Keith Martin

[Employment Insurance Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-44. I hope to dispel some of the myths around the issue.

For a long time the EI system has been in disarray. Rather than helping or improving the situation of those who are unemployed, it has actually retarded their ability to get a job. That might seem on first blush to be counterintuitive but we will go through it and describe how the government's support of the current EI system has prevented Canadians from gaining long term employment.

The government had an enormous opportunity with Bill C-44 to truly reform the EI system to help those who cannot find a job and to help with income support during periods when people are unemployed through no fault of their own. Unfortunately it is actually damaging their ability to gain long term employment.

The bill increases the minimum amount which a person can earn before receiving a clawback of the EI money from $39,000 to over $48,000. Prior to earning $48,000 a person can receive EI payments and there would be no clawback whatsoever. A clawback would be a maximum of 30% of moneys over that.

Why would someone making $60,000 or $70,000 a year be receiving EI payments from the government? There are enough poor people in Canada today. In fact over four million people in Canada are labelled as having some degree of poverty. Why is it that with the limited amount of money we have, people who make a fairly high amount of money have access to EI?

We would like to make EI a true insurance. The limited amount of moneys should actually go not only to help people who are unemployed through no fault of their own but also to give them the skills and training they need to be employed for a long period of time. That is what should be done rather than catering to the lowest common denominator of people who go through the cycle of working a minimum number of hours and then receiving EI payments.

It is a form of institutionalized welfare that we are pandering to with the current system. We should not allow that to happen. It is not fair for the employers who pay into the EI fund. It is not fair for the unemployed people who need the money.

Interestingly enough the high level of premiums that the government supports and which employers have to pay is retarding the individual's ability to work. The artificially high premiums which provide over $10 billion a year for the government purse are actually a tax. It is money that has been taken away from the private sector and put into the government's hands to redistribute as it sees fit.

In effect those moneys are pulled away. That money is taken out of the private sector from employers who could have used it for skills training, to enhance their business, to become more competitive and to have lower taxes so that they could expand their business and hire more people.

The high EI premiums are a tax on the private sector. They have impeded the ability of the private sector to employ people, which has caused an artificially high level of unemployment and unfortunately has contributed to our lack of competitiveness.

As my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands mentioned, we have asked to put the EI system on true insurance principles. Let us bring down substantially the payments the private sector makes so that companies have more money in their pockets to hire people. People would not be taken off the rolls serially. People would not be working as seasonal workers and would not work only 910 hours a year or 470 hours a year depending on who they are.

We do not have to cater to the lowest common denominator. We provided an excellent solution. By reducing the amount of money companies would say thank you because they could hire a number of people, put them back to work and those people would not be on the EI rolls.

It is not rocket science but it needs to be done. It is common sense. It should have been done a long time ago because, yes, it is hurting employers, but it is also hurting the employees that we profess to wish to help. The government should listen to what we are saying on this side. It would go a long way to improving the EI system.

Looking at this issue in the larger context, it goes back to the mid-1960s and the government's war on poverty. The idea was to engage in a process of handouts and a process of what it called economic redistribution. Is that really the best way to go about it?

We on this side strongly support efforts to help those who cannot help themselves. We certainly want to give people a handout while they are in need. What most people want is a hand up, not a handout. Most people on the welfare and EI rolls want to go back to work. Why not invest some of that money in skills training? Why not give people the skills so they are not seasonal workers for chunks of their lives? I am sure they would want to work most of the year, not part of it. By doing that we would have a vigorous and competitive economy.

Unfortunately the bill is indicative of the over-arching Liberal philosophy that has poisoned the economy of our country for decades. It is an example of a move toward mediocrity. It is a move toward catering to a lower common denominator. It does not empower the individual. It empowers the government to take money from companies to redistribute as it sees fit. Why? A cynic may think that it was to buy votes. Historically that is what has happened. The government is taking money out of the pockets of individuals and doling it out in other parts of the country.

We have seen reports just in the last 24 hours where moneys have gone into the maritimes at the rate of 10 times what they were one year ago. People in the maritimes see through this. They are saying “Do not take us for fools. We know what you are doing. You are trying to buy us off”. The people in the maritimes do not want this. They want the maritimes to be a competitive, vigorous centre, an economic tiger.

They are looking at models such as Ireland. They wish the government would show the leadership that the Irish government has demonstrated to its people. Ireland was an economic backwater for many years and the people of that country finally said they would not take it any more. What did the Irish government do? It lowered taxes. It relaxed its labour laws. It invested in education. It removed the egregious rules and regulations that were choking the private sector. Ireland is now receiving 50% of all investment that goes into the European Union. It is an economic tiger.

