Keith Martin

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, April 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-26. It is high time it came about. However I think a little history is warranted here.

Prior to 1994 tobacco consumption in Canada was plummeting as a direct result of high taxes. We also know that the average age young people begin to smoke is between 12 and 13. High tobacco prices do discourage smoking. The price elasticity of demand says that if the price is increased the demand will decrease dramatically, which is particularly important with regard to our youth.

In 1994, in response to cigarette smuggling, particularly in eastern Ontario, the government committed what was probably the most horrendous blunder in health care policy in the history of the country. Almost nothing this government could ever have done would have committed such a number of youth to smoke and have such a devastating impact upon the health of Canadians, not only in the short term but also in the long term.

What the government did in response to smuggling was drop the taxes on tobacco significantly. What did that do? It increased the consumption among youth and adults, as well as the number of people smoking and the amount that they smoked. Why do we say that? It is because something interesting happened. Tobacco taxes were reduced in five provinces in central and eastern Canada. The west and Newfoundland kept their prices relatively the same.

We had an interesting laboratory, looking at central Canada where the price was much lower, and the west and Newfoundland where the price was much higher.

If we looked at any graph we would see that tobacco consumption and tobacco profits after 1994 went up dramatically. Almost a quarter of a million young people started to smoke. Tobacco companies were popping champagne corks in their offices.

What the government should have done in order to deal with the tobacco issue, which was a legitimate problem, was what it did prior to 1993.

In 1992 the same problem arose. At that time the government put an excise tax on tobacco. That cut the legs out from under tobacco smugglers. It eliminated the differential between Canada and the United States. Within six weeks tobacco smuggling dropped 75% without changing the price of cigarettes. After six weeks the government of the day buckled under pressure from the tobacco companies that threatened to leave, and it removed the excise tax.

If the government had the backbone, it could have cut the legs out from underneath tobacco smugglers while not compromising the health of Canadians, particularly the youth. It could have done that by keeping the taxes where they were and by adding the excise tax.

It was the excise tax that would have prevented smuggling while enabling to keep the taxes where they were. It would not have committed a quarter of a million young people to smoking, 50% of whom will die of tobacco related deaths, with 21% of them dying of some form of cancer. It is a public tragedy and a public health problem that we will see in the long term.

The government also deprived the public coffers of nearly $5 billion worth of revenue. I can imagine what we could have done with that money. We could have put it into health care, into research and into prevention.

Our party supports the bill, but we want make sure that the money coming from taxes would not be put into some big vat to be used for special projects by the government. The money could be used for prevention models. It could be used for a head start program that focuses on strengthening the parent-child bond which has proven to be of dramatic importance and very effective at improving the health care of children and their families while preventing a lot of social problems that occur later on. That is what the government could and should be doing.

The government could also put money into increasing physical activities among kids. Physical activity is at an all time low. This would have a dramatic impact on the future health of Canadians because when children become adults, if they were not active as youth, there is less of a chance they will be active as adults.

The minister responsible for sport is very interested in physical activity and is working hard with our Olympic athletes. Why does he not take the Olympic athletes to the schools as part of a speaking program to teach children the importance of physical activity? The athletes could be paid to do this and the kids would be directly impacted by Canadian heroes, which would push and encourage them to be physically active. It is a win-win situation.

I hope the minister in charge of sport would consider this proposal. It is an informal proposal but doable. The Olympic athletes would get money. They would be getting paid to do a good job and the children of our country would benefit. It would have a long term and positive impact on the health of Canadians.

It is also important to look at what we could be doing in terms of improving the health of our children, our youth, as well as adults in the country. Looking at it from an international perspective, smoking consumption is not a domestic problem but an international problem. The World Health Organization has said clearly that in many countries such as China and other nations it will be a health care disaster with millions of people dying from tobacco related diseases.

The public would be very interested to know that tobacco companies actually sponsor dances in foreign countries and give out free cigarettes to children. They give out free cigarettes to children, not because they are good corporate citizens but because they are attempting to cause children to become addicted to cigarette smoking. Some of these tobacco companies are pretending to be the paragons of virtue and good corporate citizenry while going to other countries or nations, sponsoring dances, providing free admission to children and giving them free cigarettes. That is what is happening in the world today.

