Keith Martin

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-52. It is great for Canada, Canadians and the world that we are taking a leadership role in trying to ratify the test ban treaty signed by 150 countries in 1950.

In the cold war era the nuclear weapons threat loomed very large in all our lives. A threat existed not only between the countries of the former Soviet bloc states and Canada. Other nations were beginning to develop nuclear programs. In the post cold war era this threat has changed. Sometimes we may believe the threat is less than in the cold war era.

In reality the threat today is even greater than what it was 15 years ago. The reasons are many. We will get to them in the future but it is for the reason that we have a much greater threat today with respect to nuclear weapons that we are in a position to ratify this treaty and bring it into law. This brings into force the reasons and the rationale and the purpose of the test ban treaty signed in September 1996.

I am a little disappointed that it took us two years after we signed this treaty to the time we came to this House to ratify it and to bring it into force. That is far too long. It should take much less time.

Also the government should keep in mind that it would be useful for parliament to take a look at treaties before these treaties are signed. Constructive ideas exist across party lines to be able to contribute to the nature and essence of these treaties to make them stronger and more relevant to the Canadian public. I think the government would do well to emulate that.

This test ban treaty is only the beginning. As I mentioned, we have a much more dangerous situation in the world and the reason why we have a much more dangerous situation is that nuclear material right now has become far more disbursed, getting into the hands of people who should never have it. In fact, the controls that existed in the cold war era are to some extent gone.

It is absolutely imperative for those controls to be exerted on the fissile material across the world. We do not know the people who have it and we do not know where much of this fissile material is.

The following are some constructive suggestions that the government would perhaps consider in its international talks with respect to nuclear disarmament.

I do not believe, as my colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned, that a comprehensive ban of all nuclear weapons around the world is actually going to take place.

The government has to approve and go after the START III talks, the strategic arms reduction talks. It has to work with other countries to pursue those.

The government should pursue with other countries the banning of multiple independent re-entry vehicle techniques which are multiple independent nuclear warheads that can be dispersed. We also need to pursue a ban on independent and medium range ballistic missiles which could be a significant threat in the Middle East and in South Asia.

The government should take a very strong view with working with other countries to deal with the trafficking of fissile materials.

After 1991 and the collapse of the former U.S.S.R. there were 30,000 nuclear weapons that existed in those countries. Much of that material has gone into Russia but in the collapse of Russia that is taking place right now, no one knows where this material is or who controls it.

There has to be for the independent and collective security of the countries of the world an accounting system regarding where this fissile material is, who has it and to ensure that proper controls and safety measures are there.

There has to be a downsizing of fissile materials. These fissile materials have to go into situations where they cannot be used for the production of nuclear weapons. This is exceedingly important.

The Canberra commission of 1996 put together some very important documents with respect to that. There has to also be a vigorous accounting of these fissile materials which simply does not exist right now.

If we look around the world and see the primary threat with respect to nuclear weapons, it is in the dispersement, the sale and the black market of not only fissile materials but the triggering mechanisms that would enable somebody to produce a nuclear bomb.

It is not very complex science to produce a nuclear bomb and in the wrong hands one could be made. We need not look any further than what Saddam Hussein was saying in Iraq and the intelligence that we have recently regarding how close he was to developing a nuclear weapons potential that could have seriously threatened any kind of peace in the Middle East and caused an environmental disaster.

Speaking of environmental disasters, one thing we are not taking into consideration which is a serious problem is what is taking place with nuclear waste. I understand that Russia has dumped nuclear waste over large segments of Siberia. These fissile materials, these nuclear materials, are highly radioactive, carcinogenic, teratogenic and toxic. Some of them have half lives of hundreds of years. They get into the biosystem and multiply as they go up the food chain.

People eat animals at the top of the food chain and they manage to acquire large amounts of radioactive materials in their systems. One need not look any further than what is happening with aboriginal people in the Arctic to see the high amounts of the substances that exist within their biomass. They have large amounts of these carcinogenic and toxic materials in their tissues. Large amounts of this material have come from Siberia to the Arctic.

