Keith Martin

[Land Mines, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, more than 25,000 people worldwide are killed by land mines every year, and thousands more are injured.

On Wednesday the Minister of Foreign Affairs said Canada is one of the few countries that have banned outright the use of anti-personnel land mines. This is simply not true.

Earlier this year Canada declared a moratorium on the production, export and use of land mines. However, a moratorium is not a

ban. Although it is good, we need Canada to take the lead by domestically banning the production, use and sale of these heinous silent killers.

The minister was incorrect in his statement this week. Canada has long been one of leading voices in calling for a total ban. It is now the topic of discussion for a proposal which would establish a land mine free zone in the Americas, which Canada supports.

It is time now for Canada to show bold leadership and send a clear signal to the international community by declaring a domestic ban on the import, use and production of land mines.

[Fisheries, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if it will not decrease the number of fish caught, how will it decrease the pressure on the fish? It makes no sense.

The minister is running a bloated, inefficient ministry and yet has decided to cut financing for salmon hatcheries based on some report he has refused to release to us for six months.

Will he table the report in the House this week and will he support a self-financing Sooke River fish hatchery?

[Fisheries, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said he will cut the B.C. salmon fleet by 50 per cent to conserve salmon stocks. However, he knows this will not decrease the number of fish caught. It will only reallocate the fish to the large commercial fishing boats, putting small independent fishermen out of a job. This plan will kill jobs. It will kill fish and it will kill communities in B.C.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, what will you tell these communities--

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

On gun control, regardless of whichever way we look at this, there will be up to $500 million removed from the functional arm of justice to gun control. There is something called an economic cost. That means that if we are moving money from A to B, we had better make sure we are getting more bang for our buck in B than in A.

There has been nothing to prove that the new legislation put forth will make any difference in crime. There is an abundance of studies showing the exact opposite, that the new changes in gun control will not work.

We in the Reform Party are committed to having good solid gun control legislation which protects individuals and society but we are loathe to support legislation that will make our streets less safe. The gun control legislation put forth by the government had nothing to do with keeping the streets safer but everything to do with seducing an urban population.

On the concept of the police, the police would do a lot more if they were supported by the courts, but they are not. If my hon. colleague would talk to the men and women in our police forces who day in and day out put their lives on the line and ask them whether the courts support them, he will get a very different picture because they do not.

They do not because of the decisions made in the past and a legal morass our judicial system is now under. It is weighted down by a legal morass that prevents justice from taking place. We need to rethink and look at that.

We also have to look at the way police officers are hampered by the legal documentation and paperwork they have to endure in their jobs. It impedes their ability to get their work done.

On the concept of restitution, restitution is not mentioned anywhere. The government has not done anything to deal with restitution to the victims from the criminals.

An important point for many individuals who have had to put restraining orders on individuals who have been hunting them, harassing them, is that restraining orders do not work. They are not enforced properly and we need to take a long, hard look at ensuring our restraining order system will work to protect those individuals being harassed and victimized.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on the victims' bill of rights motion that my hon. colleague is putting forward. It is long overdue.

This all started back in 1983-84 when the Liberal justice minister of the day said that Canadian justice was going to move away from making the victim its primary responsibility and move toward the convicted as their primary responsibility.

This has had a fundamental effect on the mindset of the justice system over the last 13 years. As a result Reform members have had to put forward legislation along the lines of that which my colleague is putting forward, a victims' bill of right. Why? Because the victims of this country have had their rights abrogated by a judicial system whose interest should be to protect them first and foremost. That is no longer the case. Countless numbers of victims have had their rights subjugated to the rights of the convicted.

Here are some pathetic examples. Imagine if you will you are person who has been raped. You have no rights whatsoever under the current justice system to know the health status of the person who raped you. You have no rights to know if he is HIV positive. You have no rights to know if he is carrying sexually transmitted diseases like gonorrhoea, chlamydia and hepatitis. Those rights do not exist. This is one of the things that my colleague and we in the Reform Party wish to change.

Imagine if you will that your child has been violated by a pedophile or that a loved one of yours has been raped. Currently that rapist or pedophile can come an live right next door to you if he so chooses. That can happen. Do the victims have a right to know about this? No, they do not.

In my riding I have had a situation where a serial pedophile who raped and violated little children more than 1,000 times came to live in the neighbourhood of its victims. These victims were absolutely beside themselves with fear and abject terror.

Why do we not have a justice system which protects these individuals from having to endure a situation of terror and fear after they have already been violated by an individual? That is fundamentally wrong and bespeaks poorly of a justice system that is meant to protect these individuals.

