Keith Martin

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, Ontario and some of the other provinces have actually implemented registries. Part of the problem is one of competing jurisdictions. There is not a sharing of information.

The reason my colleague proposed it, and I think the House passed it, is that a national registry would actually facilitate the sharing of information to ensure that law enforcement officers across the country would have rapid access to pertinent information on an individual they are looking for or whom they have actually found.

That model could be used across the country. It is not difficult. The name, address, fingerprints and history of a person convicted of a sexual offence could be put into a computerized system. The database could be accessed by ministers of justice, attorneys general and police forces.

That is a bare bones system that would work very well from a national perspective. I hope the hon. member who has done a lot of work with children will convince his colleagues to support and implement this motion.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very important issue which affects Canadians from coast to coast.

If there is one important element in our justice system it has to be the protection of the health and welfare of innocent Canadians. Perhaps no other violation can compare to that of a sexual violation: rape, rape that is attached to incest, or rape within pedophilia. Those are the three categories we are talking about.

On March 13, 2001 the House passed a motion by my colleague which called for a national registry that would be in place by January 30 of this year. The motion was passed unanimously, yet the House has not seen that happen.

Should we have had to bring this motion to the floor of the House? No. The government was elected in 1993 and it has had over eight years to bring in a national sexual predator registry. I will deal with this issue at the end of my speech.

We are asking the government to live up to its commitment. We ask that it stand shoulder to shoulder with the police forces. We ask that it stand shoulder to shoulder with the victims. We ask that it do this for the women, the men and the children who have been sexually abused in their lives and also for those who I hope will not be sexually abused in the future because of laws the government will have brought in to protect innocent people.

In 1979, 7.1% of all people in our jails had been incarcerated for sexual offences. By 1989, a scant 10 years later, the number had increased to 44%, which is a substantial jump. The risk of reoffending is substantial with respect to the groups we are talking about. It is about 7% for those who commit rape, but the percentage is much higher for those who sexually abuse children.

Why the government has not implemented constructive solutions to protect the most vulnerable in our society is beyond the pale. I think it is beyond the comprehension of most members of the House.

We are asking for a commitment to be fulfilled, a promise that was made which must be kept. We want a national registry for sexual offenders as soon as possible. If the government were to bring forward legislation to that effect, I think there would be speedy passage of that bill by the House and the Senate.

I want to get into the specific issue of child sexual abuse. As a physician and as someone who has worked in a jail, I know this takes place and I have treated the victims. It is a pervasive, insidious, vile problem within our society. We have put forth the laws and rules of protection for children in our society.

With respect to sexual predation, it is critically important to have a system which invokes a very high penalty for that offence. We must also implement effective treatments for some people. The hallmarks of those treatments involve a range of holistic solutions, including education and skills training, social skills training, and the treatment of substance abuse problems.

However a substantial number of sexual offenders, particularly pedophiles, are not treatable. The government should adopt a sexual predator law, such as the law in the state of Washington. Its law defines individuals who are sexual predators who continue to victimize those who are the most vulnerable in our society. There is an incredible number. We have heard of many cases along those lines.

Our current laws are unable to deal with this problem. We plead with the government to institute a sexual predator law. Anybody who commits two separate sexual offences, one after the other, rape, a sexual offence involving a child, which includes pedophilia and incest, should be labelled a dangerous sexual offender.

That person would only be released if there were sufficient grounds to believe that the person simply will not reoffend. The Canadian public would be appalled to know that frequently pedophiles are released after they have “served their penalty”. We have a moral obligation to Canadians to keep a person in jail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person will reoffend. If we cannot protect the children, who can we protect? It is incumbent upon us to do that.

Some would say it would violate the charter. Perhaps that argument could be made but I would argue that the charter protects the rights of individual law-abiding citizens. The charter expressly protects individuals from being violated in the manner which I have mentioned.

