CONTENTS
Monday, September 30, 1996
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 4830
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4835
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4837
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4838
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4841
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4841
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4845
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4846
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 4855
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4857
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4862
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4862
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4863
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4863
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4863
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4863
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4864
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4864
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4866
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4866
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4868
Bill C-328. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 4869
Bill C-329. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 4869
Bill C-330. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 4869
Bill C-331. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 4869
Motion for concurrence in 32nd report 4870
Motion moved and agreed to 4870
Consideration resumed of motion 4870
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4874
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4882
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4889
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4891
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4897
4829
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, September 30, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am responding to private member's motion M-205
which seeks to provide further protection for property rights
pursuant to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
The Canadian Bill of Rights is part of this country's long and
strong commitment to protecting human rights. With the coming of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, which
duplicated many of the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights, it
is important to understand how the bill of rights enacted in 1960
fits into the larger scheme of human rights' protections in Canada.
The Canadian Bill of Rights remains in force, but it is
substantially different from the charter as it does not apply to
provincial legislation or actions. It operates as a federal statute
which is applicable to federal laws and actions. The charter
expressly overrides any act that is inconsistent with it, while the
Canadian Bill of Rights does not have an express provision which
permits it to override other federal statutes.
A noticeable difference between the bill and the charter is that
the bill does not have a limitation clause as provided by section 1 of
the Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What does the lack of
a limitation clause mean for the protection of property rights?
It is important to understand that no rights are absolute. It is
often necessary to limit rights to protect the widely shared values
of the larger community.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, in seeking to provide
greater measures for the protection of property rights, has
recognized that we cannot provide absolute protection for
individual property rights.
Many laws also recognize that others may have a legitimate
interest in the property rights of another individual, including
family law and environmental protection. Even provincial
builders' lien acts recognize and impose limits on the individual's
right to dispose of property.
The bill of rights already contains a due process provision to
protect property rights. The bill states:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall
continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour,
religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment
of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of the
law-
While there have not been many cases interpreting what this
provision means, Walter Tarnopolsky, the noted scholar, in his
commentary on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms finds
that the bill undoubtedly imposed a requirement of fair procedure
and may also have imposed a requirement of fair compensation.
The due process clause in the 14th amendment of the United
States constitution, which protects life, liberty or property, has
been held to impose a requirement of fair compensation for the loss
of property. It can therefore be argued that the Canadian Bill of
Rights continues to operate and provides sufficient protection for
property.
It should also be mentioned that some provincial bills of rights
include protection for property rights. The Alberta bill of rights,
now the Alberta individual rights protection act, protects the
enjoyment of property by a due process clause. The Quebec charter
of rights and freedoms gives some protection to the peaceful
enjoyment and free disposition of his or her property to the
deprivation of rights.
(1105)
Why is it necessary to protect property rights? In a liberal
democracy such as Canada, the protection of property is
fundamental to encourage growth and development. For this reason
our society recognizes and protects property in a number of ways.
It is important to protect property. It is sufficiently protected
through a host of common law statutes, including the bill of rights.
4830
Our history is one of recognizing and protecting real and personal
property. As Canadians, we also value other rights as important.
That is why I like the 14th amendment of the United States
constitution which protects life, liberty or property. Section 7 of the
charter of rights and freedoms protects the right to life, liberty and
security of the person.
Our primary concern is with protecting an individual's physical
integrity. The issue of whether section 7 will be interpreted to
include economic rights has not been determined. There can be no
doubt that the drafters of the charter intended to protect the rights
to life, liberty and security of the person as a primary right which is
not to be deprived of, except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.
We need to celebrate and be proud of our strong history of
protecting human rights, including the right to own and dispose of
property. Property rights in Canada are adequately protected. From
a practical perspective, it is hard to think of a situation where the
state would confiscate someone's property without providing for
fair compensation. This amendment, to put it quite simply, is not
necessary. It will not add anything to the numerous statutes and
common laws that already protect the property rights of Canada.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in support of M-205. I want to commend the work of my
colleague from Comox-Alberni for bringing this motion forward
and also to note the work done by the member for
Yorkton-Melville who has brought in Bill C-284 which has a
similar purpose to this motion.
This motion is designed to strengthen and protect the property
rights of Canadians. I wholeheartedly support M-205 for many
reasons, which I will elaborate on momentarily.
Let me review very quickly what this motion says. M-205 reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide a greater
measure of protection for individual property rights by amending the Canadian Bill
of Rights to read:
``1. Subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society, every person has the right to the enjoyment
of that person's personal and real property and the right not to be deprived thereof
unless the person
(a) is accorded a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice, and
(b) is paid fair compensation in respect of the property, and the amount of that
compensation is fixed impartially, and is paid within a reasonable amount of time
after the person is deprived of their property.
2. Any person whose rights, as set out in section 1, have been infringed or denied
may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court
considers appropriate and just in the circumstances''.
It is my pleasure to speak today about this very important motion
because I believe in the rights of Canadians, and specifically, the
need to strengthen the protection of property rights.
The motion would amend the Canadian Bill of Rights by adding
two sections. The first section would protect Canadians' rights with
respect to property. In any case where this right were to be
restricted, this motion would guarantee the right to a fair hearing in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The second
section gives individual property owners the right to fair
compensation for their property and ensures compensation within a
reasonable time period.
What I find most surprising in this debate is that it has taken so
long for the House to make a clear expression of its support for the
protection of property rights. The importance of protecting
property rights has long been recognized in Canada and around the
world. Property rights are included in the 1948 United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a
signatory. Other democratic countries have already taken the lead
in property rights' legislation, including the United States,
Germany, Italy and Finland. Several Canadian provinces, including
British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario have also initiated
resolutions supporting stronger protection for property rights.
(1110)
The debate about the protection of property rights is not new to
the House either. In 1988 a motion to protect property rights
received overwhelming support and was adopted as a resolution of
the House. This was an example of cross-party support for the
protection of property rights in Canada.
The Deputy Speaker of the House at another time and in another
capacity expressed the view of the importance of property rights
and his concern with the adequate safeguarding of these rights in
Canada. In his words: ``We must entrench the right to property in
our Constitution. The right to hold and enjoy property provides one
of the checks and balances against undue concentration of power in
government at any level''.
In fact, many members from the government side have in the
past deemed there to be a need for stronger protection of property
rights. In the early 1980s Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who had
originally written against property rights and the current Prime
Minister both expressed the strong desire to strengthen the
protection of property rights, so much so that the current
government party wanted to go beyond this motion and entrench
property rights into the charter of rights and freedoms.
4831
Back in 1980 the current Prime Minister said: ``In deciding
which rights should be included in the charter, we have selected
only those which we feel reflect the central values of our society.
Each of the rights we have listed is an essential ingredient for the
charter and all are rights which all Canadians should have
regardless of where they live in our country''. This statement was
made as part of his presentation to the provinces on the importance
of strengthening the protection of property rights by entrenching
them in the charter and they were included in his list.
At the time several Canadian provinces as well as the opposition
parties at the time frustrated the inclusion of property rights in the
charter.
While I am pleased to see that members of the government side,
including their leader, have in the past recognized the need to better
safeguard this important category of rights, entrenching them into
the charter would require a constitutional amendment. This would
be problematic, as we are all aware of the difficulty of amending
the Constitution at the current time.
The beauty of this motion is that it does not require an
amendment to the Constitution. Because this motion targets the bill
of rights as opposed to the charter of rights and freedoms, it is
easier to amend and well within the jurisdiction of the House.
Another advantage of M-205 is that the motion avoids concerns
about encroaching on areas of provincial jurisdiction. In past
debates on the issue concerns were raised about protecting property
rights by including them in the charter. The objection was not about
the importance of property rights, but rather about the
encroachment of the federal government in areas of provincial
jurisdiction through the charter.
My colleague, in designing this motion deliberately targeted the
bill of rights as opposed to the charter of rights and freedoms. The
reason for this is that the charter applies to the provinces as well as
to the federal government while the bill of rights applies only to
areas of federal jurisdiction. By targeting the bill of rights this
motion avoids intruding into areas of provincial jurisdiction.
I would like to add my personal voice as a citizen. I do not
believe any level of government should infringe on property rights
in an unjust manner.
In the debate following the introduction of this particular motion
on property rights, the government members who responded
expressed their support for property rights. However, and there is
always a but, they said they could not support the motion because
they believed property rights already have adequate protection. I
am pleased that the members opposite support property rights, but I
would challenge them on their assertion that property rights are
adequately safeguarded.
The bill of rights makes mention of the right of Canadians to
enjoy property. However, this is simply not enough. Section 1(a) of
the bill of rights states: ``The right of the individual to life, liberty,
security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not
to be deprived thereof, except by due process of law''.
Section 2(e) provides that no federal law ``deprive a person of
the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice for the determination of his rights an
obligations''.
While I think all members of the House would support the
principles outlined in the bill of rights as they apply to property
rights, there is a problem. Unfortunately, while the bill of rights
mentions property rights, the guarantee of protection and
compensation in cases where private property has been surrendered
is not explicit. This weakens the level of protection for property
rights. Because the bill of rights is a regular statute, it can be
overridden by a new federal statute. Without the explicit mention
of compensation, a new federal statute could rather easily restrict
the right of Canadians to fair and prompt compensation. M-205
would correct this by making explicit the government's
requirement to provide fair and prompt compensation in
circumstances where it is necessary for an individual to surrender
property.
I am quite surprised by the current government's opposition to
this motion. While members of the government party previously
advocated entrenching property rights in the Constitution, they
now seem to believe the status quo is good enough. I fail to see
what could have changed their minds.
(1115)
We have had in Parliament the Pearson airport bill which
provides a precise example of why we need this kind of protection.
While this bill ultimately died, had it been passed it would have
cancelled agreements to privatize and redevelop terminals 1 and 2
of Toronto's international airport. Parts of the bill would have
absolved the federal government of any liability associated with
the cancellation of the agreements. As we know it would have gone
further and even basically cancelled recourse to the courts. This is
precisely the kind of example of why we need stronger protection
of property rights in this country.
No one is suggesting there are never occasions where it may be
necessary for individuals to surrender property. The motion
recognizes this possibility. The difference between the status quo
and the amendments this motion would bring about is that Motion
M-205 would ensure that the property rights of Canadians could
not be infringed upon without due process and fair compensation.
The existence of fundamental rights and the importance of
fairness and justice are principles that Canadians have come to
expect. If the government truly does support the property rights of
4832
Canadians and the principles of fairness and justice, I am confident
it should have no reservations about supporting Motion M-205.
Let me add in concluding that we cannot understate the
importance of property rights in the maintenance of a free society.
We all know that free society and freedom in human history have
been a fleeting thing. Only under certain legal, cultural and
economic conditions are we able to enjoy the benefits of a free and
democratic society.
We had an example of another kind of society in this century in
the Soviet Union. We all know that the Soviet Union had one of the
most democratic constitutions in the world in terms of its symbolic
recognition of rights. What the people of the Soviet Union
ultimately lacked was the right to own property. Without the right
to own property and without iron clad guarantees that cannot be
taken from you except by legal and just processes, all other rights
are meaningless. That is precisely what happened in that society.
All the other human rights, all the democratic freedoms enunciated
in that constitution were absolutely meaningless because there was
no fundamental right to property without which there is not a free
society.
There are numerous examples in this country of the unjust
expropriation of property by governments, governments forcing
people to sell land and other material without compensation,
without alternatives or without recourse to the courts. I know in
Calgary it happened in the establishment of a transportation
corridor. There have been other examples. It is not true to say we
have adequate protection of property. Until we ensure these rights
to property in the bill of rights, the charter and many other pieces of
legislation, our freedoms will always be in jeopardy.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Motion M-205 of my colleague
from Comox-Alberni.
The defence of property rights is arguably one of the most
worthy matters of debate in a democratic society. The weakness of
property rights protection in Canada compels us to revisit this issue
today.
The 1982 charter of rights and freedoms which protects
Canadians' right to life, liberty and the security of the person
makes no mention of property rights. For Canadians that protection
lies only in the common law tradition and in the bill of rights which
guarantees ``the right to enjoyment of property and the right not to
be deprived thereof except by due process''.
Close inspection reveals the guarantees in the bill of rights are
only marginal at best. Also, both of these protections which do
exist can be overruled by any other statute law. Even the UN
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: ``Everyone has the
right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property''.
Canadians need stronger guarantees on their right to own private
property. Motion M-205 opens up the debate on this issue by
highlighting the weaknesses of the present system. It guarantees a
fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice. It guarantees fair compensation within a reasonable amount
of time. It allows for the protection of the rights of others by
prescribing reasonable limits to property rights demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society.
(1120)
Historically, property rights have been fundamental in the
interpretation of individual freedoms. Individuals and democratic
nations have defended these rights through history and history has
recorded not only the struggles but the consequences for those
nations which choose to ignore these basic rights. Take for
example, as my colleague has just mentioned, the record of the
USSR where lack of property rights, due process and fair
compensation left those citizens powerless in the face of an
intrusive state.
In short, there are many compelling reasons to discuss property
rights. The government has argued against this notion. One of its
objections is that property rights should not be unlimited. However
this proposed legislation does recognize the importance of
establishing parameters as well as offering recourse within the
definition of reasonable limits as outlined in the motion.
Thus the proposed legislation continues to protect society for
instance against crime even if it is committed on one's own
property. More fundamentally, it provides protection for
individuals and families when competing interests arise, and it
provides redress to ensure protection and consideration for all
parties. This is important in a variety of situations including, as has
been brought forth by other members, divorce property settlements
and recourse in the case of neighbourhood disputes.
Within these parameters however it does offer hope for families
with protection against devaluation and confiscation of their
property. For example, let us say the government needs access
across personal property for a new road or power line. While the
motion allows for such action, if it directly affects the family's
investment or its very security and future, it also ensures just
remuneration in the law. There is no such guarantee in Canadian
law today.
The fact that the Liberals have indicated they do not support such
a fundamental principle of freedom is troublesome indeed,
especially when considering their existing record of abuse of
property rights. I can think immediately of Bill C-28 and Bill C-68.
Bill C-28 of course revoked the former government's Pearson
airport contract without providing due compensation to the
contractual
4833
partners. Bill C-68, the gun control bill, has dramatically devalued
possibly millions of pieces of private property again without
guaranteeing due compensation.
Let us examine in more detail another of the concerns submitted
by the justice department. The parliamentary secretary said that
environmental legislation must not be restricted by private
property protection and alluded to problems in the U.S. over such
concerns as protecting endangered species. But in the United
States, despite the nation's strong record of private property
protection, two pieces of environmental legislation, that is the 1972
Clean Water Act and the 1973 Endangered Species Act, bypassed
the constitutional protection of property rights and did so with
some scandalous results.
In one case a rancher made a lake on his own property; as a result
it classifies as a wetland. Instead of encouraging this private
initiative, the U.S. government warned him that he would be
charged if he violated wetlands regulations. This included
accessing his own property with his own truck.
In another case a land owner was sentenced to three years in
prison and a $202,000 fine for violating the Clean Water Act by
dumping landfill on his own property without a federal permit. A
stream bed that was dry all year except when it backed up briefly
during the rainy season justified the reclassification of his property
as wetlands. The existence of skunk cabbage and sweet gum trees
helped build the government's case which was originated by an
unrelated complaint of a disgruntled neighbour who did not like the
noise of the trucks driving past his house.
A vast amount of research in recent years has demonstrated the
superiority of private property ownership over government
regulations in resolving many environmental problems, not least
the protection of animal species from extinction. A growing
number of environmentalists are among those who are beginning to
recognize this fact. Nevertheless, placing ideology before valid
research, the environment minister refused to acknowledge
competing evidence in a recent op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen.
(1125 )
The plight of the buffalo has been blamed on the tragedy of the
commons: the fact that no one owned the buffalo or the land on
which they roamed. If they had been privately owned, the owners
would have had a vested interest in ensuring that this resource was
not destroyed. The illustration of the buffalo is often contrasted
with the survival of horses or cattle which have been bred as
valuable resources for centuries.
Another illustration of this principle is the ivory trade. Most
nations have argued for banning international trade in ivory while
elephant numbers continue to decline due to poaching. However in
Zimbabwe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the government
transferred elephant ownership rights to regional tribal councils.
This privatization made game ranching possible with substantial
profits accruing to the property owners. This financial incentive
has guided the behaviour of property owners such that the elephant
population in Zimbabwe increased while it declined in the rest of
the continent.
Another example of the importance of property rights comes
from western Canada. Here there is much debate over the large
tree-cutting projects which largely exist on public lands. It is of
interest to note that in Sweden not long after forest land was largely
sold into private hands, the government had a forestation crisis, not
a deforestation crisis, on its hands.
The simple fact is that private ownership is wedded to the reality
of sustainability. Forests owned either by individuals or by the
companies which harvest them have been shown to fare much
better than land purchased from governments at below market
value as is done in Canada.
The concept of property rights is evolving with new
technologies. The Liberals argue that the protection of these rights
should not be stricter so as to accommodate these new issues. One
such area that has already been recognized as important and will
continue to grow in its importance is intellectual property.
Here again though the government's position appears
questionable when compared to the way it uses the existing
flexibility in property rights against Canadians. Just this month the
front page of Ottawa's leading business paper, the Ottawa Business
Journal, featured a story which revealed Industry Canada's
violation of business owners' property rights over intellectual
property.
The study, which has been buried for a year, revealed that despite
a Treasury Board policy that says intellectual property rights
belong to the firms contracted by the government, bureaucrats have
been claiming these rights for the government. According to
testimony from some business owners, especially small business
owners, these rights were often surrendered for fear that obstinacy
would make it more difficult to win future contracts.
It is this very insecurity, the fear of law-abiding citizens that they
cannot appeal to a justice system to protect their basic freedoms
and the results of their often many years of hard labour, that is
anathema to a free society. Canadians must be assured that their
property is protected from the arbitrary hand of government by the
guarantees such as those proposed in Motion M-205.
In conclusion, the principle of property rights is basic to the
freedoms inherent in a democratic country. As the Liberals refuse
to endorse the explicit protection of property rights in law, they
perpetuate a troublesome trend of real and potential government
4834
intervention in matters that I say belong not to the state but to the
citizens of Canada.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to be here today to support the member for
Comox-Alberni on the motion he has brought before the House.
This issue was probably one of the most important ones in terms
of drawing Reformers from western Canada into the Reform Party
in the first place. People recognized from one example after
another of what had happened in their area that this was necessary
and that property rights in fact should be enshrined in the
Constitution. That is of course a Reform policy although it is not
fully what we are dealing with here today.
(1130 )
I will start by repeating what this motion is about for those
watching or listening or for those who may read this in the future:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government provide a greater measure of
protection for individual property rights by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights to
read:
``1. Subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society, every person has the right to the enjoyment
of that person's personal and real property and the right not to be deprived thereof
unless that person
(a) is accorded a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice, and
(b) is paid fair compensation in respect of the property, and the amount of that
compensation is fixed impartially, and is paid within a reasonable amount of time
after the person is deprived of their property.
2. Any person whose rights, as set out in section 1, have been infringed or denied
may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court
considers appropriate and just in the circumstances''.
That is what we are debating today. I will talk a bit about the
importance of having property rights clearly defined.
Property rights are really the cornerstone of human freedom, as
some of my colleagues have expressed. These rights mean freedom
from arbitrary interference in one's life by government. Property
rights depend on the notion that you own yourself and your labour.
In 1690 John Locke wrote:
The great and chief end of men-putting themselves under government, is the
preservation of their property.
In 1790 Edmund Burke wrote:
The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable
and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends the most to the
perpetuation of society itself. It makes our weakness subservient to our virtue; it
grafts benevolence even upon avarice.
Burke recognized clearly the importance of property rights.
A property rights guarantee ensures that government can only
take your property under three very limiting conditions. First, the
taking of your property must be for public use. Second, the taking
of your property must be through due process of the law. Third, the
taking of your property must be with just and timely compensation.
Various polls and surveys have demonstrated clearly that
Canadians support a property rights guarantee. A poll
commissioned by the Canadian real estate board in 1987 found that
81 per cent of Canadians considered property rights very or fairly
important and that the Constitution should be amended to include
property rights.
In 1992 a Gallup poll demonstrated that 87 per cent of
respondents characterized the fundamental right to own property as
either very important or important, and 87 per cent said that it
should be in the charter of rights and freedoms.
To make this point stronger, a higher percentage of Quebecers
supported a constitutional guarantee of property rights than
supported a constitutional guarantee of distinct society. This issue
is certainly important to Quebecers.
The Prime Minister also supports a property rights guarantee.
One of my colleagues brought this up and it is worth mentioning
again. During a presentation to the provinces on including property
rights in the charter of rights and freedoms he stated: ``In deciding
which rights should be included in this charter, we have selected
only those which we feel reflect the central values of our society.
Each of these rights we have listed''-and that includes property
rights-``is an essential ingredient for the charter and all are rights
which all Canadians should have regardless of wherever they live
in our country''.
That was spoken by the Prime Minister a few years ago. It is
interesting that now his government seems to be holding back on
its support and is speaking against a first step toward providing for
property rights in a meaningful way.
(1135 )
There are other countries which have enshrined property rights
in their constitutions. Canada is in the good company of the United
States, Germany, Italy and Finland. The fifth amendment of the
United States constitution limits federal powers and expressly
provides for a right to compensation. The fifth amendment states
that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public
use without due compensation.
4835
The 14th amendment of the American constitution stipulates
that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of the law.
Property rights were not included in our charter mainly because
of the objections of the provinces of Saskatchewan, New
Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The reason is important to
note. These provinces felt that it was an attempt by the federal
government to intrude into provincial jurisdiction over property
and civil rights granted to them by section 92(13) of the British
North America Act.
The Canadian Bill of Rights does include property rights, but the
guarantee of protection is minimal at best. There is no requirement
in Canadian constitutional law that removal of private property be
covered by a fair procedure to deal with compensation to the owner
and there is no guarantee of fair treatment by the courts, tribunals
or officials who have the power over individuals or corporations.