It is for this reason that Canadians and this parliament need to be very concerned, aware and interested in what happens to this biological material. It is a serious threat to the health and welfare of not only people but flora and fauna.

Of the 193 countries in September 1996, only 150 countries signed this treaty; 43 did not. We can use our diplomatic initiatives, our embassies, our respect around the world and our diplomatic ability to convince these 43 non-signatories to come on board and sign it. It will not be possible for some of these countries to sign at this moment. But it does not mean we cannot try to get these countries to come on board.

Potential hot spots that need our acute intervention and acute interests involve South Asia between India and Pakistan, and the situation in the Middle East with respect to Iraq and Israel. As mentioned, the situation between Russia and the United States needs to be dealt with. One hidden faction in all this which we do not take into consideration enough is the situation with China. We like to say the United States is the only super power that exists. In my view that is utterly false. China is a super power, has been a super power for some time and has the weapons capability of a super power, both conventional and non-conventional.

I compliment members from across party lines for pursuing the rapid support of this bill and also supporting the ban on nuclear weapons. I do not think it will be feasible for us to ban them outright but we must do whatever we can to pursue the downloading of existing nuclear weapons in the world. We should do our best to remove them and destroy them and to deal with the fissile materials that are out there and to put an urgent dampening control on those nuclear weapon materials. This is not only for our individual security but for our collective security.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very pointed and interesting speech.

I am very interested in one aspect, though, that perhaps we have not touched upon. It is one of the greatest threats when it comes to the potential for a nuclear disaster taking place in the future. I am referring to the trafficking of small amounts of fissile material, which in my view is one of the most serious threats to international security that exists today, particularly in view of the fact that the former U.S.S.R. nations including Russia are economically impoverished and have a significant amount of nuclear material, in the order of up to 30,000 nuclear weapons, and the fissile material that goes with it.

Would my colleague and his party be interested in working with members across the House to develop a common strategy to present to the international community to deal with the accounting, monitoring and ultimate destruction of fissile nuclear material?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP. I know of his deep interest in aboriginal issues, particularly in improving the health, welfare and education systems of aboriginal people so that they have the tools to stand on their own feet.

The member's question was about why we did not have government funding for post-secondary education up to and including bachelor degrees. The bottom line is money. Unfortunately we have a limited amount of money and we have to do the best we can with the resources we have.

The leader of the Reform Party championed the concept of an income contingent loan replacement scheme in the last parliament. This is a very clever scheme that would provide for a greater amount of loans for students. Those moneys could actually go into a system that is far more accountable and more money would stay in the system.

In essence, when a student leaves school loaned moneys would be paid back on the basis of the earnings potential of the student, rather than current system where the student has to pay the whole shot back in a very short period of time, usually at a time when it is very difficult to acquire a job.

If the House and my hon. colleague in the NDP were able to work with us to champion that, we would do a great service to students by implementing an income contingent loan replacement scheme which would provide for more money for students while not extracting more money from taxpayers.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the government for his comments. I would be very interested and curious in seeing the document he presented to the House because it flies in the face of information that I have received.

I am pleased to speak on Bill C-53, the small business loans bill. At the outset I would like to say that we in this party have been very much in favour of trying to find innovative ways in which small businesses can become more aggressive in trying to meet the challenges in their need to acquire capital in order to grow and become competitive.

While we agree with the notion of this bill and its intent, we have a difficult time with parts of it. The auditor general supports our contention that there needs to be more accountability in the system to ensure that the moneys go to businesses and that there is a mechanism of determining that the money actually goes to the businesses that need it. We must also ensure that those moneys are repaid, that they come back to the taxpayers.

We found that the moneys are being disbursed to companies that would by and large already receive bank loans. In effect this bill has been subsidizing the banks. The banks do not need subsidization. They are making some pretty fat profits and have been doing so for some time in spite of the recent downturn the entire economy is facing.

