Keith Martin

[Health Care, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health claims that Canadians are getting access to health care services when they need it. The fact is that waiting lists are growing year by year.

Reform's solution is to increase spending by $4 billion to relieve the suffering. What will the health minister do to relieve the suffering of Canadians today?

[Teen Pregnancies, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada every year we have an epidemic that few are willing to talk about and that is the epidemic of teen pregnancies.

The statistics are staggering, with teen pregnancies doubling in the last 10 years alone. One-fifth of girls under the age of 20 become pregnant and 58 per cent give birth. One-third of these girls drop out of high school and the children of these mothers often have higher educational and social problems. The costs to our social system is over $7 billion a year.

The future is often quite bleak for the mothers and children who often live a life of poverty, and yet this is an avoidable tragedy. To stem the tide schools need effective sex education programs, and sexual active teens need safe, effective measures of birth control.

Prevention is the best medicine. I implore the Minister of Health to work with his provincial counterparts to develop intelligent, safe strategies to address this terrible tragedy among us.

[Criminal Code, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your consideration.

I would like to thank my colleagues for Mississauga West, Vancouver South, Kootenay East and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for their kind and heartfelt interventions on this enormous humanitarian issue.

In closing, I would just like to say to every member in the House that as has been mentioned passionately by the members here from across party lines, this issue is one of non-partisanship. It is an issue of basic humanitarianism. It is an issue that we as Canadians stand for as part of our soul in being fair and equitable people who want to do the right thing and fight for those who are most dispossessed in the world.

I hope the government will bring forward a bill forthwith on this issue calling for Canada to play a leadership role in banning anti-personnel land mines.

I ask once again that the House make my Bill C-252 votable.

[Criminal Code, November 29th, 1996]

That is right. The government should forthwith bring forward a bill calling for a ban. I am sure we could get speedy passage of that bill through this House and the Senate to make sure that Canada is playing a leadership role.

We are not the only country to have addressed this. Many countries have done so. For example, Belgium which had a vast stockpile of anti-personnel mines has made a ban. Sixteen countries across the world have taken leadership and it is high time that we as a nation did too.

Apart from the military aspect of land mines, there is also the issue under humanitarian law. There are rules which talk about the proportional or discriminate use of weapons. Land mines violate international humanitarian law on at least four or five tenets. They

are disproportionate, they affect civilians, they are not addressed necessarily to combatants, they continue to affect people long after a war is finished and they are inhumane by any stretch of the imagination.

If we are in agreement with international law, with the tenets that we have signed with the United Nations, then we have to arrive at no other conclusion but the fact that anti-personnel land mines are illegal and must be banned. There are no two ways about it.

If we want to speak in purely selfish terms, there are over two million land mines seeded around the world. Every year we take out 85,000. The cost to make a land mine is between $3 and $10, yet the cost to remove one can be anywhere between $300 and $1,000. We are losing the battle. We cannot keep up with the scourge if we are only removing that many and indiscriminately dumping over two million of them a year. And indiscriminate it is. Mines are tossed out of helicopters and from the backs of trucks. There are machines made in Great Britain, France and the United States which toss literally hundreds of them around.

In the gulf war a staggering 400,000 anti-personnel land mines were laid every single day. What is the cost to remove them? The worldwide cost is over $35 billion. Who can afford that? Not the countries that have them because they are some of the poorest countries in the world. Not the international community because we are all labouring under huge debts and deficits which we simply do not have the money to pay for.

What happens in the poorest countries of the world with the mines? It prevents these countries from getting back on their feet. Mozambique, Angola, El Salvador, Somalia; the list is endless. These countries will never become self-sufficient, will never be able to stand on their own two feet unless these issues are dealt with forthwith.

Some of my colleagues will speak today about the people who are affected by mines and what happens to them if they are lucky enough to survive the blast. Some of them may be lucky enough to go to a hospital where they will receive proper medical treatment and possible amputation. They then will suffer months if not years of future surgeries. Because the mine fragments are embedded deeply they often get septic. The people become sick and require antibiotics which are not often available. They might need revision surgeries if it is available to them or they die a very painful and horrible death.

