Keith Martin

[Petitions, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 350 signatures on it that asks Parliament to legislate the prohibition in Canada of the use, production, stockpiling, sale, trade and transfer of all anti-personnel land mines and to work toward an international convention banning those activities.

[Petitions, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions today. This petition with 320 signatures asks Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and newspapers under the GST.

[Criminal Code, February 19th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-372, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of child before birth).

Mr. Speaker, our nation today has an epidemic of children who are born with fetal alcohol syndrome which is the result of the mother consuming substances that are deliberately and permanently injurious to the fetus.

In response to that I am introducing a controversial private member's bill. It would enable the courts to impose on the mother who is knowingly consuming substances injurious to the growth of the fetus. The courts would be able to have the individual confined to a hospital or another suitable facility where her access to injurious substances could be controlled for as long as the court deemed fit. This would ensure the protection of fetuses for nobody is speaking for their protection today.

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

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Kootenay East for a great speech and also the member for Saint John, an individual who lives in the maritimes. She obviously knows firsthand what is going on with respect to the effects of the HST on the people in the maritimes.

When the government was elected three years ago, it had an excellent opportunity, a golden moment, to simplify the taxation system so that it would benefit all Canadians and kick start the economy. What did it do? It brought on a harmonized sales tax about which the federal institute of private businesses has said very clearly will cost jobs. It will put companies out of business. It will increase the cost of doing business. Worst of all, it will hurt those people who are most dispossessed and of the lowest socioeconomic groups in our society. In particular, it will affect people in the maritimes, an area that all of us know has been extraordinarily hard hit economically over the past 10 years.

This is an absolute outrage. I hope the public will get involved and provide constructive submissions to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and the Prime Minister in an effort to demonstrate what good, concrete, effective solutions can be put into place to provide a simplified tax system, a lower tax system, a fairer tax system to kick start the economy that will not hurt those people who are the worst off in our society but rather will improve the economy of the maritimes and the country.

What would the hon. member do to provide for a sensible taxation system that could kick start the Canadian economy?

[Excise Tax Act, February 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-70 and the third group of amendments on harmonizing the sales tax in the maritimes.

We have hard much about how the harmonized sales tax is unfair and complex. I am going to get into some solutions to the GST that the government could employ in order to give all businesses a leg up against competitors in other parts of the world.

The government had an enormous opportunity when it came into office three and a half years ago to finally help Canadian businesses to become competitive with their counterparts in the world. Instead the government has taken an entirely different approach other than business as usual. It has done the exact opposite and complicated our tax structures.

The most recent example is the HST. This sales tax does not make the taxation system simpler. It does not provide an impetus for the private sector. It does not create more jobs. It will do the exact opposite. It will cost jobs. There are some very sad examples of this, particularly since this affects the maritimes. It is supposed to help the maritimes but will actually have a devastating effect on many businesses.

Who is this going to affect? It will cost more for children's clothing, books, auto repairs, gasoline, home fuel. It is not the rich who pay for this but the poor on fixed incomes who really pay. Let us look at some real life examples of businesses on the east coast that are going to be affected by this.

The Canadian Real Estate Association claims that the increasing cost of a new house in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland will be over three and a half thousand dollars. The GST harmonization in New Brunswick will cost almost 80 jobs in Moncton and Buctouche. There are other examples in New Brunswick. There is a 50:50 chance of other store closures in the Greenberg chain and a loss of over 70 jobs in places such as Atholville, Shediac and Moncton. This tax will not alleviate the strain and duress that Canadians from coast to coast feel. It will make things worse.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses made it very clear that harmonizing the sales tax is good but that it has to conform to certain criteria. It stated that a properly harmonized tax is good, but it has to be one sales tax across the country at a lower rate than the present rate. It must have one set of rules, one set of audit procedures, a single remittance requirement and one tax collector.

The HST proposal that harmonizes the sales taxes will not do that. It violates the principles put forward to the government by the business community through the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses. It said to the government: "Here are some good solutions. Take them and use them". What did the government do? It ignored them and went in the opposite direction.

I am sure many members will empathize with me. Before I got into this business, as a member of the public I often wondered why in the world did governments continue to propose solutions that have little or no relevance to what is actually going on in the trenches? I am no closer to answering that question today after three years in this House than I was before I got into this business, and that is sad.

