Keith Martin

[Tobacco, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a moment of sympathy, please, for the Minister of Health who has been suffering under the tough and personal attacks by the tobacco lobby. But while he is suffering, 10,000 Canadian children take up smoking every single month. They suffer from premature illness and death.

Would the Minister of Health like to come out from underneath his suffering and put tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act?

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 25th, 1996]

CEPA was designed specifically to ban harmful substances. In order to add a substance to the schedule of banned substances under CEPA, it must be shown by Health Canada that the substance is hazardous to the health of Canadians, but it has been shown that it is not a health hazard. Health Canada reports that its analyses indicate that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population, period, end of story. MMT is not harmful to Canadians according to Health Canada. I would be very happy to share that report with the minister if he is interested.

From the very beginning we in the Reform Party have unequivocally stated that we would support banning MMT if the government could prove through independent scientific studies that MMT was harmful to Canadians or to the onboard diagnostic systems in cars. We have not seen that evidence and therefore we can only conclude that MMT should not be banned.

When the petroleum companies appeared before the committee, they suggested that they would have a tremendous amount to lose should MMT be removed from Canadian fuels. In their testimony it was suggested that the removal of MMT would result in an increase in manufacturing costs, as much as $69 million per year. Refineries would have to burn more crude oil in order to achieve the high octane levels needed for today's automobiles, without any economic benefit.

The refineries would be forced to burn a greater amount of crude oil in order to achieve different octane levels, but in the process, it would produce greater emissions through the burning of crude oil.

Therefore, it would increase the cost of energy for the transportation sector and would be a direct tax on jobs and ultimately a drag on the economy.

When this bill was introduced to the environment committee, one of the questions raised had to do with the possible alternatives to MMT. According to the auto makers, the octane of gasoline can be increased through changes to the refining process as well as through the addition of other octane enhancers such as MTBE, ETBE and ethanol.

The former environment minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, once made a comment that she did not need to conduct independent testing because the big three auto makers had said MMT was harmful. Who are we to dispute the big three auto makers?

On October 18 Rod Raphael, chief of monitoring and criteria in a division of Health Canada, appeared before the environment committee and said the following about MTBE, a possible alternative to MMT: "We have concerns with respect to MTBE and the fact is that MMT could prove to be carcinogenic and that the evaluation of MTBE is still out".

Why would we consider using MTBE when it has shown to have a potential negative effect on the health of Canadians? Why are we replacing something that has been proven to not be harmful to Canadians?

There is also data to show these alternative fuel enhancers have lower mileage rates, so much more that more gasoline has to be burned with more nitrous oxide emissions into the environment with a negative effect.

Bear in mind that nitrous oxide is one of the greatest contributors to pollution through smog. This bill has been brought through various stages. I want to make it clear and point out that at every stage we in the Reform Party have made every attempt to put this bill on hold until conclusive proof has been found that it demonstrates a negative effect on the environment or to Canadians' health.

It is clearly beyond me why this government continues to pursue this bill, showing as it were that it has not shown to demonstrate any negative effects on the health of Canadians.

Furthermore, the banning of MMT may prove to be deleterious to Canadians' health by increasing nitrous oxide levels within the environment. There is no disputing that the presence of MMT in unleaded gasoline actually reduces smog, and therefore banning MMT means an increase of nitrous oxide, and replacing it with an

alternative would result in an increased negative effect on the environment in a number of different ways.

As politicians we are very familiar with polls. One poll says this and another one says that. If we want a polling company to get a favourable answer, it is very easy to do that. That is what we have seen here in this case.

The same thing happened with MMT, with Ethyl having its studies to prove its case and the auto makers doing their studies to prove their case. It proves absolutely nothing. I must say, though, the studies done by Health Canada are conclusive and flow exactly contrary to what the hon. minister has been saying in this House.

I do not understand why the hon. Minister of the Environment is choosing to ignore studies that come out from the Ministry of Health that fly completely against his conclusions.

Other studies done, for example by Kilbourn Inc., show that the removal of MMT as a reduction of sulphur content in gasoline would result in an increase in capital costs of nearly a billion dollars and an increase of $200 million in annual operating costs.

These large costs, though, are sure to cripple many refineries in the country and force a lot of Canadians out of their jobs, in the order of thousands I might add.

Since the beginning we in the Reform Party have pushed for independent testing. If the minister were honest in his intentions, he would do that.

This need not have ever come to the House, not last Parliament or this one. Ethyl Corp. and the auto makers were dealing with this themselves. They were almost going to have a conclusion to it when the government stuck its big foot in. It has now completely polarized both these groups. Now it comes to our purview here.

We are wasting taxpayer money in this House by even discussing this bill which could have been dealt with in the private sector in a very effective and efficient fashion.

The negativism about this bill comes not only from within cabinet, not only from the government backbenchers, but from provincial ministers across this country. Throughout 1995 provincial environment ministers submitted letters to the Standing Committee on the Environment with regard to MMT. I am going to read some of these to make it perfectly clear what these provincial ministers are saying.

Ty Lund, Alberta's minister of the environment, states: "This unilateral federal action on a non-toxic component of gasoline will likely only serve to draw valuable resources away from consensus efforts to improve Canada's gasoline and deliver real air quality benefits. Canadian petroleum refineries may be dealt a legislative disadvantage if MMT is banned in Canada and allowed in the United States".

