing. The Tories were more than willing to pull the wool over their own eyes and over the eyes of Atlantic Canadians.

Mr. Crosbie at the time knew that if the fishing continued, there indeed would be overfishing in the Atlantic fisheries, but he knew it would cost him his seat. It would cost him votes in Atlantic Canada so they let it happen.

The leader of the fifth party—and some call him curly—went ahead and ignored that. They worked in tandem.

Then the Department of Fisheries and Oceans made recommendations which were ignored. That is another study.

Add it all up. There has been study after study after study. Indeed I will say that both the Tory and Liberal governments know how to do studies, of that I am convinced. I have no problem saying that. However, I believe that the people of Atlantic Canada are getting tired of studies. They have been studied to death. They have had all the studies they need to have. They are looking for a few solutions.

Let us look at what some of the retiring politicians of Atlantic Canada have had to say with regard to a solution for the problem, rather than studying it again.

Let us look at the issue of taxes. Atlantic Canada, including Newfoundland where the Tory member is from, has taxes above and beyond that of the rest of the provinces in this country. One has to wonder whether or not the taxes are so high because they go to pay for the highest salary for a premier in this country. That is right. Brian Tobin draws in $150,000 a year. He is the highest paid premier in the country and the people in Newfoundland pay the highest taxes in the country. One has to wonder whether there is a correlation, especially when they are paying him a pension of $3.4 million as he sits as the premier of Newfoundland. Maybe that is where some of the taxes are going.

Let us look at what Frank McKenna, a good Liberal, had to say about this. On his retirement from politics he said to cut taxes. The federal government has been squandering money in Atlantic Canada for years. Why not save the money that it is squandering in terms of all these different types of programs because they do not seem to be lowering the unemployment rate. It has not worked over the last two decades. Why not give Atlantic Canadians lower taxes? That might actually create growth and stimulate jobs.

As a matter of fact there is another study that can be tossed onto the other ones that the Tories would like to initiate. This is one by University of Moncton Professors Donald Savoie and Maurice Beaudin who were looking at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. They concluded that unemployment insurance had killed the entrepreneurial spirit in Atlantic Canada.

Once again I am afraid that I have to point to the previous Tory record on this. It was under their government that people could work for 10 weeks and collect 42 weeks of benefits in Newfoundland. To have that as a government policy and assume it is not going to kill the entrepreneurial drive is foolish. However it was the Tory policy that wiped out the entrepreneurial spirit.

Then we also saw what happened with the Liberals across the way and the Atlantic groundfish strategy. They assumed that by subsidizing people to continue fishing or to take them away from fishing when there were too many fishers with the technology that was in the marketplace at the time, that it would somehow solve the problem. Well no it did not solve the problem of overfishing because a lot of those people still have not had their licenses retired. Now we are back to square one. It is tweedledum and tweedledee. The Tory or Liberal solution, there is none.

We can also look at what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said about the region. Peter O'Brien, the Atlantic Canada director, along with the premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna—

[Newfoundland Unemployment, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House a short while and I have heard the term study I do not know how many times.

I would like to read the motion of the hon. member for St. John's East which we are debating today:

That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee should be established to study the severe unemployment problem in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well there is a new idea. They are talking about studying the problem again. Let us look at the history of studies.

First of all we have a regular standing committee which looks into the issues of the fisheries. The Government of Newfoundland has just completed an analysis of the TAGS program and the problems in Newfoundland. We have the government across the way which says that studies are not the way to go but indeed it has hired Eugene Harrigan to go ahead and study TAGS when the auditor general has already put out a study on TAGS. Those are four studies I count so far.

We do not hear the Tories apologizing for NCARP, the northern cod adjustment and recovery program. They do not apologize for that at all. Indeed they had a little bit of a tag team going. They had John Crosbie and they had curly, their current leader, doing a tag team on it. Curly was the environment minister and he ignored the scientific studies that came out indicating that the fish stocks were depleting and did not do anything about it. John Crosbie knew at the time—

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a tough question for my hon. colleague. I wonder if he finds it strange that both the Liberals and the Tories find all sorts of problems with the propriety of the referendum. They say there were problems with the democratic consent and that the Government of Newfoundland far outspent its objectors.

