Keith Martin

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-72 on income tax amendments.

Once again we have missed the boat. Once again the government has not dealt in a profound and fundamental way with an issue that is affecting Canadians across this country.

The Prime Minister has said in the last two weeks that Canada is doing fine. Our productivity is fine. He says this based on one study, the KPMG study, paid for by his government. This flies in the face of every single other study, any other analysis I have ever seen in and outside Canada.

The Canadian economy, our productivity and our competitiveness are among the lowest in the industrialized world. Among all G-8 nations we are the bottom of the barrel. That is nothing to be proud of because it is far less than what we can strive for as a nation.

The government is telling the Canadian public, patting us on the head, “Smile, be happy. Don't worry, we have social programs that will take care of you”. What a bunch of nonsense. What a pile of tripe. That is totally unacceptable. All we need to do is speak to Canadians and ask what is bothering them. Are they happy with the economy? Are they happy with their job opportunities? Are they happy with the opportunities their children have? Most of them are not. This is not a figment of their imagination. This did not appear overnight. This is not something that has been happening over the last few weeks. This has been happening for years and it is not getting better. It is getting worse.

We are not lacking in solutions. My colleague from the other side articulated a number of them. He mentioned the problems. Members from the Reform Party and other parties have articulated solutions. There is much that binds us together and there is much that is in agreement. What we do not have is somebody to take the bull by the horns and say that these are the best solutions we can find, these are the reasons we are going to this and, by heaven, we are going to do this.

This country has seen a lot of studying; it has not seen a lot of action. What Canadians are sick and tired of is the malady of studyitis that we have in the House of Commons, an ailment that causes intellectual gridlock. This whole place grinds to a halt. It does not function well. It is a poor use of taxpayers' money and does not serve the people of this country, who elect us to do a job, to help them help themselves, and indeed to help those who cannot help themselves. We have failed.

Let us look at some of the facts. Should we be happy with unemployment? No. Our unemployment rate is much higher than that of the country to the south of us. It is much higher than many of the G-8 countries.

Our productivity is sliding. It is the lowest in the G-8.

Our competitiveness has been dropping too. Why? The primary reason, and we all sound like broken records, is taxes. To take into consideration the concern that members on all sides of the House have, we do not want to introduce tax cuts that will compromise anybody, particularly the poor and middle classes. We want to make sure that the people of this country, regardless of their income, have the power to be the best that they can become and the power to take care of themselves.

Perhaps a fundamental difference between ourselves and the traditional Liberal thinking is that we believe most Canadians can take care of themselves better than governments can and we want to give people the power to do that.

The other side of the coin is to make sure that Canadians who cannot take care of themselves have a social network that can provide for them.

Thank heavens we are not like the United States. Historically we have had good social programs which have been there to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. However, we do not speak about the current threat and future threats to those programs. Pensions, health care, education and welfare programs are all in jeopardy. They are in jeopardy because we do not have a healthy economy. We cannot have strong social programs unless we have a healthy economy.

By maintaining high tax levels, by not rationalizing the rules and regulations that choke off the private sector, by not keeping the rules that we need and removing those that we do not, we compromise the very essence and the ability of our economy to perform. Canadians cannot provide for themselves and pay the taxes that will enable the government to provide the social programs to provide for those people who cannot provide for themselves.

It is all intertwined. The failure of this government to do what we and others have been telling it to do for years is an abrogation of its responsibility. It is a violation of its duty, primarily to those people who are the most underprivileged individuals in our society. It is an abrogation of its responsibility to the beleaguered middle class, which is having increasing difficulty being able to acquire the basics for themselves and their families.

Government members like to talk about research and development. They want to provide money for it and we applaud that. What is the single most important factor in enabling research and development to occur in this country? The most important thing the government can do, and recent studies show this, is to give companies the money to do the research and development themselves. They do not necessarily want government handouts, but they at least want the ability to do this. The way they can do this is to have tax cuts, which will enable them to reinvest in their companies and become more competitive.

One of the saddest things we often hear about is the brain drain. The brain drain is a complex situation and is linked to many factors. Many Canadians who go south do not want to go south necessarily because they will make a little more money. They want to go because they have the ability to work in companies, work in universities, work in institutions where they have the opportunity to put their skills to the best possible use. The U.S. actually enables that to happen. That is something which we in Canada need to take a cold hard look at.