The former New Brunswick minister of the environment, Vaughn Blaney, stated that the province of New Brunswick raised concerns regarding the negative environmental impacts of proceeding with this plan, including the potential increase of emissions of greenhouse, toxic and acidifying gases from motor vehicles. The exact opposite intent of what the minister wishes to have is going to happen if MMT is banned. We are going to make our environment not cleaner but dirtier. To use the minister's words, nobody wants our air needed to be scrubbed, chewed on or otherwise. We want it cleaner, but banning MMT is not going to effect that change.

Wayne Adams, Nova Scotia's environment minister, stated: "We understand that the position taken by the federal government on the effect of MMT on vehicles equipped with advanced emission control technologies resulted from claims to its effect by the automobile industry. We also understand that they were not able to substantiate those claims with sound technical documentation. Further, there is proof that the removal of MMT from gasoline will cause increases in nitrous oxide emissions by up to 20 per cent. Therefore we cannot support Bill C-94".

Bernhard Weins, Saskatchewan's minister of the environment and resource management, stated: "In our view the scientific data on MMT do not indicate a net environmental gain that will result in the passage of this legislation. In addition to the cost implications, increased greenhouse gas emissions as a result of intensified refinery processes required to replace MMT and increased vehicle tailpipe emissions of smog forming oxides of nitrogen would also occur".

These are not people who are in the camp of Ethyl Corporation. These are not people who have any particular axe to grind other than the safety of Canadians and the health of Canadians. Why are these people opposing Bill C-94 on the basis of sound scientific data to show that banning MMT is not going to make our environment cleaner but rather will make our environment dirtier?

Guy Chevrette, Quebec's minister of state for natural resources, stated the bill will have a major impact on the competitiveness of Quebec's refiners. It goes on and on. There is a list of these statements. The words of these provincial ministers and the statements made by the Montreal Board of Trade clearly speak for themselves.

I ask the Minister of the Environment to please rethink his position on this bill. His provincial counterparts are not standing behind him. Part of cabinet is not standing behind him. I would venture to say that a large number of the backbenchers in the Liberal Party are also not standing behind him.

This bill should be dropped. This bill should never have come forward in this Parliament and it should be scrapped. I suggest the minister start to address the wide variety and number of significant

environmental hazards that are in our midst today which have simply not been dealt with by this government.

There are a litany of environmental problems that are affecting Canadians from coast to coast which in the three years since we have been here are simply not being addressed. Included are deforestation, salinization of soil, the damage to our wetlands, desertification, pollution in the Arctic.

Colleagues in the House here today, my friends from the Bloc Quebecois, friends from the Liberal Party, went to the Arctic and heard increasingly disturbing evidence of carcinogens, teratogens and toxins increasing in the Arctic. They are increasing through the food chain with dramatic, disastrous and deleterious effects for the health of the people who live in the Arctic.

I have not seen one thing come into this House since that meeting earlier this year to address that factual graphic evidence of the damage that has been done to our environment in the Arctic. The damage that is taking place among the people who are living in the Arctic is silent and is killing. I know the minister is very interested in this and I hope to see action on this.

On the endangered species legislation we have seen nothing. While we talk in this House at least two species are being eliminated from the face of the planet every single day, and Canada is no exception. We have dozens of species on the endangered list. We have dozens on the threatened list. CITES, the convention on the international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna, has repeatedly said interestingly and sadly enough that Canada has the ignominious reputation for being one of the top ten conduits of illegal animal parts in the world.

I did not know that, and I am ashamed to say that we in this country are a conduit for some of the most threatened and endangered species on this planet, species that are never going to be in existence again if things are not done to protect them: the black rhino, spotted cats, a wide variety of bird species.

In Canada we have the problem of bears being poached for gall bladders and other parts. We have the grizzly bear situation in British Columbia. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single piece of legislation that has come forward in the House to address endangered species. While we speak habitat is being destroyed and species in this country are being wiped off the face of the planet.

It would be very productive if we saw in this House efforts put from the government on endangered species legislation, on habitat protection, on habitat reclamation and on using novel ways of actually reclaiming habitat that has been destroyed by industry. Having the polluter pay is a sensible way of doing that without burdening the taxpayer and putting onerous demands on the already limited budget the minister has to work with.

Co-operative efforts with industry are going to improve habitat and perhaps expand the amount of habitat that we have, that we need, to protect our endangered species. In Canada, as in every other part of the world, habitat destruction is the single most important reason for the decimation of species.

There are novel ways to protect our parks. Our parks are under threat in a number of ways. The primary reason they are under threat is financial. You cannot blame anybody for this because that is the financial reality we all live under, but there are novel ways of doing that.

I think it is interesting for us to look at what other parts of the world are actually doing to preserve their wild spaces. There are interesting co-operative efforts that can be done with industry so that the parks themselves can earn revenues. Those revenues can be reinvested within the parks to hire enforcement officers, to increase the amount of protected spaces they have for education, for research and scientific study.

In doing that we would give the parks the ability to generate the revenues so they will be there for us in this House, for our families, for Canadians from coast to coast and for the generations of Canadians to come. It is a legacy that we have inherited. It is a legacy that is on our shoulders to give to future generations.

These issues have to be dealt with. I plead with hon. minister to bring forth good constructive suggestions and to work with other members to address the critically important environmental issues that affect us from coast to coast, not the banning of MMT which has not been shown deleterious to the health of Canadians.

