Keith Martin

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has spent a great deal of time as the former transport critic articulating solutions to deal with the important issue of improving our infrastructure. He was absolutely correct in articulating the problems that we have in our infrastructure.

What exactly is that? It is a sign of the ultimate decrepitness and decay taking place amongst things that the government ought to be interested in. The government ought to be interested in working with the provinces to ensure that we have a strong, safe highway system. The government should also be interested in having a competent railway system. It should also be interested in ensuring that we have competent social programs. All of these are things that the government should be interested in and should be determining ways in which it can most effectively spend the money available today.

My colleague mentioned that our highway system is falling apart. It is falling apart because the government is unwise with where it spends taxpayers' money. This is the central problem. The government tends to go on about spending money. It thinks the solution to a problem is defined by the amount of money it puts toward a problem and the more zeros behind that one, the more effective it must be in solving the problem. Wrong. That is not what it is.

We need a plan and we need to determine how to spend the money and how to spend it wisely. We must use existing experiences and the best ideas we have to build the best plan possible. If we do that we will have effective infrastructure. And some day my colleague, I hope, will be the Minister of Transport and he can enact his solutions.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-5, the Canadian tourism commission act, but I would be telling an untruth if I did.

Given the grand scheme of the problems in the nation today such as child poverty which my colleagues from the NDP have been mentioning, homelessness that has come to the forefront today, high tax rates, the problems of our businesses, the fact that families are trying to make ends meet but cannot, and the collapse of our health care system, what is the government dealing with? What is on the agenda? It is an act to deal with the Canadian tourism commission.

What else was on the agenda today? It was an act dealing with the Canadian institutes for health research, an important issue in the aspect of medicine, but it pales in comparison when we consider how we could try to improve our health care system so that people can obtain the health care they need. Rather than dealing with the substantive problems in our nation today we are dealing wuth fluff.

Before I get to the substance of Bill C-5, I want to put into perspective what we should be dealing with rather than what we are dealing with today. I want to read a small vignette which I got from a colleague of mine, an emergency room physician, very recently. It shows what the House should be dealing with and what the government should be dealing with rather than what we are dealing with today.

He went to work yesterday at 7 o'clock in the morning to find the overnight guy looking shattered. He had been on his own from 5 o'clock until seven o'clock in the morning, and 21 admitted patients were in the department. There were no beds in the city.

The emergency medical services were on divert to other equally overcrowded emergency rooms. The very good and kind charge nurse, who desperately tried to keep her head above water and not let anybody die in the waiting room because there was no bed in the department, expressed her disgust at production line medicine. She said there was little time for compassion. The trauma room was full. The cardiac area was full. My friend was worrying about the complaint letter that was sure to follow.

He remembered a good friend in a rare moment of insight saying that we should never let the system take the compassion out of us. The sick deserve better. That is exactly what is happening today. We should do something before it becomes irreversible like is already happening to many of his colleagues who are retired, burnt out, angry and frustrated.

Australia wanted him. It made that clear and did everything it could to get him. He said that it was nice to be wanted, even if meant leaving his home. At least it meant that he would spend more time with his wife and family whom he loves dearly. They also deserve better.

That is a poignant, heart wrenching letter from an emergency room colleague of mine who is leaving for Australia because he cannot provide the care that Canadians deserve in the health care system.

Rather than dealing with the important issue that Canadians are suffering, we are dealing with Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian tourism commission. I would only hope that one day the government would wake up and decide to deal with something substantive, something life threatening, so that people like this gentleman and his wife, who is also a doctor, do not have to leave to go to a far away land because they cannot provide the care for patients that Canadians well deserve.

Our observations indicate that Bill C-5 moves in the right direction. It moves toward having a more private involvement in the way in which tourism is sold and, as my colleague from the NDP mentioned very eloquently, how we can sell Canada abroad.

We will oppose the bill because it will make the commission a crown corporation. We do not believe that crown corporations can do a good job. We believe that the facility selling Canada should be a private arm's length organization which can do a better job and be more nimble, rather than have the long arm of the government meddling in the affairs of the commission.

The particular commission will have a 26 member decision making board, predominantly comprised of private sector companies that direct an interest in establishing Canada as a preferred tourism destination. Essentially it is paid for half by public and half by private funds. We think that is moving in the right direction but it is not going far enough.

That is why we will oppose it. We can only hope that the government sees the wisdom in what the Reform Party is saying and that we move toward privatizing this institution.

If we want to really sell Canada let us look at some ways in which we could do that. Let us look at using our embassies as a tool for selling Canada much more than what they do today. There is a great capacity in our embassies all over the world. We could use the fine people who work there as great ambassadors in terms of selling Canada as a tourist destination.

We could also be more aggressive in how we develop private partnerships such as with Canadian Airlines or Air Canada so they too could be our representatives abroad in selling Canada. More people would be able to choose Canada as a destination in which to spend their foreign dollars.

The chamber of commerce could also be used. It has spoken eloquently on how we can improve our economy. It is an effective body with great ideas. It can be a tremendous help to various organizations around the country. It could tie them together to be an aggressive, proactive force for tourism within Canada.

Those are things the government could do rather than tinkering around the edges. It is taking little baby steps in moving the commission to a crown corporation.

The government has not been very friendly to tourism. There are things it should be doing but which it is not doing. In my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the government's actions last year were devastating. For a purely political decision that ultimately would have saved some fish, the government made decisions on banning sports fishing that cost $20 million and up to 200 jobs in my area. The ban was not done in the interests of saving the fish. It was done on purely political grounds. It had devastating effects in my riding and in all of south Vancouver Island.

