Keith Martin

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

And high debt, as my colleague mentioned.

I challenge any member of the House to show me one case in any country in the world where high taxes, complex rules and regulations and interventionist government actually have improved employment, strengthened social programs and improved the freedoms of people in that country. There is not a single case in the world.

We have a situation where the interventionist, socialist policies of the NDP, Bob Rae's Ontario and Glen Clark's British Columbia, should be dead. We have struck a knife right through the heart of those policies because they simply do not work. Those policies hurt the very people the NDP professes to help.

The Canadian Alliance has been fighting for smaller government for the Canadian people. We want democracy for the Canadian people. We want lower taxes so we can create jobs. We want a healthy economy so we have the money for health care and education.

We support globalization. Globalization is the only way to have a rules based mechanism for better labour laws, better environmental protection, and to resolve disputes between nations. That is what we are trying to do. We have managed to balance good, strong fiscal policy with good, strong social policy. Those policies will help all Canadians equally.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to split my time with my hon. friend from Skeena.

The NDP introduced a 12 point plan to save Canada. I compliment it for doing so. Contrary to my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party who said Canada did not need saving, it does. It needs saving in a big way. That is why we are here. That is why the government continues to put out nothing but pablum while we in the opposition continue to put out forceful, constructive, specific solutions to address the big problems affecting Canadians. That is what we are all about.

I compliment the NDP for introducing its plan to save Canada no matter how hopelessly misguided the plan is. It is unfortunate the NDP has not learned lessons from social democracies around the world. It continues to proffer solutions that have been rejected by great social democracies around the world including Sweden.

If adopted the NDP plan would turn our nation into a country that looked like Bob Rae's Ontario or Glen Clark's British Columbia. We know what a disaster that would be. B.C. is still trying to dig itself out from the hole and will be doing so for many years. Adopting the 12 point plan would ensure Canada became a needy backwater that would probably be on the IMF's list of countries that need transfers to survive. We do not want that.

The NDP and the government should listen to our party. For Canada to be saved it needs lower taxes, less regulation, a smaller and more efficient government, and above all else, democracy. The House needs a good strong dose of democracy. That is perhaps the one point the NDP, our party, all opposition parties and most members of the government could agree on.

The government is more interested in maintaining and acquiring power than using it for the public good. One need look no further than at what my colleague from Elk Island witnessed at the finance committee. He saw a disgusting display of anti-democratic behaviour when a private member's bill was gutted.

When members of parliament introduce private members' bills they must go through extraordinary hoops to get them into the House so they can be debated. The public would be interested to know that at the end of the day the government thinks nothing of whipping into line the Liberal committee members who form the majority. It does so to ensure bills emerge with nothing unchanged but the paper on which they were written. Not one original letter, period or word will survive in private members' bills that go to committee.

That is the ultimate violation of basic democratic rights. It violates the rights not only of members of parliament in the House but, more importantly, individuals who support their members of parliament. All members of parliament across party lines including members of the government suffer under the same draconian, fascist rules and regulations which are unwritten but are nonetheless applied by the government's leadership.

The Prime Minister's Office rules the government with an iron fist, not for the public good but for the maintenance and acquisition of power. The real tragedy is that all the fantastic ideas of people across the country both in and out of parliament cannot be brought to bear on the problems of the nation.

The public often asks why it is not seeing action on health. It asks why it is seeing more studies. Why does it not see action on the economy? Why has the dollar plummeted from 73 cents to 62 cents on the government's watch? Why is our military begging for soldiers? Why does our military lack equipment to do its basic work? Why does our government have discordant defence and foreign policies? Why does our government not have environmental policies that make any sense? Why does our government's environmental policies violate the laws that have gone before?

These are the questions Canadians ask. Because they have received no meaningful answers for the last eight years they are turning away from the House. They are turning away from parliamentarians. They are turning away from the democratic institutions people fought two world wars to maintain.

That has profound implications not only for the House but also for our nation. If the House cannot be a place where solutions are debated, where we can have dynamic tension between us, where we can have fights over meaningful solutions to problems that affect Canadians, then the House does not deserve to exist.

All members of parliament would agree that the House does not work democratically. If there is one solution the government could do to benefit the people of our country, it would be to democratize the House. It would be to give members of parliament a free vote. It would be to liberalize the committee structure so that committees can analyze government legislation properly, can analyze supply properly and be free to do that. Private members' business should have some meaning. Private members in the House regardless of their political stripe should be able to introduce meaningful solutions to address problems affecting their constituents.

We do not need, as the NDP would want, big government and many rules and regulations. Sweden is an example of where that was applied. Interest rates have skyrocketed. Unemployment rates have skyrocketed. There has been a weakening of Sweden's social programs. High taxes and complex rules and regulations kill jobs and erode the tax base that is needed to pay for health care, education and other social programs.

