Keith Martin

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies, it is early on in the year.

The amendment to clause 21 in Bill C-45 which we wish to put forward addresses the victims of crime. It ensures that they truly have a legal standing within the system. It is unfortunate that this bill does not truly do that.

We want to give this bill teeth. We want to make sure that this bill has action, that it is going to actually address the problem. Therefore my colleague has put this amendment that would enable victims to have 30 per cent of whatever moneys the offender earns during incarceration. Those moneys would be applied to the victim.

Personally I find that insufficient. The moneys that should be applied which are earned by an individual who is incarcerated-and personally I find it amazing that they are actually earning anything at all-should go to two areas: one, the victim and two, the state, to provide restitution to the state for moneys that are spent by the state to incarcerate that individual.

The public might be appalled to find out that for adults incarcerated in a federal institution it will cost $60,000 to $70,000 per person per year. If it is a young offender that number jumps to $90,000 per young offender per year. Why should the public pay for that?

Here we have a solution which our party has put forward, that those moneys can be used for the victim. I believe other moneys should be used to be applied to the costs incurred by that individual being incarcerated.

When I worked as a physician and as a correctional officer in prisons, I found it absolutely appalling how the system failed in so many areas. It failed to prevent crimes from occurring. It failed in the restitution to the state and the restitution to the victim. It failed also in imparting to criminals that with their actions there is a responsibility for those actions. If a person is willing to commit a crime, no matter what their background is their past history does not exonerate them from the actions they have taken. The action they have taken almost always produces a victim.

That is why we are putting the amendments forth in this clause. It is to ensure those forgotten victims are achieving restitution, which I am sure in 95 per cent of the cases will be insufficient, to provide for the counselling, the loss of income, the hurt, the pain that those victims have endured through no fault of their own whatsoever.

There are other things I would like to say with respect to failures of the justice system in this narrow area we are speaking about. One thing I did see is there are very few disincentives to crime. When I worked in the jails, time after time I saw repeat offenders coming in who have shown and continue to show a wilful disrespect for society and for their victims.

That is why we are putting this amendment forward. In a society where being a victim is in vogue, and I say victim in parenthesis, the true victims we have in our society, the victims of criminal acts of others, are indeed being forgotten.

I will give a simple case. A young boy in my riding who was about 11 or 12 years old, disabled and wore a brace was sexually abused by an older teenager. After all was said and done and the conviction went through, the older teenager who had committed these offences received an amount three times as much as the victim received. In fact the victim did not even have enough money to afford the counselling he required.

What does that say about our system? I did not have anything to say to the mother who came to my office because I was appalled and ashamed that we allow this to happen in this country.

It is true that many people who do commit acts of crime are indeed victims on their own. That though is a different topic. We are talking about the victims of those crimes. Again we must ensure that those victims' rights are held in the highest form over and beyond those of the criminals. Criminals do have rights, yes, but in balancing those off with the victims it is important to realize that it is the victims' rights that should be held in the highest esteem.

There are other things that we are not able to do, that is, preventing crimes before they happen, identifying the persons who commit crimes and doing something about that.

I strongly implore the Minister of Justice to work with his counterparts in the provinces to look at interventions that can be made at a very early age. The pillars of a normal psyche are developed in the first seven years of life. It is imperative that if down the line we are to reduce the incidence of criminal activity we address the children who are at risk of not developing those pillars of a normal psyche.

A lot has to do with the socioeconomic and family milieu these children tragically endure. Some of them go on to a life of crime and then there is a duality of innocent people being victimized and the criminals who if they had been caught at an early age perhaps would not have engaged in criminal behaviour. I encourage the

hon. minister to please look at this. We could be very forwarding looking with this.

I draw attention to a private members' bill by my colleague to address a very important aspect of those individuals who when they are to be released from prison are known dangerous offenders in society. We must have the power within our justice system to incarcerate individuals beyond their length of sentence if at the time of their discharge they are proven to be a significant threat to society.

