Keith Martin

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, if we had more details on Canadian troop requirements in the former Yugoslavia we would be able to make a more equivocal statement.

The contribution Canada can make toward the peace process in Bosnia is to use perhaps our military engineers toward infrastructure development but not use our combat troops in IFOR at the present time.

I hope that is very clear: do not use our combat troops under IFOR but contribute toward European security, contribute toward participating with our allies in building peace within Bosnia through non-military methods, through the use of our engineers, through peace building initiatives, through our non-combat troops in the military and also through non-military groups we have in Canada, NGOs, civilian groups and the like.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, we understand what collective security is. I made it very clear in my speech that peace in the former Yugoslavia must involve a number of routes. One is the use of combat troops.

As his colleague mentioned, our troops are having a difficult time because of a lack of equipment and the fact that they have been rotating quite frequently through the former Yugoslavia. They are very tired and they need a break.

Be that as as it may, Canada can make an effective contribution. One of the things I mentioned is the use of the military engineers that we can contribute to the infrastructure development in Bosnia. If there is no infrastructure development in Bosnia, no economy to provide people with the means to get on their feet and provide themselves with their basic needs, they have all the seeds, all the groundwork for future conflicts to occur.

IFOR is just a stop gap measure. There is a pool of soldiers not being utilized right now, a pool of soldiers in the sphere of influence that Bosnia is in, the European Union force.

As I mentioned before, there are 50,000 troops. They are not being used anywhere and they are well equipped. What better place to have them teethe their techniques and drills than in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia right now? They can do it under a controlled setting under the guise and leadership of proven soldiers who are there right now, the Americans, the French and the British. They could learn the techniques and the tools to be an effective peacemaking, peacebuilding and peacekeeping force.

In the future I hope the European Union force can take the leadership role in trying to ensure that IFOR maintains its mandate and that we can continue on toward ensuring that Bosnia has not a short term peace but enjoys a long term peace and that it does not descend into the caldron of brutality that it has for the last five years.

We need to contribute to this. We can involve civilian populations in the peacemaking process in the former Yugoslavia. There are number of options there as I mentioned in my speech.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate on Bosnia and Canada's role in this important geopolitical problem.

There have been four years of brutal war. Two million people have been displaced. Over 200,000 people have been killed. Now, thankfully, there is the Dayton peace plan. It is a welcome initiative. However, there is something we must understand: it is a fragile peace plan and it is only the beginning. The international community must realize that the Dayton peace plan gives the world

an opportunity to provide long lasting peace in Bosnia; however, it is not the end of the situation.

In the long term, history tells us that peace cannot be enforced at the end of an assault rifle. It has to come from peace building initiatives from people on the ground. Any time there is a civil war that tears apart a country, as the conflict in Bosnia has done, the seeds of ethnic discontent, hatred, and future wars will be there. The only way to combat that is for us to contribute to peace building initiatives for the disparate ethnic groups in that land.

Let us look at the scenario that now faces us. The 12-month timeline that has been set up by the supreme allied command is a fantasy. The people of that region will be there for a longer period. We have to ensure that we will not be engaged in a Cyprus in the middle of Europe. We have to understand that the Bosnian Serb population is very tenuous, with Radovan Karadzic and General Mladic saying they will make certain parts of the former Yugoslavia bleed, namely Sarajevo. They are an element that has to be neutralized.

The Muslim-Croat alliance that exists now is tenuous at best. Many people tend to forget that two years ago these two groups were fighting a bloody war within Bosnia. Much has to be done to mend fences there. The Bosnian federation, as it now exists, with two federations under the umbrella of one country, is also tenuous. It will fracture. Whether it fractures into two areas or three, with a Croat-Bosnian-Muslim and a Bosnian Serbian group or with the Croats and Muslims divided into two groups, is yet to be seen. In my estimation, Bosnia will fracture into at least two or three groups. It is important for us to ensure that the fracturing is accomplished through diplomacy and not at the end of an assault rifle.

There is much that has to be done, and IFOR gives us the opportunity. Troops need to be deployed, but they do not have to be Canadian troops. I believe there is a way around this situation. The European Union has a force of 50,000 troops that has never been tried. That force is well armed and well equipped. The European force can use Bosnia as a teething ground under the existing NATO command structures. A lot could be learned from this, which could be used in future peace building initiatives.