On the larger issue, our legislative agenda for the next few months is about as useful as pabulum. Look at the situation in our country today. The really big issues are a plunging loonie, an economy that is in the doldrums and an international crisis the proportions of which we have not seen since the Great Depression. Our health care system is collapsing. The CPP is in dire straits. And we see issues for the House to spend time debating that have very little meaning to those grand problems that affect Canadians.

We need to get back to dealing with the large issues. We need to use this House in a way that we can find the best solutions from within Canada and around the world and apply them to the problems at hand.

The health care system is eroding. Canadians are in pain and are on enormously long waiting lists. The future of the CPP is in crisis. Our economy is falling apart. And we are looking at small, minuscule issues dealing with these problems if we deal with them at all. Let us get down to brass tacks. Let us get down to the real issues at hand.

An important issue that Bill C-53 deals with is the economy. We have seen the lowering dollar. There has been a consecutive decline in the the GDP over the last four months. We have an unemployment rate which is 4% higher than that of the United States. Our productivity has declined. Our productivity was significantly lower than that of the U.S. when our dollar was 90 cents. It is still low at 65 cents.

The public may or may not be aware of this, but our dollar is declining for many reasons. Some people point fingers at the Asian flu. Some people point fingers at the Russian meltdown. The bottom line is when we point a finger at something, three fingers point back at us. It is true that some of these things are out of our control but many are within our control. There are many constructive suggestions that we can employ. The Reform Party challenges the government to employ some of these solutions.

How can we get our productivity up? The Canadian Federation of Independent Business put out a document three days ago. It articulately and eloquently shows that youth want to work but they are unable to work for many reasons. One of the biggest reasons they are unable to work are our high taxes. The government needs to reduce taxes.

There are some specific solutions that my colleagues have spoken about. We spoke about reducing EI premiums. Let us also reduce the CPP premiums. This is a provincial responsibility, but let us also look at reducing workmen's compensation premiums which also contribute to choking off the private sector. Let us also remove the existing surtaxes that crush the private sector.

There are surtaxes such as the capital gains tax. It impedes the private sector's ability to take moneys it has invested, sell things such as real estate and reinvest that money into the business. The capital gains tax restricts the movement of capital within our system thereby reducing our productivity.

The government should work with the provinces to decrease those taxes. I challenge the finance minister to bring together his provincial counterparts within the next two weeks to discuss these issues, make a plan and institute it as soon as possible. By doing this we can make ourselves more competitive, not by reducing the loonie but by dealing with the structural reasons of why our country is non-productive.

If we look at the history of the United States, the 1920s, the 1960s under President Kennedy, and the 1980s, every time there was a reduction in taxes there was a huge increase in the effectiveness of the economy. Why? There are increased savings and increased investment. There is also a greater desire to work because we know that the more we work, we will not have more money taken away from us.

We will also see a reduction in the black market, a significant problem in our country. By reducing these tax loads we will be able to reduce the black market. In 1992 under Prime Minister Mulroney we found that more moneys came into the public coffers for the reasons I previously mentioned.

We can deal with facts. Looking back in history we can see the constructive solutions that have already worked we and can apply them in 1998 to make them work for the people of our country today. I caution that this will not compromise the people who are most impoverished. It will make them more employable and will allow them to have more funds. It will rescue our social programs by making more funds available.

Reducing taxes will allow us to deal with another important structural problem, the brain drain which my colleague spoke about earlier. In 1997 we lost 46,500 of our best and brightest people to the United States alone. Compare that with 1990 when we lost 20,500. That is a substantial difference. There has been a substantial change.

Our best and brightest, the crème de la crème of our country are going south, not necessarily because they want to live there but because they see far greater opportunities there. Comparing the tax structures, after tax a family of two in the U.S. makes 44% more than a family of two wage earners in Canada. How can we compete with that? We cannot.

