Darrel Stinson

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, February 4th, 1997]

Oh yes, I hear "extremist" from over there. Sure, it is extremist to worry about the taxpayer in this country. It is extremist to worry about the livelihood and the safety of my mother. It is extremist. That is right, you keep it up. That is what you call extremist. Shame on you. I hope your parents give you a talking to when you get home. That is all I can say. You have no more thought for them.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-53. It gives me no pleasure to address bills like this when I think about what the government's first priority is supposed to be. Government was formed on one principle: to look after the safety and well-being of its citizens at all times and at all costs.

We have had only two basic governments in this country: Liberal and Conservative. Through time both of these governments, working hand in hand, because there really is no difference in them, have come up with programs such as this piece of garbage. They put these programs forward for the safety and well-being of Canadian taxpaying citizens. That totally goes against the reason for government: the safety and well-being of its citizens. I wish those governments could understand that. They cannot. They have not for years.

Reformers talk to the people. Like our Prime Minister we do not talk to imaginary friends. We talk to the people out there who pay the bills. They own this chair. I do not own this chair.

The reason we are standing here today to discuss this is basically the safety and well-being of Canadian citizens. Because of bills such as this, which have been put forward by both Liberal and Conservative governments, people out there are starting to live by the law of the jungle, not by the law of the land. They live in fear.

Government members may joke about it, but it is a fact. Elderly people are afraid to go out at night to get a loaf of bread. Government members think that is a joke. They think that because people are now starting to live in walled communities in order to be safe is a joke. It is a joke to this great sharing, caring Liberal

government. Government members do not pay attention to what is going on in the real world.

Government members have three basic functions in the House: keep your mouth closed; do what you are told to do; and do not step out of line. For the little bit of gratitude you get, you will be able to sit in the front seat or be able to get your nomination papers signed.

Let us take a look at this. We could go through the whole system of sentencing; truth in sentencing.

At one time when you were given 10 years, 12 years, 15 years, you got 10, 12 or 15 years. That was it. Then along came the bleeding hearts. They say: "This is not good enough. Somebody who murders should not have to do 20 or 25 years. Gosh, they only took a life. They only left a number of orphans. They only left some widows. That is nothing. We do not know them. We will change the system. We will put in a faint hope clause. We will allow them the opportunity to get out, maybe, in eight years. We will give them something to look forward to, you bet, to go out and reoffend". This is what we run into in this country. We run into a system where we see the bills from this great government. What for? For cleaning needles so that prisoners can have drugs without being infected in a prison. They cannot control the drugs in their own prison. What the heck is going on here? Where has reality gone? With the red book down the toilet. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

They say that nobody wants to go back to prison. There are people who make that their first home and have made it their first home for a number of years. They forget what it is like to be on the outside.

I really do not want to talk about prisoners so much here. I want to talk about the honest, law-abiding, hard working taxpaying citizen of this country who absolutely gets no protection from this government. How many people do we hear about who are working at the 7-Elevens or the gas stations where an armed robber walks in, holds them up, shoots them, paralizes them and puts them in a wheelchair for the rest of their lives? What do you do with them? You stick them in a corner and forget all about them. There is no system in place for these people, but there certainly is for the person who pulled that trigger or stuck them with a knife. You have all the sympathy in the world for that, do you not?

What about the young children who have to grow up without a mother or a father? There is nothing in place for them, is there? No, but there sure is for the person who made them that way. There is every kind of sympathy you can think of, like re-education. We have our own children out there who cannot afford to go to university, but we will supply university programs. We will do that for the prisoners. You bet we will, but not for the honest law-abiding child who wants to get a better education. No.

We will give them free medical, the best that can be. We have people out there who would love to be able to have medical attention, but no. What do we do? We shut down the hospitals. We create the line-ups, but not for the prisoners. No sir. That would sure be a crime if we ever did that.