Could he please bring his skills and those of his ministry to bear on these important environmental issues, on the pollution that is taking place in our oceans as we speak, to develop new ways to work with the Minister of Transport, to develop new co-operative ways with the municipalities and the provinces, to deal with alternative means of transportation.

The European experience is very interesting. Look at what they have done with respect to train travel and electric travel for mass transit. Even in relatively small communities of 60,000 to 70,000 people, they have established interesting transportation mechanisms which have led to a decrease in the utilization of cars, thereby decreasing the amount of auto emissions.

Co-operative efforts like that along with the use of non-electric, non-petroleum modes of transportation such as bicycles can be utilized very effectively. We might be put to shame by looking at

the European experience. We could take some of what they have done and apply it to some areas in this country.

The hon. minister comes from the city as I, Toronto. It is sad to see the environmental degradation that has taken place in this very fine city. I am sure he shares the concerns of everybody in this House who lives in urban centres about the environmental degradation they have seen.

Now is the time for this government to show and take a leadership role in developing cost effective, scientifically sound methods to decrease the pollution we have in our midst to improve our environment not only for us but, most important, for the Canadians of tomorrow.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 25th, 1996]

The minister is saying this is false, yet he knows full well that the United States, I think it was in October 1995, stated unequivocally that MMT does not pose a health hazard to people, is not damaging to onboard devices and therefore ought to be allowed. In fact, this proves that it is going to actually improve the environment by limiting the amount of nitrous oxide emissions in the air.

I would be very interested to know the evidence the minister has, if he has any, to prove contrary to what I am saying in the House today.

To look at the history, in 1977 Congress made some amendments to the clean air act, which the minister referred to earlier today. One amendment dealt with the emergence of catalytic converters in automobiles. I want to read what the courts stated about the effect it would have on MMT. As catalytic converters could not be used with leaded fuels, their adoption had led to a sharp rise in the use of MMT as an octane booster and Congress responded to the concern that it and other fuel additives might harm the effectiveness of these converters. That was their belief back in the 1970s.

Congress however directed the EPA to grant a waiver once it was determined that the additive would not cause or contribute to the failure of an emission control device or system. The EPA deliberately stalled on making a decision until the courts instructed them to do the testing. On November 30, 1993 the EPA found that MMT "did not cause or contribute to the failure of emission control systems". However, not wanting to be outdone by the courts, the EPA denied the waiver on the grounds that the manufacturer, Ethyl, had not yet established an absence of health effects, another very reasonable conclusion.

The courts wrangled until about October 20, 1995 when the United States Court of Appeal in the case of Ethyl Corporation v. the Administrator of the United States, EPA, ruled: "We order the EPA to register MMT for use as an additive in unleaded gasoline as of November 30, 1993". Therefore, they proved that MMT did not show any adverse health effects. That is a very important point.

What is significant with this ruling is not that Ethyl won and MMT could be sold in the U.S. in unleaded gasoline by the year end, but rather it is the process which was undertaken by Congress and the EPA. They did not approve of MMT in unleaded fuels until it was proven that MMT was not a health risk and that it was not damaging onboard devices, which are the two concerns the minister expressed today. They are the same concerns which we have in the Reform Party. They are the same concerns which have been disproved by studies undertaken in the United States.

When the bill was introduced in May, both the environment minister and the industry minister said that eliminating MMT from our gasoline was essential in order to achieve a North American harmonization of fuel. Yet as I have previously said, the United States has now brought MMT back into play.

The minister said that 85 per cent of the fuel in the United States was MMT free. That is probably so, but let us not forget that MMT was banned until the end of 1995. One could also say that from the end of 1995 until now, MMT has been reintroduced into the American fuel system and has occupied 15 per cent of the total volume.

Both ministers were confident that the ban on MMT would remain in the United States. In May 1995 the environment minister was asked during question period about the fact that the courts would probably rule in Ethyl's favour. The Deputy Prime Minister's response at that time was: "I advise the hon. member that last week when I had the opportunity to speak with Carol Browner, head of the EPA, she reaffirmed the U.S. commitment not to allow MMT. She decried the fact that there is only one country, Canada, that still allows MMT and we intend to change that".

The Minister of Industry has in fact gone further than his colleague. He said last April during question period that the key is to have uniformity of standards between the U.S. and Canada. He said: "The member will know that MMT is not permitted in the United States by legislation. It is crucial that we have uniformity of standards".

If we are trying to create uniformity of standards, why are we banning MMT which is now being reintroduced in the United States? We are in fact going backward in time to create disharmony in our fuel.

The Minister of Industry also clearly stated on the record that it is important for U.S. and Canadian gasolines to have the same composite harmonization. I would suggest we have proven today that the government is very confused in what it means by harmonization.

When the EPA attempted to ban MMT it mistakenly believed it was harmful. The Liberal government wants to ban it not on substance, but rather on the basis of importation and interprovincial trade. Why can it not be banned in Canada? The reason it cannot be banned in this country is because it is understood that MMT is not a health hazard to people.

If we were going to be genuine about banning this substance, if we truly believed it was a substance which was harmful to Canadians, then we would ban it under that premise. The government is not pursuing that course because it understands that the scientific facts demonstrate very clearly that MMT is not a health hazard. Therefore, the government is taking this roundabout way of trying to ban the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT. It is very disingenuous.