The perverse logic and the type of socialist policies advocated by the NDP actually hurt the very people the NDP wants to help. Those policies do not help the poor and underprivileged. They erode earning potential. They deprive people of jobs. They erode the social programs that people require.

We would like to describe the so-called right of centre policies that are wanted. Why do we want lower taxes? Why do we want smaller government? Why do we want an elimination of rules and regulations? Why do we want more free trade? Why do we want globalization? Because that is the best way in the world to pursue job creation and a healthy economy. By doing that we have the money and the tax base to support healthy social programs. We have the money to support welfare for those who need it. We have the money to support health care. We have the money to support education. High taxes and complex rules and regulations do the exact opposite.

[Zimbabwe, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is no respect. Our partners have moved ahead. The European Union has moved ahead. The United States have moved ahead. Other countries have moved ahead. The point is the election in Zimbabwe is already rigged. It cannot have a free and fair election.

My question is simple. Why does the government sit by impotently wringing its hands while state sponsored brutalization continues? Our partners have moved ahead. Why is the government not acting shoulder to shoulder with our partners?

[Zimbabwe, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal dominated subcommittee on human rights unanimously called for targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe, including suspension from the commonwealth, travel bans and a freeze of the personal assets of Mr. Mugabe and his cronies.

Will the government finally do the right thing and adopt the subcommittee's recommendations?

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, China has annexed over half the territory of Tibet. Not only that has happened. In the World Bank there was a proposal to move large numbers of Chinese people into eastern Tibet. It is an issue many of us in the Canadian Alliance have fought hard against and put a freeze on for the time being.

As a party we are completely and unequivocally opposed to the use of Canadian taxpayer funds for the abuse in any way, shape or form of the Chinese people or the aggressive extraterritorial actions of the Chinese regime.

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his question. It is an essential moral question I struggled with regarding Bill C-50. I do not know the answer. As I said in my speech, we must look at it 10 years down the line to see if it has worked. My hope and prayer is that it will.

I take some solace in Bill C-50 because the most hardline supporters of the despotic regime in China are those most opposed to the liberalization of trade. That fact alone gives me hope that by liberalizing trade and increasing discourse between China and the free world we would be able to improve the norms of human rights within China.

Do I think it would change the situation in Tibet overnight? I absolutely do not. Nor do I think it would change in the intermediate term. The only way to change the situation in Tibet and China is by fostering repeated and increasing discourse between the free world and China. We need to break down barriers and strengthen the Chinese middle class. We need to make the young and the middle class in China understand that basic human rights are fundamental to the security of a country. We need to show them that respect for human rights in other countries is fundamental to the strength of China as a nation. My hope is that this will occur.

As I said in my speech, liberalizing trade would not give tacit moral approval to the Chinese regime. Trade is a discourse between individuals and firms. We could use other measures to express our dissatisfaction. If China took a hard turn toward becoming more despotic we could use WTO trade levers against it. I hope the government has the courage to do that. Members of the Canadian Alliance would be pushing the government to do it.

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Calgary West.

I have a great deal of difficulty with the bill but I support it. My party supports it. Our hope is that the removal of trade barriers and the inclusion of China in the WTO will add to a liberalization of the country and an improvement in human rights within that country.

China represents one-fifth of the earth's population. It is our fourth largest trading partner. It has the largest economy not currently in the WTO.

Part of the reason we would like to see the removal of trade barriers is that trade does not necessarily confer a moral agreement with the regime in power. Trade exists between individuals and firms. We cannot confuse our moral condonement of a nation's policies and behaviour with a desire to increase bilateral trade. Our hope is that when we look at this in 20 years we will see that the improvement of trade has actually increased discourse between cultures and individuals and that it has managed to liberalize the political environment within China.

One of the primary faults in geopolitics is the belief that there is only one superpower, the United States. I believe that is a myth. China's behaviour could best be summed up in a comment made by Sun tzu, the famous Chinese philosopher. He said that one of the best ways of displaying strength is to show a rather benign and weak front to an opponent but behind that, to develop an extraordinary amount of strength.

China has been doing that for some time. Not only has it had a super heated economy but it has had a super heated military machine. While we have been looking at other problems around the world, China has been developing ballistic missiles and nuclear capabilities. It has been purchasing and producing large scale armaments, including aircraft carriers which will enable it to extend its reach abroad. This is often denied and ignored in international foreign policy.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister with our allies must pay close heed to this behaviour in future dealings with China. We simply cannot ignore it. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Some people have articulated very well what China has been doing over the years.

