Charlie Penson

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the minister to his new portfolio. As he said during his speech, trade is a very important area for Canada. He noted that barriers to trade are coming down worldwide and that Canada is very dependent upon trade. I would agree with him.

I welcome the Liberal caucus to the area of free trade. One by one, the Liberals are slowly becoming believers. It was not always the case. In some cases they are actually born again free traders. I welcome that conversion, albeit a little bit late.

I am concerned with the government's approach in a few areas and would like to ask the minister some questions on that. I am concerned about its approach to adopting new trade regimes around the world such as a new trade deal with Chile.

We are now talking about one with Mercosur, which I welcome, but we have not done the homework to make it possible for our businesses to take advantage. We have the worst record in the G-7 countries of trade barriers within our own country. As a matter of fact, we have more barriers to trade in Canada than there are in the entire European Union. That is simply not acceptable.

When the minister talks about barriers coming down, I suggest the next time team Canada is out on a mission perhaps it should take a team Canada mission right here at home to dismantle trade barriers that are making it very difficult for our businesses to take advantage of our trade deals.

In fact a private member's bill was introduced this morning by my colleague from Lakeland talking about just that. I would hope the Liberals on the other side would support that private member's bill and maybe even lift it up and adopt it as their own to get rid of the trade barriers that are limiting us.

I am also concerned that the government is not using the processes the minister talked about to settle disputes. We have a very good dispute settling mechanism within NAFTA and now within the World Trade Organization. What happened when it came time to use them on durum wheat a couple of years ago, softwood lumber and Helms-Burton? They never used the processes that were put in place.

I challenge the minister to tell me why and what they will do about that instead of accepting export caps and accepting intimidation from the United States. I want to know why we are not using the processes that have been put in place.

I want to know what the government is doing to bring down internal trade barriers in this country. At our committee on small and medium size enterprises we heard businesses state that they had actually moved from Ontario into Michigan because they could do better trade with the provinces in Canada that way than they could from Ontario. That is simply unacceptable.

What will they do to correct this problem? What will they do about using the processes we have in place to settle disputes?

[International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act, April 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-77. This act has been designed to correct an oversight that happened in 1994. I can understand how that can happen and we agreed to participate to support this bill and to correct that error.

I want to take the opportunity to talk about the bigger picture in terms of Canada's foreign policy and the government's role in that. Foreign policy does not just belong to the government in power, it belongs to Parliament. There have been numerous incidents in which the Liberal government ignored Parliament and failed to inform it properly. In the area of foreign affairs Reform has raised many issues in the past years and almost all of them have been completely.

In October 1993 a private member's motion was put forward to address the important issue of peacekeeping, which would go on to consume a fair amount of time of the House later one. What did the governing party do at the time? It voted it down because it was not interested in the opinions it seemed of other members on this side of the House. There have been other occasions when that has happened as well.

This happened in spite of the fact that when the present foreign affairs minister was on this side of the House he was very critical of the Tories for showing a lack of respect for the parliamentary process. I would think he would be very sensitive as the foreign affairs minister to that very criticism he raised when he was on this side.

We know that this Parliament has probably had more closure and use of time allocation than any other Parliament including the one the minister of foreign affairs was so critical of, the Mulroney government of nine years.

When we look at the foreign policy of this government we can see that it has lacked vision and has failed in some areas. It is clear to us that the Liberals want to use foreign policy as their own political agenda, and that is a fairly serious charge.

What can one think when the Prime Minister makes his first trip to our friends in Washington, to visit the president of the United States, our most important trading partner, three and a half years into the mandate? Some would say it was a photo op, a good chance for the Prime Minister to have his picture taken with the president, on the president's knee, shortly before the election campaign. Canada and the United States have a very close trading relationship, which has grown to something like a billion dollars a day of two-way trade.

I am a little cynical about his motives. However, I want to talk about an area that the Liberals have come full circle on. I give them full credit. That area is free trade.

When the Liberals were on this side of the House in the opposition benches they were very critical of the free trade agreement with the United States. They fought it tooth and nail in 1988. They were very critical of it in the 1993 election. They said they would rip up or renegotiate the accord unless it got a subsidies code and an anti-dumping code. Of course that did not happen.

The Prime Minister has led a number of trade delegations around the world. That is a good move. They are the Team Canada missions.

I wonder about our exporters, what they are thinking. It seems our exports to most of the countries that the Prime Minister and his entourage have visited in the last three years have actually fallen off as a result of these trade missions. How can that be? The reason I put forward is that Canada has done our homework at home to make possible the opportunities for our businesses to take advantage of these important trade missions that have developed.

I would suggest that the Prime Minister concentrate more on the trade mission at home to correct some of the problems for our companies can take advantage of.

The committee has certainly heard the high cost of doing business in Canada. We have payroll taxes, taxes, interprovincial trade barriers where we have made very little progress. These are very big problems to trade within Canada.

