Keith Martin

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who was very generous to give up his time so I could speak.

My friend from the Bloc Quebecois is absolutely right. This is the time for us to do that. I would encourage the minister to meet with his counterparts across party lines to implement a tax structure that would enable our microbreweries to be competitive.

We know that wherever they are microbreweries are a Canadian success story. They have been able to compete not only within Canada, but across borders. They provide an excellent product. The United States, with a population of over 300 million, is a huge market. Our microbreweries can and should be allowed to go into that country. The worst thing would be to have an environment where the government puts obstacles in the way so that the microbreweries cannot compete.

I encourage the government to work with members on this side to implement a tax structure that will enable the microbreweries to be competitive. The longer the minister waits, the worse it is going to be. Microbreweries could be put out of business at the very worst, but at the least it could make them not as competitive as they ought to be, thereby limiting the number of people who could work in the industry.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is aware that what he refers to is really a provincial issue.

The issue of secondhand smoke is a devastating one. In my early 20s I did a study for the Ontario government on the issue of secondhand smoke. It was found that there were demonstrably higher levels of morbidity and mortality associated with the spouses of people who smoked. It was quite dramatic actually. Not only were disease rates much higher but also death rates were much higher for people who lived in smoking environments.

I would like to take a moment to make a plea to the public. As a doctor I find it to be absolutely unforgivable when parents smoke in the presence of their children. Some parents smoke in closed cars with their children. Children who are only a couple of years old are brought to the emergency department and their charts are filled with admissions for respiratory problems, asthma and pneumonia. That is a direct result of parents smoking around their children.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the public, I make a plea to anyone who is watching to not smoke around their children, to not smoke in their homes if they have children and for heaven's sake, to not smoke in their cars if children are present. Smoke outside the house. Do not smoke around children. Do not poison the lungs of children. That is exactly what some people are doing.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his question.

My party has put public health as the number one priority. I think our critic would certainly be open to the suggestion of bringing beer into this. I am not certain as to the reasons that beer was excluded but we are supporting the bill because we feel that of all the public health care issues that exist today, cigarette smoking is public health care problem number one. It is a preventable problem. Our combined efforts are needed to address it. Children truly become addicted to nicotine very early on. The bill, by raising the taxes and harmonizing it, will go a long way to affecting the most vulnerable people in our society. That is the reason we want to do this.

If my hon. colleague wants to add beer to the bill, then we would need to bring it back to the House. We would need to work with the government to show the flaws in the bill and work with other political parties to ensure that beer is included in a reasonable fashion.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his generosity.

It is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco. I would like to draw the House's attention to a few bits of misinformation that we have heard in the House today from the government.

Back in 1994 the government was faced with a large problem of tobacco smuggling which was taking place primarily in Ontario and Quebec. At that time the government decided to lower the rate of taxation on cigarettes to address the smuggling issue. That created a huge problem.

Against the advice of the Department of Health and of stakeholders, the government lowered taxation rates which resulted in 225,000 Canadians taking up smoking, particularly teens in the young age group. We know that those people who take up cigarette smoking are primarily in their teenage years or even younger. It took the government some six years to change that mistake by bringing taxation rates up. Unfortunately every year 250,000 new Canadians took up smoking and this will have a devastating effect on all of us.

We know that the biggest thing we could do to decrease the chance of teenagers smoking is to keep the costs high. This is called price elasticity of demand. This means that as the price of cigarettes is increased, it creates a dramatic reduction in consumption, particularly among kids. This dramatic reduction is not only in the number of cigarettes they smoke, but also the age at which they start to smoke. In other words, the more costly it is, the older they are, the less they smoke. The cheaper it is, the younger they are, the more they smoke. Reducing the tax is probably the single most destructive act in public health care policy that we have seen in more than 30 years. We will pay the price in the future.

I compliment the government for increasing the tax rates and harmonizing them across the country. This will do much to decrease cigarette smuggling between the United States and Canada. Cigarettes were going from Canada to the United States and then resold back in Canada. People could make a profit because the price difference between the two countries was so dramatic.

