Keith Martin

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Prince George-Peace River who, with his colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley, has shown a longstanding, intense interest in the justice system. He has put forward some very good solutions. He has worked very hard on the issue and knows of what he speaks. He spends a lot of time in his riding and in other ridings speaking about the justice system. He has done a commendable job in this House in lending expertise to this issue.

A new jail was built in his area. Each cell in that jail cost $175,000. He is quite correct that, contrary to what some of the government members say, there are some individuals who do not mind being in jail. Quite frankly, there is very little deterrence to being in jail for these individuals.

There are four nice meals a day, better than they would be getting were they out. There are a number of options that they would never have outside the jail. That is one of the reasons why the Canadian public feel aggrieved.

They say: "Why are people who are incarcerated getting better treatment than we are outside? I am part of the working poor. I am slogging away. I have to put my kids through school and be taxed to death. I have to pay my medical, yet somebody who commits an atrocious crime goes into jail and gets all this free". There is no penalty, no responsibility and no deterrence.

We are not saying that individuals should not have proper medical care, treatment and counselling in jail. However, they should put their backs into paying for it. One solution that has come from this party is the sensible solution of restitution. There should be restitution to society and also to the institution so that in turn these people can contribute to paying for the cost of their incarceration which for a juvenile can be approximately $90,000 a year and for an adult approximately $60,000 a year.

This bill is dumping, pure and simple. It is an economic bill that dumps people out of jail and on to the streets. The cost will be the safety of the Canadian people. It is not a sensible bill.

As my colleague for Prince George-Peace River stated, the government has not brought forward any sensible solutions for deterrence and no sensible solutions for alternative measures. These people must know that committing a crime is not a pleasurable thing and that they will pay a penalty. There must be a significant element of deterrence put into the system for those who commit crimes.

Since we are a sensible, balanced party, we are putting forward constructive, sensible, economically feasible solutions for restitution and rehabilitation.

We are not in any way, ever going to compromise the health, welfare or safety of Canadians. The bill does just that by dumping these people out on the streets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I extend congratulations to my colleague from Calgary Northeast for an eloquent speech. It was full of a lot of good suggestions that I sincerely hope the government will be able to adopt in an effort to try to bring some sense to the increasingly absurd situation which is taking place within our prisons and reformatories.

Bill C-53, an act to amend the prisons and reformatories act, was a great opportunity for the government to put forth some constructive solutions to situations with which those who work within the system and those who are observers from without are increasingly dissatisfied. I particularly feel sorry for those working within the system, the men and women who work in corrections. They are finding it increasingly difficult to work within the system and to find meaning in what they do. The outcome of what they are faced with has been less than satisfactory, not from the good efforts they have made but from the fact that the system within which they operate is making it very difficult for them to put forth good solutions.

The suggestion within this bill, as my colleague from Calgary Northeast mentioned, is really to increase the number of temporary absence programs. The reason the government is proposing this is not for the safety of Canadians, it is not to improve the way in which crime and punishment operate within Canada, but it is purely to try to save money.

In the process of trying to save money, which we all approve of, there is going to be a huge cost. The cost is in releasing individuals who have committed crimes, sometimes very serious crimes, and compromising the innocent men, women and children who live in our great nation. That is the cost people are going to have to pay in the efforts the government is pursuing in this bill in trying to increase the number of temporary absence programs which exist within our country.

Of all the problems that are affecting our prisons and reformatories, the government is messing around with a very minor issue. This country's prisons and reformatories need a radical overhaul. My colleague from Calgary Northeast, my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley and my colleague from Fraser Valley West have all put forward some very eloquent solutions in which we can revamp our justice system to try to ensure that Canadians are safer and try to ensure that crime and punishment and sensible cost effective rehabilitation will be integral parts of the system.

Instead of pursuing these courses, instead of trying to make these solutions better, the government has chosen once again to nibble around the edges into an area that is relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of reforming our prison system. This not only happens within this bill but in fact happens to the majority of bills in this House. In fact it happens to the majority of work that is done in this House and in the committees of the House of Commons. Why is this so? Because we do not have a democracy here. We have a fiefdom.

Every member in this House, if they are honest and look into their hearts, will recognize very clearly that a small cadre of elected and unelected, invisible, unaccountable individuals are making the major decisions within this country. Because of the whip structure that we labour under in this country, the good men and women who work in this House as members of Parliament across party lines are forced to engage in behaviour and are forced to do the bidding of these unelected and unaccountable individuals.

This is not a democracy. This is a fiefdom. It does a huge disservice not only to the people in this House, but most important it does a huge disservice to the Canadian public, the people we are supposed to serve.

This bill provides the Canadian people with just one more example of why our system simply does not work. What goes on in this House 80 per cent of the time is a sham. It is a complete and utter sham.

It is offensive to me that we are dealing with nibbling around this issue. Unlike what the government believes, the situation is that our streets are becoming less safe all the time. It is true that the stated statistics demonstrate that there has been a decrease in crime in adults. It is true that the stated statistics show that there has been an increase in violent crime, in particular with youth. There has been an increase in crime in general with youth.