Let us consider tax rates and the money left in people's pockets after taxes and compare that to the United States. A couple working in the United States makes 44% more in after tax dollars than the same couple in Canada. How can we justify that? How can we be competitive?

Even the Prime Minister's own pollster, Mr. Marzolini, said very clearly in the last month that it is the high tax rates in this country which choke off the ability of the Canadian economy to function properly.

The woeful neglect of this situation is a damning indignation on this government which cannot be tolerated, let alone respected.

Governments will not provide money for education if they have a poor economy. In my riding there are high schools in which students have to write exams on paper that resembles toilet paper. They have had to downgrade to paper that is pathetic. Kids, even when they are trying to rub out their answers, rip right through it because schools do not have enough money to buy reasonable paper.

In British Columbia students are sharing textbooks. They do not even have their own textbooks. The schools do not have the money to teach our students who can then become employed in the future.

The government may take comfort in saying that we have the social programs to provide welfare and employment insurance, but that is no comfort to Canadians who want to work. Most Canadians do not want to be on welfare or EI, they want to work.

The unemployment rates we talk about do not take into consideration the underemployment rates we have in the country. There are legions of university students who come out with good training only to find that the job opportunities in their chosen fields are few to non-existent. What kind of message are we sending the youth of today? That after all their hard work they will end up slinging hot dogs or burgers at McDonald's? That is what is happening now. It is a waste to our economy and the potential of our country. It cannot be allowed to happen.

My colleague spoke about the pension issue and how the Reform Party has put together constructive solutions to rescue our pensions. The CPP will not be there for the people of my generation and subsequent generations because the amount of money that will be required to fund the CPP will simply not be there.

In the next 20 years the number of people who will be over 65 years of age will go from the 12% to 25%. The number of people who will be working to provide the tax base to pay for the CPP and other social programs will simply not be there. What do we do? Will the government do what it recently did and jack up CPP rates almost 50%? It certainly will not be able to do that in the future because at some point in time there will be a collapse. We cannot continue to raise taxes and the demands on the individual without the system falling apart.

Let us talk about solutions. Let us talk about how to fix this system. There is much we can do. One thing we talked about is productivity. I have spoken about tax cuts. Let us increase the minimum personal exemption. There are a number of innovative things we have discussed today and in previous times concerning education, in terms of enabling schools to have the money to do what they have to do to train the kids of today. We should also consider innovative projects like those in Europe which link up the educational facilities with the private sector, enabling students to get work experience early on. There are also innovative ways of looking at tax credits to do that.

We could consider a flat tax or a flattened tax, which has just been introduced in Alberta. Rather than having the complex tax system we have now, by flattening it or by having a flat tax we could simplify the system. It would be a lot simpler and easier to employ. It would save the individual and indeed the economy a lot of money. The proof is in the pudding when we look at other countries.

In the Nordic countries and other European countries people were labouring under very, very high tax rates in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, in the case of Sweden, its interest rates went up to 500% overnight. There was a huge exodus of capital from the country. Interest rates had to be jacked up to stop that.

In England, the tax rates jumped to almost 90%. All the best and the brightest, and those with money to invest, create jobs and build the companies within England left. There was an economic collapse within England. The people who were hurt the most were the poor and the middle class. They could not get jobs any more. The jobs had left.

Furthermore, the resources that were required by the government to provide social programs were not there. They saw the collapse of their health institutions. Many people suffered needlessly as a result of the high taxes.

The Nordic countries got smart; a lot smarter then we are. They lowered their tax rates and simplified their tax system.

What has happened? England is a lion in Europe and indeed in the world in terms of not only its economic performance, but more important, the health and welfare of its citizens.

In the Nordic countries we have seen something similar happening. The socialist mentality that was embedded within those countries, which said that the government would be there to take care of its people, is gradually being eroded. People are now beginning to provide for themselves.

This is ending the culture of dependence that was ingrained into that society; a culture of dependence that, sadly, is becoming more ingrained in our society. That is lethal for any economy and worse for the health and welfare of citizens.