It is fundamental that these victims have the right to know where and when the people who perpetrated these violations on them will be and where they will live and their whereabouts. As we all know, there is no treatment for violent sexual predators. There are many attempts but there is no effective treatment. Therefore victims have a right to know where these individuals are.

The third is victims' impact statements. It must be the right of the victim to give a victim impact statement orally or in writing if they so choose. It is not a choice but it should be their right to have this. The courts must understand what it was like for that person to endure the crime perpetrated on them.

Fifth, the victim must understand what is happening in the court proceedings. They must understand what is being plea bargained away, why it is being plea bargained away, and what deals are being made between the crown and the accused's defence. It is very important for the peace of mind of the victims that they understand the whole process taking place if they are to feel justice is being done.

Sixth, it is very important that we err on the side of the protection of the individual in society at large. We have to move away from what we have said before, that the convicted will have our primary focus. The victim must be the primary responsibility of the justice system. That is simply not the case now.

I will give a true life example. There was a young boy in my riding. He was a handicapped child who could not mobilize very well. He was 13 years old. He was sexually assaulted by an 18-year old boy. He was raped. The court case took place. The 18-year old was charged and convicted. The convicted 18-year old turn around and said "I'm a victim because of things that happened in my past". That may be so.

What happened was that the child who was raped did not have anywhere near the counselling, the care and the attention from our justice system and health professionals he needed. The convicted had many times the amount of money in support than the victim. The convicted had the primary focus of the justice system whereas the victim was forgotten. This bespeaks of a justice system that

does not fulfil its fundamental role, which is the protection of society and its members.

It is true that many people who commit offences, who are incarcerated in our prisons have had very serious and very sad lives. Their early childhood development has been riddled with with a great number of tragic and unbelievably terrible things. This is very common. However, one's history does not exonerate one from committing criminal acts today. We can understand what they have done but it does not exonerate them or excuse them from committing those acts.

Therefore we have to take a multilevel approach. We have to protect the victim, as my hon. colleague mentioned so eloquently in his speeches and in his victim's impact statement, which I encourage every member of the House to get a copy of before they vote on it. I also encourage every member to look at new ways we can address the precursors and ask ourselves why these individuals commit these offences.

Many of these individuals have grown up in terrible family situations. We must deal with these situations early on. Children in environments where they are being beaten up and sexually abused are not being given the necessities to build up the basic pillars of a normal psyche. Where those things are absent we must collectively deal with the families to help the children. If the children do not have the pillars of a normal psyche they will grow up to be adults without the pillars of a normal psyche. That will manifest itself in conduct disorders in adolescence and in criminal behaviour in adulthood.

These things can be done without spending money. In the United States some interesting experiments have been conducted. They have looked at inner city school boards where there is a high degree of violence, drop out rates, teen pregnancy and criminal behaviour. They brought the children into the schools very early on, at the age of five or six. Not only did they teach the children their A, B, Cs, they taught the children what appropriate conflict resolution was and what drugs were all about. They learned about self-respect and having respect for others. These are normal pillars of a normal psyche which we all require to function in a caring and functional society.

These are things which the justice system ought to take a look at in conjunction with provincial counterparts, as the Liberal member mentioned. We must work with provincial governments and education departments, which are an integral factor, in addressing these problems to put an end to conduct disorders and violent and criminal behaviour.

It is incumbent on all of us as legislators to put first and foremost the rights of innocent victims in our justice system. The convicted must be taken care of as well, but our primary responsibility is to the victims who through no fault of their own have been violated.

I encourage every member of the House to vote for the victims' bill of rights presented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. They will be doing it for themselves, their children and, most important, for Canadians from coast to coast.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the reality in this country is very different from what the Liberal Party has been putting forth. The reality is that violent crime, particularly among youth, is increasing faster than any other aspect of crime.

The Liberals promised to deal with the Young Offenders Act in a substantive and effective fashion before it became the government. Have we seen anything? Absolutely not. We have seen pabulum come through the justice department when it comes to dealing with young offenders.

I ask my hon. friend from the Liberal government to name some substantive and effective legislation the government has put forth to decrease youth and violent crime. If this is being put forth, I would like him to explain to the House why it has not decreased violent crime one iota.

[Chernobyl, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I extend to the victims of Chernobyl our deepest and heartfelt sympathy to them and their families on the 10th anniversary of this nuclear disaster.

We express our commitment to working with the former Soviet Union states and Russia in working with the international community to clean up Chernobyl and get it under control.

