Keith Martin

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 1995]

moved that Bill C-301, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violent crimes), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-301 is the culmination of a commitment I made to my constituents in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca in 1993. I made a commitment to bring the bill forward in the interest of public safety for them and for all Canadians from coast to coast.

I am disappointed the bill was not made votable considering the fact it has a precedent in the United States where it has been passed and enacted in over 26 states. It is commonly called the three strikes, you are out bill to deal with violent offenders, repeat violent offenders.

The hallmarks of justice are the protection of society, restitution to the victim, rehabilitation and protection of the individual. The bill comes as the culmination of the public outrage I hear not only in my riding but from police officers across the land from coast to coast. It is an area where they feel the justice department does not protect them. It does not protect them from individuals who continually fly in the face of the norms of

human behaviour, instead exhibiting extreme human behaviours that show a total disregard for innocent people.

Bill C-301 deals with those individuals who on three separate occasions commit a violent offence that will put them in jail for 25 years without parole. Again, the purpose is to protect innocent civilians. Too often innocent civilians are not protected in society today.

Mr. Speaker, we seem to have two debate going on here which is very intriguing.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on group four of the motions on Bill C-76, the report stage. A lot of this has to do primarily with provincial transfer payments for health care and education.

I would like to point out to the House something that is perhaps not recognized: we do have a serious problem in health care in Canada today. Recently in the news it was stated that medicare is essential to the identity of the government. That is good, because it is essential to the identity of all Canadians. Unfortunately, this government does not recognize that in this country health care is in dire straits.

Recently we have seen some tragic statistics of people dying while on waiting lists, waiting for essential health care services that this government and governments across this country should be providing to the Canadian public. Just this last weekend we heard about 25 individuals who died while on waiting lists awaiting surgery at the Ottawa Heart Institute.

In my province of British Columbia, if you have prostrate cancer you can wait over a year to get ultrasound therapy. As a result of this, patients in British Columbia go to the United States in order to get this essential service. In fact, what we see in the United States is a whole industry built up around Canadian people who cannot have their essential health care services met and therefore are forced to go to the United States. It is in fact the Canadian taxpayer, through the medical services plan of British Columbia, who pays for that.

This is completely unnecessary, as we have the skilled individuals in this country who can do this. It is just a question of changing our priorities.

One of the sad things that happened as a result of the last budget was that over $6 billion was ripped out of the heart of education and health care by the federal government. As a result of that, the provinces are now somehow going to have to make up the shortfall. The result is an impossible quandary. You simply cannot pay for what the taxpayers are asking for and the demands of health care in this country through the moneys that are now provided.

What we are going to see in the future are many more tragic cases of Canadians who are dying while on waiting lists, waiting for essential health care services to occur.

We in the Reform Party propose a number of motions relating to Bill C-76. First is that we remove the government's ability to unilaterally decide what constitutes a violation of national standards and to unilaterally decide what the financial penalty should be. To remedy this we have proposed amendments that would force the federal government to take provincial governments to court in order to determine what the violations are and whether there should be any penalties. Second, we have put forth motions to prevent the federal government from imposing additional national standards without the consent of the provinces. Last, we are trying to move towards a situation where we have unconditional transfers of health care and education dollars.

I reiterate that it is impossible for Parliament to unconditionally remove money from the provinces and expect them to meet the demands of their citizens. It simply cannot be done. Tragically, the Canadian people do not realize this. Unfortunately, in the next federal election this will haunt all of us, because people who are on waiting lists are going to die.

We propose a different solution, which will meet the needs and the objectives of having a medicare system for all Canadians and put it on firm financial ground.

We do not want to destroy health care in the country. We do not want to destroy medicare. We want a new Canada Health Act, unlike what they have in the States, unlike what is in the United Kingdom-one made in Canada. It would entail defining essential health care services and ensuring that all Canadians across the country will have their health care services covered, regardless of income.

Second, we must amend the Canada Health Act and allow the provinces to get their health care dollars under control. It is very simple. If we allow private clinics it creates a two-tiered system. But what happens if as a patient you want to pay for an MRI on your knee or your neck? You go to a private clinic and private dollars are exchanged into private hands. Not a cent of taxpayers' dollars goes into this. Sure people will get services perhaps faster than in the public system, but that would enable you to get off the public system into the private system. So those people in the public system would receive health care faster and more efficiently because they would move up the waiting list. There would also be more money in the system on a per capita basis.