With respect to the basic personal income tax exemption, there is no reason, as the hon. member opposite mentioned, the government could not do that tomorrow. The government could bring a bill to the House. It could do it by order in council, which is what it does 80% of the time on important decisions. Cabinet just says “We are going to do this” and it is done. It does not come to the House.

Twenty per cent of the decisions to be made are brought to the House. Unfortunately, most of them are about as essential to the workings of this country as a healthy dose of pabulum. It does a huge disservice to the collective ability of members to bring what they can to the debate in a meaningful way.

There are many people in this House from all political parties who have an extraordinary amount of experience, intelligence and energy to bring to important debates, if the Prime Minister and his friends in the PMO would only allow that to happen. The issue of democracy in this country and the lack thereof is perhaps best spoken about in another very interesting debate.

With respect to the child care tax deduction, why do we not treat families equally, those who choose to have one parent stay at home to care for the children and those who choose to have both parents work? Why do we not have equity in the tax system? There is no reason that cannot happen.

I send this message to the government members who have spoken in a disparaging way about parents who choose to stay at home to care for their children. There is no more valuable job in this country than a parent who stays at home to care for their children.

It is not only the most valuable job, I would submit that it is the most difficult job. I would not want to trade places with those parents who stay at home to do the very difficult job of bringing up children in the society we live in today, but it is essential.

There have been medical studies and analyses done around the world. The Minister of Labour will attest to this because of the hard work which she and her husband have done on the head start program in Moncton.

The impact of a parent on the development of a child particularly in the first eight years of life is unparalleled. The positive and negative impact that can have is unlike anything else that can take place in the development of that child toward becoming an adolescent and after that an adult.

The positive impact of loving, caring parents in the development of children through providing a secure environment and the basic needs is far more important than any money they may have in their pockets. It is far more important than any material goods that can be given to children. Parents staying home and doing that are not only contributing to society in the most valuable way possible but they are contributing to the development of children in a way that nothing else can compare to.

The last point is on pensions. Our party has put forth constructive solutions to have super RRSPs, to increase the amounts Canadians are allowed to invest in their RRSPs. Certainly the CPP will not be there for them. Why the government does not give Canadians an opportunity to take care of themselves is beyond me.

If we have super RRSPs and increase the amounts Canadians can invest in markets outside Canada, if we enable people to invest in their own health and welfare and give them the tools to take care of themselves, that is the greatest gift we can give to Canadians. By doing that there will be more money to provide for those people who are poor and middle class who cannot take care of themselves. The solutions are out there. We do not need more studies, we need action. I challenge the government to take up that challenge today and to act now.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, this country does not need more studies, it needs action. The time for studying is over. We know what the problem is, as my hon. friend articulated very well in his short speech. Many solutions have been brought forth not only in the House but by articulate individuals from around the country and around the world. Those solutions are eminently doable.

If we had a royal commission we know what would happen. The royal commission would drag on for a month of Sundays. It would cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and would only force the House to engage in another series of studies to study what we have already studied. That is what we tend to do in this place. Rather than act we study.

I know my hon. colleague has a very big interest in this. Study after study has shown that Canada is lacking in productivity. Canada's competitiveness has been dropping for many years. What we need to do is drop our tax rate fairly. We need to decrease the rules and regulations that choke the private sector. We need to invest in those pillars of our economy that are very supportive and useful in getting people back to work and in improving the lifestyles of Canadians, pillars like research and development, education and many others.

If we are able to do that we will build a secure economy and we will have a strong network of social programs to take care of those individuals who cannot take care of themselves, a concern of this hon. member and all hon. members.

The erosion of our economy does more than hurt the rich. It hurts primarily the poor and middle class. The rich can go anywhere they want. The poor and middle class are stuck here doing what they have to do. They do not have the choice. The rich have a choice, the poor do not.

Would my hon. colleague plead with finance minister to bring in the suggestions raised here, to lower the tax rate fairly, increase the minimum allowance on a personal basis, immediately call for rationalization of the rules and regulations, keep what we need, eliminate what we do not, and give Canadians the power to be the best they can become.