Chernobyl is only the tip of the iceberg. Massive dumping of nuclear waste into the Bering Sea has occurred in Russia, twice the amount of the other 12 nuclear countries in the world. Western Siberia is an ecological disaster. The people themselves have called western Siberia an ecological disaster as there are massive levels of long lived radionuclides, cesium-137, carbon-14, strontium-90. They have all existed and they are affecting humans with radiation. The fallout is affecting our arctic regions and is found in our indigenous peoples.

The result is that over the last 25 years there has been a 75 per cent increase in cancer rates and a 250 per cent increase in birth defects in children in this area. Our arctic does not have similar amounts and yet, as the minister well knows, the cancer and birth defect rates of aboriginal people living in the arctic are higher than they ought to be.

On the Kola Peninsula there has been a massive nuclear waste dump. Large parts of the peninsula are contaminated beyond what we have seen virtually any where else. There are high levels of these radionuclides found in the tissue of animals, plants and indigenous peoples

Russia is decommissioning its nuclear submarines. Over the next 10 years it will have to decommission 200 nuclear submarines and ships. Historically it has dumped most of its nuclear waste into the environment. This is not isolated in the former Soviet Union but it is something that affects us all.

We have to push together with the international community for a comprehensive test ban treaty and the enforcement of its principles. We have to push the non-signatories to the nuclear proliferation treaty, those with nuclear capabilities, to sign it. International co-operation will be required to do this.

We have to work with the former Soviet Union states to catalogue and identify these waste dump sites and also have international groups to monitor the clean-up and the fallout.

We must encourage trade and economic ties with the former Soviet Union states. By doing this we will push forward trade liberalization, movement toward democratic principles. We will dampen the rise of ethnic nationalism occurring with the likes of Mr. Zhirinovsky and dampen the rise of the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union. By increasing ties we do much for increasing international co-operation between our countries.

We have in the former Soviet Union an ecological and nuclear disaster which most of us do not know much about. It is the Chernobyls of the future that are waiting to occur. They will affect the former Soviet Union and our people through the ebb and flow of waters and through the movement of air masses. These nuclear materials will affect all arctic countries. Because these radionuclides spend so long in the food chain they it will affect Canadians with higher levels of birth defects and higher cancer rates.

I implore the minister to work co-operatively with the international community and the former Soviet Union states to develop methods to get this under control to avoid the Chernobyls of the future.

[Cancer, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, April is cancer campaign month. During this month thousands of Canadians across the country have generously donated their time, energy and money to rid us of this terrible scourge. Last year more than $45 million was raised.

The Canadian Cancer Society spearheads this campaign. Its mission is the eradication of this disease and the enhancement of the quality of life of people who are suffering from it.

All of our lives have been touched in some way by cancer. I know we all stand shoulder to shoulder in wishing our colleague from Windsor West a speedy recovery in his battle with this terrible disease.

In 1996 it is estimated that 129,000 Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer and 61,000 will die. For almost 60 years the generosity of Canadians has enabled important cancer research and education to occur.

I congratulate and thank all Canadians from coast to coast who have generously donated their time and energy to this worthy cause. I know that through them cancer can be beaten.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on the budget implementation bill. I would not be standing here speaking today if this government and previous governments had done their jobs.

The situation we find ourselves in today is a very serious one indeed. It compromises the lives of every Canadian, every social program and not only the lives of Canadians today but the lives of Canadians tomorrow.

Today we see, through the budget implementation bill, the facts. The government is having to borrow on the futures of children of today and tomorrow to pay for what it is spending today.

Three years ago we gave the government our zero in three plan. It was a definitive, specific plan to get Canada's economic house in order. It told the government where to cut, how to cut and how much to cut. It was not some nebulous plan, not some mythological plan, but a highly specific plan to get Canada's house in order. What did the government do? It ignored it. It ignores it at its peril.

The finance minister has repeatedly said "we will stay the course because we are doing just fine. Don't worry, Mr. and Mrs. Public, Canada is doing just fine with out economics. The Liberal government has a hold on things. We are in control. We are staying the course".

Staying the course for what, so the Canadian economy can run head first into a brick wall? That is not a course the Canadian public wants to take. It is not a course it wants for its future or the future of its children.

We have solutions. We put them forth. I implore the government once again to look at the zero in three plan so that we do not need to bring forth budget implementation plans.

We have been accused many times by the government and by members of the public of being a slash and burn party. I would like to refute once and for all that the Reform Party is the slash and burn party. We are the only political party that has the plan to save social programs in Canada. It flies in the face of conventional wisdom. It flies in the face of what has been put forth by members across the way. Those are the facts, and I will explain why.