We know that there are something like only 100 companies in Canada that are responsible for over 40 per cent of Canada's exports. We would like to see it be a great deal more than that. The Minister for International Trade has suggested that we should get to about 4,000 companies doing business. I agree.

When we cannot even trade effectively across our own provincial borders, how can we be exporters around the world? How can our companies get the economies of scale that are required to get out there and compete in the world market?

The federal government has to show leadership in breaking down the provincial barriers we have. That will resolve a lot of our problems.

We heard at our committee in foreign affairs and international trade when we were doing a study on small and medium size enterprises what is holding them back from exporting. Some said they are moving into the United States. They have better access to the Canadian market from the United States than they have from their Canadian locations. That is a big problem.

In any case, I am glad to see that the Liberals have been born again, if you like, free traders. It is the right approach. Canada is a trading country. Forty per cent of our GDP is derived from exports along with one job in every three. It will be a very important area for us in the future.

The initiative that the trade minister has developed to try to bring more countries on in the southern hemisphere will be good for Canada. Let us concentrate on correcting some of the problems at home so that we can take advantage of these very important initiatives.

Although they are born again, I welcome it. I hope their hearts are in the right place and that this will continue into the future.

I want to talk about a couple of other areas that we have identified in terms of peacekeeping. The government has not taken into consideration the long term consequences in some cases of Canadian involvement. I cite Haiti as an area where United States went in with a lot of fanfare. Guess who gets to do the mop-up operation. Canada.

We seem to continue to extend that mandate. We have RCMP officers there who are trying to help in training Haitians in terms of policing. We have the problem in Canada where we have lack of police forces. We seem to be taken in by United States. It makes the big initiative, gets the fanfare and then we do the mop-up afterwards. There are long term consequences that have to be anticipated.

What is wrong with a full scale debate in the House, as one of our members suggested in a private member's motion in 1993? Let us involve the House a bit more to hear more of what other people are thinking in that regard.

With regard to Bosnia, the government has allowed itself to be dragged into a mission it was not equipped for. We have to reassess the whole idea of whether we are in peacekeeping or peacemaking.

There was the initiative to go to Zaire. Things changed pretty rapidly, but it was an ironic situation. Our peacekeepers were pinned down. They could not even get their weapons out of the airport. They were supposed to help police the area but they could not get their weapons out of the airport. It was a fiasco. It is a good thing there was a major turnaround in the situation and people started to return of their own accord.

There are a lot of things which need to be changed. The United Nations has to go through a reassessment in terms of its effectiveness. We are concerned that the United Nations is being forced to downsize in terms of bureaucracy.

I am concerned about some of the organizations which were put in place shortly after the second world war which were well intended and have done good work such as the World Bank, the IMF and the United Nations. Many are trying to reinvent themselves to stay in existence. If there is no role for them or if there is a reduced role, we have to recognize that.

Reform in many of these institutions is badly needed and Canada has to show leadership in these areas.

We will support the motion to clean up this oversight, but let us involve all of Parliament when it comes to foreign policy because there are some good ideas which we should have an opportunity to debate.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-34, which will establish the agricultural marketing programs act. The bill will consolidate a number of programs. I believe the consolidation which the government has undertaken is good. It will cut out some of the bureaucracy in the department of agriculture. Specifically it deals with the advance payments program which I would like to address in detail and give some background on to explain why the advance payments are necessary and how they have developed over the years.

Many farmers take advantage of the cash advances program. I did so myself. For those farmers who want to pool their product and continue to use the Canadian Wheat Board, it is a useful tool for the future.

The Canadian Wheat Board does not always move product in a timely manner. It does not always suit individual needs. There is a reason for the cash advances program. I know that farmers take advantage of it so they do not have to worry about marketing their grain early in the fall when they need cash flow. There are those people who are happy to have the Canadian Wheat Board do their marketing for them. One of the tools which they use to manage their cash flow is the cash advances program.

However, a number of farmers in western Canada are not happy with the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact they have used other methods to find ways of getting around marketing their grain through the Canadian Wheat Board. Some grow commodities that the wheat board does not handle. They want out of the system. They want choice. They want to be able to sell their grain when it best suits them. They do not want to be part of the cash advances program and they would not use it.

The chair of the agriculture committee was in the House earlier. I believe he will be speaking on the bill at some point. He was in Grand Prairie with the agriculture committee to discuss Bill C-72. One of the farmers on one of the panels during that morning said that only one-third of his income came from Canadian Wheat Board crops and that it was becoming less and less over the years.

A neighbouring farmer to me, Terry Balisky, is a big farmer in the area. He is well known for managing a good operation. He went on to say that over the years he is getting out of crops that the Canadian Wheat Board administers or controls gradually and is getting into crops over which he has more management.

The chair of the committee asked him a very good question: "You are not growing crops under the Canadian Wheat Board. Is it because those crops are just not doing well in the world market or are there other reasons?" Terry did not have answer for him.

