Leon Benoit

[Fisheries, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple message, and even the fisheries minister's blowhard rhetoric and double talk cannot stifle it. Fishermen across Atlantic Canada are protesting the government's broken promise of "no tax increases".

From St. John's to Saint John, from Glace Bay to Yarmouth, the cry "Axe the fish tax" is being heard. And since that cry is falling on deaf ears, Reform, along with local citizens, have unveiled a billboard in Yarmouth protesting this unfair tax, one of many billboards in Atlantic Canada that will remind thousands and thousands of passers-by that the so-called fee is in fact a tax. This

tax will rob Yarmouth of $3 million, southwest Nova Scotia of $18 million, and rob Atlantic Canada of $50 million.

There is no excuse for broken promises. There is no excuse for a new tax. There is no excuse the government can offer fishermen whose pockets are being picked.

Leave the money at home. Mr. Minister, axe the Tobin tax.

[Atlantic Canada, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, methinks the Liberals doth protest too much.

To the members of the traditional good old boys club in Atlantic Canada, let us talk oppression. It is the Liberal fisheries minister who would charge an ice-free port for icebreaking. It is the Liberal human resources minister who airlifted Atlantic Canadians to Ontario. It is Liberal provincial politicians who have monitored attendance at public meetings. These are the politicians who perpetuate the oppressive political system of handouts and rampant patronage. The truth hurts.

Reformers openly challenge the political system in Atlantic Canada. We offer hope and self-reliance to Atlantic Canadians through proposals such as Atlantica, which builds trade alliances with the eastern United States. This will create jobs.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite in his presentation referred to the idea of finding forms of punishment other than jail to act as a deterrent. He said he is not in favour of this throw away the key approach to the jail system. Reformers are not either.

Reformers have presented ideas that would replace using imprisonment as a deterrent. We have presented many different concepts. Unfortunately I have not seen any of these ideas being picked up by the Liberal Party.

Some of the ideas we have presented are boot camps, public service, which is being used, corporal punishment as a possibility, capital punishment which can act as a deterrent and certainly will prevent an individual from murdering again. These are just some of the things that we have proposed.

We have proposed paying restitution to victims. We have proposed requiring the person who has committed the offence to pay restitution to the victim as a deterrent. None of these have been picked up by the government.

I ask the member for one example of legislation presented by the government which has put in place a deterrent other than jail so that we do not have to have this throw away the key approach to dealing with prisoners.

[Atlantic Canada, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a short time ago I had the opportunity to visit Prince Edward Island. Aside from the beauty of the Island and the friendliness of the people I could not help but notice the political oppression of the system in Atlantic Canada.

Politicians use their positions to garner support through patronage and threats. For example, one day I met a provincial cabinet minister and informed him of a public meeting planned for later the same day. The minister appeared that night not to attend the meeting but to find out who else was attending. More than one person turned and walked out the door when they saw the minister.

If the people of the Island cannot openly express political beliefs and attend a meeting without fear of reprisal, we must challenge the system under which Islanders live.

The Reform Party is offering Atlantic Canadians a positive alternative, an alternative that will allow them to break free from the system of political oppression they are now forced to endure.

[Alberta, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta government recently announced its own referendum on the future of Albertans.

The vote is about freedom for Albertans. The vote is about the devolution of power from the federal government to the province and the people. The vote is about the very right of Albertans to conduct business the way they choose in the future.

In a country where people would respect the results of a referendum which would allow one province to leave Confederation, surely the government and the minister of agriculture will respect the results of a plebiscite to give farmers a choice on how to market their grain.

Between November 14 and 24, Alberta's 50,000 wheat and barley farmers will have their say. The choice is between a continued wheat board monopoly on buying wheat and barley or the right to sell through the board or directly to any customer.

For Alberta farmers now is their chance. They should let their voice be heard, get out and vote.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the continual interruptions on the part of members opposite when we try to make a point on behalf of our constituents.

It is was important enough to my constituents to write this letter to me. That member does not want to let me rise in the House and read this letter and show how this amendment has at least in some small way dealt with this concern. That is anti-democratic. It is just one more thing. It is the Liberal way. It is not democratic and it is not what we expect in the House. I become upset when I have this type of an interruption.

The letter goes on to say:

Further, I object that the control of any bioactive components or synthetic analogues of natural herbs by Bill C-7 it will replace criminal sanctions to the herbs themselves.

Health Canada should not be allowed to seize, remove or illegalize safe products from the shelves of distributors or hold them at the border without clear and convincing evidence of a lack of safety or misbranding. Health Canada should bear the burden of proof.

I believe that natural herbs and health supplements do not belong in the Criminal Code. These products should be considered as dietary supplements and regulated as such. Natural substances should not be considered as drugs.

I expect that you will represent my interests and oppose Bill C-7.

We will of course oppose Bill C-7. If this amendment does pass, and I would be surprised if it did not, all it does is put in place a consultation process. There is nothing guaranteeing it will be a valid consultation process but it is certainly a move forward. The onus will be on the government to show that it has consulted.

If we as an opposition party ask the government to show us it has consulted, it will be forced to at least demonstrate that it has had some consultation with all interested parties.

Other things have happened with this bill; other amendments and really the deletion of one clause I think has been extremely important. I credit my colleague, the member for Macleod, for successfully having clause 3(1) removed. It is certainly an important change to this legislation.

