Dale Johnston

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 1 with the following:

“significant social importance to”

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too was intrigued, in fact mesmerized, to see how the member for Wentworth—Burlington could work the Prime Minister's Shawinigan handshake into tourism.

If the member could do that, I think it is well worth the House allowing him a little latitude in his speech because, as my friend from Grasslands pointed out, this is an intriguing subject. If somehow the Prime Minister choking some protester could be worked into Canada's tourism, I would be intrigued to know how the hon. member would suggest we do that.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, at the time we broke for question period I was explaining why the gentleman with a family of five was having such a difficult time. This man has to put some money aside for his retirement. He is required to pay $140 a month to the Canada pension plan. However, he has no faith that he will be able to collect enough from the Canada pension plan to make ends meet in his old age. Therefore, he puts away an extra $175 a month into a registered retirement savings plan.

I bring this up under a bill dealing with health research because I want to demonstrate to the House that there is a problem with the brain drain in this country. It is evidenced by the fact that this gentleman is not confident that the Canada pension plan will sustain itself. Many young people are leaving the country, resulting in a reduced number of people paying into the Canada pension plan. The burden, therefore, falls harder and harder on the people who are trying to pay their taxes and still put a little away for their retirement. This is one of the major reasons people are leaving Canada. They simply feel that it is too difficult to get ahead. Things are getting worse and worse.

As I pointed out, Canada Day and tax freedom day fall at about the same time, July 1. By the time we have paid all of our taxes, we have worked half of the year for the taxman and half of the year to sustain ourselves. This includes building up some kind of retirement package, paying for our homes, educating our children, feeding ourselves and transporting ourselves on a day to day basis.

Is it any wonder that people look for greener pastures. When greener pastures are only across the 49th parallel, where tax freedom day comes in May instead of July, I do not think we can blame people for leaving.

I am pleased that the government is going to put more money into medical research. One of the things my friend from Elk Island stated was that he did not believe it was entirely up to the taxpayer to fund research. I know that he, as do many members of the House, including myself, make regular contributions to medical research of various types. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. I do not think that all medical research money should come directly from the taxpayer.

I have covered all of the points which I intended to make and I look forward to further debate on this subject.

[Petitions, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, from 45 people in my constituency.

The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that they are horrified by pornography which depicts children. They pray that parliament take all the necessary steps to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of children.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House to speak on Bill C-13, an act to establish Canadian Institutes of Health Research and an act to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.

It was very interesting to hear my colleague from Elk Island talk about his friends who were afflicted with various diseases, in particular diabetes and how widespread that can be. Not only does it affect the way one's body metabolizes sugar but, as my colleague pointed out, it also affects one's eyesight, circulation and even the heart.

Many of the people I have known who have had severe diabetes have had their feet or another limb amputated just simply because their circulation was so bad. Because they were not able to maintain the circulation to keep those limbs alive, the limbs had to be amputated to save the person's life. That is a very traumatic thing.

We need to think back to the discoverers of insulin, the people who isolated and reproduced insulin and got it to the place where we could replace the insulin which was not produced in our bodies in order to break down the sugar.

Research in Canada has always been in the forefront. There are very significant contributions that have been made by Canadians, contributions that we should be extremely proud of.

In the medical area, I have already mentioned Doctors Banting and Best for their isolation and production of insulin. There are other areas that we should also be very proud of, and that is the production of the Avro Arrow for instance when we were able to develop a supersonic aircraft that was significantly ahead of its time and the sort of thing that would have been the envy of all the world. Even today, technology is just catching up to where the Avro Arrow was.

Whenever I think about research, whether it is medical, technological or in other areas, I think about the problem that we have in the country of maintaining our most inquisitive and best trained minds. There has been a great deal written and said with regard to the brain drain. It was not very long ago that the Prime Minister said that there was no problem, that there was no brain drain. Perhaps he might think that but there are all kinds of evidence to the contrary. We do have a problem with young people taking their skills south of the border in particular.

Some of the reasons they would do that is because there is more opportunity for them there. There is a less oppressive tax regime. They can keep more of the money they earn. They are also working for one hundred cent dollars. I know that is a rather novel approach but a dollar in the United States is still worth one hundred cents.