Canada has done its part. Our armed forces have done an admirable job in the former Yugoslavia. Our troops need a rest. They need to re-equip and take a bit of a break.

Bosnia will secede. As I said before, we want to ensure that it secedes peacefully.

I believe the effective contribution Canada can make, rather than sending over troops, is to ensure that the peace building initiatives that take place on the ground continue. We can contribute engineers for the rebuilding of infrastructure: hospitals, roads, bridges and the like. We can also utilize NGOs and civilian groups to contribute to the peace building and peace bridging that must happen with the civilian population in that region. This is something we are good at and something we can contribute in the peace building process in the former Yugoslavia without contributing troops.

Economic prosperity in any war situation is absolutely fundamental for the peace building process. Just because we are enforcing a peace with an international protection force now does not mean to say there will be peace in the future. Contributing to the infrastructure development and developing economies so the people in the area can stand on their own two feet is absolutely fundamental for peace building.

One of the things we can do to neutralize Radovan Karadzic and General Mladic is to take away their power base. The people in Sarajevo are scared, the Bosnian Serbs in particular. If we can contribute to making sure they will be secure in their environment, they will not provide a fertile ground for General Mladic and Mr. Karadzic to put a flame into the very volatile situation that is Bosnia as we know it.

I would also suggest that we continue with the arms embargo, and I would continue with the demilitarization process that has to occur in the former Yugoslavia, a very difficult situation to pursue.

I would say that the involvement of the European force is something that is long overdue, for the European community abrogated their responsibility in the first place in the former Yugoslavia. When they were given the mandate to try to defuse the situation, defuse the precursors to conflict that were there, they turned their back and stuck their head in the sand. It is high time they contributed to this initiative, contributed to IFOR through using the European force that is there.

Our contribution as a country to ensure that our commitment to European security is there and ensure our allies in NATO realize we are also committed to security in Europe can be the involvement of our military through engineers, not combat troops, and can be the involvement of our civilian population NGOs through peace building initiatives on the ground. All we need to do is look at the Middle East to show that peace building must be done along economic lines as well.

On a broader scale, I would ask our Minister of Foreign Affairs to work with our Minister of National Defence at developing a long lasting, far-reaching Canadian foreign policy on how to prevent these conflicts from occurring in the first place. That involves identifying the precursors to conflict, listing those, and working

with international organizations to ensure there will be a predictable, identifiable and concrete response to the precursors to conflict.

This conflict in the former Yugoslavia and many others around the world were entirely preventable. The writing on the wall in the former Yugoslavia was there in 1987, yet the world community chose to ignore it. If we had addressed that conflict then, we would not have seen the hundreds of thousands of people killed, the millions of people displaced and the profound human tragedy that none of us in this room can possibly comprehend.

We as a country can take a leadership role as one of the few countries in the world that has the international suasive power in the international community to encourage our neighbours to develop the broad peace building, peacemaking and conflict prevention framework that needs to be done.

Apart from using the United Nations, we can also use the international financial institutions as cheap non-military economic levers in conflict prevention, both as a form to dissuade potential groups from engaging in conflict and also to encourage groups to enter a road of peace rather than go down the road of war.

With the debate we have had today-and I thank the hon. members in the House for extending the debate-I hope we can make an effective contribution, not necessarily through our combat troops but towards the peace building initiatives we in Canada are so good at doing.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this speech is not directed at the individuals in the House. It is directed at the people of Canada. The crisis that we face today supersedes politics. It supersedes the gamesmanship that we see in the House. It supersedes what goes on in committee. It is an issue that affects the very soul of Canada.

Never in the past 50 years has there been such a crisis in our midst, a crisis that will change the very face of the country that we know and love. Never have we needed leadership more but never have we seen such a dearth of leadership. It almost caused our country to fracture last October 30.

The current proposals in Bill C-110 are ineffective. They are meant to appease the separatists within this House and they are meant to appease the separatist leaders in Quebec. The fact of the matter is that the separatist leadership wants one thing and one thing alone: a separate, independent Quebec.