We talk about prosthetics. Prosthesis for these people are not readily available. When one is making $15 U.S. a month and the cost for prosthesis is over $125 U.S., and children will use over 20 of these in their life, one can see that is simply not available.

Those of us who have travelled in the third world, as many members have, know that these people who are affected by mines and are amputation victims live a life in the lowest possible social strata in their society. They are in effect outcasts in a world of poverty. They often crawl on the ground using the remnants of rubber tires on their knees and beg. The families cannot take care of them and they can hardly take care of themselves. It is clearly inhumane.

Therefore, it completely violates any of the tenets of humanitarian law under which we are supposed to live.

Canada has a great opportunity. We have taken a leadership role in many other areas in the past. During the times of Pearsonian diplomacy we demonstrated that we can take a leadership role to strive for peace and understanding among people. We have demonstrated a leadership role in humanitarian aspects. We have Louise Arbour who is the head of the war crimes tribunals in the Hague. Canada has a pre-eminent role in diplomacy and in foreign policy.

I would ask that the government look at this issue and bring in a bill that will have a domestic ban on anti-personnel land mines. If we can have a domestic bill on these devices then clearly we can go to the international community and talk with a great deal of personal conviction and credibility. We can tell other countries that it is in the best interest of the poorest countries and the poorest people of the world, indeed all of us, to ban these devices. They must be put on the same level as chemical weapons, biological weapons and lasers that are designed to blind people. All of these weapons have absolutely no place in warfare in the 20th century.

So-called military experts will say that there are rules that govern mines. They have mapped them out and they know where they are. However, the facts of the matter are that is completely not true. Although we may try to do that, guerrillas can go in and move the mines around. Weather patterns shift the mines around. We do not know where they are. Guerrillas can take mines as they go through a mine field and use those mines to damage and destroy that which they are supposed to protect. They can also be used against the parties that they are supposed to protect. There is no use for these devices now and they must be banned.

Strangely, although the military is the primary objector to calling for a ban on these devices, the primary use is by non-military combatants, non-conventional combatants or guerrillas. They are the ones who use these discriminately and they are the ones who do not adhere to common practices of war. We all know there are really no rules in war.

Some people have said that if we call for a ban on these devices not everybody is going to adhere to it. That is very true, but by banning these substances we will be able to arrest the epidemic of the distribution of these devices so we can at least lower the numbers that are being laid. As I mentioned before, if one is laying

two million mines a year and taking 85,000 out we have a losing proposition and they must be removed.

These mines are not used for military purposes. They are primarily used in a inhumane fashion to terrorize the civilian population. Many are designed to target a civilian population by putting them along the pathways to watering holes. The military do not do that. They know how to deal with mines. This practice is meant to terrorize the civilians.

I would like to congratulate a number of groups in Canada which have worked extraordinarily hard on this issue. Mines Action Canada, the International Committee of the Red Cross, just to name a few, along with many Canadians from coast to coast have tried to bring the issue to the forefront of international consciousness.

I would ask that the government follow the desires and wishes of the majority of Canadians and ban a device which is so heinous it is beyond our comprehension unless we have dealt with or heaven forbid, been affected by land mines or anti-personnel devices.

I will stop there. Based on what I have said today, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to make my private member's bill votable.

[Criminal Code, November 29th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-252, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mines), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure today to speak on my private member's bill, Bill C-252, an act to amend the Criminal Code relating to mines.

This bill deals with an epidemic that we have in our midst which is affecting over 60 countries in the world. It is an epidemic which kills over 25,000 people every year. It is an epidemic which harms over three times that many people. It is an epidemic primarily designed to kill and maim innocent civilians, often children. The epidemic I am talking about is the epidemic of anti-personnel land mines.

This scourge affects many countries and often the poorest countries of the world. It is often spoken of on the same level as biological and chemical weapons. These heinous devices, these heinous silent killers which lay underneath the ground beside trees, on walking paths, beside watering holes and in fields are devices which violate virtually every single tenet of humanitarian law. They are in effect by their very nature, by the way in which they are used and by whom they affect, illegal. Yet there are in the world today countries which still use them, countries which produce them and countries which sell them.