Without the rights of due process and fair compensation individual
property rights are meaningless.
The power of government in this area is unlimited. Any valid
statute can expressly state that no compensation is payable when
property is expropriated. That is the very thing which Canadians do
not want.
How would Motion No. 205, presented by my colleague from
Comox-Alberni, improve the current situation? Motion No. 205
proposes to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights by adding two new
sections. The first section would allow citizens the right to their
property unless the person receives a fair hearing in accordance
with the principles of fundamental justice. The second section
gives the individual property owner the right to fair compensation
for the property within a reasonable amount of time.
Since the Canadian Bill of Rights applies only to federal law and
operations, this motion would avoid the provincial concerns raised
during the debate on including property rights in the charter.
However, since this legislation applies only to federal jurisdiction,
clearly similar protection is needed at the provincial level. I would
strongly support the provinces making similar changes in their
legislation to protect property rights.
I would like to give a couple of examples of things that have
gone wrong because there is not proper protection of property
rights. The first example would not be protected if the bill is
passed, but I would like to mention it anyway. This is something
which happened in Calgary. I have had this story related to me on a
couple of different occasions, so I believe it is worth mentioning. It
affected the people who mentioned it to me in a very negative way.
Calgary had a green zone around the city which was protected by
law. When this happened there was no compensation as a result of
the damage to land prices. There was no expropriation on the part
of government. It just declares that this zone would be a green zone
and that caused property values to drop dramatically. People who
had property within that zone in many cases, people who had talked
to me, lost much of their life savings. It was clearly unfair and I
think it is important that we have legislation that would protect
against this.
(1140)
The second very important example has been demonstrated
already and explained by some of our members, although I think it
would be worth repeating, and it has to do with the rights under Bill
C-68 to take guns from people without any compensation.
From the gun collectors I have talked to, in a couple of cases gun
collectors had tied their life savings up in their collection. This law
has destroyed the value of that collection with no compensation.
These examples point out the need for this to pass the House. I ask
all members in the House to support my colleague and to vote in
favour of this private member's motion.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and
support this motion brought forward by my hon. colleague for
Comox-Alberni.
I believe he should be commended for his tenacious attitude with
regard to this motion. The issue of property rights has been debated
in this House of Commons numerous times over the last 30 years
and unfortunately for Canadians they still do not enjoy adequate
protection of their individual property rights.
The fact that my colleague has been diligent enough on behalf of
Canadians to correct this alarming oversight by hammering away at
this issue once again shows his dedication and the dedication of the
Reform Party to fight for equity and justice.
This issue reminds me of another battle that has been carried out
on the floor of the House of Commons throughout the past 20
years. Like property rights, capital punishment has maintained
overwhelming support by Canadians. The reinstatement of capital
punishment has been favoured by 70 per cent of Canadians since it
was abolished 20 years ago. Throughout that time MPs such as me
have introduced legislation to fulfil the wishes of the majority.
Unfortunately too many MPs forget that it is their constituents
they represent first and foremost. They forget that they are not in
Ottawa to conform to the wishes of their political masters or to
satisfy their own conscience. They are here to debate and vote on
behalf of the people in their constituencies. Instead, as in the case
of capital punishment, many have ignored this fact and so it is left
to a few select members of this House to hammer away and
reintroduce legislation until hopefully someday we will succeed
and therefore ultimately Canadians will succeed.
4836
In the matter of property rights we are faced with a similar
situation. A poll commissioned by the Canadian Real Estate
Association in 1992 showed that 87 per cent of respondents
considered the right to own and enjoy property of all kinds a
fundamental right.
Another poll by the Canadian Real Estate Board in 1987 found
that 81 per cent of Canadians considered it either very or fairly
important that the Constitution be amended to include property
rights. A 1987 Gallup poll demonstrated that 87 per cent of
Canadians supported increased property rights protection.
Needless to say, this all indicates significant and overwhelming
support and reflects Canadians' concern that their property rights
can too easily be infringed upon. But still there is no guarantee in
this country that private property will not be removed for public
use and there is no provision that government must provide for fair
compensation when it expropriates property for public use.
This is despite numerous attempts by Canadian legislators to
protect property rights. As has been mentioned, these legislators
include John Diefenbaker and Pierre Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau enjoyed
excellent support from his justice minister at that time, the current
Prime Minister.
(1145)
Unfortunately, these efforts have been impeded by, among other
issues, constitutional concerns and protests from provincial
governments worried that their jurisdictions were being invaded.
For example, during constitutional debates in 1992, the province of
Prince Edward Island strongly protested the inclusion of property
rights in any constitutional proposals. The premier of P.E.I. at the
time went so far as to inappropriately state: ``If we cannot control
the destiny of land in Prince Edward Island, we will soon no longer
be a province''.
As we in the House are aware, the general sentiment among the
majority of Canadians is that they are reluctant to see the
constitutional can of worms opened at this time and it is easy to
understand why. Fortunately, the motion recognizes this sentiment
as well as the misguided fears of certain provinces. It strengthens
property rights without constitutional change or the need for
provincial consent. It applies only to federal law and the operations
of the federal government.
It dictates that the federal government uphold a reasonable
standard of fair and just compensation in exchange for personal
property. While it does not involve the provinces, it sets a standard
to follow and a precedent for individual property rights in the eyes
of the law. Regardless of jurisdiction, it will strengthen and respect
the rights of Canadians who believe their private property cannot
and should not be arbitrarily taken from them by the federal
government without compensation.
This is a simple and logical solution that does not infringe on the
provinces and shows that the federal government is concentrating
on cleaning up its own backyard.
It also rises above partisan politics. As I mentioned earlier,
former prime ministers from both the Liberal and Conservative
parties have seen fit to support property rights and the current
Prime Minister once spoke very strongly of securing them for
Canadians.
The Prime Minister's attempts at protecting property rights were
unsuccessful. I hope he seizes this opportunity to support the
motion which, as I have mentioned, accomplishes the task at a
federal level in a relatively simple manner through the Canadian
Bill of Rights.
While reviewing the motion and the debate on it, I became
concerned that some members were confused about its intended
results. First and foremost, I would like to reiterate to all members
that this motion does not involve constitutional amendments. I
repeat the statement that my colleagues and I have already made
today because in past debate the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead in Quebec expressed worry that
the motion would limit the ability of a provincial government to
legislate in the environmental sector if property rights were
enshrined in the Constitution. This motion will affect neither the
provinces nor the Constitution.
Another point I would like to clarify with respect to that hon.
member's statement from June 10, 1996 involves the importance of
property rights to a person's identity. He does not seem to realize
the fundamental importance that property rights hold for
individuals. In the case of a home or a farm it often identifies who
they are and who their ancestors were. It provides them with a
heritage, a past, a sense of pride and a constant source of solace in
times of difficulty. Certainly I can speak from experience about
what has become known as the love of the land, being a farmer, and
the pride that comes from the ownership of property.
In the early 1970s hundreds of families in rural communities
near Pickering, Ontario were surprised when they began receiving
form letters telling them their homes and farms were going to be
expropriated to make way for a new international airport. No
consultations were carried out with the residents or even with the
local municipalities. People were forced to sell homes and land
which some families had occupied for nearly 170 years. The
federal government expropriated 7,527 hectares for an airport it
never built.
Since they were expropriated the lands and homes of these
Canadians have been mismanaged by Public Works Canada on
behalf of the transport minister. The loving care that many owners
put into their homesteads suffered vandalism and bulldozing. One
of these homeowners, who is now in his seventies, said: ``I could
not believe the government's arrogance. It made me absolutely
livid''.
4837
(1150)
After suffering through the tragedy of having their homes and
farmland taken from them and witnessing its destruction, these
people were enraged at the federal government's declaration two
years ago that 2,000 of these hectares were now deemed surplus.
How could anyone bear the indignity, frustration and heartache of
having their homes taken from them, then hear that part of their
heritage was being declared surplus?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Shame.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): That is right. Shame
on government. With this motion, fiascos such as this would not be
allowed to happen. The federal government would not be permitted
to arrogantly, without consultation and fair process, expropriate a
family's homestead for a project that would probably never
happen.
In the matter of other property, to have it taken away, also leaves
an individual feeling violated and helpless. I agree to a point that
these are only material goods and pale in significance to the
well-being of loved ones or to freedom or to the other fundamental
rights.
Members have to keep in mind that we are talking about an
individual's property being expropriated by the federal
government. If that process is not done fairly and with due
compensation, it can be traumatic and as consequential as losing a
loved one, particularly in the case of a property that has been in a
family for generations.
In the case of freedom, can it truly be said that Canadians enjoy
freedom when an individual is free to possess property only until
the government has need for it or decides to take it away for some
supposedly higher public purpose.
As previously noted in the House by some of my colleagues,
there is no doubt that the legitimate owner of a firearm does not
feel he or she is a free citizen of Canada when the federal
government can dictate whether he or she will be allowed to keep
property.
This is a frightening concept in what is supposed to be one of the
leading industrialized and free nations in the world. It makes me
feel as though we really have not come very far since the
internment and expropriation of property from 22,000 Japanese
Canadians during the second world war. At that time, the federal
government said a higher purpose should supersede an individual's
property rights. The federal government has a responsibility to its
citizens and a responsibility to govern by example.
This motion would not limit the federal government to never
being able to expropriate land for public works projects. However
it would ensure that owners are guaranteed that any expropriations
would be carried out in a fair and reasonable way, consistent with
the standard expected in a free and democratic society. It would
also mean that there would have to be fair compensation for
expropriation.
There have been many embarrassing incidents in Canadian
history that involve the unjust seizure of property by the federal
government. As members of the House will acknowledge, we
continue to grapple with the fallout of these injustices to this day.
Motion No. 205 will ensure that future generations and MPs are
not left to remedy any further violations the federal government
might commit in the absence of property rights' protection. It is the
least we can expect from a responsible government in a free and
democratic society. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues on both
side of the House to please support this motion.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
members of the House will know that I have used, from time to
time, New Zealand examples to press home how important it was
for us to get on top of our debt and deficit problems in order to
create an investment climate that would create jobs. I have used
these New Zealand examples not because New Zealand has done
everything right but because we can learn from the experiences of
other countries and choose the best things to implement here in
Canada.
There are lessons to be learned from history and the experiences
of others in connection with property rights as well. We can easily
see that by taking a look at the enormous amount of historical
material available to us.
We know the history of ancient Rome and Greece, China, Egypt
and Mesopotamia. We know what happened in classical times,
medieval times and in the industrial revolution right through to
modern times. We know plenty about Britain, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, the United States, Russia, Cambodia, sub-Saharan
Africa, you name it. By studying the historical records of those
times and places we can quickly see that when governments do not
respect property rights, the people eventually end up living in
poverty and misery.
(1155)
Perhaps it starts innocently enough. A government promises to
regulate the economy for the common good, redistribute the wealth
more fairly, make the rich pay their fair share, close the loopholes.
I have a feeling I have heard this stuff somewhere before. It is a
naive assumption that the government knows best and that the
average citizen needs to be protected from himself.
History is full of examples. Whether they are headed by madmen
like Stalin or Hitler or by well-meaning dreamers like Nehru or
Nyerere, they always fail. Along the way they produce conflict
instead of peace, famine instead of plenty. Instead of more and
better rights than those we hold in the line that we receive from the
4838
Magna Carta, they deliver fewer and lesser rights. They promise a
gilded cage and they deliver only the cage.
I challenge members to name one society that respected property
rights where the people were not happier and better off for it. I
challenge them to name one society that did not have property
rights where the people are not more miserable as a result of that.
The more protected the right to property, the better the living
conditions and the better the societal order.
History also teaches us that where property rights are not
respected, neither are personal rights. Along with the loss of
property rights comes loss of liberty, loss of freedom of speech,
loss of decency in society.
In her speech earlier today, my colleague from Port
Moody-Coquitlam mentioned the benefits of transferring
ownership of forests into private hands, for example. She gave an
example of how sustainability was ensured by transferring the
property rights to private hands. This same benefit can be seen in
New Zealand which has transferred part of its forests to the private
sector. It raised $2.5 billion to pay off the final portion of its
foreign debt by doing so. What results from that is we have private
investors who have to protect that property in order to recover the
$2.5 billion investment and to receive an ongoing income. It is the
guarantee of sustainability, it is the guarantee of replanting of those
forests and it means that the government now is only in a
regulatory role, instead of interfering in the marketplace.
Similar experiments with ownership of lakes have shown that
when a camp ground owns the lake it makes sure there is no
pollution in that lake. It makes sure that fish are stocked in that
lake. With private ownership comes the desire to protect the
property.
Property rights are the foundation of a decent and responsible
society. They are the most important human right. It amazes me
that we have a Constitution and charter of rights that guarantees the
lengthy avoidance of deportation by known criminals and bogus
refugees, but it does not guarantee property rights to law-abiding
citizens. It amazes me that we have a Constitution and charter of
rights that permits crimes to be committed without penalty by
people who are under the influence of drink or drugs, but it does not
guarantee property rights to law-abiding citizens. Canadians are
supposed to feel good about their Constitution and charter but for
the most part they are frustrated by it and with it.
Motion 205 put forward by the Reform Party member for
Comox-Alberni is an excellent one. I urge all members to support
it for our own well-being.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the support I
have received from my colleagues with regard to this motion. It is
fundamental to freedom in our society and I think the point has
been made adequately.
In summary, it must be pointed out to the government that
property rights are not adequately protected in Canada. Things are
happening today that are not acceptable in a free and democratic
society and the examples given clearly demonstrated that. We have
to ask the question: Why would a government not want to protect
them more adequately so that all citizens could go about their
business with the freedom to which they are entitled?
(1200)
In summary, there are three reasons property rights are good:
they make a society richer; they protect the freedom of individuals;
and they protect the environment. Those are the arguments we as
Reformers have been trying to make.
Property rights make society richer in that they spur the creative
effort of individuals to improve their own circumstances. Property
rights are a guarantee that we get to keep what we own, we can
dispose of what we own, enjoy the fruits of our labour and our
property cannot be arbitrarily taken from us even by government.
These rights are important to an economy such as ours. For
societies to flourish and for things to be as they should, countries
need to guarantee those property rights.
People should be free to make their own decisions about how to
best use their possessions, including the fruits of their labour. For
those not already enjoying material wealth, their labour is the most
valuable thing they own. It is particularly important that everyone
be guaranteed the right to improve their situation and benefit from
the improvements they make. In the long run the right to make
decisions about one's own life and work is the foundation of human
dignity.
My last point is that property rights protect the environment. The
problem of pollution is not that people pollute their own
surroundings, but that they pollute the surroundings of others
around them, including air and water. Without property rights, a
distant government rather than the afflicted individual makes a
judgment about how much pollution should be allowed.
Governments weigh the political benefits of such pollution against
the political costs and most often favour the polluter.
In conclusion, this debate highlights the fundamental difference
between a Reformer and a Liberal. In order to maintain a free and
democratic society, individual rights must be protected. This is
something that must be fundamentally supported by every member
in this House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
4839
4839
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.) moved:
That this House support British Columbia as Canada's gateway to the Asia Pacific
and recognize British Columbia as a major economic power in the region, and as a
consequence, this House condemn the federal government for impeding progress in
Western Canada by its mismanagement of the affairs of the nation, exemplified by
the government 's mishandling of the west coast fishery, Coast Guard services, the
closure of military bases at Aldergrove and Chilliwack, B.C., the elimination of
federal Ports Canada policing in B.C., the movement of grain to Prince Rupert, B.C.
and other issues detrimental to the state of the nation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present this supply day
motion on behalf of the Reform Party.
This motion may speak to British Columbia issues, but it also
speaks about Confederation and British Columbia's place in our
national mosaic. If there is one way I could characterize what I am
going to talk about today, it is a lack of vision on the part of the
federal government; there are broken promises on behalf of the
federal government; and there is a one way street between British
Columbia and Ottawa.
My colleagues will be discussing federal mismanagement of
issues surrounding the Prince Rupert grain terminal, the fishery, the
military bases, ports policing in B.C. and the coast guard. I will
specifically talk about the recently announced downsizing
proposals for the combined DFO/coast guard operations which are
scheduled to take effect soon.
(1205)
The federal government has displayed its inability to effectively
manage or priorize sensibly and it has shown disregard for the
public in its actions. Immediate corrective action is required to
bring some sense to the discussions and to ensure that the public
interest is represented rather than the interests of the bureaucracy
or the minister.
The B.C. chamber of commerce is on record as expressing
serious concerns about federal government priorities in its recent
cuts to coast guard services. Its letter of September 13 to the Prime
Minister stated what many others have stated very well and what
the people of British Columbia are saying. The letter reads:
We recognize the necessity of budgetary restraint but the responsibility of
government to maintain public safety in marine channels must not be abrogated by
the need to save money. We realize-that cuts may have to be made. We do ask,
however, that your government prioritize allocations for public safety.
Your government is responsible by law not only for safety in marine channels but
for navigational aids (lighthouses), small harbours management, and search and
rescue. Even the recent assignment of responsibility for environmental cleanup to
the organization responsible does not relieve the coast guard of environmental first
response in potential disaster situations. Given the isolated nature of the west coast,
cuts made without due care and attention can worsen an already dangerous situation.
For example, mariners and fishers in the Hecate Strait near Prince Rupert already
rely on the American coast guard in rescue situations due to the fact that the local
coast guard helicopter is not fully equipped or always available for marine surface
rescues.
Cuts we believe to be unwise include excessive reduction in the number of vessels
and the subsequent reassignment of remaining vessels, resulting in units not fully
capable of responding in search and rescue operations (reassigning The Point Race,
for example, a vessel specially fitted to deal with the high speed, tidal currents in
Discovery Passage near Campbell River to Port Hardy and replacing it with a vessel
lacking its capabilities); destaffing lighthouses, which serve as important
navigational aids for aviators as well as mariners, without providing an alternative
for the essential services they provide; and reducing certain services to only a twelve
hour standby when emergencies can happen at any time.
We believe it is the government's responsibility to provide Canadians with a
reasonable opportunity to work and do business safely. Consequently, we strongly
recommend that your officials re-examine the substance of the cuts to services and
make a greater effort to exercise restraint in administrative areas. Where safety is
concerned there must always be other options.
On Saturday at McInnes Island, 40 miles west of Bella Bella,
which is a very isolated area, a lightkeeper called in that a float
plane was down. That was the immediate response which allowed
the pilot to be saved by the search and rescue team.
Today on Chrome Island, Merry Island and Entrance Island
people are pouring pads to put in automated equipment. This
situation has gone into overdrive. People are trying to stop the
destaffing.
There are other signs of revulsion coming from British
Columbia. The Union of B.C. Municipalities had its annual
meeting two weeks ago. On September 20 an emergency debate
was held on this issue. A unanimous resolution was passed
regarding the disastrous effect the proposed cuts would have on
boating safety.
The Coastal Communities Network sent a letter on September 25
to the minister. The letter states that the minister has broken two
promises to British Columbians regarding destaffing light stations
before demonstration projects have proven the safety viability of
automated equipment; and he has negated the December 1995
national marine policy to ensure search and rescue operations are
an essential service.
(1210)
This motion is a wake-up call to a lethargic federal government
that has ignored and dismissed B.C.'s contribution to the wealth
and dynamism of the country.
4840
British Columbia has 12.9 per cent of the total Canadian
population, over 3.8 million people. Federal statistics indicate that
for a decade or more B.C. has averaged 6 per cent of total
government procurement and capital spending, which is nowhere
near its population base or contribution to the federal coffers.
British Columbia's representation in federal cabinets has been
characterized by weak ministers who have lacked clout at the
cabinet table and who have been unskilled in how to play the
federal influence game.
B.C. is the only province which year by year continues to have
increases in live births. Two-thirds of the new migrants coming to
British Columbia every year are under the age of 35. Our
demographics are such that we could very nicely carry CPP and
medicare programs, unlike the rest of the country.
British Columbians welcome downsizing of the federal
government. We cannot afford the current contraption because of
the combined Liberal debt which next year will cost us over $50
billion per year in interest charges alone. What we want is fairness,
good priority setting and true savings. Savings, not political
transfers.
The concerns of coastal communities are being virtually ignored
as cutbacks in basic marine safety and navigation services for
which the federal government is responsible continue.
Information has been very hard to come by. To illustrate the
arrogance of the senior bureaucracy, I have a timeline from the
downsizing proposals which trickled out to the marine advisory
groups in the last week of August: August 20 to August 30, client
consultations; September 3 to September 6, assess client impacts;
September 30, final funding decision.
The communities and anyone else who has been involved in this
initiative have not even had time to catch their breath. As Robert
Mason Lee of the Vancouver Sun observed at the UBCM
conference in Penticton, the government has essentially stopped
seeking public advice and is desperately cost cutting with poor
rationale.
The minister from B.C. has not even represented B.C. interests
when they have fallen into his portfolio. British Columbians are
paying more and getting less.
To show that the operations people from the federal bureaucracy
do understand program delivery but cannot win the debate with the
senior bureaucracy, I would like to quote from the content of a
report which I received this weekend. It is a DFO operations branch
impact analysis which was leaked to me.
I will quote selectively: ``The ability of multitask vessels to
deliver fisheries patrol duties remains unclear. All vessels tasked to
fisheries patrol will have search and rescue as primary tasking. In
the extreme there may be no vessels available for fisheries patrol
during peak periods. Peak periods for fisheries patrol and search
and rescue occur at the same time''.
Second, ``the current proposal does not meet operations branch
fleet mix requirements. There is the need for a much larger number
of flexible inshore vessels''.
Third, ``our ability to meet international commitments outlined
in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the free trade agreement and the
Canadian shellfish sanitation program will be significantly
reduced. Canada is required to collect data and enforce provisions
of specific fisheries agreements in the Pacific Salmon Treaty''.
(1215)
Fourth, the ability of vessels to remain away from home port on
a regular and or sporadic basis is critical to both fisheries
enforcement and management. This will not occur under this plan
either.