I asked him about that when we were having coffee later and he said: "I was thinking about that and I really did not answer that question properly. It is really all about timing". In his view the Canadian Wheat Board does not serve his needs because of the untimely manner in which it moves crops. It is not just the cash flow. Sometimes he has grain in the bins on his farm and that grain is carried over for more than one year. He finds that he can manage his operation far better by going to non-Canadian Wheat Board crops. It does not serve him well. I have heard other farmers say that as well.

When the western grain marketing panel was in Edmonton I listened to farmers making representation. The marketing panel travelled across western Canada at the behest of the minister of agriculture to find out what farmers wanted in terms of grain marketing in the future. I believe at this point that farmers want leadership. We were hoping that we would get that kind of leadership from the grain marketing panel in its recommendations to the minister of agriculture. Then he could act on the recommendations once the panel had listened to farmers from across western Canada in the Canadian Wheat Board designated marketing area. It

would give him its recommendations after listening and the minister would act.

One farmer I listened to was from the riding next to mine, Prince George-Peace River, B.C. His name is Gary Scott and he is another good farmer from that area. He was telling the panel that he basically grows no product now that requires Canadian Wheat Board control. I will summarize what he said.

He did not say that the Canadian Wheat Board does not function well for his neighbour. Many farmers want to use the Canadian Wheat Board. He was not telling the panel that the board should not be there. For his operation-and I know this is a big farmer and does a good job-the board does not serve him well. Different operations have different needs.

He said he might have a situation where he needed cash flow to make a payment in October and there are limits on how much can come out of the cash advances program. He might need to move some product at that time and even if he had to take a little bit less for it he was paying down a payment. One of his neighbours down the road has been in business for 35 years, has everything paid for and he does not have the same need. Therefore there are different needs in the farming community.

He was trying to say that there needs to be choice in grain marketing, a choice that reflects the different needs of farmers. My son and I and our families farm 1,500 acres in the Peace River country of Alberta. In my situation I would be happy to let the Canadian Wheat Board market my product but my 30-year-old son does not want that option. He wants to be able to go out and market his crops. He is a university graduate with some marketing skills. I wonder, what is wrong with that? There is something wrong with this picture when we will not allow that to happen. Surely we live in a free country and choice should be what this is all about.

In fact, we have choice in probably 97 per cent of the economy. We have a $750 billion plus GDP of this country. How much of it is under a monopoly situation? Not very much.

In the areas where there are monopolies such as public utilities or private utilities, where there is no competition, governments have done a fairly good job of putting in a public utilities board. Some avenue for redress has been put in for the public. That is not the case in grain marketing on exports sales of wheat and barley.

Just as my neighbours are using the board less and less, the board does not handle all the product that my son and I produce on our farm. We grow canola. It is a major crop. In fact it competes head to head with wheat in western Canada as to which has the highest sales volume per year. We grow fescue which is a lawn seed product. We grow rye from time to time. We grow peas and clovers. Farmers in western Canada are growing many commodities that are not marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board. We seem to be doing a pretty good job of handling those. In fact, I am glad of that choice and I think that those farmers who want to also market wheat and barley should be allowed to do so.

To get back to the history of what has been happening in western Canada, we need to look back just a bit beyond that. I would go back to the Uruguay round of the GATT. It took some eight or nine years to finally conclude the negotiations in 1992 when agriculture was brought under trade rules for the first time.

We have had trade rules for industrial products, goods and merchandise for a long time. After the second world war Canada was instrumental in working at the general agreement on tariffs and trade to establish trade rules. It was in our interest. After all in this last year 40 per cent of our gross domestic product was derived from exports. It is growing. Canada is a trading nation and we need some trade rules to work by.

I was glad when we finally reached an agreement under the Uruguay round of the GATT and agriculture was brought under trade rules for the first time. In fact we had a massive trade war in agriculture products raging at that time. Canada was devastated in that process.

While I believe that our agriculture producers can match or better anybody else in the world in terms of production, I know quite well that we cannot match their treasuries, especially the treasury of the European Union and the treasury of the United States. While our governments made a valiant effort to support farmers during that time, which was greatly needed and appreciated, we know that the long term solution was to have some phase down of that trade war and some rules in agriculture.

After the signing of the GATT, agriculture was brought under trade rules. Because it was the first step in that process we were not able to accomplish everything we wanted to do. It was a step in the right direction. Canada's border closures in the area of supply management were changed to tariffs. In other areas of agriculture, we were asked to phase down subsidies and tariffs over a scheduled period of time at a scheduled rate in concert at the same rate as all the other member countries that signed the GATT.

This was a phase down of tariffs and a phase down of subsidies world wide and I applaud that. Almost immediately following the introduction of trade rules in the GATT the trade war that had been raging in agriculture products pretty well came to an end. The export enhancement program in the United States is basically not

used. Canada in fact moved faster than anybody else. We phased out the GRIP program. We got out of the subsidy in transportation, the Crow rate. We were the model student in that whole program of the GATT. We phased down faster than anybody else.