I encourage all members to support that bill. It is in the interest of public safety and all Canadians. I hope members will support my colleague's clause which will ensure victims receive the restitution they so justly deserve.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-45, amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act but it is also a disappointment. Once again we see another bill that shows the government is engaging in its usual modus operandi which is to do window dressing.

As I spoke about yesterday this bill can be viewed as a metaphor for governments not only here but in other parts of the world. There is one thing I have discovered since being in this House. When we have a problem do we address the problem? Do we find the best solutions in the country, apply them to that problem and implement those solutions if only on a pilot project? The answer is no. We nibble around the outside of the problem and make it look like we are actually doing something. We study it, examine it, report on it but do we truly act on it? No we do not.

The reason governments do not act on the problem is they are afraid of rocking the boat and incurring the wrath of usually a minority within the country. It is a shame and a disservice to every Canadian that we are engaging continually in this behaviour.

I would say to the government that you would win enormous points in the public's favour if you were truly to address the problems that affect us-

[Atlantic Canada, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during my stay as an MP I have been rarely surprised but after returning from the Atlantic provinces I was shocked. I was shocked because in this beautiful country of ours where we uphold democratic rights as a pillar of our society, maritimers told me how these rights are being trampled under the boot of this and previous federal governments.

Through patronage and handouts, the government holds the livelihood of maritimers over their heads. As a direct result of this heavy-handed approach they are afraid to find out about other political parties for fear of losing their jobs, not getting a promotion or being discriminated against. This is the profound impact of years of Liberal and Tory government handouts.

Is it any wonder that a minister from the maritimes is responsible for awarding government contracts? The stench of political patronage hangs high over the maritimes and it must not be allowed to continue. They are looking for a change and Reformers will give them that change.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the interesting question on ethanol.

Ethanol is a very important additive, but it unfortunately requires a government subsidy in the order of eight cents per litre in order to get to market. That would be an enormous cost to the government, and during these times of fiscal restraint we would not advocate in any way, shape, or form that the government put more money into this and spend more money. It would cost billions of dollars to do this.

This party has been very emphatic about prompting and encouraging scientists and researchers in the country to come up with a more cost effective way of making ethanol and other fuel additives so we can have automobiles burn fuel more cleanly.

We have always been strong advocates for the research and development sector in the country because it is one of the pillars that will enable our country to be highly competitive in the future to create economic niches for longlasting, high paying jobs.

I encourage the government to continue to support the research and development sector, which does some fantastic things in the country. We must not lose sight of the fact that it is a pillar that will enable us to be economically competitive in the future.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies for getting up prematurely. It was such a good question from my friend that I could not resist it.

To echo basically what my colleague, the hon. member for Elk Island, just said, the reason we are asking for an independent study is that the Deputy Prime Minister brought forth a slew of papers, all

of which were from members of the Automobile Manufacturers Association. They are very interested party in this debate, but in fact they are one side of this debate.

What we can do is determine whether or not the studies that have been put forth are in fact legitimate, sound, scientifically based studies. If they are, then we should believe them. If they are not, if there is any question whatsoever, then we definitely need to have an independent third party to do the study. We cannot have a member or a group as intimately associated with the question at hand-in fact a combatant in this debate-to decide what is true and what is not. That is why we in this party are asking for an independent review, an independent group to do this. Perhaps the National Research Council or some other group could do this. The important point to remember is that it must be an independent party that is not intimately associated with either the Ethyl Corporation or the automobile manufacturers association.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly not an environmental bill. MMT has proven not to be deleterious to the health of Canadians. I quote from the Deputy Prime Minister's own press statement demonstrating our commitment to protecting the environment. It had nothing to do with that but everything to do with protecting the auto manufacturers' industry.

Before the bill came about both the Ethyl Corporation and the vehicle manufacturers' association were under negotiation to solve this problem outside of the House. They were close to making a decision. Then the minister came forward with this bill and the auto manufacturers, knowing they would get a response in their favour, understandably backed away. Sure enough this bill rather than solving a problem is muddying the waters. That is unfortunate. We would not be wasting House time with the bill if we had let nature take its course.

We have requested an independent third party to review MMT to determine if it damages onboard devices. If it does we have two options. We need to look for an alternative to MMT or we need to change the onboard devices and work out some agreement with the private sector.