People in the maritimes like that vision. They are looking at leadership from the Canadian Alliance to see how they can do it. They know they are not getting leadership from the government. The government doles out money, but the people in the maritimes do not want handouts. They want an environment in which they can thrive.

The proof is in the pudding. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Labour Congress do not approve of the bill. They are against it. The Canadian Labour Congress is against the bill because it crushes people's ability to work.

We want people to work. We want to take care of those people who cannot take care of themselves and who are unemployed through no fault of their own. It is that balance that we are championing. It is that balance that the government would be wise to listen to.

The proof of the pudding will be in the next election. We are confident our side will win.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his eloquent and pointed comments on this bill. For many years we have been trying to reform the EI system which has been a cash cow system for the government and in effect a tax on the people.

My hon. colleague has fought for many years to improve the situation for many of his people, particularly those who are most impoverished. What does he suggest be done to make the EI system more effective to enable those people who cannot help themselves to get back into the workforce for a longer period of time?

[Health, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health likes to talk about supporting Canadians' access to timely, high quality health care. Let us talk about what is really going on in the trenches.

In Prince George the waiting time to see an orthopedic surgeon is three years. In Victoria the waiting time this year has doubled. Why? No beds, no money, no nurses. The result is that people are going down to the United States to get essential health care. The government's response is to bring back the funding to the 1993 level. In the words of Dr. Ralph Lapp, an orthopedic surgeon in Victoria, “Things are getting worse at a time when people are thinking that they are getting better”.

The Minister of Health said that the status quo is not an option, that medicare will soon be unable to provide Canadians with timely access to health care until major reforms are taken. The Minister of Health said that one year ago. Where are those reforms?

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elk Island and the House for allowing me to speak on an issue that is very close to all our hearts.

Bill C-45 is five years too late. Everybody in the House knows and understands the problems we have, not only in our health care system but in our education system and in the welfare programs that we have today.

We have a situation today in health care where there is an increasing disparity between the resources that we have to pay for and what we ask for. As time passes, as we get older, as our demographics change and as the demands on our health care system increase, that gap between what we have to pay for and what we demand of our health care system will increase and widen. The result will be extraordinary pain and suffering for Canadians from coast to coast.

While we support the addition of $5.5 billion into the system, as my colleague from Elk Island so eloquently stated, this is but a drop in the bucket. This will do nothing and it is little more than an election ploy.

Sadly, the bill should have been put forth five years ago because it will only get us back to 1995 levels. The public may not know or understand this, but when the funding actually comes in it will only get into the sharp edge of health care one and a half years from now. What will happen to all the patients who sit and suffer in quiet pain and suffering at home? People are suffering and waiting for timely access to health care, the timely access that the Minister of Health likes to stand up and crow about. He says that all Canadians must have timely access to essential health care services and that the government is doing that. That is bunk. That is absolutely untrue.

Let us talk about the truth. Let us talk about what is going on in health care in Canada today. For more than five years the government has removed funding for health care on the one hand, while on the other hand, it has restricted the provinces from giving their patients, the sick people in their provinces, the chance to get the care they require. The provinces have been hamstrung. Their hands have been tied behind their backs and they have been unable to be innovative because of the federal government.

It is disingenuous of the government to say on the one hand that it will uphold a system. We all want to ensure timely access to essential health care services in a public system for all Canadians. Canadians should not have to pay out of their own pockets for health care or be refused health care as a result of having no money in their pockets. No one in the House wants that, least of all us, but for heaven's sake we should not use politics and try to stand up and be the great white knight defending people's health care when in reality we are actually restricting the ability of people to get health care when they need it.

All of us here have a common interest in ensuring that our public health care system is strengthened. However, since the Liberal government came to power it has been restricting the provinces' ability to do this.

A lot of the words in the bill are good. The bill talks about collaboration, about commitment and about the desire to have a publicly funded, sustainable health care system where people have timely access to health care services. However, they have been talking about that for seven years. The reality can best be illustrated by the story of Mrs. Marilyn Slater, who lives on Vancouver Island. She is a 64 year old who recently had her hip replaced.

Mrs. Slater was paralyzed with pain because of her hip and desperately needed an operation. About two years ago she went to see her physician. He told her that she would get a hip replacement within two years. She waited in pain for two years to get her hip replaced. This was the health care system that was supposed to give her timely access to essential health care services. Was it timely? No. Was it essential? Yes. Did she suffer? Yes. Is this what the Canada Health Act or the government is supposed to uphold? No.

It is completely unfair to allow people like Marilyn Slater and so many others across this country to suffer.