I do not personally have a problem with that, although I guess some people would have said that we should have matched our phase down to that of other member countries.

We had already benefited from the old free trade agreement with the United States in the area of beef. In the 10 years of the free trade agreement with the United States the beef market is now continental, with a North American price. Exports have risen about 50 per cent in the beef industry. It is just a perfect example of a market driven industry and the beef producers in western Canada are saying: "Please don't give us any subsidies. Don't give us any programs that might attract the Americans' attention to us to say that our industry is subsidized and therefore they have some reason not to deal with us".

Things have improved greatly with trade rules in agriculture, but the one area for which I fault the Conservative government of the day in 1992 is supply management. It defended article 11 of supply management which was border closures. It did not want it converted to tariffs.

The Liberal government elected in 1993 continued with that and found that it was isolated at the GATT discussions in Geneva along with Japan and Korea. I believe it was a deliberate move. It could go there to argue that it would not give in to anybody else and that it would keep border closures. However it knew all along that it could not win the argument. It looked good at home politically but it knew it would be hit with tariffs, which is exactly what happened.

When I talk about leadership I believe the same thing is happening this time around. We have a built in agenda for work on the second phase of agriculture that will take place at the World Trade Organization in 1999. There is a working agenda. The Canadian government is playing the same game this time. It is playing the game of knowing there will be massive reductions in the tariffs on supply management. It knows that state trading enterprises such as the Canadian Wheat Board will be reviewed. It is not just on the agenda for Canada. It is on the agenda for a number of member countries such as the United States. These issues will be raised during the talks.

I am concerned the Canadian government is saying there will be no changes at all when it knows that state trading enterprises such as the Canadian Wheat Board will probably be hit, because there is no competition and they are monopolies, with having to be transparent. That is the trade-off to not having any competition.

People say that Cargill in the United States or Cargill in Canada does not have to show its books. That is true but there is competition. We do not have to deal with Cargill. There are a number of grain companies we can deal with. The Canadian Wheat Board has a very closed system and quite frankly cannot stand up to transparency.

I would suggest a proactive approach, showing some leadership and giving 10 per cent of farmers who want to market their grain outside the board the ability to do so. What is wrong with that?

A letter published in the last edition of Maclean's magazine from a farmer in western Canada essentially said the same thing. It was from Ken Motiuk of Mundare, Alberta. It appears on the guest page under ``The Road Ahead''. He wrote:

Western Canadian farmers are preparing to seed another crop.

Farmers fight the elements annually. They own and operate sophisticated farm equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They have adopted new technologies. They manage annual cash flows that approach millions of dollars on larger operations. But they are not considered smart enough to market their own wheat and barley.

Farmers must cede that responsibility to the bureaucrats at the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg-government employees with no investment in the business, people who have never bottom-lined a business, people who don't manage their own pensions because the government even does that for them. In the consummate wisdom of our political masters in Ottawa, those people are more capable than we are of selling our wheat and barley. If we see a better price across the border, it is inaccessible. We can only long for it, like an adolescent with a forbidden magazine. Only the chosen ones in Winnipeg are able to access that market for us-after all appropriate deductions, of course.

And dare not cross the line with your own grain, for Ottawa will spare no cost or effort to hunt you down and see that justice is served. For the heinous crime of selling your grain across the border, you can expect to have law enforcement officers bust into your home in the early hours of the morning, scare your wife and children, seize your property, manacle you in handcuffs and leg-irons and put you behind bars. This is justice. For you have broken the law.

The gentleman continued:

My grandfather left Ukraine because the Czar's soldiers would imprison peasants for hiding wheat.

Does that not sound sort of similar to what we are talking about here? He wrote:

One hundred years later, here in Canada, we are being imprisoned for not turning our wheat over to the government for sale.

Don't get me wrong. This is a great country, and we have chosen it as a place to raise our family and run our business. But if we don't speak up, the bloated egos of Ottawa and Winnipeg bureaucrats will continue to confiscate our rights and freedoms.

That is a pretty powerful statement. The debate that is taking place in western Canada is all about choice. The minister of agriculture has not categorized this debate right. He is saying that there are those who want to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board and those who want to keep it. That is baloney.

The people I have listened to in my riding and the people who appeared before the committee on Bill C-72 as it travelled across the country did not want to destroy the board. They wanted choice for those who wanted to market through the board, pool their product and accept an average price. By all means those farmers could use it, but they did not want to be condemned to the same fate if they do not want to use it. I remind members that we have a $750 billion economy. Most of it runs on a free market principle, so what is wrong with that idea?

I hear Liberal members tell us what is good for us farmers in western Canada. My colleague from Lisgar-Marquette, my colleague from Vegreville and I run farm operations. I have been under the Canadian Wheat Board designated area. I say that we should let the board exist for those who want to use it but do not maintain that farmers who want choice cannot have another choice.