The minister noted that MMT has been banned all over the world and Canada is the only country still using it. I bring to the attention of the minister that last year the U.S. district court of appeals said MMT could again be used in the United States. Therefore while we are pursuing a course to ban MMT the United States will now allow its use. Why are we engaging in this behaviour?

The Minister of Industry wants one unified gasoline for the entire continent. Why are we pursuing a course which would take us into a different type of gasoline when the United States is trying to bring back gasoline which contains MMT?

This is telling us there has been an abuse of power. We have seen legislative shenanigans and the government is favouring one group, the automobile association. That is reprehensible.

I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will take the mature course and ask for an independent study, as my friend from Elk Island has requested. That study would give us the answers we require and it would serve the people of Canada and the environment well. It is fundamental for us to get these answers not only for the citizens of Canada but for the environment.

If we remove MMT the minister must lay out another plan. She must be aware that nitrous oxide content would actually increase in the emissions from cars by up to 20 per cent or more, which would greatly increase health hazards to Canadians. Having seen many people with pulmonary diseases, that is grossly unfair.

She also spoke about having two types of gasoline in Canada. Quite frankly that is a fantasy. Why do we not have one gasoline, the best and the cleanest, which we could responsibly and cost effectively use, that would be fair to both sides, the auto manufacturers and the petroleum corporations?

I ask that we act together on this issue. It is not an issue of one side against the other. It is an issue for all Canadians and for the country.

I also strongly suggest that in the area of transport there is much which can be done by new technology. Fascinating advances have been made in making cars and other vehicles burn cleaner and safer. Much of these technologies have not been brought forward in an aggressive fashion. I believe we can take a leadership role in promoting these very substantial discoveries and bring them to the forefront. It is the responsibility of the House to bring them forward in order for them to become a practical reality for all Canadians.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-94 to ban the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT.

The bill is fascinating but for the duplicity inherent in the process of how the bill came about. MMT is methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, an additive to unleaded gasoline, an octane enhancer. It reduces nitrous oxide emissions and makes gas burn a lot cleaner.

Nitrous oxides when released are the primary cause of smog which causes respiratory problems in a great number of people within our country, in particular those suffering from asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The minister tried to ban MMT but found she could not do it. MMT has proven not to be a hazard to people's health. She tried to find some other way of getting MMT out of Canada by putting forth this bill to ban the trade of MMT which in effect is a ban on MMT in this country.

It has been demonstrated through Health Canada which has looked at MMT that this was a perfectly benign substance for the people in the country. Therefore there is no scientific ground to ban MMT.

Let us take a look at why is the minister doing this. Before the minister put the bill forward MMT was made the Ethyl Corporation. The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association claimed MMT has been destroying its on board diagnostic computers which no doubt are very important to keeping cars burning cleaner so we can all have a healthier environment. No one would dispute having OBDs.

However we dispute having one view from the manufacturers of automobiles saying MMT destroys its OBDs and one view from the Ethyl Corporation which says it does not. The Ethyl Corporation supports this view through studies done by an independent environmental protection association. It has proven conclusively, contrary to what the Deputy Prime Minister said, that MMT does not affect on board diagnostic computers. In spite of this the minister has proceeded with this ban.

We can see this is clearly not an environmental bill. Health Canada has even shown MMT has not been deleterious to the health of Canadians. However, it has been proven-

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to the environment and what she professes to say. I would like to point out a few facts which she omitted from her speech.

If we were to withdraw MMT from gasoline the nitrous oxide content of the environment would increase by 20 per cent which is a very important additive to smog, a causative agent for smog.

The Deputy Prime Minister brings forward a whole host of studies. Every one of those studies was done by an auto manufacturer. I would also like to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that the EPA just came out with studies which show that MMT does not do anything to damage onboard devices.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister how she can account for removing MMT from gasoline if the nitrous oxide content coming from cars is going to increase by 20 per cent. Also, is she going to commit to having an independent party review MMT to determine once and for all if it is going to damage onboard computers and also if it is going to harm people?