However, our stated facts and statistics on crime and punishment do not reflect the fact that the actual rates of crime in this country are much greater than the stated levels are. When we look behind these statistics the reason is the Canadian public is becoming increasingly dissatisfied, more fearful and has less and less faith in the justice system as it exists.

If we speak to RCMP officers and the good men and women who put their lives on the line to keep our streets safe we will find they are becoming increasingly dissatisfied. The system ties their hands behind their backs and prevents them from doing their jobs. They are overworked, understaffed and labour under a series of rules and restrictions that prevents them from doing their jobs.

If you are playing hardball with criminals you have to play hardball back. One need not look any further than the Asian gang crime situation in my province of British Columbia and see the terrible difficulties that our police forces are having in trying to bring these individuals to justice. They feel aggrieved that there has been no leadership at the federal or provincial level on this issue. This is why we in the Reform Party have become increasingly dissatisfied by the inaction, whitewashing and smoke and mirrors that have come forward from the justice minister.

Rather than taking the initiative and using his power to work with members across party lines to develop good, concrete, effective solutions to the problems, he has chosen once again to play games. He is not playing games only in this House for political reasons, he is playing games with the health and welfare and the lives and the safety of men, women and children in this country. That is nothing to be proud of.

Crime is increasing in this country and we have asked the minister to do something about it. Apart from the good solutions that have already been put forward by my colleagues let me offer a few more. First, as has been said before, we have to change the mindset of the way we think about justice. Back in the early 1980s the Liberal solicitor general of the day said from now on the primary goal of the justice system is not going to be the protection of innocent civilians; the primary goal is going to be the rehabilitation of criminals.

While we think that rehabilitation is essential to developing a stronger, safer community in the future, there can be no doubt the primary role of our justice system has to be the protection of innocent civilians. Period. End of story. That is what we aim to do.

It is wise to divide up those who are violent criminals and non-violent criminals. Those who are violent criminals have to pay the price. They have demonstrated that they have shown a wilful neglect to innocent people in the worst possible way. If they are sentenced to a term in prison they must pay that price. People who are contemplating committing offences must know they are going to pay a hefty sentence if they commit them.

Second is to ensure that individuals before they are released are not going to pose a threat to innocent people. When I worked in prisons one of the most appalling things imaginable that I saw were individuals with rap sheets as long as your arm who committed many violent offences and who were going to be released even though everybody who worked with these individuals knew they would commit violent offences when they were out, physical, sexual or otherwise. It was known.

The system prevents us from protecting innocent civilians and that is a terrible situation and everybody pays. It is a crime to society.

The Canadian public should say loudly and clearly that it is not going to put up with it anymore. Canadians demand to be protected and this House must stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Canada to ensure that people will not commit violent crimes again. To the best of our ability we must safeguard the Canadian public from this. If we have to, we should deem those people violent offenders and keep them in for such a time that they will not pose a threat anymore.

Non-violent offenders should be able to work as part of restitution not only to the victims but also to society at large and for their own incarceration.

There are two things which are not spoken of often but which my colleague from Calgary Northeast mentioned very well. The first is skills training. Many of these individuals do not have appropriate skills so when they are released out of the system they have nothing to fall back on other than a life of crime, which is what they do. As part of the system we must ensure skills training is an integral part of the rehabilitation of criminals.

The second is the extraordinarily high incidence of drug and alcohol abuse by incarcerated individuals. Obligatory counselling and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse must be a mandatory and essential part of rehabilitation. Drug and alcohol abuse, as we know in this House, is a very fundamental part of violence and criminal behaviour.

My third point concerns dealings with psychiatric patients. One of the worst things we have done in recent years is to deinstitutionalize psychiatric patients. In my view, many psychiatric patients should not have been deinstitutionalized, although some certainly should have been and the integration of individuals from that

population in society is something that they and those of us who do not have psychiatric problems have benefited from.

However, there is a large population composed of individuals who cannot take care of themselves on the street. They stop medicating themselves and they go into a worsening spiral of their psychoses. They run afoul of the law and wind up in an institution, in a criminal institution, in a correctional facility. These people should not be there. They should be receiving the appropriate psychiatric treatments. They should be medicated properly. That would save the system money. It would save a lot of hidden costs for our society and, most important, these poor individuals who suffer from psychiatric diseases would be treated appropriately in an environment of safety with the assurance and care they need.

I strongly advise the Minister of Justice to urge his counterparts in the provinces to stop the deinstitutionalizing process and look at effective means of determining which patients should or should not be deinstitutionalized.

My next point is also related to rehabilitation. There is an interesting program that has taken place around San Francisco, California which touches on what I said before. They have brought individuals who are near the end of their sentences into the real, non-custodial world to work in the real world with real people. They are introduced to working in the real world with non-incarcerated individuals.

In the process, these individuals learned a great deal about how to function appropriately with others. They learned conflict resolution strategies. They learned appropriate social mores, how to control violent behaviour and how to work effectively in a work situation. They were required to act responsibly in the working world.