I think back to the 1992 Charlottetown accord. The federal government at that time outspent objectors 13 to 1 and yet lost the referendum.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on the fact that the Liberals, and especially the Tories, are questioning the democratic consent and the propriety of a referendum in which the government severely outspent its objectors.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am torn on this issue because my background is both as a Catholic and a democrat. I wish that Catholics in Newfoundland had turned out at the polls in numbers requisite to be able to stop this. However, that being said, democratic consent was sought on this issue.

Issues have been raised in terms of whether or not there were scrutineers at the polls. Unlike general elections, there were no people representing specific parties and there were no stipulated interest groups. As a result, it was very difficult to determine which people would act as scrutineers.

I am not impressed that the Government of Newfoundland did this during the summer, allowing only a 31-day writ period. Nonetheless, the people of Newfoundland have spoken. As a democrat it is difficult for me to stand in the House today and say this provincial initiative should not be supported because the people of Newfoundland did indeed vote for it.

I would like to propose the following. I know this is not the question that the people of Newfoundland had an opportunity to vote on, but I wish it had been the case. This question was asked today within our caucus. Why should a parent not be free to choose where to educate their child without financial penalty?

I am drawing attention to the idea that funding should follow the student, as in a voucher system. Religious based schooling should not be ended to bring in monopolistic, cookie cutter public education under a single board. Indeed, I wish the people of Newfoundland had been presented options, a whole bunch of choices, rather than being presented with a cookie cutter.

Does the hon. member believe that vouchers and direct school funding would have been a better scenario?

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if only we had somebody on this side of the House who was the minister of finance.

Last year the surplus in the EI fund started off as $7 billion in the first year of its overpayment and overcontributions. By the end of this fiscal year it is expected to be about $15 billion. With all the projections in sight it will get bigger. They are not saving up a rainy day slush fund. It is a tax, pure and simple.

If they are bringing in billions of dollars, $700 more per average working Canadian than what they should, what should the government do? Liberals should open up their ears and pay attention. They should be telling this to the finance minister. They should be pleading with him on behalf of their constituents. They should be asking for a payroll tax cut. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has talked about a 25% tax cut in the EI premiums because it creates jobs.

To quote their own finance department studies, when they increased EI premiums from a little over 3% to close to 5% it resulted in killing 26,000 jobs. It is expected by their own Department of Finance studies that this recent hike, these overcontributions, will kill 76,000 jobs.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member across the way has touched on the CPP tax hike fiasco because it gives me an opportunity to illuminate a little more on that subject.

When the government of the day first brought CPP in, it said that it would be a fund that would never rise above 5% of somebody's salary. Paul Martin Senior, the father of the current supporter of the plan, said that it would only cost a couple of hundred dollars a year. Now the government has the gall to go ahead and tax Canadians the thousands of dollars that it does, 10% of their income, double what it was initially said to be. The government members of the day made promises on the stumps back in 1966. They talked about how it would never rise above 5% and today we look at something that is double what it was and they say “trust us again”.

And the Liberals say that those funds flow to the CPP fund. Once again, can they not gloat with pride when they have a $500 billion unfunded liability? That is according to their own numbers. I do not like to trust government numbers very much because they often prove to be inaccurate. The Fraser Institute puts it at a trillion dollars. Split the difference somewhere in between or cut it down the middle. Seven hundred and fifty billion, five hundred billion, one trillion, it is a lot of money. For them to stand with pride today in the House and say that those funds only go toward the CPP fund with a $500 billion unfunded liability, shame.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Kelowna.

Looking over this opposition motion by the member for Halifax, I notice that the NDP address some serious problems in the country but they have the wrong solutions. But it is not only the NDP that does not have the solutions, it is the Liberals across the way who are missing solutions as well.

The NDP have suggested that somehow by making an investment in culture they will ameliorate unemployment and will provide jobs. I do not know how flower power is going to put people back to work. The sixties are over. Buying million dollar paintings does not put people to work.