It is a disgrace and a shame that we have repeatedly failed the Canadian public by not putting forward good, effective solutions to the problems that affect us. In no other realm have we violated the trust of the Canadian public more than in the field of economics. This opportunity to harmonize the sales tax was a great chance but a failed opportunity on the part of the government.

Some very good solutions could be put forward, but first I will talk a bit about the GST. I will not discuss the fact that the government violated the public's trust on this issue because that has been spoken about before. Once again I plead with the ministers of revenue and finance to please simplify this tax or eliminate it. It is a complicated tax. I do not know if they really understand the incredible stress and burden it places on the small independent businesses that are trying their hardest to eke out an existence. These businesses are getting it in the teeth and the simplification or the elimination of the GST would be a welcome respite for people who are the underpinning of our economy and the true creators of jobs in Canada.

This tax is not applied fairly. In the medical field, the GST is not applied fairly at all. Physicians are actually singled out and treated unfairly by this tax. I will show members how.

Medical services are designated as tax exempt under the Excise Tax Act. Physicians, on the other hand, are denied the ability to claim a GST refund for purchases such as medical equipment and medical supplies that are necessary to deliver quality care.

Why did the government not support motions put forward by my colleague from Medicine Hat to make that issue fair for all medical personnel? Why are physicians being singled out? Only the government knows that. It is unfair and discriminatory to this group of individuals.

I would like to discuss some things we can do to try to improve the economy in our country. The first thing is to look seriously at introducing a simple, flat tax. The flat tax tells people that the harder they work, the more they are going to keep. Our present taxation system tells the Canadian public the more they make, the more the government is going to take from them.

That is a very serious problem because it takes away the incentive to go out and strive harder. A flat tax with a greater margin of exemption at the bottom takes out the lowest socioeconomic groups from paying taxes and puts more money in their hands.

My colleagues in the Reform Party have proposed that and we have the flat tax in our fresh start platform. It shows ways that the government can actually put more money into the hands of all Canadians, but in particular those who are poorest in our society. I encourage the government, once again, to take a look at that. Frankly, I am not very confident that it will take the initiative.

The complexity of the tax structure absolutely restrains, restricts and compromises the ability of the private sector to go out and be as aggressive as it can be.

Government regulation, in fact government over regulation, must be diminished greatly. If I was a private business person considering opening up a business, I would think very carefully about not doing it because of the level of government over regulation. Three levels of government are the hoops that many business people have to jump through, and that acts as a huge restraint on maximizing the great ideas that they have economically.

We must also deal with education. We need a much stronger education system and it needs to be brought into line with what is taking place in the global economy and what the needs of our country will be in the 21st century. Currently students, faced with an over 20 per cent unemployment rate, are having great difficulty earning the funds to get themselves through school. Almost two years ago Reformers suggested an income contingent loan replacement plan which would provide more funds to students going to school.

Our educational system must reflect the needs of the 21st century. Therefore, closer co-operation between the private sector and the education system is essential if we are going to maximize the needs of our country and the needs of our students. The ICLR program would enable more money to be available for students to get the training required. We also need a far greater input into job training in the work force.

Much to my dismay, I have learned that our country is one of the lowest in all developed countries in investing in their workers in developing the trades and the educational systems they will require along with the skills to be aggressive in the 21st century.

In closing, if the government was to have a flat tax, decrease the complexity in our taxation system, have a strong educational system, decrease the tax burden on Canadians and simplify the tax structure, we could provide enormous input, incentive and impetus to our private sector. As a result, we would create more jobs and have a more secure future for all Canadians.

[Impaired Driving, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley for demonstrating his leadership on this very serious issue.

As my colleagues who have spoken before me have mentioned, there is an epidemic taking place today, despite all the programs the police have established to catch drunk drivers.

The problems are many and it is worthwhile to establish what the problems are and the impact which these problems have within Canada today.

The cost to Canadian society of drunk driving is enormous. In 1994, 87,838 people were charged with impaired driving and l,414 people were killed. That is three times higher than the murder rate.

The government has made an enormous effort to implement laws and regulations to deal with gun registration. Those initiatives will have no effect whatsoever on decreasing the murder rate in Canada.

There is an epidemic within our midst that is causing three times as many deaths as homicides and the government has done nothing to address it. However, the government has an excellent opportunity. It could employ some of the ideas which are contained in Motion No. 78 to address the epidemic.

