Keith Martin

[Transfer Of Offenders Act, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two motions today. Motion No. 337 calls for this House to restore the taxes on cigarettes to the level existing January 1, 1994 which happened just at the time when the government dropped the taxes and caused the single biggest increase in consumption by youth this country has ever had.

It also calls for the tax rate on tobacco sticks to be the same as the tax rate on tobacco sticks equal to that on cigarettes, increase the rate of tax on fine cut tobacco, smokeless tobacco and leaf tobacco intended for retail sale so that this tax on one gram of tobacco is equal to the rate of one cigarette and, last, to improve the tax paid markings that are required on packages of tobacco products and apply the incremental revenue to health care.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for my hon. colleague in the Bloc Quebecois.

A couple of years ago the PQ, under its current leader, did an economic study of the impact of separation on the people of Quebec. The study was commissioned by its current leader, Mr. Bouchard. It demonstrated conclusively that separation would dramatically and adversely affect the people of Quebec economically.

When that study came out it was forced under the carpet. The individual member of the PQ, an ardent separatist at the time, quit in disgust.

The member cannot sit in the House and talk about how well businesses are doing in Quebec. One needs only to go to Montreal to see the economic devastation wrought on that once beautiful, gorgeous and vibrant jewel in the crown of Canadian cities.

There are few points I would like the hon. member to think about and then to remark on after my comments.

Separation will adversely damage the economy and therefore the people of Quebec. Does the hon. member feel businesses in Quebec will have access to the SBLA if it separates?

Will he also comment on the fact that net flow of money does not go out of Quebec but into Quebec and therefore is a direct economic benefit to the people of Quebec.

When it comes to business, in North America who is our biggest trader? It is the United States. Of all countries between the United States and Canada, clearly the United States is more ethnocentric than Canada. If Quebec separates who will be its biggest trading partner? The United States. What language will they be doing business in? Will it be French? I do not think so? It will be English.

The impact of doing business, the economy, trade and social relations with people south of the border will not be a profound positive effect on the French language. It will be a profound negative effect on the French language. Therefore separation will not strengthen French within the province of Quebec. It will weaken it.

Does the hon. member think separation will improve the economic welfare of the people of the province of Quebec? Will it improve the business community in Quebec? Or, will separation remove the benefits Quebec currently has in Canada and therefore weaken the economy of Quebec and weaken the strength of French in Quebec?

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kelowna gave an excellent speech in which he illustrated some of the problems with the SBLA.

I am curious about the aspect of the lender. There seem to be numerous loopholes within the act which enable the banks to engage in what may be termed as less than attentive policies toward what they are lending and the conditions under which they are lending. We found one of the problems is that the act enables the banks to lend to people without due care to the criteria upon which they apply.

I am sure the hon. member has read the auditor general's report on the Small Business Loans Act. Could he provide the House with any constructive suggestions for how the government could change the SBLA to ensure the lender is taking due care?

[Petitions, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present to the House a petition from Rena Harvey and a number of other constituents in Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

They call on parliament to enact legislation to repeal the Young Offenders Act and replace it with an act that will provide penalties for violent crimes committed by young people, will act as a deterrent to such actions and will provide safety and security to the general public.

[Health, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the health minister spoke about a co-ordinated approach and about his care for the victims of this terrible problem. The solutions, though, have been on the table for a long time and the government has continued to dither.

The Hepatitis C Society has put forth constructive, fair, equitable and doable solutions. Will the Minister of Health implement those solutions as soon as possible?

[Health, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today provincial health ministers are gathering together to determine a compensation package for victims of Hepatitis C.

Of the 90,000 people who have been infected half are dead. The provinces have already dismissed outright the offer by the federal government. What will the minister be bringing to the table tomorrow?

[The Senate, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 1 this year, British Columbia Senator Len Marchand was set to retire. Did he? No. The Prime Minister asked him to stay on until after the election. Why? Because he did not want to incur the wrath of British Columbians to have another unelected, unaccountable senator who has the power to change the laws of this country.

Putting senators up for election enables good, hardworking senators to stay and will get rid of the dead wood. It will invigorate the sleepy hollow Senate and make it an active, vigorous place.

The people of British Columbia, the people of this country, want value for money. They want a democracy. They want a triple E Senate.

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the opportunity pass without commenting on the hon. member's speech. He proudly mentioned to the House the taxes introduced by his government. Congratulations.

Who ultimately pays for increased taxes? The public. Those taxes fall on the shoulders of the public. The government has balanced the budget on the backs of the public. What has been the outcome? The worst unemployment we have seen since the depression.

I cannot let pass the NDP comments. Proud NDPers wear their hearts on their sleeves. They profess to be the saviour of the poor and underprivileged. What would they do? During the election campaign it presented a budget to the public that was proven not to work and to increase the deficit of Canada by tens of billions of dollars.