Many of these individuals had never had that opportunity before and had led lives of crime. When they became a part of this type of rehabilitation system-I encourage the Minister of Justice to look at this-the outcome was to save millions of taxpayer dollars and to help integrate them back into society as useful, productive, employable members of society. I would encourage the Minister of Justice once again to look at this other solution.

Another thing I would like to address is the issue of prevention. In my experience in dealing with youth in juvenile detention centres, many of the children do not have the pillars of a normal psyche. It is true that many of them have endured atrocious and appalling conditions of violence and sexual abuse. Throughout that period the pillars of a normal psyche were not allowed to develop. As a result many of them have run afoul of the law and go on to develop into dysfunctional adults later on.

There is a way out but it does not involve trying to change the mindset of these individuals when they are 15. We cannot do it at that time and we certainly cannot do it with a three month, six month or one year incarceration with optional counselling in a juvenile detention centre. Nothing changes. These people are let out and they go right back to the criminal behaviour they had before. Many of these kids go back into the same family situations and endure the same appalling family situation. This does not work.

There are solutions. First, we need to identify children at risk very early on and we need to identify families at risk. It is not too early to identify these families right at the prenatal stage. Families at risk do not just materialize. It is something that one can observe clinically. When these families are identified it is worthwhile to have quick response teams go in and deal with these families.

Furthermore, the school system can be a useful tool. They did this down in the United States, I believe at Columbia University. What they did at inner city schools, which had terrible rates of violence, drug abuse, teen pregnancies and dropouts, is they took these kids early on to teach them at four and five years old not only their A, B, C's, but also appropriate conflict resolution, drugs, alcohol, self-respect and respect for others.

When doing this intervention beginning at the age of four, they had an enormous impact on the future psychological development of these kids. Furthermore, they also brought the parents into the system, many of whom were single parents, and taught the parents the same issues.

The outcome of this was a radical decrease in dropout rates, violence and teen pregnancies in these children. The savings to the system were absolutely enormous. The parents who were also involved were able to develop appropriate parenting skills that they never had before. It was a win-win situation for all concerned. It will not cost us more money. In fact, it will save us money.

I presented this to the Minister of Justice last May or June. I asked him to take a leadership role to bring together his counterparts in the provinces, the ministers of health, human resources and development and the solicitors general, to develop some kind of formalized plan that can be employed in the educational system very early on beginning with kindergarten in order to teach the kids and to also bring the parents who are at risk into the system.

The benefits to our society will be massive. I am confident we will see a decrease in the youth crime rate and a decrease in adults.

This is not pie in the sky. It is cost effective economically and it has been proven in the United States to work.

Dr. Fraser Mustard, part of our centres of excellence in Toronto, has done some work touching on these issues. I would again encourage our Minister of Justice to take a look at this, not study it for 10 years but to start acting and using some of these ideas if for no other reason but to use it as a pilot project.

I know members of this party would be very happy to provide the considerable amount of expertise that exists within our party to the minister for effective, cost effective and socially effective solutions that are going to make our streets and society safer and stronger.

In closing, we do not support Bill C-53. It does not address the central issue we have in this country which is the issue of an increasing crime rate and decreasing safety and putting greater emphasis on the protection of innocent civilians rather than on the rehabilitation of the criminal.

I would ask once again for all of us to work together on this issue for all Canadians.

[Tribute To The Late André Caron, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada, I wish to offer my condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of the hon. member for Jonquière, André Caron.

As a teacher and a vocational counsellor, André spent many years helping young people choose a career that would be both successful and fulfilling.

Elected to the House of Commons in 1993, André was transport critic for his party. To his colleagues, he was a good worker, a man of conviction, dedication and integrity who always showed courage and determination.

I would like to recite a little poem for his family:

I am standing upon the seashore. A ship at my side spreads her sails to the morning breeze and starts for the blue ocean. She is an object of beauty and strength and I watch her until at length she hangs like a speck of white cloud just where the sea and the sky come down to mingle with each other. Then someone at my side says, "there, she's gone". "Gone where?" Gone from my sight- that is all. She is as large in mast and hull and spar as she was when she left my side, and just as able to bear her load of living freight to the place of destination. Her diminished size is in me, not in her: and just at that moment when someone at my side says, "there she's gone," there are other eyes watching her coming, and other voices ready to take up the glad shout, "here she comes!" And this is dying.

To Mr. Caron's family I will say that André was taken from us much too soon. But he was carried in caring arms to a place of peace and happiness.

God be with you, André. We will miss you greatly.

[United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to speak today on this extremely important issue of international human rights.

In the post-cold war era we all came to believe that there would be a newer and brighter future for everybody. We thought that the cold past and the cold times of two terrible wars were over and we would see a time when the future would look brighter, when human rights would be respected and we would all live in a safer and more peaceful time.