Members on that side do not know what they are talking about. There is only one member over there who has any credibility in the matter. Most of them are lawyers, supply management operators or a potato farmer from Prince Edward Island who have never been under the Canadian Wheat Board system. They have no credibility in the matter.

Farmers want leadership. They want to be proactive. They want to function well and to participate in the economy that will take us into the 21st century. They recognize the trade rules in agriculture have been a good thing for Canada. They also recognize that there will be further agricultural reform in the World Trade Organization. We could benefit from it. We do not have to hide. We do not have to be afraid of the change that is taking place.

[Canada Water Export Prohibition Act, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the bill introduced by my colleague from Kamloops. I know he has a very deep concern on this issue of water exports.

I share that concern, although I believe we are adequately protected. However, it is not as crystal clear as it could be. Therefore, it is important that we take whatever steps necessary to

make sure that Canada does not get into a situation where it is required to export water by any means such as interbasin transfer.

Water is a very important resource and will be even more important in the future. In my riding of Peace River we have a lot of oil and gas development. Oil and gas companies have consistently tried to use potable ground water for flooding their oil zones when salt water is available at a not much larger cost. I believe we should continue to resist this misuse of potable water because it is going to be a very serious problem in the future.

I support the bill introduced by the member for Kamloops and I will state my reasons for supporting it.

Reform policy dating back to 1993, prior to the last election and prior to the passage of NAFTA, makes a specific statement on water. It states that the exclusive and unrestricted control of water in all its forms should be maintained by and for Canada and that both free trade agreements should be amended to reflect this.

I admit it is a little late to be talking about amending NAFTA. Furthermore, there have been assurances from all sides that water in lakes, streams and basins can in no way be considered a commodity. Therefore, water in its raw format is not covered by NAFTA. Consequently, there is nothing in NAFTA that could force us to transfer water to the United States. Prior to signing the NAFTA the three governments issued a joint statement to this effect. It stated that the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico in order to correct false interpretations issued a joint public statement such as the parties in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party to the agreement. Unless water in any form has entered into commerce and become a good or product, it is not covered in the provisions of the trade agreement under the NAFTA.

Nothing in the NAFTA would oblige the NAFTA partners to exploit water for commercial use or to begin to export water in any form. Water in its natural state in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, aquifers, water basins and the like is not a good or product. It is not traded and therefore is not and never has been subject to any terms of the agreement.

Just the fact that we are having to clarify it makes people wonder whether it was missed in the free trade agreement. I restate that we want to make sure we tie it down and not allow any possibility of it happening.

From this statement it would seem we are safe as long as water does not enter into commerce, but I do have that concern. Canada already has a policy of prohibiting interbasin water transfers, but policy is not law. New governments can bring in new policies. Why not take he advice of the member for Kamloops and back this policy with legislation? I agree that we should do it.

Back in 1988 similar legislation was introduced but it died on the Order Paper and was never resurrected. Off and on over the past decades the United States has faced significant water problems. Despite occasional droughts Americans have an extremely high water consumption rate per capita. This is partly due to irrigation practices of the agriculture industry and the fact that Americans persist in growing water intensive crops.

To deal with this recurring problem various American and Canadian interests dreamed up massive water diversion proposals in the mid-fifties and early sixties. There was the North American Water and Power Alliance, PRIME and the Grand Canal scheme. They used different methods like tunnels, canals, pipelines and dams to divert water from B.C., Alberta and Quebec south of the border. That was their dream.

Although the public uproar against such projects pretty much killed them, occasionally there is still talk about scaled down versions. Why have Canadians become so concerned? The fact is that Canadians have less clean fresh water than one would think. Many of southern lakes and rivers are polluted with industrial waste and sewage, and most of our rivers of course flow north away from our major centres. We cannot really afford to squander the fresh water that remains. Commercial interests that want to use fresh groundwater have put it under great pressure in some areas of the country. Water will be a very important issue in the future and we need to maintain it.

A further problem has to do with the environment. Sending our water south can have massive ecological repercussions. Interbasin transfers can introduce parasites and other organisms into new environments where they can have devastating effects. A recent example is the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes.

There could also be detrimental effects on fish and bird species where fresh water flows are introduced into estuaries affecting the salinity of the water. Massive water diversions can change climactic conditions and introduce mercury and other contaminants into the food change.

In conclusion, the House should support the bill. The Reform Party has always insisted that Canada maintain control of its natural water. It would have been preferable to include water rights under the NAFTA. We failed to do that. They should be included in legislation. We should have a policy that restricts interbasin transfer that might make water exports possible. We support our colleague from Kamloops.

[Criminal Code, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-55 and to speak specifically about the amendments we propose to bring this bill into line with reality.