Fifth, uncertainty about vessel support for multitasked vessels
and or insufficient vessels will result in fewer fisheries. The new
initiatives implemented to rationalize the salmon fleet-known as
the Mifflin plan, very controversial-will be compromised.
Less precision in in-fishery catch information and escape
estimates for salmon enhancement in the short term will result in
over harvest or under harvest and in the long term stock collapse.
A gradual reduction in the number of ships will have less impact
in the sharp reduction plan for 1997. Considerable time will be
required to train personnel in multitask duties.
There is currently a demand for increased habitat investigation
and monitoring of projects in remote areas as a result of the new
oceans act, the Canada Environmental Assessment Act and
agreements made with First Nations by aboriginals, fishery
strategy and land claims initiatives.
Initiatives to implement a community based strategy for
fisheries management and enforcement in remote coastal
communities will be compromised.
This report goes on. This is a damning indictment of what is
being foisted on British Columbia right now. These proposals for
Pacific coast operations lack any vision or entrepreneurship. It is
typical Ottawa policy making done in a void. It is a myopic,
lacking long term strategy thinking of the kind that characterizes
most of this government.
Have these policy gurus thought about what the impact of these
life threatening cuts will say to insurance companies and marine
underwriters who cover the cruise ships or floating hotels which
carry hundreds or thousands of people a trip? Have these policy
gurus and our two esteemed ministers involved in this mess
thought about Canada's liability for not providing adequate aids to
navigation, search and rescue, vessel traffic and control and
4841
weather forecasting equipment to ensure safety for these visiting
vessels, not to mention our own west coast fleet of private and
commercial vessels?
The fixation of cutting at the service level with no plan or
strategic policy is a classic Ottawa closed loop philosophy. Around
it goes and the dollars keep going in but they do not escape to serve
society. We do deserve better.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I felt the
speech given by the hon. member dealt very well with a number of
the problems faced by the coast guard and light keepers on the west
coast.
I know the member is the critic for Indian Affairs and I wonder if
he could give us the benefit of a few minutes explanation of some
of the problems that have been created in British Columbia, which
has the largest number of Indian bands of any province in the
country; if he could expand a little on the problems that have been
created by this government for the people of British Columbia by
the actions and the policies that have been foisted on British
Columbians.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the time allotted for me to speak was
20 minutes and I used my 20 minutes. If I were to address all the
concerns this motion addresses just from my single perspective, I
would need at least two hours in this House. There is a reliance by
me on some of my colleagues which will happen today.
(1220 )
In terms of the question that my colleague asked about
aboriginal issues, I have several major concerns, one of which is
that the federal treaty office in British Columbia in a growth
industry and has shown a lack of discipline in terms of its posture,
attitude, behaviour and fiscal responsibility at a time when all other
departments and operations in the province which are federally
funded have been very much squeezed and pressured. There have
been several instances of lack of financial control and a lack of
terms of reference which would be applied in any other federal
department. I think those have been reasonably well covered in the
major media.
We do have an arrangement, an aboriginal fisheries strategy
which is an allocation by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
which started in 1993. It allows aboriginal fisheries for commercial
sale. This basically means that we now have a much bigger
mandate in terms of enforcement and management. It is a much
more complicated situation.
It is no surprise to people that we have fought against the
aboriginal fisheries from the beginning on the basis that we do not
believe there should be two commercial fisheries, one based on
race and the other an all-Canadian fishery.
The document from the operations division of DFO I quoted
from indicates that indeed those complications are ever more
complicated by the downsizing and will very much put the stock at
risk. Specific comments have been made about the lower Fraser
River. There are 98 Indian bands in British Columbia on the Fraser
system alone.
The comments in this document deal with the lower Strait of
Georgia, which I will cite. There are extensive delays in responding
to fishing violations on the international boundary. American
seiners and gill-netters often venture into Canadian waters to
intercept Fraser River salmon stocks during the absence of
Canadian fisheries patrol vessels equipped with modern tracking
technology. The international consequences of not having an
enforcement platform on the boundary in 1994 were highlighted by
the press in Canada and the U.S.
Commitments to the Pacific Salmon Treaty require specific
information and enforcement activity in this zone. Reduced
enforcement capability on the most extensive aboriginal sales
fishery in the Pacific region and escalation in non-compliance in
closed periods and mandatory landings will result.
I appreciate the question from the member.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my
colleague from North Island-Powell River on this very important
topic today, the alienation that British Columbia has felt over the
last few years. This has escalated over the last three years with the
present Liberal government. There are many issues and examples
of the neglect and ways the government has taken British Columbia
for granted that it would take days to detail them.
(1225 )
It is no wonder that particularly in the northern part of British
Columbia there is a real sense of northern alienation and we are not
just physically a great distance from Ottawa but certainly a great
distance when it comes to the thinking of this government. It is
exemplified by the fact that last December the government did not
even deem it appropriate to consider that British Columbia might
be a separate region when it was doling out vetoes for future
constitutional amendments. That is how it manifested itself.
I was reminded of this just this past weekend when I flew home
to my riding of Prince George-Peace River to attend a very
special event in the city of Dawson Creek. Due to the efforts of a lot
of people we found that the Alaska highway was being dedicated as
the sixteenth civil engineering wonder of the world, so to speak. It
takes its rightful place with other engineering projects such as the
Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and
4842
the Panama Canal. Quite frankly, I was absolutely appalled that
there was no federal representation there.
This is a transport issue. This government deemed it appropriate
to have the Minister of Transport from British Columbia. He was
not present at that ceremony. No designate was present. This
exemplifies the attitude of the federal government toward British
Columbia. This was such an important event and there was no one
there representing the federal government.
I wanted to bring it to the attention of the House as simply the
latest example I am aware of where this federal government gives
British Columbians a slap in the face. I say shame on this
government.
I ask the member if he can think of an example similar to that,
perhaps in his riding, perhaps in southern British Columbia, to
relate to the people of Canada who are watching today of how the
thinking of this federal government ends at the Rocky Mountains
despite the fact that we have at least one federal minister from
British Columbia, whom we certainly dearly missed in Dawson
Creek last weekend.
Mr. Duncan: I have only one minute, Mr. Speaker, and I can
think of several issues but I cannot obviously talk about all of them.
If I get down to riding specifics, the minister from British
Columbia promised a community in my riding that the dock which
burned down in 1989, which was uninsured because the federal
government self-insures, would be replaced. That promise was
made in 1995. I have pursued it with the minister and I have not
received satisfaction. That is a clear broken promise.
There are other issues locally. One that concerns me a lot which
is a B.C. issue happens to involve an air crash in Campbell River
which took eight lives. We have clear recommendations from the
transportation safety board that the visual flight rules in effect in
Canada which were changed in 1990 against its recommendations
need to be changed back to pre-1990 or there will be more fatalities
as a result.
The senior bureaucrat responsible on the same day that
investigation was announced after 11 months of study was quoted
in the Vancouver Sun as saying they had no intention of changing
the visual flight rules. The marginal weather in which these things
happen is very much indicative of British Columbian weather. We
are probably the major influence and I have not received any
response from the minister to my representations in that regard.
(1230 )
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the Reform Party for once again
providing an opportunity for the government to look good. Its
members have worded its resolution in a manner that is negative
but, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it gives us the opportunity of
pointing what the facts are.
The motion, although confused, deserves a straightforward
response. This government over the last three years has put the
right priorities in place for British Columbia. I would like to talk on
that point in five specific areas.
First, the economy and how the government is successfully
following policies on the deficit and on jobs that fit well with the
aspirations of British Columbians and, indeed, Canadians from one
end of this country to the other. This the hon. member and his
friends over the last three years have completely forgotten.
Second, I would like to point out that the government's emphasis
on Asia-Pacific is good news for all of Canada, but no part of
Canada more than B.C. It is in British Columbia that this emphasis
on Asia-Pacific context with the Pacific rim, trade with the Pacific
rim, has benefited us enormously. I am sure my colleague, the hon.
secretary of state for Asia-Pacific, will be speaking on that.
The third point I would like to stress is what someone might call
the political or constitutional-not that we are keen on the word
constitutional these days-which is the government's historic
recognition of British Columbia as a distinct region of this country,
instead of simply being lumped with the prairies as has been the
case when we used the term, the west, and included all four
provinces. British Columbia is different. It is important that that be
recognized. I am very pleased it has been recognized.
Fourth, the Reform Party's motion refers to British Columbia's
position as Canada's gateway to the Pacific. I would like to
mention some of our policies in transportation and elsewhere that
are making British Columbia, particularly the airport in Vancouver,
not just the gateway of western Canada or even North America to
the Pacific but the whole western hemisphere. I will be talking
about that at some length.
Fifth, I would like to mention several specific issues that relate
particularly to British Columbia where we have had, thanks to the
government's actions, B.C. priorities brought to bear on national
decision making.
The final point I would like to make is that in all these major
areas of concern for all British Columbians, the Reform Party has
been a non-factor. It has been invisible. It has been insensitive. It
has been ineffectual. It has been incompetent and, generally, it has
been in a tailspin. This is shown clearly by the polls that have them
falling rapidly and steadily in British Columbia from the position it
held at the time of the election.
First is the debt, deficit, economy and jobs issue. In the last
election campaign in British Columbia, British Columbians and
Canadians across the country made it clear that the government had
to get its fiscal house in order. The government promised that and it
is delivering.
4843
Job creation and deficit reduction go hand in hand. With a
balanced and prudent approach, the government set out not only
to meet but to exceed the targets set in 1993 one after another.
Remember that not too long ago, Canada was faced with a deficit
annually of $42 billion. By 1997-98, that will have been cut to
$17 billion, which represents a 60 per cent reduction over that
period.
We have worked hard on the government side to create a climate
in which Canadians in business can expand, can grow, can hire
more other Canadians and can provide the opportunities which
result from that.
In British Columbia, the results are encouraging. It has one of
the strongest provincial economies in the country. In fact, in most
of that period it has been the strongest. British Columbia has
created 100,000 new jobs since 1993 and the provincial inflation
rate has dropped on a year over year basis of 1.2 per cent in April
1996. The employment growth is the highest in the country.
(1235 )
We expect this to be exceeded in the future. Over the next
decade, it is expected British Columbia will create approximately
400,000 new jobs. It is not a question of the federal government
doing this alone. However, the policies put in place allow the
private sector to achieve the successes necessary for expansion and
improvement in the job position.
We also of course are extremely lucky because of our strategic
position on the edge of the Pacific and in relation to the
Asia-Pacific trade. British Columbia is also endowed with
resources which contribute dramatically to its opportunities.
However, the government has done its appropriate part to make
sure British Columbians and British Columbia take advantage of
those opportunities that I mentioned. We have the fundamentals
right. The fundamental fiscal problem is being dealt with and we
are getting the situation in the country as a whole, and in particular
in British Columbia, into a far happier situation than it was three
years ago.
Interest rates have declined three percentage points in the past 12
months. British Columbians know well, as do others across the
country, that lower interest rates are the key to job creation because
it encourages businesses to make investments and expand. It also, I
might add, allows families to save thousands of dollars on their
mortgage payments.
The inflation rate is the lowest in 30 years. British Columbians
know how important it is for attracting foreign investment. Cutting
the deficit, lowering interest rates and controlling inflation mean a
stable economic climate in which foreign investment can be
attracted and the economy can grow.
My second topic is Asia-Pacific. Canada is a Pacific nation and
the government has brought that fact to life more than any previous
government in recent history. The Pacific advantage is an
advantage for all Canadians wherever they live, but it is
particularly important in British Columbia.
The province of British Columbia is showing the way by taking
advantage of the opportunities in the most economically vibrant
region of the world. We are trying to work together with our fellow
Canadians to make sure we benefit by the opportunities provided
on the Pacific rim.
APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference, will be held in
Vancouver, which is in my view the premier international city now
and a jewel on the Pacific rim. As a British Columbian, I am
pleased to see this city develop into a major commercial, cultural
and tourism centre for the Pacific rim but also for the world. Its role
as the gateway for the Asia-Pacific market will be showcased when
the Prime Minister hosts the heads of state for the APEC leaders'
summit in November of next year.
Our active participation in APEC over the last three years
ensures that the interests of British Columbia and Canadians are
fully taken into account in any decisions which strengthen
trans-Pacific trade. We are in constant contact with other nations of
the region in all sectors, private and public, so that the trade,
economic and cultural objectives in Asia-Pacific can be realized.
There will be a series of other meetings taking place next year
with respect to APEC. We have indicated that 1997 will be
Canada's year of the Pacific. I, for example, as Minister of
Transport, have invited my counterparts to a transportation
ministerial meeting to be held in British Columbia in June 1997,
the theme being ``transportation supporting trade and growth in
APEC''. I believe the involvement of the government in APEC is a
pretty clear indication that when it comes to looking to the future
and expanding opportunities we are doing what we can and doing it
well.
Team Canada has been talked about frequently. The trade
missions have been outstanding successes. Members will recollect
that the emphasis of those trade missions has been the Pacific rim.
In the red book we made a commitment to strengthen our trading
relationship with the Pacific rim and those trade missions were a
direct result of that red book commitment.
We have had Team Canada trade missions to China, India,
Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaya and they have proved to be
extremely successful in providing opportunity for British
Columbia and other Canadian businesses to obtain entry into other
markets.
(1240 )
The figures of billions of dollars of trade have been explained at
other times in the House. I need not go into them again. All I can
say about the specific British Columbia component is that the
4844
increase in trade with the Pacific throughout the country inevitably
benefits the city and the province best suited to take advantage of
its geographic position on the Pacific rim.
We are not, however, resting on our laurels with respect to trade.
We intend to have a further mission. The Prime Minister in January
will lead another trade mission to Asia. Once again I confidently
expect that British Columbian entrepreneurs and business people
will be among the most active of the people who accompany him.
The recognition of British Columbia as a fifth region of the
country is important.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Belatedly.
Mr. Anderson: The hon. member says ``belatedly''. I wonder
where they were when this issue was being debated.
Last December a bill was introduced which indicated how the
federal government would approach the constitutional amending
formula. It outlined a regionally sensitive formula, but it did not
include British Columbia. As a result of representations from
myself and my colleagues in the British Columbia caucus-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Anderson: The peanut gallery is making comments. They
did absolutely nothing to achieve the recognition of British
Columbia as a distinct region of the country. They did nothing at
all. Months later their complaints start.
The Prime Minister listened to our caucus. The result, for the
first time, was that British Columbia was recognized as a distinct
region for constitutional purposes. We are no longer lumped with
the other western provinces.
I would like to go back about 50 years and quote from Bruce
Hutchison's book The Unknown Country. He said: ``Crossing the
Rockies you are in a new country, as if you had crossed a national
frontier. Everyone feels it. Even the stranger feels the change in
tempo, in outlook and in attitude''. That was 50 years ago. Fifty
years later it was recognized by the Prime Minister. That is what
leadership is all about.
I would like to speak on transportation, tourism and
Asia-Pacific. The Reform Party's motion refers to British
Columbia's position as Canada's gateway to Asia-Pacific. I would
like to mention some of the policies, which are apparently
unknown to Reformers, in transportation and in other areas which
are helping to make British Columbia not only Canada's gateway,
but, as I indicated earlier, the hemisphere's gateway to
Asia-Pacific.
We are making it a priority to maximize the blessings of
geography, for example, with respect to Vancouver's airport. The
Reform Party is proposing today that we recognize B.C. as the
gateway to Asia. That has already been done. As the saying goes,
better late than never. It is better that the Reform Party recognize
now what has gone on over the last three years rather than continue
in the ignorance which its members have displayed to date.
Sweeping and bold changes were introduced by the government
which are liberating business in B.C. from red tape and
bureaucratic clutter. They are allowing businesses to compete
successfully with the very best of European, Asian and American
businesses. They are strategic, forward looking and they are
helping to position British Columbia as the international gateway.
Let me cite a few examples. The Vancouver international airport
is fast becoming the hub for passengers and cargo travelling
between Asia, Canada, the United States and Latin America. The
Vancouver international airport served more than 11 million
passengers in 1995. Its growth in that year out performed the
national averages in every single sector. Indications are that 1996
will be even better, with the airport reporting a 21 per cent increase
in passenger handling as of the end of July. This is not happening
by chance. Policies laid down by the government are making it
possible. Open skies, signed in February of 1995, is an excellent
example of how policy helps the private sector.
(1245)
It is not the impediment to growth that the Reform Party is
indicating today. Rather, it is a landmark new initiative which gives
Canadian air carriers unlimited route rights from any point in
Canada to any point in the United States. It provides reciprocal
rights for American carriers across Canada except with certain
limitations in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal where there is a
phase-in period.
Vancouver, as much as anywhere in the country, has seized the
opportunity this government created with the open skies accord. To
date, approximately 25 new routes between Vancouver
international airport and the U.S. have been introduced. That is a
massive leap in traffic at a time when most airports are
experiencing far slower growth.
Air Canada has added services from Glasgow, Osaka, Paris,
Seoul and Zurich to Vancouver over the past three years, as well as
the Canadian international flights which are long established and
better known.
In addition, we have been negotiating with many of the countries
of the Asia Pacific region to establish new services. These include
Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines. The Philippines only
two or three weeks ago established a daily service to Vancouver.
The distance from Hong Kong to Chicago is almost 1,000
kilometres shorter when you use Vancouver instead of San
Francisco as the gateway. We are making sure those advantages are
realized.
The advantages of the new airport policy have again been seized
enthusiastically by Vancouver. We now have in Vancouver one of
the most successful modern airports in the world. I toured it
4845
recently with the American secretary of transportation and it was
pleasant to hear his compliments on this score.
The port of Vancouver is another extremely important element in
the transportation system. In terms of tonnage it is among the top
three ports in North America and is the major generator of jobs,
growth and economic benefit in Vancouver.
The port's activities generate more than 10,700 full time jobs,
and that is directly. The government looked at ports, looked at
Vancouver, looked at the other ports of the country and then asked
how can we make this better. And in fact, we did.
We want to ensure more local control, more businesslike
approaches and less red tape. All this is taking place under the new
marine policy. We will have greater efficiency, cut costs and we
will give communities more control over their ports. That will
allow Vancouver to further take advantage of its geographical and
ice free port position.
Last year the port of Vancouver handled approximately 71.5
million tonnes of cargo from over 10,000 foreign and domestic
vessels. Cargo worth more than $29 billion went through the port's
20 major terminals to and from more than 90 different countries.
With the introduction of Bill C-44 by this government, the
subsequent years are likely to be a great deal better and stronger.
The cruise passenger industry is another area of great success.
Once again positive policies of the government have contributed to
that success.
Among other examples I will mention is the customs accord
which was signed at the same time as the air accord in February
1995. We are expanding and improving the facilities at the border,
thus making travel easier, thus making cross border trade a great
deal better.
I could give figures on tourism but I think they are well known.
Tourism has dramatically expanded. The gain from this tourism
increase to the Canadian and British Columbian economies has
been dramatic.
(1250)
I might add that the party opposite certainly did not support the
Prime Minister when he tripled the amount of federal funds that
went into tourism promotion; indeed it opposed it. Now it sees the
results, a greatly expanded economy, and naturally it is trying to
swim on board.
Specific B.C. issues have made British Columbia's economy
more effective, more competitive and more stable for investment
from overseas. As my time is limited, let mention three examples:
softwood lumber, B.C. Tel and the Triumph decision.
Softwood lumber is an area where we heard next to nothing from
the Reform Party and yet a critically important issue to British
Columbia. We have had over the last 10 years constant
U.S.-Canadian bickering over softwood lumber exports, and
Canadian exporters posted approximately $800 million worth of
bonds and cash as countervailing duties just to get their products
into the United States.
This government brought an end to all of that and we now have
the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement, announced in April
of this year. The U.S. has now made the unprecedented
commitment not to launch any trade actions on softwood lumber
exports from Canada for the next five years. Thus stability for the
industry, thus an industry which is nowhere in the country more
important than in British Columbia, a definite economic gain.
Softwood lumber exports are 65 per cent from British Columbia
to the United States. The remaining provinces have the remaining
35 per cent.
On the quota, province by province, British Columbia lumber
companies receive the initial allocation of 59 per cent, which was
welcomed by the industry both publicly and in private
communications. I think the Reform Party probably now
understands that and once again would like belatedly to get on
board.
With regard to the B.C. Tel issue, an exception was made for
British Columbia telephone which allowed the national policy to
work effectively and which satisfied the important considerations
of British Columbia at that time.
Similarly for Triumph, the research facility at the University of
British Columbia, once again steady funding over the period, an
opportunity for that to do its very best and to expand the economy
of our province.
In summary, we have a clear example here of government
policies which have led to improved economic conditions, an
improved position for British Columbia. Our only problem we face
in this House is that we have 24 Reform MPs from British
Columbia who do not seem to understand the importance of
working constructively to make sure these advantages are made
even greater by working collectively in the years ahead.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will try to keep my question very short because I know a
lot of my colleagues would like to ask a question of the minister. It
is not often that we get the opportunity.
My question deals with a specific case which I referred to a few
minutes ago in the House. What we have seen this last weekend is
the Alaska highway achieve its rightful place in world recognition
as the 16th international historic civil engineering landmark. It is
now in the company of the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, the
Panama Canal, et cetera.
This minister did not deem it important enough to show up. This
minister did not deem it important enough to even send a letter.
This minister did not deem it important enough to send even a
message that could be read at the ceremony on Saturday. I wonder,
if this is an example of how he treats the importance of British
Columbian issues?
4846
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it shows the difference between
Reformers on that side and the Liberals on this side. They are
concerned with pomp and ceremonies. We are concerned with
actual concrete results to achieve an improved economy for British
Columbia. It is a simple example of the difference between our two
parties. They go for show, we go for substance on this side of the
House.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister says everything is just wonderful in B.C. and everything
that has gone right is because of his personal intervention.
The minister seems to avoid any public accountability in B.C.
for the actions of his party. He was a guest on the David Mitchell
radio show a couple of weeks ago, but he only took one phone call
from the public on the open line. That one phone call was
extremely critical of his government and its policies.