The minister had every opportunity to let this bill die yet did not, even knowing full well that there was an extensive amount of opposition within his own party, in the backbenches, and even within cabinet. In a moment I am going to reveal a very interesting letter from the Minister for International Trade.

The Minister for International Trade sent a letter to the Minister of the Environment which was dated February 23, 1996. The letter reads:

"Dear Minister of the Environment: I understand that you are considering the reintroduction of Bill C-94 in the upcoming session. My department continues to have certain reservations concerning this measure which I wish to draw to your attention.

"One of the original arguments that favoured the ban on MMT was that the U.S. already prohibited its use as a petroleum additive. Recently the U.S. Court of Appeal overturned the U.S. ban."-And this is very important-"This has effectively removed harmonization arguments in support of Bill C-94".

I will repeat that because it is what the Minister for International Trade said to the Minister of the Environment: The U.S. Court of Appeal has overturned the ban and it has removed the harmonization argument that the Minister of the Environment has been speaking about at length today.

The letter goes on to say: "An important prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement. It would constitute an impermissible prohibition on imports particularly if domestic production, sale or use is not similarly prohibited. It could not be justified on health or environmental grounds given current scientific evidence".

The Minister for International Trade has told the Minister of the Environment that MMT cannot be banned because it is not a health hazard and MMT cannot be banned because it does not prove to be a risk to the environment and that it will not harmonize gasoline in North America.

In conclusion the minister said: "Let me stress my department's belief that Bill C-94 should not be reintroduced as it could have many adverse implications for Canadian trade without compensatory environmental benefits".

What the Minister for International Trade said is completely contrary to what the same minister said today in question period. Today he is supporting the bill giving an argument exactly counter to what is stated in his letter to the Minister of the Environment. That is hypocrisy. It cannot be both ways.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-29 but it is also unfortunate in many ways.

I thought this bill would have been terminated in the last Parliament because there is so much contention surrounding this issue. Contrary to what the hon. minister said today, there is ample evidence to support that banning MMT in Canada is really a spurious attempt to do something that should not occur. MMT has not been proven to be damaging to onboard diagnostic devices, the health of Canadians or the environment. I will discuss this a little later.

This bill is very interesting. I will destroy the credibility of the government with regard to this bill. I will demonstrate that the comments made today by members of the government, both in question period and in debate, conflict greatly with what they have said previously and with what they really believe on this matter.

The banning of MMT is supported by a strong automaker lobby group in the previous Minister of the Environment's constituency, and that is the real driving force behind the bill. It is not based on scientific fact. It is not based on any fact at all; it has been done on a whim. The minister has been lobbied strongly for this by the automobile manufacturers and it is obvious the auto manufacturers have won.

It is my impression that Bill C-94 was not drafted in the same manner as other bills. Rather, it was drafted on a whim.

The previous minister did not give a comprehensive analysis to all the stakeholders, especially the hapless consumer. The previous minister had no conclusive evidence whatsoever that MMT was harmful to cars or to humans. All she was going on were the words of Chrysler, Ford and General Motors, the big three. It is a sorry state of affairs when the big three, the industry, can actually push a bill through this House.

After the bill's introduction, the previous minister proceeded to hold a press conference where she informed reporters that the reason for banning MMT was because it caused problems with onboard diagnostic systems to all new automobiles. However, this was not the only reason the minister proceeded to ban the trade on MMT. She stated that Canada was one of the only countries in the world to still be using MMT in unleaded gasoline and that this should change.

As a member of this House and as a representative of Canadians in my riding, it is important that we weigh and pursue every available option to come up with accurate and scientific based conclusions before we create legislation on any topic. What is needed on these technical matters is the best that science can offer. The Liberal government can call itself responsible, but I ask whether it is really responsible to take the words of a few automobile manufacturers over the words of hard, scientific evidence which demonstrates that MMT does not pose a health hazard to Canadians? What I will demonstrate later on is that it is going to do the exact opposite.

We know that the bill was introduced last year and MMT was still not permitted at that time in the United States. The minister has stated today quite unequivocally that his goal is to harmonize gasoline with the situation south of the border. That is a very reasonable thing to do, but why are we attempting to harmonize our gasoline by banning a substance that is being reintroduced in the United States? Does this make sense? No, it does not make sense.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my hon. friend that nobody in the Reform Party ever fails, and he should understand that very clearly first of all.

I think we ought to cut to the chase. The real reason for this bill is to empty the jails because the jails are overflowing. This and previous governments have been completely unable to deal with increase in crime that we see in a number of sectors.

I think it is disingenuous for the government to admit anything else. The lengthening of temporary absence programs is merely sending a message to the criminal population that if they are going to commit the crime there is less chance they will have to do time.

It is high time we all put our minds to developing better solutions which prevent people from running afoul of the law and to ensuring that the 20 per cent of the people who will be repeat offenders will be dealt with in a very forceful manner. For the remainder, the 80 per cent, the temporary absence programs must be based on merit. The temporary absence must be earned, not automatically granted. We must have, first and foremost as our primary motive the protection of society.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend from the Bloc Quebecois. Merci beaucoup pour votre question.

The statistics I am very happy to share with the hon. member do not come from the Reform Party. These statistics come from the National Crime Prevention Council of Canada and they demonstrate unequivocally that the rate of crime, violent crime in particular, has increased and this in fact is paralleled by an increase in fear among the Canadian populace. In terms of breaking that down to those who knew their assailant and those who did not, I do not have that breakdown.