In the hospital where I sometimes work, a situation has occurred over the last year. People are on waiting lists for a little over two years before they can get in to see an orthopedic surgeon. Because of a lack of money, the hospital told the orthopedic surgeons, knowing they were working only one day a week in the operating room, that, although the hospital was sorry, it would have to cut the operating room time to a half day a week. This pushed the waiting lists for a patient to be seen in this community, which serves half of British Columbia, to three and a half years. A three and a half year wait to see an orthopedic surgeon for patients in severe pain has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with being inhumane. It is torture.

There are ways of dealing with this, but for heaven's sake, putting forward a bill that will put money into the sharp edge of health care, some of it a year and a half from now, and ultimately put us back to where we should have been five years ago, is not good health care.

When the bill goes through and the money goes to the health care system, we will still have people suffering, like Marilyn Slater and the people in northern British Columbia. This is happening all over the country. Barrie and Peterborough hospitals routinely close down their emergency departments because the hallways are filled with people on gurneys and they cannot fit any more in. Why are those people there? They are there because they cannot get a bed in a hospital. The hospitals are saying that they do not have enough money to pay for nurses and open up beds. That is not good health care and it is happening across the country.

If anybody says that we have timely access to health care, I would like to know where, because it does not happen too often. It happens to people who are acutely injured, to be sure. It is only because of the bravery and courage of our medical health care workers in the field that they are able to do this.

We need solutions. We have a manpower crisis. The government gives vague concepts of how to relieve this but where are the specifics? The specifics need to be talked about now because in the next 10 years we will have a lack of 112,000 nurses in Canada. The average age of the physician population right now is about 45 to 46. There is a crisis today in virtually every medical specialty, whether it is in neuropathology, neurosurgery or general surgery. The list goes on. We need an effective plan.

I want to propose one plan to the government, speaking personally. The government should work with the provinces to allow an expansion of the number of people not only in medical schools but in nursing colleges and technology schools. Let us not forget the medical technologists who are an integral part of our health care team. Many of them are working one and a half jobs just to fill in for the lack of personnel.

One option may be for the government to pay 10% to 15% toward a student's tuition fees and in return the student would serve an equal number of years in an underserviced area. That would relieve the maldistribution problem that we have. We know that if a medical worker goes into an urban setting during a period of time it is very difficult to attract them to an underserviced area; in fact it rarely happens. What we have to do is catch them when they get out of school.

Speaking personally, this plan would allow people to have their tuition fees paid for the amount of time they are in school. In return they would provide an equal number of years in a rural, underserviced area. That is what is done in military training. It can be done in health care. If that is done it will provide some access to people who are desperately in need of care in rural settings.

Another aspect I want to talk about is education. The situation now is that post-secondary education has been completely gutted for a number of years. Students are having a very difficult time making ends meet and have had an onerous burden placed upon them.

Certainly it is true they have to pay for their tuition, but what is happening now is very interesting and actually violates a sense of egalitarianism the government likes to profess to have. Money has become a significant factor in preventing people from gaining access to professional schools. In the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto it costs about $10,000 a year to become a doctor. I could not have become a physician if those had been the fees when I was going through.

That is a major restriction now to people of low to middle class means. They cannot afford to send their children to professional faculties any more. Now those faculties are becoming the purview of the children of the rich. That is not right. No one in the House would like to see that happen.

As our party and our former leader have in the past, let us talk about an income contingent loan replacement scheme. Our scheme would enable students to put back the money they have taken out in loans. Those moneys would be put back in a way that is fair to them and fair to taxpayers. We have encouraged and have tried to put the government on notice in this regard for a number of years. We have indicated that these students have suffered. Some of them had to end their studies because they could not afford them. The plan our party has put forth would enable them to study and it would be fair to taxpayers.

On the issue of children, my colleague from Elk Island spoke very eloquently about the need for strengthening the parent-child bond. We cannot have an inequitable tax regime such as we have today, which does not enable parents to spend more quality time with their children. This has to change.

For years we have been asking the government to ensure that there is tax fairness between parents who choose to go to work and parents who stay home. It is not difficult. It could be changed simply. Let us change it. We need to do that. The tax system of today also restricts the ability of many parents to stay at home. As a result parents are forced into the workplace.

We also need to consider, if we are to engage in a childhood development scheme, something that will work well. The Minister of Labour has been a leader, as has the minister responsible for children, on how we can ensure the basic needs of kids are met. As the Minister of Labour knows through her program in Moncton, strengthening the parent-child bond very early on will have an enormous, profound, positive effect on the development of a child into adolescence and into adulthood.

In fact someone won the Nobel prize for showing that the developing brain in a child is like a sponge. If we subject a child to sexual abuse, violence, improper nutrition, a lack of proper parenting or a lack of discipline, we find the child's brain does not develop properly and his or her cognitive abilities and emotional strength built early in life do not necessarily happen. We need to look at the body of evidence that actually works and to work with parents to ensure that takes place. It has to start early on.