Farmers in Saskatchewan who voted for the NDP would not be in favour of buying million dollar paintings. Seniors in Kamloops or Burnaby would not be in favour of buying million dollar paintings. Unemployed fishers in Atlantic Canada would not be in favour of buying million dollar paintings, but the NDP is. The party that some of these people voted for is. I think some of those people have to question whether or not those members truly understand their needs. Then I look across to the Liberal benches. Once again I will lay out the problem and talk about the lack of solutions.

On the subject of unemployment, we are in our 84th month of unemployment at a rate of 9% or worse. What have they done in response? They have an employment insurance surplus which is now at about $15 billion, or will be by the end of the fiscal year. For every single average working Canadian in the country it means $700. The Liberal government is taking $700 from the average working Canadian for employment insurance and it says it is accountable and is looking after the situation of unemployment? News for them. Economics 101 is that payroll taxes kill jobs. Until the Liberals understand this they will not be able to rectify the problem.

They also talk about how they want to put $90 million toward youth unemployment. They talk about how they care, but they do not. They are talking about $90 million to hire some temporary bureaucrats for the summer to once again grow the size of government. If we look at this a little more closely, beyond the myopic Liberal view of the next election in trying to buy some votes, we realize it would take about 140 years for the Liberals to solve the youth unemployment problem by employing all the unemployed under the age of 30. They cannot rectify it that way. It is a joke as well.

The Liberals then talk about spending a billion dollars in handouts to students. What they do not tell Canadians is that for every dollar they pay, for every one person they claim to help, they hurt nine more. For every single person who will get some sort of benefit, nine more have a bigger debt to face. They have a higher deficit. They have higher taxes. That is what will kill their opportunities when they go into the job market. The government fundamentally misunderstands what it is doing.

Governments, whether it be the ministers or the prime minister in the front benches now or in the past, have always erred on the side of big government. The government has a theory and it is a wrong-headed theory because it does not hold up in reality. The theory is that the bigger government is, the more centralized it is and the more people it employs, this will somehow rectify the situation of unemployment in the country. The government supported then an unemployment insurance policy now an employment insurance policy that subsidizes people in seasonal work to be unemployed. It encourages the problem. It doubles the unemployment rate of our neighbours to the south, the United States, and the Liberals sit smug.

People who were unemployed voted for the Liberals. Farmers in Saskatchewan voted for the NDP. Seniors who are facing real crunches because of fixed incomes received from the government through pensions or other means voted for the NDP. Unemployed fishers in Atlantic Canada who once again gave the Liberals a chance despite the failed Atlantic groundfish strategy were willing to give the NDP a chance.

All those people have been failed because the socialists to the left of me, the NDP, talk about going ahead and spending money on million dollar paintings and funding artists. This will not help unemployed fishers. It will not help farmers in Saskatchewan and it will not help seniors.

The Liberals across the way say they want to help youth but go ahead and put taxes against them with the Canada pension plan. Shame on them. They go ahead and jump the CPP contribution rate to 10%, a $10 billion tax that will be levied against students and young people in the country so they can subsidize their MP pensions, and they gloat with pride.

The Minister of Finance has the gall to stand up in the House and brag about their accomplishments. How can they brag about 84 months of unemployment above 9%? How can they brag about a $10 billion tax?

How can the government brag about balancing the budget when it did it with 36 tax increases since 1993 and two more to boot in the first session in this House? The government has brought forward Bill C-2 which is a $10 billion tax hike. It has brought forward Bill C-10 which goes after seniors who receive social security benefits from the United States. How can it be proud of a record like that?

Only a Liberal could be proud of a record like that. Only Liberals could feign pride in this House and stand up to say that they support those measures, that they are doing it for the sake of tax fairness, that they are putting in a $10 billion tax for the sake of tax fairness, that they are taxing seniors on their social security benefits for tax fairness. Where is the fairness in that? I do not know.

When those people have a chance to examine those policies, when it comes time for re-election, they will look long and hard, and they certainly deserve to.