This is not a threat to medicare. Rather, this an adjunct to medicare, which will help it. Would it be a two-tiered system? Yes. But is it not better to have an unequal system that provides better and more timely access for all Canadians than a relatively equal system that provides poor access to essential health care services? The choice is very easy.

Another aspect I would like to address is to ask the federal government to take a leadership role in health care in analysing the determinants of health care in Canada. We often put forward grandiose plans of studies on many things, but nobody actually takes the bull by the horns and tells us what makes up health care in the country.

I will give some solutions. One thing that is in greatest neglect is the fact that in early childhood education, children aged from two to five years, the pillars of a normal psyche are developed. The pillars of good health are also developed. We do not put enough emphasis on that area. The emphasis we can put on that area will actually pay off in spades later on in the health and welfare of the adults.

I would argue that we should put more emphasis on teaching children, at that age, not only their ABC's, but also teaching them about self-respect, pride, respect for other people, and appropriate conflict resolution. These things can be done. Although we take it for granted that many people know this, we would perhaps be very surprised to find out that in some dysfunctional families and in the lower echelons of the socio-economic groups, these things are actually unknown. Some children have not grown up with this, and some have grown up in very tragic situations indeed, where the givens of a normal psyche are not there. Many children and parents do not know this.

I would ask the government to look at an interesting experiment that was done at Columbia University. It took over an inner-city school board that was wracked by violence, sexual abuse, drug abuse, teen drop-out rates. It focused on the aspects of teaching self-respect, et cetera, in the early years and found out that it paid off in spades when the children grew up.

The other aspect I would like to focus on is something on aboriginal health care. I would seek to support some of the ideas I have had on aboriginal health.

We have created an institutionalized welfare state in many aboriginal reserves. By continually pouring money into the aboriginal reserves we have not succeeded in addressing some of the underlying problems that are actually behind the sexual abuse, violence, and the general malaise of the soul that we see on many reserves.

I would say let us focus on enabling the aboriginal people to take care of themselves. Let us put the responsibility for their destiny back on their shoulders. Let us help them to do that. Let us help them to call their own shots. Let us put an end to the institutionalized welfare state that we have set up.

More money is not the answer. Giving people the tools to help themselves is. I would strongly urge this government to do this in the name of health care for all aboriginal people.

[Petitions, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36 it is a privilege to present this petition with 179 names plus that of Mr. Castet whose son was murdered in Victoria.

The petition calls for changes to the Young Offenders Act and calls for the government to enact legislation to reform the justice system and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act according to eight principles.

[Human Rights, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were in opposition they roundly castigated the Conservative government for not speaking out against human rights abuses in China. In their red book of broken promises they said: "We will continue to support democracy and respect for human rights worldwide". Yet in government the Liberals have done an about face.

The sixth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre passed yesterday without a whimper from this government. Yet the people of China are still under the boot of a repressive regime. Human rights abuses abound and democratic principles are squashed.

In the face of this the government has said: "Give us your money and we will turn a blind eye", saying that trade should take precedence regardless of a country's poor human rights record. In the same vein, Canada is one of the world's leading suppliers of arms to the third world.

In the red book it said: "Canada will help develop greater international and intercultural collaboration in the interests of peace, justice and humankind". Sadly, the red book promise has shown once again that it is a book of hypocrisy.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-76 and on the motions in group No. 3.

One of the biggest threats we have to all aspects of society is the budget brought down last February. Nothing else will have a greater effect on social programs, health care, education, RCMP and in the House than the budget. Decades of irresponsible overspending by Liberals and Conservatives alike have put the things we cherish in grave danger.

Briefly summarizing the situation, we now find ourselves federally with a debt of $570 billion and provincially with a debt of some $240 billion.

We proposed a long time ago, before the budget came down, that we would have a balanced budget and we shared with the government our views on how to do that. Unfortunately the government did not heed us. What we will see in three years' time with the budget proposed by the government is a debt which will be $100 billion greater than what it is now and an interest payment which will go from $40 billion to $50 billion per year.