The law in Washington state has been challenged unsuccessfully in the courts. If the government were prepared to look at the sexual predator law in Washington state and emulate that here in Canada, the law would be consistent with the charter. It would fulfill the obligation of the protection of rights, but most important, it would protect the rights of innocent people. In balancing the rights of innocent people with those of people who have committed criminal offences, clearly we must fall on the side of protecting the rights of innocent civilians.

Individuals who have been sexually abused should have the right to the offender's health information concerning HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and the sexually transmitted diseases which the offender may or may not have. It should be the right of the victims to know the medical status of the person who has violated them.

The system must also ensure that the victim is aware of when and where a sexual abuser is being released. The secrecy that surrounds the release from prison of individuals who are sexual abusers, who are violent abusers, is beyond the pale. A victim who lives in fear for many years after the situation must have a right to know where the sexual violator is living. In the interests of fairness to the victim, the person who committed the offence should not be allowed to live in the same province or within 100 kilometres of the victim. They must not come in contact with each other. That is just an issue of fairness.

Getting to the reason the government has not brought in a sexual offender registry bill, innovation is a word the government does not understand. Innovation is something the government has been trying to avoid at all costs. Whether it is in the justice system, whether it is the sexual offender registry we are talking about today, whether it is economics or health care, the government has done everything in its power to pay heed to its polling results and how high it is in the polls. It appears to be more interested in having power for power's sake than using power for the public good.

As I said to the government last year, what is the point in having power if it is not used for the public good? What is the benefit of a 50% standing in the polls if the government is not prepared to use its mandate and its strength within the public for the public good?

What we have here is a relatively simple motion that protects Canadians. The government, at the very minimum, must act on this issue. It must also act on the wide variety of problems that affect Canadians, issues such as health care and access to health care; social program renewal; the head start program for children and prevention; economic competitiveness; education; sound fiscal and monetary policies; and the environment. The government knows the bill on endangered species is useless. Canadians care about these and many other pressing issues. They must be addressed.

I promise the House that my party, and I am sure all opposition parties, will continue to hold the government's feet to the fire. We must ensure that it does its job and implements solutions to the big problems Canadians care about.

[*Question No. 86—, February 1st, 2002]

With respect to the Challilo Dam project on the Macal River in Belize, will the Minister for International Cooperation indicate to the House: ( a ) the findings of CIDA's environmental assessment report; ( b ) all costs incurred by CIDA concerning the dam; ( c ) CIDA's involvement in approving or encouraging the construction of the dam; ( d ) any financial ties between CIDA and Fortis Inc.; and ( e ) any financial ties between CIDA and AMEC E&C Services Ltd.?

[Canada Elections Act, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to avoid the imminent massacre of thousands of innocent black civilians in Zimbabwe, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to move that the government, in co-operation with other international states, freeze the personal assets of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe; ban all international travel by Mr. Mugabe and his ministers; suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth; and call for an arms embargo on Zimbabwe.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the cold hard reality is that the corporate sector pays the bulk of taxes in the country. If we have high tax rates for the corporate sector companies will leave Canada and move to countries with lower tax rates.

What we need are fair taxes, fewer loopholes and a system that enables our private sector to compete. High tax rates kill jobs, cause unemployment and drive companies out of Canada. Low taxes do the converse.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will address a number of issues. The good member has made many constructive suggestions and taken his government to task, but he sits in the farthest corner of the House one possibly could imagine. That is sad because he is a hardworking member of parliament who provides many constructive suggestions in the House. My case in point is taken.

The issue of taxes is interesting. Once upon a time in the era of Brian Mulroney a government decided to lower taxes. In that brief period government revenues went up. If we lower taxes we lower the burden on the private and public sectors. Companies then have money for innovation and research and can compete and invest in their companies. Companies expand and when they expand they generate moneys. Because those moneys are taxed, albeit at a lower level, more moneys come into the public coffers.

The proof of the pudding is if we look at any country that has lowered its tax rates. We will find government revenues have gone up because the private sector has expanded, the economy is booming and there is a larger amount of money to tax.