The cost is massive: almost $400,000 per fatal accident; $310,000 per fatality; $12,000 per injury. That is only the tip of the iceberg.

In my dealings with drunk drivers, both in the emergency departments of hospitals and in jails, I have noticed a couple of things. First, in a jail I was dealing with an individual who had been charged and convicted over 22 times with drunk driving offences. The individual laughed when talking about it and felt that it was a joke. The penalty is not a deterrent in its current form.

The second problem that exists is that it is extraordinarily difficult for the police to actually convict someone who has been drinking and driving. Currently it takes a police officer about six hours to do all the paperwork required to prosecute an individual for drunk driving. That is why when an individual is pulled over who is over the limit, a police officer would rather suspend the person's licence for 24 hours and send him or her home than actually go through the process of prosecuting. People who habitually abuse the system, who drink and drive, know that. They know that if they drink and drive, although the penalties are supposedly quite high, the actual penalties are quite low.

We must do a number of things. We must enable police officers to prosecute individuals who drink and drive in an expeditious manner.

An intelligent trial lawyer can get most people who are charged with drinking and driving off very easily through a number of

loopholes in the system. It extends right from the moment that the blood test is taken to the trial.

I cannot emphasize how important it is for the government to take initiatives to streamline the process and give our police officers a hand in deterring this epidemic. They must be able to send a clear message to people who are considering getting behind the wheel when drunk that it is not acceptable and if they are caught they will be prosecuted and levelled with a penalty which will be more than a slap on the wrist.

My colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley has put forward this motion to enable the House to put forward some very stringent penalties to deal with this epidemic. This is not something that is benign. The statistics prove the rate is very high. It is very costly to society.

It is incumbent upon us in this House to take the leadership role once again and demonstrate to the Canadian public that we are interested in their safety and we are going to put forward some intelligent ideas to address this problem. It also involves intelligent ways of dealing with the issue.

As my colleague before me just mentioned, alcoholism is a disease and it must be treated as such. That is why as part and parcel of the conviction for drunk driving, individuals who have committed this offence must have drug and alcohol abuse treatment as an obligatory part of their sentences. Merely sentencing them and sending them back on the street will do absolutely nothing to prevent this situation from occurring again. Drug and alcohol abuse is a complex situation and it must be addressed through counselling. Although counselling and treatment are not absolute solutions, we desperately need them.

One of the big problems in our penal institutions is that not enough emphasis is placed on the drug and alcohol abuse of those who are incarcerated in our penal institutions. A greater emphasis must be put on dealing with the drug and alcohol problems of these individuals instead of merely incarcerating them. Regardless of the reasons they were originally charged and convicted, it is important to make sure we break the cycle of crime, punishment and recidivism which tends to occur not infrequently in people who commit a wide range of criminal offences, be it drunk driving, murder, robbery, assault causing bodily harm and so on.

I once again commend my colleagues, especially my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley for putting forward this motion which tries to address the epidemic of drunk drivers. I implore the government to take heed of his initiatives and to employ them.

I hope the government takes a leadership role with its provincial counterparts, the attorneys general from across the provinces. It could work with them to establish an effective way of preventing this problem through obligatory treatment for alcohol and drug abuse. It could impose significant penalties for those who choose to drink and drive and who get caught, also for those who drink and drive and commit offences in terms of the injuries that occur to defenceless and innocent civilians.

Getting behind the wheel of a car when you are drunk is akin to picking up a gun and shooting somebody. That car is a potential weapon. It is a lethal weapon that has been used with undue and tragic frequency within this country.

People often do not realize that there is sometimes a great deal of callousness and utter disregard for the pain and suffering of victims by some drivers when they get behind the wheel drunk and injure or kill somebody. I remember a tragic case in which a drunk individual killed a young man who was driving another car. Both the drunk fellow and his buddy were injured. He was conscious but his buddy was not. He grabbed his buddy, dragged him into the driver's seat and put himself in the passenger's seat. He was totally uncooperative with the police and he lied repeatedly throughout the process. He did everything he could to get off. There was no regard whatsoever for the young man I had to treat three bays down who had a massive head injury and was dying.

I implore the government to take heed of my colleague's initiatives which are constructive, worthwhile, productive and for the betterment and the health of all Canadians.