The money we have to spend on the programs I mentioned will decrease from $120 billion to $102 billion. How will the government fulfil its responsibilities to the Canadian public? Those are responsibilities on which Canadians rely. The reality is that the government simply cannot do it.

We must prioritise our spending. We must define that which is most valuable to the Canadian people by listening to them to discover what they value the most. We must have the courage to cut where cuts are required. The cuts must be fair and be sensitive. They must ensure the people who cannot take care of themselves will be taken care of. The programs which are to be preserved, those meant to take care of individuals in need, will be compro-

mised. Those individuals who are least able to take care of themselves will bear the brunt of the budget.

We introduced a plan which would reduce our deficit to zero in three years. Our plan would also attack the real ogre in the equation, our debt.

Two areas I will focus on are health care and aboriginal affairs. The government claimed it was actually cutting spending but the reality is it took $6 billion out of its $11 billion in cuts from transfer payments to the provinces. That will compromise two areas integral to our society, health care and education.

The government is saying it will take money away from the provinces but that they must provide the same services which they did before and in a timely fashion. The government also said to the provinces that because of the Canada Health Act they could not raise the funds themselves. It would hamstring them. Therefore, the provinces are now forced and have been forced for some time to ration health care.

Tragically what we saw this past weekend was the manifestation of rationing in health care. At the Ottawa Heart Institute 25 people died while awaiting surgery. These were 25 deaths that need not have happened if there had been enough money to pay for them. That is what is happening. Ironic in this is that the head of the heart institute is Senator Keon. He substantiated this claim by saying part of the problem is there is not enough money to pay for what we ask for in health care.

We must understand this is one example of many. In British Columbia one can wait 13 months even if in severe pain to get a new hip. I ask members to put themselves in the shoes of an elderly person in severe pain needing to get a hip replacement but could not. What a tragedy to endure those months of pain.

Prince George wanted to ensure a safe and effective blood transfusion system and so patients were given the option of getting their own blood by withdrawing it before surgery and then having it put back in during surgery. It would cost $150 per unit. The government refused to pay for it, which was fine because the patients were prepared to pay for it. It was a much safer way of providing blood transfusions. Within one month the provincial government said no to this because it goes against the Canada Health Act. The government will forbid Canadians from receiving their own blood, blood that would be free of HIV, hepatitis B and other disorders. The hospital now has to pay $500 a unit in order to get blood for transfusions. What a waste.

We need to amend the Canada Health Act. Let us get a new Canada Health Act, one made in Canada, one unlike that in the United States and unlike that in the United Kingdom. We must define essential services and ensure those services are covered for every Canadian regardless of income. The rest can be done through private insurance and such.

We should allow the provinces to raise their own money and allow private clinics to occur, assuming essential services will be covered. This is not a threat to public health care at all because it would enable individuals to pay for health care where they need it. Some individuals would go off the public system into the private system which would provide more money on a per capita basis for people in the public. This would enable them to get health access particularly for essential services in a timely fashion. What is happening now is the Canadian public is not getting it done in a timely fashion.

The next thing I will look at is the Department of Indian affairs and the sad state of affairs among some of the aboriginal peoples. I need not talk about the litany of problems they are having right now. I ask each member to visit a few reserves and see for themselves the tragedy many aboriginal people are facing today within their society. Even though we are cutting money from many segments of our budget, one area that is increasing and will increase by 12 per cent over the next three years, about $600 million, is the department of Indian affairs.

Despite a decrease in the civil service we found the Indian industry of lawyers, negotiators and advisers is actually increasing. This increase in growth rate is the largest Ottawa dependent industry we have right now. Is this valid?

We are trying to redress the tragedy we see in many social circles on native reserves; substance abuse, unemployment, general malaise and sexual abuse are rampant. This needs to be rectified immediately. However, it will not be solved by pouring money into the system as we have done before and continue to do. This does a terrible disservice.

The aboriginal leadership cries for more land. However, will this really help the aboriginal people? I think not. Claims have been put forward, such as Nishga claim, in the amount of over $400 million. The government has to pay for this and it amounts to $97,000 per person. Is this really going to help native people on reserves who will not receive any help? I think not.