I encourage the government to pursue and fast track Bill C-26, to make sure that the bill goes through, and to increase the taxes to ensure that our children do not smoke. It should make the price so high that it becomes even more difficult for youth to smoke.

Libertarians would suggest that what happens to people is their business and that they should have freedom of choice. I agree. However let us take into consideration that we are talking not about people who are 25 or 30 years of age but about children who are 12 and 13 years of age. That is when children start to smoke. That is when they start to take up the weed.

On a slightly related issue, the issue of medicinal marijuana, I applaud the government in this regard. It is high time. However the government must make sure it is well regulated and not simply a tool to legalize marijuana consumption.

What the minister can do, and I am speaking personally and not on behalf of the party, is decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana. If we decriminalize marijuana consumption there would be a penalty or fine which could be used to fund youth prevention programs. It would also save expensive court costs. It would take people out of the courts and save legal fees and court time. The courts would then have more time to go after people who commit murder, rape and other heinous crimes. If we decriminalize marijuana use, and the Canadian Police Association supports this, we would have higher penalties, lower costs and a revenue source we could funnel into prevention programs for kids.

My last pitch, once again, is for the head start program. If the government is truly interested in preventing the social problems that result from youth crime, if it wants to ensure kids are more employable and less dependent on welfare or drugs, then a head start program is the fastest, best and most effective way of doing so. We could draw from the best of head start programs around the world which focus on strengthening the parent-child bond. This should start at the prenatal stage. If fewer parents took drugs and alcohol during pregnancy we could reduce the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome, a tremendous problem in our country. The programs would also ensure parents had the skills to be good parents.

This can be done simply, effectively and for the most part with existing resources. It can be done if the federal government calls together its provincial counterparts for a conference on the issue. The government needs a specific plan of action that can enable the program to be a reality. The cost savings would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The lives saved would be in the thousands.

We support Bill C-26 and hope it goes through quickly. We only regret that the government in 1994 dropped the taxes to begin with.

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, April 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Elk Island.

[Organ Donor Awareness Week, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, 150 Canadians die every year while waiting for organ transplants. Four thousand people are on the waiting list. This will double in the next 8 years and will rise to more than 16,000 in the next 20 years.

What the government has done, despite repeated solutions from the Standing Committee on Health and motions passed in the House, is create a council that will increase awareness. That is not the problem. Ninety per cent of Canadians are aware of and support organ donation.

What we need is a plan. Here is what the government should do. First, it needs to ensure that there is a donor form in every patient's chart. Second, it needs to create a national registry of donors and potential recipients. Third, it needs to implement mandatory reporting of all brain deaths. Fourth, all living donors must have access to EI. Fifth, donor co-ordinators are needed in all hospitals.

This is Organ Donor Awareness Week. The government should act on the solutions it has been given and I hope all Canadians sign their organ donor cards.

[National Defence, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is a home to the Pacific fleet. Let us talk about what is happening to this particular group of military people who fight to defend our best interests.

The government gave them modest raises, which was a good thing, but what has also happened is that it has yanked that money back in terms of raises for the private married quarters under the guise of increasing the rates to say that those homes are the same as what we would find in the public. That is not the case. Those are 50 year old homes that are falling apart and without insulation. I have been in them. I would ask the minister to go in there and look for himself.

Our soldiers are coming back ill and are not receiving the health care they require. Our military hospitals are falling into disrepair. The schools for the children of our military are falling into disrepair and are rotting despite the best efforts of the families.

This is not a way to treat the men and women who give their lives in defence of our country. I would ask that the minister look at this. They are coming back ill, the suicide rates are up and the families are broken down. The minister should deal with this now.

[Computer Hackers, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I add my chorus of congratulations to those for my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt for his foresight in bringing the motion to the floor of the House. We know the issue has been raised before. It has been dealt with by the banks, by the police and by a wide variety of individuals across the country, including the Minister of Justice, who has shown great interest in it. I can only ask her at the outset of my comments to please work with the member to address the issue.