(1255)
There is another major talk show host in Vancouver, Rafe Mair,
who constantly requests the minister to come on the show to
answer questions and take an open line to the people of B.C.
I would like the minister to answer why he will not go on the
Rafe Mair show or whether he will give a commitment in the
House today that he will go on the Rafe Mair show and take open
line in order to be accountable for the actions of his party in
government.
I would also like the minister to comment on an article that was
written by Barbara Yaffe in the Saturday edition of the Vancouver
Sun. That article mentions a special report prepared for the
intergovernmental affairs minister by the member for Simcoe
North who recently travelled throughout B.C. and discovered that
``the people in B.C. are feeling a sense of alienation and are
mistrustful of Ottawa''.
The minister was called for comment by Ms. Yaffe and he
declined to return the calls. Sure there is a feeling of alienation and
miscommunication. The minister is responsible for it.
Why did he not return the call and could he please comment on
the report prepared by the member for Simcoe North which
indicates clearly that there is major alienation in B.C.
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Mr. Mitchell's
hotline program, the hon. member is apparently unaware in his
innocence of these matters that it is the host who determines how
many questions go on the air, not the guest. That deals with that
issue.
With respect to Mr. Mair, for whom he appears to be the agent, I
have been on that program at least twice. I do not object to going on
there again, but there is a certain predictability of that program.
There is a certain predictability of the audience which makes me
feel that I am not truly speaking to ordinary, average British
Columbians when I am on his program.
The Reform Party, which is sinking so rapidly in the public
opinion of British Columbia, should begin to understand the
message I am giving it. Wake up. Find out where the real majority
of British Columbians stand. They are not restricted to the audience
of one or another hotline radio program.
With respect to Barbara Yaffe, I have not read her column. I do
not recollect receiving a call from her on Friday. I will check my
file. There may be dozens of calls a day from the press at particular
times when there are issues such a WestJet and others which take
the time of a minister. However, I will check. The normal course of
events for Barbara Yaffe as a columnist in Vancouver is that the
calls are all returned to her.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I noticed the minister likes to take credit for a lot of issues
with regard to the deficit. We should perhaps talk about the record
of the government.
Indeed the deficit has gone down by $25 billion during this term.
However, new government revenues received from the taxpayers
have gone up $25 billion. So what are all these government
cutbacks about? They are about paying more interest on the debt.
The Liberals do not want to talk about the debt, but it will exceed
$600 billion next month and will be by their own estimates $619
billion next year.
If the Reform Party's platform had been adopted by this
government we would have already balanced the books and we
would be starting to see no more cuts in program delivery. The
program delivery cuts we suggested, you are in many cases
exceeding in what you are doing and we very much question the
priority-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind members to direct
all interventions through the Chair, not directly to one another
across the floors. I will allow the hon. member for North
Island-Powell River to conclude his comments and his question,
please.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I regret that. I lost myself there.
(1300 )
The minister talked about the veto situation in British Columbia.
It is very clear that British Columbians did not want a veto for
anyone when it came to constitutional change. If the minister wants
to know why half of the British Columbian Reform members voted
against a veto for British Columbia it was because we were
4847
opposed to the whole concept of vetoes which in the long run is
going to make constitutional change very difficult indeed.
I was personally involved in the softwood lumber dispute. I got
into a debate in the media with the member for Kenora-Rainy
River in Ontario. I assure the minister that we were talking to
industry. We were taking an active interest. We were putting some
Ontario members on notice that British Columbia had a strong
agenda. All the government did was to do what was correct and
fair, which is unusual. Some things have been done which have
been fair. They were done that way simply because there are 24
Reform members from the province of British Columbia.
A further observation is that the minister certainly enjoys taking
credit for some of the initiatives that were carried forward by the
previous Minister of Transport, the best minister this government
has had.
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know quite where to start.
Let us start with half of the Reformers voting for the veto and
half voting against it. The hon. member explains why half voted
against it, but he does not explain why half of his colleagues voted
the other way. That is as mixed up as the Reform Party usually is on
most important issues affecting British Columbia.
With respect to the debt and deficit, let me explain again to the
member that revenues are up. Why? Because the economic
situation is better and revenues go up at times like that. This is a
lesson in economics which apparently has missed the hon. member
and indeed the whole Reform Party.
Had we adopted Reform's policies, we would not have had that
increase in economic activity. We would not have had that increase
in revenue and we would not have been able to cut the deficit as this
government has done. It is perfectly clear that he had better
understand a little better what the issue is with respect to deficits
and how one can tackle it effectively without creating a
recessionary situation which would put millions more Canadians
out of work, which was their policy.
With respect to softwood lumber, I am glad to hear what he has
said about his party being in favour of what happened because we
did not hear it when it counted, which was before the decision was
made. Now he has corrected the record. We say: ``Fine. Thank you
for joining with us in making sure that we got that particular matter
dealt with''.
The basic problem, if I may point this out to the House at this
time, is that in the Reform Party, British Columbia members
simply do not get a fair shake. They have four times as many
members in this House as the Liberal caucus which has six from
British Columbia, but Reform's Alberta members are constantly
dominating what goes on in that party.
An article in the Edmonton Journal talks about the B.C.
members being left out in the cold in the assignment of duties. It
talks about a specific member, the chairman of the B.C. caucus,
who said that finance, criminal justice matters and the future of
social programs are the most important items on the national
agenda for the next few years. They are key issues where Reform
hopes to score points and Alberta Reformers were awarded all of
these prestige critic positions by the hon. member from Calgary,
the leader of that party.
The chairman of the B.C. caucus went on to say that it is needed
to make the hon. member from Calgary, the leader of his party,
realize the need for more regional balance. ``We do not want to be
run by one province. Appearances in politics is everything''.
(1305)
This is one of the basic problems that we from British Columbia,
all 32 of us, as a group face in the House of Commons. There are
six on the government side and 26 on the opposition side, 24 of
whom are in the Reform Party, the third party. Those Reform
members do not get a look in when the Alberta people are dividing
the critic's positions or the opportunities for questioning in this
House. I have here all the information on issue after issue affecting
British Columbians where they have sat silent because the Alberta
members dominate their caucus.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would like to commend my colleague from North
Island-Powell River for putting forward today's opposition
motion on behalf of the Reform Party.
We will use the time allocated to the official opposition to show
how, at the eastern end, on the Quebec side, the federal
government's malfeasance and attitudes have also impeded
progress, especially in Quebec.
For the benefit of the people listening to us, I will read this
motion:
That this House support British Columbia as Canada's gateway to the Asia Pacific
and recognize British Columbia as a major economic power in the region, and as a
consequence, this House condemn the federal government for impeding progress in
Western Canada by its management of the affairs of the nation, exemplified by the
government's mishandling of the west coast fishery, Coast Guard services, the
closure of military bases at Aldergrove and Chilliwack, B.C., the elimination of
federal Ports Canada policing in B.C., the movement of grain to Prince Rupert, B.C.
and other issues detrimental to the state of the nation.
You will agree with me that, in several instances, if the word
``Quebec'' were substituted for the words ``Western Canada'' or
``nation'', one could come to practically the same conclusions as
4848
the hon. member for North Island-Powell River. I will address the
part of his motion dealing with the Coast Guard, which could lead
to other federal issues that have hurt Quebec and its economy for
some 30 years.
I am very happy to participate in this debate on the Coast Guard,
among other things, as an associate member of the fisheries and
oceans committee, as the member for Trois-Rivières, which is a
port city, a maritime city, and also as the official opposition's critic
on regional development.
The Coast Guard has launched a full-scale attack against what
could be called Quebec's overall economy. It is leading a frontal
attack against St. Lawrence Seaway, its ports and those who use
them and it is also carrying out an assault that is more deceitful,
hypocritical and irresponsible in economic terms against ordinary
citizens, ordinary Quebec consumers unlucky enough-as we will
see in a moment-to own a pedal-boat, a kayak or a rowboat and to
use it on one of Quebec's lakes or little rivers in their free time.
We will start our review of these two issues by looking at the
Coast Guard's plan to charge users of the St. Lawrence River and
the St. Lawrence Seaway. A decision was made a few months ago,
at the beginning of the year, to charge users of the St. Lawrence in
three ways: first, for the use of navigational aids such as beacons,
buoys and telecommunications, most of which are managed by the
Canadian Coast Guard; second, as early as this fall, for ice
removal, for the use of icebreakers and: third, for the dredging of
the ports on the St. Lawrence and the channels leading from each
port to the St. Lawrence.
(1310)
The project was the subject of what is termed consultation at the
Coast Guard. The IBI report, according to all those who appeared
before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, involved
bogus consultation; it is not even worth the paper it is written on,
for all its irresponsibility and biased questions responses.
That was the position at Fisheries and Oceans and at the Coast
Guard, but following strong representations made by the official
opposition, the minister finally had to admit that the fisheries and
oceans committee should be consulted and users invited to at least
express their views publicly, which was done.
About fifty users from across Canada came to testify, 75 per cent
of whom requested a moratorium, in part because, the IBI study did
not include an impact assessment to determine how a decision to
impose a tariff would affect the users. In many cases, the
shipowners using the St. Lawrence River are foreign shipowners,
and they will now be charged for the use of the river, which will
seriously jeopardize the competitiveness of ports along the St.
Lawrence.
There has been no impact study, although the industry
concerned, the stakeholders were prepared to participate in a joint
government-user study. Instead, the government took a unilateral,
arbitrary approach, deciding to impose, as a first step, new tariffs
for navigational aids.
Governments, and not the least significant ones, namely the
governments of Ontario and Quebec, reacted very strongly against
this. But as far as I know, while the Quebec Minister of Transport,
Mr. Brassard, who is responsible for this issue, has repeatedly
asked to meet the federal minister responsible. No meeting has
taken place. This goes to show the arbitrary way this government
goes about things and the true extent of its willingness to
co-operate.
Another decision was made later on. Contrary to the decision
made at the time when a uniform tariff was being considered, that
is to say a single tariff applied throughout Canada, from coast to
coast, the government gave in to lobby groups from across the
country and decided to divided the country in three regions.
There is a specific objective: user fees. The Coast Guard has a
mandate to come up with X millions of dollars as its contribution in
the fight to bring down the Canadian government's deficit. Nobody
has come right out and said so-it is the Coast Guard's share.
With all of Canada facing a real problem, they decided to carve
up this vast, wonderful, united country into three large regions: the
West; central Canada, meaning the St. Lawrence River and the
Great Lakes; and the East, that is the Maritimes, with the Port of
Halifax obviously being the focal point. They have carved Canada
up into three large regions with three kinds of user fees.
There is one fee for the West, one for central Canada, and one for
the East. As if by chance, the central region, including Quebec and
Ontario, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes, is being
asked to contribute the most. Forty-eight per cent of the revenues
from these fees will come from the central region, 30 per cent from
the East and 22 per cent from the West.
The concept of user fees being proposed, furthermore, is truly
astonishing. Not only were there no real consultations, but it has
been decided that people travelling on the St. Lawrence use the
services of the Coast Guard.
(1315)
In not one case has it ever been shown that any services are
actually provided, but the Coast Guard has decided to charge fees
anyway.
The result is that, for North Shore ports, such as Baie-Comeau,
Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier, a single buoy, an aid to navigation, will
cost users $5 million. This is a small example of what happens
when the powers that be fail to consult the client where the concept
of user fees is involved.
4849
The overall result is that, without any impact study, it seems
that, according to users, there is a serious danger, given the very
fierce competition that exists, that the competitiveness of ports on
the St. Lawrence, and even in the Great Lakes, but especially ports
on the St. Lawrence, will be jeopardized by the additional costs
resulting from these new rates, which will put St. Lawrence ports
at a disadvantage compared to ports in eastern Canada, particularly
Halifax, ports on the American eastern seaboard, and even ports
on the Mississippi.
There is talk in certain sectors, and not the least important ones,
and this view is supported up by SODES, the Société de
développement économique du Saint-Laurent, that the existing fees
could double with the introduction of this new scheme.
Do you know what SODES is? It is not some little backwater
special interest group. It has 110 members. They come from
practically everywhere in Canada, although mostly from Quebec,
given the name. Its members include: the Association de l'industrie
de l'aluminium du Québec-all the aluminum smelters in Quebec
belong to SODES-the Association des armateurs du
Saint-Laurent, the Association des industries forestières du
Québec, all the pulp and paper industries, and the Business
Development Bank of Canada. The federal government belongs to
SODES, and SODES feels that there is a likelihood of the fees
doubling. Canada Steamship Lines is a member-and I hardly need
draw you a picture to show that its federal connections are not very
distant ones. St. Lawrence Cement, the entire Quebec City Urban
Community is a member, as is the Quebec-Cartier Mining
Company, Trois-Rivières grain elevators, in my riding, le Groupe
Desgagnés, le Groupe Océan. Industry Canada is also a member of
SODES.
SODES is, therefore, very concerned about the effects which are,
to use its members' own words, potentially devastating for the
economy of Quebec, the cities and ports along the St. Lawrence.
Industry Canada is a stakeholder in the SODES evaluation. The
Quebec Maritime Institute, Lavery & de Billy-a major law
firm-, Logistec Corporation, MIL Davie, Oceanex. Fisheries and
Oceans Canada is also a member of SODES. The consistency of
this government is quite evident.
Irving Oil too is a member. No less than Irving, of the fine
province of New Brunswick, whose owner, let me remind
you,-there must certainly be an element of family trust in this
story-threatened to cut his children out of the will if they did not
move out of Canada to avoid paying tax, to avoid his estate's
ending up in Canada's tax coffers. Irving Oil is a member of
SODES, in brackets, and is also threatened by the federal plans.
The central St. Lawrence pilots, the port of Montreal, the port of
Sept-Iles, the port of Trois-Rivières, the port of the Saguenay, to
name just a few. The Shipping Federation of Canada, the Société du
parc industriel et portuaire de Bécancour, Transport Canada-also
a member-, Ultramar, the City of Montreal, Quebec City. I could
go on and on; there are 110 in all.
(1320)
So this is just the first step. We are talking about navigational
aids only, because more information is available on this particular
subject. It will be necessary to recover $20 million in 1996, out of
projected $180 million to be recovered between now and the year
2000: $20 million this year, $40 million in each of the two
following years, and then $60 million annually, the other items
being deicing, the use of icebreakers and dredging of harbours.
Another source of irritation to users is the fact that, contrary to
what was called for, there was no cost cutting by the Coast Guard
itself, which might have reduced fees to users.
According to our information, the Coast Guard has never
embarked on an exercise to streamline its operations, which would
have made its case more convincing. We must realize that putting
the burden on the shoulders of users weakens the competitive
position of St. Lawrence ports and makes it less attractive for
shippers to do business with us. The cost-cutting exercise never
took place. As I pointed out earlier, there was no explanation of the
actual services the Coast Guard offers its users on a day to day
basis.
One of the points that, in my opinion, illustrates the disastrous
consequences of lack of co-operation between Fisheries and
Oceans and users concerns the way fees are charged, which is a
very important aspect. A decision is made to charge fees, but how
will this be done? Apparently there were two methods known to
those in the industry. The first one is based on the size of the ship. I
will give you a fictional tonnage: a ship that has a tonnage of
30,000 always has a tonnage of 30,000, wherever it may be.
The other method is according to the tonnage of cargo unloaded,
which makes all the difference and is a sore point between ports of
destination and ports of call. In this case, we have a major port of
destination, the port of Montreal, and a major port of call, the port
of Halifax. If we take the method based on the size of the ship, all
ports are equal, but if the fee is based on tonnage unloaded, this
works out to the advantage of the port where the unloading takes
place.
So of course the port of Halifax has an advantage if the fee was
based on the tonnage of cargo unloaded. So what was the Coast
Guard's decision? It decided that fees would be based on the
unloaded cargo tonnage, thus obviously favouring the port of
Halifax at the expense of Montreal. Another good decision
designed to favour Quebec's economy, right?
An additional consequence is that, again according to
calculations made by SODES, which I mentioned earlier, these
costs could reach one dollar per ton. There was so little
consultation-and
4850
SODES is a responsible organization, as we saw earlier-that,
according to the Coast Guard, these additional costs could result in
an increase of ten cents per ton.
There is therefore, as we can see, a huge gap between the
estimates of two organizations that are supposed to be responsible,
competent and capable of issuing an opinion. Someone may be
wrong, but this discrepancy definitely shows that there was no
co-operation.
A direct consequence of this is that, should things remain the
same, the north shore region, including Baie-Comeau, Sept-Îles,
Port-Cartier and other ports, not using icebreakers since there is not
enough ice build up in that area, will be charged a fee for the use of
icebreakers, even though there is no need. This will be the case
because it was decided that, in such and such regions, under such
and such conditions, it will cost so much money for the use of
icebreakers. People are very concerned because, again, this
situation will adversely affect these ports, in terms of their ability
to compete with other ports.
(1325)
What the Coast Guard did last spring shows that it did not know
where it was going. For example, over two weeks, from the end of
February to the middle of March, its overall fee schedule rose from
$3.40 to $4.48, an increase of $1.08 or 33 per cent per gross ton.
This is very important as it, in my opinion, contributes to this
whole exercise's lack of credibility with users, because every time
the Coast Guard is pressured by a lobby group into changing its fee
schedules or procedures, it just so happens that the changes are
made at the expense of Quebec's management and infrastructure. A
$1.08 increase over two weeks is quite impressive when we are
talking about three or four dollars.
Another practical consequence is that, according to what we
have learned, a 25,000-ton ship will have to pay $112,000 a year
just for navigational aids. Users will eventually also have to pay for
ice breaking and dredging operations. Do you not think that this
represents a serious threat to us all, at least in Quebec? Since all
this is being managed from Ottawa, since Quebec has no say in
these decisions, Quebec's overall economy may be seriously
compromised by such actions if we fail to mobilize more against
them.
Since I have only two minutes left, much to my surprise, I will
quickly move on to the other decision made by the Coast Guard,
which is a beauty. I am talking about recreational boaters.
The government has in the works an elaborate mandatory
registration process for small craft: canoes, kayaks, rowboats and
pedal boats. The fee will vary from $5 to $35 per craft and covers
training courses and a penalty system. Again, the consultation was
bogus-that is what we were told-strangely similar to the
consultation process involving the users of the St. Lawrence River.
The great excuse given for meddling in this area is public safety.
But how will paying a $25 fee before they set foot in their boats
make recreational boaters more safety conscious? I think this is a
relevant question. How will this make pleasure boaters more safety
conscious, especially since this is based on the principle of user
fees?
Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for lakes. It is pretty
outrageous, in fact, for Fisheries and Oceans to look after the lakes
and small rivers in Quebec, while the Coast Guard has jurisdiction
over the St. Lawrence River, the Richelieu River, the Ottawa River
and the Saguenay River. Those who vacation in Quebec, who spend
money in Quebec and Canada, who take a rowboat or a pedal boat
along any small river or lake in Canada are being obliged to pay up.
They are being charged a fee while the owners of sumptuous boats
are not being bothered. They have to register their boats, but can do
so for free. Yet, they are the ones really who make the most use of
the buoys, communications facilities and locks.
Do you know how much it apparently costs to move a 30-footer
through a lock? The rate is 50 cents per foot. This means a mere
$15 to get a lock opened. But they want to tax the individual who
enjoys a ride on a pedal boat along the shore of a small lake. That is
what it is, a tax, a disguised tax, which-and I say this as the critic
for regional development-penalizes Quebecers and Canadians
who vacation in Quebec and Canada. Perhaps some thought should
be give to that, to how this affects those who spend at home instead
of abroad. They are being penalized by this anti-regional
development measure, among other things.
I could go on about this, but my time has expired.
(1330)
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for his speech. There
is some commonality in some of the things my colleague is
speaking about.
One of the concerns is the whole question of user fees. It has
been identified that Canadians are paying more now in user fees for
government services than they are paying for GST. We are dealing
with a level of government, the federal government, that basically
collects one dollar in two of all taxes in Canada. To me these user
fees appear to be a new form of taxation that is not called taxation
in some cases. It is easy to buy into the user fee principle as long as
the fee is used for appropriate purposes.
4851
One of the concerns that has been identified in British Columbia
is that we now have a commercial marine industry that as of June
is paying commercial marine fees in a major way. There is the
recreational fee the member was also referring to which will be
coming into play probably next year. It has been deferred. We
know from insiders that this is another tax or revenue grab. It will
be packaged in such a way that this is a necessary user fee in order
to ensure that recreational boats and recreational boaters are
appropriately licensed and controlled in some measure. Is that how
the member sees it?
Another thing that concerns us is the sense of priorization that is
coming forward. The safety aspects in the Pacific region that deal
with public safety, the cuts that are being made that have serious
ramifications are the rough equivalent of $7 million annually. I am
not talking about fisheries management here. I am only talking
public safety, the coast guard, search and rescue. At the same time
we see the minister of heritage spending an unbudgeted amount but
what is reported to be $23 million to give away Canadian flags. I
would ask the member to comment on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I think that, in the case of recreational boaters, this is
indeed a disguised tax. It is ill-advised to implement such a
measure. In the case of Quebec, it might make sense if, at least, it
only applied to those waters, including the St. Lawrence River,
where the Coast Guard is present.
However, supposedly for reasons of public safety, this applies to
areas where the Coast Guard never set foot and does not provide
any service. There is something which I did not mention earlier, but
which I find very annoying. I am referring to the purported benefits
mentioned by the Coast Guard to justify the registration of boats
and the implementation of user fees. As regards these benefits, the
Coast Guard issued the following press release on April 30, 1996:
Benefits: The establishment of a computerized system to store up-to-date
information on boats allowing the organizations responsible for search and rescue
operations and for implementing the act, to have quick access to reliable data, 24
hours a day. This system would greatly increase their effectiveness during
investigations relating to theft and other offences, and to search and rescue
operations. All those who use Quebec waters would benefit from this improvement.