I concur with the member that most people who are victims of violent crime do know their assailant but I do not know whether those numbers are increasing. However, the overall picture clearly demonstrates that there is an increase in violent crime particularly among youth and that people are afraid across this country including les gens de Québec about their personal safety. That must

be dealt with and is something that all of us collectively in this House can put our minds to and address.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley for doing such a fine job in elucidating this very important issue that affects Canadians from coast to coast. I think he raised a very important point which the government tends to forget. Canadians today are more afraid in their homes than they have ever been in the last 20 years. Sometimes the facts do not support it, but in many cases the facts do support that. I will get to that later in my speech.

It is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act. The purpose of the bill is to change the temporary absence program, creating additional types of temporary absences, and to lengthen the time temporary absences are available.

Let us stand back and look at what this actually means. If a crime is committed and a conviction obtained at public expense, and sometimes it can be a threat to the men and women in our police forces, the felon is released on a temporary absence program. The felon does not pay a penalty for actually committing the crime. That is a very important thing to realize. It means that if a felon commits a crime and is convicted, the felon is then released back into society.

Let me give an example. A friend of mine checks on people out on temporary absence programs. He went to Vancouver to check up at the home of a convicted cocaine seller who lives in an opulent home in Vancouver. This person is smiling away, going full and continues to sell cocaine through his back door. He is living in a home worth millions of dollars and is laughing at the police officers who come to his door. That is an example of a temporary absence program. That is not what the taxpayer wants to hear. That is not justice. That is not the way the criminal justice system should work, but in this instance that is the way it is working. The government wants to make this even more lenient.

Let us look at the overall crime situation in Canada with statistics from the National Crime Prevention Council. In 1994, contrary to what the government says, the crime rate was 8 per cent higher than a decade ago, and this is probably under-reported.

A substantial number of crimes are never reported to the police for a number of reasons. The statistics are truly appalling. It is notable that 90 per cent of sexual assaults and 68 per cent of non-sexual assaults are not reported. These are violent crimes that are not reported to the police. The victims go unheard. They do not get restitution. The criminals continue to go on their merry way with no penalty.

About 80 per cent of crimes are committed by only 20 per cent of the population. For future reference, it is exceedingly important for us to identify who those 20 per cent are. I know the government will not disagree with that.

We got some laughs from the other side when I mentioned that Canadians were more scared today than they were before. According to the statistics of the National Crime Prevention Council, not mine, not the Reform Party's, one in four Canadians feel unsafe walking in their neighbourhoods at night. Only 10 per cent of males reported feeling unsafe, but 42 per cent, nearly half the female population, felt unsafe walking in their neighbourhoods.

That is not the society that Canadians want. That is not the society of which we should be proud, and it is something that we, the legislators of this country, must change. It must be an embarrassment to every person in this House to face up to that statistic.

It means that half the wives of the men in this House are afraid to walk in their own neighbourhoods. It means that half of the female children of the people in this House are afraid to walk in their neighbourhoods. That is totally unacceptable and must change.

I saw the Minister of Justice on a CBC television program saying that violent crime is not as bad as we think. Let us look at an independent statistic on that matter. According to police statistics, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased fourfold in the past three decades. That is 400 per cent in the last three decades. Bear in mind that those statistics are under-reported, as I said earlier. The vast majority of violent crimes never come to the attention of the police.

Youth crime is worse. Criminal Code offences by youth have increased by 16 per cent since 1986 and violent crime among youth has escalated dramatically. We have heard this time and time again from my colleagues and the government has repeatedly ignored them. But it ignores youth crime at its peril.

The public has repeatedly said to the government and to us that it wants this fixed and fixed now. Canadians no longer want to be fearful of walking in their own backyards, something we as Canadians should never have to do.

Since 1962, when penalties started to be reduced for committing crimes, when governments got soft on crime, rates began to increase. What the government said to the public was that if you are victimized you will not see restitution; you are not going to see retribution.

What it said to the police is that no matter what hard work they put into it they will not be able to put criminals behind bars. What is happening now is many of them are standing back and asking why they should do it any more. It is a sad thing.

What it tells the public, who feel they are not being protected by the justice department, is that they now have to take matters into their own hands and vigilante justice may be their only recourse. That is not something we would like to see in Canada. If we start having vigilante justice we progress along that slippery slope toward anarchy.

The real reason for Bill C-53 is that jails are too crowded. The government wants to decrease the pressure on the jails, which we completely understand. However, in doing so, it wants to put more and more people on these temporary absence programs.

We are not opposed to temporary absence programs, but it must be done with forethought and within a certain framework. The most important overriding concern in this framework has to be the protection of the public and of innocent people above all else. That is the role of justice first and foremost. It has other roles certainly, but the government has forgotten that. The roots of this began in the early 1980s when the solicitor general of the day, a Liberal, said that from now on the justice department's primary role would be not the protection of society but serving the criminal. It is going to be the rehabilitation of the criminal, not the protection of society.

That is a significant departure. What we want to do here is get the justice department back to having as its primary focus the

protection of innocent civilians. It is not to say that the rehabilitation of the criminal is not important. If we ignore that we ignore it at our peril. However, there are intelligent and effective ways of doing that. I will get back to that a little later because the experience in the United States has been very fruitful and cost effective.