As has been articulated, the Internet has exploded into our lives. It truly has been an explosion. It is interesting to note that it took 25 years for cable television to reach 10 million people and it has taken only 5 years for the Internet to reach 10 million people.

With those growing numbers in terms of users, we have seen an explosion in criminal opportunities. We have heard about the opportunities for money laundering and computer hacking, which not only compromise economies and businesses but can also have a profound impact on personal lives with respect to any health care data that is shared. It can also have a devastating effect on security issues.

We have seen some very frightening examples of individuals in other countries hacking into security systems. These security systems control and involve missiles and they control other defence capabilities that can obviously have a profound impact on the country or countries and, indeed, on international security at large.

Therefore we need to have some kind of rules based mechanism and some laws with which we can identify problems with respect to security within our Internet e-commerce, problems such as we have today, and with which we can also develop tools to go after the people who have shown a wilful disdain for the system and for individuals.

We know that computer networks have an increasing importance in our lives. We need to develop some rules to deal with this because of the profound impact that people hacking into the computers can have. My colleagues have actually articulated that already.

I draw attention to the need to involve various partners. I know the justice minister and my colleague are interested in this. There is a need to involve police officers, banks and government and bring them together to develop a rules based system which will allow us to go after the money launderers, the people who are using credit cards illegally and the people who are shunting large sums of money from their criminal actions into other avenues that are legal. I think it is the biggest challenge with respect to organized crime.

Some people see Hell's Angels individuals with their leathers and their hogs and think of them as unintelligent, brutal killers who terrorize individuals. Certainly some of them are, but a much larger percentage of them are individuals with $1,500 Armani suits who are highly intelligent business thugs using the law against us and hiding behind the law when it suits them.

One of the best things our country can do is follow on the example of my colleague, follow on the interests of the justice minister and have a round table with representatives of banks, law enforcement officers, government representatives and members to pull together a series of bills that will enable us to go after these people on the basis of their money. We have to find ways of tracking the money. When we track the money, we have a way of dealing with the most vulnerable aspect of organized criminals.

Of course it is indeed a balance. We have to balance the issue of privacy of individuals and companies with the greater need to enable law enforcement officers to apprehend and prosecute individuals who are using the Internet and using banking systems in this illegal way. Historically the banks have had a voluntary system of transaction reporting, whereby bank managers are asked to report large transactions if they are somewhat suspect.

Even the banks recognize that this is not working very well. They clearly recognize their internal checking mechanisms are not working well. Organized crime knows that and is manipulating the system to its advantage.

As a country we are known as a major conduit of illegal funds, a place where it is very easy to launder funds. We need to change that. I know there is great political will in the House and across the country to do that.

My colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt and other members of the House are demonstrating an interest, a knowledge and an expertise in this area that would allow Canadians to feel a lot safer and secure with respect to their funds and resources.

It is not only that. There are many other issues with which we have to deal. We spoke about the illegal use of the Internet for pornography, specifically child pornography. This is an issue that is very difficult to deal with, but as a nation we must work with our partners. The Internet is international. We have to influence and suggest solutions in an international sphere. Once we get our house in order, we can actually bring these solutions to the international forum.

I believe in 1998 the Organization of American States signed a declaration of principles. This was a series of recommendations which the representatives were going to take back to their countries. The declaration was intended to bring us together in dealing with Internet crime and money laundering. I have not heard anything in the House to date on that. It would be very encouraging for the minister to bring this to the floor of the House. By working with like-minded colleagues, such as the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and others, we could pull together a good bill that would address these issues.

This is a new issue. It is an important and pertinent issue to Canadians because of the vast exponential expansion of the Internet and the impact it has on our society. The potential is there for individuals to hack into systems and use the information for their own criminal intent.

I encourage members of the House to support my colleague's motion. It is a good motion that will help Canadians. We look forward to a positive response from the minister on this.

[Judges Act, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has asked a very good question and has basically articulated the solutions I have put forth here.