[The Public Service Of Canada, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, PSAC employees are being shafted. They are on strike because their ability to engage in binding arbitration has been taken away from them. All PSAC employees want is to be treated fairly and to get back to work. As a result of the strike the public is inconvenienced and our economy is hurting.

What do PSAC employees want? They want to be paid the same for doing the same job with the same skills as other people in other unions within the government. As it stands, PSAC employees are paid significantly less.

In my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian forces base personnel have been exemplary in meeting the challenges laid out for them. They have downsized more than 40%, increased efficiency and doubled up on their duties. All they get from this government is a kick in the teeth.

We must deal with PSAC workers fairly and treat them the same as other workers within the federal government, give them the same wages, benefits and opportunities and get them back to work. Anything less is an abdication of this government's responsibility.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Quebecois colleague for his question.

I want to correct the hon. member on one pervasive myth about the Reform Party. Many of our members have been in the forefront of being advocates for the prevention of criminal activity and for using innovative methods of dealing with non-violent crime. However, for individuals who have participated in violent criminal activity and have proven to be a danger to society, the Reform Party says that the primary objective of the justice system is to protect innocent civilians. That is why we believe pedophiles should be locked up. We believe people who are repeat violent offenders should be locked up for a long time.

We also believe that for individuals committing petty crimes we should find alternative, non-custodial ways of dealing with them. We also feel there should be innovative ways of dealing with drug problems. For example, instead of incarcerating individuals we should do what was done in Scandinavia.

The post-needle park Geneva experiment is perhaps the most effective and successful method of getting hard core drug abusers off the street. In a one year period of time there was at least a 50% or 60% success rate in terms of having hard core drug abusers out of jail, in society, working, and off drugs. There is no other program like it in the world. That is what the Reform Party is pushing for, along with many other innovative ways of dealing with crime.

We very much support the aboriginal initiatives and some of the methods that aboriginal communities use to deal with non-violent crime. It is something that we could all learn from.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member who asks the question has had a long interest in this issue. Many of my colleagues are dividing children who commit crimes into two sections. There are those who are violent criminals and have been proven to repeat violent offences against innocent civilians. Those people have demonstrated their wilful neglect of innocent Canadians. We want harsher penalties for them because we feel the primary role of the justice system is the protection of society, not rehabilitation. We put protection first and rehabilitation second.

That is not to say we are not interested in rehabilitation. In fact we are. The member for Surrey North introduced a private member's bill which the Minister of Justice integrated into her young offenders bill.

That bill provided for younger children between the ages of 10 and 11 to be tried under the Young Offenders Act. The reason was not to have punitive measures enacted against individuals. The reason was to ensure that children at 10 and 11 years of age would have the benefits of our judicial system in terms of what the hon. member mentioned.

How do we treat these problems? The sooner we can treat the problems, the better chance we will have of the child not becoming a lifetime criminal and prevent a lot of problems in the future.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to the Reform supply day motion.

There are two ways we can deal with crime. We can manage it or we can prevent it. Inevitably, it is a combination of both within the context of our justice system. However, I would submit that what we have done over the past several decades is placed our focus on the management of the problem and we have utterly failed in our ability to prevent it.

If we look at what has been taking place not only within Canada but around the world, we see that there have been some innovative programs which have been developed to prevent crime. One of those programs is in Moncton.

Last spring this House passed a private member's motion that I put forth calling for a national head start program. This program would take the best from programs found in Moncton, Hawaii, Michigan, the United States; programs which have been proven to decrease child abuse by 99%, which keep kids in school longer, which have dropped youth crime by 50%, which have decreased teen pregnancies by 40% and which have saved the taxpayer $30,000 per child.

New scientific data shows very clearly that when a child is subjected in the first eight years of life to issues such as drug abuse, sexual abuse, violence, or even to more subtle things such as improper parenting or the absence of parenting, it has a dramatic negative impact upon the development of that child's brain. The neurological development of that child's brain is impeded, which has a dramatic negative effect when the child becomes a teenager and later an adult.

When we look at prison populations we find that large chunks of the prison populations were subjected to violent sexual abuse and such in the course of their childhood. While that does not exonerate them from the crimes they committed, therein lies perhaps some truths and perhaps some answers as to how we can prevent these people from becoming criminals.