[Health Care, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, hurt number one on Liberal health care. Let us look at one British Columbia hospital's experience with the Liberals' version of publicly funded health care.

It is February 4 and as usual there are no beds available in the hospital. Eight out of 13 emergency room bays are occupied by seriously injured people. The hospital's response: cut 10 more beds because there is no funding.

There are 12 male and female patients in one room separated just by sheets with one bathroom. There is no funding for staff. A quadriplegic has to be turned, cannot be, develops bed sores, becomes septic and dies.

A sixty-year old patient has a heart attack and needs urgent transfer to Vancouver. There are no beds because there is no money and the patient dies.

A young woman needs urgent dialysis. There is no funding for any staff, the patient has a cardiac arrest and almost dies.

This is the Liberal government's version of publicly funded, accessible health care. Shame on this government for deceiving the Canadian public and playing political football with the health care of Canadians.

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-70 which harmonizes the sales taxes in the maritimes.

The object of the bill is an attempt to create jobs, to simplify the tax system and to stimulate the economy. This attempt by the government to harmonize the sales tax will do exactly the opposite. It is an example of an ill-advised taxation initiative which will put people out of work, increase the underground economy, drive companies into bankruptcy. Let me give some examples.

The business community has cried out against the present form of this tax. The Retail Council of Canada said that it will cost retailers at least $100 million per year. It will not only cost the retailers, obviously it will cost those who pay for it in the end, the taxpayers. The Halifax Chamber of Commerce said that the sales tax will push up the cost of new houses by 5.5 per cent. This is in an area of the country where people are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase homes.

Consumers are going to pay more for children's clothing, books, gasoline, heating fuel: the essentials. In fact, it will hurt those who are least able to afford it. The government should be embarrassed about doing that to the people of Atlantic Canada.

The intent, though, is sensible. Having a harmonized sales tax is actually a good thing but it has to occur in a different number of ways. It has to be one tax for the entire country applied across the board. The rate has to be lower than what it is now. We need one auditing procedure and it has to be simpler and easier to understand. It has to have one single remittance and one set of rules.

The system that is proposed by the government does not do that at all. It just increases the complexity. Furthermore, it asks Canadians outside the provinces in the maritimes to fund this project by shunting money from the west to the maritimes. For the moment, the west does not mind providing for provinces that are less able to afford things. However, to ingrain this harmonized sales is doing a disservice to all Canadians. This tax will affect over 50 per cent of businesses in the maritimes in a massively negative way. This is information from the business community in the maritimes.

There are ways to get around this. There are ways to provide a sales tax that will be better and therefore stimulate the economy. There are ways to get people back to work but the government has just nibbled around the edges for the last three years that we have been here. It has done very little to help the 10 per cent of Canadians who are unemployed and the nearly 20 per cent of Canadians who are under employed.

Here are a few constructive suggestions that I challenge the government to take up. First, the debt and the deficit. Get the deficit down to zero and decrease the debt. Second, instead of having the HST that the government is proposing, let us have a sensible harmonized sales tax that has one tax, a lower rate applicable across the country, that is simpler, with one reporting procedure per year, one auditing procedure that is easier to understand.

Better, of course, would be to scrap the tax altogether. A few years ago when the government of the day decided to lower taxes, what happened? More money came into the government coffers, more money was in the pockets of Canadians and the economy was stimulated. What did that government do? The Conservative government of the day started to tax wildly. That did the exact opposite of stimulating the economy and revenues to the public purse went down.

We need to flatten the tax system. My colleagues in the Reform Party have proposed some sensible solutions for flattening the tax procedure for all Canadians. It is a simple tax that does not defeat the intent of working harder to earn more for ourselves and our families. It provides for a greater minimum exclusion for those in the lower socioeconomic groups so those who are poor in our society pay little or no tax at all. It is a win-win situation.

Interprovincial trade barriers have to go. I do not know if the Canadian public realizes it but there are more barriers to trade east-west across our country than there are north-south. That is an embarrassment. The government has had opportunity after opportunity to deal with this but it has not.

We have serious problems in education in our country. There is a dislocation between the needs of the private sector and the initiatives of the education system. If we want to build a stronger Canada, if we want to build a nation where we can compete with countries from around the world, if we want to become one of the new tigers in the economy of the Asia-Pacific countries, then we have to invest in education.