Earlier this year the business community combined with the educational community to provide a number of constructive solutions to deal with another factor that could improve our economy, the educational system. It involved innovative partnerships between the private sector and the educational system that would do much to address one of the core pillars of a strong, nimble and effective economy.

In a nutshell, the business round table had many recommendations. It recommended that all students learn at significantly higher levels and that the curriculum content reflects the higher expectations we would have of students. It recommended that instructional strategies and school choices vary to ensure success for all and that the system be based on performance by using a broad range of assessment tools. It recommended that schools have a major role in decision making, which would alleviate the rigid control over schools in what they can do. Schools should receive rewards for success, assistance to improve and penalties for failure to be effective teachers of today's youth. A major emphasis should be placed on staff development.

The round table also recommended that employee unions at individual schools be required to grant waivers on certain contract provisions governing the hiring and firing of teachers and principals and on the participation of staff in academic and financial planning.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of those recommendations. If we are going to have an effective, nimble and aggressive economy, we have to change our educational system. We have to give schools some control over what they do in terms of teaching. They must have control over their budgets. They also must have the ability to be assessed.

Teachers federations have traditionally been completely opposed to an assessment of a teacher's performance. I feel this is wrong. Good teachers will benefit from the system because they will not only be keeping their jobs but they will also be rewarded for doing a good job. It would add the needed element of incentive into the teaching profession. It would remove from the system teachers who are not doing a good job.

In any system, including this one, those who are not doing a good job get turfed. That may sound ruthless but when we are dealing with the future of our youth, we must give them the best opportunities we can. We owe it to the youth of today to ensure they have an opportunity for the best education possible.

We must strive not only to help those who are among the most underprivileged and disadvantaged. We must also encourage those who are the best in our system and give them the challenges they require to become individuals who can contribute greatly to our society.

The finance minister could do a couple of other innovative things. There is presently a limit on the amount Canadians can devote to foreign investment. It is now at 20%. The government should increase that to 30%. That would go a long way to enabling people to provide for their future. As we in the House all know, the CPP will not be there for those in my age group and younger as it has been for previous generations.

The finance minister could actually expand RRSPs, have a designated RRSP amount. Those moneys could then be used to invest in the private sector, in small to medium size businesses on Canadian soil. If the finance minister were able to expand RRSPs, it would not be a lodestone around the taxpayer neck. It would also enable Canadians to invest in Canadian companies on Canadian soil and create Canadian jobs. It would be an important tool for increasing investment and innovation in the private sector by using the dollars that already exist. It would not rely on taxpayers.

This is an important facet the prime minister and the finance minister should look at to enable us to put money into the private sector and to enable the private sector to do research and development.

I would be remiss in suggesting that we not ensure the research and development system including the National Research Council have the moneys to do the very good research it does. It should be encouraged to partner with the private sector so that it will have the moneys to build another pillar of the private sector, the research and development section. Therein we would have a much more productive and effective economy for the future.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for his speech. However, I will correct him on a number of points. The hon. member suggests that we are somehow against the notion of this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Reform Party has been on the cutting edge of providing constructive, effective and pragmatic solutions in order to revamp our economy and make it a nimble, aggressive tool for the people of Canada in the 21st century. It is unfortunate that neither his party nor the government has done as much as they could do on that matter.

The member alluded to what the auditor general mentioned. These were not just small concerns. They were large concerns, concerns of accountability. The auditor general said very clearly that 90% of the loans in the act would already have been made by private sector banks and that there was no need of money from the government. In other words, the taxpayer did not need to subsidize loans to the private sector. In this era of declining resources and a lack of money on behalf of all governments to provide for programs we already have, we are opposed to the taxpayer subsidizing the private sector on loans it would already be getting.

In effect the taxpayer is subsidizing the banks.