Clause 3(1):

For purposes of this act a substance included in Schedules I, II or III shall be deemed to include any substance;

(a) that is produced, processed or provided by a person who intends that it be introduced into the body of another person for the purpose of producing a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect substantially similar to or greater than that of a substance included in Schedule I, II or III, and that, if so introduced, would produce such a substantially similar or greater effect; or

(b) that is represented or held out to produce, if introduced into a human body, a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect substantially similar to or greater than that of a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.

Again I congratulate my colleague for successfully having that clause thrown out. That is a substantial change to this bill and it will help. Unfortunately there are still so many concerns-

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the amendment to clause 60 of Bill C-7. It says that the clause should be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15 on page 44 with the following:

"portion of an item, after the governor in council has consulted with those persons who will be directly affected by the amendment".

The parliamentary secretary responded to the amendment by asking why we need it. We already have the proper bells and whistles in place to deal with the public consultation process.

The parliamentary secretary to the health minister is correct. The amendment will put in place the requirement for public discussion and public consultation on changes to the bill.

In many pieces of legislation the Liberals have succeeded in taking more and more power from the people by putting in place the ability to make changes to legislation through the governor in council. This is one such move on the part of the government. The most important example in Bill C-68, the gun control legislation, gives incredible power to the governor in council. Bill C-61 deals with several agricultural acts and gives the minister and the bureaucrats the power to impose fines of up to $15,000 with the onus on the people fined to prove their innocence. That is one negative point about the legislation. Another is the control given through the governor in council without debate happening in the House. That is not democratic.

Unfortunately the anti-democratic move in the bill that gives more power and ability to make more decisions through governor in council is not unusual. The government has shown in many ways that it does not want to make things more democratic in the House. We have seen through what has happened to members who dared to vote against their party line or against the government on bills such as the gun control bill, Bill C-41. I could name others. These members have been punished harshly for voting differently than the party position. They have been thrown off committees and the Prime Minister publicly threatened to refuse to sign their nomination papers. What kind of a democracy is that?

The amendment will at least ensure a small amount of consultation. Liberal consultation is different from the Reform's version of consultation. Reform believes that when we go to the people to ask for consultations we really want to hear what they have to say and to act on it. The Liberals have shown that is not what they see as consultation. For example, in the gun control bill the justice minister's idea of consultation was to have meetings to which people went by invitation only. Other interested people were not welcome. That was complete and utter nonsense. The amendment will in a small way give a bit of the power back to the people by requiring consultation.

I will refer to a couple of other amendments but first I will show that this amendment has in a small way dealt with the concerns of some of my constituents. I have found that Bill C-7 and the changes to the legislation are very important to people in my constituency. Many people have come to me in public meetings asking questions about specific clauses of the legislation, and this is one of them. People have written letters to me that refer to specific clauses of the legislation.

I will read a letter from one of my constituents. It is a form letter but personal comments are included with it. It represents the concerns of a wide number of people, often people who want access to herbs, spices or other traditional medicines. They do not want the pharmaceutical companies or the government to be able

to limit access to these products in some way. It is very important to them.

The letter states:

I'm writing to request that Bill C-7 be withdrawn.

That is what should have happened with the legislation. It should have been withdrawn, or at least large parts of it should have been withdrawn. It is an omnibus bill that deals with many parts of the act. It is so broad or wide ranging that I wonder how the House of Commons can be asked to vote on the bill. It would be far more useful to have more specific legislation dealing with similar concerns.

Not all parts of the legislation should be thrown out. There are many good parts. However, because it is an omnibus bill and deals with a wide range of issues, parts of it should certainly be thrown out. The letter refers to the parts this constituent feels should be thrown out. A good summary of the legislation is given:

Bill C-7, the Controlled Substances Act, combines the Narcotic Control Act with the portions of the Food and Drugs Act. Combining criminal law with regulatory health is inappropriate and puts my right to buy natural health products in serious jeopardy.

Bill C-7 is a Criminal Code framework which would implicate many common herbal remedies and natural supplements because of their "stimulant" or "relaxant" properties. I believe that public safety can be ensured without Criminal Code restrictions on food supplements-

[Government Policies, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest disappointment Reformers have experienced in Parliament is the anti-democratic behaviour of the government.

The Prime Minister exercises dictatorial control over his MPs. MPs who have voted their constituents' wishes on Bill C-41 and Bill C-68 and other legislation have been punished for voting for the people they represent.

The anti-democratic behaviour has been demonstrated in legislation. Bill C-64 replaces hiring based on merit with hiring based on quota. Bill C-68 throws out such basic rights as protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Now the Liberal government is sabotaging section 2 of the charter by acting as thought police.

Canadians are entitled to fundamental freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression. Yet these Liberals have set up a committee to monitor and set out punishments for expressing ideas in the House with which the Liberals do not agree.

The government is smothering debate and stifling meaningful dialogue. George Orwell would be proud.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to congratulate the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls on the eloquence of his speech. He is truly a fantastic speaker. He is interesting and fun to listen to.

The hon. member has spoken against the bill presented by his party. I congratulate him for that, for coming out and expressing his thoughts on the bill even though they are different from what his party endorses.

Will he be in the House to vote against the bill at third reading? Why did the hon. member not vote against the bill at second reading? The hon. member was here before the vote and chose not to be here during the vote.

How can he tolerate being a member of a party which is so anti-democratic that it will not let its own members vote the wishes of their constituents? The hon. member obviously believes he is representing the wishes of his constituents on this issue.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 18th, 1995]

He did not vote against this though.