We have to determine what will be the needs of the private sector in the 21st century. We have develop co-operative initiatives between the education system and the private sector to enable the students of today and tomorrow to develop the skills that will enable them to become employable in the future. That is not happening right now. I challenge the government to work with their provincial counterparts to do just that.

Number four is skills training. It is an embarrassment to us that we are one of the nations of the world with the lowest investment in skills and labour training in the developing world. How can we be competitive in the global economy if we do not invest in skills and labour training for our workers? That is absolutely essential if we are going to compete in the future.

We also need to reinvest in research and technology. The government is pulling money out of research and technology. It is doing the same thing with education. The government ripped some $7 billion from transfer payments for education, health and welfare and claimed it was balancing the budget. All the government is doing is balancing its budget on the backs of taxpayers. At the end of the day it is the taxpayer who pays for everything.

We have to capitalize on foreign markets. We heard that we should be reinvesting in north-south trade. Thirty years ago trade in Asia represented 5 per cent of the world's gross national product. Today it is 30 per cent and growing. We are uniquely positioned to take advantage of this in my province of British Columbia. We have the geography, we have the people, we have the opportunity for skills development, not only for points east in Asia-Pacific but also as a conduit and as a channel for points in Europe and points south. Very few nations, in fact no nation, can boast the ideal position that we have today.

I challenge the people of Canada to realize that our system of governance today is not a democracy at all. It operates more like a fiefdom. Democracy has very little to do with what takes place within our nation today. In fact, most of the important decisions made are made by a group of non-elected, unaccountable officials that the public never sees. That is where the legislative initiatives occur. They are made not to make this country a better place, but purely for the maintenance and acquisition of power.

If the Canadian public wants to see radical, fundamental, positive social and economic change, then they will have to get angry and put pressure on all of their elected officials to demand the changes in governance that we will require if we are going to be an aggressive player in the economy of the 21st century.

We also need strong leadership that demonstrates and expresses a vision of the country that is going to lead us into the 21st century where we will be able to demonstrate strength and compassion. Right now, that does not occur.

We need to build a nation where all able-bodied individuals can develop the skills training they require. And it is an obligation for all able-bodied individuals to capitalize on those opportunities. We also need to fulfil our obligation to those individuals who cannot take care of themselves and ensure that our social programs are placed on a sustainable footing.

If we can see that leadership in this nation, we will be able to lead our people into a stronger and brighter future in the 21st century. Failure to do that will mean terrible social and economic consequences in the future and we will only be a shadow of what we can be in Canada.

[Excise Tax, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-70 which would harmonize and streamline the GST.

I am not going to deal with the obvious lack of credibility the government has on this issue. That has already been spoken about eloquently by my colleagues. However, I am going to demonstrate that the harmonization of the tax will have an enormous negative impact on the business community in Canada, as well as all Canadians, in particular those who strive to develop business and commerce within Canada.

It is obvious that the harmonization of the tax will have a huge negative impact on Canadians. It is estimated that harmonization will cost Ontarians $3 billion. It will cost three major retailers in the Atlantic provinces over $27 million. The Retail Council of Canada estimates that harmonization and streamlining the GST will cost retailers over $100 million a year.

That will not put Canadians back to work. It will not improve commerce in the country. It will not elevate people out of the egregious taxation system that we have in this country. It will do the exact opposite.

There are solutions, but the government seeks not to employ them for reasons that only it knows.

I cannot think of a tax which is more hated than the GST. There is no tax which compromises the ability of Canadians to use their entrepreneurial spirit, to be the best they can become and to provide for their families, their children and society than this tax. In fact, one-third of the GST is spent merely on its management.

The GST, to the small business people of our communities, is invasive and enormous. It has a strangulation effect on their ability to do business.

If the government would look back in history, it would see that when taxation levels were decreased and simplified it did not decrease the revenues that went into the public coffers, rather they increased. Furthermore, it gave a huge impetus to small and medium size businesses, those business which truly create long term employment in this country. It provided employment and stimulated the economy. If ever there was a time when we needed to decrease unemployment levels and give Canadians some element of security, it is now.

Again the government has chosen to ignore the good solutions out there to simplify and decrease the tax and the GST. For heaven's sake, decrease the GST and enable our businesses to employ their entrepreneurial spirit to become the best that they can become.