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act to create a commissioner of environment and sustainable development in the auditor general's office.

I completely agree with the intent and purpose of the bill to audit and to examine groups, individuals and ministries with respect to the environmental sector. However, I must ask the question why.

Why are we creating another aspect of bureaucracy to do that which the auditor general and the Minister of the Environment should by all rights do within the framework of their job descriptions.

Is it not the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to actually monitor these things? We are creating another level of bureaucracy at a cost of over $5 million to the Canadian taxpayer. Why are we doing this?

The bill is a metaphor for government. When we have a problem, and most hardworking members of Parliament will agree, we study it, we observe it, we report on it but do we act? Rarely. If we do, it is usually nibbling around the edges. We have what I call studyitis. Instead of acting on a problem, instead of addressing a problem, instead of getting the best solutions the country has to offer for a problem and implementing those, if only on a pilot project, we study it, we observe it and we report on it. That is what we are doing here.

The purpose of that is to give the illusion we are actually doing something. When we are engaging in these studies and reports we give the illusion we are actually addressing a problem. In reality we are putting off the actual decision making processes for another time. It has been one of the most frustrating aspects of being in the House. I know that frustration is shared by many of my colleagues. That to a large extent is what the bill represents. We are creating something new to do what should already be done by existing structures within the government.

Therefore we expose this aspect of bureaucratic expansionism at the expense of the taxpayer's pocket and should put the responsibility of these activities squarely back on the ministry's door and also back on the auditor general.

Apart from that I have some constructive suggestions the ministry can devote its time to. Instead of spending another $5 million of the taxpayer's money to do something that should already be done, let us look at some constructive ways the ministry can apply what it already has to some very pressing environmental problems that exist within our midst.

There are at least 48 identified high risk areas that are contaminated within the country. As of March 1995, 11 were deemed necessary for remediation. The moneys were put forth to remediate these areas. At the end of 1996 only 13 further sites will be marked for remediation.

That leaves a total of 24 sites of high risk to our country, particularly to the people who live around them, and to the environment. I cannot emphasize strongly enough these are high risk sites that demand attention for the people who live in the area and for the surrounding environment now-not next year, not five years from now but now. This would be a good thing for the ministry to look at.

Furthermore there is absolutely no plan whatsoever to deal with these 24 remaining sites. Where is the money coming from? When will they be dealt with? I challenge the ministry to look at this now.

To give members an example of how we are trying to offset the decision making process, in March 1989, $250 million was set aside to clean up contaminated sites. As of March 1995, how many were dealt with? Absolutely none. Furthermore there was no plan whatsoever to put this money to good use to clean up contaminated sites. It has only taken six years to get to the same state of affairs we were in six years ago.

No plans exist to identify contaminated sites in Canada. We cannot address pressing environmental issues, areas that are contaminated, unless we identify those sites first. We have not even done that. That is the first step in addressing severely contaminated sites.

For those sites that are identified, there is absolutely no idea how much it will cost to address the clean up of these sites.

The federal PCB destruction program ended in March 1995. There is no plan now to deal with sites contaminated with PCBs and there are sites right now that pose a significant risk to Canadians living in their vicinity.

Canada is a major producer of waste. We produce over 30 million tonnes of waste a year or more than a tonne per person. We recycle about 10 per cent of that. That is not bad but it is not nearly what we could be doing. It is interesting to look at some European countries that have done a remarkable job in expanding their recycling programs to become more inclusive and to involve a

larger segment of their population so their waste levels at landfills and land sites are greatly reduced.

The ministry should also, instead of reinventing the wheel, look at countries that are doing a good job and see where we can be more aggressive with our recycling.

Current landfill sites are filling up and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find sites for our waste products. Landfill sites we have are leaking contaminants to surrounding areas, a significant hazard again to those people and to the flora and fauna in the vicinity.

It is interesting also to look at the costs. We want to spend $5 million for the auditor general to do a job that should already be done. The costs for a clean up in Canada are in the order of $4.5 billion per year, and it is expanding every year.