The purpose of this bill is to give Canada a leadership role in banning anti-personnel land mines. To the credit of the government, it has placed a moratorium on land mines. It has also destroyed two-thirds of its stockpile. That is a move in the right direction. If we are calling for an international ban on anti-personnel mines which we have been doing, we must first take a leadership role in banning them domestically. It is disingenuous for us to call for a ban of these mines internationally on the one hand and on the other not do the same within Canada. It is a shame

because these weapons are not necessary, from a military or any other perspective. I will get to that later on in my speech.

There are two different kinds of these mines. There are blast mines which when stepped on blow up. There are fragmentation mines which contain pieces of shrapnel and metal one of which elevates itself above the ground to rip out a core and affect people perhaps in a 50 or 60 yard radius from where the mine has blown up.

The fragmentation mines shoot out projectiles at rapid speed which can tear into a person's bowels, legs, groin, chest, eyes and face. The blast mines can take off a limb. Perversely, these devices are not meant to kill but are actually meant to maim. The perverted logic behind this is that a person who is injured is a greater problem to society at large than somebody who is killed and removed from society.

Most of these mines are laid in battlefields. Most of them are laid in the poorest nations of the world. The mines are also used for a number of other different purposes. They are used to terrorize. They are used as blackmail. They are used to starve people. The Khmer Rouge used them very effectively in Cambodia. They would lay mines around the fields and say to the people that they could only get back into their fields if they paid them money. The Iraqis used them very effectively to starve the Kurds.

These mines, as I have said before, affect the poorest nations of the world. When a war is over and people want to go back into the fields they cannot do so because of the mines. This continues the cycle of starvation and destitution within these nations.

The mines are also used in a number of other heinous ways which is well known to the people here. Over 40 countries in the world manufacture mines and the list of companies that make them reads like the Who's Who of Fortune 500 . In fact if we look at the nations that make them, we find sadly that those who claim to be the leaders in peace at the United Nations Security Council are those who are the greatest producers of land mines in the world. It is important to know that. The list includes companies such as Daimler-Benz, Daiwa and many others that can be found in Fortune 500 .

Many of these devices are often designed to look like little toys. The reason they are designed to look like toys is that children will pick them up and their arms will be blown off.

My personal experience with land mines occurred when I was working on the Mozambique border in southern Africa during the war in Mozambique. It was usually young people, adolescents, children, youth, who had their limbs blown off. If you have ever looked into the eyes of somebody who is sitting on a hospital bed with one of their limbs torn to pieces and fragmentations embedded in various parts of their body, knowing full well that that the person is going to die or at best live a life of utter poverty and destitution, then you cannot arrive at any other conclusion but that these devices must be banned.

In fact looking at the current conventional wisdom, the Pentagon has called for a ban of these devices. Twenty-two top military brass in the United States have called for a ban. Canadians have called for a ban. The international community has called for a ban, yet we do not have a ban. Furthermore our country has not called for a ban.

The International Committee of the Red Cross put forth a very eloquent document which looked at the use of land mines purely from a military perspective. It was done by 12 top military brass including General Itani, a Canadian. The outcome was they said that there was no legitimate military use for anti-personnel land mines in the 1990s and there would not be in the future. They strongly recommended that these devices be banned.

Within 24 hours that document was supported by another 24 top military brass. Within 48 hours, 72 top military brass supported it, including General Norman Schwarzkopf and our own General Lewis MacKenzie.

The primary reason for keeping land mines within our arsenal comes from the military, from a very archaic view of the use of mines. Unfortunately that is the view that is being held sway within our country today and that needs to change.

I am greatly disappointed that this bill which in effect has been supported by members across this House and in fact in the Senate was not made votable. There have been dozens and dozens of interventions by members from the government, the Bloc, the Conservative Party, the NDP and Reform Party to ban anti-personnel land mines in Canada. There are even senators from all party lines who desperately want this to occur. There is no reason this bill should not have been made votable so that the House and the people of this country could vote on this very important humanitarian issue.

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member agrees with me in saying that the supreme court should only interpret laws rather than make them.