This issue does not address the much larger issue of smuggling in general. Tobacco was just one of the products being sold at that time. We know that smuggling rings were organized crime rings working between the United States and Canada. Yes, they were buying and selling cigarettes but they were also buying and selling weapons, alcohol and drugs and involved in human smuggling.

A massive amount of smuggling is going on north and south, right under the noses of police who have been told not to interfere, in part because a lot of this takes place on aboriginal reserves crossing the boundaries of both countries. It is a serious jurisdictional problem. Many law-abiding aboriginal people living on these reserves are seriously harmed by this situation. The police are unable to intervene because they are understandably scared of an Oka-like crisis.

I ask the government to look at the larger issue of smuggling taking place in these areas. The government has control over the smuggling of tobacco, and it should be complimented for that. It is a good move on the part of the government, not only from a judicial perspective but also from a public health care perspective. For heaven's sake, the government must look at the larger issue of the smuggling of guns, drugs, alcohol and people.

The way to deal with that is not only to enforce the law, but to also implement what are called Rico-like amendments. The United States Rico amendments refer to racketeering, influence, corruption, organization charges. These laws enable law enforcement officers to go after organized crime gangs in a way they have not been able to before.

Good things happen when we can go after the financial struts and pillars that help support organized crime gangs. If the government wants to do one that is very effective, it should implement Rico-like amendments similar to those in the United States and at the same time ask other countries to implement them as well.

If we could do that on a transnational basis, then organized crime gangs would have a very difficult time doing their work that parasitizes so many in our country.

The second issue is alcohol. My province of British Columbia, as in many other provinces, has a large number of microbreweries and vintners, winemakers. Their biggest problem is the barriers that exist is exporting those wines east-west. It should be noted that the barriers east-west are greater than those north-south.

Vintners in my province can sell fairly easily to people in the United States. However it is very difficult for those individuals living in Ontario, Manitoba or Nova Scotia to buy British Columbian wines. A hodgepodge of rules, regulations and obstructions exist for the export of that wine east-west.

I would encourage the government to do something for a product that, in moderation, is good for the health of people, and that is the drinking of red wine and other wines. It would do wonders for the health of Canadians and also for those vintners who produce some of the finest wines in the world.

I would encourage the government to work and listen to the vintners and to remove those east-west barriers to trade. Canadians would then be able to purchase Canadian wines no matter where they lived. This would do much to support these products which are really a Canadian success story. I also suggest removing and lowering the tax rates not only for vintners, but for small businesses as well. My party has pushed for that for a long time.

My colleague from the Liberals mentioned that they wanted to do something for small businesses. If they truly want to do something, then they can lower the tax rates and remove the egregious rules and regulations that choke off the ability of small business to compete. They can also remove the export tax restrictions so they can compete fairly with other countries.

The other thing the government should do is flatten out the tax system and remove the corporate and personal tax structures.

My colleague across the way suggested that we pursue this through private members' business. As we know, 239 private members' bills have been put forth by members from all parties. Absolutely none of them reached committee stage. None from the government ranks have been made votable, which is terrible.

We need to do many things. If the hon. member from the other side truly thinks we should use private members' business to implement some of the fine solutions that have been put forth in the House, then we need to reform private members' business so that every member in the House, regardless of what party they represent, will have one votable private member's bill per parliament and one votable private member's motion.

If we could do that, and we can, then members of the House could have constructive discourse over important issues to Canadians and to our country. There are so few avenues where we can do that. We cannot do that by and large in the House or committees because these venues are primarily talk shops for areas of intellectual interest. They have no real effect on public policy.

I think all members know that there will be a round table on private members' business this week. Members from across party lines will come to it with good ideas. Collectively we can force the government to adopt those good suggestions. By doing that, private members' business would work for the betterment of everybody and ideas such as the ones put forth on this issue today could be employed. This affects all of us.

In closing, we support the bill. I compliment the government for equalizing taxation on tobacco across the country and for raising the tax levels which will do much to decrease smoking, particularly among children.