Work that was done by the minister of labour and her husband in Moncton shows very clearly that when we enable children and parents to come together, when parents learn how to be good parents and ensure that children in the first eight years of life have the basic building blocks to enable them to have their basic needs met, they have a much greater chance of becoming productive, integrated members of society. Remove those or destroy the ability of that child to develop and we have the problems that I mentioned before such as criminal abuse.

The Moncton head start program was focused on having parents involved in children's behaviour, teaching proper nutrition, proper discipline and what it means to be a loving, caring parent. One would be surprised to know that in some communities parents do not know that because they were never taught it or brought up in that environment. Where that is lacking in a child's development the impact can be dramatic and profoundly tragic at times. Not all children who are subjected to that wind up with deleterious effects, but it happens all too often.

The Perry preschool program in Ypsilanti, Michigan, has been in existence for some 30 years. It shows very carefully that when children's basic needs are met we save $30,000 per child. There was also a 50% reduction in teen pregnancies which we know is a route to poverty for many young women and their children.

The Hawaii head start program uses a very innovative tool which I think we could employ in our country. It uses trained volunteers, primarily women in their fifties who have had children. These women were actually integrated with families at risk. They developed a co-operative integrated relationship with those families.

What was the outcome? There was a 99% drop in child abuse among those children. We see a dramatic benefit at the level of child abuse. At the level of society now, with a large number of babies boomers in the fifties and sixties age groups, maybe there is a way of utilizing their valuable experience in parenting to help those in our community who are less able to do it.

If we are able to integrate that group of people in the way that has been done in Hawaii it would be very cheap and the profound, dramatic and positive effects on children would be amazing. We would have a paradigm shift in our thinking on social programs from one of the management of problems to the prevention of problems.

Through the head start motion I am not asking for the feds to take on the responsibility of having a national program with lots of money being poured into it, but that the ministers merely ask their provincial counterparts beforehand to come together at a meeting to find out what works in their provinces and what does not. By asking them to come to the table it will force the provinces to rationalize their programs, in which case they can remove what is not working and keep what is.

There are many programs in provinces that are done in a hodgepodge fashion that work very well for families at risk. There are also some programs that are not working well. It behoves all of us as legislators to find out what is working well and what is not. It is our responsibility to the taxpayer to do that.

By calling their provincial counterparts together the federal ministers can sit down at a table, work together and have an integrated approach with cost sharing between the feds and the provinces. The amount of money required for this would be minimum.

At point zero we could use the medical community. In the middle we could use trained volunteers. At the age of four through eight we could use the education system. By working with the provinces and the feds we could have an integrated approach which would help not only families at risk but families that are doing financially well with children who are not doing well.

One of the more subtle elements that we are not taking into consideration in our communities is latch-key children. Those children, despite coming from backgrounds that are privileged, have subtle psychological changes taking place within them because they do not have parenting.

Money is not the most important thing in the development of a child. It is good parenting. Children have their basic needs met in a loving, caring and secure environment. Perhaps the proof is in the pudding. Let us look at the number of immigrant families that come to our country with very little from a monetary perspective but have strong parenting skills. Their children are privileged to have such parents.

I grew up in environment in which there was very little money. I was very lucky to have parents with strong parenting skills. All of us who were privileged to have such parents know the value of what they gave us. They may not have given much in terms of monetary goods but they gave us a loving and caring environment and society in which to live. For that we are grateful.

Many colleagues on the other side have a great deal of expertise and experience. Many ministers and members of parliament on the other side have worked very hard on this issue. The Minister of Labour has worked very hard and has been a leader with her husband in this regard. The Secretary of State for Children and Youth has worked very hard in her aboriginal community to make this a reality as many members have done.

I challenge us to work together on the issue and make a national head start program a reality. If we were to do this, it would probably be the greatest thing we could do for children and for Canadian society in the future. By doing so we would radically change the way we think from the management of these problems to their prevention. No longer would we see half the people in jail suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects, the leading cause of preventable birth defects.