The issue is accountability. The issue is about removing power from the Prime Minister and giving it back to the people. While we have an excellent judiciary, we can do certain things, such as having an independent body, which the hon. member spoke about, such as having supreme court appointments made not by the Prime Minister but ratified by parliament on an advisory from the Prime Minister. The same thing could happen in provincial legislatures across the country.

On the issue of elected officials, it happens at a certain level in the judiciary. It happens in California and it works very well. It takes the power away from a single individual, which is what we have in our country today, gives a little broader accountability and gives members of the public the opportunity to have some say about who will judge them when they are in front of the courts. It works very well in California. Very few judges are removed. Most of them stay. Only those who are really not doing a good job are removed.

In Canada, as my colleague mentioned, we have an excellent judiciary. These solutions are just a way to perhaps make it a little better.

[Judges Act, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of what the member believes is an independent judiciary. Does she believe that the appointment by one person, for example the Prime Minister, is an independent review of who should be sitting on the bench?

My comments in no way, shape or form reflect on our judiciary. We have many good judges, excellent judges, superb judges. However some are not. I am speaking personally when I say that at some levels of our judiciary we should give the public the opportunity to have input into who should be judging them. It is better if we have the public at large judge the judges rather than one person appoint a judge, that person being the Prime Minister.

[Judges Act, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly say a few words about the bill. It has come up in the previous parliament. We are disappointed and will not support it for the reasons the critic of my party mentioned.

I will bring up two important issues. First, I will look at the California example which could have been adopted by this bill or another bill. It deals with the issue of re-organizing our criminal justice system to make it more efficient and expeditious.

To improve convictions and make the system less expensive we should consider a public defender system. We should work with the provinces to implement a public defender system to ensure quicker, fairer and less expensive convictions.

The public defender system has worked in California. It has been compared to our present system and absolutely no difference was found in the manner or fairness of convictions. However the public defender system was found to be more expeditious and less expensive. Given the backlog in our present system, I encourage the government to look at the California model which would go a long way to increasing the efficiency of our judicial system.

The second issue is the manner in which judges are chosen. As we have heard today from members of other parties and my own, we take issue with the manner in which judges are chosen. It is not as equitable as it could be. There are other ways of doing it.

They elect judges in parts of the United States and that system works very well. U.S. judges are not chosen in the same manner as ours. Elections give people a say in selecting the judges they would face in a court of law. The election of judges is efficient at a certain level, provides for public scrutiny and allows people to compete and be evaluated for the position who would not otherwise be able to. Furthermore, candidates are judged upon their record. They are also prevented from running in the manner in which we run as members of parliament.

Lastly, I am happy to see the government's organized crime bill move toward adopting RICO style amendments. In our country, organized crime costs taxpayers about $17 billion a year according to 1996 statistics. The number doubles when we take into consideration people who are killed or injured and the psychological damage inflicted upon their families.

I encourage the government to look at amendments similar to the RICO act south of the border. RICO has enabled the U.S. to put a dent in organized crime. The tools of our judicial system for dealing with organized crime have to date been paltry. The problem is massive. There are some 18 organized crime groups within our country today. Seventy per cent of the money they generate comes from illicit drugs. That is a scourge for all of us in our communities.

The summit of the Americas will take place April 20 to 22. As host, we have an enormous opportunity to bring forth a comprehensive plan to deal with the illicit drug trade. For the first time there is agreement in South America. I met with the secretary of state and president of Colombia a month and a half ago. During my visit a great commitment was given on the part of that country, which has been racked by the drug trade, to put the issue on the table. Let us talk about a pragmatic approach to the illicit drug trade. I hope it will be put on the table and that the 34 nations attending will address it in a pragmatic way.

Here are a few solutions that can be employed. First, remove tariff and non-tariff barriers and double taxation systems for countries and expand the free trade movement.

Developing countries that are producers of illicit drugs, like Colombia, Peru and parts of Brazil, do not need aid, they need trade. If we are to help the poorest of the poor within those countries we must remove the trade barriers that impede them from being economically self-sustaining.

Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations, stated very clearly that people in developing countries need trade barriers removed and that the western developed countries are impeding their removal. It would be far less expensive, more efficient and fairer if we removed barriers to trade.