High tax rates choke off the private sector and damage social programs. We need only look at the bastions of socialism in northern Europe. When they had high taxes their private sectors were compromised. When their tax rates were lower they had more government revenues and their social programs were put on higher levels.

One small point I neglected to address concerns the hardworking public service. The government needs to give the public service free reign and task it to determine how much money it is spending, where it is spending it, what its objectives are and whether it is meeting them.

It is shocking to ask government workers and bureaucrats responsible for government programs how much money they are spending, where they are spending it, what their objectives are and whether they are being met. Quite often the last questions cannot be answered. They do not know what their objectives are and often cannot answer whether they are being met.

The last part of that, and one of the government members had a great suggestion along these lines, is that we should give incentives to the public service. What if we told government workers that if they articulated and met their objectives and saved money a part of the savings would go to the workers and their bureaucracy as a reward for their good and hard work?

The workers would be able to apply their many talents and skills to the public good. Too often the hardworking and intelligent people in the public sector cannot use their talents to their maximum abilities. If we introduced an incentive program more and more of their abilities could be used for the public good. We would have a streamlined and more effective public service that could be an innovative tiger within the country.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Elk Island for once again allowing me to speak and for giving an eloquent performance with constructive suggestions. I will try to be part of that if I can.

The last 10 years since the Liberal government came to power have been labelled the decade of drift for Canada. Perhaps the worst case of that is the situation with our economy. As a nation we are punching so far below our weight that we are sliding further and further down the OECD levels. This is not necessary. As a country we have much greater potential than we have been displaying.

The government has proposed a budget. The only reason it has done so is that the events of September 11 have forced it to put a budget on the table. It might be shocking for Canadians to know that while our unemployment rates have gone up and our dollar, our economy and our competitiveness with respect to other countries have been sliding, the government has been doing nothing.

This has been an era of inaction. The inaction of the government has compromised every person in the country today. The government's agenda has been focused on its polls and that is it. It does not matter what is happening in the country. The government wants to know what its polls are saying. We have seen an agenda for inaction which is the antithesis of innovation, and as a result our competitiveness has been sliding.

As a member of the Canadian Alliance I will offer some of the solutions my party has been putting forth since 1993 to get Canada back in the game, make our country competitive and move us forward. Our solutions would ensure every Canadian could share the wealth and be gainfully employed. They would ensure better social programs, put us on a sustainable footing and make Canada a stronger and better country for all.

We not only need to have balanced budgets. We need to invest in the infrastructure required to be competitive. As my colleague from Elk Island mentioned, the tax structure we have today is choking off the private sector in ways we cannot imagine. The rates are too high and payroll taxes are too high. They absolutely must be reduced. EI premiums can and must be reduced because they are being used as a tax on the private sector.

Personal taxes must decline. Above all else they hurt those in the middle and lower classes. They are the ones hurt most by the government's inaction.

We need investment in research and development. We must allow the private sector to engage in the research and development required for it to compete with countries all over the world. It cannot do that with the high tax rates we have today.

We must reform and simplify our tax system. My party has been proposing a flat tax rate for years. Why do we have the complex tax system we have today where people need a chartered accountant or CGA to do their taxes? It is not necessary. Corporate and personal taxes need to be reduced as do the innovation crushing capital tax structures we have today.

EI premiums should be reduced. CPP premiums are reaching such high levels that in the next few years they will consume 20% to 30% of people's income. The reason is that today's CPP is completely unsustainable. The government knows this full well.

When the Liberal government of the day brought in the CPP it knew full well it would be unsustainable in the future. There will come a time when the system will break apart because it cannot maintain the current structure. As a result many low income seniors will be crushed.

Members of the Liberal Party over there are shaking their heads and saying no. However the architects of the CPP could tell us then and hon. members can tell us today that the CPP is unsustainable.