We are trying to help the native people to help themselves. I maintain that our current programs will not do this. We must, therefore, go back to first principles, the basics of human need, the basics of human condition.

Natives and non-natives alike need to have a sense of purpose, a sense of destiny and of control. With our current policies we have created an institutionalized welfare state of internalized dependency. People ask not what they can do for themselves but what we can

do for them. There is a terrible malaise of the soul which current spending practices will not rectify.

I propose taking a new look at the situation. In order to do this, people must have a sense of self-respect and destiny. People have to be provided with the skills to take care of themselves, provided with employment. This is the only way they will be able to take care of themselves in the future.

External assistance is not a substitute for the fundamental need for people to provide for themselves and make valuable contributions to society.

In closing, I would strongly urge the government to invest in policies that will enable native people to take care of themselves in a sustainable way in the future. Land claims are not the answer.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, employment equity is about hiring people on the basis of colour, gender and other demographic characteristics.

Who cares if one is female or male, black or white, brown or polka-dotted? We do not. We only want to make sure that when

people go for jobs they are treated on the basis of merit. That is all that counts in getting a job. That is all we care about other than providing and ensuring there are laws against discrimination.

Regarding what I said about the United States, California has employment equity laws. We do not want them. I point out to the hon. member that we should learn from the mistake they made in the United States. They are trying to rectify it. We should learn from their enforcement of employment equity in California that it did not work. Let us learn from them. We should show Americans that we are different from them and better than them by not partaking in it.

Our goals are the same. In some ways the goals of the government and the Reform Party with respect to the overarching theory are the same. We do not want discrimination. We are vehemently opposed to discrimination on any ground.

The flaw in the government is that employment equity engenders discrimination. By its very nature it is saying that one group of people cannot compete on the basis of merit and should be elevated over another group. That is discrimination against the other group. That is unfair. We cannot right the wrongs of historical injustice by creating discriminatory laws now. We cannot right the wrongs of the past by tipping the scales in favour or against a group.

We must create a level playing field, treat people on the basis of merit and have anti-discriminatory laws to create a country of which we can all be proud.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, employment equity is discriminatory. It is also

illegal. Subsection 12(3) of the Public Service Employment Act states: "It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender and colour".

Employment equity seeks to institutionalize what we seek to avoid. We seek to avoid discrimination, but instead it brings it right into the workplace. It tells a minority group: "You cannot compete on the basis of merit. Therefore, we in the government are going to create opportunities for you to advance on the basis of your demographics and not on the basis of merit." It makes an issue of gender and it makes an issue of race and geographic location when none ought to exist. In fact when we speak to minority groups we find it is an insult to them.

The purpose we have in this country is to give minority groups and disadvantaged groups the opportunity to become the best they can become. This legislation tries to enable them to have a fair share of jobs, a fair share based on numbers.

We have had this discussion in the House. The government says it is in favour of numerical goals, not quotas. Quotas and numerical goals are synonymous. There is no difference. As I said before, it is discriminatory. All we need to do is look at the fine institution of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to see that white males need not apply.

What we want to have in this country is equal opportunity. We must have a country in which everybody has an equal chance to become the best they can be, to employ the talents, the drive and the initiative they have in their hearts to do whatever they can. Canada is one of the few countries in the world that has enabled us to do that.

If someone chooses not to do this of their own will, if they choose not to take the opportunities that are provided for them, then it is not the government's role to do this through other means. That is where we have a significant departure in logic and understanding. We feel it is not the government's role to go out and push people when they do not have the initiative, push people to get skills for something they choose not to do. We are in favour of providing everyone in this country with the opportunity to get those skills.

Many people came to this country as immigrants, including myself. We came to get away from countries where preferential policies existed. The idea of preferential treatment, being treated unequally, has occurred in many countries. People have left that to come to our fair shores. In fact the idea of treating people equally on the basis of merit is something that is new and it is something we should all try to strive for.

Some view employment equity as a way of decreasing discrimination but in fact the opposite is true. Employment equity increases discrimination causes animosities, plays up differences and creates resentment.