BC Reports contained a very good front page article, in the last two weeks, on the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome, the leading cause of preventable brain damage in the country today. Almost half of all people in jail today have fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. It is an entirely preventable problem. It is devastating problem for children. Their cognitive abilities are destroyed. Their average IQ is 68. They have difficulty with interpersonal relations. Unfortunately many of them, as we have found, go into lives of crime. It is preventable. In order to prevent it we have to start before, in the prenatal phase. An effective head start program that strengthens the ability of parents to be good parents would work to prevent that.

Let us imagine if we were able to do that not only from a humanitarian basis but from a total cost basis. One of those children costs the system almost a half million dollars a year up to age 18, and it is preventable. Let us imagine the savings if a child does not go to jail, which costs $100,000 a year in a juvenile institution. As someone who has worked in jails for a number of years, it is terrible to see. It is a waste. It is a waste for the taxpayer. It is a waste for the human being. It is a waste for society.

I could only encourage the government to follow along with the lead of my colleague, to work with what it knows is effective to strengthen the parent-child bond and to look at the tax regime. If something is to be implemented, it should not be a national day care centre but a program that strengthens the parent-child bond so that the parents can be better parents to their children. We know that is the most effective way. Also we must ensure that children get proper nutrition and that parents have the means to do that.

On the welfare system, another aspect of CHST, we know there are two populations on welfare: those people who will never be able to take care of themselves, but thankfully we have a system that allows us to do that, and another population that would like to work but for reasons cannot.

One of the biggest complaints we receive from people on welfare is that they do not want a handout. They want a hand up. What really aggravates them is that they want to get some skills, some training, and they need a bit of help to enable them to do that. However what they find is that they are penalized when they try. They are penalized when they say they want to work a bit, to get back into the workforce and to develop the skills that will enable them to provide for their families.

In the way the current welfare system is structured it rewards people for staying at home and not working. It actively penalizes individuals who are trying to get the necessary skills to stand on their own two feet.

I know that is not the objective of anyone in the House, but we have not seen leadership on the part of the government to work with the provinces, because it is a provincially managed program, to reform our welfare system so that we can give people who want to work the tools and the skills to enable them to stand on their own two feet. They would be so grateful for that, that votes, money and accolades would go to whomever does it. That is what we need. We need leadership in these areas and we need reform of the system.

The Minister of Health said on November 27, 1999, and this can be ascribed to education and to welfare, that medicare would soon be unable to provide Canadians with timely access to medical care unless major reforms are undertaken.

I have not seen, and I do not know if anybody else has seen them, those major reforms coming down the pipeline. We certainly see nice words in the bill. There is a commitment to some funds that will put it back to 1995 levels, but we do not see the major structured reforms of leadership that will be required on the part of the government to make those reforms relevant and effective for the 21st century, be it health care, be it welfare, be it education.

There rests on the shoulders of the government an extraordinary opportunity in leadership. Why does it not call the first ministers together again? They should be locked in a room along with the relevant ministers and told that the problem has to be fixed. At the end of the day they all have the same interests. We need to have the interests of the public at heart. They should put away the nonsense, the political drivel, and sit down to fix the problem, given effective solutions that already exist in the country today. They exist. Good solutions from not only our country but from around the world exist.

We could look at the German model for health care. We could take the best from Moncton, Michigan and Hawaii for children. We could look at welfare programs in other parts of the world that give people a handout to give them a hand up.

We could look at manpower solutions that would address a problem that if not dealt with today would result in the deaths of many Canadians tomorrow. It is not something that we could deal with tomorrow, because this problem affects us today. It takes four to twelve years to train the people we need after high school.

I could only beg on the part of myself and my colleagues that the government takes Bill C-45 and implements it but gets back to the drawing board now to help people who are suffering in quiet desperation and enduring years of pain unnecessarily. Let us get together and do that. Let us implement the solution. Let us not wait five years to make any changes. Let us do it this year.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the motion.

[Civilian War-Related Benefits Act, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like a good dose of maritime eloquence to begin the morning. I thank the minister for his eloquent speech. In fact we could pass the bill very quickly, as he and other members of the House would like to do, except for one little clause. Clause 46 needs to be removed from the bill to provide the equitability and fairness I know the minister would like to see.

I thank the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, as the minister has mentioned, who has done an incredible amount of work not only for our party but, more important, for the members and the veterans who are waiting for the bill to pass.

I will get to the aspects of clause 46. I am glad the minister will listen. I know he is a man of fairness. I am sure he will encourage and convince his members to remove this clause. If he does so, our party will support the bill and help him expedite it through the House to relieve the suffering that our veterans have been enduring for far too long.