China's behaviour is another matter. If we look at the Spratly Islands, Taiwan and Tibet in particular, which my friend and colleague will discuss, China has displayed repeatedly an absolute utter neglect for the basic norms of human rights that Canadians and the international community hold dear.

China is among the worst abusers of human rights in the world. Tibet is a case in point. In the 1940s China annexed a good chunk of Tibet and was responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Tibetans. The Chinese murdered thousands of monks and nuns and burned down almost all the 6,400 monasteries in Tibet. It was an act of cultural genocide. This is something the international community has chosen to pay little heed to.

It is instructive to judge a country's future by looking at its past. The repressive regime in China thinks very little of human rights or human life. Today it continues to abuse the basic human rights of people in Tibet. In fact, 74% of the political prisoners in Tibet held by the Chinese are nuns and monks. It is a case of overt religious oppression by a repressive regime.

Other members have mentioned this eloquently both inside and outside the House. The government could have spoken more forcefully on this issue. The government could have been more aggressive by bringing the issue to international fora such as the UN but it has chosen not to.

It is sad, because if we do not discuss these egregious abuses of human rights, in a way we become party to them. We have seen many cases in history where our neglect to examine abuses of the basic human rights of people has caused widespread traumatic problems for all of us.

Fair trade is good, but we simply cannot ignore the situation on the ground. The saving grace in the liberalization of trade is perhaps the response of the more hard line members of the Chinese regime, those who would wish to support and continue the status quo. They are against the normalization of trade between countries. That fact gives me hope that what we are trying to do is the right thing, that it will improve human rights, liberalize the country and ensure that the basic human rights of Chinese people will be improved and not worsened and that by liberalizing trade we are not part and party unwillingly and unwittingly to a worsening of human rights.

The militarists and reactionaries of China oppose the liberalization of trade. They correctly see it as a threat to their repressive regime. My hope is that in the engagement of trade we also put in conditions that China cannot engage in human rights abuses on one hand while engaging in the normalization of trade on the other.

In the discussions on including China in the WTO, it was very interesting to see the behaviour of China. China tried to introduce a number of loopholes through which it could be included in the WTO if it were to adhere to the spirit and meaning of the WTO. That is a vague and open-ended statement if ever there was one. We cannot tolerate that. China has to adhere to the same human rights norms that we, the United States and all parties to the WTO must adhere to. It is not an either/or situation. It is a condition upon China being introduced and becoming a full, respected member of the WTO.

China must not engage in behaviour that will compromise the regional security in that area. I mentioned the Spratly Islands, Taiwan and Tibet. The international community cannot turn a blind eye to that type of behaviour. Nor can it turn a blind eye to the acquisition of ballistic missiles, nuclear capable technology and the expansion of China's military hardware.

I find it remarkable that the government chooses to give aid to China, a country that is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on improving and expanding its military capabilities. I do not think Canadian taxpayers want to see their hard earned money sent under the guise of official development assistance to a country like China, which is one of the largest economic powers in the world, to build up its military hardware. That is not why we help underprivileged countries. The government should stop its official development assistance to China immediately.

I strongly encourage the government to speak out more forcefully against the human rights abuses against the people of Tibet and China's egregious abuses of the norms of international security when it rattles sabres against Taiwan. The only resolution to the Taiwan-China situation will occur through peaceful negotiation. Sabre rattling against Taiwan or the Spratly Islands only causes concern for the international community as well as for the region.

In conclusion, our party supports the inclusion of China in the WTO but it is not support at any cost. The Canadian Alliance will be paying close attention to the behaviour of China on human rights and religious freedoms and in engaging in fair trade, not the abusive trade practices of the past.

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was in Colombia and saw what was there.

I would suggest to him that the farmers are having difficulty exporting because of trade barriers. Trade barriers were one of the major obstacles for Colombian farmers to grow something other than coca.

Does the hon. member agree that what needs to be done here in North America is reduce the consumption of drugs? Probably that is the most effective way in which we can reduce that bloody conflict in Colombia that has claimed more than 30,000 lives over the last 20 years.

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the alternative to globalization is the erection of barriers to trade. My question for the hon. member is very simple. He knows full well that in Mexico and Brazil trade has actually improved the lives of some of the poorest people. Does he believe that the health and welfare of the people of Mexico is better after NAFTA or before NAFTA?

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the hon. member from the NDP just said what he did about globalization. The facts speak very clearly for themselves. Globalization is a way for countries to develop rules based mechanisms for human rights, the environment, labour laws and for removing the barriers to trade. Kofi Annan, secretary general of the United Nations, a person who is hardly considered to be right of centre, said that developing countries need is free trade.

Is the hon. member in favour of free and fair trade, which is what the WTO is trying to do, or does he want to pursue a socialist course of erecting barriers to trade around countries?