Anything the government does is going to be ineffective. Therefore the proposals the government makes must not be addressed to the separatist leadership, not to the separatist party, but to the people of Quebec. That is the intent of what we are trying to accomplish here. We are trying to keep this country together, not for politicians, not for political parties, but for the people of Canada.

The fundamental overriding principle of being Canadian is equality for everyone. If we do not have equality for all of us then we have equality for no one. It is something that Canadians have fought for in two world wars, which the brave men and women in our armed forces fight for today, peace and equality in far off lands.

To the people of Quebec I say you are afraid of losing your culture, you are afraid of losing your language. You do not wish to become like the French culture in the southern United States. But your culture is important to us, your language is important to us. It enriches each and every one of us.

In the same vein, our culture, our history and the culture and the history of the multiple ethnic groups that make up Canada must be important to you too. We in the Reform Party have proposed that culture and language be given to the provinces, all of the provinces, including Quebec. Here you can be the masters of your own cultural and linguistic destinies.

To the people of Quebec I also say, you are fed up with unnecessary duplication, you are fed up with unnecessary interventions by Ottawa. But so is the rest of the country. That is why in order to reduce waste and save taxpayers' money we have submitted proposals to decentralize various areas such as natural resources, manpower training, housing, tourism and such.

The people of Quebec are fed up with the high federal debt, but so is the rest of Canada. Understand one thing. If Quebecers leave Canada they must understand very clearly that they will walk away with their share of the national debt.

To the people of Quebec I say, you are fed up with taxes which go to Ottawa and are wasted but understand, so is the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada has the same interests that the vast majority of the people of Quebec have. It would be a shame to have the people of Quebec separate from Canada over an eventuality that will come to pass anyway. In most ways the same desires of the people of Quebec are shared by people in every province within our country. I ask them to work with everybody else in order to accomplish this.

The separatists want to secede to preserve the Quebec culture but they can only do this by preventing non-francophone people from coming into Quebec. That is why they want to control immigration. That is their intent. They want to create a pure laine population. Fantasy? Hardly. Bloc Quebecois members previous to the refer-

endum said that the only true Quebecer is one that is a member of la pure laine.

This was confirmed by racist statements made by Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Landry that blamed them for the failure of Quebec to succeed in the referendum. They put that responsibility on the shoulders of hardworking immigrant populations in Quebec. Accidental? Not at all. Why? Because they want to drive the immigrant population from Quebec to increase, relatively speaking, the yes vote for separation.

However, the people of Quebec do not want this. The people of Quebec are not xenophobes. They are not intolerant. They are not racist. Their leaders are but they are not. This is something they need remember. They would be embarrassed to know some of the things that have been said by some of their leaders.

I ask the people of Quebec why investors would want go to Quebec to start companies and create jobs in a climate of obsolete economic ideas, an enormously high debt and intolerance?

This brings me to the motivation of the separatist leadership. They warp history. They lie about economic facts. They muzzle their own people which prevents them from getting the facts. Why are they doing this? They are doing it for their own gain and the gain is power. It is power for the separatist leadership in Quebec and has nothing to do with benefiting the average citizen in Quebec.

The pursuit of the separatist leadership in Quebec has very little to do with the people of Quebec. The leadership knows its actions and activities are just going to drag down the average citizen in Quebec. Those who will be hurt the most are those who are the poorest in that province.

We agree with the people of Quebec in wanting to be the masters of their own linguistic and cultural destinies for it is their culture and their language that enriches us all. We are, after all, a part of a multi-ethnic mélange of different groups. French history is a part of our history and is a fundamental, important and integral part of Canada.

Canada needs leadership and it needs it now. It needs leadership to put this issue of Canadian unity beyond the realm and the arena of politics. If this issue is left to the politicians it will be lethal for Canadian unity. All the people of Canada must understand that.

I implore and beseech the people of this country to come together: francophones, allophones, anglophones, all the ethnic groups, all the cultures and all the languages, under the umbrella of understanding and tolerance. It is something that all Canadians are proud of. From outside Canada it is how we are seen. We are looked at as being a country that exhibits the best examples of culture and tolerance.

However, if ever there was a need for us to demonstrate this to its greatest extent it is now. We must all come together. Anglophones must travel to Quebec. Quebecers must travel into the rest of Canada to see the importance of having our cultures united, not separate.