As a result of the tax regime in this country, we find that our tax freedom day comes around July 1. I do not know if it is particularly significant that we celebrate Canada Day on July 1. Maybe we could get a little funding for that so we could celebrate tax freedom and Canada Day all in one. Maybe we could save some costs on the celebration. Ideally, I would like to see the tax freedom day moved backwards to June or May or, heaven forbid, maybe even April.

One of the main reasons we have such tremendous difficulty keeping active, young, inquisitive minds here is that they are having a very difficult time making a go of it. I will give an example of what I am talking about.

Adam is the father of three boys. His wife chooses to stay home and look after the children because they think they can do a better job of raising their children than the state. Adam earns almost $53,000 a year, which amounts to about $4,412 a month. That is not a bad salary, but we must consider that five people have to live on that after $1,130 is taken out for income tax, $110 per month for unemployment insurance and $140 per month for the Canada pension plan. After that he has to pay his mortgage, his insurance and all of those other things.

The reason I particularly mentioned the Canada pension plan is because Adam has said that he has given up on the idea of ever having the Canada pension plan. Part of the reason, he says, is that so many of our—

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am asking if the gentleman across the way is using parliamentary language when he accuses the Reform Party of purposely trying to mislead.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the member opposite can say that the Reform Party is purposely trying to misrepresent. I would like to—

[Port Of Vancouver, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the deal ending an eight day work stoppage that paralysed the port of Vancouver was ratified on Friday but the main bone of contention remains unresolved.

While shippers and their customers tally up their losses, the Canadian economy is out $800 million. In the age of just in time inventory control, valuable international contracts were lost and our reputation as a reliable shipper is in tatters.

Even though it is over, it must not be forgotten. Work disruptions at Canada's busiest port cannot continue to hold third parties hostage. Just as sure as Christmas comes in December, it will happen again.

The Deputy Prime Minister said “We do intend to make sure that this does not happen every year”. News flash to the deputy PM: Reformers have been offering a solution to this for six years. Where has he been? Rather than resorting to threats or heavy-handed back to work legislation, Canadians are demanding that a permanent solution be put in place now.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real opportunity for me to be able to speak to the youth criminal justice act. We can only hope there is some justice in this act.

I do not think there is any justice when on a regular basis the House leader of the government leaps to his feet and moves closure on absolutely anything he chooses. Here we have another bill that is at least 190 or 200 pages long. We have had up to this point less than five hours of debate on it, and the House leader comes into the House and says that there is important stuff on the agenda. We have yet to see any of this important stuff. We have all looked over the agenda, the order paper and the Projected Order of Business, and none of it seems that crunchy.

One would think that an amendment to the youth criminal justice act would be worthy of more than six or seven hours of debate. There are 301 members in the House. How is it possible for this bill to be adequately debated at second reading in less than seven hours?

The short answer is that it is absolutely not possible. It is just another one of the government's absolutely arrogant, terrible, miserable ways. I am searching for a word because I am trying to keep within parliamentary language. It simply says that it has the majority and will use closure whenever it wants.

There was a time when closure was only brought to bear under the most dire of circumstances. It was something that had never been used in the House. For years and years and years closure was not a tool. We have to thank Pierre Elliott Trudeau for the unabashed use of closure. He used to say “It is 3 o'clock on Wednesday. I think we will call closure. Why not? We will call closure”. He did not need any more reason than that and the Liberal House leader today does not seem to need any more reason than that.

The member for Scarborough—Rouge River in his speech talked about how we must prevent youth crime and how penalizing young people was not the answer. Let us go along with the assumption that people should be held accountable for their actions. That is on the basis that I want the House to think about the remarks I will make on behalf of one of my constituents.

About four years ago I was going through downtown Leduc and I stopped in a little shop called Crafts and More. I went in and introduced myself as the member of parliament for Wetaskiwin and met a very nice lady named Donna Rowe. She said “Am I ever surprised to see you. You are the first federal politician who has come to see me in my shop. As a matter of fact your visit is quite timely because I have a story to tell you”.