We can look at the dental service. There are lots of people out there, I included, who have no dental plan. We work for ourselves. We pay our taxes and we pay to go to the dentist. But not our prisoners. No. We will keep our own people broke paying for it but, by golly, do not let one little prisoner suffer not one iota in this country. Do not let them suffer. Do not make them work. Don't you dare make them work to help supply the costs for incarceration. No, do not do that. That is against their rights. Yes sir, never mind the right of the taxpayer who pays your bills. No, do not worry about them, not one little bit.

I do not understand it. I just do not understand it. We have a system set up. I was asked this question. I have been branded a cold hearted redneck over this question.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 3 and 6. This is absolutely not a problem. I can understand why the member would be a little embarrassed that we gave the Chinese government $1.5 billion of Canadian taxpayer money, financed off their backs. They do not like that. They do not like to be reminded of that. But the people remember. Think what that means.

The government was willing to gamble over a $1.5 billion but could not come up with a fraction, a tiny fraction of about $3 million in order that the valuable research work could continue at Chalk River. Not even a fraction could it come up with.

The auditor general reported in November 1996 that the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites at federal facilities was estimated at $2 billion. But this does not show up in the government's official accounting of its financial position. It is not there.

The auditor general's report stated that the $2 billion estimate for the federal government's share of the clean-up excludes those costs associated with the clean-up of the radioactive waste and that it constitutes an unrecognized expenditure that could materially affect the government's reported financial condition.

On its own, the example just given highlights the lack of proper accounting procedure by the federal Liberals and represents one more example of mismanagement and lack of accountability to the taxpaying public.

However, when we place that alongside recent efforts by the Minister of Natural Resources to delay and possibly renege on her government's promise to dispose of low level radioactive waste near the town of Deep River, we get the feeling that this government is not serious about conducting such needed research in the area of nuclear waste disposal. This is a schizophrenic government. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

To recap, the government will not recognize the environmental disaster in its own back yard or the potential costs associated with its clean-up. It is scaling back on its promise to the people of Deep River and closing R and D facilities all because it claims it does not have funds needed to pay for services in these areas. However, it has found $1.5 billion of Canadian taxpayers money to lend to the Chinese government.

Sadly, I must conclude my remarks on this matter. In doing so, I would like to remind members on both sides of the House that Bill C-23 is the first such effort in 50 plus years at redefining the relationship between the public and the nuclear industry within Canada.

As such, there is the expectation among Canadians that the government will put measures in place which will open up the nuclear industry to greater public scrutiny. On the other side, it is hoped that the Nuclear Safety Commission tasked with providing information to the public would be more transparent in its dealings.

By supporting these amendments I believe the government would be taking the first tentative steps in this direction and I encourage members on both sides of the House to support the motions before us now.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-23 and the report stage motions before us for consideration.

In addressing the motions put forward by my colleague, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, I note the emphasis that has been placed on providing the public with information. The motions should be viewed with some enthusiasm as they attempt to heighten the public awareness about what goes on in Canada's nuclear industry.

All too often the activities at facilities such as those under the administration of AECL are shrouded in secrecy. Granted, the public's right to know must be tempered with the considerations of national security. However all too often this has meant that the government is given a ready made excuse which it can use to limit Canadians' access to information where matters of atomic energy are concerned.

The stated goal of my colleague's motion is specifically designed to provide information to educate the Canadian public on nuclear activity in Canada. Further, the motions expressly target and entrust the Nuclear Safety Commission with the task of providing that information to the Canadian public.

These measures alone will not guarantee that the nuclear industry will function in a more open manner, but it should mark the beginning of a much needed step in the right direction. In doing so, the government could begin to redress some of the public apprehension and misunderstanding which has plagued activity within the nuclear industry for the past 50 years.

Again I submit to all members that there is a need to inform the public on issues where nuclear safety and energy are concerned. Given what has been going on at AECL facilities across Canada in recent months, public openness by the government is sorely needed.