Our party supports Bill C-41 because it gives civilian groups the same fairness and equitability as it has to other veterans who have laid their lives on the line for our country, for peace and security.

It gives it to groups such as the Canadian Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, the Corps of Canadian Civilian Firefighters, the Ferry Command personnel and the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit because these people provided invaluable service to the war effort. These people, as the minister mentioned, put their lives on the line. Many of them lost their lives while supporting the war effort. Their efforts, while they did not pick up a weapon, were absolutely essential for the men and women who were in Europe and other parts of the world fighting for the peace and security that we enjoy today.

Our armed forces personnel must have access to existing veterans benefits today if they served overseas during World War I, World War II and the Korean war. Merchant navy vets gained full access to these benefits in 1992. Unfortunately the issue of compensation took far too long to come about. We do not want this to happen with the bill.

The groups affected by the bill have historically had limited access to veterans benefits previously given to other veterans, but the bill recognizes that fact and does a very good job of providing them with the benefits they so justly deserve.

I say these groups are worthy recipients because they served alongside other forces personnel and their lives were in no less danger during those perilous times. The efforts of these organization deserve the recognition they have so long been denied.

I will cite a few examples. The overseas air crew of the Ferry Command ferried military aircraft across the Atlantic Ocean. In many ways those brave pilots were trail blazers. Some of them, interestingly enough, were among the first to chart a path across the North Pole.

It was dangerous work, flying over uncharted territory. Many of the pilots lost their lives in the endeavour to provide planes that were absolutely essential for us to carry on the war effort in Europe. During World War II about 340 civilian pilots and air crew were contracted to deliver aircraft to Britain and elsewhere. Today about 100 of these brave souls are still alive.

Coal was vital to Britain's war effort and mining activity. Its use increased so much that Britain did not have enough and wood had to be cut in Scotland. As a result, the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit was created on short notice. It went over there to harvest timber. Of the 3,680 Newfoundlanders who went to Scotland during the war there are roughly 1,000 of these souls alive today who cut the wood that was necessary to build tunnels and for other uses during the war.

During the second world war the Corps of Canadian Civilian Firefighters bravely put out fires during the blitz, which was central to saving the lives of many people.

Members of the Canadian Red Cross and St. John Ambulance worked alongside people who were terribly injured during the war. They were as close to the action as anyone could get. There are approximately 450 members of this group alive today and they need the care they require as they age.

It is a shame that with the passage of time there are so few left and it has taken so long for this legislation to come forward. We as a party are happy and encouraged by the government's effort to move the bill forward.

This should be a lesson for all of us as Canadians to take a more active interest in our military and service people who historically have given us more care and consideration than I think the House has given them. We must pay more careful attention to the long term effects of war that for a long time have been ignored: post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and the effects on the family that are so often hidden.

In fact, historically after World War I and World War II many of these problems were buried but now that medical science and others have taken a more active interest, these problems are coming to light. As these problems come to light, so too is it necessary for the care to be there for people who have been traumatized by horrors that most of us can only imagine.

Not only will civilian groups benefit from the bill but members currently serving in our armed forces will benefit as well. The bill amends the pension act to allow Canadian forces members in the regular force who have acquired service related disabilities to receive pensions while still serving. This brings it in line with the public service and private industry. This is important because this is not a stand-alone issue. It does not affect only the military. In fact the bill brings the military up to today's standards in the public service and private industry.

I want to address our primary criticism which the member for Souris—Moose Mountain raised with the minister. I am sure we can find a way to ensure that this tiny issue will be resolved expeditiously. It involves the RCMP.

While the bill alleviates a past injustice to our armed forces, it creates an injustice to the RCMP. The RCMP pension is tied to the armed forces pension but is funded by the RCMP. Currently RCMP officers are in the same position as Canadian forces personnel in that they cannot receive a disability pension while being employed by the force. I will give an important example very shortly, one of which we are probably all aware. Because clause 46 was added to the bill, by its very wording it removes previous legislation that prevented those in the armed forces from receiving a disability pension while employed, but it prevents the RCMP from getting the same benefits as will be accrued to other members that the bill actually supports, brave officers.

The example I will give now is one which we all remember very well. Constable Laurie White was shot in the leg while trying to serve a search warrant and had to get a portion of her leg amputated. Constable White is back on the force working very hard, bravely so, despite having had part of her leg amputated. She demonstrates the best that we have within our RCMP service personnel and indeed she deserves all of the honours that have accrued to her.

Because this amendment exists, people like Laurie White in the RCMP cannot receive the benefits the bill gives to other individuals even though the RCMP is tied to the essence of the bill. We ask that clause 46 be removed purely in the name of fairness. We cannot ask the RCMP to be involved in the bill and have its entire benefits package tied to those of veterans and the personnel that this involves as the bill does, while on the other hand exempting it from an aspect that would be very important for individuals such as Constable Laurie White.