Unfortunately, the post-cold war era has demonstrated that anything but that has occurred. We have seen an explosion of regional conflicts, primarily internecine conflicts, affecting nation states. Many of these states were boiling over and when the cold war ended, the shackles which prevented these conflicts from blowing up were removed. We saw a time of violence, destruction, raping and pillaging in nations which were relatively peaceful.

We need not look any further than the situation in the former Yugoslavia to see a graphic and tragic example of what has happened in our midst. Potentially those situations could have been prevented. I will say more about that a little later on.

Prior to the cold war ending, the nations of the world got together and developed a number of declarations on human rights, beginning with the Hague and going on to the Geneva convention. They sound very good and mean well. If we were to adhere to those conventions we would not see much of the terrible suffering that people, primarily innocent civilians, have endured over the last several decades. Unfortunately, with these declarations have come an absence of enforcement.

Enforcement is essential if we are going to have a rules based human rights network that is going to work. Without the enforcement, some countries will not adhere to these basic human rights.

It is unfortunate that what we have seen over the last 20 years is a change in who the victims are. The victims are no longer the combatants who have UZI submachine guns, who have AK-47s. Ninety per cent of the victims we see in today's internecine conflicts are innocent civilians who have no part whatsoever in the trials and tribulations they have been subjected to. That is why when we are developing a rules based human rights network and an enforcement policy for the future, we have to remember that we are trying to protect those individuals who are most vulnerable in our society and are the least able to take care of themselves.

One can see that many of the situations in so many of the terrible civil wars that have taken place have occurred under the guise and under the leadership of individuals who are draconian rulers. In no way, shape or form do they represent the best interests of the majority of their people.

Zaire and the former Yugoslavia. Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, General Mladic, Sese Seko Mobutu and others have demonstrated that they do not represent the wishes of the majority of their people. They are prepared to subject their people to terrible atrocities for their own gains and the gains of their own political elite.

That is why when we develop rules for the future, we now have to start being a little firmer in what we are putting forth and recognize that the leaderships we are integrating with and so-called negotiating with may not represent the best wishes of their people.

First we have to develop a warning system, one that will identify the precursors to conflict. After that, we have to develop a rules based response system to the precursors to conflict. I say the precursors to conflict because foreign policy throughout the world has focused not on conflict prevention but on conflict management.

We talk about peacekeeping and peacemaking as part of conflict prevention. It is not. Conflict prevention means preventing the conflict. When peacekeepers and peacemakers have to be put into a situation, the conflict has already occurred and it is too late. The seeds of ethnic discontent and hatred have already been laid and therefore the seeds for future conflicts are laid. This is not necessary. It is possible to prevent these and future conflicts if we change our mindset on foreign policy from conflict management to conflict prevention. How do we do that?

The first thing again is to identify the precursors to conflict, of which there are many, and precede the conflict by many years. Examples are inappropriate arming, the subjugation of democratic and basic rights of a group of people, terror campaigns against a group of people, the withdrawal of the economic abilities of certain groups of people to function, the breakdown of judicial structures and the rule of law falls apart. These are all examples of the precursors to conflict that take place before a conflagration occurs. Let us set up monitors so we can identify that.

The second is we need a response and the response has to be multinational. The problems that are affecting these nations will not be solved if only one country is going to respond to them. The international community has to respond to them and that is why we need a multinational response system.

These responses can involve a carrot and stick approach. If they are going to engage in these behaviours, we can prevent them from doing that or suggest that they do not by offering a carrot. The carrots could be such things as approved loans and preferred trade status. By doing this we could convince the nation states that it is not in their best interests to engage in a conflagration, but it is certainly in their best economic and social interests to engage in peace building between disparate groups.

There is the stick approach. We could remove or withdraw loans. We could recall loans which were made by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other nations. We could cordon off areas. We could withdraw funding. We could discourage nations from engaging in activities with surrounding nations. We could impose sports bans. We could freeze the assets of the draconian rulers.

It is exceedingly important to hit those individuals who transgress international rights and to hit them in their own pockets. Too often what happens is that these groups or individuals who are engaging in draconian measures are doing so with complete impunity. We have to hit them, because hitting the country at large sometimes does not work.

Some of the sticks that I proposed may not be appropriate in certain circumstances, but sometimes they will be. We have to be careful and balance it out to ensure that those who are least advantaged in a society will not be hurt.

Another activity which has been used before but not often enough is to engage in positive propaganda. Oftentimes when the breakdown of structures occurs before a war, we find that one group is engaging in negative propaganda against another. That was done very effectively in the former Yugoslavia. We also saw it in Somalia.

The international community, especially the United Nations, could transmit positive propaganda and peace building messages to the groups. They must also engage in efforts to bring the disparate groups together in an effort to try to build bridges of understanding.

What often happens in a conflict is that one group demonizes the other. It breaks the communication between groups, which enables one group to develop negative myths about the other. It also instils fear within the borders of the other group. This must be broken down. The only way to break this down is to foster levels of communication between the groups. The best way to do that is to do it on the ground with civilians. Civilians can be easily manipulated by the powers that be.