(1335)
I am certainly in favour of law and order, but I see imminent
dangers in letting everyone, including Fisheries and Oceans and the
Coast Guard, monitor the public. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is
giving himself a mandate to oversee the public and, if we let it
happen, there is a risk that we will find ourselves in a quasi-police
state, where any stakeholder with any kind of power can, given the
current sophisticated technology, find out a great deal about his
neighbour's private life.
It will be possible, thanks to the rowboats and pedal boats, to
follow the comings and goings of citizens around the clock. The
intention may be good but, as we know, there are a lot of people
who can manipulate this sort of information. Some people know
how to make lists. Therefore, a debate should be held regarding this
issue. As a parliamentarian, I am increasingly annoyed by this type
of behaviour.
This is a tax, hypocritically disguised. We are witnessing, as
with gun control, a tighter control over the public. There should at
least be a real public debate to find out what kind of society we
want to live in, given the existing dangers. As we know, studies
show that some dangers exist because of sophisticated means
involved in this issue.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to start my debate today with a question: How does the
Liberal government feel about B.C.? I would also like to answer
that question from the perspective of a B.C. member of Parliament.
The government likes our taxes and it likes to be able to use
them, with B.C. as a have province, to provide equalization
payments to the have not provinces. It seems to like to hold its
conventions in Vancouver, I think for very obvious reasons, and it
likes to visit us in the winter. In fact, the Prime Minister is
attending an international conference in Vancouver in November of
this year.
How does the government repay us? Well, among other things, it
mismanages our fishery. I will refer to the 1996 spring hearings
which were really a charade. I would like to read into the record a
letter from the sports fishing industry in Victoria, British Columbia
to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Referring to those
hearings, the fishermen said:
There is no satisfaction in this outcome, only regret that the concerns brought
forward by the sport fishing community were not taken more seriously by senior
DFO officials. While we appreciate the audience you gave to our concerns last
spring, the outcome was a rejection of the alternatives which were presented to you.
In addition, no other options were considered by your ministry which could have
mitigated the economic impact for the sport fishery and ultimately the consequences
that British Columbia and its coastal communities are suffering.
The Liberal government has a habit of situating its hearings. It
seeks to have people appear before its committees who are on line
with Liberal policies and therefore will follow the strategy that the
Liberal government has already determined. There are a number of
instances of this but I will leave it at that for now.
The Liberal government has also moved to remove the last
regular army presence in British Columbia. I will speak more to
that in a few moments.
4852
Despite the fact that Vancouver is recognized and acknowledged
as one of the major ports through which drugs and contraband are
imported into Canada and thence to the United States, the federal
government has decided to do away with the port police at the
port of Vancouver. We question the wisdom of that.
The government has replaced manned light stations, or are in the
process of doing so, with automated stations. I would like to refer
to the views of a tugboat captain, Robert D. McCoy, who said:
``Having spent the best part of 52 years sailing on this coast, 30 of
them as a tugboat master, I feel I am well qualified to speak on this
subject. I am as protective toward my tax dollars as any Canadian.
Automated lights cannot give visual reports on sea conditions or
the visibility in the vicinity of the stations. These alone are of
paramount importance to mariners and bush pilots. They cannot
see flares nor can they render assistance of any kind. My personal
experience with reports from automated buoys is that their data are
sporadic and at times unreliable. To put the Canadian marine
community at the mercy of a satellite system operated by the U.S.
department of commerce is to me questionable at best''.
(1340)
Of late the word is that we are going to reduce the coast guard
presence on the west coast. Again, this is another reduction which
will dramatically impact the safety of the citizens of the west coast.
I will have more to say on that in a moment.
My time is restricted and therefore I will limit my comments to
light stations, the coast guard and the military.
With regard to light stations, Reform is in support of
economizing but certainly not at the price of people's safety and
welfare. The B.C. coastline is unlike any other in the world, save
possibly the coastline of Norway.
We cannot compare the B.C. coastline to that of Washington,
Oregon or California. We cannot compare it to the coastline of
Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Newfoundland. Its deep
fiords, steep descents into the water and rocky coastline is unique.
Other than perhaps Alaska and Norway, there is no comparable
coastline in the world. Therefore studies which show that other
areas have divested themselves of manned light stations are
interesting but not relevant to B.C.
The coast of B.C. has extremely heavy traffic. I will deal more
with that in a few moments as it bears on the subject as well. A
human presence is required. I can think of two recent incidents.
One was last spring at the north end of Vancouver Island where a
ship was foundering with two people aboard. The only way the
message got out and assistance was rendered was the observation
of the light station keeper at the north end of Vancouver Island.
My colleague has referred to a second incident which happened
this past weekend. I would like to read from the Globe and Mail
report on it: ``Bella Bella, B.C. U.S. pilot John Hilliard has a
lighthouse keeper to thank for being plucked from the wing of his
sinking aircraft after he crashed near this community on the central
B.C. coast. With some direction from the Canadian Coast Guard
and a lighthouse keeper on McInnes Island, he was rescued
unharmed''.
It has been plainly obvious that there are alternatives available.
The B.C. government has offered to become involved and it is my
contention that the federal government has not taken this
intervention seriously and considered it enough. The policy to
unman the light stations needs to be re-examined promptly.
I would like to move now to the Canadian Coast Guard. The
coast guard budget was previously reduced, as were all government
departments. We are not fighting against that. Now the government
is proposing even further cuts to the coast guard in the Pacific
region. It is talking about a 35 per cent reduction, or about $31
million and 360 staff, over the coming four years.
For the 1997 year commencing on April 1 the fleet budget will
be reduced by $7 million, reducing the coast guard vessels from 39
to 22. That is a reduction of 17 vessels out of the coast guard fleet
on the west coast. There are also plans to multitask and cross train
the crews to provide support to both coast guard and DFO programs
and the reassignment of coast guard vessels to fisheries duties. We
will not argue with any of that. Cross training people and double
tasking them if it does not affect their prime capability is a good
program.
We are concerned about the safety of air and marine traffic using
west coast corridors. In my own case, and I will be referring to it in
a bit more detail later, we are concerned about the safety of
students, residents and tourists which is in question as a result of
this policy.
The coast guard is responsible for many programs. Every one of
them is affected by these cuts. My chief concerns today are in the
area of search and rescue, environmental response, that is pollution
from shipping, and direct spill response management or
supervision of private sector clean-up. Last, the area I am
concerned about is the loss of coast guard influence on boating
safety; that is, to provide information, advice, inspections and
demonstrations. The coast guard is also responsible for providing
navigation aids, buoys, beacons and other conventional marine
aids.
(1345)
The decision has been made to discontinue visual aids based on
the presumption that the GPS, the global positioning system, will
overtake them and make them redundant. However, our neighbours
to the south have had GPS in place for a number of years and they
4853
have made no such move. They have left the visual buoys, the
visual shore markers and the long range navigation system in place.
In my region many U.S. boaters who come up to sail in the Gulf
Islands, one of the most beautiful spots in the world, are navigating
on Esso road maps. I guess we could say they are not taking enough
precautions, but surely we cannot ignore the fact that they are in
Canadian waters and it is our responsibility to provide support to
them if an emergency should arise.
The reductions result in an increased response time for search
and rescue emergencies, an increased response time and reduced
capability in the case of oil spills and a reduced effective response
area for the coast guard in general.
The total staff reduction has not yet been explained in detail. My
concern is how much of the reduction will take place at the tail and
how much will take place at the tooth. Surely we could do away
with some bureaucrats and keep the coast guard at the sharp end,
available to do the job.
Local government and citizens have provided me with very
strong and very irate feedback. The letters protesting the relocation
of the Ganges station, which is on Saltspring Island, come from the
capital regional district, school district 64, which is the Gulf
Islands district, the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, the
Gulf Islands Teachers Association, the Saltspring Island fire
department, Local 788 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees
and many more from individuals on Saltspring Island and other
affected B.C. coastal areas.
Yearly traffic in B.C. waters surrounding the Gulf Islands
consists of a quarter of a million pleasure craft, which is increasing
every year, 6,000 fishing vessels, more than 3,000 merchant ships
and increasing traffic from our neighbours to the south. On an
average summer weekend there will be 30,000 pleasure boats in
B.C. waters. Added to this are chartered seaplanes, or float planes,
bringing in tourists from a number of areas.
I do not want to lobby for a local coast guard on Saltspring
Island, but I do know that these cuts have had a detrimental impact
on the presence of the coast guard on the west coast.
This is an area of very heavy traffic. It is the heart of the ocean
playground. There is a plethora of ocean and tourist traffic in the
area. There is an abundance of sport fishing. Yachts love it. Tourists
and float planes are present at all times. Shipping lanes run through
the area and many deep sea vessels anchor in and around the Gulf
Islands waiting for authority to enter the port of Vancouver.
The area also houses the Victoria international airport. There are
twelve ferry terminals. Ferry traffic between the mainland and
Vancouver Island alone consists of more than 20 million
passengers annually. There are innumerable marinas and yacht
clubs. The area is teeming with boats the year round.
(1350 )
The area around the Gulf Islands and Powell River have become
two of the most popular scuba diving destinations in Canada.
Unhappily, in the case of decompression sickness in scuba divers
minutes count. It is vital that the coast guard be there to provide
immediate response if an incident does occur.
Unlike many communities in the rest of Canada, students
attending the high school in the Gulf Islands on Saltspring Island
use school boats rather than school busses. There are three school
boats operating out of Ganges, the Scholarship, the Graduate and
the Ganges Hawk. They operate twice a day over 190 days a year,
starting at 6.45 in the morning when they pick up the students and
deliver them to school and returning at 3.30 in the afternoon, taking
them back to the islands where they live. Obviously during the
winter the return journey takes place after dark. Therefore there are
added hazards.
Our gulf enjoys a Mediterranean climate but the water
temperature is not very variable. It goes from about 4 degrees in the
summer to about 2 degrees in the winter. Estimates are that an
individual in that water will lose consciousness in between 30
minutes to a maximum of 45 minutes. This depends on the
condition of the individual, the attitude and the what the individual
is wearing at the time. Additionally, the area is subject to strong
tides, rocky shores and shoals, and in winter the waters are subject
to fog, storms and darkness. It is a lovely area, but one which
people need to respect rather than simply take lightly.
The Gulf Islands school district also depends on the coast guard
locally for safety training of students travelling by the water taxi
and for doing safety inspections on those taxis. The requirement is
that they be there in case of an accident.
There is talk that the Ganges station will be relocated to Victoria.
When that happens it will reduce the response capabilities
substantially. This is an issue of cutting the sharp end rather than
the wagging tail.
When this happens the proposal is to replace the present coast
guard vessel Skua in Ganges with an roving vessel called the Atlin
Post. The Skua is capable of speeds up to 24 knots. The Atlin Post
is an 8 knot vessel. It is going to journey between Nanaimo and the
Gulf Islands. If it should be at the northern end of its sweep when
an emergency happens there is just no way the vessel is going to be
able to respond in time. It may take two and half to three hours for
the coast guard to get from that position to where it is required.
Moving the Skua to Victoria is placing the vessel and its crew in
danger. The Skua is designed for inter-island operations. The area
down to Victoria exposes them to open waters in which the seas and
the storms will be beyond the capacity of the vessel. In point of
4854
fact, the vessel will be replaced in the winter with a 44 foot ship
from Port Hardy.
The Ganges coast guard at the moment is on call 24 hours a day
with a 15 minute launch window, even during standby hours. This
has been depended on to maintain the safety standards in the area.
The removal of this unit from that area will definitely degrade its
ability. It has responded to requests from the fire department. It has
taken equipment and emergency calls from the various islands
around. There is a certain safety in numbers. However, we cannot
always count on someone being there to help a vessel in distress.
We can stay beside a broken down car on the road. But if a boat
breaks down it is likely to be washed on to the rocks and be in
extremely serious trouble before help can arrive.
Michael Turner, the deputy commissioner of the coast guard, has
said that the merger between DFO and the coast guard will have a
minor impact on users. Some jobs would be lost but most would be
at the admin end and not the pointy end. The closure of Ganges
station proves this is not so.
(1355)
With the move of the coast guard from Ganges, unit 36 of the
coast guard auxiliary will be involved in providing assistance to
boaters with problems.
This is a super outfit. There are thirty active members who have
units in Sidney, Mill Bay, Oak Bay, Victoria and Sooke. They serve
the Saanich Inlet to the San Jauns and throughout the gulf islands.
They have done an excellent job. They have been called out 69
times since April of 1995 and they have highly trained volunteer
crews on call. They accept the requirement to be on 10 minutes call
from their boats 24 hours a day.
But they are in trouble. The two vessels are located at Sidney and
Brentwood Bay. They receive coast guard tasking money for fuel,
maintenance, which is based on the size and power of the vessels
and the number of hours on the water for extra funds. But they
require extra funds, which are not provided and they have to raise,
for weather cruiser suits, for life jackets, for hand held radios. They
presently have one hand held radio, which cost about $400, and
they require six.
It costs about $10,000 to keep that unit operational for six
months. Currently it has $1,000 in its budget, so those cuts will hit
that auxiliary unit hard.
The federal Emergency Preparedness Act states that every
minister accountable to Parliament for the administration or affairs
of a government institution is responsible for identifying civil
emergencies that are within or related to his or her area of
accountability and for developing a civil emergency plan for such
situations. I contend that lowering the coast guard presence on the
west coast, particularly in the Gulf Islands and on Vancouver
Island, is not accepting that as a realistic requirement.
I also point out that the Deputy Prime Minister in her position as
minister of heritage has managed to give away $23 million and
counting on flags. The coast guard cuts are $31 million. The money
the minister was able to find for the flags might have been better
applied to the coast guard.
The base closure at Chilliwack is probably the worst case of
ignoring B.C. problems that I have seen. I have a personal
acquaintance with that base. It has real estate, it has plant, it has a
climate that is incomparable and irreplaceable anywhere else in
Canada. The reason the engineering school was moved there from
Dundurn was climate. That cannot be replaced. It is a mistake and
that policy should be reconsidered.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I see you are standing to put some
questions to the hon. member, but I think that with the shortage of
time we will take the questions immediately after question period.
It being almost 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
4854
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased to take part in the Durham Federation of Agriculture's fact
finding tour of area farmers last Friday.
Agricultural sales are second only to the automotive sector in
total economic production in Durham. Farmers engaged in the
production of beef, eggs, milk and wine were part of our stops
where they could voice their concerns to federal, provincial and
municipal representatives.
Farmers are part of small business as well, which is why the
Scugog Chamber of Commerce hosted a subsequent dinner which
also included small business operators. Reinventing government
means government, farmers and small businesses working together
to solve common problems.
I would like to thank the Durham Federation of Agriculture as
well as the Scugog Chamber of Commerce for an opportunity to
listen to their concerns. They can be assured their voices are being
heard here in Ottawa.
4855
(1400)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the white
elephant known as the Cosmodôme in Laval is another fine
example of wasted public funds. It has already swallowed up $31
million and there is talk of another $10 million being needed to
keep it going.
I am in no way questioning the educational value of the
establishment, but I think there is a serious management problem. I
urge the provincial and federal governments to resist the
temptation to pour more money into this losing concern and I hope
that the City of Laval will get its act together and quit thinking that
the solution to its problems lies in our pockets.
This reminds me of something former federal minister André
Ouellet said a few months ago about the Mirabel airport. ``After
twenty years'', he said, ``it can be concluded that Mirabel was a
mistake''.
Taxpayers have already contributed more than their share to pay
for this white elephant: another bottomless pit just like Mirabel
airport.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, melatonin burst
on the alternative medical scene with a flourish. Produced naturally
in the brain of humans it has claimed to have benefits for jet
lag-something MPs know about-and aging, which no politician
needs worry about.
The health protection branch in Ottawa says this natural product
has not been studied enough to guarantee that it is safe. No
evidence of direct harm, mind you, after millions of doses.
Its solution is to ban the sale of melatonin in Canada. However, it
allows the purchase of three month's personal supply from the U.S.
Recently health food stores in B.C. have been charged for this
infraction.
If melatonin is really unsafe, ban it. If it is okay to buy melatonin
from the U.S., let it be sold by Canadians. We thought jobs, jobs,
jobs meant jobs here at home.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, small and medium sized business is the engine of the
economy and is vital to the economic well-being of Canada. A
great number of jobs have been generated from these businesses,
and now, more than ever, Canadian small and medium sized
businesses are seeking export opportunities abroad.
In Etobicoke-Lakeshore we have many success stories which
include the LifeTech Corporation, a scientific research company
that has developed technology to sterilize blood products;
Harmony Printing, a high quality computer printer; the local Great
Lakes Brewing Company, and the new state of the art European
bakery and food production facilities of the Future Bakery and
cafe.
These are but a few of the businesses contributing to the growth
of our local economy. Not only are these small businesses creating
jobs, they are at the forefront of the innovation necessary for
survival in today's competitive economy.
All Canadians benefit from these successes and the government
will continue to work in partnership with the private sector to
develop programs encouraging growth for small and medium sized
business in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, we read in a report from the humanitarian group
Human Rights Watch that there are now close to 65 million
children in India being used as cheap labour, particularly in carpet
and brick factories, and in mines. Of this number, 10 to 15 million
were sold into slavery by their parents.
Yet, close to eight months after Team Canada's visit to that
country last January, nothing concrete has been done to prevent
products in whose manufacture children are involved from entering
Canada.
Given that the problem of the exploitation of child labour is not
limited to India, but is a world wide problem, what is the Liberal
government waiting for to take concrete action against offending
countries?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to recognize and thank the personnel in the Library
of Parliament for their outstanding efforts in assisting my
constituency office, legislative office and myself personally as we
endeavour to serve and represent the people of Huron-Bruce.
In this place, as parliamentarians we can, at times, become so
absorbed in the excitement and fervour that surrounds an issue or
debate that the work behind the scenes and the people who are
responsible for that vital service are often forgotten or taken for
granted.
4856
Today I would like to extend to each and every staff member
at the library my personal gratitude for their assistance to my
offices over the past three years. Their contributions have enabled
me to significantly increase my effectiveness and the level of
service that I can provide to my constituents. Again I say thank
you.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to rise in the House to tell members about some
exciting news for young Canadian athletes.
For close to 30 years, the Canada Games have given athletes
from Victoria to St. John's a chance to perform at their best on the
national stage. As we all know, television coverage has played an
essential role of presenting these athletes on this medium.
I am pleased to announce that this evening, the Canada Games
Council, TSN or the Sports Network and and Le Réseau des Sports
are announcing a new partnership that will more than triple the
amount of air time over the next three Canada Games already on
the drawing boards.
This stability will attract corporate support for the games, which
means more support for the young athletes.
As Brandon, Manitoba will be the host city for the 1997 Summer
Games, I would like to invite all members of the House to the
announcement and to the reception this evening.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, because
he wanted to hold hearings on the language of advertising in
Ottawa, the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is no
longer co-chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Official
Languages. He naively thought that he would be allowed to defend
the historic philosophy of his party.
Here is what the member said, and I quote: ``Organizing public
events when people are accused of having broken the Referendum
Act is acceptable. But it is not acceptable to defend bilingualism in
Ottawa. Yet this is not what I learned from Pierre Trudeau and the
current Prime Minister when I was young''.
Our colleague has tripped up in the Liberal logic of the double
standard. The member now finds himself faced with a difficult
choice: follow the example of another great Liberal from his
region, René Lévesque, and leave his political party, or follow his
whip's orders and wait until the next election for the public to put
him out of his misery.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last year the
justice minister repeatedly stood in the House and assured all
members he had consulted extensively on Bill C-68.
He also stated that he was in continuous consultation with the
offices of the provincial attorneys general. The attorneys general
from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Yukon appeared before
the standing committee and testified that these statements were not
accurate and that only minimal consultation had occurred at best.
The James Bay Cree and the Yukon First Nations also told us they
had not been consulted. Yet the minister emphatically insisted that
consultation had occurred.
We now have irrefutable evidence that the minister's statements
were inaccurate. Many feel, as I do, that we have been mislead. The
proof is this. The governments of Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and Yukon have launched a court challenge against the
registration portion of Bill C-68.
The lack of consultation has led to an unnecessary legal
confrontation with huge financial repercussions for taxpayers. It
has also destroyed the credibility of the justice minister of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, September 30, is International Translation Day. I would like
to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to all
the translators, interpreters and terminologists who help us
understand each other better every day.
These industrious people, who nearly always work behind the
scenes, are part of our day to day lives. For example, all the official
activities of the Government of Canada are translated, and this is a
huge undertaking.
Here on Parliament Hill, we enjoy the uninterrupted services of
translators, interpreters and terminologists. Hansard, which we
receive every morning, is translated and revised overnight by
translators from the government's translation bureau. Debates in
the House are interpreted by teams of interpreters who relieve each
other at regular intervals, maybe because the debate is so heated at
times.
[Translation]
This morning, in conjunction with World Translation Day, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, which is
responsible for the Translation Bureau, officially launched a
project for distributing TERMIUM throughout the Public Service.
TERMIUM, the Translation Bureau's terminology bank, is now
4857
accessible on CD-ROM. It contains over 3 million entries and is an
indispensable tool for effective communication in Canada's two
official languages.
To all the translators and interpreters-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon member. The
member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle has the floor now.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, collectors of historical and precious statements will
surely gobble up some of the comments made by the Bloc leader at
the general assembly of his party this past weekend in the Quebec
region.
In his speech on Saturday, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
accused the Prime Minister of having forced Canada back into the
constitutional debate on five occasions during the past year.
(1410)
How can the leader of the Bloc make such a claim with a straight
face, when everyone on this earth knows that the constitutional
debate was revived by the election of the PQ and the referendum it
organized on Quebec independence?
Can someone here please tell us where the hon. member for
Roberval has been these past 24 months?
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, six athletes
from Nepean competed for Canada at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic
Games. One of those six was Olympic rower Alison Korn, a
member of the women's eight team which won a silver medal for
Canada at the games.
Atlanta was Alison's first Olympics. She began rowing in the fall
of 1992 in Montreal and trained seriously for only two years. With
only 400 metres to go, her team was in fourth place. This was more
than Alison and her team members could bear so they stormed to a
dramatic second place finish.