The framework must be, as I said before, the protection of the public. This cannot apply to violent criminals and must certainly not apply to any criminal who is going to continue doing what got them into jail in the first place. It cannot apply either to non-violent criminals who demonstrate no remorse. A non-violent criminal in this situation is going to commit criminal acts again.

It is also in the public interest to understand the situation that is taking place right now in our criminal justice system. When a person is convicted of a crime, automatically one-third of the sentence gets knocked off and often times that person will only serve one-third of the total sentence. Therefore, two-thirds of a person's sentence is knocked off for good behaviour. A criminal is automatically deemed to have good behaviour and have one-third of his or her sentence knocked off by the system. That is very disingenuous to the victim who believes that if a person who is sentenced to 15 years that person will spend 15 years in jail.

Perhaps the most glaring example of this is section 745 of the Criminal Code which states that if a person commits first degree murder by killing a police office he or she can get out in 15 years. There is a list longer than my arm of individuals who have committed first degree murder and have been let out shortly after their 15th year of prison. We want to see that revised because first degree murder means first degree murder and it means the person spends 25 years in prison. It does not sent a clear message to those who commit this most heinous of crimes that they should be getting out after 15 years. If they do the crime they must pay the time.

I would also like to give some examples of the absurdity that is taking place in our criminal justice system.

I was at a correctional facility treating some patients not so long ago. The first patient I saw had a large laceration in his arm. I said to him while I was sewing him up: "How did you get this?" He said: "Doctor, I got this because I was making a knife". This man, while incarcerated in jail, was making a knife. He was not the only one making knives because making knives was part of their program in that medium security jail, one of our newest I might add.

This same jail, which cost $175,000 per cell to build and which has a beautiful foyer with vaulted ceilings, has cameras. In the area where the inmates are housed they have their cells and then they have a communal area where they eat, play cards and talk. The guards are in the middle of this without any protection. Furthermore, the charter of rights prevents a camera from being on that communal area because it is an infringement of their privacy, the same individuals who are making knives in jail.

I am sure the taxpayer would be very interested to know that they are paying $60,000 to $80,000 a year to house individuals in jails where they are making knives. That is not justice, for crying out loud.

In the jail previous to this one, the inmates decided to set the jail on fire. There were soiled clothes and water everywhere. The inmates were locked up. Who was cleaning this mess up, but the guards, not the inmates. That is the situation that we have.

The guards are afraid for their own safety and they are afraid of actually doing a number of duties that they have to do for fear of retribution from the inmates. That is the situation in many of the correctional facilities across the country. That speaks well of our criminal justice system, but it speaks of what this government and previous governments have done to completely turn our criminal justice system on its head. Justice must protect society at all costs. It is not doing that at all.

Last, I would like to let the government understand that there will be some superb suggestions coming from my colleague from Calgary Northeast and my colleague from Wild Rose on a number of areas on how to revamp our justice system and prevent crime.

We in the Reform Party have often been accused of being hang'em high. We are not hang'em high. We want effective solutions to address crime, the appropriate punishment, appropriate protection of the public and appropriate, effective methods of rehabilitating criminals.

We do not want the situation we have today, which has proven not to work but cost effective solutions that will work. I will give some examples. These are not examples that my colleagues will mention because they will announce this in the very near future. These are a few from my personal experience.

We have to separate the psychiatric patients from the non-psychiatric patients in our criminal justice system. One of the silent tragedies that is occurring is the closing of psychiatric hospitals.

There has been a mindset of taking these psych patients and putting them in the community. For some, that is acceptable. For many, unfortunately, it is not. They are not given a choice. The choice is not there for them.

All we need to do is walk along the streets, even in Ottawa, and see the number of burnt out schizophrenics walking the streets.

Many other psych patients are not medicated and walking the streets, often falling afoul of the law and often suffering.

It does a disservice not only to these people who are ill but it does a disservice to the public too, who have to suffer from the unfortunately criminal activity that these people engage in while they are perhaps psychotic. That has to be done. These people have to get the appropriate treatment, otherwise they will never get better.

To address the recidivism rate, we have to pull out that 20 per cent of the prison population which repeatedly continues to show an abhorrent respect for Canadian society. We must pull them out and deal with them in a much firmer and very different way than the 80 per cent who do not repeatedly run afoul of the law.

While in jail skills training should be obligatory for individuals so that when they come out they can gain employment and become integrated back into society. One of the problems with individuals once they get out of a correctional facility is there are not many support programs for them and there is not a lot for them to do. They have a great deal of difficulty integrating back into society because they do not have the skills necessary to deal with that. This must be dealt with.

Also, alcohol and other substance abuse problems have to be dealt with while incarcerated in jail. That should be obligatory. If an individual is not prepared to deal with it, they should be dealt with differently too. There is no point in putting them back on the street as a cocaine addict if it contributed to the reason why they ran afoul of the law.

Last, it is wise for us to look at the experience in the inner cities of the United States. Columbia University did an excellent job of taking children at the age of four and five in school, bringing the parents into the schools and teaching the children not only their ABCs but also about self-respect, respect for others, appropriate conflict resolution, drugs, alcohol and so on. They learned that. The parents also learned these skills if they had never learned themselves. The outcome was a much lower rate of teen pregnancy, violence and drop-outs.

I thank the House for its time and consideration. I sincerely hope the government pays attention to these suggestions and the suggestions of my hon. colleagues.