The bill also makes a provision for peacekeepers which is very important because peacekeepers serve in very dangerous environments. Peacekeeping is a misnomer in that one thinks it has something to do with peace. It has, but the problem is that peacekeeping is really war by another name because peacekeepers confront land mines and snipers. They are often put in between warring factions which are often under no control by their supposed leaders. It is a very dangerous situation.

Unfortunately the government historically has given our armed forces personnel the equipment for a peaceful situation. One other thing I would like the government to know, and I hope the minister of defence pays close attention to this, is that we simply have to arm our soldiers for war in a peacekeeping situation because peacekeeping, as I said, is war by another name.

Our veterans have faced a litany of problems when they have returned from war situations, particularly recently. I and many other members in the House have received many legitimate complaints from brave men and women who have come back from the theatre and have not received the care they require.

I know the minister is very interested in this and that his heart is in the right place. I know he would not like to see these people go without the medical care they so justly deserve. He would want them to receive the required care for such things as gulf war syndrome, other poisonings as yet unidentified, post-traumatic stress disorder and severe major depression.

Fifteen per cent of people who suffer from major depression commit suicide. Imagine the numbers that would involve with respect to our armed forces personnel who go abroad and raise our flag to fight for the noblest of elements of humanity. They fight for peace and security, the things we gratefully enjoy in our country. Let us give them the same care and consideration they have given us.

The government has seen fit to give the members a cost of living allowance. We support this. We have been working hard for a long period of time to right this injustice. We applaud the government for doing it, but there is a problem. While the government has given the members a cost of living allowance and an increase in pay, it is surreptitiously yanking that money away by increasing their rents.

Their rents have increased dramatically in many areas. On the base in Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca the members are so happy and pleased to finally get some recognition and fairness in their pay but there have been massive and dramatic increases in their rents. While money has been given with one hand, the government has taken it out with the other.

I know the government really does not want to do this, at least I would like to think it would not. I challenge the government, as all of my colleagues here do, to please stop yanking money out of one pocket while putting it into the other pocket. Stop giving our military forces money and talking about it as if it has done something and then taking the money away. This has created an incredible negative impact on the morality within our armed forces. They do not deserve that. They have been extremely patient.

The other small section I would like to talk about briefly concerns the civilian population in our military who have done a yeoman's job under very difficult circumstances. Their numbers have been cut dramatically. They did not mind, as they recognized that came down the pike in an effort to save money. Their members have been cut by 50% or more. They have increased their efficiency dramatically and in fact have been given awards for it. On the other hand, alternative service delivery is taking place. They do not mind alternative service delivery but they do want to ensure that they are able to compete on a level playing field with the private sector.

I have one request for the government. Make sure that the people there today are treated as fairly as other competitors. That is what they want. They are confident they will be able to compete well, and as they have done for a long time, do their jobs to support our military. They have done this well but they want to be considered fairly with the private sector that is competing for their jobs.

The government should take a good look at that because they have done an excellent job. They have provided high quality service. They have probably done a better job than many private workers could do. Take a look at that and compare it fairly. I think the government will find that in many cases the civilian workers have done an excellent job and deserve to keep doing their work. Do not let them be lost in the cracks. I would ask the government to make sure that they are listened to and that their concerns are dealt with.

As my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain said, the improvements made in the bill involve: clarifying how private information can be exchanged within the department to expedite benefits, which is a good thing; protecting the public servants from having to testify in courts of civil litigation; compassionate awards to be continued to survivors, which are very important; deleting penal provisions from veterans legislation where the provisions are either unnecessary or substantially duplicated in the criminal code; where two disabled pensioners are married to each other, both receiving the married rate of pension benefits; and allowing for remission of overpayment based upon compassionate grounds if the debt is not collectable. These are fair things.

In conclusion, the groups of people affected by this bill have a very legitimate claim to the benefits provided. We compliment the government for putting this bill forward. The civilians who went alongside the armed forces personnel did yeomen's jobs. Many of them lost their lives in the process. Their survivors and the remaining few deserve the care this bill provides.

The pension act prohibits armed forces personnel from receiving a disability benefit while employed in the forces and this has been removed. But clause 46 has been added to the bill and it prevents the RCMP from being able to acquire the benefits of this part of the bill. This inequity must be addressed before our party can fully support the bill.

If the government removes clause 46 from the bill, we will have a piece of legislation that will correct years of injustice. If the clause remains, the RCMP will be exempt from the very provision and benefits that our armed forces will enjoy and it will therefore be instrumental in creating an injustice.