Fostering a sense of democracy and the support of judicial structures is also extremely important, as my Liberal colleague mentioned in her speech. It is exceedingly important to do that. Without a strong judicial structure, without the influence of democratic principles and the support of democratic structures within a country, there is the breakdown of infrastructure which lends itself to conflict.

This is an area in which Canada can take a leadership role. To do this will require the revamping of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations. As the United Nations is looking for a new secretary general, Canada can influence that secretary general with respect to the role which he or she might take.

Right now we have a window of opportunity. The problems that are going to face nations will require a multinational response. To do that will require a revamping of those three structures. It will also require a level of co-operation among the members of the international community which we have not seen, but just because we have not seen it does not mean it is not possible. If we do not do it, all nations will pay a very heavy price.

No country in the world is looking very clearly at the problems which will affect us in the 21st century. There will be environmental problems, population explosions, conflicts and many other problems. All of those problems are not being looked at in a multinational fashion. We get together to study them a lot, but studies do not necessarily produce action. Oftentimes one study will lead to another rather than leading to a course of action.

We have an unusual situation in our country. We are one of the few countries in the world which has an international reputation and ability to engage in the revamping of those international structures which is so greatly needed.

Power in the future is going to come from three areas: traditional military power; traditional economic power; and a non-traditional form of power which will go to those countries which can act as a mediator to organize international consensus. This is where I believe Canada can take leadership. We, along with a handful of other countries such as Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand to name a few can band together as a group and collectively utilize our diplomatic corps, our foreign affairs consultants and experts to bring forth this consensus within the international fora.

Again, we are doing it not only for ourselves but for the international community. There are some powerful and perhaps self-centred ways in which we can justify this involvement. I will not argue the humanitarian grounds because they are self-evident as we speak. However, I am going to argue in a very self-centred fashion.

If conflicts are allowed to occur, we then see a migration of population to our shores. We see greater demands on our official development assistance. We see greater demands on our defence department assistance. We see greater demands on our domestic expenditures on social programs. I am sure, Madam Speaker, you would agree that people like to live in their own countries and in their own cultures if they have a choice. Why not facilitate that and enable these people to live in peaceful surroundings? By getting involved in doing this, we are doing it primarily for international peace and security but also for some very conclusive domestic reasons.

There are many things that we should do in terms of trade, aid and human rights. We have to convince the private sector, and I think we have abrogated our responsibilities in large part on this, that it is in its best interests to ensure that there is going to be peace and a civil society in the areas where it wishes to engage in trade. Engaging in trade and speaking out for human rights are not mutually exclusive; in fact they go hand in hand.

I propose that our government ask that our private sector demand of its companies when they go abroad that they adhere to the same basic rules and regulations of labour that are engaged in in our country, that they engage in the same basic rules and regulations of human rights that are engaged in in our own country, that we support companies that are going to help to promote democratic structures and human rights in those countries abroad. These things would be useful and again would make Canada look very good.

We had a great opportunity recently with the Canada-Israeli free trade agreement to do just that. We had an opportunity, and I think we missed it in a big way, of ensuring that the Canada-Israeli free trade agreement was going to be equitable for the Israeli people as well as the Palestinian people. Economic emancipation for the Palestinian people and economic interactions between the Israeli and Palestinian people are going to promote peace. That is the way in which it is going to be done. It is not going to happen on diplomatic initiatives only. It is not going to happen by standing back with an armed or walled mentality. It is going to happen when Israeli and Palestinian, Jew and Arab get together and engage with each other, understand each other's hopes, fears and aspirations and understand that very clearly their hopes, fears and aspirations are very similar.

I hope the government will continue to pursue this, and ensure that the agreement is going to be mutually beneficial to both peoples. I hope it speaks out on the transgressions that are occurring there as well as in many other parts of the world.

We can take a much stronger role. The Prime Minister and the ministers of trade and foreign affairs are going to go to southeast Asia again. East Timor has an egregious record of human rights abuses. It is important for us to engage in trade opportunities with the area, and also engage in speaking out against human rights abuses there.

In closing, I would summarize by saying that the government has a great opportunity to work with members of the House to ensure that Canada takes a leadership role in support of human rights of people around the world whose rights have been transgressed, people who cannot speak for themselves for various reasons.

Our role in the 21st century is to be that third party which brings nations of the world together to work co-operatively to address the problems that affect us all. That is the only way we will collectively survive in a better and more peaceful world.

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Lisgar-Marquette on his very colourful, heartfelt and passionate speech. I certainly do not think I have his experience to be able to provide that kind of wonderful analogy on the serious topic we are speaking about today.

The government is very happy in trundling out many statistics. It is very happy in saying what a good job it has done economically. It is very happy in saying it has kept over 80 per cent of its red book promises. That is simply not true.

Before the last election one of the primary planks in the platform the government ran on was that it would scrap the GST. The GST was to go. If the GST was not scrapped some of its members said the would resign. The GST has not been scrapped. It is firmly entrenched into our tax structure.