A former Bells Corners elementary student, graduate of McGill,
participant in a Young Challenge International Project in Costa
Rica and former hockey player, Alison is a positive role model for
young women across Canada and most certainly a star in Nepean.
Bravo, Alison.
Tomorrow, October 1, parliamentarians look forward to
welcoming and honouring the Canadian medalists from the
Olympics and paraOlympics right here in Ottawa and in the House
of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, early
this morning, we received the news of the death of Claire
Bonenfant as the result of a stroke. The women of Quebec mourn
her passing. Claire Bonenfant was a woman of heart, head and
action, a woman whose life was lived in total harmony with her
deepest convictions, whether on Quebec women's right to equality
or Quebec's right to sovereignty.
Cofounder of the Ralliement pour l'indépendence nationale,
chair of the Conseil du statut de la femme for six years, Ms
Bonenfant contributed to the creation of Quebec's first policy on
the status of women. A bookseller and publisher, her activities
included chairing the book fair, Salon du livre de la Capitale,
co-ordinating the Department of Education's equal access program,
and acting as a consultant on wage parity.
All those who had the privilege of meeting and working with this
warm, dynamic and spontaneous woman will remember her
openmindedness and respectful attitude, and how it united all those
around her.
Claire Bonenfant may have left us, but memories of her
presence, her energy and her perseverance will be with us for a long
time.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday 5,000 police officers marched through the streets of
Ottawa, assembling outside Parliament Hill to honour comrades
fallen in the line of duty.
The names of six brave police officers who died in the past year
while serving their communities were added to the Canadian Police
and Peace Officers Memorial.
I was on duty May 24, 1977 when a brave colleague of mine,
Constable William Shelever, was shot down in the line of service.
On behalf of my police colleagues who served their communities
so vigilantly, I salute Constable Shelever and others who served us
so well. We will never forget them.
On behalf of my constituents, I extend condolences to the
families who have lost their loved ones. We share their loss. On
4858
behalf of all Canadians, I thank those who paid the ultimate price
for doing their part to keep our streets safe. We will always hold
their names in highest regard.
Fallen colleagues, we salute you, we thank you and we will never
forget you.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, more than 1.5 million Canadians have
been unable to find employment and that does not take into account
the thousands of Canadians who have given up trying to find work.
The Prime Minister claims that his government has created more
than 600,000 jobs. Well, this total is almost 150,000 less than what
the previous government claimed were created over the same
period of time.
For almost three years I have been calling on the government to
lower interest rates. Recently the chief economist of the Royal
Bank of Canada conceded that the bank rate could be lowered even
further to create employment opportunities.
I call on the Prime Minister to deliver on his promise to create
jobs by lowering the interest rates further so Canadians can get
back to work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at his
party's general council in Beauport during the weekend, the leader
of the Bloc once again changed his position on the issue of
partnership. He told his supporters on the weekend, and I quote:
``Just because a federal minister will not consider partnership does
not mean we will stop talking about it.''
This is rather surprising, because we all remember that the same
leader of the Bloc said a week earlier, and I will quote him again:
``As far as I am concerned, we are not going to make it the Bloc's
mission to sell partnership in the rest of Canada''.
(1415 )
The question that arises today is whether the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois believes that to follow in the footsteps of Lucien
Bouchard, he will have to make as many quick changes in politics
as he did.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to a SOM-La Presse poll, 57 per cent of the population of
Quebec wants a ten- year respite until the next referendum on
Quebec's independence. I hope you are listening.
This poll is a clear indication that the majority of the population
has had enough of the disastrous economic impact that the PQ and
the Bloc are having with their threats to hold another referendum.
When asked to comment on this poll, the leader of the Bloc
decided, as he usually does when at a loss for a reply, to put the
blame on the Canadian government, claiming that his party's
priority is economic issues.
Hansard is a faithful witness to the subjects that interest the Bloc
Quebecois, and anyone who bothers to read Hansard will soon
realize that economic recovery and job creation are not among the
top priorities of this separatist party.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
following is a copy of a letter received from Darlene Boyd to the
justice minister: ``The minister has said he is listening to the
Canadian people. C-45 does not demonstrate this.
``You have referred to us as the `victims industry'. We never
classified ourselves as part of any industry. We are ordinary people
who have paid a price, far too great, to establish such a petty
organization. We never asked for this fate, and we are not victims,
we are `survivors'.
``There is one thing I need advice on, that is how I tell our son,
who has not yet put his life back together since his sister's murder,
that the man convicted and sentenced to life in prison will be
applying and probably be granted his day in court, to tell everyone
what a good person he has become in the past 15 years.
``Who will take responsibility when he falls apart? C-45 will be
guilty of this crime!
``Does the charter of rights protect us, or was it written for just
murderers?
``I appeal to you not as a politician, but as someone who holds
family and friends dear. Because murder shows no bounds, please
reconsider repeal, and make it impossible for these killers to once
again exploit my family and the families of others''.
_____________________________________________
4858
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, with the passage of time, the government becomes
increasingly confused about its decision to stop a future
referendum in Quebec by asking the Supreme Court's opinion on
Quebec's
4859
right to determine its own future. None of yesterday's allies on the
no side are on side of the Prime Minister as he makes this clumsy
attempt to get all of Canada up in arms against Quebec, as he did so
successfully in 1982 and 1990.
What kind of answer does the Prime Minister of Canada have for
Daniel Johnson, the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, who has
invited him to resign and run for a seat in the Quebec National
Assembly if he wants to draft the referendum question?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnson is entirely correct in saying that the
National Assembly is free to ask any questions it wants. But when
such a question involves negotiations on an issue as serious as
secession, the question must be such as to elicit a clear response
from the people. What is needed is a clear question. And to have a
clear question, we need a clear process. To have a clear process,
there must be a commitment to make it that way.
So far, however, the Quebec government has given us no
guarantees to that effect. We are asking the Supreme Court to
clarify matters, and the Quebec government does not want to go
before the Supreme Court. Why? Because it knows that confusion
works to its advantage. The forces of division gain from confusion;
the forces of reconciliation gain from clarity.
And if we must quote Mr. Johnson, I will quote him, in
concluding: ``Mr. Bouchard and other sovereignists, who for three
or four years have been telling us that international law is clear on
the subject will have a forum to explain why it is clear. If the train
is there, they can always get on board and tell Quebecers what their
theories are about'', but they will not go, because they know they
are wrong.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you will allow me to point out to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs that, on the subject of clarity, he is the
one who has constantly contradicted himself. He and the Minister
of Justice are sending two completely different messages. He is
certainly in no position to talk to us about confusion. He is creating
confusion.
Seriously, I realize the Prime Minister wants to give his Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs a chance to make his mark in the
House, but my question was directed to the Prime Minister.
I would appreciate it if the Prime Minister would tell us whether
he realizes that, by insisting on his reference to the Supreme Court
and by wanting to assume the powers of the National Assembly, he
no longer enjoys the support of any of his federalist allies who were
with him during the last referendum? Does he realize he is isolating
himself, even from the Quebec federalists who supported him
during the last referendum?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the Leader of the Official Opposition in
Quebec urges the Quebec government to come and argue its case
before the Supreme Court. He does so, using the same arguments
that the Minister of Justice of Canada used to invite his counterpart,
Mr. Bégin, to argue his case before the Supreme Court.
The reason they are not going there is that they now realize, after
being told by two judges of the Quebec Superior Court, as well as
by all the experts, including some U.S. experts last week, that
international law provides no basis for a unilateral declaration of
independence, that this gospel they believed, because their
separatist leaders, Mr. Parizeau, and Mr. Landry kept preaching it
all the time, is not true, and that if they want to bring about
something as serious as secession, for the sake of the people of
Quebec in particular, it must be done within a specific framework
that is acceptable to all concerned, and not unilaterally.
The problem is that they now realize that Quebecers and other
Canadians will never give up their ties of solidarity in a clear
situation. That is why they need confusion, stratagems and other
tricks.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should be
careful because, when he was a university professor, he wrote that
in Quebec people would never let the federal government draft the
referendum question. To create a diversion, it was necessary to
appeal to the Supreme Court so that Quebecers would then agree to
let Ottawa be involved in the drafting of the question. So they are
not in a position to teach us anything.
Does the Prime Minister realize that by wanting to draft the
question for the next referendum, to determine the percentage
required for the results of the referendum to be considered positive,
and to set the rules for holding this referendum, he is usurping the
role of the Quebec National Assembly, which is an attack on
democracy? We know he is familiar with this strategy, and we wish
he would stop this exercise before launching another attack.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, since I entered politics, I have never had to
back down from anything I wrote as a university professor and I am
prepared to take up the gauntlet.
Second, the official opposition would do well to study foreign
cases and international law. It will see that in many democracies,
the very concept of secession has been excluded from public
debate. In the United States, Italy, Spain and other democracies
including France, which the official opposition treats as a good
4860
friend, in fact in section 2 of the French constitution it says that the
French Republic is one and indivisible.
Here in Canada we are actually more democratic than average, in
this area as in others. We are more conciliatory. We accept the idea
that our country can break up if part of our population no longer
wishes to remain in the country. However, we have the right to
ensure this is done according to the rule of law, in a clear context,
since this is a very serious decision which cannot be made if
confusion reigns.
(1425)
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated: ``It
is not reasonable for Prince Edward Island to be able to block
Quebec's departure from the federation, because that is not
democratic, not Quebecois, not Canadian''.
Does the Prime Minister share the opinion of his Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are polls, there are statements made by the
moral authorities of this country, by various public figures.
Obviously in Canada there is a convention that a population is not
to be forced to remain against its will. The Minister of Justice has
explained this in his speech.
We are, however, entitled to the assurance that this is what a
given population wants, and in that connection, yes, PEI is entitled
to its say.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, talk
about total ambiguity-I thought the minister was at least in
agreement with himself, but even that is not the case. I will
therefore direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister agree with what his Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs had to say yesterday, or today,
depending on which version one chooses: that it is not reasonable
or democratic for a single province to prevent Quebec from leaving
the federation? Which version is the right one?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for providing me with the
opportunity to repeat my statement. Perhaps then she will
understand that we in this country have accepted the idea that the
country could break apart, if a population were to indicate very
clearly that it no longer wished to remain in the federation.
There will, however, have to be assurances that this is clear and
fair for everyone. Prince Edward Island, therefore, is entitled to
assure itself that the people of Quebec have been consulted in a
clear process, acceptable to all, with terms of negotiation that are
also acceptable to all.
It is clear that the decision to break up Canada would have
serious consequences for the people of Prince Edward Island. I am
very confident that Quebecers and other Canadians will to avoid
negotiations as painful, lengthy and difficult as those on the
breakup of this country would be.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today's
Globe and Mail reports that members of U.S. special forces teams
wore Canadian uniforms in covert operations in Somalia, and one
of them ordered a Canadian soldier to ``fire at a guy, shoot him,
drop him, take the guy out''.
Is this report true and if so, when did the minister become aware
of this covert operation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member should realize that the specific allegation contained in the
newspaper report to which she referred occurred during the
Canadian forces deployment to Somalia in 1993. Therefore it
would only be reasonable that the commission may wish to look at
this matter to see whether it is true.
With respect to the concept of sharing equipment and uniforms,
there are a number of joint exercises that are taken on an annual
basis between Canada and our allies. But the kind of thing that has
been described in the article is something unusual. The chief of
defence staff is going to look into it on a conceptual level. But on
the specific level, because it does relate to Somalia in 1993, this
may be of interest to the commission.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot believe it. Talk about joint exercises. What about joint
uniforms? Certainly these people have their own uniforms to wear.
We do not do a complete swap on that, heaven help us.
Canadian forces have not been under foreign command since
World War I. The terms of the 1992 memorandum of understanding
of orders, signed by former Chief of Defence Staff John de
Chastelain, clearly state that the complete operational control of
the Canadian forces will be under Canadian command. Yet these
direct orders were disobeyed regardless of how he tries to explain it
away by talking about joint exercises.
4861
What has the minister of defence done to ensure such an
incident will not recur? He cannot just stand behind the fact that
this was in 1993 long before he was elected. What is he going
to do about this and how will he enable the Somalia commission
to look into this and investigate it?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we first have to
ascertain whether the allegation in the newspaper is actually true.
And I am sure that will be of interest to the commission.
The commission has all the means at its disposal to look into the
deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces to Somalia in 1993, and
the department will co-operate in every way.
(1430)
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is the
toleration of this kind of behaviour. We have had somebody admit
on the news nationally here already that he ordered that this person
take him out, drop the guy and shoot him. I hardly think that is
something the minister needs to look into a great deal more.
Jean Boyle said: ``We were aware that the Americans were
working with Canadians jointly in terms of intelligence and support
in Somali'' and added to nobody's surprise that he had no
knowledge of any behaviour outlined by a former Green Beret.
This is a pattern we are seeing develop with this minister,
blaming things off on cuts and blaming it off to a subordinate. Also
with Jean Boyle, again and again say ``hey, I had absolutely no
knowledge about it''. Why did Jean Boyle have absolutely no
knowledge about it? Just what does he have any knowledge about?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member could only listen to herself.
First of all, General Boyle was not the chief of defence staff in
1993. Second, she talks about a pattern. The only pattern I see is the
pattern of her party not allowing the commission to do its work.
This party in opposition called for the inquiry. We set it up. We
want the inquiry to do the job. I believe Canadians want answers.
They do not want answers from the Reform Party because they
know they cannot trust those answers. Canadians want answers
from the commission.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
We were astounded to learn today that U.S. army soldiers
belonging to commandos sent to Somalia apparently deliberately
represented themselves as soldiers of the Canadian armed forces.
According to the Globe and Mail, a U.S. army captain even ordered
a Canadian forces soldier to kill a Somali, which he did.
How can the Prime Minister explain that U.S. army officers
could have dressed in the uniforms of Canadian soldiers and even
given them orders?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have just
answered to earlier questions, this is an allegation that has come to
light today. It is something that obviously concerns everyone, but
to get to the truth of the matter I think we should perhaps wait and
see if the inquiry wishes to pursue it because it does raise certain
troubling questions.
With respect to the whole concept of joint exercises and as to
whether there is exchange of equipment and that type of thing, the
chief of defence staff is looking into it. I will be able to have
something more to say at a later date once we look at the
conceptual question. On the specifics, we have to wait for the
inquiry.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in order
for the commission to be able to get to the bottom of this, the
documents that have gone missing may have to resurface. That
would be the first requirement.
My supplementary is for the Prime Minister. While his chief of
staff is looking into these new revelations, can the Prime Minister
assure us or not that such practices did not take place under his
leadership and that they are not now taking place?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the practices are
clear of the Canadian Armed Forces. Canadian soldiers operate
under Canadian control. There is some sharing of individuals on
specific missions, and those are bilateral agreements with our
NATO allies, specifically with the United States on air crews. That
goes on all the time.
The allegations to which the hon. member referred which
appeared in the newspaper this morning have just come to light. It
is something we are going to look at in a general nature, but
specifically this may be of interest for the commission.
4862
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians agree that any attempt by Quebec to secede would have
to proceed by the rule of law.
On another constitutional front we are equally adamant that the
government not offer distinct society status to Quebec as a way to
try to buy constitutional peace. In fact, in some provinces,
including my own, such a constitutional proposal would have to
pass a provincial referendum. I can assure you that in British
Columbia that concept will never fly.
Does the government understand that the distinct society
proposals contained in the throne speech will be totally
unacceptable to the people of British Columbia and to the people of
Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what strikes me is the absence of any argument to
support the idea that the distinct society clause or whatever you
may call it is against Canada. I think it is a great thing to do for
Canadians to recognize that in an anglophone North America there
is a strong francophone society and we are proud of it.
(1435)
We explained that this does not mean more money for
Quebecers, privileges for Quebecers. Other Canadians will be so
proud to recognize the great Quebec society.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
recognize the great Quebec society also, but the Liberal
government should know that there is no appetite in Canada for the
distinct society clause it is proposing.
A report by the member for Simcoe North, a member of the
government, given to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
leaked to Barbara Yaffe of the Vancouver Sun, states: ``British
Columbians feel a profound sense of alienation from Ottawa over
the federal government's handling of the national unity issue''. The
government's own member goes on to say they feel the national
agenda is controlled by separatists.
Will the Prime Minister listen to the people of British Columbia
and will he abandon the idea of a distinct society status for Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I spent much of my professional life at university,
fighting the claim of many of my Quebec colleagues who said ``we
in Quebec think this, we in Quebec think that''. I know Quebec is a
pluralistic society. And I am sure that British Columbia is a
pluralist society.
The hon. member does not have the right to say ``we in British
Columbia think this or that''. I know that many people in British
Columbia think that to recognize Quebec would be a great thing.
We will work with them in order to convince our fellow citizens.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Canadian government's position on the crisis in the Middle
East appeared confused, to say the least, last Friday, when the
Minister for International Cooperation refused to commit the
government regarding the closing of the Jerusalem tunnel.
At a time when the Security Council has passed a resolution
calling for the tunnel to be closed, can the minister give this House
a clear indication of his government's position in the current crisis?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the speech I gave during the meeting of the Security
Council, I mentioned the importance of having a period of calm in
the Middle East, particularly in order to reduce the number of
incidents that could lead to general conflict, including keeping the
tunnel closed during the period of discussion and negotiation
between the two parties.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the
President of Palestine is saying that his participation in the Summit
is conditional on firm commitments from Israel, the Israeli
government is refusing to close the tunnel, and is deploying tanks
on the West Bank and threatening to disarm Palestinian police.
Given the impasse, I ask the minister whether he can tell this
House exactly what the Canadian government's position will be?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already explained that we have made our views
known very clearly to the security council on Friday night. I had
direct discussions with the acting Israeli ambassador at the UN on
Friday. We expressed our very strong concern that the two parties
come back to the negotiating table. The president of the United
States has now invited the head of the Palestine authority and the
new prime minister of Israel to do that. Negotiations are underway
now to determine the meeting.
I think it is really in the interests of all Canadians, not just the
Government of Canada, to express strongly their great hope and
earnest feelings about the importance of the two parties coming
4863
back to the table and continuing to follow the Oslo accords so there
can continue to be negotiations toward peace in that area.
* * *
(1440 )
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the government introduced amendments
to the Immigration Act, the previous minister of immigration
stated: ``When this House approves the amendments we will see a
significant improvement in our enforcement procedures and the
speed in which we can remove foreign criminals from our soil''.
However, out of 734 criminal immigrants certified by the president
minister as a danger to the public, only 140 have actually been
removed.
Can the minister explain where the improvements in
enforcement and speed have taken place when over 590, 80 per
cent of the criminals, are still in Canada?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the
legislation passed in this House facilitates the expulsion of
criminals from Canada far more rapidly.
This is a law which has been passed by the hon. members of this
House precisely in order to make it possible for Canada not to
harbour dangerous criminals. This is very clear and is what the act
was intended to do. We are seeing the results today in a number of
cases.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I fail to see where 80 per cent still in Canada
are results.
This summer, Dennis Garcia, a declared dangerous offender
serving a 20-year sentence in Montana, escaped prison and fled to
Canada. He claimed refugee status and was released by an
adjudicator and disappeared in the Vancouver area.
Is this an example of the government's commitment to
protecting Canadians from foreign criminals?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada will never be a country
which welcomes dangerous criminals. It will, however, continue to
be a country which welcomes refugees in need of protection and
immigrants who wish to live in our country. Clearly, in this
connection, our view is totally different from that of the Reform
Party.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A few days ago, Islamic fundamentalists seized power in Kabul,
and the situation for women there has become intolerable. Women
are being beaten, enslaved or killed by those who are now in
control of the country.
How does the Canadian government plan to react to this tragic
situation in Afghanistan?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to be very realistic in terms of the actual influence Canada
can exercise in the conditions that accompany the takeover of
Kabul, there is very little we can do other than to join the
international community in expressing our great outrage at the
travesties of justice that are taking place and to try to provide as
much protection as we can for those who are continuing under
siege.
It is a takeover by a group of militants who are exercising very
extreme tactics. The matter was discussed at the security council
this weekend. Expressions of concern have been raised and we join
in those very strongly. We will do anything we can to assist the
United Nations and other bodies to try to bring about some form of
calm and an end to the violence in that area.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, can the Canadian government make a firm commitment
before this House, as it did in the past with respect to South Africa,
not to recognize the Taliban regime, since it is against fundamental
values held dear by the people of Quebec and Canada?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly in any recognition we would take into account
the values, the stands and the behaviour of the recipient state. I will
certainly take the hon. member's point of view as a strong
representation.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
A number of newspapers reported on Saturday that the
Department of Canadian Heritage refused to lower the flag on the
peace tower to half mast for Sunday's ceremony to honour police
and peace officers killed in the line of duty.
4864
Can the parliamentary secretary please explain why the flag was
not lowered to honour these brave men and women?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. It gives me an
opportunity to inform this House and all Canadians that the article
in question was entirely inaccurate.
The flag was lowered to half mast at the memorial services
yesterday. The Deputy Prime Minister was informed of the
concerns of the Canadian Police Association on Friday and at that
time immediately asked her officials to ensure that the flag was
lowered to half mast. It is truly unfortunate that the news reports
failed to report this fact.
* * *
(1445 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the DFO
is proposing to remove over $7 million from the Canadian Coast
Guard fleet thereby putting Canadian lives at risk on the waters of
Canada's west coast. However outside of its budget, as a result of
the heritage minister's wild imagination, she is blowing away $23
million on her free flag program.
What are the Liberal government's priorities that it would cut
funding for the coast guard while flying feel good flags?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government's concern is primarily with safety.
Our standards are going to be maintained to the highest order. What
the hon. member talks about is a required adjustment to the budget
in order to contribute to deficit reduction.
I am not sure what the hon. member would do with his party and
the speed with which they would go forward with deficit reduction,
but we are proceeding in a responsible manner. It is in a manner
that will ensure the main concern is safety for Canadians.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it begs the
question: How responsible is it to blow away $23 million on flags
while cutting $7 million from the coast guard? The Liberals are
also proposing a $3.5 million lighthouse staffing budget cut to save
money. Of course that is necessary because the heritage minister's
unnecessary expenditures are driving it. An example is her Canada
Information Office. There are information after information after
information offices available to Canadians right now; $4 million on
Inquiries Canada alone.