Second, Canada and other countries of the hemisphere need to employ RICO-like anti-racketeering amendments to attack the organized crime gangs involved in the production and sale of drugs.

If we are to attack organized crime gangs we must chase the money. The people in the Hell's Angels do not wear leather. They wear Armani suits. They hide behind the law and use it to their advantage when they are being chased.

We need to make the law work for law-abiding citizens. We need to make the law work for police officers. We need to make the law work against organized crime instead of allowing crime gangs to hide behind it. That is why enacting RICO-like amendments, going after the money and business interests of crime gangs and cutting the economic legs from under them are the most efficient ways to deal with them. I encourage the government to put this on the table at the summit of the Americas.

Lastly, we need not only tougher penalties for drug traffickers but a new approach toward treatment. What we know today about drugs and neuroscience shows very clearly that drug addicts have a medical problem. I believe we need to approach addicts in a medical fashion.

There are some very good programs. Some European models have 60% one-year success rates for hardcore narcotics abusers. That is extraordinary. Why do those programs work? They work because they focus not only on detox and counselling but on medical treatment and skills and job training so that addicts can stay away from the drug environment. Getting addicts away from the drug environment is critical because re-entering that environment sets off a neural cascade within their brains that prompts them to renew the drug habit. The European model is an effective one. I can only impress upon the government to adopt it because there is an alignment of the stars.

The Latin American countries believe we should put more emphasis on consumption than on production because dealing with the issue at its source, as we have done historically, has not worked. The Americans for the first time have said very clearly that we need more emphasis on consumption. Senator McCain agreed when he was in Colombia.

In conclusion, the plan is there. The government has an opportunity to take it to the summit of Americas so that our country and our hemisphere can be a safer place to live.

[Alcoholic Beverage Labelling, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this very important motion, Motion No. 155. I compliment the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the member from Mississauga for bringing the issue up.

Fetal alcohol syndrome is one of the reasons children incur brain damage in utero. It is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in Canada. It is extraordinary. In some communities the rates are very high and exceed 12 children per 1,000. The cost is about $350,000 per child up to the age of 18, not to mention the massive human cost to the individuals and families involved.

I draw attention to the fact that it is not only alcohol that causes children to be born with brain damage. Other substances, such as glue, gasoline and illegal drugs, can poison the brain of a growing fetus and the damage in many cases is irreversible. We must therefore look at the issue in a much larger context.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary that the evidence is out on whether labels are a solution. However, I strongly urge the government to look at the issue in a larger context to see how we can more effectively prevent substance abuse and the incidence of FAS and FAE. As I said before, the damage is due not only to alcohol but to glue, gasoline and illegal drugs.

In my clinical experience, every pregnant patient I have ever met who consumed these injurious substances knew full well that they would damage the baby. Every one of them knew this. Fifteen year old girls accompanied by their caregivers have told me they did not care what happened to their baby. They said that they would keep the baby if it was cute and give it up if it was not. When asked if they cared whether the child had been damaged by the chemicals they said that they did not.

This is less a question of knowledge than of other issues. Much of the alcohol consumed by pregnant women who will deliver FAS and FAE children is produced at home. They throw potato peels, yeast and a few other things into a big vat, let it ferment and the result is beer of sorts. That is what is consumed, not the brand names bought in the liquor store.

What can we do to address substance abuse problems and reduce the incidence of FAS and FAE? New medical technology shows clearly that substances in the neuropathways of the brain travel around in a circle. We must therefore deal with the neuropathway of the addict's brain.

People must be taken out of the drug environment. New medical tools work very well along with the usual detox and counselling. Some European models, particularly Switzerland and the Netherlands, have a 60% cure rate after one year for substance abusers, particularly hardcore narcotic abusers. That is absolutely extraordinary.

I know from personal experience that many of the things we do today make people go around in a circle. They do not address the problems in a substantive way. I therefore encourage the government to work with its provincial counterparts and to look at some of the European models with high success rates. An effective approach involves not only detox, counselling and medical therapies but also skills training, jobs and a secure environment away from the drug environment these people are in.