I would like to ask my hon. friend and colleague whether he will join with the Reform Party in holding the government to task to make sure this act is going to ensure the monies available are going to small businesses that would not normally get a loan from the bank and that accountability is put into the system so monies will be invested in such a way that they come back to the taxpayer and we have an ongoing replenishment of the cycle. This is what the Reform Party is very much in favour of.

[Petitions, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition again signed by hundreds of people from my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and elsewhere in British Columbia.

The petition calls upon parliament to enact legislation to implement in conjunction with the provinces a national head start program for parents and children that would concentrate on the critical childhood formative years and give children the necessary building blocks to become responsible productive adults. This national initiative would focus on preventing crime and reducing socially unacceptable behaviour in society and I concur.

[Petitions, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, again signed by hundreds of people from my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, calls upon parliament to enact legislation to repeal the Young Offenders Act and replace it with an act that will provide adequate penalties to protect society and at the same time to work with the provinces to implement prevention programs such as a national head start program and address the root causes of crime.

[Petitions, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions.

The first one is signed by hundreds of people from my riding. It calls upon parliament to end the discrimination against adopted children by reinstating the adoptive parents benefit that was eliminated in 1991, thereby equalizing the benefits received by biological and adoptive parents.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, October 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his speech, but I am disappointed that he wants to put the question on this very important issue at this point in time.

Be that as it may, I have a question for the hon. member. His government is taking a significant amount of EI premiums and putting them into general revenues. These moneys are in excess of what is needed in the fund to pay out to people on employment insurance.

Current information shows that taking this money out of the pockets of the private sector has a significant dampening effect on the ability of the private sector to generate employment. The hon. member knows very well that the report of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which came out 48 hours ago shows very clearly that the number one issue that impedes the ability of business to create jobs are the high taxes in this country.

I ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to ask the finance minister today to lower EI premiums by 50%.

[Dna Identification Act, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-3.

After listening to my hon. colleague's comments, we certainly understand her concerns and the concerns of others from the government and those civil libertarians who suggest that the taking of DNA is somehow a gross infringement on people's rights and has to be taken in a very narrow definition. This is what Bill C-3 does. That is the part we actually oppose. We believe that the taking of DNA samples as defined in this bill is too restrictive.

Let us look at the larger public good. That is what we are talking about and where a great deal of disagreement concerning this bill exists between our party and the government. The government feels that the taking of DNA should be restricted to very narrow circumstances, such as multiple murderers and people who have committed sexual offences. In these cases DNA samples can only be extracted after the conviction has taken place. This does not help the police. It does not help the victims groups.

We suggest that DNA samples be taken beforehand. Why? It serves two purposes. Number one is very important in that it helps to exonerate the innocent. We have not heard much about this from the other side. It is a double edged sword. One would argue from the other side that this is restricting people's personal freedoms. We would argue that there is a larger public good here.

The larger public good refers to the protection of innocent people and the conviction of the guilty. The only thing Bill C-3 does in its current form is it helps to convict those individuals who have committed the most heinous of crimes.

The way the bill is configured, it can act as a shield behind which the guilty can hide themselves. It does little to protect the innocent. If we were more aggressive with this bill, if we were able to take DNA samples from people before they were convicted, then those DNA samples could be used to exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty. That is what we are trying to do here.

We in this party are trying to put faith back into the justice system. When we speak to Canadians, they have lost a lot of faith. It is not that they have lost faith in the Canadian police departments and the RCMP. They have a lot of faith in the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect us and keep us safe. It is in the process and the management of our justice system and the implementation of the laws of this land that the Canadian people are having less faith in all the time.

Bill C-3 could be a strong bill. Members from my party have put forth constructive suggestions, such as that the DNA be taken right from the word go, right from when a person is picked up and is suspected of having committed a crime, and that the breadth upon which the different types of offences that this can be applied to be extended beyond multiple murderers and multiple sex offenders.