I ask again: What are this government's priorities when it gives a
free hand to the heritage minister to blow money as she sees fit yet
makes cuts that put people's lives at risk on the waters around
Canada?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is taking this entirely out of
proportion.
What I want to tell him in respect to DFO and the budget for
which I am responsible, we are in fact reducing in four years $450
million, largely at the behest of the opposition to reduce budgets,
and 2,700 person years as well. It is difficult to do that without
rearranging priorities. However, the priorities will be and will
continue to be. That is the way it is now, that is the way it should be
and that is the way it is going to be.
I want to ask the hon. member: What does he have against
Canadian unity?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last spring, in order to justify cutting off federal funding to the
Tokamak facility, the Minister of Natural Resources maintained
that the sale of the CANDU reactor to China would generate
spinoffs of over $400 million for Quebec and the creation of
hundreds of additional jobs. The main enterprise to benefit from
the spinoffs from this sale, CANATOM, has lost the main contracts
related to the construction of the CANDU reactor sold to China.
Since CANATOM no longer has the main contracts for the
Chinese project, how can the government continue to maintain that
the sale of the CANDU reactor to China will generate spinoffs of
$400 million for Quebec?
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the focus and priorities
of this government are creating a climate for economic growth.
The Candu business brings significant benefits to Quebec. As the
minister has said over and over again in this House, the sale of one
Candu reactor brings significant jobs and economic growth to the
people of Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid she did not get the question.
[Translation]
Last spring, the Minister of Natural Resources declared that she
was looking for a way to continue federal funding for the Tokamak
4865
project. We have just learned, however, that Tokamak staff will
very shortly be receiving their layoff notices.
Can the Prime Minister finally tell us, after three months,
whether or not his government has found alternative funding for
the Varennes Tokamak?
(1450)
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is
making difficult choices and it is setting priorities.
In the field of R and D, let me remind the hon. member that
Quebec gets its fair share. Quebec receives about 23 per cent of all
federal R and D expenditures. Our agenda is clear.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
several years ago national defence announced that the Nanaimo
army camp would close. Since that time the city of Nanaimo,
Malaspina College and the local school board have been trying to
get an agreement out of Ottawa for the use of the land. They have
been trying without success. Yet when there is a base closure in the
maritimes or Quebec, it seems to be quite a different story: they not
only get the land quickly, they get money to go with it. Why the
double standard?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
double standard.
The hon. member has written to me about this matter on a
number of occasions and I have explained the process to him. Once
an amicable arrangement can be made by the department, Treasury
Board and the city of Nanaimo, then obviously the land could
certainly be given to the city for its uses.
We follow the same disposal procedure of land across the
country whether it is on the east coast, on the west coast or
anywhere else.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there are other examples. When land was given away in Chatham,
New Brunswick, they got $15 million to go with it. In St. Hubert,
Quebec, they got an extra $1 million plus the land. In Cornwallis
they got the land plus $7.5 million. Obviously there is a difference
in criterion between the east and the west.
Why the difference in criterion? What is it? Is it the number of
Liberal members in the area or what is it?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the Royal
Roads Military College closed a couple of years ago, a very
favourable arrangement was made with the Government of British
Columbia. As a result those lands have been kept for educational
use. Not only was there a transfer of lands, there was a cash
settlement. That shows fairness. It is the same principle which is
applied across the country.
What the member is talking about is not an actual closure. He is
talking about land which is surplus to DND's requirements. It is
certainly different from closing the whole facility.
The member knows the answer. He knows that negotiations have
to conclude. We want them to conclude very favourably. Why is he
bringing the question on the floor of the House of Commons? Why
does he not go back to the city of Nanaimo and tell them to
negotiate in good faith?
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The government has just announced that it will allow Canadian
companies to export PCBs to the United States. Last fall an interim
order was issued preventing Canadian companies from exporting
this substance.
Can the minister tell the House what measures were taken before
a decision was made to lift the interim order banning the export of
PCBs to the U.S.?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Brampton has as I understand it a
number of companies in her riding which are obviously interested
in this issue.
It is right that my predecessor put an interim order against
opening the border last fall. It was the right thing to do because the
United States Environmental Protection Agency had not given
Canada a copy of the regulations by which any PCBs would be
destroyed. Not only have those been provided to the Canadian
authorities since the interim order, we have also been able to
convince the American authorities to improve and enhance those
regulations. As a result, the government and the cabinet felt
assured that for thermal and chemical destruction only, not land
filling, the systems in the United States were compatible.
After gazetting the regulation, we anticipate that the regulation
opening the border to thermal and chemical destruction should be
made around the end of this year. This will allow for the timely
disposal of many PCBs which are being stored.
4866
(1455)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Yesterday, tens of thousands of people marched in sixty or so
Canadian cities in order to raise money to fund the fight against
AIDS. In Montreal alone, 30,000 people took part in the march. All
of them hope that the federal government is setting aside money to
help in the fight against the spread of AIDS.
Will the minister promise to respect the public's wishes and
extend the national AIDS strategy?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I certainly respect the request that is being made of governments by
activists in the AIDS community. I wish to congratulate them for
the efforts they put forward yesterday in terms of their fundraising
activities.
The role of the Government of Canada to date has been very
significant particularly for fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98.
Thereafter moneys will be provided under a population health
strategy. Over the next number of months I will continue my
consultations with AIDS activists. If there is to be a change in that
policy, I will certainly take the House into my confidence.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
activists, persons living with AIDS and medical researchers
unanimously called on the minister in Vancouver at the 10th
International Conference to set aside funds for the fight against
AIDS, can the minister tell us when he intends to announce phase
III of the national AIDS strategy?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have attempted over the last number of months to explain to AIDS
activists that for the seeking of finances for the year 1998-99, our
budgetary process does not allow for that.
I also suggested to community activists and AIDS activists that
they would be much better off if they were to outline across the
country the various successes the federal government and the
provincial governments have made co-operatively in terms of
fighting this terrible disease.
I say to those who raise this question: yes, AIDS is a very serious
issue; yes, the Government of Canada takes it very seriously. I
would hope that AIDS activists instead of protesting, instead of
thrashing Health Canada booths and things of that nature, would
stand up and let the country and Parliament know the successes
they have had in co-operation with governments and all others.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, page 22 of
the Liberal red book reads as follows: ``A Liberal government will
be committed to the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers
within Canada and will address this issue urgently''.
The Churchill Falls conflict is an issue of one province
controlling the resources of another province. Does the Prime
Minister recognize that Newfoundland's inability to access U.S.
markets obstructs its ability to utilize its own resources?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I answered this question last week.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is a
noteworthy answer.
The Prime Minister is fully aware that the energy section of the
agreement on internal trade is literally a blank page. The type of
urgency the Liberals talked about in the red book really
demonstrates how ineffective this government is.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been denied the jobs
and prosperity that a new Churchill Falls hydro development would
bring. The Quebec government will not allow the transmission of
electricity across its territory.
Will the Prime Minister address this issue urgently by
committing himself to the elimination of this interprovincial trade
barrier and establish a power corridor through Quebec so that
Newfoundlanders can finally reap the benefits of any new project at
Churchill Falls?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said last week and I repeat that it is a contract between
private parties.
I know there is a problem. I said that it is for the two
governments to sit down and find a solution. Quebec and Labrador
have a lot of potential. They have to work together. I am sure that if
they sit down they will find a solution. But they signed a contract
and under the rule of law in any country a contract between parties
has to be respected. That is exactly the position of this government.
(1500)
I know the premier of Newfoundland and the premier of Quebec
can sit down and find a solution. If the member had listened he
would have understood that 10 days ago the spokesman for Hydro
Quebec said that they are willing to sit down and they understand
that some changes could be made. And if the atmosphere is proper
they will find a solution.
4867
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the minister of agriculture.
Wet weather on the prairies for the last three weeks and snow
yesterday have threatened a very good harvest of a very good crop
on the prairies.
Is the minister of agriculture considering any contingency plan
should the revenues expected from that harvest do not materialize?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the weather conditions over the
last couple of weeks, at least in some parts of the prairies, are most
definitely a matter of concern to many farmers. Hopefully this fall
will still materialize in such a way that the weather person will
co-operate and we will see that in due course.
Naturally the Government of Canada is concerned. We are
watching the situation closely. Of course, we have a rather
elaborate safety net system already in place to deal with production
and marketing problems that affect agriculture from time to time. If
necessary, we do have special provisions for special advances
under government legislation which we would consider invoking if
that should become necessary.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of the House the presence
in the gallery of His Excellency Luiz Filipe Palmeira Lampreia,
Minister for External Relations of the Federative Republic of
Brazil.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: A few days ago one of our former colleagues of
this House passed away. I am referring to Mr. Bert Hargrave. We
will now have tributes.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today with some sadness to speak on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada to pay tribute to a former member of
this House from the riding of Medicine Hat, Alberta, Mr. Bert
Hargrave, who passed away last week.
Aside from being extremely well known and liked in his
province and in his riding, Mr. Hargrave selflessly devoted a large
part of his public and private life to the promotion of agriculture in
Canada.
Aside from being a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan,
Mr. Hargrave also served in World War II as a captain in the tank
brigades. Following the end of the war he returned to Canada and
took over the family farm in Walsh, Alberta in 1945.
(1505 )
In 1972 he ran and was successfully elected a member of
Parliament. As a side note to his victory back then, he defeated the
person who was then the minister of agriculture in the government
of Mr. Trudeau. He then took his seat in the House as a Progressive
Conservative member until his retirement in 1984.
He spent his whole career in opposition, except for the brief term
in government in 1979 under the leadership of Mr. Clark where he
served, as members probably have already guessed, as
parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture.
Following his career as a parliamentarian he served as president
of the Walsh Cattle Marketing Association, the Western Stock
Growers Association and the National Cattlemen's Association, to
name a few. He was also southern Alberta chair of the Farm Debt
Review Board until the late 1980s and early 1990s.
His tireless and constant dedication to agriculture was
recognized when he was inducted into the Alberta Agriculture Hall
of Fame.
Mr. Hargrave was a true gentlemen and was well respected, I
understand, on all sides of the House of Commons. He was
unquestionably considered one of the most informed and
knowledgeable parliamentarians on all sides in the realm of
agriculture. Although I did not have the opportunity or the
privilege of knowing him personally, I am told he was recognized
as being someone who was tough, sincere, but most of all a very
generous man.
He passed away last Tuesday at the age of 79 and will be laid to
rest today in Medicine Hat, Alberta.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I
would like to pay tribute to Mr. Hargrave today for his years of
service to Canada, to his community, to his province. I want to
offer my personal condolences on behalf of my party to his family
members and wish them well. But most of all, I would like them to
know that this place, this Parliament, his province and his country
will forever remember him as being a statesman.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join
with my colleagues in the House in expressing our sorrow and the
sorrow of the Government of Canada at the passing of Mr. Bert
Hargrave.
I spent one term in the House of Commons from 1974 to 1979
serving with Mr. Hargrave. Although we were not on the same side
of the House, we shared a strong commitment to Canada,
particularly to its agricultural concerns where beyond all doubt
Bert Hargrave was an expert.
4868
Anyone who had spent any time with Bert would come away
with a far better understanding of agriculture, most especially the
cattle business. Bert, a fourth generation cattleman, was tireless
in his efforts to promote and defend his fellow cattle producers.
Whenever the subject of beef came up in the House one could be
assured that Bert Hargrave would be on his feet supporting his
industry.
Bert, who served his constituents from 1972 until 1984, fought
most of his battles from the opposition benches. He fought very
well. I recall one incident during my time earlier in the House in
1977 when a five year lobby by Bert Hargrave ended in success
when 90,000 acres of the Suffield, Alberta defence research station
were opened to cattle producers for grazing purposes. These were
not the kinds of victories that create great national headlines, but
they are the kind that truly help one's constituents.
Mr. Hargrave did get to spend a brief period of time on the
government side in the House of Commons in 1979. As the leader
of the Progressive Conservative Party has pointed out, he was
during that period appointed parliamentary secretary to the
minister of agriculture, a recognition of his commitment to the
agricultural sector.
During that time the government further demonstrated its
confidence in the former member for Medicine Hat by naming him
chair of its beef consultative committee.
(1510)
Let me join with others in paying tribute to the late Bert
Hargrave, one of those who took the concerns of his friends and
neighbours in the most direct way possible, the electoral process.
Through that process he served with great distinction. We extend
our sincere condolences to the Hargrave family.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Reform Party I would certainly like to pay tribute to someone I
thought was a great man, Bert Hargrave, a man respected by all
people who knew him.
I was personally involved with Mr. Hargrave on a number of
occasions, at a variety of meetings, a variety of delegations and a
variety of presentations not only in the provincial legislature but in
other meetings across the province dealing with agricultural issues.
Bert's constituency of Medicine Hat overlapped with the
constituency of Little Bow, my provincial constituency, and as two
elected persons, although not of the same political party, we often
dealt with issues together.
One of the qualities of Bert Hargrave was that he was able to step
over partisan barriers and deal with issues in a very common sense
way. In my memories of Bert Hargrave that will be the marquee of
his gentlemanly, sophisticated and rational way of dealing with
responsible matters for his constituents in southern Alberta.
If we recall part of Bert's history, he was born in 1917 in
Medicine Hat and attended school in that city. He received a
bachelor of science in agricultural engineering from the University
of Saskatchewan in 1942. Bert served the country in World War II
in the Canadian army RCEME corps from 1942 to 1946, serving in
northwest Europe.
After returning he married Amy Reinhart and they lived near
Walsh, Alberta. Often in our conversations we talked about the
beautiful rolling hills, that gem of the southeastern part of our
province of Alberta.
Bert was an active member of the agricultural society, in
particular the cattle industry. Once in a while I would say to Bert:
``You come to meetings and you are so proud that you would even
wear a little bit of that on your shoes for us''. He was known for
that. He was certainly an active member of the Canadian
Cattlemen's Association and gave that organization good
leadership.
Entering politics was something that Bert had not really thought
about until the early 1970s when he became increasingly concerned
over Canadian agricultural policy. Thus at that time he sought the
Progressive Conservative nomination for Medicine Hat. He never
looked back, winning in 1972 by a margin of 5,600 votes, and won
re-election in 1974, 1979 and 1980.
In 1979 he was appointed as the parliamentary secretary to the
minister of agriculture where his firsthand knowledge of
agricultural issues and his common sense shone through. He fought
for the average farmer, whether it was urging tax relief for drought
stricken farmers or fighting for the rights of cattle farmers against
U.S. beef bans or the injustice of the Crow rate.
Bert retired from Canadian politics in 1984, citing his own
failing health and the loss of his beloved wife one year earlier. He
returned to his farm which was never far from his heart but kept
abreast of federal politics. Bert served as a member of the senate of
the University of Lethbridge during the period when my wife
Ingrid was the chancellor. He made a common sense contribution
to the institution's success.
In 1993 he was inducted into the Alberta Agricultural Hall of
Fame. He lived on his farm until this past June when he moved to
the Central Park Lodge in Medicine Hat. He passed away in his
room on Tuesday, September 24, 1996. Bert is survived by his son
and his daughter and four grandchildren.
On behalf of the Reform Party of Canada I would like to extend
my sincere sympathies to his family and his friends. Our thoughts
and prayers are with you as you remember Bert this afternoon.
4869
4869
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1515)
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in
council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 32nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of some committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 32nd report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-328, an act to establish national standards across
Canada for education provided by the provinces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish
national standards for education through a consultative process
among governments, educational professionals, industry, labour,
parent use, voluntary organizations and individual Canadians
representing all sectors of the population, recognizing that
education is a provincial responsibility.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-329, an act to establish national literacy standards
across Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for a
process that would be a catalyst for the establishment of national
standards for literacy through consultation. Nothing in this bill
abrogates or derogates from the jurisdiction of a province.
However, the bill calls on the minister responsible to consult with
the provincial governments as well as with experts in the education
and the literacy field, with representatives of business and labour
and representatives of the media and literacy students.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-330, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (donors
to food banks).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would permit the donation of food
to a food bank to be treated as a charitable gift, notwithstanding
that the value of the food has already been deducted as a business
expense of the donor.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-331, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, (tax
credit for mental or physical impairment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would ensure that a taxpayer who
has a physical or mental impairment that prevents him or her from
performing housekeeping activities at his or her place of residence
would be entitled to a tax credit under section 118.2 of the Income
Tax Act for a portion of the remuneration paid to another person by
the taxpayer for performing those activities.
(1520 )
Such tax credits would apply particularly to senior citizens
provided that they establish through a medical certificate that they
are incapable of performing housekeeping activities. Apart from
some pay for the performance of housekeeping activities, the
taxpayer would also be entitled to a tax credit for physical or
mental impairment under section 118.3 of the act.
4870
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 32nd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the following member be
added to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs: John Solomon.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions on one issue signed by individuals in the national
capital region and particularly in my riding of Ottawa Centre.
The petitioners call on Parliament to enact Bill C-205 to ensure
that criminals do not profit financially from selling their stories of
crimes committed.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions I would like to present to the House.
The first petition deals with the issue of land mines. It makes the
point that there are 100 million uncleared land mines affecting 64
countries and that an estimated 26,000 civilians are killed and
injured by these mines annually.
Therefore, the petitioners ask Parliament to legislate a
comprehensive ban on the production, export and trade or transfer
of anti-personal land mines.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition deals with Bill C-205 presented by the member for
Scarborough West. This bill wants to outlaw criminals profiting
from crime.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition deals with the issue of euthanasia. It is against assisted
suicide.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
really appreciate you recognizing me way down here. It is a long
way from where I am to where you are. I really attribute that to my
not changing my hair over the summer. I left it pretty much the way
it was. You see, if you do that you get recognized, not like some
over here and quite a few around us here. It takes you a while to
pick it up. The only thing that helps you along is the seating plan. I
hope you have one there near you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my riding which is very
timely. The petitioners are very concerned about criminals
profiting from their crimes.
(1525)
I want to get serious for a minute. The hon. member for
Scarborough West has a private member's bill before the House
which suggests a law to prohibit criminals from profiting from
their crimes, whether it be by writing books, producing tapes or the
like. I want to lend my support in a very positive way to the
suggestion that the law be changed to disallow that from
happening.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4870
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to what my colleague in the Reform Party said. He went out of his
way to make the point that he is very unhappy that the government
is making cuts in certain areas, such as in the defence sector and in
some other sectors in his province.
I want to go on the record as saying that the area which I
represent, the national capital region, has seen its share of cuts.
Many of my colleagues have experienced cuts in their ridings. The
government has been downsized by approximately 45,000 public
servants. Agencies and crown corporations have been shrinking on
a regular basis.
I share my colleague's concerns, however, it is a fact of life. The
government takes no pleasure in making the cuts. It does not want
to see people on the street. The cuts were part of an overall strategy
4871
to stimulate the economy, to streamline services across the country
and to eliminate duplication of services.
I am sure my colleague will agree with me that the government
has done a bang on job of ensuring that inflation is at an all time
low. It is the lowest it has been in 20 years. Canadian interest rates
are lower than those in the United States. Also, in a matter of three
years the deficit has decreased by approximately $12 billion. That
is something of which my colleague should be taking note. He
should be congratulating the government on a job well done.
With respect to job creation, the government should not be
satisfied until the last person who is seeking a job finds a job.
However, I am sure he would agree with me that the record on that
front is excellent.
We cannot have the syndrome of ``not in my backyard''. Last
week Reform members were on their feet attacking the government
on the Newfoundland issue. They were trying to pit one
government against another. This week they are trying to pit the
government of British Columbia against the federal government.
Reform members are here day in and day out calling on the
government to introduce cuts. When the government takes action
they turn around and say: ``Yes, but not in my backyard''. I want to
tell my colleagues that they cannot sneeze and breathe at the same
time.
Why would the hon. member not tell the government that it is
doing a great job in handling the economy and in dealing with
complicated, cumbersome issues?
The hon. member is condemning the government for some of its
actions, one of which has to do with the movement of grain to
Prince Rupert, B.C. When the vote was taken in the House of
Commons my colleagues in the Reform Party were not out in full
force trying to defend the interests of the farmers. In fact, only 11
Reform members showed up for that vote.
(1530 )
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am not about to
congratulate the government on its fine job is that I tell the truth
and I do not believe that to be the truth.
With regard to the government's having to pare the defence
department to some degree, what I am talking about are sensible
reductions that reflect the reality of the situation.
What the minister of defence has shown is a lack of knowledge
and understanding of military requirements. He closed the base at
Chilliwack against the recommendations of the military itself.
I happen to have some personal knowledge of the base at
Chilliwack. I was stationed there for three years. Chilliwack has
unique qualifications. It has a good climate that allows year round
training; it has real estate available that is irreplaceable anywhere
else in the country; and it has plant that will provide the training
facilities that are badly needed.
Over the last five years $40 million has been spent upgrading the
plant at Chilliwack. The minister is about to walk away from that.
Even at this moment there are engineers who have been moved to
Edmonton who are back training in Chilliwack because they cannot
do their training in Edmonton.
It does not seem logical to me that we would deliberately close a
base that is required for the support of Canada's third largest
province with a known danger from earthquakes. It is not if an
earthquake is going to come, it is when. I understand from reading
some recent scientific articles that the earthquake is likely to
measure nine on the Richter scale, far stronger than any other
earthquake that has occurred until now. They are talking about the
west coast of Vancouver Island dropping one metre and moving
three metres westward when the plates slide under one another.
This will create cataclysmic damage to the plant and property
there.
The minister said: ``Oh, we will look after you from Edmonton.
We will fly people and equipment in''. I have got news for the
minister. If the weather is at all inclement, every control tower in
B.C. will be out of action. The minister will simply not be able to
meet his promise and he does not appear to care.