Let us talk about prevention. We can look at the head start program. We passed the program in 1998. It works. It is not only cost effective but has brought about a dramatic reduction in substance abuse. It will reduce fetal alcohol syndrome. There will be less chance that the baby the woman carries will be marred by FAS, FAE or other brain damage.

I have put forth a bill that would enable the courts to put a woman in a treatment facility against her wishes if she is consuming substances that are injurious to her fetus. It is not an abortion bill, and would apply only to cases where the woman has chosen to take her pregnancy to term. If the woman has repeatedly refused all treatment and is of sound mind she can be put into a treatment facility against her wishes.

The parallel to this is what is done for psychiatric patients who are a danger to themselves or to others. It is not a punitive action against women. It is merely a last ditch effort to try to help prevent those fetuses from suffering the problems of FAS and FAE. When I put the bill forward, and I have put it forward three times in the last three parliaments, people who said they supported it were individuals who work with children with FAS and FAE and their families.

The NDP member made an articulate description of the social issues surrounding these problems. She could not be more correct. In many aboriginal communities with extraordinarily high rates of FAS and FAE, we must determine how we can enable them to have the best social program of all, which is a job.

Unfortunately our country has chosen to compartmentalize aboriginal people. We have chosen to treat them differently. We deal with them differently through an Indian Act which creates a form of apartheid. It has been highly disruptive to these communities. It has eroded them from within and it has prevented them from being able to be masters of their own destiny, as well as capitalizing on the economic opportunity that should be available to them.

High rates of unemployment and poverty have contributed to the high levels of FAS and FAE. Matthew Coon Come, grand chief of the first nations, has made some very articulate statements that should be supported for aboriginal communities to get their own house in order and for aboriginal leadership to do so as well. That would be a welcome change in many communities and one that we would support as well.

We must deal with the issue of substance abuse in a much broader range. We need to deal with prevention through the head start program. We need to deal with new treatments that we have today such as the European model that works with detox, counselling, medical therapy, skills training and getting people out of their drug environment for an extended period of time.

The latter is very important because we know that if addicts go back into the drug environment a chemical cascade takes place within their brains. They become excited and are prompted to resume the substance abuse consumption they were doing before. We also need to look carefully at private member's bills that have been put forth on the issue.

There is also the case of Miss M in the home province of the member from the NDP. She was a young woman who as a result of glue sniffing had two children with brain damage. She was put in a treatment facility against her wishes. A court challenge took place and after a period of time she was released. However she was off her drugs and she got her life back in order. She delivered a baby that was the first baby she had that was not brain damaged.

When she was asked whether or not the short period of time in a treatment facility, albeit against her wishes, had an impact, she said that it did. She said that it was probably the most important thing that had happened to prevent her from having another child that would be irreversibly brain damaged.

I can only prompt the House to look at it from the context of our judicial system too because we know that almost 50% of the people in our jails have some form of FAS and FAE. They have severe problems with cognitive skills. They have severe problems trying to acquire the skills necessary to be an integrated member of society. As a result many of them get into the unfortunate cycle of crime, punishment and incarceration.

These are the challenges of today that have not been dealt with in a very pragmatic way. However, these are the opportunities that the ministers of justice and health can use their skills toward by working with their provincial counterparts.

It would require a national approach involving the provinces, the Government of Canada and other communities to deal with this scourge. I am very happy and I compliment the member from the NDP and members from all sides who have brought to the attention of the House the problems of FAS and FAE as well as some of the issues and challenges that we must address to solve this important problem.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we do not have that kind of tax structure. The bill does not have that kind of provision. The member raises the very interesting example of an American philanthropist who has decided to donate a substantial amount of money to our country.

We are missing an enormous source of innovation, energy and money that could be applied to some of the neediest people in our country. Many individuals who have made large sums of money in business would like to do that. They are very successful and intelligent people who could use the skills they applied in business to provide such a public service through their foundations. The government does not need to do anything about that. It just needs to give them the chance to do it.

I am almost finished drafting a private member's bill that deals with the issue. When I introduce it, I look forward to support from all members of the House.