If the minister were truly interested in building a strong sports fishing industry and a strong commercial fishing industry, then the government would have taken a multifactorial approach in dealing with overfishing and habitat control and renewal. It would have determined ways in which we could have a sustainable fishery by dividing up the pie responsibly and determining how large the pie should be, rather than being very narrow minded and taking a short term solution that eventually cost sports fishing people in my area a lot of money and jobs. People are falling so far behind the eight ball that they are not sure they will get back on their feet in the future.

This has had a devastating effect on tourism in south Vancouver Island. If the government were truly interested in doing the right thing, it would look at how those decisions affect people in the tourism industry. It would reverse them where they are compatible with having a sustainable fishery that is congruent with a strong environmental concern, as in this case.

The government could also do some constructive things to build our economy. The reason people come to this country for tourism is largely because of our low dollar. That is nothing to be proud of. The low dollar is a double-edged sword. People come to Canada to spend their money because our dollar is low. On the other hand the low dollar has a devastating effect on our exporters and companies that rely on importing goods from abroad and which have to pay in a foreign currency. Furthermore it affects Canadians when they buy products that are from abroad.

There are various things the government can and should do in order to strengthen our economy. We have a strong tourism potential but we must also ensure that we have high paying jobs that are sustainable in the future.

Many ideas come from the Business Council on National Issues. It has put forward some very constructive ideas on how to improve our economy.

One deals with the level of public debt. The federal debt is about $570 billion. When that is combined with the provincial debt and other debts of crown corporations such as would be created with Bill C-5, the debt level approaches $1 trillion which every man, woman and child in the country has to pay back.

We are also losing a lot of skilled workers. This is not a figment of our imagination as the Prime Minister alluded to in one of his speeches. We only need to look at some of our educational institutions. The University of Waterloo is the backbone of our high tech industry with engineering, mathematics and computer science graduates. Almost 100% of the people graduating from co-op programs at Waterloo left the country. This is the backbone of our country's future ability to be internationally competitive. We are losing our best and brightest people as a direct result of the poor economic performance and poor tax structure in this country.

For years Reform has been articulating strong, constructive solutions to deal with the tax situation. Our finance critic and other of my colleagues have put forth constructive solutions. We have given the government a step by step plan on how to reduce taxes pragmatically and effectively. It would strengthen our social programs rather than compromise them. It would not compromise the poor. It would create jobs, not remove them. It would be a net benefit to Canadians.

We have given the government that plan yet a lot of games are being played. There has been a lot of obfuscation and inaction. That is not what Canadians want. Canadians want action now. We need only ask any of the small business people who are trying to make ends meet, and those who are making ends meet are just making it.

There are some solutions in order to decrease taxes. We could increase the basic spousal allowance amount. Reform has put this forward many times. By increasing it, we would get the poorest of the poor completely off the list. Reform's tax solutions would take 200,000 of the poorest of the poor off the tax lists.

That would dramatically improve the situation for the homeless and the poor. It would give them money to improve their standard of living. It would also increase the money in the public coffers. We know that by reducing taxes somewhat people will spend more money and more money will go into the public coffers. There would be more investment in Canada from abroad. That would stimulate the economy. The more money that goes into the public coffers, the more money there will be for the homeless, health care and to strengthen our social programs.

High taxes are the enemy of the poor. High taxes are the enemy of our social programs. To be fiscally irresponsible is also to be socially irresponsible. Overspending kills jobs and social programs and hurts the poor.

We could complete the elimination of the 3% general surtax that began in the 1988 budget. That would stimulate companies particularly those in the tourism industry. It would enable them to be more effective sellers of Canada and Canadian goods.

We could decrease the EI premiums. Again, Reform spoke at length about decreasing the EI premiums. It is a tax. It is a tax on business and a tax on the people. It prevents businesses from being competitive and it takes away their ability to provide jobs.

We also dealt with decreasing the tax bracket. Increasing the 26% tax bracket threshold by $2,000 would eliminate or prevent bracket creep at the lowest level. We could increase the 29% tax bracket threshold by $4,000 which would reverse the bracket creep. We could further reduce the rate from 26% to 21%.

A lot could be done to decrease the taxes. By decreasing taxes our companies would be competitive nationally and internationally.

As I mentioned before, it would reverse that trend of people who are leaving. My colleague is leaving Canada because he cannot provide the medical and health care for his patients because the resources are not there. Nurses are following suit. It is very interesting to note that in the next 11 years we will have a deficit of 112,000 nurses.

Who is going to take care of us when we get old? Who will treat us in the hospitals? There will not be enough people. If we think it is bad now, wait until the future. Our population will be older. Baby boomers will be retiring. Technology will be more expensive. There will be fewer workers and less money in the public purse. That money is essential in order to deal with the challenges ahead in our health care system.

We also have to deal with global and domestic risks. The issues of Quebec separatism and treaty rights negotiations are causing incredible uncertainty within our country. The Prime Minister has opened a Pandora's box on separation. If the Prime Minister truly wants to deal with the issue of secession, he needs to afford all Canadians, including the people of Quebec, a plan on federalism.

We need to get the resources to the people more effectively and ensure that the provinces do what the provinces do best and that the feds do what the feds do best. He needs to delineate the responsibilities of both more clearly in order to reduce the overlap and make sure there is a more efficient and wise use of our dollars. It is not enough to merely throw money at a problem. There has to be accountability and an effective plan of action. One has to check up to make sure the plan is effective.

There is the issue of treaty negotiations in my province. The government and the House are dealing with the issue of the Nisga'a treaty. The Nisga'a treaty is the template for 50 other treaties which will be looked at in B.C. and in combination with the Delgamuukw decision will ensure that treaties signed in other parts of the country east of the Rockies are opened up. That is going to cause tremendous uncertainty. It is going to cost Canadians money and jobs. It is going to cost dollars. It is going to reduce our tax revenues. It is going to make it less effective for companies to sell our country abroad, to say “Come to Canada. We are a great country”.