[Tobacco, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that shot down the ban on tobacco advertising. Tragically it also marks the one-hundred thousandth death from smoking related illnesses since the 1993 election.

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in Canada and kills over 42,000 people per year. This government has lowered cigarette taxes, allowed tobacco companies to advertise and has produced a 29 per cent increase in smoking rates among our youth. There are over 6.5 million smokers in this country. The government's legacy to Canadians is inaction on legislation which has committed thousands of children to a lifetime of addiction and illness.

Taxpayers, health care workers, parents and teachers demand that this government institute effective measures to decrease tobacco consumption in Canada.

The cost of inaction is the pain, suffering and premature death of children in this country.

[Criminal Code, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-45, which is a bill we oppose.

We oppose it on a number of counts. Primarily we oppose it because it sends a clear message to the Canadian public and to criminals. It says to the Canadian public that their lives are not worth more than 15 years in prison. It sends a clear message to the criminals that if they kill somebody in cold blood, in a premeditated fashion, they may be asked to serve 25 years but then after 15 years the sentence will be revisited and likely repealed.

It is not unusual for this to happen. Across my desk came a huge list of individuals who had committed first degree murder and who had been released after spending 15 years plus a small amount of time in jail.

Who are these people? These are people who have committed first degree murder for killing police officers. Many have killed police officers but all have killed individuals in cold blood. It is very difficult to actually get a conviction of first degree murder because premeditation has to be proved. This is not a person who comes along and kills during a crime of passion. These crimes have been planned and done in the most indiscriminate fashion imaginable.

This bill is opposed not only by the Reform Party but by the police associations that the Liberal Party profess to support. It is opposed by the vast majority of Canadians. They want to know that their lives is worth more than somebody spending 15 years in jail. If somebody is going to be convicted of first degree murder he or she is going to pay the penalty.

The Reform Party has been accused of being without sympathy but that is simply not true. Reformers believe that sympathy and consideration must be for victims and for criminals. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere and where a person has committed first degree murder that person has to pay the full price. Society demands it, Canadians demand it, police associations demand it and the people in this party demand it.

The fact that Bill C-45 does not actually address section 745 in a meaningful way goes back to the early 1980s when the attorney general of that time said: "We are going to change our focus in the justice department. Instead of focusing on the protection of society we are going to focus on rehabilitation of the criminal". The primary role of the justice department, contrary to what the public believes, is not the protection of innocent civilians, it is the rehabilitation of criminals.

The facts show that this government and previous governments have failed to do both. They have failed to protect society and they have failed to rehabilitate criminals. For example, everybody in this House realizes, particularly in youth crime, violent crime has increased dramatically with no decrease in sight. Those are the facts and there is no use denying it.

When we look at other aspects of crime it is true that adult violent crime has decreased somewhat, but crime in general in many areas is on the rise. Governments have not put into place any effective measures of preventing that and there are ways of doing that.

I spoke with the Minister of Justice before we left in June and I said that we can look at the United States and see some very important work that it is doing in urban centres to prevent criminal activity. In order to address future criminal activity and conduct disorders which go into youth crime and then often develops into adult crime, it has to be prevented. The way to prevent it is to address the children when they are very young, at four and five years of age.

Unfortunately what we are seeing here are individuals, particularly in youth correctional facilities, who do not have the pillars of a normal psyche. Those pillars are developed very early on in the first five to seven years of life and that is where we can have the greatest effect.

In the United States children are being brought into the schools and not only are they teaching them their ABCs, they are also teaching them self-respect, self-confidence, respect for others, appropriate conflict resolution, about drugs, alcohol and sex; a lot of the problems that teenagers are fighting and grappling with today.

They also brought in the parents. They are usually single parents, and interestingly enough these parents do not have the appropriate capabilities to be parents. What they have found is a twofold benefit. First is the obvious benefit to the children. Also, they

found that these parents started to develop the pose of a normal psyche which did not develop early on. They started to learn about self-respect, self-confidence, self-reliance, personal responsibility, drugs, alcohol, conflict resolution. The result was fewer conduct disorders, less teen crime, a lower dropout rate. It was extremely beneficial and it did not cost the system more money.

I ask the justice minister to take a leadership role in bringing together all the ministers of education from across this country to have a meeting in Ottawa to address this problem that would not cost more money but would have a dramatic impact on decreasing the number of youth crimes and therefore adult crime in the future. It is a win-win situation.

The government has also failed to protect civilians, and Bill C-45 addresses that. Bill C-45 does not protect citizens. It only says to criminals that if you kill somebody, you are not going to pay the price, and that is unacceptable.

To show how absurd this can get, I spent some time in jails both as a physician and as a guard. I will give two examples. There was a child in the juvenile correctional facility I was working at who had murdered somebody in cold blood with a bow and arrow to rob him. Someone else saw him commit this act. He and another murdered that person too.

This person is a psychopath. At taxpayer expense his lawyer brought in a psychologist from the lower mainland to teach this person remorse. And so this child was trying to practise remorse. What a tragedy. They tried this to ensure that the child, who showed psychopathic tendencies, would get a lesser sentence than what should have been coming to him. It would not only give him a lesser sentence but give people less of an opportunity within the system to address his problems. That does a disservice not only to the public but to the individual being convicted.

In another case, I had to go up to the jail once to commit somebody because their term was up. The person was a violent offender with a rap sheet as long as your arm. This person was going to be released the next day and the only way to get him back in the system was to commit him on psychiatric grounds.