There is no reason why the people of Quebec cannot have what they asked for in terms of preserving their culture and language in North America. The rest of Canada does not want that to be lost, it wants it to stay. It wants it to stay in the framework of equality, respect and tolerance for all Canadians.

Quite frankly, the policies that have been put forward in Bill C-110, rather than bringing people together, are actually divisive. The people in the rest of Canada see this as a way of making them second class citizens. I hope the people of Quebec understand this. They want nothing more than to be equal with Canadians and with Quebecers. They want nothing more and nothing less.

In closing, our country is the greatest country in the world. It is a land of tolerance and unity. It is made up of a mélange of different ethnic groups of which the French Canadian heritage and culture is one of the most important. I ask the people of Quebec, not the politicians, to join us in unity to build a stronger, united Canada for all people.

[Royal Roads, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I state in the strongest possible terms my objection to the fact that some 484 acres of pristine crown lands on the Royal Roads property in my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca are on the table for future development.

The Department of National Defence has already paid the city of Colwood $198,000 for a buy-in for 6,000 residential equivalency units of trunk sewer capacity with an application for a further 2,000 units. Plans for the development of the lands and the property are already under way by the Treasury Board.

Given this fact we deserve to know what are the plans for Royal Roads, who has been consulted and what is the time frame for this development.

Since April 1994 I have continued to advocate a plan put forth by the Royal Roads committee that I started which would see the development of only 60 acres of the land with the rest held forever, in perpetuity. Rest assured I will fight tooth and nail alongside my constituents to ensure that these beautiful lands are not bulldozed and concretized in the name of development.

[The Environment, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister's decision to sign an interim order banning the export of PCBs to the U.S. defies logic, especially since the EPA in the U.S. has recently reversed its decision to allow PCB imports for destruction.

This reversal enables Canadian companies to safely dispose of their stockpiled PCB contaminated waste at the lowest possible price and in the safest possible manner. The minister ought to be elated. Unfortunately she has decided to ban PCB exports to the U.S. despite the fact that Canada exports over 100,000 tonnes of waste to the U.S. each year.

The distance now that the PCBs have to travel are much greater when shipped across Canada than when shipped to the United States. Canadian companies are also paying an extra $150 million to do this.

Considering the overwhelming information in support of allowing PCB exports to the U.S., I urge the minister to reconsider her government's position, do the right thing, and stop pandering to the protectionist stance that does little to help the overriding goal of PCB removal.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission Act, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the aspects of the rights of non-aboriginal peoples living in areas adjacent to areas where land claims are currently under negotiation.

There are some very grave concerns in my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and other western communities about what happens when a municipality in the future puts forth a 10 or 15-year plan for the surrounding area and another group working independently within its midst is able to completely change the entire demographic of that area? This is but an example taking place all across the country. Nowhere among these treaty rights is it stated what the rights of non-aboriginal peoples are in areas adjacent to the treaty areas.

Furthermore, a lot of these negotiations are taking place behind closed doors and away from the eyes of the people who will be affected by the decisions made by both the provincial and federal levels of government.

It is grossly iniquitous that these decisions and negotiations take place behind closed doors, in private and in camera. They must be made full knowledge to the public. It is the aboriginals and non-aboriginals who will be affected by these treaty negotiations. Therefore that has to be built into these negotiations but it is not.

More than 50 per cent of aboriginal people live off reserve. How do these treaty negotiations affect those individuals living off reserve? Many aboriginal peoples living in urban areas suffer tragic levels of substance abuse, violence and sexual abuse. It is tragic to see the lives these individuals endure.

I ask those here in the House how these negotiations actually affect the lives of these people? How does it improve their lives to be able to dig themselves out of the sad situations they have found themselves in? How does this give them the ability to stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves? I have never heard an explanation to this question regardless of whom I asked who was involved in the treaty negotiations.

It is fundamental for any person, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, to take care of themselves that they have the skills to do this. One of the roles of government can be to provide these skills and opportunities to enable people to take care of themselves.

I wonder if these land claims will actually do that. I cannot see that happening. For many of the people the earning power they would require to earn money and fulfill the lifestyle they require simply cannot be done on many of the areas being claimed today.