If the government does not act today to reform the CPP system, tens of thousands of innocent and impoverished low income seniors will be unnecessarily hurt. They will be thrown out on the street because they will not have the money to meet their basic needs. That crime will be on the shoulders of the Liberal government.

We in the Canadian Alliance Party have put forth solutions to save the CPP system so all Canadians, particularly low income seniors, can have a pension on which they can survive. Are we seeing that? No, we are not. We have a system today where rules and regulations are choking off our private sector.

I propose that for every rule and regulation the government proposes in the future two rules and regulations be removed from the books. That is what we are doing in British Columbia. The B.C. government said it would start shaving off a third of all the rules and regulations in its province. The federal government never does this. We need to remove a good chunk of the rules and regulations that are choking the private sector.

Our spending priorities should be education, infrastructure and research and development, not government programs to curry favour with the electorate. The government uses taxpayer money to buy votes and curry favour with the electorate. It takes $10 from the taxpayer and gives $4 back. It does this strategically to ensure it is re-elected.

The public does not buy this any more. As hon. members know, in previous times the government has been able to win over the public all over the country by virtue of giving out government largess. The public is now saying it will not give money to the government unless it spends the money wisely, which is the responsibility of any responsible government. It had better start doing it quickly.

In this decade of drift we have seen a government that accepts mediocrity and inaction. It accepts less than what we can be. It will accept a 50 cent dollar and higher unemployment rates. Why does this have to be? Why is it happening? That is the more interesting question. The reason it is happening is that we do not live in a democracy. If we think for a moment that cabinet controls what is going on in the country we are sadly mistaken.

It is not cabinet that controls what goes on. There are many fine cabinet ministers and backbench members in the government who are innovative and would like to exercise their skills, talents and abilities for the public good, but they cannot. The Prime Minister's Office tells them what to do, what to say, when to say it and how to say it. If they step out of line they know they will be turfed. They will be turfed not to the fifth row but to the sixth row if there were one. Their political careers would be over.

That is not fair. It is not only unfair to good, hardworking members on the government side and members of all political parties. It is unfair to the Canadian public. The public demands better. It demands a government that will use the best minds within its party and the House, that will find the best ideas from around the country and that will apply those ideas to the problems of the nation in a timely fashion.

All we have seen since 1993 is a government of inaction and mediocrity that is obsessed with polls and accepts less than what we can be. On one level we can understand that. Why change when one is so high in the polls? However what is the purpose of power unless one is willing to use it for the public good? Why have it? Why be in that position unless one is willing to use the good graces of the offices one has taken over for the public good?

The Canadian public will not tolerate this much longer. As an opposition party, first as the Reform Party and then as the Alliance Party, we have for years been offering constructive solutions to deal with the big problems affecting Canadians. Members of all political parties have been doing so.

The upcoming budget pressured by the events of September 11 will demonstrate that the government has been inactive. It has been willing to sleepwalk into a recession rather than act proactively to head it off in advance. The public sees that. The opposition ranks see that.

We in my party have offered constructive solutions. The government's obligation is to take our solutions and those from its own side and act on them. If it does not act on them people will be hurt and it will be on the government's shoulders.

[Committees of the House, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government, in co-operation with other international states, should: (a) freeze the personal assets of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe; (b) ban all international travel by Mr. Mugabe and his Ministers; (c) suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth; and (d) call for an arms embargo on Zimbabwe.

[Foreign Affairs, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the situation, as acknowledged by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is very dangerous on the ground. Eight reporters have been killed in the last two weeks alone.

Because we have aid workers and journalists trying to do their job on the ground, what specifically will the government do to ensure that these aid workers and journalists will not be used as human shields by the Taliban?

[Foreign Affairs, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Ken Hechtman is the Canadian reporter being held hostage and in chains in Afghanistan.

The Prime Minister said, and I quote, “We will do whatever we can to secure his release.” What exactly does that mean? What specifically is the government doing to secure Ken Hechtman's release?