We have to manage global risks too. In the last few years there has been great uncertainty in the international financial markets. The WTO is meeting in Seattle. It is hoped some element of certainty will come out of that, an element of fairness and rules for international trade.

We also have to look at international money markets. The rapid transit of large amounts of capital has an incredibly destabilizing effect on international currencies. We saw what it did in southeast Asia. We saw the impact on the Canadian dollar. We saw the impact on international markets. They plunged downward because of the rapid movement of large amounts of capital to various parts of the world. There has to be some method, some rules based system of ensuring that rapid movement cannot destabilize the system we have today.

As I said before, there is a need for the reduction of the debt. The reduction of the debt remains a top priority for us. Every $10 billion reduction in debt will reduce by $700 million the amount of Canadians' money the government spends on interest rates alone. That roughly $37 billion spent every single year by the government using the taxpayers' money, money people work for, is sent to the people who lent Canada the $570 billion that the feds owe. We need to deal with that.

In closing, Bill C-5 in the grand scheme of things should be low in the priorities of what the government is dealing with. The government should be dealing with homelessness. It should be dealing with taxes. It should be dealing with social program renewal. It should be dealing with saving our health care system. It should be dealing with the issues that are germane and important to the lives of Canadians.

We in the Reform Party are going to continue to push the government to deal with those important issues that can save Canadian lives. If we cannot deal with that in the House, the nation's prime legislating body, then where can we deal with it? Our party will continue to put forward constructive solutions.

[Witness Protection Program Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-223.

I congratulate my colleague from Prince George—Peace River for taking a leadership role in this very important issue. Like many of us, he has seen the result of spousal violence and it is a very sad thing indeed.

My colleague has brought this bill forward because this issue is not formalized within the current statutes of the land and therefore, people are falling between the cracks. Furthermore there is not an opportunity for people whose lives are being threatened and whose children's lives potentially are being threatened to be aware of and access this type of program. That is the only reason this bill is being put forth.

If the government is really interested in this as it has expressed today, then members should stand in the House and say they will support and enact the elements of Bill C-223 so that people who are living in fear for their lives will be protected.

The ad hoc situation right now is okay, but it is not entirely acceptable. There is much more that can be done and the bill enables us to do it.

This is an issue of the protection of innocent people. If a spouse is in fear of his or her life, we cannot empathize with the person unless we have been in such a situation to express stark terror.

My colleague who spoke earlier in the House mentioned her friend who travelled all over the world to get away from a spouse who was terrorizing her. Indeed she feared for her life. She had to go to China. She had to go to other parts of the world. She could not use a credit card. She could not even make a phone call back home because there was no way she could be protected in Canada. What a sad reflection on our laws that they cannot protect people and their children who are being subjected to this type of terror.

I also draw attention to an important issue that needs to be told. It is politically incorrect to say so but I think we need to talk about it. I am referring to the fact that spousal violence affects men and women. Clearly there are women who are violated, but there are also men who are violated. It is important to put it in the context of a genderless issue. Spousal violence is wrong regardless of who happens to be on either side. A man or a woman can be a victim and the assaulter can be a man or a woman. We have to bear that in mind so that we establish a series of laws that will be fair regardless of gender and that the issue can be based on the people involved.

I would also like to speak about how we can deal with preventing spousal violence. We do not mention heading it off at the pass. Right now police officers have a very difficult time protecting a person at home who is terrorized and whose life is in danger. Does somebody's jaw need to be broken or does somebody need to be assaulted in an egregious fashion or even killed before the police act? Currently all too often we find that issues of spousal violence are swept under the carpet and that not enough protection is given to the spouse involved.

Shelters exist to protect people, in this case it is usually women, but they are underfunded and there are not enough of them to handle the situation. Furthermore the Reform Party believes that the courts and the system in place now do not do enough to protect that person whose life is terrorized.

I also draw attention to something very exciting that I learned about recently, the issue of victims rights. Premier Harris is often accused of being a conservative person, somebody with whom we would see eye to eye on many principles as a provincial Conservative in Ontario. He is accused of not really caring and being right wing.

The office of the Attorney General of Ontario has set up, with Scott Newark and Sharon Rosenfeldt, the first victims rights element of an attorney general's office in the country. No other province has one and it is possible that no state in the United States has such an organization. Mr. Newark and Ms. Rosenfeldt are out there trying to ensure that victims rights are an integral element in the court system of Ontario.

I hope the government will work with the Attorney General of Ontario and in fact spread that message across the country so that people living in other provinces and territories will have an opportunity to have access to the benefit of what is going on in Ontario. It is very exciting. It will formalize and put victims rights into the courts system so that victims will finally have a place in the system, will have their rights protected, and will have access to the care and treatment they require when they engage in the rehabilitation their souls require after being victimized. It is a very constructive program. I would strongly encourage the government to take a look at it and spread the word to the other provinces.

Another issue raised earlier by one of my colleagues was that of the RCMP. The province of British Columbia has a very serious situation on its hands. Right now there is a severe lack of RCMP officers, as there are in other provinces. This situation will only get a lot worse in the future.

The population of RCMP officers is aging. When we look at the demands placed upon them and our needs in the future, we will have a shortfall far in excess of what we have today. This is a serious situation. How can we hope to be able to enforce the law if we do not have enough police officers out there to do the job?

The solicitor general has spoken about this matter from time to time, but we have not heard any constructive solutions that will enable the RCMP to get the resources or have the numbers in its ranks to do its job. That is not happening now. We would be happy to work with members on the other side to make it a reality for all Canadians.