For example, Canadians should be told about the closure of the Chalk River facility. Canadians should know that their research facility was closed down and effectively destroyed by this Liberal government on January 31, 1997 at 11 a.m. It did not matter that 719 scientists, including three Nobel laureates, had pleaded with the natural resources minister in October to keep this world class research and development facility open.

The government had spent $70 million on building the facility and now that it has been turned off, it is worth nothing. Many of the scientists who worked at that facility are preparing to move to the United States where evidently R and D in this field is taken seriously.

In addition, staff inside TASCC have indicated that equipment from Chalk River may find its way into the Brookhaven Institute which is also south of the border. Think of the message that is being sent out of here by the Canadian government.

Reformers and Canadians can speculate on the myopic vision of the government's commitment to R and D initiatives in Canada. However, the question still remains: Why was this facility closed? The Liberals will tell us it was due to financial constraints, yet for want of $3 million in operating costs the government has thrown away $70 million. In fact, companies like SPAR Aerospace of Canada had been financing much of the research effort at TASCC with private funds. This trend could have eventually seen the facility function independent of tax dollars.

Let us look at the government's priority and commitment to spending in general. The TASCC facility needed $3 million in operating grants which would allow it to continue its experiments. The government claimed it did not have the money. Yet, this is the same government that piddled away $20 million on a Canadian flag giveaway, $100 million toward its unmandated propaganda office in Montreal, $87 million in a loan to the financially sound and profitable Bombardier of Montreal. The Liberals also had $2

million, they found $2 million, to apologize to former Prime Minister Mulroney and pay his lawyers.

Perhaps highlighting those expenses is not fair to my colleagues across the way. After all, as my Liberal colleagues will quickly point out, those expenses are extraneous and unrelated to the workings of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and nuclear energy in general. The members across the way will dutifully bleat that their commitments to R and D is well in line with the red ink book promises. Really?

In much the same fashion Liberal spin doctors can refer to a $25 billion deficit as commendable. Liberals will no doubt see the loss of hundreds of jobs in Chalk River as enhanced R and D. No wonder many Canadians have changed the title of the red ink book to "Creative Opportunism".

But does anyone know what the real blow to the Canadian taxpayer is? It comes in the area of prioritized R and D spending at AECL.

Just before Christmas the government announced the sale of CANDU technology to the Chinese government. In order to get that deal signed the government of Canada committed to lend the Chinese government $1.5 billion, financed-

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification are we on Motion No. 1 or Motion No. 2?

[Unemployment, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it will not be a very merry Christmas for more than a million Canadians who remain unemployed despite Liberal promises of jobs, jobs, jobs.

There is a terrible human cost to unemployment which is nearly double that of our largest trading partner, the U.S.A., whose average is 5.4 per cent.

However, a new federal study also points to dollar costs of $29 billion to $77 billion in lost productivity, plus $14 billion in health, crime and other social costs for the year 1994 alone.

The sorry fact is that Canada's net job creation from 1993 to 1995 inclusive was nearly 25,000 less than the number of immigrants admitted during those same years. Consumer bankruptcies were at a record high of 65,432 last year, with three million people on welfare and 2.9 million who collected unemployment insurance. Years of Liberal and Tory mismanagement have created this bleak result.

Merry Christmas, Canada, from another caring, sharing Liberal government.

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

Yes, they think it is funny over there. They think this is the way to do business. They tell their members that if they disagree with them they should keep their mouths shut. "Get out of here. We will disband your organizations and you will never be allowed to come in here again". Is that democracy? I think not.

I have a feeling that underneath the propaganda machines that sit over there some of them could make what happened many years ago look very tame.

It has to make us wonder exactly how far some hon. members will go in order to get elected. It does not take me long to picture these people ringing the doorbells come the next election. They will say "We got rid of the GST, we harmonized it. It is still there. It is still sucking your paycheque, but we harmonized it".

When they go back to the people and say "trust me", I want everyone to understand that for sure their fingers will be crossed. They have not done anything above board yet.