The single greatest compromise to social programs is the inability to get our fiscal house in order. Why is that so? When we were first elected three years ago, one-quarter of all the money the government spent went to interest. It went to service the $550 billion debt which saddles all of us. It is our responsibility.

Today because of government overspending, because of repeated deficit spending, we have added to the national debt. I am speaking only to the federal debt. Provincial and municipal debts are another matter. We have added to the federal debt and the interest payments have increased.

Imagine the pie once again; one-quarter three years ago and today that number has moved around to about 35 per cent of that pie. As time passes the amount of the pie to be eaten up and eroded by interest payments will increase. It will swallow up the ability of this government or any government to spend on education, on health care, on welfare, on pensions; in short, to provide for those people who need our justifiably laudable social programs.

It compromises not the rich, but those who are poorest. One thing we pride ourselves on as Canadians is our ability to take care of those who are less fortunate than ourselves. It is in a sense a defining aspect of being Canadian.

Therefore it is the inability to get control of government spending, the inability to get our deficit to zero and attack the true ogre in this equation, the debt, which compromises our social programs and our economy. If interest payments rise, the amount of interest will increase, greatly impeding the ability of the government to provide those things we hold dear, things Canadians rely on.

It also crushes the life out of the economy. Why? Repeated deficit spending and the debt force us to have higher relative interest rates than other countries.

There was a superb article which looked at relative interest rates compared with other countries. Although our interest rates are apparently low, the real interest rates are some of the highest in the world. It is those interest rates that compromise the ability of our companies to invest and spend. They also compromise the ability of Canadians to spend because of the relatively high tax rate on Canadians in order to service the debt.

There is a terrible vicious circle and the only way to break it, save our social programs and kick start the economy and get people back to work, provide for education and for a stronger economy is to bring the debt down.

The finance minister has said they are doing a great job, contrary to what the International Monetary Fund said at the end of last year. It gave a stern warning to the finance minister: "Stay the course and your country will hit the wall. The budget projections are completely inadequate. You must upgrade them in order to have a strong economy for Canadians in the future".

We in the Reform Party have absolutely no desire to compromise social programs for the poor. The reason many of us here gave up good careers and a comfortable lifestyle was to get Canada back on track. There is a narrow window of opportunity to do that. As time passes it will be increasingly more difficult to get the country back on track.

The failure to address the problem today will produce the biggest compromise Canadians have seen in the last 75 years. Solutions are there. We have provided them. I say to the government that its failure to ignore this will imperil Canadians from coast to coast. Its failure will show up at the next election. I implore members to work with us and use some of our ideas. We do not have all the answers but a lot of them are backed up by Canadians through our grassroots process. Use the ideas. Do not just talk about them repeatedly. Do not study them again for the 100th time. Put them into effect and take action on the problem now.

During the election campaign the Liberals told the Canadian people they would abolish the GST, knowing full well it is a financial and economic impossibility. Now they are doing a mea culpa and eating crow. Some members volunteered to give up their seats if the GST were not abolished. They know full well they could not get rid of it. It think it is reprehensible that they have pulled the wool over the eyes of Canadian taxpayers by this myth, this illusion that they will get rid of the GST.

The harmonization process they are proposing to the Canadian people that will somehow get rid, eliminate or decrease the GST is another illusion put forth by the magicians across the way, bad magicians at that.

The harmonization process is nothing but a gerrymandering of dollar figures. It is inequitable and unfair to Canadians outside the maritime provinces. They are asking the rest of Canada to give $1 billion to the maritime provinces. Furthermore, the maritime provinces do not accept harmonization because they know it will cost them more at the counter, particularly the poor and the middle

class. As well, the tax base will broaden to include essentials. The rich will not suffer; the poor and the middle class will suffer.

The government should take a long, hard look at harmonization. The public will not accept it, which the government will find out at the next election.

Economically it is fundamentally wrong. There are good solutions. The government must control spending and decrease taxes. Once it has decreased the debt it can lower the GST rate. That is the responsible thing to do.

The debt and the deficit will not go away by themselves. Strong leadership is required. The budget implementation act will not solve the problem. However, using the solutions we have suggested will solve the problem.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I absolutely agree with him that the government has in part abrogated its responsibility by putting trade above human rights.

They are not mutually exclusive principles. They can occur hand in hand. You do not have to abrogate your responsibilities to the businesses in this country by just dealing with human rights because it is not fair to them.

However, to ignore human rights ignores that constructive, effective and economic interactions between countries is predicated on peace. If you do not have peace you will not have trade. Therefore both are two parts of the same whole and both can be dealt with in co-operation. I think the international community and the business sector must have a vested interest in peace building. I know the government can deal with both without the exclusion of the other.