This bill has generated a lot of interest for people in my riding. One of the reasons for this interest is a couple was murdered at Valleyview 10 years ago by a fellow who is serving some time in one of the penitentiaries. He is due to be released by May 1. I want to use that case to illustrate how badly this Liberal government has handled the whole criminal justice issue. It will also illustrate how our amendments to Bill C-55 will help to correct some of that imbalance.

In the last few weeks we have seen the justice minister scrambling to shore up support. He knows he will be in grave trouble during the next election campaign. The Liberal government is in grave trouble because it has mishandled the whole criminal justice issue during the past three and a half years of its mandate. This government should not be returned to office because it is not reflecting the concerns of Canadians.

Let me give this example of what has been happening. The case of Rod Martineau is a classic example of what is going on all across the country. it clearly illustrates the effects of this bill and the importance of change. Rod Martineau is the 27-year old man who assisted in the murders of two Valleyview, Alberta residents, Les and Ann McLean, on February 6, 1985.

On that day both he and Tremblay went to the McLean home with the intent to rob. Seventy-year old Les McLean was the only one home at the time. The men held him at gunpoint and waited for his wife Ann to return home. Patrick Tremblay, Martineau's partner, then shot both of them in the back of the head. The very day this happened, Rod Martineau had just been released from a young offender facility in Grand Prairie. One of the case workers had driven out to Valleyview to be released.

The two men murdered this couple because they were looking for some money from their business. Martineau was only 15 years old at the time. He had spent quite a bit of time in institutions. According to the son of Les and Ann, Rod Martineau could have fled the scene at any time of the impending crime while his partner perpetrated this crime. Instead he helped to hold the two people at gunpoint while he waited for the murder to take place, and he assisted.

Martineau first appeared in youth court but was then transferred to adult court. He was subsequently charged with second degree murder but this conviction was overturned by the supreme court, another example of our Liberal justice system. He was then sentenced to six years in prison after pleading guilty to manslaughter, robbery with violence and possession of a weapon. He was considered violent and an escape risk.

The son of the victims says that at no time has Martineau shown any remorse at all for his crimes. He has not accepted rehabilitation while serving his sentence, yet we are still letting him out on statutory release. I think he has had three releases to this point.

He was to be released the first time after serving only two-thirds of his sentence. How is this possible? We have our current justice minister to thank for this. Bill C-41, which the justice minister introduced a short time ago in this Parliament, allows for six types of conditional release. Martineau, a convicted killer, qualifies under the statutory release portion. This is an automatic release. The parole board has no say in it. All it can do it set conditions and return the individual to the penitentiary if, and in this case when, the conditions are violated.

As most people in the Peace River constituency expected, within a few short weeks of Martineau's being released under that statutory condition as given to him by the Minister of Justice, he was back in jail. That was no surprise. The correctional service says that half of all Canadian cons freed under the statutory release portion flunk out and are reincarcerated.

Although 30 per cent are rearrested on technical violations such as drug charges and abuse of alcohol, a full 20 per cent of those who are out on statutory release commit new crimes. Yet a spokesman for Correctional Service of Canada said that all it can do is its best to make the transition to the community as smooth as possible for those who are let out on statutory release. The law is the law, after all. Who do we have to thank for that law? The current justice minister and his Liberal justice system which is failing Canadians. Canadians are upset. They are angry. I hope

they will make a strong case in the next election to correct this problem.

Since the first statutory release Martineau has been released twice. After all, the poor guy has to have a chance to get back into society. Even though he has a drug problem, has never shown any remorse for his actions and has never accepted any rehabilitation, the poor man has to have a chance. On October 3, 1996 and on February 21, 1997 he was released. Both times he violated the conditions of his release almost immediately and was returned to the slammer within days.

This man will be back on the streets on May 1. His sentence is up. He is the type of individual who should be held in prison because he is a danger to society. Although it is clear to the people working in the penitentiary that Martineau is likely to reoffend, he will be released. They have no say in it because the justice minister has converted his sentence to a conditional one and his time will be up.

Given the lack of remorse and his drug problems, surely he would qualify if Bill C-55 was amended to reflect the concerns I have addressed. Specifically Bill C-55 should state that any individual who can be determined to be a danger to society should not only be assessed during the first six months of the sentence but at any time during the sentence. If there is any belief that convicted killers or persons who committed a serious crime can be rehabilitated, surely the assessment should take place near the end of their sentence, within the last six months.

The current legislation states that we can only determine if a person is a dangerous offender within six months of sentencing. That does not make any sense. Our justice critic, the member for Calgary North, suggested an amendment to the legislation. As my colleagues who have spoken before me have stated, the chance of the Liberal government accepting an amendment to Bill C-55 to allow an assessment to be made at any time during a sentence is about nil.

We have to wonder what is the motive. We have seen a lot of window dressing in the House on criminal justice issues. The gun control bill is a perfect example. Bill C-68 was modelled on the handgun registration system that has been in place since 1935. It is a poor model to use. We have more crimes being committed with handguns now than we had before in spite of the fact that there is a registration system. Now farmers, ranchers and other law-abiding people who use guns in a responsible manner will have to register their rifles and shotguns.