In the name of fairness, let us include the RCMP in the bill as it ought to be. Let us remove clause 46 and let us pass the bill for our veterans.

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, just to recap what I was saying earlier, we have now entered a period of one of the greatest and largest extinctions of species in history. In fact, the sixth greatest extinction is ongoing right now at a rate that is 1,000 times faster than the normal rate of extinction, so much so that we have about 350 species in Canada, as we speak, that are in danger of becoming extinct. This number is increasing with time.

The primary thrust of extinction is habitat destruction through various sources, primarily agriculture and also industry, the use of pesticides, clear-cutting, forestry practices, human habitation and human activities.

How we actually protect sensitive habitat is the crux of the problem. We have proposed that the government, rather than put forth a weak bill in the form Bill C-33, which I might add is the third attempt to bring in such a bill, needs to start addressing the problem in a pragmatic way. Indeed the private sector would very much like to work with the government, as we would, in trying to develop a plan that would be fair not only to the species at risk but to landowners and other stakeholders.

We can do it by buying in. We need stewardship. Groups can work with the government in order to steward or shepherd sensitive habitats willingly.

If land is to be taken away or use is to be compromised, private interests simply have to be renumerated at free market value for the costs incurred. Those costs need to be given to those who are suffering a loss as a result of their private land use being compromised. We also need to look at existing forestry and agricultural practices and stop them while using other tools to accomplish the same objectives.

Habitat protection is important. Listing is also important. Listing must take place for endangered species on the basis of good science. The government does not do that in this bill. COSEWIC, a group of scientists, are very effective at doing this. It will give the government a list of species in danger of going extinct on the basis of good science. In this bill the government should be obligated to listen to what this group has listed and follow its lead in protecting those species.

We must also enforce the law. Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that we are one of the major conduits in the trafficking of endangered species' products in the entire world. The reason for this is that while we have long borders, we have done an appalling job of protecting those borders, not only for endangered species' products but many others.

The fact that the government has not supported our hardworking men and women on the front lines at our ports means that our country is known as a safe haven for people who are willing to break the law in an effort to traffic in these endangered species' products.

The result internationally has been that many species, from tigers and big cats to birds and indeed plant species, are being felled and are becoming extinct. It is a sad thing when a country like ours, with its wild spaces and which prides itself on being in favour of endangered species' legislation, has been unable to get workable federal legislation and do our part internationally.

I introduced Bill C-475 on April 11, 2000 which dealt with how we can have an effective endangered species bill in a very pragmatic way. My bill would essentially do the following: First, it would obligate the government to protect species that are on COSEWIC's list, i.e. the lists that are there, the species that are endangered are based on science, not politics.

Second, it would obligate the government to work with private stakeholders and the provinces to protect habitat. This is not an option. This has to be an obligation on the part of the government to protect habitat. Failure to do so will ensure that these species will become extinct.

Third, it would obligate the government to work with the provinces to remunerate private landowners at fair market value where a negotiated settlement simply cannot take place, rather than putting all the power in the hands of the minister who will remunerate private landowners on the basis of what he or she wants.

The last thing I want to talk about is a personal experience I had. The best model in the world for protecting species is the province of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. It has saved species such as the white rhino, which went from 24 animals up to several thousand in a matter of 50 to 60 years. The reason it did this is that it used the private sector to husband these species. It convinced them that they would get more money from their land by ecotourism, by hunting excess animals and by other land uses, including harvesting plants in a responsible way that had medicinal uses.

The outcome is that the money drawn from these lands is poured back not only into conservation, but also poured back into the surrounding areas to benefit the people. We need to have the assistance of local people if we are going to protect habitat. The best way to do that is to demonstrate to those people that it will have a direct benefit on their own lives.

If we merely argue on the basis that it is nice to have habitat protected, it will fail, for habitat and animal species, unfortunately, have to pay for themselves if they are going to survive. Where this was done in KwaZulu-Natal, they were able to save many animal and plant species from extinction. They have also managed to benefit the surrounding populous. The outcome has been that animals have been saved from the brink of extinction, an expanded habitat that has been protected, expanded wild spaces and a sustainable use of those areas for other purposes.

The outcome of that is that KwaZulu-Natal is now the international leader in conservation. I can only say to the minister and to the government that our party will be very happy to work with them to this end, but they have to have effective legislation that will protect habitat in the ways that I have mentioned. This is not only a legacy that we have been given, the endangered species in our country, it is also our responsibility to give that to our children and to our grandchildren.

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-33. If there is one thing Canadians hold very close to their hearts it is the concept of endangered species. They feel that this is a legacy not only that they have inherited but one that they need to pass on to their children and their grandchildren.