I have a lot of respect for my hon. friend. I strongly urge him to speak to the police officers and representatives of the police forces and to speak to the prosecution lawyers who find the charter of rights and freedoms hamstrings them dramatically.

I also suggest to the hon. member that the charter is actually discriminatory. In its tenets the charter specifically says that it is acceptable to discriminate against a group of people who have previously been deemed to have had some advantages. That is not free. That is not equal. That is not ensuring equal rights for everybody. That is damaging the rights of people and is discriminatory by its very nature.

We had the bill of rights before this charter. The bill of rights worked very well. The police were happy with it, the courts were happy with it and the people were happy with it. Unfortunately in 1982 the Liberal government of the day decided to bring in the charter of rights and freedoms which has turned our judicial process on its head. It has hamstrung the courts and the police officers in the trenches who try their very hardest under extraordinary circumstances to keep our streets safe.

If the hon. member wanted to do the honourable thing, which I am sure he does, he would suggest to his party that we pursue the idea of going back to the bill of rights.

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act.

Fundamentally, the Canadian judiciary must remain independent and free of bias or coercion from outside sources, in particular those which stem from special interest groups or, in fact, Parliament.

This bill concerns Madam Justice Louise Arbour. She was appointed to be the chief prosecutor in The Hague for the UN war crimes tribunal. At the outset I would like to say that is not only an honour for her but it is an honour for all Canadians. She will take the place of Chief Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa, a highly distinguished individual. Her appointment to this position demonstrates the confidence which the international community has in Canada and its judiciary. We are looked on as being a nation which, by and large, maintains a great deal of independence, for which we are highly respected by the international community. It is a degree of respect which is completely out of proportion to our size and our economy. A lot of Canadians do not realize the respect which the international community has for our nation. The appointment of Judge Arbour certainly demonstrates that respect.

The amendment to Bill C-42 is a good one. I must commend the Senate for bringing it to the attention of the House. Bill C-42 ensures that there will not be a cozy relationship between our judges and outside influence. Without this amendment judges, technically, could be open to influence, not only within Canada but also outside our borders.

The appropriate middle ground would be for Canadian judges to step down temporarily to take up very important appointments, such as the one we are discussing today. Judge Arbour is perhaps the most prominent of all the Canadian judges who have been appointed to a position in the recent past.

The role which the Canadian judiciary plays in enabling democratic and judicial institutions to build up in other countries is important. It is particularly important in the democratic and judicial restructuring of countries which have been wracked by war. Many of these countries do not have a proper judicial process in place. Many of them have had their judicial process destroyed.

Canada has a very good judicial system. It is something that could be exported to other countries. In that way those countries could be taught how to plan a judiciary that is free of bias, free of influence and independent of the wiles and influences, powers and purses of other groups in the community. It is a basic tenet of living in a free and democratic institution, one with which everyone in the House agrees.

This bill contains a number of important considerations and concerns that Canadians have made with respect to the judiciary. One of those is the appointment process. The number one criterion in becoming a judge ought to be merit and experience. At present, though, judges are appointed on the basis of not necessarily what they know but who they know.

We have many good judges in our system. They are superb, intelligent, bright, meticulous and articulate individuals who do great honour to our system. We in the Reform and the Canadian public have a problem with the appointment of those rare individuals who come into the system, not on the basis of their skill, not on the basis of their merit but because they are a friend of the government of the day. That has to be addressed. If the government were to take that on, it would add increased credibility to our judicial system.

Recently the courts moved from interpreting the law to making laws. In fact they have shot down laws that this House has passed. It stems from the 1982 charter of rights and freedoms. The charter has given increasing powers to the judicial system, in particular the supreme court, to actually make laws.

Members of the public, when talking to me about this, find it quite perturbing, as many in the House do, that the supreme court, a group of appointed, not elected, individuals actually have the power to supplant laws that have been passed by the House. The public does not understand that and find it extremely grievous.

A better idea would be to rein in the supreme court, to make sure that its role is to interpret law, not to make law. I am not a lawyer but it would be very good if the government studied ways to revamp the judicial system to ensure that the supreme court goes back to interpreting law and not making law.