This is very important for a number of reasons. First, it is disingenuous. Second, it shows the government has not kept its promises. Third and most important, it crushes the economy, affecting the livelihood of every Canadian.

Instead of trying to scrap this hated tax, instead of trying to remove a tax that impedes the ability of companies to get on their feet, to hire people and become more aggressive competitively, the government is trying to harmonize this tax, bury it. This will not help people. Rather it will cost the taxpayer, the consumer and the producer hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

Producers and consumers in the maritimes have been saying that harmonizing the GST will cost millions of dollars. It will not only compromise those who are rich. By harmonizing the tax people in the lower socioeconomic groups are impeded and compromised. It impedes and compromises people on fixed incomes. Those are the people who get it in the neck much more so than anyone else. Harmonizing the tax in the way the government suggests will compromise and impede the poorest individuals living in the maritimes.

Furthermore the tax is being sponsored by British Columbia and Alberta. They have paid over $1 billion. Those are the facts. It does not bring the country together if one segment of society has to offset another segment of society in this manner.

Certainly the maritimes need money but they need effective investment, infrastructure and skills training to maximize the possibilities and potential which exist on the east coast.

For all it wishes to do the government fails in bringing out its statistics to mention that it has increased taxes over 22 times. It stands there and spouts off about how well we are doing economically. It fails to mention the unemployment rate in Canada is over 10 per cent. In fact the underemployment rate, along with our unemployment rate, approaches 20 per cent.

Sooke in the western part of my riding has over a 20 per cent unemployment rate. This is an area of immense diversity and immense potential. Yet it has a 20 per cent unemployment rate. When I go to the people who work in my riding, the producers, the consumers and the people who hire, the primary obstacle to getting back on their feet is the high taxes they labour under.

There are some possibilities and solutions which I will present today to the House. The first thing we have to do is get the deficit down to zero. We have proposed through the fresh start platform a plan to get our deficit down to zero by 1999. After that we propose to eliminate the GST.

We also propose to lower the tax burden on individuals. That basically comes down to the fact that our philosophy is very different from that of liberalism. The Liberal philosophy is that the government will take care of society. We agree that society has to be taken care of. We agree that those who are disadvantaged in our society must be provided for if they cannot help themselves. However, it is not the government's position to always do that.

We also feel that people who can take care of themselves have the responsibility to do just that. It is the role of the government to provide people opportunities and skills training in order to maximize their potential.

We have often been accused of being a slash and burn party because of our fiscal conservatism. I would argue that if we profess to have a social conscience, we cannot have a social conscience unless we are fiscally conservative. If we are fiscally irresponsible we compromise social programs and the very people we wish to help. We compromise those who are poorest in our society and the social programs which have defined Canada as a caring society.

Our program of fiscal conservatism would provide people the tools to take care of themselves. It would strengthen our social programs. It would provide health care to individuals.

Our deficit reduction platform will put more money into the hands of Canadian taxpayers. For example, everyone will have an increase in their basic personal exemption. It will go from $6,456 to $7,900. That will provide tax relief to every taxpayer in the country.

We would also increase the spousal allowance from $5,308 to $7,900.

We would cut unemployment insurance premiums by 28 per cent and eliminate the 5 per cent surtax on high income earners.

These measures are important. They would provide money to consumers. They would enable taxpayers to better care for themselves and their families. That is a significant departure from the Liberal view, which is that the government can better take care of the people than the people can do themselves.

There are other possibilities for solutions which are available to us that would stimulate the economy and decrease the tax burden, which would create jobs for unemployed Canadians.

The International Monetary Fund has recently made some excellent presentations. It said that the government should tighten up the eligibility requirements for unemployment insurance to improve labour market flexibility.

The government has been increasing payroll taxes since it came to power in order to increase government revenues. We do not think that is fair. By increasing payroll taxes the government is directly taxing producers and employers. When it increases payroll taxes it impedes the ability of employers to hire more people. We do not thing that is fair. The government should admit that it is increasing the tax burden on producers and employers. It should lower the payroll taxes. That would provide an incentive for employers to hire more people, invest in their companies and create infrastructure development. That would provide employment opportunities for Canadians.

At the end of the day, the single most important concern which affects Canadians from coast to coast is job security.

In closing, I implore the government to look at what the Reform Party is putting out in its fresh start platform, look at the solutions we have for decreasing the taxes, revamping the economy, getting our deficit down to zero and saving our social programs.

Together we can work to make Canada a stronger place. I again implore the government to do just that.

[Health Care, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the Liberal convention in October the Minister of Health said that the problems with our health care system have nothing to do with money and that better management is the answer.

In British Columbia hospitals, patients are being fed by volunteers because of cuts to nursing staff. Sick patients are being dumped out to home care and home care budgets are frozen.

We are going to put in $4 billion to restore health care funding. What is the minister going to do to ensure that these essential health care services will be funded properly?

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this bill today. It includes changes to the Excise Tax Act which would remove the notional input tax credit of the GST from the used good sector.