Given the current fiscal restraints of the government and successive governments in the future, we ought to pay careful heed as to how we will be dealing with the wastes we are producing now and will be in the future. It will be a common, current and pervasive problem for all of us in this country.

I speak from personal experience in my riding when I say the ministry has shown a deplorable inability to identify, prosecute and penalize individuals and industries that are right now contaminating our environment.

If we are to deal with this problem we have to start immediately to stop the wilful neglect to the environment and the wilful dumping of hazardous wastes occurring as we speak. It is very important the ministry do this. I do not know why it is not taking a more aggressive stance with industries and individuals who continue to do this. Time and time again local communities have complained at length to the ministry. It is not being able to investigate these individuals and it is not prosecuting them as they, day in and day out, dump waste into our waterways and on to our land.

The ministry also needs to be more aggressive in recovering costs where the polluter has been identified. It has not been nearly as forthcoming as it should be in trying to recoup this money. It could be very important not only to save money for the Canadian taxpayer but also give a very clear and distinct message to polluters that it is unacceptable for them to engage in this behaviour and if they do they will be penalized and forced to engage in the full cost recovery of cleaning up the sites they have polluted.

I suggest the ministry look at the environment and sustainable growth in a global context. It is essential to understand that the amount of destruction we see to our environment is intimately and directly associated with human activity both in numbers of people and in the behaviour of those people.

Right now there are over 5.5 billion people on this planet. By the year 2000 we will have 7 billion. By the year 2020 or 2030 we will have 10 billion to 11 billion people. The doubling time for our population has gone from thousands of years to the order of 25 to 30 years. It has dropped down a decade.

If we reflect on that for a minute we will see how important this issue is; our burgeoning population and the effect that will have on our dwindling resources. We simply cannot speak about sustainable development without addressing the problem of rampant population growth and human activity and the affect that has on our environment.

It is also interesting to see that the gap is actually widening between population and the ability to provide the basic necessities for that population. When populations are unable to provide for their basic necessities we have a population under stress. When we have a population under stress it leads to conflict, population migration and a destruction of the local environment where those conflicts take place. If we want to speak self-centredly, it impacts on our defence budgets, our foreign aid and development budgets and it potentially costs Canadian lives. It also impacts on the resources we use here for our social programs and services to provide for refugees who have come to our country from areas of conflict to seek refuge and succour.

I hope the ministry will look at this in the context of other ministries and also in international venues because nobody is speaking about this. If we start to speak about the subject we get accused of being neo-Malthusian. What a lot of rubbish that is. We have to be blind not to see that with a population expanding geometrically and the ability for our resources which are flattening out and in effect declining this gap which is widening will have a huge impact not only on countries half a world away but on our own. For the sake of us, our children and our grandchildren it is not only important but our responsibility to address these problems.

Our environment is our world. What we do to our world and to our environment we do to ourselves. I hope the ministry will take it upon itself that rather than repeating what should already be done, rather than creating new bureaucracies and creating more opportunities to study and report on a problem, to develop some good solutions to these problems.

Let us work with the people within our country and with our neighbours in other countries. Our environment is shared with all of our neighbours within our country and outside of our borders. What happens outside and within our borders is our business.

I believe we as a country can take a leadership role in addressing some of the large and pressing problems with our environment.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought up some very good points.

What we are saying in this party is that the government cannot keep taking tentative little baby steps forward with respect to internal trade barriers while the penalty is being paid for by 90 per cent of Canadians.

Furthermore, while we pursue the aggressive elimination of external barriers to trade while continuing to keep our internal barriers to trade, we are in effect significantly hamstringing our manufacturing, industrial and service sector within our country.

So, yes, what we are saying is that you must be much more aggressive in eliminating these internal barriers to trade. There are many more that need to be addressed. In point of fact, Bill C-88, which the hon. member is quite correct in saying is intended to decrease and eliminate the barriers to internal trade, when one looks at the bill one finds it is full of intent and very short on substance.

I hope that when this bill goes to committee stage the government, in co-operation with the official opposition and our party, will in fact pursue a more aggressive role in eliminating these internal barriers to trade, while speaking to the provinces in doing so. She is right that these must come in collusion with the provinces.