The government has had at least two opportunities to deal with this pressing issue. Again, unfortunately, in Bill C-33 it has failed. As my colleagues have pointed out throughout the course of this discussion, a number of loopholes in the legislation will not enable us to protect the most vulnerable species within our midst.

It is important for us to understand the scope of the problem. In my province of British Columbia only six per cent of the temperate rain forests is actually protected. In our country today nearly 350 species are in danger of extinction. This situation unfortunately will only get worse.

The reasons are multifactorial but can be best summed up by habitat loss, the use of pesticides, agricultural practices and clear-cut forestry practices. We have seen this perhaps most dramatically on the prairies where large swaths of indigenous lands have been destroyed. The outcome of this has been the destruction and decimation of many species, from the great ox to the passenger pigeon.

We have an opportunity to deal with this matter in a very comprehensive fashion, and I will deal with the solutions one by one. The first and most pressing issue is the protection of a central habitat. My colleagues and I would love to see the government take a more aggressive stance in this regard by balancing off the protection of habitat with the understanding that landowners and property rights have to be protected also.

What is interesting is that property owners, and indeed the private sector, very much would like to see the government come up with a distinctive plan to deal with it. They want rules under which they can function. They also want fair compensation for land that is taken away from them.

The private sector is very committed to wanting sensitive habitats protected, but it also wants to ensure that its land will not be taken away by the government in a willy-nilly fashion. Fair compensation is what my colleagues have called for, for a long time. Perhaps the most reasonable way of doing it is by basing compensation on fair market value.

It is not always necessary, in fact only in a minority of occasions is it necessary, to take away land from the private sector. As we have seen in Saskatchewan, most farmers and other private landowners would like to work with the government in ensuring that their land is protected and that the land can be used reasonably without endangering the endangered species.

[International Organizations, May 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me to close with a few minutes on this motion.

The motion which I put forth last year is one which comes out of my experiences working in Africa during the Mozambique civil war. During that time we saw all manner of horrors that were inflicted on people, primarily civilians.

We know that 90% of the individuals who are hurt, maimed, raped, killed, tortured in today's conflicts are innocent civilians.

After the close of the cold war when the Berlin wall came crashing down, the world thought we would have a peace dividend, but this just unleashed a plethora of conflicts around the world. More than 50 conflicts have sprung up which have put very large demands, both financial and in terms of personnel, on all of us as nations but also on the international organizations.

We knew for a long time that Rwanda was going to blow up. Kosovo was going to blow up. Burundi, Angola, the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia, and the list goes on. We saw these precursors to conflict taking place and the world did nothing to prevent it. The consequence of that has been the death, maiming and torture of hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people around the world.

We have an extraordinary opportunity to do something about that. Canada has had a moral persuasive force for many years and has been seen by some as a country that stands in the middle and is able to bring different groups together with a common purpose. Not many countries can do that.

Motion No. 30 will enable us to deal with the precursors to conflict and reform the international organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the UN by working with our other member states to reform these institutions to prevent conflict.

How can they prevent conflict? By utilizing economic levers that are used to fuel wars. It takes money to run a war. If we can choke off the money supply, we can choke off the war, not always, but sometimes.

If we allow the status quo to remain, as my colleague from the NDP mentioned, there will continue to be people with their limbs chopped off, people with hot stakes poked in their eyes to blind them, people who have been gang raped, children being used to carry landmines who are blown up as a consequence, and children being used as soldiers in conflict. This cannot be allowed to continue.

If we do not debate this on humanitarian grounds, then at least as a cogent financial argument we can argue on self interest as nations of the world. When a conflict blows up half a world away, it will come back to haunt us in terms of putting our soldiers in harm's way, and putting demands on our defence, foreign aid and foreign affairs budgets.

These demands are actually crushing international organizations, particularly the World Bank whose post-conflict reconstruction costs have increased 800% in the last 12 years. The IMF continues to fund countries that siphon off the funds to buy arms to slaughter innocent civilians.

If we accept the status quo then we are part and parcel of the slaughter that takes place as we speak. Innocent civilians are being tortured in the most heinous ways or are being killed without mercy. We as a nation can do something about that.

I am encouraged by the support this motion has had across party lines. I am confident that as members of different political parties, we can come together to support the motion. It will give the government and members across party lines the ability to work together to act in a leadership role in utilizing the IMF, the World Bank and the UN as levers for the prevention of deadly conflict. At the end of the day it is something we will all be proud of and which we can proudly take to our constituents. More important, we will be doing much to save some of the most innocent people in the world from terrible fates.

[International Organizations, May 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent of the House to make some closing remarks at the end of the debate on my private members' motion. I hope the House sees fit to do that. No other motions or additions will be presented at that time.