Another aspect I will touch on briefly is that Bill C-42, to which this amendment applies, deals with some extremely generous pension benefits for judges. That needs to be dealt with further, I am quite sure in the future.

Reform also finds quite grievous the way the bill is being finessed through the House. It belies an increasingly perceived cosy relationship between the Minister of Justice and the judiciary. These kind of relationships have to be severed. The judicial system, our courts and our judges have to be separate in their decision making process from this House and the Minister of Justice.

As a former correctional officer I would like to say one thing about Judge Arbour. She is most known for her scathing indictment of what went on at Kingston in the women's penitentiary and the riot that took place. I have never been on record in saying this but I would like to take the opportunity to do so.

I found, as a former correctional officer, it to be completely, grossly unfair and a scathing indictment of the correctional services. During a riot-I have seen this happen-in a penitentiary when dealing with inmates, who often do not deal in the ways we deal with each other in public, can become a very dangerous situation. Inmates can be carrying hidden weapons. It is very reasonable to ensure that those individuals are stripped searched. In a riot situation it is important to go in with overwhelming force. It is important for the safety of the correctional officers. It is also important for the inmates. Going in with less than overwhelming force actually poses a greater threat to the inmates and to the correctional officers.

I was greatly disappointed by the unfair and negative treatment our correctional services received. It became an issue of political correctness and trial by media. It was not an issue of fact and what is reasonable in those very difficult and trying circumstances. Most members of the public would not understand this because thankfully most people have not been in jail.

I would like to touch on an important aspect of Judge Arbour's current responsibilities, one on which Canada can take a leadership role. It has to do with the war crimes tribunals that are taking place in the Hague.

I had an opportunity to meet briefly with Judge Richard Goldstone a few months ago. He was visiting Canada to ensure that the war crimes tribunal continued. As we speak, it is in a state of flux and could potentially fall apart. This would do grievous harm to the principles of international law to which most civilians and politicians in the world adhere.

Most nations of the world follow certain rules and regulations in an effort to ensure that those who are least powerful, mostly civilians, are governed by some basic tenets of law that protect them, their property and their families.

The war crimes tribunal unfortunately came into existence because of the absolute disgusting turn of events most recently in Bosnia, Rwanda and Burundi. It also stems from previous war crimes tribunals such as the Nuremberg trials and from previous international agreements on international law over the governance of war.

If we are not going to support the war crimes tribunal and ensure that it continues, all the international laws that exist from the Nuremberg trials to what we have today will be for nothing. If we allow this organization to fall apart, which it is in the processing of doing, then it will send a message to those who would commit heinous, atrocious, appalling crimes that they are free to do what they want because no one in the world is going to bring them to justice. They will be left to continue committing these terrible crimes.

Therefore, I implore the government to back Judge Arbour and her colleagues and use its influence to get other countries to also back the war crimes tribunal taking place in the Hague. The government should also try to ensure that it becomes more effective. They are finding it impossible to work under certain circumstances. There is a lack of funding and manpower which makes it almost impossible for them to bring war criminals to trial. There are also other numerous bureaucratic entanglements which prevent them from doing their jobs.

It is going to require an increasing amount of international co-operation. We have an ideal opportunity, having a Canadian as the chief prosecutor, to pursue a course that is going to streamline and increase the effectiveness of the war crimes tribunals. Having a Canadian there will carry forward our skills as a nation and a leader in diplomatic endeavours to the Hague and to the war crimes tribunals.

We also have an enormous role to play in the world. The situation in Zaire and central Africa must be looked at for what it is. This is an impartial, apolitical issue as a half a million to a million people's lives are on the line. Some things have to be done at the outset. We have to get the agreement of the Zairean government to ensure that reconnaissance takes place in eastern Zaire to determine exactly what is going on. Humanitarian groups that are poised to go in and provide assistance to these people cannot go in because it is an extraordinarily dangerous situation.

I am not advocating for a moment sending in a huge mass of troops armed to the teeth to stop a war. That simply is not going to happen. We have to prioritize what we have to do. The first priority must be to ensure the safety of those half million odd civilians who are fleeing from the fighting. Many are being killed by Tutsi rebels who want to kill off male Hutus.