I would encourage the government not to back down when it hears pleas from the tobacco companies asking for lower taxes. Whatever the government does, it should not lower taxes on cigarettes. If it does, more children will pick up cigarette smoking at a younger age. It would be a devastating public health policy.

[Petitions, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition presented by hundreds of people in my riding calls on the federal government to ensure that freight and passenger service on the Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway occur for one year. It requests that the federal government works with other interested parties to find ways to encourage use of the services offered and provide for local authority responsibility and marketing to create a viable and environmentally sound and economically sustainable rail service for Vancouver Island.

[Petitions, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one calls for the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, including those of September 11, be brought to justice by international police action and tried before the international criminal court or its interim equivalent under the auspices of the UN and return Canada's foreign and defence policies to full respect for and full compliance with international law and the UN charter.

[Terrorism, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, whenever the opposition engages in tough questions over the government's incompetence, the Liberals resort to name calling and fearmongering.

In the CSIS documents, 300 pages substantiate the notion that Hezbollah is raising money for social development and terrorist activities.

I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister once again one simple question. Will he do the right thing and ban fundraising by all of Hezbollah?

[Terrorism, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that Hezbollah has two activities; one is social development and the other is terrorist activities. They are two halves of the same whole and cannot be separated. Even CSIS says the same thing. I will quote from a public document:

In addition to direct military confrontation, Hezbollah has engaged in terrorism as a means of achieving its objectives.... Hezbollah has publicly voiced its opposition to any Middle East peace...vowing to continue the resistance with blood and martyrdom.

It is clear according to CSIS that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Will the minister ban fundraising--

[Species at Risk Act, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-5 today and the Group No. 4 amendments.

The species at risk act has been much anticipated by parliament. The last time it was introduced it died on the order paper because it was an atrocious bill and utterly unworkable. The government which drafted it knew it was unworkable and yet still introduced it. Thankfully, it died.

This bill, in many cases, is no different. For reasons unfathomable to people on both sides of the House, the government has introduced a bill to protect endangered species that it knows full well is unworkable. It is a bill rife with problems. It is a bill that will be destroyed in the courts. Furthermore, it is a bill that will not protect endangered species.

What a sad thing for the House to see members from across party lines working hard to craft a bill that will work for the protection of the most vulnerable species in our country and find that the government, out of contempt for the committee and for the MPs, introduces motions that simply override and destroy the good work that committee members attempted to do.

Why did the government choose to do that? I will give some examples as we go through some of the amendments in Group No. 4.

Before I do that, let us talk a bit about the problem. The most important thing we can do to protect endangered species is to protect their habitat. Critical habitat loss is a primary driver in the extinction of endangered or threatened species, regardless of where we are in the entire world. That, above all else, is the major reason that species are disappearing from the face of this planet, and our country is no different. This bill was an attempt to correct that. Yet the bill only protects a small fraction of land within Canada, a small fraction of that critical habitat that is essential to protect endangered species.

Furthermore, the bill does not reflect the fact that species of animals do not respect borders. They do not know when they come to the border between Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They do not know when they come to the border between Manitoba and Ontario. Species move and as a result we have a situation where there is little or no control in the protection of the critical habitat.

Species are disappearing at an ever increasing rate. All we need to do is look at the increasing numbers of species that are being added to the threatened, endangered and extinct lists each year, not only within our own country but around the world.

We have proposed that a few fundamental things need to happen. First, the determination of what species have become extinct or are endangered has to be done on scientific grounds. COSEWIC, a group of scientists who are objective and apolitical, is the best group to do that and there is bipartisan support for that notion.

Second, we absolutely must have a compensation mechanism when we appropriate land that is critical for habitat. The best thing would be to work with landowners and the provinces to accomplish that goal. If we did that we would find that in the vast majority of cases private landowners and the provinces would be apt to work with the feds to save the habitat.

Innovative things could be done along those lines. We could have financial compensation or even tax breaks. Tax breaks would work well for the landowners if only for the critical habitat and the loss therein.