We support good skills training for aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike. We support good social programs where accountability has been built into the system. We support social programs that address good counselling for the people who are suffering. We support the elimination of the Indian Act, a paternalistic and racist act.

Above all, if there is one principle that should override everything, it is equality for all people. If we do not have equality for all of us how can we have equality for any of us? It is fundamental that we approach these negotiations with that fundamental principle in mind. It is something that Canada and Canadians have stood for through their entire history and something that Canadians have died for to give us that right today. I hope we do not abrogate that responsibility to our past by engaging in activities that make sure some people are more equal than others.

We support the hereditary activity of aboriginal peoples: the hunting, fishing and trapping under the treaty negotiations taking place. It is a fundamental right of the aboriginal peoples. However, we do not support utilizing those hereditary rights to be manipulated in such a way that would enable resources to be destroyed.

We support self-government for aboriginal people but at a municipal level. At a municipal level it gives them, as it gives all of us, the ability and right to determine destinies as individuals and as groups.

We cannot have completely autonomous states. That would result in the balkanization of Canada. The worst case scenario is that we have hundreds of small, autonomous non-functional states. That is the ultimate possibility that exists in these treaty negotiations. It is important that we recognize this idea is fallacious and cannot occur.

Everyone in the House wants to ensure the tragic situation that many aboriginal people find themselves in is changed now. They cry for help. It is a cry of desperation that must be answered.

It does not work to treat individuals in a paternalistic fashion. They must be treated in the same fashion as we would treat anybody else, as equals. We must provide these people with the skills and ability to stand on their own two feet. By doing this they would develop pride within themselves, pride in their communities and pride between people.

If we can do this we would go a long way toward developing a more peaceful, tolerant society between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. Sadly the course that has been taken, rather than bringing people together is causing deep divisions and rifts between aborigi-

nals and non-aboriginals. This is sad because there is much that can be learned from all of our cultures. The aboriginal culture is a beautiful culture and we need to learn much from it.

It is time we moved ahead toward a new era of respect for others, respect for ourselves and equal treatment for all.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission Act, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-107, an act respecting the B.C. Treaty Commission.

The aboriginal people tragically form some of the lowest socioeconomic groups within Canada, a first world nation. Indeed the incidence of violence, sexual abuse, crime, infant mortality, suicide, substance abuse and unemployment are among the highest of any sector within our country. It is not something our country should be proud of, and indeed we are not. That is why we are here today, to try to develop some sensible solutions to address these tragic problems within our midst.

I have seen with tragic frequency these individuals shot, stabbed, dying and sometimes dead from other people's hands and tragically too often from their own. It is a situation that needs to be addressed. It needed to be addressed yesterday but now we have an opportunity to do something about it today.

The cultural and social genocide which is taking place among the aboriginal people has been taking place for decades and continues to this day. In part this is due to successive governments that have continued in a paternalistic fashion toward the aboriginal people. They have had unequal treatment for the aboriginal people. Because this treatment is unequal, it is by its very nature racist in that we are treating the aboriginal people in a different way. We do not treat any other segment of our society that way.

The mindset has been to pour successive amounts of money into the department of Indian affairs for the aboriginal people. We continue to pour money down a black hole. If we look at the results of where this money has gone and wonder whether it has really gone to help the aboriginal people, if we go to the aboriginal people on and off reserve we will see that sadly it has not.

By pouring money down this black sinkhole, successive governments have created an institutionalized welfare state. If we continue to give money to people without them working for it, we erode the very soul within the individual. This does not matter if the person is an aboriginal or a non-aboriginal. It is a basic human characteristic. We cannot keep giving money to people and expect them to have pride and self-respect. It is incredibly destructive to the soul of a human being. It would happen to anybody, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, who is subjected to this.

It is often said that the aboriginal communities have lost their pride and self-respect. Part of the responsibility lies in the fact that we have created this institutionalized welfare state, that we have continued to support people in this manner. It has done them a great disservice. Therefore we see the sad destruction of a beautiful culture and beautiful people. A person cannot get pride and self-respect by having someone give it to him. That person must earn it himself.

Essential to this is having the ability to earn the funds to support yourself and your family and people. If you can do this, then from that you will develop the pride and self-respect in yourself and therefore the community around you. That is absolutely fundamentally important in my opinion.