A possible solution would be to send a multinational force. Canada can provide the logistics, troops from the Organization of African Unity and the EU, independent of Belgian and French troops, could go into the area and ensure that safe corridors are available for the civilians to go back to be repatriated into Rwanda.

Second, humanitarian groups that are already on the ground with medicines and food must be allowed to safely go into eastern Zaire to provide these basic necessities to these people. What is faced now and in the coming days is an epidemic in these populations of malnutrition and starvation and also an epidemic of diseases such as typhoid fever and cholera that is going to kill thousands on thousands of people.

This, though, cannot be the end of it. We have seen a cycle develop in central African over years and years of killing and some repatriation and further killings taking place. The cycle of killing and death has to stop.

The international community cannot keep pouring money into central Africa without an end point. As politically incorrect as this is to say, perhaps we should take a very close look at working with the three governments in the area to redraw some of the tribal lines to ensure that Hutus and Tutsis live in their pre-colonial tribal areas. Maybe this is a solution that would enable the warring factions to stay away from each other.

There has to be a demilitarization of the extremists on both sides. It is extremists in the Hutus and the Tutsis that are taking a significant role in trying to continue the fighting in their areas. They are not only killing members from the opposing tribe, they are also killing moderates within their own tribes. What is left is a very fearful group of civilians powerless to change the course of events because they are ruled by extremist militias who are doing things only for the benefit of themselves and a very narrow group of political elites within their own separate countries.

We have also an opportunity in Zaire, a country that is one of the poorest in the world, as Mobutu Sese Seko recovers from prostate cancer in France, to try to convince him that now is the time for us to work with the IMF and the World Bank to build up the democratic and economic structures within Zaire which are required for long term peace. Not only does this have to happen within Zaire but it also has to occur in Rwanda and Burundi.

Without the restructuring that has to take place in these three countries, peace will not occur. All we will be doing by pouring money into the situation today is for the cycle of violence and starvation repeat itself at some time in the future.

We persistently pursue short term goals. I implore the government to work with the international community to convince them that we should pursue not only a short term solution to save the civilian populations within eastern Zaire and Rwanda but also pursue a longer term solution for economic, judicial and democratic restructuring that has to take place in these three areas.

It will require a stronger arm and more active influence. This is where the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank can come into play. Initiatives from them within the country in terms of peace building between groups that were fighting each other, in terms of blocking off arms, redressing the poverty situation perhaps through microloans, systems along those of the Grameen Bank, will all help to ensure long term peace within the area. These initiatives are absolutely essential for peace to occur.

As a country we do not consider our power in the international community to bring groups, nations and organizations together. Louise Arbour's being the head of the war crimes tribunal is but one example of our reputation as a nation. It is also an example of how we can be involved in international organizations to revamp them so they will truly address the problems that will affect us all in the 21st century but which very few governments and people are willing to address.

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his previous intervention and also for allowing me to speak for half his time.

I would like to congratulate the government for bringing in Bill C-63. It addresses some of the concerns that Reform has been putting forward. It changes the way in which elections are handled in this country. There are also a number of grave concerns that we have.

Certainly extending the 11-day vacancy period after somebody quits and a byelection needs to be called is a great disadvantage to the parties that are not in power and certainly a great advantage to the government. The 11 days should be extended to at least 30 days, or perhaps even 45 days, to give the parties who are not in power a chance to put together a reasonable election strategy for that byelection. Eleven days enables the government in power to call a snap election and then to manipulate the current system by allowing strategic byelections to be called to its advantage.

Second, decreasing the electoral period from 47 days to 36 days is a welcome change and enables us to shorten the period of time that exists before the election day. I would also like to congratulate the government on enabling enumeration to take place so we have a permanent election list which is going to save taxpayers a lot of money. That is something which we in Reform completely support.

However, as my counterpart from the Kootenays said, it is extremely important to remove gender because if anybody gets that list, he or she can manipulate the situation. It would enable somebody to identify single women living alone. As a security issue that is certainly important.