This is Donna Rowe's story. I want the House to bear in mind that Donna Rowe is not talking about penalizing anyone. She is talking about one of the other words in the bill and that is justice. She is on a search for justice.

Two young people in their early teens who were known to the police—in other words they had records—broke into her late model, half-ton truck with a camper on top. It was custom painted to match her trailer. It was used in her business and was her sole vehicle. It was also used as a family vehicle. It was an essential part of her life.

These two young people cannot be named because they were under the age of 18 and therefore apparently not responsible for any action they took. We might think that is a fairly bold statement, but as the House hears what I have to say I believe I will bear that out.

They took her vehicle. That can come about in a lot of different ways. They were not, by the way, but let us suppose they were barefoot, there was snow on the ground, the vehicle was running, the door was open, and it was nice and warm in the truck.

No, they smashed the window. They got in. They hot-wired the truck. They got it running. They drove it until it would not drive any more. Then they got out of it. They kicked everything off it that they could: the mirrors, the lights, the windshield, the windows, the dials and the dash. They ripped everything off it that they could. Then they found a knife and slashed the seats and tried to set the truck on fire.

It was just a couple of kids out having some fund, I guess, before they went to choir practice, scouts or whatever. They were nice young guys but they were known to the police. They did have records, but we cannot mention that because they were under 18 and therefore not accountable, I guess, for the things they do.

Mrs. Rowe was devastated. She felt violated. She felt as though her security had been breached. She felt terribly inconvenienced, but she said “Thank heaven we have insurance”. She went to the insurance agent who said the truck was unfixable. It was an absolute total wreck and a write-off. The agent then asked how much she would take as a payout and offered to pay her out on it.

She knew she had to do something, that she had to replace it because she needed a vehicle. She received a payout from the insurance. What do we suppose happened to her insurance premiums? Did they go down because she had tough luck and had fallen on hard times? Hardly. They went through the roof because she made a claim.

She told the insurance company that she did not cause the claim. Her vehicle was stolen. They said “We don't give a rat's patootie”. It considered it a claim. A claim is a claim is a claim. She was treated the same way as if she were drunk and wrapped her truck around a telephone pole. Her rates would go up. She said she had no control over the situation. They broke into her vehicle, stole her vehicle and drove off.

What did Donna Rowe want from this situation? Did she want to have these guys flogged in front of the post office on payday? No. She wanted some justice and accountability. Were either of those young people asked to pay restitution to her so she could replace her vehicle? No. As a matter of fact her lawyer said that he did not even feel they owed her an apology.

No apology was needed, I guess because they were young people. The judge gave each of them one year of open custody and one year of probation. What is the difference? What is open custody? Does that mean that they cannot steal cars on Tuesdays and Thursdays? What does it mean? Neither one of them got any time. They made no restitution. They made no apology. They were not penalized in any way. They had open custody: “Away you go, see you next week” or whatever.

All Mrs. Rowe wanted was some justice and accountability. She felt that the justice system completely let her down, and she will forever and ever.

What is there in the bill to allay the fears of Mrs. Rowe and people like her? I know of a lot of other instances. It is a shame that I have such a short time to talk about them because a lot of other people have come to me with very similar stories. It is not about punitive action taken against people. It is about their doing something for the victims.

Is this a victimless crime? Absolutely not. Mrs. Rowe was a victim and she did not get any justice.

[West Coast Ports, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the port will be open within a couple of hours. I am not all that pleased, though, that it has taken more than a week for the government to act on this matter. The minister will know that I wrote to her last Monday asking her to do exactly what has taken place now but to do it in a more timely fashion.

This is an incident that has cost not only millions of dollars a day to the Canadian economy. It has also cost us as far as being a reliable port is concerned. Our reputation as a reliable shipper and receiver of goods is badly damaged. This will be a very difficult hit on the economy of British Columbia.

I am very pleased to see that it is over without any more agony than we had to go through, but I would implore the minister to look at a situation being put in place that could alleviate all this suffering, something we could work on before job action of this type has to be taken. I would be pleased to talk to her about that.