Another issue I want to talk about is Correctional Service Canada. A serious issue in British Columbia was recently brought to my attention. Because of cost cutting, I would imagine, many or most of the anger management counsellors, psychologists, and such attached to the prisons are being replaced with correctional officers who have one or two weeks of training. Correctional officers do an excellent job, a difficult task at that, but they are not counsellors.

We are cutting our noses off to spite our faces. If we do not allow the penal system to have the anger management counsellors, the psychologists and the drug rehabilitation experts who deal with the people once they are in jail and with those factors that contributed to their coming in front of the judicial system, then those released from jail will be worse off than they when came in. We will be releasing people who have a much higher chance of engaging in another criminal act, only to be put through the courts again. Not only is this utterly expensive, but it is also inhuman to the Canadian public. It is unworkable.

Again I ask the Minister of Justice to work with the solicitor general and to work with their provincial counterparts, particularly those in the province of British Columbia, to make sure that we reverse this trend and that the correctional system will have the capability of hiring those people who are an essential part of the rehabilitation process.

The last issue I would like to address is the issue of organized crime. The Reform Party has been pushing the government for many years to take some immediate and urgent action to deal with organized crime. More than half the crime in the nation is related in some way to organized crime. An example of smuggling people was raised earlier, which is attached to organized crime. In many cases in British Columbia it is attached to Chinese gangs.

We hardly heard anything from the government on the issue of how to deal with organize crime. Again I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to work with the Minister of Justice to call together other nations in the world suffering from a similar problem to develop a rules based method and a system of attacking organized criminal syndicates which are multinational in nature.

Also on the issue of crime prevention I bring to the attention of the minister the head start program, which is exceptionally good at preventing crime, and the work of the National Crime Prevention Council.

In closing, I compliment the member for Prince George—Peace River for putting together Bill C-223. Members on the other side mentioned that they were sympathetic toward it. We ask that the government act and act now before more victims show up on our doorstep.

[Immigration Act, November 26th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-386, an act to amend the Immigration Act (requirement to show evidence of identity).

Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in our immigration system. It is simply not working. The bill I am introducing today is an attempt to fix it.

In British Columbia we have had hundreds of false refugees come to our shores. This represents only 5% of the people who are coming to our shores illegally. Ninety-five per cent come by plane. This situation is not fair to true refugees. It is not fair to immigrants. It is not fair to people trying to get into the country. It is not fair to the taxpayer. It is not fair to the hardworking people in our immigration system. The current system supports the government which is actually trying to support human trafficking which is taking place.

This bill will enable the government to differentiate between true and false refugees. It puts the onus and responsibility of identification upon the person claiming refugee status as opposed to the Canadian authority.

I hope this bill passes as soon as possible so that the minister can have a stronger immigration policy for immigrants and Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Tobacco, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Health hired a real insider to try to convince the Canadian public that he was committed to decreasing smoking among kids. But it was his government that instituted laws in 1994 that have committed hundreds of thousands of children to take up cigarette smoking.

Will the Minister of Health do the right thing and institute laws to bring the tobacco prices back to what they would be in the U.S. so that our kids will not smoke and smuggling will be stopped?

[Immigration, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, 599 people came from China by boat and landed on British Columbia shores this summer. Of those 599, only one has been determined to be a true refugee. Months later, 389 claims have yet to be dealt with. The minister's response? Bill C-16, which has said absolutely nothing about this issue. It does nothing about streamlining our immigration process. It gives a green light to the indentured slavery that this immigration scam represents. It does nothing to help true refugees. It does nothing to help our immigration process.

Today, Central American refugees are selling drugs on Vancouver streets and can still apply through our refugee process. Today, true refugees are mixed with false refugees and we have an immigration process that is in disarray.

Today, I am introducing a private member's bill, seconded by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, that would streamline this process.

To the Minister of Immigration: Get with the program. Introduce changes that are fair to everyone, fair to refugees—

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the Minister of Health. Our objectives are very similar. We in the Reform Party are happy to see that finally the government has decided over the last two years to put money back into research.

Our objectives are the same in trying to strengthen research. We recognize that research is the backbone of our economy. It gives Canadians a cutting edge to provide not only our citizens but also people around the world with a better, safer, healthier future.

I also want to compliment Dr. Henry Friesen for the work he has done. He has been innovative in trying to merge or change the Medical Research Council from what it was into a new, dynamic unit which will ensure that more money is put into the cutting edge of research rather than swallowed up in bureaucracy.

We in the Reform Party are happy to say, as far as we can see at this point, that it will also provide an opportunity to revamp research units to make them more effective. It also links up existing research units across the country. Those linkages enable people in the scientific field to be work more effectively. Having previously worked in research, I can say that effort is welcomed to be sure.

We will support the bill up to committee. If the bill will improve the health and welfare of Canadians, research in Canada and make sure more money will be put into the hard edge of research rather than into the bureaucracy, then we in the Reform Party will support it because it is a good thing. If the accountability is there then we will support it. However, we want to hear from the specialists and the researchers.

Of course, we do have some concerns. One of those concerns was lobbed by a very well respected scientist in the country, Dr. John Polanyi, our 1986 Nobel Laureate. Dr. Polanyi made a very good point. He and other researchers around the country fear that research will be industrialized, that the only way individuals will be able to get their research funds is through a small group of people at the top who will dictate to them what they can and cannot do. I am sure the minister fully recognizes that this is not a healthy thing in research. No one wants it.

When I met with Dr. Friesen, he assured me in the context of the structure now that there would be peer review, that the money that would be spent would go to the most effective corners of research and that there would be outside, independent analysis on an ongoing basis as to where the research funds would go. We support that. At the end of the day we, and I hope the government does too, want to make sure that taxpayers' dollars in research, as in everything else, will be used in the most effective fashion possible.