These individuals are suffering from irreversible brain damage. Their average IQ is 68. They cannot integrate and function properly. When they go to school they are at a loss. They are often marginalized, picked on and left in the periphery. As a result their problems are merely compounded as time passes. While not all of them will become criminals by any stretch of the imagination, a disproportionate number of them have an enormous amount of difficulty becoming integrated productive members of society.

I know my time is up. There is much more to say not only on this issue but on the RCMP and truth in sentencing. I will close with a plug for the RCMP. For Heaven's sake, please fund them. They are not getting the resources they need. The CPIC computer is ready to fall apart. My colleagues have mentioned many constructive solutions which the RCMP need to enable them to do their job. If we do not give them the support they require, they will not be able to support our community.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, a former RCMP officer, for his very eloquent dissertation. I have four points to make and I would like my hon. colleague to answer them.

A person convicted for an offence can be eligible for parole after serving only one-sixth of their sentence. This appalled me when I was in jail as a correctional officer and as a physician. I thought it was ridiculous.

Does the hon. member feel that people caught trafficking or using illicit drugs while in jail should actually have more of their sentence to be served in jail rather than being eligible for parole after one-sixth, have that pushed to two-thirds of their sentence which would have a very clear punitive action against those who are wilfully using drugs while in jail?

Persons caught trafficking drugs outside have to pay the price. Does he feel our judicial system right now is enforcing the penalties that are there?

In terms of dealing with hard core drug addicts, the Geneva post-needle park experiment is perhaps the best in the world. Half these drug addicts have become integrated and productive members of society. It is the best model in the world.

There are two ways of dealing with the use of drugs in society. The first is management of the problem and the second is prevention.

I would like to know how my hon. colleague feels about calling for a national head start program that deals with children in the first eight years of life to make sure they have those basic needs met. It has been proven that it has a profound impact on decreasing child abuse and ensuring that children are in school longer, commit less crime and become integrated members of society. This motion passed in the House last year. I would like to know the member's opinion on those points.

[Competition Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for taking the courageous step in dealing with this bill.

This is an issue that many of us in the House have had to deal with among our constituents. Our constituents have been very mad and angry that they have had to be subjected to this bullying by certain companies.

I draw to the attention of the House the issue of the cable companies and the banks that tried through the back door to force individuals, members of the public, to purchase goods and services they were not interested in purchasing.

As the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton so eloquently mentions, the adoption of Bill C-393 will mean that if a person does not respond it means no purchase. I repeat, if a person does not respond to what a company is trying to sell it means no purchase, contrary to the situation we have now where consumers are simply not protected.

The fact that this has never been dealt with before is absolutely tragic. Given the actions by some large companies, cable companies, telephone companies and banks in recent memory, it is all the more important that this issue be dealt with as soon as possible and that Bill C-393 gets expeditious passage through the House of Commons for all the consumers who are not protected by this consumer bullying that has potentially been taking place.

Negative option billing means that if something is offered to a person and they do not respond, they have bought it. Many people do not know this. Sometimes they see their bill and all of a sudden they are paying for things they never asked for. That is the reason negative option billing has to be outlawed. That is why our colleague from Sarnia—Lambton has put forth this extremely important bill that should get expeditious passage through the House of Commons and into law as soon as possible.

I am sure the Minister of Industry will look at this bill very carefully and give it his full support not only in the House but in public.

Negative option billing is also known by other names such as tied selling, automatic renewal contract, all euphemisms for the same thing. One can argue that tied selling actually violates the Competition Act.

Section 52 of the Competition Act says that anyone who promotes a product or business interest through representation to the public that is false or misleading in any material respect is guilty of an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment.

Section 52(4) specifically states that the general impression conveyed by a representation, not just the literal meaning, shall be taken into account in determining whether the representation is false or misleading.

That is why Bill C-393 falls within the realm of the laws we have today. That is why it is a reasonable law to be supported and passed by the House expeditiously.

Bill C-393 also would not apply to companies across the country. It would apply specifically to federally regulated businesses, such as banks, cable companies and telephone companies, companies that have been engaging in or trying to engage in negative option billing for quite some time. I will give some examples.

In 1997 the Toronto Dominion Bank employed a negative option technique to deprive bank customers of their privacy. The National Bank has reportedly used a similar scheme to sell travellers' health insurance to existing customers by debiting their accounts $9.95 a month.