For once I would like the public to see the absurdity of trying to increase taxes while trying to help the poor. Increasing taxes, increasing government spending and increasing deficits do what? They compromise the very people all in the House would like to help.

For all the negativism we have seen across the House, the Reform Party is the only party that put forth a workable plan that would eliminate taxes for those in the lowest socioeconomic groups in Canada, put more money in their pockets and save our social programs. Deficits, debt and increased taxes are what compromise the lowest socioeconomic groups and social programs.

The only party that has ever put forth a constructive plan to save health care, pensions and social programs is this party. We propose solutions to put our economic house in order so that the government will have the money to spend on people who need it the most.

Will the member acknowledge that increasing taxes, increasing deficits and increasing debt compromise the lowest socioeconomic groups preferentially?

[Access To Information Act, February 12th, 1998]

Bill C-208 it is, Madam Speaker. The nature of the subject matter has not changed. Just the number of the bill.

As I was saying, the public demands a window into crown corporations. Some of them are operating efficiently. Some are not. The public has a right to know which are and which are not. Also the employees who work long and hard in these crown corporations have a right to know that they are working in an organization that can be as efficient as it can be. They have a right to know that their organization can perhaps be operating more efficiently and to know where waste is occurring.

If we bring that about, the government must clearly understand that everybody will win. The public will win. The employees will win. The House will win. We will be enabled to rectify problems before they get out of hand and improve the efficiency of these corporations. It begs the larger question as to why some crown corporations are not privatized, but that we shall leave for another day.

Access to information should also be occurring in a timely fashion. According the rules of the House and the access to information in our system, the government and the institution in question have an obligation to answer within 30 days. However, I would venture to say that if government members have the same frustration we have the 30 days do not occur. In fact repeated stonewalling takes place time and time again.

I will mention one particularly egregious situation within the ministry of aboriginal affairs. Members from aboriginal communities come to us as members of Parliament, asking us to investigate situations on their reserves that at times are extremely serious. We have an obligation and a desire to ensure that moneys are spent where they are supposed to and that moneys go to where they are intended, particularly in aboriginal communities where moneys are allocated for counsellors, teachers, health, medication and schools. Anybody in the public would want to make sure moneys go where they are supposed to go.

When questions arise concerning moneys not going to where they are supposed to go, aboriginal grassroots people come to us if they are unable to get information from the leaderships in their communities. We ask for information but the information is rarely forthcoming in a timely fashion and sometimes does not get to us at all.

Who pays the price, I would venture to say, to protect some people? Who pays the price for the failure to investigate these situations? It is the grassroots people who we are trying to help, the people who are in need.

I cannot understand for a moment why ministers would fail to answer a request for information made with the intent of trying to help the people most in need. They should take it as a clue that there may be problems and want to investigate it with the most vigour they can.

Instead of addressing these problems and investigating with the greatest amount of vigour, we see subterfuge, we see obfuscation, we see a lack of answers. This process is an injustice to the people who need the answers. It is an injustice to this House and the Canadian public.

I can only ask that this government for once demonstrate leadership that other governments have failed to do on this issue. In doing so it will clearly demonstrate to the Canadian public a strong desire and commitment to improve crown corporations, to make them more efficient, to show an intense responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer and for the taxpayer's money.

The government will win by adopting Bill C-208. It will demonstrate to all members in this House a desire to finally listen to the backbenchers, to finally listen to the good ideas that come from members across this House and across party lines that this country can be a better place for all Canadians.

[Access To Information Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and specifically crown corporations. I certainly commend my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni who presented the bill to the House. He has shown leadership. I also commend to Theresa Stele who has done an enormous amount of work on the issue.

Bill C-216 is long overdue. Repeatedly in the House the issue has come up. In fact it has been debated ad nauseam. But have we found any changes? No, we have not. Why? Because this government and government before it have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of any political will and therefore integrity in their desire to make crown corporations more transparent.

As we can see today from the widespread acceptance we have in the House, the nature of the bill has found acceptance among members of Parliament across party lines and among members of the public. The public wants value for money in part by making sure that the money it gives to government to spend on its behalf is going where it should be going.

The bill will help to do that by ensuring that one will be able to see behind the veil that surrounds crown corporations currently and ensure that access to information exists.

The Access to Information Act applies to many other aspects of government. It is a cornerstone of democracy. It is as unfathomable to me as it is to other members of the House to know why access to information has not been applied to crown corporations.

There are a litany of crown corporations, everything from Canada Post Corporation to the Canadian Development and Investment Corporation, the Canadian National Railway, the Export Development Corporation—