In the organization of the CIHR it was stated that 95% of the moneys would be used for the hard edge of research and at a maximum 5% of the money would be used for bureaucracy. That is a good thing. We will make sure that the government holds up to that promise. It is most important that the money gets down to the hard edge and is not swallowed up by a bureaucracy.

I must admit that when I looked at the organizational structure, my fear was that would be exactly what would happen, that the organization being put forward was just another effort by the government to create a large bureaucratic structure that would swallow up a large amount of money at the expense of the hard edge of research. Our fear was that the extra money that was put into research would not go into research but would go into developing this rather grand bureaucratic scheme.

However, in speaking with Dr. Friesen, many of the people on the advisory boards will be volunteers selected from their peers. They will be the best of the best so that they can select, advise and channel our research funds from the federal government to make sure we get the best bang for the buck.

Whatever happens with the CIHR, it should be an arm's length institution so that the scientists who work there and scientists across the country will be able to do the basic research that is so important in developing groundbreaking findings in which Canada has historically been a world leader.

We need that basic research and it needs to be supported. It is not immediately obvious to those who work in research that their findings and their work will actually lead to an economic benefit in the short term. That is not what research is about.

It is true that much of the money that is invested has to have an economic benefit. We have to show effect and responsibility for taxpayer dollars, but there is a balance. On the one hand we have to make sure that the money goes to the type of research which will accrue a benefit, but on the other hand we cannot disallow or prevent the basic scientific research that exists in this country which will enable us to make those large groundbreaking research efforts in the future. Our concern is whether that will be allowed.

Our other concern is that we must ensure the independence of researchers. We must ensure that they have the intellectual independence and freedom to pursue the study and groundbreaking research that is inherent to the university setting.

Another option the government has in the industrial research setting is to provide the tax incentives which will enable industry to do that research.

One of the things that Reform has always said is that because of the high taxation levels the government imposes upon the corporate sector it is not able to do the required research. When we speak to the people who want to do this research they say “We would love to do the research but we cannot do it because our taxes are so high. Furthermore, we cannot retain the top notch scientists that we need”.

The Minister of Health explained that he wants to retain those people. Reform believes that we should retain those people. They are some of the best and brightest in Canada and in the world. In fact, almost 10% of our population lives south of the border, not only because of the money but because of the opportunities that are provided within those research institutes. These people go south because they have an opportunity to live and work in cutting edge environments. It is not because they have more money in their pockets, although for some that is certainly a benefit. More importantly, as researchers, in their hearts they truly believe they can do more for humanity by working in an environment where they have the tools which enable them to be the best they can be.

Canada does not provide that now. What I hope the Minister of Health will do is speak to his colleague the Minister of Finance and say “Cut your taxes”. If we cut our taxes, the corporate and industrial worlds will be able to engage in the research that will help Canada move forward. By doing so, we will improve our economy, retain our best and brightest, reduce our brain drain and strengthen our economy.

Another thing the Minister of Health needs to look at, and this is related to the research aspect, is the situation in health care in Canada today. We have had a debate recently on this issue and I think it is important to put it into context.

We talk about the basic humanity of health care, and about preserving, maintaining and ensuring that Canadians get the health care they need. However, the cold hard reality is that in 1999 Canadians are not receiving it. We have a two tiered system of health care in Canada today. There are those who receive health care and those who do not. Every tenet of the Canada Health Act is being violated. It is a myth to say that we will support the status quo because the status quo is killing Canadians.

One of the principles of the Canada Health Act is accessibility. That principle has been broken. Having 200,000 people on waiting lists for surgical procedures is not humane. It is not good health care.

If the minister wants to do something about it he needs to talk to the Minister of Finance and say “Return the $21 billion you took out of health care so that Canadians can get the health care they need when they require it”.

The second principle is universality, but we are not all covered. In fact, 84 essential procedures were delisted within a period of eight months in 1997. That is continuing to occur in the provinces because the provinces do not have the money to pay for what is demanded.

Reform recognizes the cold, hard reality. We have a situation today that is different than when the Canada Health Act was formed in the 1960s.

The Canada Health Act has noble, important principles that we would like to support. In fact, we do support them, but the reality is that in 1999 the situation is different. We have an aging population. The population of those over the age of 65 will double in the next 30 years. These people use 70% of our health care dollars.

Among OECD nations Canada consistently ranks in the lowest third for medical technology because governments do not have the money to buy new technology, to buy the MRIs that will give Canadians the health care they should be getting.

The minister likes to talk about publicly administered health care. The cold, hard reality is that in 1999 the federal government only supplies 11% of health care. For every health care dollar that is spent the federal government only contributes 11 cents. Fifty per cent comes from the provinces and 30% comes from the private sector.

That means that people who have the money will get physiotherapy. If they have the money they will get home care. If they have the money they will get new drugs. If they do not have the money they will not get those things.

As a physician I have worked with these people. It is cruel and inhumane to watch a sick, elderly spouse take care of a sicker spouse without the help of home care because they do not have the money to pay for that home care.

We have cut into the muscle and bone of health care in Canada today. Patients are being discharged earlier and sicker. Who pays the price? It is the sick patient, the poor and the middle class who pay.

We would like to see the principles of the Canada Health Act strengthened, but we have to look at the reality of today. We have to ensure that the poor and the middle class have accessible, affordable, universal health care where we can get the best bang for our buck.

Money does not grow on trees. That is the reality. It is easy for people to say that anybody who opposes this wants an American style two tier health care system. That is utterly false. There are no members on either side of the House, particularly members of the Reform, who want an American style two tier health care system. Everyone in the House abhors that with every bone in their body. That would mean that people could not get health care, in particular the poor and the middle class, because health care would be determined by the money they have.

There are 200,000 Canadians on waiting lists who are suffering. It is inhumane to tell a person of 70 years, who may only live for five more years, that they have to wait a year before they can get their hip replaced because of the waiting list and there is no money to pay for it. That person will spend 20% of their remaining life in severe pain. That is not humane medicine.