Had we had this bill a few years ago and had it been appropriately applied, Clifford Olson would not have been able to kill the number of people he killed. He committed 80-odd offences before he even murdered one person. If this bill had been in place in the manner in which we would like, Clifford Olson would have been behind bars and a lot of people's lives would have been saved. A lot of families would not be enduring the pain and suffering that they endure to this day.

This bill needs a number of other amendments. The data bank that exists today is far too limited. The data bank should be formed in such a way that the information is kept a long time after the person is convicted. That does not exist in Bill C-3.

The information, if utilized, would enable the police to pick up somebody very quickly if their bodily fluids were found at the site of a crime, in which case again we would be preventing further crimes from occurring. The government somehow fails to see this. Although we understand its concerns in dealing with civil liberties, we would argue that a higher good and the greater good is the protection of innocent civilians, including those who are falsely picked up for a crime they never committed.

There is a positive side to this bill in that it can be used to protect and also release the innocent. We would not get cases such as the Guy-Paul Morin case, which has been such a tragedy for him and the Morin family.

A lot of other aspects with respect to Bill C-3 can be dealt with here. I would ask that the government listen to the police departments who would like to see the DNA data bank go forth, as we would, but in a much stronger and effective fashion.

The government needs to pursue the issue of crime prevention. The Minister of Justice to her credit recently implemented a crime prevention strategy dealing with kids from zero to six, I believe, in Edmonton. This is a head start program. I would strongly urge the government to implement our motion that was passed in May of this year calling for a national head start program.

One of the great things that one can do, and the cabinet ministers can certainly take advantage of this in their position, is to take the leadership role that is desperately needed. Although the rights and responsibilities of various areas are divided up and parcelled off among three levels of government, the federal government has the unique opportunity to call together its provincial counterparts in a number of areas, put their minds together and come to the table to develop a comprehensive plan which people across the country would benefit from.

One of those areas is in the justice area and is associated with Bill C-3. It is the national head start program. The Minister of Justice along with the Ministers of Health and HRD, can take a leadership role. They can call together their provincial counterparts here in Ottawa or anywhere in this country and look at what is already on the table with respect to early detection and crime prevention strategies. Keep what is good, throw out what is bad, use existing resources and deal with crime prevention.

This should not be done when a person is 13, 14 or 15 years of age when they may be suffering from conduct disorders, have run afoul of the law, have endured years of sexual abuse, violence or perhaps have been subjected to alcohol while in utero with resulting fetal alcohol effects. It should be done before that.

In order to have an effective crime prevention strategy, it has to start in the first eight years of life. We know scientifically that in the first eight years of life the building blocks of a normal psyche are developed. Events such as being exposed to sexual abuse, violence at home or improper nutrition damage the building blocks of a normal psyche and at adolescence it is very difficult for that child to engage appropriately with the environment. Unfortunately many run afoul of the law.

Programs such as the Moncton head start program, in which the member for Moncton has taken such a leadership role, the programs in Hawaii and the Perry Preschool Program in Michigan have clearly demonstrated that early intervention programs can be highly cost effective. On balance these programs save about $30,000 per child. They lower dependence on welfare and keep kids in school longer. They have lowered teen pregnancy rates. They can have a dramatic effect at lowering child abuse. The program in Hawaii reduced child abuse by 99% in a cost effective fashion.

With the fragmented nature of social programs in the country, the federal government has an enormous opportunity to work with its provincial counterparts to implement a provincially managed but shared funded national head start program. One message apart from what we have spoken about in Bill C-3 would be to implement the program using existing resources.

The government could do what was done in Hawaii. It could use trained volunteers and the medical community starting before a woman becomes pregnant. Trained volunteers could be used for the child at birth up to age four and the schools could be used when the child is between the ages of four and eight.

If the government did that we would have a dramatic positive effect in decreasing youth crime and in improving the social welfare for the most underprivileged in the country. It would save the taxpayer billions of dollars and provide a more secure and safe environment for all Canadians.