I encourage every member in this House, especially those in cabinet and those members on the finance committee, to go out into the trenches and speak to Canadians who are trying to struggle to become the best that they can be in the business community. So many businesses are closing and so many people are losing their jobs.

Many individuals cannot get work and many businesses cannot get on their feet because in part of the taxation system, its levels and complexities. That must change. It is strangling the life out of the Canadian economy. Let us look south of the border at the infusion and stimulation the U.S. has given to its economy by lowering taxation levels, keeping interest rates low and decreasing the morass of entangled, bureaucratic overregulation under which Canadian companies have to suffer.

This is no small point. Canadian companies from coast to coast have to struggle through three levels of bureaucratic entanglements to do business. I sympathize with them. If I were trying to start a business, quite simply I would not. I cannot imagine the courage it takes for them to attempt to get through and overcome the morass of bureaucratic entanglements merely to try to start up a business, hire people and provide for themselves and their families.

Our finance critic from Medicine Hat has put forth many intelligent, eloquent and substantive solutions so that this government can simplify the taxation system, decrease the taxation levels and provide an impetus to our Canadian economy. However, it has gone absolutely nowhere.

One particular short point I would like to make is with respect to how GST affects physicians in this country. People are supposed to be treated equally yet physicians are treated differently. They should be tax exempt under the Excise Tax Act because medical services, equipment and supplies which are necessary to deliver quality care are supposed to be GST exempt. However, of all the medical professions, only one is singled out to not benefit from this and that is the physician population.

The government should immediately enable physicians to be treated equally, not preferentially, but equally with all other medical professions. country. This government has failed to do that and continues to ignore their pleas for fairness and equity.

I must say I am getting absolutely disgusted with this House. This House is supposed to be an area of higher debate. This House is supposed to be a place where we are sent when elected to present the greatest and best solutions to the problems that affect Canadians across the country.

Canadians are crying out for answers yet what we see in this House at best is bad theatre. At worst, it is a shame on all of us to be engaging in the behaviours we see not only in this House but also in committee. We need a radically different view on how we conduct government in this country. We need to remove the control of the executive from the members in this House. Members from across party lines should be getting together, along the lines of what they

do south of the border in the United States, to bring forth the best possible solutions, solutions they could apply to the problems this country has.

There are good solutions across party lines, but we do not see the development of the best solutions applied to the problems of this nation; we hear petty pathetic insults going back and forth. That does not serve this House in any way, shape or form. Most important, it does not serve the Canadian people. There is a complete and utter disarticulation of the problems of people in this country and the high jinks that go on this House.

I hope every Canadian will find out about what is going on in this House. I hope they will make it their business to find out what is happening. I hope Canadians will put pressure on their elected officials to smarten up, get with the program and apply the best solutions to the problems that affect them. This includes not small changes but large changes.

We cannot continue with the form and structure of governance this nation has today and expect things to change. Nothing will change unless we have a radically different way of dealing with issues in this House. We must enable committees to be effective, enable public input at committees and allow them truly to be heard in the legislative process of this House. We must enable the good solutions that exist in the public to be applied to the debates and ultimately become the solutions that are desperately needed for the problems that affect us. Unless we do these things, we will not see the change this country needs and as a result, we will not become the truly great nation we have the capability of being.

I hope the government will listen to this, although I do not think it will. Most important, I hope members of the Canadian public make it their business in the coming election to get involved, to get interested, to get active regardless of their party affiliations. I hope they force their people to do what it is they want them to do.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Peace River has hit the nail on the head about a very important problem that is affecting prisons across the country, one which the men and women who work in our prison systems are finding increasingly difficult to deal with, and that is the huge problem of active drug use within the prison system and also the fact that individuals who have drug and alcohol problems are not receiving treatment.

As part of their incarceration, as part of the condition for release, individuals must take counselling for drug and alcohol problems. Also, there should be significant penalties for individuals who smuggle and use drugs and alcohol in the prisons. All they receive right now is a slap on the wrist and that is not adequate.

Contrary to the belief of some social thinkers, deterrence does work to some extent. If people know they are going to be faced with something a little more severe than a slap on the wrist, then they would think twice about doing this.

The solution is for these individuals to have their sentences extended as summary justice for committing these criminal acts while in jail.