That is not what Tommy Douglas wanted. That is not what the Canada Health Act is about. The Canada Health Act does not support that. We do not support that. I am sure that every member in the House does not support that.

I encourage the Minister of Health to ask Dr. Friesen and other scientists to look at what we in the Reform Party would like to do. We have to see the reality of today: an aging population, more expensive technologies and fewer people working to pay the taxes that will provide the base for public health care. We want to strengthen our public system and we want to look at the best models to do that.

Let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let us not criticize provincial premiers like Mr. Klein who is not satisfied with thousands of suffering Albertans on waiting lists. He wants to find ways to make sure those people get health care when they need it. If the Minister of Health wants to get on his high horse, rip out $21 billion from the provinces and tell Premier Klein that he cannot provide health care for people on waiting lists, then damn him. It is the people out there who are suffering.

There are people who would try to polarize and poison this issue and prevent debate. When they say that we want an American style two tier health care system they are doing it for political advantage. Who pays the price? The poor and the middle class are not getting health care today and they will not get it tomorrow. We want to change that. We want to make sure that all Canadians have equal access to good quality health care and that there is enough money in the system to provide that health care.

If the minister wants to improve health care, I would suggest he do it through the CIHR. He could look at existing studies that have been done by Canadians on the head start program. If there is one fundamental thing that can be done to prevent many social ills, it is to look at an early intervention program using existing resources. I am talking about prevention, not the expensive management of problems.

There are models such as the Moncton program, in which the Minister of Labour was a leader, the Perry preschool program in Ypsilanti, Michigan, and the Hawaii head start program. What have they done? With a minimal amount of money, and with $6 saved for every dollar invested, they have reduced child abuse rates by 99%, they have reduced youth crime by 60% and they have reduced teen pregnancies by 40%. The benefits accrue all the way along. There is less dependence on social programs, less dependence on welfare and fewer kids dropping out of school. In my province of British Columbia 30% of kids drop out of high school. It is a recipe for economic disaster.

In May 1998 the House passed my private member's motion calling for a national head start program. Reform has given to ministers and the government a plan of action to save thousands of children's lives and to save the taxpayer potentially billions of dollars. I would personally like to see the ministers of justice, health, HRD and finance get together to look at adopting this plan. It has a 25 year track record. It is affordable to the taxpayer. It will save the taxpayer money. More importantly, it will save the lives of Canadians, especially our children.

That is what the government could do in its children's agenda. It could have this early intervention head start program for all Canadians, using existing resources. It could use the medical community at time zero. It could use trained volunteers in the middle, which is what they did in Hawaii. It could use schools for the first few years of schooling. That strengthens the parent-child bond, improves parenting, makes sure kids have their basic needs met and avoids a lot of the trauma that is so devastating to children when their brains are developing.

Current research shows very clearly that in the first eight years of life a child's brain is very sensitive. When a child is subjected to abuse, sexual abuse, drugs, the witnessing of abuse or even more subtle things such as improper nutrition, improper parenting, a lack of boundaries and discipline, then that child suffers intellectually and psychologically, which has a profound impact upon that child's ability to empathize, sympathize, cognate and have appropriate interpersonal relationships with other individuals.

One of the most devastating occurrences in the country today, particularly in some communities, is the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome. It is a hidden tragedy. It is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in children.

The average IQ of persons with fetal alcohol syndrome is 68. They cannot cognate. They cannot rationalize. They cannot understand. They cannot learn like we can. They are poisoned before they are even born.

The government has done nothing about that and it needs to do something about it. I have a bill in the hopper on that issue too. It is a way of preventing the devastation that is wrought on these children, a way of preventing them from having their brains poisoned so they will have a chance to grow up on a level playing field, to grow up to be integrated and productive members of society instead of never getting a leg up in society and never being the best they can become.

Another issue that the minister should look at, for which I place full blame on him and his colleagues, is the issue of smoking. In 1994, mere months after the government was elected to office, the Liberals reversed a trend in smoking that had been going on for the previous 15 years. For 15 years prior to that smoking consumption had been progressively going down. Yet because of a smuggling issue the government was faced with a problem, how to deal with the smuggling of cigarettes because of the different prices in Canada and the U.S.

How could it do that? The government had two options. The first one, which was proven to work, was to put an $8 per carton export tax on exported cigarettes. That would have cut the legs out of smuggling in cigarettes completely, as was proven in 1991-92.

The government also saw from that experience that when an export tax was put the tobacco companies, those purveyors of death said it could not do that because, if it did, they would leave town and be very angry.

Instead of doing the right thing, standing up to the tobacco companies and saying that it would put on an export tax because it is important to decrease smuggling, the government compromised the health and welfare of Canadians, particularly children, by dropping the tobacco taxes substantially and reducing the price by virtually 50% along with the provinces in central Canada. Now we are reaping what was sown in 1994.

In the last few years in Ontario there has been a dramatic increase in consumption. This is not news. In 1994 Health Canada warned the Minister of Health at the time that more than a quarter of a million children would be picking up cigarette smoking as a direct result of the government's decrease in tobacco taxes and that half those children would ultimately die of tobacco related diseases.

Government members did not do the right thing and put on an export tax. Rather they comprised the health and welfare of every Canadian, particularly children. They put their tail between their legs and dropped the tobacco taxes, knowing full well that it would commit a quarter of a million children to smoking and that half those children would wind up with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, early heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, strokes, numerous types of cancer and numerous other problems.

That is the legacy of what the government did in 1994. It introduced the single greatest devastating health care act to affect Canadians in the last 50 years.