Prior to April 1993 registered dealers in used goods were eligible to apply for and receive the notional input tax credit. However, the government is choosing to remove that tax credit. That will kill jobs because it will embed the GST into used good services. It hurts those who are most under privileged in our society because it affects used goods and used goods more often than not are purchased by those in the middle class and the lowest socioeconomic classes.

Let us take a broader look at this picture because it has implications in terms of job losses and costs to the consumer. It is really just another tax charged by this government which has claimed repeatedly that it has not raised any new taxes.

We are concerned because this is going to affect between 4 to 6 per cent of our gross domestic product. It is going to affect tens of thousands of individuals who sell used goods. There are 20,000 used car dealers in this country. By removing this notional input tax credit, the NITC, the people who are selling these used goods are having to embed the cost or pass it on to the consumer. That means either the seller is going to swallow it or more likely the consumer is going to pay. Many used car dealerships function on a very low profit margin.

In effect, the government is increasing taxes. It will cause job losses and push up the cost of living for people, particularly those who are most disadvantaged in our society.

The removal of the NITC is something called tax cascading, something that the government repeatedly said it would not do. Yet once again the government is embedding the GST, that tax that it said it was going to remove, and enshrining it into these goods that affect 6 per cent of our GDP, which is not a small number.

It is illogical for the government to do this in view of its repeated assertions that it would not raise taxes to the consumer.

The number of jobs that will be lost is unknown right now. We imagine that the number will be somewhere in the order of 6 to 8 per cent in the groups which are dealing with used goods. It also encourages the underground economy. Any time taxes are increased the underground economy goes up. In fact, members of the government, including the Minister of Finance, said that the GST is going to increase the underground economy by increasing the cost to the consumer.

All we have to do is go back to our ridings to see that the underground economy is alive and thriving, in large part because the consumer and the producer feel that they are being taxed to the hilt. People are not imagining that they are being taxed to the hilt. The reality is that our taxes are some of the highest in the industrialized world.

As I said before, it is a tax grab. As it is going to affect the used goods market it is going to affect those people who rely on that market. Generally those people are in the lowest socioeconomic classes. We did a few studies in the maritimes. We found that in one business alone the removal of the NITC will cost them nearly $90,000 which is going to translate into job losses.

This whole concept belies a much more insidious problem and that is the GST. The government came to power on the promise that the GST would be abolished. It staked its reputation on it. The Deputy Prime Minister had to resign over the issue and many other members said that they were going to scrap the GST.

The Minister of Finance said that the goods and services tax is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax. The Prime Minister said that public and private libraries will have to reduce their purchases of books, periodicals and newspapers by about 10 per cent annually because of the GST. The Minister of Labour said the following: "We created a monster. Now we have an underground economy so big that no one can even account for it. It affects people, human beings". While government members were in opposition they

emphatically stated they were going to remove this tax. Have they? No.

It really grates when the government repeatedly says that it has not increased taxes at all. The facts are that it has increased taxes 22 times since it came to power by embedding taxes such as the removal of the NITC, and by harmonization which I will get to in a moment.

It has also increased gasoline taxes, yet it says to the public: "We have not increased taxes". All one has to do is go to the pumps to find that taxes have increased. The way the government is doing this will hurt those on fixed incomes and those in the lowest socioeconomic groups. When taxes are embedding into goods that are consumed by everybody, everyone is not hurt equally. Those who hurt the most are on fixed incomes with the least flexibility.

Another thing the government did to increase the taxes was the harmonization of taxes in the maritimes. This was a $1 billion deal subsidized by taxpayers outside of the maritimes. Even within the maritimes there was great rancour over this. It is going to increase the cost to the consumer. This blended sales tax will do the following to business.

The three major retailers in Atlantic Canada do not find this acceptable at all. In fact, they figure that their net annual retail deficit will total $27 million when harmonization is implemented. That means jobs are lost.

The Retail Council of Canada said that by forcing stores to bury the new tax prices, the harmonized taxes regime will cost retailers at least $100 million per year. That is absolutely staggering. That is not a benign figure. One hundred million dollars translates into job loss.

Reform came to the House not to merely criticize the government but to put forward good solutions. My colleague for Medicine Hat has done a superb job on finance and has made a number of good suggestions, as has my colleague from Capilano-Howe Sound.

Reform proposes that the GST be lowered and ultimately scrapped after the debt is under control. Reform has put forward a plan to get that debt under control in two years. We are also going to provide tax relief to Canadians. Why? Because money in people's pockets will enable them to take care of themselves. People do not have the money in their pockets today to even provide for their basic needs. That is why we see children going to school hungry. There are people who cannot buy the basic necessities for their families. Given the current tax burden on our society is why companies are unable to hire people.

In 1992 when the Conservative government decreased taxes, income and revenue to the federal coffers actually increased. What did the government do? The Conservative government of the day went on an orgy of taxation, introduced the GST and then government revenues fell off. That is a real life example that shows that making a tax cut will actually stimulate the economy and will increase moneys in the public coffers. I think that is an important thing to realize.