I spoke with an individual who is responsible for the B.C. treaty process in my area. This man was in charge of it. After listening to him for one hour on what they were going to do, I asked a very simple question: Will the negotiation of these treaties help the aboriginal on or off reserve who is part of that lowest socioeconomic group I spoke about earlier? He answered that he did not know.

It is not good enough to pursue a course of trying to help people who are suffering from those tragic things I mentioned earlier when it is not known that it is going to help anybody. Why are we pursuing this course?

Perhaps we are doing this to assuage a guilt complex we have from what has gone on historically. If that is the case, I think we should end it. It is not respectful to the aboriginal people and it is not respectful to us. We have to look forward to a new day, a new era, a new age when aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can have respect for themselves and each other, when we can all live under circumstances that we do not need to be embarrassed about.

I have many concerns about the B.C. treaty negotiation process. First is the cost. It is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to establish these treaties. Where is the money coming from? All levels of government do not have the funds to pay for this. It is a simple question for which I would like a simple answer. Where is the accountability coming from? These moneys are going to be given to groups of people with no accountability whatsoever. Accountability must be built into the system.

One of the complaints I have is not politically correct to speak of. I have spoken to a number of aboriginal people who have come to my office complaining that large sums of money given to bands by the federal government have disappeared. The money has disappeared into the hands of band elders and band leaders. Nobody speaks for those aboriginal people who are not in that leadership. They need that money and they need it to work for them effectively and positively for the future. In too many cases that is not occurring.

Second, there are a lot of questions surrounding the issue of giving the resource management to the aboriginal people. What

happens to the rights of the non-aboriginal people who also have interests in these areas? They talk about crown lands and the fact that these areas are going to be given over to aboriginal people. The fact remains there are a lot of non-aboriginal people who lease these areas from the federal government. What is going to happen to them?

Also, look at the mismanagement which has taken place in some areas where aboriginal people have managed the resources. Look at the Stoney Creek reserve where large tracts of land were given out for timber rights and huge tracts of land were decimated.

Look at the aboriginal fishing strategy on the west coast. The AFS has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. An individual's racial grouping cannot be used as a licence to trash and destroy a resource. Unfortunately part of the responsibility of the decimation in the west coast fishery lies at the feet of the aboriginal people. There is no question that non-aboriginals have been poaching too. However, a significant number of people within the aboriginal community have been using the AFS to destroy a precious resource.

Who speaks for the aboriginal people who are law abiding, who respect the resource and who are interested in preserving that resource for future generations? Absolutely nobody speaks about them. A number of aboriginal people have approached me and said: "These aboriginal people are using the AFS for their own gain at the expense of us who are trying to manage and use the resource in a sustainable fashion". This has to be said. Where are the environmental safeguards that are going to take place when whole resources are being taken over and given to a group of people?

Third, what are the rights of the non-aboriginal people who live near lands that are being given to the aboriginal people? I have significant concerns in my own area. Many municipalities have mentioned that they have their own municipal plans that deal with the future of their area. There are a number of areas that-

[Small Business Loans Act, November 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-99 and related amendments 2, 4, and 6 put forth by our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois.

The backbone of our economy is made up of the small and medium size businesses in this country. They are the ones who truly create longlasting jobs within Canada. They are the ones who create real employment in our country. They form an essential part of our tax base in areas of innovation, science, technology, finance, and many other areas. They are something we Canadians should be proud of.

The small to medium size businesses are finding it increasingly difficult in Canada to function because of the high tax loads, the red tape they are forced to struggle under, and the difficulty they have in securing loans. Lending institutions within Canada are historically very conservative. Therefore, individuals in this country who bring forth many good ideas find it difficult if not impossible to have their efforts actually go to fruition. This is an enormous loss for Canada.

One just needs to look in the areas of medicine, science, technology, and the pharmaceutical industry to see good ideas going nowhere or in fact being sold to companies in other parts of the world. I recently read some very interesting information on this. I read about incredible ideas being born within our own country and being sent to other countries, where they become productive, profitable, and contribute to the society by providing long term, high tech, high paying jobs for people in other countries. This is indeed a sad thing.

Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, comprises efforts to put this program on the road to cost recovery. Everyone in this House approves of this. However, we are also addressing the amendments put forth by the Bloc Quebecois. We oppose these amendments because they bring the power of determining liability directly to the committee, instead of bringing it down to the area in this government that is closest to the public, and that is the House of Commons.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Okanagan Centre, who put forth amendments that were adopted by the committee that would bring the decision making process closer to the people, and that is the House of Commons.

I find it quite strange that members of the Bloc Quebecois are putting forth amendments but are not addressing some of the large issues that are affecting their province. Sadly, Quebec in recent times has seen economic destitution and social problems unrivalled in its history. It is easy for the Bloc Quebecois and other separatist forces to blame history and Ottawa for these problems. But I ask

my honourable friends in the Bloc Quebecois, does not responsibility for some of these problems rest on their own shoulders? Is it not the intent of the separatist forces to carve Quebec out of Canada? Are they not at least partly, if not largely, responsible for the terrible economic and social destitution we see in many areas of Quebec? One just has to visit the eastern part of Montreal to see this in real life.

I hope the hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois will look toward building a united Canada and addressing the economic and social problems that affect all of us within the context of this country. I find it extremely strange that they say that if they did not have to give their tax base to Ottawa they would be a lot better off. I ask them to wake up and look at the fact that net transfer payments go to Quebec and not to Ottawa. I ask them to remember that before they continue to pursue their course.

I would also like to address some of the problems that are affecting small and medium size businesses and put forth some constructive solutions. As I said before, small and medium size businesses are have increasingly difficult times because of the high tax loads they are forced to work under. This is indicative of the government's huge tax loads. With these huge tax loads, the high debt and deficit we have incurred, we are forced to pay off increasingly larger amounts of interest on these debts. As a result, interest rates in the country are higher than they ought to be and tax rates are also higher than they should be. It makes it very difficult for these companies to compete in other countries.

The industry committee supported the fact that federal, provincial, and municipal governments should get their fiscal houses in order so that interest rates may be brought down and more money made available to companies, making a stronger, healthier dollar. It would provide an element of stability that is essential if small and medium size businesses are to be effective competitors in the future.

In talking to business, we have found that one of the greatest obstacles they face is the red tape they must endure. It is extraordinarily strange that the great ideas put forth in this country have to pass through so many loopholes to get to where they can be effective that many do not achieve their ultimate end. Red tape that is supposed to work for businesses is in effect choking them. We need to take a very close and hard look at this. We need to work with the finance and revenue departments to determine ways in which we can decrease the red tape and make businesses more effective and virile competitors in this country.

I would also like to raise the issue of using tax incentives to make more capital available to businesses. Indeed, the industry committee looked at this and suggested that decreasing capital gains tax rates for long term investment in Canadian small and medium size businesses would be an effective way to provide these companies with money to invest to build their businesses. Maintaining the $500,000 capital gains exemption is also a useful technique. If that were applied to small and medium size businesses, it would provide more capital for them.

Relaxing the use of RRSPs in investing in one's own business is another measure which would put the responsibility back on those brave men and women who like to go it alone and try to make a private business work. They could use their own funds to invest in their business.

We also need to find ways in which the public can invest in Canadian companies. We need to define new financial relationships for the government, the banks and the private sector.

We can look at many examples. Germany and Japan are two giants which have managed to capture large segments of markets throughout the world. In part that is due to the unique relationship which the private sector has with the lending institutions in their respective countries. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. There are many examples in the world of these ideas being put into effect to support business.

In summary, small and medium size businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy. They are an invaluable source of taxes for the federal and provincial governments. They are the primary employers. Without these institutions the employment rate would be much higher. They provide long term, long lasting, high paying jobs for Canadians. It is the responsibility of the government and opposition members to support measures which would maximize the effectiveness of small and medium size businesses. Let us look at other parts of the world and find ways in which we can support the backbone of Canada's economy.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, is basically just reorganization of the department and does not offer any substantive changes.

It amazes me that with the number of people who are currently dependent on HRD for their welfare, some legitimately and some not, with the country in economic doldrums, with the debt increasing, with the IMF recently downgrading our country's rating by 50 per cent six weeks ago, the government persists in serving up bills that nibble around the edges of these problems, which affect us all.

Here is another opportunity lost. Never at any other time in recent history has this country required strong leadership in so many different areas. HRD is no different. In fact HRD affects the lives of those who are in the lowest socioeconomic situations within our country.