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

The government says "No, we will put a time allocation on you people. We will see that you only debate it for a certain length of time, and that's it. You will be curtailed to a certain length of time". This is in Canada, in the House of Commons. I do not know what is going on here. I know a lot of people did not spill their blood and die for this type of set-up. And I call it a set-up because that is exactly what it is.

The other day I mentioned a parasite, a bug we have out west. It is called a tick. It latches on to human beings and sucks the lifeblood out of them. Likewise there is politickitis, a two legged insect that is found in government. Ninety per cent of all politickitis sit on the frontbenches; 10 per cent sit on the backbenches. I will not deny that.

A politick is a politician in power who latches on to the taxpayer and sucks the living blood out of them just as this government has been doing since it got in here. And there has been no change.

I well remember the 1993 election campaign. I remember how we were going to be rid of this GST. Since the Liberals have come to power there is a new name for it. It is called "get stuffed, taxpayer". That is exactly what it is and that is exactly what the Liberals are telling the average taxpayer. "Get stuffed, we're not interested in it". And they get away with it.

But it will stop. The taxpayers will make sure it stops. Sooner or later taxpayers are going to throw this bunch out. It is only a matter of time. They are tired of politicians knocking on their doors every four years. They are tired of politicians getting down on their knees and begging the electorate to put them back in power. They promise they will not do it again.

I have a question for you, Madam Speaker. Name for me one policy, one tax that a government put in which defeated that government and that an incoming government got rid of? There is none. The new government just expands upon it. It raises more money.

As I sat and thought about how the government is broadening the tax base, I came to one conclusion. The main reason it has done this has to be, beyond a doubt, that it needs money for its pension plan. It has to be. The MP pension plan has to be in serious trouble. It is the million dollar pension plan which members opposite will take. That is what it is going to do with the money. That is what harmonization is all about. It has absolutely nothing to do with the word harmonize.

In most places that is called legalized theft. That is exactly what it is. Liberals said it was not personal tax. Every tax in this country is a personal tax. When I buy something, whether it be a shirt, shoes, fuel for my car or for my house, the tax on those items is a personal tax. When they say it is not a personal tax they are snowing the public. It goes on and on. They get away with it because they implement time allocation and closure. Is that a democratic society? No. We have long past the point of being a democratic society.

As a matter of fact, I would probably characterize us, along with many members of the House-and I am sure many members opposite would agree with me-as having probably the greatest dictatorship in the free world. It sits right here in this Parliament. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe that we have allowed it to go as far as it has. What is happening in this country is absolutely ridiculous. It is being fostered by many members opposite. When those members disagree, they are kicked out of the caucus. "Do not come back into our caucus. I will not sign your papers".

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, Okanagan-Shuswap is probably the best place in Canada and maybe even in the whole world. It is a great place to live.

Unfortunately we have the same problem as most people in Canada have. We are here today to speak to Bill C-70. In case people out there do not understand exactly what this bill entails, here it is. It is totally unbelievable. It contains 335 pages on how to harmonize a tax. I would hate to figure out the cost of each page. Believe me, Madam Speaker, you probably will not make that much in your lifetime nor in mine nor in a number of other lifetimes in this House.

This government has spent hundreds of hours and days trying to figure out how to broaden the tax base in this country.

Let us take a look at what they mean by broadening the tax base. I want the people who are listening and every member in this House to understand that whenever a politician talks about tax that means they are going to raise the level of tax. That is what it means, no matter what they say.

The Liberals spent days, weeks, months trying to figure out a way to soft sell this to the people. They spent millions of dollars to figure out one word that the public might just accept: harmonize. All they had to do was look it up in the dictionary but I suppose that would have been too simple.

So now we are looking at this harmonization of taxation. We try to debate this issue but the government has decided that we do not need any more debate in this House. It does not want any debate in this House. The government would not like the people outside this House or off the Hill, those people who have a life outside of these walls, to even know what goes on in this House and therefore will invoke closure.

[Fisheries Act, December 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak on Bill C-62, the new fisheries act.