The facts today are proving what we said in 1994. If the government wants to truly deal with smoking and kids, it will deal with education but it will also put tobacco taxes back where they were in 1994 and put an export tax of $8 on each carton.

This would accomplish two things. First, it would decrease consumption among kids and, second, it would cut the legs out from any smuggling initiative. That is what the government needs to do and ought to do, yet it has not.

Another issue I would like to raise is the issue of the manpower about which the CIHR need to warn the government very carefully and closely. We have a significant manpower shortage.

If we look at the nursing population, in the next 11 years there will be a lack of 112,000 nurses in the country. There are nurses today that have graduated, and I was asked last night why we do not hire more nurses. Why are they going down to the United States? They are going to the U.S. because governments do not have the money to provide jobs for them.

It is not that there is not a demand for them. There is a huge demand for them. As testimony to that are the 200,000 people on waiting lists, but the reality is that governments do not have the money to pay them. Therefore they are going south where they can try to get jobs.

Another issue is the area of medical specialties. We will have an enormous lack of medical specialists in the very near future: surgeons, internists and specialists in dialysis. This is what the government has to face and deal with now so we can train people to care for Canadians as we get older and to care for our children. This is a critical shortage that no one is talking about. The CIHR may want to warn the government of this impending disaster.

In summary, we will support the CIHR bill up to committee stage. We will be very interested in seeing what the government has to say about it and, more important, what the researchers have to say.

I would also stress that the government has to look at the reality of 1999. We have an aging population, more expensive technologies, and less money to pay for what we want. There is also a greater demand for things that are not covered today such as home care, drugs and dental services.

I might add that when the Canada Health Act was constructed the whole body was taken into consideration except for the mouth, the entry into the body. By ignoring that, a great deal of morbidity was caused among the poor and the middle class of the population who do not have the money for proper dental care. It is another unseen and silent problem within society today.

We also have to recognize today that we have a multi-tiered system. People who can afford it get the services. They queue jump or the rich go south of the border. Whereas the poor who would like to have physiotherapy when they are rehabilitating but cannot because they do not have the money, are forbidden to get it.

The Minister of Health continues to ignore that if people need physiotherapy, home care, certain drugs, or care that is essential to their health, they are actually prevented from getting it in 1999 because they do not have the money and it is not covered. The number of services not covered are expanding as time passes, and they will increase. The gap between what we demand of our health care and our ability to supply it will also widen.

Let us find a way in 1999 to live up to the ideals of Tommy Douglas, to live up to the ideals of the Canada Health Act, and to provide an affordable, accessible universal health care where no Canadian will be economically disadvantaged by becoming sick. We do not want that.

The reality today is that not only are Canadians waiting longer for surgery. It has become so appalling that in the province of Quebec many patients have to wait two months for radiation therapy for cancer treatment.

Can we imagine the shock of being diagnosed with cancer, with breast cancer or prostate cancer, and being told by a doctor that we will have to wait two months to get radiation therapy? Is that good care? That is not good care and no one in the House would support it. That is what is going on today. That is what we have in 1999.

The province of Quebec is so desperate, as is my province of British Columbia, that it is sending people south of the border at a cost that is far greater, five times what it would cost in Canada.

Premier Klein said that he would not accept the fact that Canadians were sick, that the poor and the middle class had their health care withheld, that they suffered and were sent to the United States where they had to pay five times what they should pay for service. Premier Klein is looking for a way to provide for the care of these people without destroying the health care system and to make sure they get care when they need it.

At the end of the day the only thing that really matters is sick people get health care when they need it. It should not harm them financially in any way. It should be affordable to the taxpayer. That is the common objective of the Reform Party, and I would suggest all members on all sides.

We must have the courage to move forward. We must have the courage to recognize the reality of today. We must have the courage to open our minds to dealing with new and innovative, modern and effective solutions to make sure that sick Canadians get health care when they need it. That is our objective as Reformers. I am sure it is the objective of members across party lines. We would like to see it happen and we would like to see it happen now.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would first refer the minister to the comment by my colleague from Surrey Central, who is also a Sikh and who made a very eloquent, passionate statement in the House concerning that issue. In our view, the scum who killed that Sikh gentleman should have been put away for a longer time. That is the bottom line. They committed an atrocious act.

What the Reform Party is saying on violent crimes or hate crimes is that if somebody commits a crime against another person because of the colour of their skin, is that really worse than committing a crime, a random act of violence? Is it worse if someone is hurt because of the colour of their skin or their religion, or if somebody happens to be passing by and their head is smashed in? They are both victims and they have both been hurt. They both have families that are hurt. They both bleed equally and both feel the same amount of pain.

The problem is that the judicial system is not supporting the victim. Right now the federal government should be pursuing a course where scum who commit an egregious act will be dealt with in a much stronger way.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will educate the hon. member on one thing and that is what apartheid means. Apartheid is separate development. That is what the Nisga'a treaty is all about. That is what this process is all about. It is separate development. I suggest that he look in the dictionary to prove that to himself.

With respect to his first comment about what the Nisga'a said, he may be interested to speak to many Nisga'a people who are actually concerned that this is not representing their interests. Many of the Nisga'a people are going along with the flow because they do not see another option. There are Nisga'a people who are saying very clearly to us that they have been excluded from this process, that they are not aware of what is going on and that they are not being told by their leadership what is going on.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed because my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan had a very important intervention to make on behalf of Mr. Ken Conrad of his riding, which would have been very valuable since he was an RCMP officer who worked closely with aboriginal people in Saskatchewan for a very long time.

We have heard a great many comments from members across the way, comments that were extremely egregious, comments that were extremely false, comments about the B.C. media being biased. This issue is not about stupid political rhetoric, it is about people. This is about the most impoverished people in our society.