We have a responsibility to Canadians to provide them with a fair taxation system. My colleagues in the Reform Party have made proposals for a flat tax system that provides for equal taxation to all people, and most importantly it greatly diminishes the taxation on the lowest socioeconomic groups. Those who are poorest in our society will be better off under Reform's financial proposal than they currently are with the government. I encourage the government, in fact implore it, to look at Reform's policies on finance because they are going to save our social programs. It is going to provide more money for the poor and the underprivileged. It is going to stimulate the economy, create jobs and provide a stronger and healthier Canada today and in the future for all Canadians.

[Hazardous Materials, December 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Motion No. 241, a motion which the Reform Party supports. It was put forward by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway.

The motion deals with the protection of firefighters and other emergency health personnel who are often confronted with dangerous situations. In particular, this motion deals with hazardous materials.

The situation that exists currently is that in the event of an accident, firefighters can get their information from CANUTEC. Unfortunately, it takes about eight to ten minutes for this information to be available. This is valuable time that can be used to save firefighters, the surrounding public and the communities where the hazardous situation has arisen.

What the member for Burnaby-Kingsway proposes is that we have a test site for a rapid response situation where information can be determined on site within a minute. All a firefighter would have to do to get information on a vehicle or train that has crashed is put it into a computer system. The computer will then be able to tell them immediately what hazardous materials are actually sitting in the train or truck. The availability of this information will save lives.

The condition of support of this motion is that it does not cost more money and that it does prove to be a more efficient way of protecting firefighters and other emergency health care personnel. The good thing we have right now is that the software is already available because it is being used in the United States. The Americans are prepared to give that to us free of charge.

Firemen also have laptops and modems available to them. Therefore, it is not going to cost more money. Indeed, it will be interesting to see what the outcome will be of the emergency response situation.

Firefighters all over the country have been doing a lot of work in pursuing this idea and, in particular, Ed Pakos, the president of the Victoria Fire-Fighters Society and firefighters on Vancouver Island. The motion is supported by the International Firefighters Association, the Canadian Police Association, the United Transport Union and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs.

I would also like to speak on an ancillary topic which is very much related to this issue and involves the protection of firefighters and other emergency personnel. This is something that firefighters have been pushing forward for a long time. It involves the disclosure of the health of individuals if the emergency personnel are confronted with body fluids.

For example, in the case of a car accident, the firefighters, police officers and medical personnel attend to the victims on the site. Glass can be present. Body fluids are around. When emergency personnel come into contact with those body fluids they run the risk of acquiring some potentially lethal diseases such as AIDS through HIV transmission or hepatitis B or C.

The government ought to put forward a bill that will ensure that good Samaritans and emergency health care personnel have a right to this information, a right to know whether the people they are helping are carrying a deadly disease. The government voted against this, much to my shock and disgust, when members of the Reform Party put forward some very strong and persuasive ideas on how we can protect the health of all emergency personnel.

This idea has the support of firefighters, police associations and medical personnel across the country. It seems absolutely unfair that when good Samaritans and emergency personnel respond to an emergency and come in contact with body fluids, they must have the right for their safety and the safety of their families to know the health status of the individuals in need.

The government believes that good Samaritans do not have the right to this information. It believes that protecting the individual who is sick is more important than protecting the individuals who help them. This is not a situation where the rights of sick people are abrogated. This simply makes good common sense.

When Motion No. 241 was put forward, when firefighters came to us with suggestions about the motion, they also suggested ideas for legislation that could be used by them to get information on the sick or injured people they may be dealing with and whose body fluids they may come in contact with.

Unfortunately, we have not seen any motion to that effect put in the House. I believe it is essential for protection of all individuals involved in emergency health care procedures to have the right to know the health status of individuals they are dealing with when they are exposed to the body fluids of these people. As I said before, these body fluids can pose a significant and sometimes fatal risk to the good Samaritans and health care personnel.

The Reform Party supports Motion No. 241, on the condition that it does not cost the taxpayers any more money and that it will improve the current situation. We hope that it will because we believe that the protection of these hard working firefighters, police officers and other emergency response teams who are confronted by these hazardous situations must be protected. They are courageous and honourable people who protect all of us and we in turn must do the same to protect then.

[Quebec, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, recent events show that pro-sovereignty parties lack leadership and are in trouble. These parties are therefore no longer an option for Quebecers. The Liberal government's approach, which is to maintain the status quo, is no better for Quebecers.

The people of Quebec are looking for a viable option and that is what the Reform Party is offering, through political and economic reforms.

I just got back from the PQ convention, where it was clear that the concerns and wishes of Quebecers are similar to those of the people in the rest of Canada.

I ask Quebecers to have the courage to take a close look at Reform policies so that we can work together to build a better future.

[Health Care, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at what the minister has been doing.

In the last five years cardiac surgery waiting lists have increased 31 per cent. In order to get breast cancer treatment in Quebec, women have to wait six and a half weeks.

The plans of the minister and the government for health care are killing Canadians. Canadians are suffering. What is the government going to do to alleviate the suffering of Canadians?