We must also identify those potentially endangered species. COSEWIC can do that, as well as identify the critical habitat that I mentioned before. We do not see that in the legislation and we feel that is a serious problem.

One of the amendments in Group No. 4 calls for having a national aboriginal committee. This basically means having different laws for different people based on race. We have always argued that we need colour blind laws in this country. I will give an example.

Where I work as a physician in northern British Columbia some of my colleagues like to fish. In one of the areas there is a beautiful river where a large, beautiful female grizzly bear frequently brought her two cubs. It was her favourite fishing hole. Many people also fish there. One day a couple of aboriginal men came out of the bush and saw the bear and her two cubs. Although they knew she and her cubs had visited that river over a long period of time, they killed them. When the horrified fishermen who were there saw this, they asked them why they had killed the bears. The aboriginal men laughed and said that it was because they could and then they walked away. They did not use the meat nor the hides. They merely shot the female and her two cubs dead because they could.

I told that story not to impugn aboriginal people because many aboriginal people follow the laws and are superb stewards of the land. All I am saying is that the law should be applied to all people regardless of their race. One of the things these two aboriginal men said to the fishermen was that they shot the bears because they could get away with it and that nobody would prosecute them.

When the fishermen brought this killing to the attention of the fish and wildlife people in the area they were told that the aboriginals could not be touched because they were aboriginals.

I think that case would horrify law-abiding aboriginal people as it would horrify law-abiding non-aboriginal people. Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people would like to see laws that protect endangered species, regardless of their circumstances, and to ensure that everybody follows the law. The bill does not do that.

We encourage the government to implement laws that are colour blind, racially blind and laws that uphold the principles of the law for the benefit of endangered species.

One good thing in the bill is the notion of a stewardship of action plans, and that means working with people, not above them. Unfortunately the government has a habit of pushing things through without proper consultation and without acting in the best interests of what it has heard.

One example of that is in the public consultation amendments in Group 4. Government members and opposition members met and decided that a five year mandatory review would be reasonable to have in the bill. The bill would then be workable because the act could be reassessed to ensure that it was working in the best interests of endangered species and the public. That was a good motion.

However, the government's motion, Motion No. 130, removes that amendment, that viable and effective suggestion on the part of members from all sides.

Why would the Prime Minister's office, or the minister in that case, choose to put a motion that runs roughshod over the hearings and the deliberations of members from all parties? It shows an utter contempt for the work of the individuals on the committee and of the witnesses they heard. I strongly encourage the government to review the situation and listen to what committee members from all parties have said in terms of the amendment.

I only have a few moments and I want to draw attention to a couple of other issues that ought to be in the bill. In the end the bill must be a workable bill and one that is largely immune from challenges within the courts. It must be a bill for which we can all be proud. It must be workable and it must protect endangered species.

Unfortunately time is not on our side. As time moves inextricably forward we know that more and more critical habitat will be destroyed and it will never come back again. As a result, more and more endangered and threatened species will become extinct. That march has not changed for many years. Not only does it continue but it continues with increasing rapidity.

It is up to the members of the House to listen to the best solutions that we have heard from members and from the public, earnest and effective solutions that have been put forth by many different groups that know these issues far better than any of us.

The committee has done good work in crafting a bill that can work. The government has intervened and run roughshod over those good solutions. While we still have a little time on the bill I encourage the government to sit down with members of the committee and implement the solutions that they have.

I first ask the government, for heaven's sake, not to run roughshod over the solutions that they have put forward, and second, if they have better ones, I ask the government to work with them to craft a bill that will work for the benefit of all of us, because in the end endangered species are a legacy not only for ourselves but for our children.

[Health, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the patients who need the money are not getting the money. Sure they are being identified, but the patients with hepatitis C are not getting the money. The problem is the lawyers are getting the money, not the patients.

My question for the hon. minister is simply this. Will she intervene to ensure that those patients with hepatitis C, who were infected through no fault of their own, get the compensation that they deserve immediately.