This person had chosen to show on umpteen occasions a wilful ignorance of respect for human beings and it had been demonstrated that this individual was a grave threat to innocent civilians. Yet, the system would have allowed this person to be released. The people in the system said those were the laws.

We are here to change those laws and we are here to ensure that people who are going to be a danger to society are prevented from doing so not only for society's sake, which is most important, but for the individual who would commit these offences.

We may not be able to address all the problems in the justice system, but we have seen over the last three years that the government is willing to only tinker around the edges of the criminal justice system instead of addressing the fundamental problems that exist within it. It does so at its peril but also sadly at the peril of the public that demands respect and deserves protection from individuals who would prey on it.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the public and members of the House to put themselves in somebody else's shoes.

Imagine you are the husband, the father, the wife, the son or daughter of somebody. You come home one day and a police officer is at your door. The police officer asks you to sit down and he tells you that unfortunately and sadly your loved one has been murdered, murdered in cold blood, murdered in a premeditated fashion. An innocent person has been murdered. They have been ripped out of your life with absolutely no explanation.

These individuals, these loved ones are left to pick up the pieces after this unspeakable tragedy, a tragedy we would not wish on anybody. It destroys their families and their lives forever. The impact and pain these people feel are immeasurable and last their entire lives.

It is for this reason and in this context that we discuss Bill C-45, an effort to make amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code.

As we have discussed before in the House, this bill deals with a very narrow issue. It deals with individuals who have committed cold blooded, premeditated, first degree murder. These individuals wantonly, irresponsibly and without any regard for anybody else have taken lives, something they have absolutely no right to do.

We disagree with the changes the justice minister is making on a number of levels. First, what kind of message does it send to murderers? It sends the message that if they kill one person, it could be okay; if they kill more than one, it is definitely not. Murder is murder and has to be deplored, period.

Second is the concept of deterrence. Some people would say that having a first degree murder penalty of 25 years with no hope of parole is not a deterrent to committing the crime. Having worked in jails I can say that deterrence plays a very big role in people's actions. Deterrence does play a role.

The prospect of a penalty of 25 years is not looked upon favourably by anybody. The penalty of 25 years without any exception has to be there for first degree murder. It is not there for second degree murder for a reason, but it must be there for first degree murder because first degree murder applies only to premeditated cold blooded murder, an act that is so reprehensible that the majority of Canadians have said that people who commit this type

of murder must be treated in the harshest way. This would send a message of deterrence and would also provide protection for society.

We have seen a significant departure in our justice system since the early 1980s. At that time the Liberal solicitor general said to Canadians: "From now on the focus of the justice system is not going to be on the protection of society. The focus of the justice system will be on dealing with the criminal. We are going to concentrate on the criminal, not the protection of the innocent in society".

That is the mindset which has pervaded our justice system over the past 14 years. It is something Canadians have been utterly revolted by. They feel that their rights as innocent civilians to be protected by the justice system are being abrogated from on high by the federal government in Ottawa.

That is why my colleagues from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley and Fraser Valley West, and my colleague from Crowfoot who was our lead speaker on this bill, have put forth constructive measures to ensure that the protection of innocent civilians is the primary goal of our justice system.

It is not to say that we are not concerned about rehabilitation. It is not to say that we are not concerned about prevention. However, certainly the number one goal of our justice system has to be the protection of innocent civilians. That is why we feel the changes to section 745, which Bill C-45 brings in, do not properly reflect our desire to protect Canadian citizens.

There are a number of measures the justice minister can take. I would suggest that he look at the following. Some interesting experiments have been done in the United States. They looked at inner city schools that had very high teen pregnancy rates, high crime rates, high drop out rates and high illiteracy rates.

The school children were referred to the university which started to deal with the children early on, from kindergarten on. Not only did they teach these children their ABCs and the three Rs but they also taught them concepts such as self-respect, respect for others and appropriate conflict resolution. They informed them about drug and alcohol abuse and smoking.

The parents were also brought in. They were usually single parents. That was the environment these children lived in. They brought the parents into the school system, and the parents took an active role in the classroom with their children and with the teacher. The parents often did not know how to be good parents. They did not themselves have the basic pillars of a normal psyche because they had grown up in an abusive environment.

The outcome was very interesting. The parents learned how to be good parents. The parents learned what self-respect was. The

parents learned that slamming somebody's head into a wall was not appropriate conflict resolution. The parents learned about drug and alcohol abuse and the value of education. In the end, there were much lower rates of drop outs, criminal activity, drug abuse, assaults, et cetera.

The hon. justice minister should bring together his colleagues, the ministers of education from across the country, to change the focus in our education system. The greatest impact we can have on the justice system later on, and the prevention of conduct disorders and criminal behaviour is through changes by focusing on early childhood education in the way I mentioned.

I would bring attention once again to the bills my colleagues in the Reform Party have put together. There is the one on the victims bill of rights. I hope the justice minister does not let this very good bill die in committee. He should give it the same expeditious treatment that he gave to Bill C-33. There is also the bill of my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley on dangerous offenders. The justice minister should take a very close look at that because it will certainly make our streets safer.

Revamping the Young Offenders Act is essential. It is an absolute sham right now. Changes need to be made. I implore the justice minister to deal with that. I know members across the party lines would be very happy to work with him to make our streets safer for Canadians.