Most people see the bill for what it is. It is window dressing, looking like something is being done about criminal justice. It is a disservice to Canadians who want some real action on law and order and a stronger criminal justice system. It does not mean harassing farmers, ranchers and hunters. It means attacking the real problem with the criminals.

On the other side the justice minister brought forward conditional sentencing in Bill C-41. He suggested that if people are to be designated violent offenders they can only be assessed during the first six months of their sentence.

Does that make any sense? Does the government believe in rehabilitation? Obviously that is not the time to do the assessment. The assessment should be done at any time during the sentence. It would make more sense if it were done closer to the end of their sentence when we could see whether or not they were still a danger to society, have shown remorse for their action or have accepted rehabilitation. Things that make common sense do not seem to be the way the justice minister proceeds.

Members opposite will have a chance to vote on the amendment of my colleague from Calgary Northeast on Bill C-55 which states:

That Bill C-55, in clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 15 on page 3 of the following:

752.1 (1) Where an offender has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence defined in section 752 and, on application by the prosecution, at any time during the time the offender is serving the sentence imposed for the offence, the court is of

I challenge members opposite to vote for that amendment.

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

It is a sorry system we have.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 14th, 1997]

I am glad to be part of the debate on Bill C-93. We have to put things in perspective when talking about a budget implementation bill. My perspective focuses on something that members on the Liberal side of the House have not talked about in this debate, the $111 billion they have added to the national debt in the past three and a half years.

An equal amount of debt has been generated by the Conservatives and the Liberals, over $300 billion each in their mandates. It only took the Liberal government three and a half years to accumulate the last $111 billion. Talk about overspending. We are still deficit financing with $19 billion in this current year.

I hear Liberal members in the House and Liberal candidates on the hustings say that now that we have a balanced budget they want to be part of the debate on how to address the national debt. The last time I heard, there was still a $19 billion deficit. That is what is being borrowed this year. That is what they have trouble getting their heads around. They seem to think that a $19 billion deficit is a balanced budget, and that will be the launching point for them to start spending again. That is what Canadians are worried about.

During the last three and a half years we have gone through a whole process of budget cuts. The Liberals are telling people that now we have a balanced budget with a $19 billion deficit, we are going to start to talk about what we are going to do from here on. That could only be Liberal mathematics.

Most Canadians want lower taxes. They want a balanced budget, there is no doubt about that. When we get to that point they want lower taxes which really can only be offered by smaller government. The Prime Minister is saying that lower taxes are not the Canadian way. Where has he been? Canadians want lower taxes. I agree with him that it has not been the Canadian way under Liberal government over the past 30 years, nor was it under the Tory government. Taxes have gone up almost every year to feed this monstrous government we have.

In order to accomplish lower taxes for Canadians, the size government has to be pared down. Most Canadians realize a lot of paring could be done without too much hardship.

We have seen the government spending that has added to our national debt in programs like the national infrastructure program. There is not a Canadian who does not believe that infrastructure needs to be funded, that it is deteriorating and needs to be replaced, but a different method could be used to accomplish this. Some kind of a revenue sharing program between the federal government and the municipalities has to be a better way of approaching it. Then we would not get into these patronage, politically driven motives where the ball bounces only at election time. My understanding is that the government has just announced it is going to increase the amount of infrastructure spending in Quebec by about $112 million. It is going to supplement it a bit before election time. It is important to fix a canal over there.

The infrastructure program that the federal government has proposed will cost $6 billion. The federal Liberal government has spent $2 billion in the last three and a half years. It is borrowed money. That money was financed on international money markets. The program has been a failure. Every job created has cost $60,000 and they are not long term jobs.

Surely the better answer has to be smaller government and lower taxes.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that was the longest one minute I have ever heard.

[Nafta, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister arrived in Washington a few days ago he said he had no serious issues to discuss. I beg to differ.

I recall that prior to the last election there was one item that seemed extremely important to him. It is even included on page 24 of the red book: "A Liberal government will renegotiate the NAFTA to obtain a subsidies code, an anti-dumping code and a more effective dispute resolution mechanism". There was even talk about abrogating the agreement if satisfactory changes could not be negotiated.

What has happened to that promise? Is it no longer important? I suppose we can add it to the heap of other Liberal broken promises like dumping the GST, getting to the bottom of the Somalia affair and eliminating interprovincial trade barriers.

It is indeed a cynical government that makes promises that it knows it cannot keep.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to discuss the amendments to Bill C-17. It is my understanding that the only reason we are discussing the amendments is that through Bill C-45 the minister inadvertently removed the right of victims to make a victim impact statement. As a result it was necessary to bring forth the amendments.

The minister seems to have had a new found enthusiasm for victims rights and for toughening up the whole criminal justice system. It is a little late. In Bill C-17 the minister did not even address the issue. He had to add an amendment to give victims the right to make victim impact statements in section 745 hearings.