All is not rosy with this bill. It contains some measures of which we do not approve. First, the implementation of this bill is far, far too early. When we were supporting this bill we did this in good faith, keeping with the idea that the bill would give all the political parties a fair amount of time to accommodate that within their election strategy. The government in its heavy-handed fashion has chosen to implement this bill in the spring of 1997.

One may say cynically that is politics. The government has to take into consideration the fact that politics may be what it is but at the end of the day we are here to represent the people and to ensure

the people are going to have their democratic rights honoured. This bill does not do that.

We also feel, particularly coming from British Columbia, that the early closure of the polls in B.C. does a huge disservice to the people of that province and of Alberta. Many people work 12 hour days. For example, nurses in hospitals often work from seven in the morning until seven in the evening. Those people will not be able to get out and vote if the polls are closing at 7 and 7.30. Therefore, this aspect of the bill seriously compromises the ability of many Canadians, in particular those living in British Columbia, to have their democratic rights honoured. After all, voting is a democratic right we all share. Many have fought to preserve and enshrine that right within the country, a country that is wonderful and free. However, this bill does not prevent that from happening.

The government also cannot change the rules of the game in mid-stride. What would be fair and equitable not only to the people here but also to all Canadians is to enable this bill to be introduced after the next federal election toward the fall of 1997.

Another aspect which would have shown a great deal of fairness would be to have fixed election dates. We do not have that. It does a great disservice to Canadians and gives an inordinate amount of power to the prime minister of the day.

Fixed election dates would enable all political parties and Canadians to know whether their democratic rights are going to be honoured and when the election is going to be called. It changes the dynamics and enables the public to have a greater amount of power than the present situation where the prime minister of the day controls when the country will have an election.

Another aspect that the government could have shown a great deal of magnanimity about is the issue of referenda, something that we in the Reform Party have championed ever since we came here. Referenda enable the Canadian public to truly exert their democratic will on this House. Referenda will remove power from the Prime Minister's office, remove power from this House and give it to those who should have it the most and that is the people.

Rarely is this tool ever introduced. It needs to be introduced far more. It does not necessarily have to cost more money. Piggy-backing referenda on top of national elections would enable a lot of fundamental questions to be answered and truly enable the Canadian people to be represented within the House in a much more equitable way. That is not happening now.

As I have said before many times, power in this country does not exist in this House. We live an illusion, a house of cards, because a vast amount of power is centred in the hands of the Prime Minister's office, a few cabinet ministers and some of the captains of industry. That is where all the major legislative proposals and initiatives are put forward. The rest of this House has to cower underneath that, for those who do not are hammered by the existing whip structure that we have, which is really a perversion of the Westminster system.

The public needs to know this. I believe that the only real time that members exercise their democratic will is every four or five years when we have an election.

In between elections little democratic will is exerted. On the surface it is exerted through committees but by and large committees and members of Parliament, the elected tools of the public, could be far more effective if members and committees were allowed to better represent the Canadian people by giving them far more leniency, far more power, far more ability to address their constituents' concerns and also to be answerable to them.

The issue of recall has not been mentioned which would have been of value. We have a recall system in British Columbia that is by and large unworkable. The Prime Minister could have demonstrated the promise that he made before being elected that he would make this House more democratic. One of those ways would be to give the power to the people to be able to remove an elected member of Parliament that was not doing his or her job. Right now we do not have that, but our country desperately needs it.

The public would have a great deal more respect for the government if the government instituted a very effective and reasonable structure of recall.

I was at the PQ convention in Quebec last weekend. I must say that I was very impressed with the discourse which took place there and the civility of it. I found it interesting that many of the people represented at the PQ convention want the same things that the Reform Party has been putting forward in its plan A which is some reasonable decentralization, to strengthen the federal government where it is doing a good job but to strengthen the provinces to do what they do best.

The inaction of this and previous federal governments has seriously compromised the ability to keep the country together by not addressing that issue and also by not building bridges between the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada. I ask hon. members on both sides of the House to please take heed of that.

[Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too will be voting against this motion.

[Tobacco Legislation, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The minister has been promising to put forward tobacco legislation since March of last year. He has also said that somebody in cabinet is holding up the tobacco legislation.

Who in cabinet is holding up the tobacco legislation and why?