We all know the action that was taken by the cable companies. They told their customers that if they did not hear from them over a certain period of time they were going to be forced to pay for certain services. That was completely outrageous and should never have been tolerated.

Bill C-393 addresses this important issue of the protection of consumers across the country. Industry should not be afraid of this. It should actually be applauding it because it would improve competition. Without Bill C-393, negative option billing allows companies, particularly large companies, to bully their customers. Power is centralized in the hands of those companies. In other words, negative option billing enables the large companies to have greater power over their smaller counterparts. That is not competition. That is called monopolization. And in this country monopolization is outlawed.

Bill C-393 has a number of benefits. It would liberalize trade in this country. It would provide protection for small businesses, not unfairly. It would level the playing field between small and large businesses. Above all else, it would protect the public from being bullied by large companies that seek to add profits to their coffers by virtue of trying to force their customers, through surreptitious means, to purchase goods which they are not interested in purchasing.

Again I would like to compliment the member for Sarnia—Lambton for his leadership on this issue. He is going to get a lot of support from this House. I am sure the Minister of Industry is going to applaud this member for his leadership and work with him to make sure this bill becomes a reality in the very near future for Canadians everywhere.

[Endangered Species, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Endangered Species Day just past, and yet an environmental holocaust is taking place. Every day two to three species of animals, plants and fish become extinct. They are lost forever. The Bengal tiger, the black rhino, the cheetah and, closer to home, the eastern cougar and Vancouver Island marmot are on the brink.

Thirty-four thousand species of flora and 1,100 species of birds are on the brink of extinction. One-half of all species will disappear in the next hundred years.

Canada does not have an endangered species act to penalize offenders and enforcement officers are understaffed.

There are solutions. In South Africa an ambitious program to marry private interests and public interests has saved dozens and dozens of species, expanded habitat and improved biodiversity. We need to look at this model to save the species in our country.

If we save these species we will save ourselves. If we do not, we will surely meet the same fate and we will become Homo sapiens, the exterminator.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief and to the point.

Point number one is subsidized housing. There are two groups of people, those who need it and those who do not. For those who do not, I have had them in my office. They are Gucci socialists. These individuals are making good money and what they are doing is taking away homes from those people who desperately need them. This is an absolute outrage.

Point number two is the issue of the people who are homeless and on the street. There are a number of groups. Group one consists of those individuals who are psyche patients, as was mentioned before. This bespeaks of the deinstitutionalization that has taken place and that has been an abysmal horror for the people who suffer psychiatric problems.

We must provide areas where these individuals can be taken care of. Not only does this make sense from a humanitarian point of view but it is also good medicine and cheaper.

Point number three is the individual on the street suffering from drug problems. It bespeaks of the abysmal failure we have had in terms of how to deal with drug problems.

What we can look at as a solution is the Geneva experiment, the post-needle park experiment, which is probably the best program in the world right now on how to get hard core drug addicts off the streets, employed and integrated members of society. I ask that this issue be dealt with in a multifactoral manner.

On the long term approach of preventing these people from becoming homeless, what we need to do is address the problem at time zero. We can have a national head start program using existing resources based on the motion I had passed in the House last year. It would go a long way in preventing a lot of the social problems that are occurring.

I implore the Minister of Human Resources Development to work with his counterparts, the Ministers of Justice and Health and their provincial counterparts, to develop an integrated approach where they can start of with the medical community at time zero, train volunteers in the middle based on the Hawaii head start program and use educational services for children starting at age four to eight.

Essentially it strengthens the parent-child bond to ensure that children have their basic needs met in those formative years. If children in their first years of life have their time disrupted through child abuse, drug abuse, being subjected to alcohol while in utero, et cetera, it has a dramatic and damaging effect on the psyche of these children and therefore does not enable them to become integrated members of Canadian society.

This has been proven time and time again. We have wonderful programs from the head start program in Moncton that the Minister of Industry was a leader in to programs in Michigan and Hawaii. If we incorporate those and use the motion that I had passed we will have a seamless program that will prevent a lot of these problems from occurring in the future.