Madam Speaker, imagine if you will if you were going to apply for a job and people said that you would not get this job on the basis of your merit, but because you are a woman or a minority group or an aboriginal person you are going to get this job. Imagine what that would say to you and your feelings about your own credibility. It is, as I said before, an insult.

I would just like to say to minority groups-and I am a mixture of many different minority groups-that we cannot legislate against people's prejudices. If people call you derogatory names, that is their problem, not yours. However, we must ensure that those prejudices do not interfere with a person's ability to get a job and function in society.

We must look at real life examples too with employment equity. Why is this government pushing employment equity when California, a state of numerous ethnic groups, ethnically heterogeneous as it can be, is throwing it out? They have found it is costly and ineffective.

We have 11 programs in this country that are sanctioned by the Treasury Board. They are called special measures initiatives. Between 1985 and 1988 they cost between $11 million and $15 million per year. In 1992 the pass rate for women was 63 per cent and visible minorities 79 per cent. This year the pass rate is 30 per cent for women and 52 per cent for minorities. It is a failure and it is costly. Why do we continue to pursue this endeavour which has proven not to work?

I have heard this government claim it is against discrimination and it is for justice and caring. Employment equity does not do this. It does the exact opposite. It also does that at the expense of what should be the primary guiding role in getting a job, and that is merit. It also does this at the expense of minority groups, as I said before, and it is insulting to them. When we speak to the rank and file of Canadians who are of minority groups in this country, they all say that they do not want employment equity. They want to be treated fairly, equally and without discrimination.

The leaders of minority groups often take a different role, but their role is the role of politics not necessarily the role of fairness. I would listen to the silent minority not to the verbose leaders of some groups who do not necessarily represent the people they are supposed to represent.

Let us look at the facts. As government members have said, there is no difference between minority groups and non-minority groups. We need to work toward everybody with the same qualifications being paid the same amount of money for doing the same job. These are the rules we have in the country and

these are the rules we need to strongly support. The Reform Party is vehemently in favour of these rules.

There are differences between employment statistics and the types of jobs of various minority groups. As I asked before, is this the fault of discrimination or is this the fault of differences in qualifications and societal determinants? We have laws and regulations with respect to qualifications in Canada. A qualification from another country may not be recognized in this country in the same way. That is not unfair. A doctorate or a bachelor of science or a trade from another country may not have the same merit as the same program here regardless of whether or not it involves a minority group. We ought to keep that in mind.

I would like to give an example of drive. Recently I was on an aboriginal reserve wracked with a lot of tragedies: high suicide rate, high unemployment rate and depression. However, when these people were asked to do the simplest things for themselves they continually put forth that they wanted us to do it for them. I asked them to teach their own children some of their history and culture which they were capable of doing, but they chose not to do it. They wanted somebody else to do it for them. By doing things for themselves and by taking the initiative they could build pride and self-respect, which would go a long way to decreasing the societal duress in many of these groups.

We in the Reform Party are vehemently opposed to discrimination. We believe in creating a strong, level playing field for all people regardless of their colour, race or gender. We want to create laws, have laws and enforce laws that are anti-discriminatory. Discrimination is a cancer within our midst that needs to be stepped on wherever it is found. We need to build bridges between people. We need to cherish our differences. We need to learn from each other. We are very lucky in Canada to have over 165 different ethnic groups. What a joy and a privilege for all of us to learn from other people and other cultures in a safe environment.

I am glad we are a lot like the United States. I am glad we are not like many of the other countries in the world that do not enjoy the freedoms we have. However we fight against employment equity because it flies in the face of fairness and equality. It separates people rather than bring them together.

Canada is a model at bringing people together. I ask the government to reconsider its role and views on employment equity and to reconsider the idea that it is not up to government to elevate people to a standard they are not capable of achieving or choosing to do themselves. It is the role of the government to enable people to have an equal playing field free of discrimination.

We do not live in a perfect society, but we must continue to work toward a fair and equitable society with peace and fairness for all.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, with whom we have had this discussion before.

I still do not know the difference between a numerical goal and quota. Perhaps the member would like to explain that again.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, May 29th, 1995]

No.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thought this was resuming debate.