We sympathize with the government in the position it faces. Indeed it is a difficult one. However, it is not an excuse for inaction, particularly since we as a party have put forward strong solutions to address these very important areas. Our HRD areas are in critical shape. They are in effect ready to fall apart.

On the one hand, we have an increase in demand. On the other hand, with an increasing debt we have less money to spend on social programs. An important fact is that by the year 2010 the combination of payments on the interest and all the payments on social programs will consume every single dollar and every penny that comes into the federal coffers. What is the government going to do when that day comes? It is only 15 years from now. What is it going to do?

We need intelligent plans in order to put social programs on a firm fiscal footing. The consequence of not doing that is to face collapse. Those who are going to suffer the most are those who are in greatest need. It is not the people in this room who are going to suffer; it is the people in soup kitchens, the people who cannot feed their children anything but macaroni and cheese, the people who are unemployable and the people who are not making ends meet. They are the ones who are going to hit the wall. They are the ones who are going to have to pick up the pieces, but they will not be able to pick up the pieces.

The Reform Party has been accused of being a slash and burn party. I would not have joined this party and my colleagues would not have joined it if that were the case. I believe that every member of Parliament is committed to ensuring that social programs will continue in the future. We do not want to see people suffer. However, to sit around and do nothing is the single greatest threat to social programs. Inaction threatens social programs. It is causing them to implode. Health care is being rationed. Social programs are being rationed. There have been cuts across the board in welfare. That is what is preventing the people who truly need the programs from being able to live a healthy life.

Those who suffer the most are the children. They are not receiving the proper nutrition. They do not have the ability to grow up to be healthy and strong.

We spend $19.1 billion on old age security. The cost of that is increasing rapidly. It is out of control. Within the next 15 years the number of seniors will increase by 40 per cent. How will we pay for this? There is absolutely no plan for providing OAS to these people.

The Canada pension plan is $500 billion in debt. This is not accounted for in the debt figures. It is not actuarially sound, and there is no plan to change it.

The Reform Party has put forward a plan for super RRSPs. I hope the government will seriously look at that plan and work with us on the program to ensure that the people who need it will receive both the OAS and the CPP.

I would like to make some constructive suggestions. First, we have to decrease duplication and decentralize. It was a tragedy that the referendum was based in part on decentralization, because that is going to have to happen in every province across the country. For the country to be carved up partly over decentralization is a tragedy, because it is inevitable.

In fact clause 6 of the bill does the opposite. It strengthens the hand of the federal government rather than decentralizing powers. Decentralizing powers does not mean that people will suffer. By doing that, duplication will be decreased and more money will be provided to the end user.

The government can take a leadership role by working with the provinces in providing a minimum standard across the board to create similar standards for the provinces and ensure that those provinces that are the most impoverished will not suffer. It is a challenge, but it can be met.

Second, we have to prioritize spending. It makes no sense to me that when we are prioritizing spending we cut across the board. That cuts from everybody, those who are abusing the program as well as those who are not.

In British Columbia they looked at welfare. They looked at 780 people. Of that number, 280 were flagrantly abusing the system and did not need to be on welfare. They stopped after looking at 780 people; it was too inflammatory for them to continue. That is a lot of people. That money could be better spent in bringing down the debt and also in ensuring that the people who need it will get it. Cutting across the board only makes those who are the poorest suffer more.

We should focus on skills training. Let us make sure there is enough money in the pot to provide skills for the unemployed.

We also need to decrease the tax load. We have heard much about taxing the rich and corporations. However, the reality is that small and medium sized businesses are creating the jobs in our country.

What are these businesses telling us? They say that we cannot compete with other countries with our existing tax load. Many of the closed shops and closed industries and much of the exodus of companies south are in large part due to the fact that their tax load

is too great. Who suffers? It is mostly the people who are employed by them. Therefore our unemployment rates go up.

We need to decrease government red tape which is severely restricting the ability of companies to function properly. We must also decrease the debt.

We are not a slash and burn party. We have put forward constructive plans to enable us to decrease the debt, to get the deficit to zero, to priorize social programs, to provide alternatives to social programs, to priorize spending and to give people the skills to take care of themselves.