It bothers me that the government would leave this until the very latest date it possibly could. I suspect the reason this was done was due to pre-election polling which suggested the government was not tough enough on criminal justice issues. Therefore it had to introduce amendments to shore up support.

The minister got himself into difficulty. If we go to the polls within two or three weeks he knows this legislation will not be passed in time. Therefore he has made an amendment to Bill C-17 that has nothing to do with the bill. He has to shore up support in the criminal justice area which is so badly lacking. He has discovered that he had better make an amendment to allow for victims rights in section 745 proceedings.

We support the measure. It is important for the victim to be able to make a statement. The victim should be able to make a written statement in any criminal proceeding. We believe in it so much that my colleague from Fraser Valley West introduced a private member's bill to that effect. In the last 3.5 years we have said that we should put the rights of victims before the rights of criminals.

Unfortunately we did not see that kind of support coming from members on the other side of the House until an election call was imminent. I think they are hearing footsteps. I think that at the doors and in their polling they are finding out that they are very weak in this area. Canadians want them to tighten up the criminal justice system. They want to stop the harassment by people who are writing letters from jails to the family members of those who have been murdered and putting them through a very painful process. They are hearing it loud and clear and they are trying to shore up their support.

I want to mention that I have an interesting situation in the riding of Peace River where somebody who committed a very serious crime, in fact murdered an elderly couple in the town of Valleyview some 10 years ago, a cold blooded murder in my view, is now about to receive his statutory release from a federal penitentiary. In fact he has had statutory release three times in the last two years, parole if you like.

This individual, whose sentence was changed from second degree murder to manslaughter, was a minor at the time of the murder of 16 or 17 years old. In every case when this person has received a statutory release he has offended within two or three days of that release. Obviously he does not want to be back on the streets. He cannot function in society. He has not shown any

remorse for his crimes. He has never apologized to the family of the victims and has not accepted any rehabilitation.

In spite of that, six years of a ten year sentence will be up May 1. This individual could easily be back in our community. What is the message that this is sending? We are sending a message that this person has not accepted rehabilitation. He does not intend to apologize for his actions. Yet he is going to be released.

It really bothers me and it bothers people of our community where this couple was murdered that this should happen. Individuals should have a chance for rehabilitation but they have to accept the responsibility of trying to improve themselves and admit that they made a mistake in their life and try to move on.

This individual has not done that. In spite of that he is going to be released into the community within approximately six weeks. This is just symptomatic of the problems we are having. It just seems that the government is a little late in recognizing that Canadians are demanding some big changes in the criminal justice system.

Two years ago the government went through the steps of trying to put some window dressing on the Young Offenders Act. That did not satisfy Canadians. What happened? A committee travelled across the country to hear what was wrong with the Young Offenders Act.

I believe other members are finding the same thing that I am when I am at town hall meetings. The words Young Offenders Act have become so repugnant that in order to change it we will even have to change the name of the act to something that people can accept and think that they are going to get some meaningful change in.

The Young Offenders Act was not in place when this individual murdered two elderly people. In fact he and his friend were telling friends when they were drinking that afternoon that they were going to go out and kill somebody. They broke into a home. The gentleman was home and they tied him up, waited for his wife to come back from playing bingo and then murdered them both in cold blood. What happens to that individual? He gets sentenced to six years for manslaughter. He is going to be out May 1 of this year.

Has he accepted any rehabilitation? Obviously not. The man has a drug problem. He is on drugs in one of our federal prisons. He has not made any move to accept any rehabilitation. He has not admitted to the family that he did these actions or is sorry for them. I cannot see how we can possibly let that person out.

In fact, we have a bill in the House right now which suggests that in order to be designated as a dangerous offender the court should have the power within six months to determine whether that person on sentencing is going to be a dangerous offender. It seems to me that that is kind of ludicrous. That option should be open to the courts at any time during the sentence of that individual. In my view they should be assessed near the end of the sentence, shortly before they are released. Would that not be a better time to see if that person has accepted rehabilitation?

If individuals are no longer a threat to society, why limit it to six months after their sentence? If we have any faith in the rehabilitation system at all obviously that person may decide they want to make a change in their life and become a better person and be a constructive member of society. How can you determine that within six months of that person's sentence? It has to be done toward the end of the sentence. That could happen at any time of the individual's sentence and the assessment should take place near the end of his or her sentence.

It bothers me quite a bit that the government has been dithering. All of a sudden it realizes, through polling and individuals going door to door in preparation for the election that this is a very sensitive issue. We have recognized this all along. They are suddenly finding that out and trying to make some corrections. Now we are seeing amendments made to Bill C-17 which allow victims to make impact statements.

I certainly support it. It is a little late but nonetheless I support it. I hope the public remember on election day who has recognized that these as important issues and reflected their concerns in Parliament and who has just discovered it within the last couple of days.