I would like to cite some examples from the first nation's aboriginal health task force which put together some information that I think would be very valuable to the House in understanding the scope of what we are dealing with, so that we do not have to listen to the idiotic comments coming from members on the other side which have no constructive basis whatsoever in trying to improve the health and welfare of the aboriginal people of this country.

First, I have some comments from the aboriginal community. Fifty per cent of aboriginal people have a water supply that does not even meet the minimal safe drinking water guidelines within Canada. Of the 613 water systems on reserve, 50% have no treatment facilities. Of the 71,531 homes on reserve outside the Northwest Territories, 20,700 have no indoor plumbing and 16,900 have no sewage system whatsoever. Sixty-eight per cent of aboriginal people were on social assistance in 1990. On reserve unemployment is greater than 30%. Seventy-five per cent of tuberculosis cases were in aboriginal communities, and on and on it goes. That is what we get for spending over $6 billion on aboriginal services today.

If treaties are so good, then I think it is useful for us to take a look at where they have been employed, east of the Rockies. If treaties are so good, and the Nisga'a treaty is something that the government and other political parties want to pursue, then they must have a good track record and they must improve the health and welfare of aboriginal people. But that is not the case.

If we consider the treaties that have been signed east of the Rockies, if we look at what is happening to people in the trenches, if we look at aboriginal people on and off reserve, we see a deplorable situation. They occupy the lowest social rung in our society today.

Treaties, in their current form, do not work. They do not work because they further the separateness that is embodied in the Nisga'a treaty and the Indian Act. The government was not always so fixed on its current platform. In 1969 the Reform Party would have locked arms and pursued the course which the then government had agreed upon when the then aboriginal affairs minister, our current Prime Minister, produced a white paper.

At that time Prime Minister Trudeau said that aboriginal people stood at a fork in the road and they could do one of two things. They could either pursue the course embodied in the Indian Act of separate development, which has been like a boot on the necks of aboriginal people for more than 100 years, or they could pursue what the current Prime Minister said at that time. He said that it was time for aboriginal people to move forward, to own land as individuals, to have equality with non-aboriginals, to have the same opportunities, goals, rights and responsibilities as non-aboriginals, and that it was time for integration, not assimilation.

That is what the current Prime Minister said in 1969 with the support of Prime Minister Trudeau. That is 180 degrees from what he is saying today.

It is the Reform Party that wants to get rid of the Indian Act. It wants to pursue equality and give every aboriginal person the same rights and responsibilities and hope for the future as we have in the House today. The reason we oppose the Nisga'a agreement is not that we are against the Nisga'a people, it is because this treaty is an extension of the separateness and balkanization that is embodied in a 125 year history of separate development that has crushed the ability of aboriginal people to be the best they can become.

Every year $6 billion is put into aboriginal affairs. Where is that money going? My colleagues from Wild Rose and Skeena have been listening to grassroots aboriginal people who have been telling them that they see money coming into the reserves but they do not know where it goes. They say that their children still lie on cold floors in basements and they still commit suicide because they see no hope. Where is the money going?

The department of Indian affairs was forced in over 150 cases to intervene in the management of aboriginal reserves. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Most often the department does not even want to go to determine what is going on.

At the end of the day, who really gets hurt? Is it the people at the top? It is the people whom the government professes it wants to help. They do not have a say. The grassroots aboriginal people, the man, woman and child who are on the street on and off reserve, do not have a voice. The Nisga'a agreement will not give them that voice because the power will be centred with the people at the top.

We would not want that for ourselves. Why is the government trying to pursue a course that would cement this kind of control at the top without any municipal power for the people and without the people having a say in a meaningful way? Why is the government continuing to support this course which has been proven to be an abysmal failure? I cannot understand it and my colleagues cannot understand it.

At the end of the day, our goals are the same. Not a person in the House wants to see the state of affairs of aboriginals on and off reserve worsen. We all want to see it improve. Our objection is that this is not what the Nisga'a agreement will do. What is worse, it will be a template for other agreements that will be made in British Columbia.

What the rest of the country does not understand is that in conjunction with Delgamuukw there will be an opportunity to open up treaties across the country. If we think we have problems now, imagine what it will be like in the future.

No one is even discussing who will pay for it. In Alberta alone the cost of trying to resolve aboriginal claims is estimated at $107 billion. Money does not grow on trees. Where is the money going? Would it not be better if we scrapped the Indian Act and made selective investments in aboriginal services so that aboriginal people would have the training, job opportunities and skills required? People, regardless of their race, cannot have pride or self-respect if they are wards of the state.

For men and women to have self-respect and pride, they have to be able to provide for themselves, their families and their communities. That is the only way they will have the pride and self-respect which will enable them to stand on their own two feet.

What Reform wants is what the Prime Minister wanted in 1969, an opportunity for aboriginal people to exercise their traditional rights and responsibilities, to have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else, to scrap the Indian Act and pursue a course of equality for all peoples.

The money that will go into this agreement and indeed the 50-plus agreements that will take place in B.C. will create a new level of bureaucracy that was agreed upon by former Premier Clark of British Columbia. It will also mean new bureaucracies at the provincial and federal levels.

Rather than putting that money into bureaucracies, why do we not put it into the hard edge of making sure these people have the skills to provide for themselves, their families and their communities?

People cannot have pride and self-respect if they are wards of the state. Over the last 125 years we have created an institutionalized welfare state. If you visit many reserves, Mr. Speaker, you will see this.

During my time working as a physician on and off reserve I went to these reserves. I saw people in the worst possible state of affairs. I have not seen things like that since I worked in Africa.

We should not have that in this country. We should pursue a course that will empower and strengthen individual aboriginal people, rather than the leadership at the top. That is something on which we would work with the government to pursue, but we will oppose the government if it tries to put the strength and the power of this agreement in the hands of a very few while excluding the majority.