A strange thing is happening in this bill. It contains provisions in clauses 17 to 22 designed to abrogate the public right of access to the fishery. This seems strange. This right for the public has been around since the Magna Carta in 1215. The bill will empower the minister, the crown, without notice to the public, to grant the private right to fish for commercial or sport purposes to any group currently in political favour.

This is something that cannot be done legally under the present Fisheries Act. The present act is based on the premise that the fishery is a public resource to which all Canadians, not just a select few Canadians, are entitled to equal access.

I have to wonder if the minister and the members opposite understand what equal access means. I look at many decisions the government has brought down in the last little while. The government claims they are for the benefit of all citizens. As we go through these decisions, we see it is very select group who benefits. Bill C-62 is one example.

Let us take British Columbia as an example. I know firsthand what the government decided for the fishing industry there. I know the Liberals like to say that they do all this fancy consulting. I sometimes wonder if they are talking to their fathers and grandparents in order to get an okay on some of these things that are passed in the House. Let us take a look at what is happening on the Adams River which happens to be in my constituency. It is well known around the world for the spawning runs that used to happen in the Adams River.

The government in its ultimate wisdom-I would say in its ultimate stupidity I guess-decided that the best thing it could do for the people in B.C. and in the constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap was to shut down the fish hatchery. The government has proceeded to shut down most of the inland hatcheries on the west coast after consultation. I would like to know who was consulted. The government never talked with any of the mayors or any of the people in my constituency, not one. It just decided to shut them down.

The reason? It said that it was not making enough profit there. This hatchery has not been open long enough. Anybody with a little knowledge of hatcheries knows that it takes approximately nine years to see a decent stock return. The government decided that four and a half or five years was good enough for the hatcheries on the west coast.

It makes many people wonder how the Liberals can shut down what was a basic part of the food chain. Millions had already been spent putting the hatcheries in place. I asked the minister that if the department was having trouble with salmon, we could certainly turn it into a trout hatchery. Believe it or not, the minister's argument was that it might interfere with the wild stock. Does this make any sense to anybody?

We could tag these fish, send them on their way and then put a moratorium for a certain period of time on catching the wild stock until they are brought back up to a healthy number for fishing. But this seemed to have been lost to the minister. He could not fathom this idea. He seemed to be bent-as he still is-on seeing the west coast go the same way Newfoundland has gone.

Do members in the House understand what has happened in Newfoundland through the inaction, the absolute non-action, and the silly decisions that have been made by governments? Do they

realize that now the people are suffering through silly things like this?

The only thing fishy in Newfoundland is the red book. There is absolutely no doubt about it. It reminds me of out west where we have a saying that government is a group called politickitis. A tick is a little bug that gets on human beings and sucks their blood. It is far worse than a mosquito. It can create a great disease.

Politickitis is a two-legged bug that sits in government. Nine times out of ten it sits on the front benches. It then latches on to the taxpayers and sucks the lifeblood right out of them. Unfortunately we only have one cure for this disease so far: the ballot. But we are only allowed to use that remedy once every four or five years at the whim of the insect that is causing the problem. It seems kind of strange but that is what we have to put up with here when we get bills like this coming before the House.

These bills come from a government that has thrown more people out of work in this country than any other government in the history of Canada. Government members stand here every day and basically misrepresent everything they can in regard to all opposition parties. They are masters of deceit.

If we look at what has happened we will find that we have largest bankruptcy rate that has ever happened. They like to talk about the G-7 countries. They like to say how well we are doing compared to the other G-7 countries. That is the most fishy thing about it all.

The Liberals have brought this awful piece of garbage before the House. They have told us how well they are doing. We have the highest bankruptcy rate of the G-7 countries. We have more unemployed and under-employed. We have the best dictatorship there is in the free world as we know it today.

Clauses 17 through 22 of the bill demonstrate this. They will empower a minister of the crown, without public notice, to grant private rights to fish. It is totally unacceptable.