There are three million people on the lower mainland and the
Vancouver Island area. The minister is letting them hang out to dry
because he has taken away the support that was readily available in
Chilliwack and has moved it 1,000 miles to the east.
The same thing applies to the unhappy prospect of a civil
disturbance of major proportions in the province. This means that
there is no regular force left within the province of British
Columbia to respond. We can expect or anticipate that such might
arise in the near future. The equipment and the regular force
personnel should be available to respond. Not doing so in my
estimation is irresponsible on the part of the minister.
Lastly, the closure of base Chilliwack does not meet the fairness
principle between the federal government and the provinces. The
defence department has reported that B.C. is under-represented
financially by $700 million by virtue of our population.
The minister seems to have no interest whatsoever in achieving a
fair distribution of resources, financial and otherwise, between
Canada and British Columbia.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very sad that the Reform Party has again
decided to pit Canadian regions against regions. Last week it was
Newfoundland against Quebec with Churchill Falls and this week it
is B.C. against everybody else in Canada.
4872
Does the hon. member think that our government has ignored
B.C? Does he recognize the government's effort in the
Asia-Pacific region? The government agenda has been beneficial
to the province of British Columbia. B.C. alone gained the most
from this agenda.
Can the hon. member tell us if he understands the impact of our
Asia-Pacific agenda on economic development in B.C.?
(1535 )
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that B.C. figures
very strongly in the Asia-Pacific region for trade. The fact is that
B.C. has succeeded in increasing the Asia-Pacific trade in spite of
the federal government, not because of it. It is because there are
good people there.
British Columbia is under-represented in the House of Commons
by the Liberal members from B.C. They do not carry B.C.'s
message to Ottawa; rather they carry Ottawa's message to B.C.
They do not accurately represent the needs and requirements of the
people of British Columbia.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion of the member for North
Island-Powell River.
One thing which is very important is that the government has set
the stage for a major thrust to increase trade in the Asia-Pacific. My
colleague the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific has been at the
forefront of this effort. The Prime Minister has been at the forefront
leading trade missions to various countries in the Asia-Pacific.
When we look at the trade statistics, clearly we are making major
progress in Canadian trade with the Asia-Pacific region. Right up
front is the presence of British Columbia as the gateway to the
Asia-Pacific.
Next year is the year of the Asia-Pacific. I would like to point out
to the hon. member that this January, Canada assumes the chair of
the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation. I would also like to point
out that the government is well under way at this point in planning
events throughout the year and that these activities will culminate
in our hosting the APEC economic leaders meeting in Vancouver in
November next year.
As all members of the House know, British Columbia is indeed
Canada's gateway to the Pacific. This is becoming more and more
important, not just for British Columbia but for the whole of
Canada.
[Translation]
To mark this meeting of Asian and Pacific leaders, Foreign
Affairs and International Trade Canada also inaugurated the year of
the Asia-Pacific. Cultural, academic and trade activities, as well as
other related events, will take place throughout Canada in order to
showcase the solid relations that exist between Canada and its
Asian and Pacific partners, and to raise their profile.
[English]
The Department of Foreign Affairs, working in close
co-operation with other federal departments and the province of
British Columbia, has already opened an office in Vancouver to
support the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation activities which
will highlight British Columbia as the gateway to the Pacific rim.
The government recognizes that British Columbia has a strong
and growing economy. We know well that this economy relies on
small business and trade and on exports, and that the growth in the
Asia-Pacific is very important to the growth of the economy and
the well-being of people in British Columbia.
Our government is making sure that businesses throughout
Canada have the information they need to grow, to expand and to
participate in these new markets in the Asia-Pacific. As an
example, in British Columbia the Canada-British Columbia
Business Service Centre responds to thousands of queries every
month from people all over the province who are starting or
expanding their businesses or expanding their markets. The centre,
which has been developed under the tenure of our government, is
an excellent example of how the federal government can work in
partnership with provincial governments. It shows how we make
use of innovative technology to meet the needs of those businesses
that create the jobs in the current economy.
(1540)
I should point out that just two weeks ago the Internet web site
run by the Canada-British Columbia Business Service Centre won
the Distinction 96 Gold Award for renewing services and program
delivery. Each month this web site helps more than 50,000 visitors
find the practical information they need to start and expand their
small businesses. This is very important for British Columbia and
it is very important for small business in British Columbia.
Our government has also worked in new ways to develop a
program called Strategis which we have put onto the worldwide
web so that businesses can find the information they need, the
information they want when they want it. On Strategis there are
thousands of new technologies which are available. On Strategis
there is the ability to connect up very easily with business partners
across Canada. Indeed for foreigners interested in doing business
with Canada, Strategis is a virtual marketplace for Canadian goods
and services. It is but one component of what we are doing as a
government.
Let me point out another effort which is helping British
Columbia to participate as the gateway to the Asia-Pacific. This is
the international trade personnel program. My department, western
economic diversification, is delivering this program. It is helping
4873
companies in British Columbia and across western Canada to hire
recent graduates to help them develop their export market.
The program has been very successful and its reports already
show significant market penetration as a result of the activities of
these eager young graduates. Many of the markets that are being
penetrated are in the Asia-Pacific region, and this means jobs for
young people, for recent graduates in British Columbia.
Growth in British Columbia and in the Asia-Pacific relies on
these small businesses, the emerging industries. This is where we
are putting a considerable effort.
My department, western economic diversification, has also
recently created investment loan funds in co-operation with banks
and other financial institutions. These loan funds provide access to
capital on fully commercial terms for small businesses in new
growth sectors like biotechnology, health, environmental
technology, information technology, telecommunications, tourism
and other knowledge based industries. This is a further example of
what we are doing in partnership with financial institutions to
provide loans in areas where the risks are higher and where the
needs are great.
Not only do small businesses need access to financing but they
need help in knowing how to expand and grow their businesses.
Western diversification officials in British Columbia are working
with firms in the emerging economy to help with their business
planning as well as responding to calls from entrepreneurs who are
seeking advice. Members of the third party from time to time have
found western diversification so useful to small businesses that
their offices are now regularly referring clients to the western
diversification office for help and advice.
Throughout British Columbia, WD supports a network of 32
community futures development corporations. These CFDCs are
run by volunteers who work hard to create jobs and to help with the
growth of small businesses in their communities. Let me give a few
examples.
(1545)
In Powell River the CFDC has helped to develop the waterfront.
The Strathcona CFDC in Campbell River on northern Vancouver
Island has helped to solve a pollution problem caused by fish waste
and at the same time helped develop a local industry, turning
organic waste into marketable compost. It was able to do this with
financial help provided through western diversification to make
sure that we have a strong on the ground organization.
In the Campbell River area of northern Vancouver Island nine
loans totalling $316,000 using the working opportunity fund have
been made to local small businesses. This is another example of the
CFDCs working and helping locally in economic development.
In the Terrace area of northwestern B.C. we recognize the
importance of aboriginal businesses to the development of a strong
economy. Here the CFDC is making loans to businesses run by
aboriginal people to foster the creation of badly needed businesses
and services in the First Nations communities.
The government believes that in the future it is the young people
in particular who are important to growth and it is opportunities for
young people of which we need to be most aware. In April of this
year western diversification provided $200,000 in new loan capital
to each CFDC to provide financial assistance to British Columbia's
young people to create their own businesses.
I have visited with several of these CFDCs and talked to many of
the young people who have benefited. The experience has been
excellent with this program and the response from young people
and from the CFDCs to this program and this funding have been
very rewarding.
Western economic diversification has also established the
women's enterprise initiative, recognizing that more and more of
small businesses are being operated by women. In British
Columbia the Women's Enterprise Society is working hard to bring
more and more women into the economy as entrepreneurs, sharing
and participating with other entrepreneurs.
The hon. member says he is concerned about the closure of DND
bases in British Columbia. Let me remind him of the government's
commitment to assist communities during these times of economic
adjustment. In areas where the downsizing of a facility will have a
major effect on the local economy the government has stepped in to
help. In the communities around CFB Masset, responsibility for
solutions to economic adjustment has been delegated by the
government to the community. The community is charting its own
future with financial support from the Government of Canada.
Similarly, through the infrastructure works program local
communities have identified needs. Over 400 projects have now
been approved in British Columbia with the federal share
exceeding $220 million or one-third of the total cost. These
projects are expected to create or maintain more than 9,000 short
term and 400 long term jobs. Eighty-five per cent of the program
funding is allocated to water, sewer and local transportation
projects. These will not only enhance the local infrastructure but
they will also improve health and the environment.
We are looking to the future to build a strong base of science,
research and technology in British Columbia. The federal
government is contributing $167 million over five years to the
Tri-University Meson Facility at the University of British
Columbia in Vancouver. TRIUMF is one of the world's leading
facilities for subatomic particle research. The applied research
conducted at TRIUMF has already resulted in the creation of new
commercial
4874
products in biomedical, radiopharmaceutical and medical isotope
research, products like PET scanners and pion therapy beams.
(1550)
TRIUMF generates economic activity for western Canada
through its purchase of products and services, and through
technology transfer and commercialization. In addition, some 700
scientists from around the world come to British Columbia to
conduct research and attend scientific conferences organized by
TRIUMF.
The hon. member should also know that the federal government
has supported many networks of centres of excellence
headquartered in British Columbia. British Columbia is home to
the networks for research on telelearning, on bacterial diseases and
on genetic diseases. In addition to that, the federal government has
invested some $600 million in the Centre for Advanced Wood
Processing and $3 million in the Biopharmaceutical Innovation
Resource Centre Fund.
The good news is that these investments in critical research and
development, coupled to their commercialization, are likely to
have very substantial benefits for the British Columbia economy
for many years to come.
In partnership with the provincial government, the federal
government has provided $5 million over the last two years under
the agreement on communications and cultural industries. This
money has been invested in over 45 projects to promote culture and
technology development in British Columbia.
To make sure that people in communities throughout British
Columbia have access to the information highway, the government
created a community access program and to date 34 rural and
remote communities in British Columbia have been hooked up to
the Internet and even more will be connected over the coming two
years.
The government has been active in making sure that there is
information available for small business, that communities have
support for economic development, that science, research and
technology in British Columbia have solid support. It has also
negotiated open skies agreements with the United States to increase
tourism in British Columbia. It has successfully managed the
infrastructure works program in partnership with the provincial
government and local levels of government.
The government has done a substantial amount for and with the
people of British Columbia as part of the partnership which is this
country of Canada, people working together to make things
happen.
British Columbia is a major contributor to Canada, not only from
an economic point of view but, more important, through the
contribution of all its citizens. It contributes to the strength of our
country culturally economically, scientifically and to the unity of
our great country.
The hon. member should also know that in the time I have been
here the Liberal members from British Columbia have spoken
strongly, loudly and forcefully for the province of British Columbia
and that is one of the reasons why British Columbia and British
Columbians are doing very well at the moment.
I ask that my time be shared with my colleague, the hon. member
for Vancouver Quadra.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. secretary of state will appreciate
that to do that he cannot speak for 18 minutes and then ask to share
two minutes with his colleague. It has to be indicated at the outset
of an intervention.
(1555)
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary the
following question. I listened quite attentively to his 18-minute
dialogue about how great a job the federal government has done
with the economy in British Columbia and about the tremendous
involvement of western diversification, and I wonder if he could
answer a question in connection with the department for which he
is responsible. It has to do with the initiative called community
futures which WED is now looking after.
I have asked this question before. Why do we have these
community futures enterprise centres throughout British Columbia,
and indeed across the country but I am speaking specifically about
B.C. today, and there is now a duplication in having women's
centres? There are a couple in the province that specifically deal
with aboriginal issues.
I support the idea that there is a role to be played to assist small
entrepreneurs who cannot get assistance, especially in the area of
training and helping them to put together a business plan, but I
would think that the criteria for something like that would cross all
boundaries. If people is going to a resource centre or a community
futures centre and looking for assistance, it should not matter if
they are male or female or whether they are aboriginal or
non-aboriginal. I wonder what justification there is for having these
separate centres based on either gender or race. I cannot see that.
I have heard the argument before that the difficulty is that some
women have felt intimidated when they go to a community futures
and have to deal with a male loans officer. I would assume that the
natural chain of events would be to ensure that there are women
working at these centres. I know the one in my home town has all
women working in it now and I certainly do not have a problem
with that. Why have separate programs set up just for women or
just for aboriginals?
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to
explain what is happening with the situation in British Columbia.
4875
The Community Futures Development Corporation, where it is
responsible for a region, deals with men, women and anybody who
lives in that region, on an equal basis. However, it was discovered
that the needs of women historically have not been sufficiently
met. Therefore, the Women's Enterprise Societies have been set
up in the four western provinces.
In order to make sure, in British Columbia in particular, the
Women's Enterprise Society and centre have an agreement with the
Community Futures Development Corporation so that there is a
partnership. They work together to make sure that men and women
are both very well served.
Certainly the experience in all four western provinces has shown
that the Women's Enterprise Centres targeting women are badly
needed. The example we have in British Columbia of a very strong
partnership between the Community Futures Development
Corporation and the Women's Enterprise Society is an example of
how we can deliver services to all effectively and without having
duplication.
(1600 )
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Fraser Valley East.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss a topic that
seldom gets mentioned in the House by the Liberal government,
British Columbia. Perhaps it is the time difference, perhaps it is the
mountain barriers, but in any event B.C. is not a big deal here in
Ottawa. That is usually okay with British Columbians; we feel that
is just fine.
I have listened with a lot of amusement but some distress at the
Liberal members taking full credit for the economic well-being of
the province of British Columbia. It is making a mockery and
undermining the sacrifices, the investments, the time and effort of
the business community in the lower mainland, which is
responsible for the economic development. If anything, it is in spite
of the government that these business entrepreneurs have been able
to withstand the high taxes, the rules, the regulations and the red
tape. The only thing I have seen Liberal government members do is
travel overseas and wine, dine and schmooze. I have not seen
anything more concrete than that. It is the business community
which takes the responsibility for the economic well-being.
We are glad that years ago the federal government quietly
transferred the ownership of Vancouver's international airport to a
local non-profit authority. Without the interference of Ottawa
politicians and bureaucrats, Vancouver international airport has
transformed itself into an elite international airport. It has
successfully been able to handle the phenomenal growth in the
travelling public and is now able to look ahead to even more
expansion.
I was at a Vancouver morning club the other day where they were
toasting and roasting David Emerson, the CEO of the Vancouver
airport authority. I did not see the Minister of Transport, the
minister responsible for B.C., at that function honouring the
individual who has led the airport authority into tremendous
success.
Contrast Vancouver's quiet airport success with the Pearson
airport disaster that this government has led us through. Since the
day this Liberal government got elected it has been consumed with
the Pearson airport deal. The best thing the government is hoping
for now is that this deal will cost Canadian taxpayers tens of
millions of dollars instead of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Meanwhile in Vancouver the amount of money that the federal
government has received from the airport authority has more than
doubled.
That is the way we do things out west. Ignored by the federal
government, we keep adding great amounts of money to the federal
treasury while in the rest of Canada the Liberal government keeps
sticking its nose into issues that it should not and keeps costing the
taxpayers millions of dollars.
For the most part, British Columbians do not look to Ottawa for
the big government projects or government handouts. The attitude
in the west is that we can be successful on our own and we only
hope that Ottawa does not screw it up for us.
In the last 1970s representatives from the British Columbia
provincial government were hard at work trying to get one of the
big Japanese auto manufacturers to set up an assembly plant in
B.C. Toyota showed a fair amount of interest and formal
negotiations began. Then in the early 1980s the federal government
entered into its own negotiations with Toyota at the exclusion of the
British Columbian representatives.
Soon the big announcement came that Toyota would be building
a new North American assembly plant in Ontario. As a thought to
B.C. Toyota did announcement that it would build a wheel
assembly plant in Richmond, B.C. This plant has proven to be very
successful for Toyota and we welcome the jobs. However, it
probably would have been more appropriate if Toyota had set up a
drive train plant in B.C. Then the Liberal government of the day
could have announced that Toyota would open up a major assembly
plant in Ontario and at the same time British Columbia would get
the shaft.
We have heard about the big projects that the previous
government threw our way to try to get our votes. And we are still
waiting for the Polar-8 icebreaker to rejuvenate our shipbuilding
industry. We are still waiting for Kaon linear accelerator to make
B.C. a leader in atomic research.
In reality we are not really waiting. British Columbians know
that these projects were just cheap political promises by the
previous Tory government. Now that the Tories have disappeared
4876
from B.C.'s political map things must have changed with the
Liberal government, right?
(1605)
The Liberal government is not making any outrageous promises
or creating any megaprojects to get the voters' attention. Not yet
anyway. It is still working on its election platform. Instead, the
Liberal government has taken an entirely new approach. Rather
than promise us projects which it has no intention of delivering, it
is simply removing any vestige of the federal government out of
the province. Lighthouse keepers, coast guard officials and the only
military base on the mainland of British Columbia are on their way
out.
Let us look at the lighthouse keepers. On Saturday an American
pilot was flying from Alaska to his home in Washington state when
his plane went down near Bella Bella. However, due to the
diligence of the lighthouse keeper on McInnes Island, a fishing
boat was dispatched precisely to the crash site and was able to
rescue the pilot. Of course this lighthouse is scheduled for
automation.
What would have happened without a human lighthouse keeper?
Perhaps the Minister of Transport would like to tell the House what
would have happened to him that day when he needed a person to
rescue him when he got into distress in his boat. On second
thought, maybe we do not care.
The cutbacks to lighthouses and the Canadian Coast Guard are
going to cost lives. The problem is the government's priorities. The
priorities of the Liberal government are all mixed up. It is cutting
the coast guard at a time when those services are desperately
needed.
There was a case in my riding where there was a crab boat in the
bay that was on fire. If not for the United States coast guard coming
to the rescue, the crew of the crab boat would have perished.
The powers that be at the coast guard headquarters here in
Ottawa think they can save money by closing down a few coast
guard stations in B.C. and by having the main stations manned only
during certain hours. The message to B.C. boaters is do not get into
trouble in B.C. waters unless you are around a major city during
working hours.
This type of policy would appear to have been dreamed up by
some bureaucrat whose idea of high sea adventure is taking a ferry
across the Ottawa River.
All of this is in an attempt to save money. Why does the
government not cut some of the bureaucrats in the offices instead
of those on the front lines who deliver the services?
How will the coast guard spend the rest of its money? While the
coast guard is going to close down stations in B.C. and put lives at
risk, it will use some of the money it saves to send 170 senior
bureaucrats to Cornwall next month to ``meet and have fun''. That
is how the government memo reads. It will be a great relief to B.C.
boaters to know that while the coast guard is cutting back on rescue
services, senior bureaucrats will still have the opportunity to meet
and have fun.
It is not just the coast guard which is cutting back. Our military
is doing it as well. By closing CFB Chilliwack the government is
closing the only military base on the mainland of British Columbia
against the recommendations of senior military officers still
capable of independent thought.
This move by the Liberal government is costing hundreds of
millions of dollars in building facilities in Edmonton to receive the
base from Chilliwack. This is after having just spent hundreds of
millions of dollars on new facilities in Chilliwack. It just does not
make any sense.
It made sense to have Canada's military engineers stationed in
the province with the most difficult terrain in the country as well as
near a major urban centre which has the highest probability of a
major earthquake. However, because it did make sense, the
government is closing the base and shipping the engineers across
the country.
Who will British Columbians have to rely on in the event of a
major earthquake? Certainly not Ottawa. If the greater Vancouver
area suffers a major earthquake and needs military assistance, the
only people in a position to help will be our friends south of the
border.
That is why most British Columbians think north-south more
than they think east-west. That is why most British Columbians are
quite familiar with the concept of Cascadia. When I mentioned
Cascadia in the House a couple of years ago nobody knew what it
was. The library had to phone my office to find out how it is even
spelled. British Columbians are strong supporters of the Canadian
ideals of fairness and equality. They are still waiting for this
government to understand the concept.
(1610)
Last month the federal government quickly came up with an
extra $6 million for Quebec after that province complained it was
taking on over half of Canada's refugees.
Never mind that Quebec already receives $90 million a year or
over 35 per cent of all the federal moneys spent on settlement of
immigrants despite the fact that Quebec only takes 13 per cent of
these immigrants and despite the fact that 77 per cent of economic
immigrants to Quebec leave that province.
Contrast this reaction to how this Liberal government treated
B.C. when it cut of welfare payments to people who had not lived
in the province for three months because of a dramatic increase in
4877
numbers when other provinces started giving their welfare
recipients bus tickets to B.C.
The Liberals responded by withholding $45 million in federal
funds to British Columbia. Fairness and equality are what British
Columbians are looking for. That is what we have learned not to
expect from this Liberal government.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the speech we just listened to in the House. I am
wondering whether I should change the emphasis of my speech
from how disappointed we are about the lack of attention we are
getting from the feds and maybe take the hon. member's advice.
Maybe we are better off without them.
Be that as it may, we raise this issue today not because we think
B.C. issues alone are important in Canada. The Reform Party has
been a national opposition party. We had supply day motions on
Churchill Falls and on the Canadian Wheat Board. Today we are
talking about issues that affect British Columbia specifically.
I would like to spend a little time talking specifically about CFB
Chilliwack. It has been mentioned by previous speakers. The
announced closure of CFB Chilliwack, the move to Gagetown and
to Edmonton, Alberta of the men and equipment previously at CFB
Chilliwack is something that has added another log on the fire of
the feeling of western alienation.
Today during question period I mentioned the hon. member for
Simcoe North, the Liberal government member who toured B.C. on
behalf of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. There was a
document leaked to Barbara Yaffe of the Vancouver Sun. Much to
his surprise, he found out that there was a profound sense of
alienation in British Columbia from our masters here in Ottawa.
There is a profound sense of distrust toward what goes on here in
Ottawa. They ignore this at their peril.
There is no separatism movement in British Columbia per se.
However, what is smouldering right under the surface is a growing
discontent, alienation and feeling that we are not going to put up
with this much longer.
We have the move of CFB Chilliwack, taking the last land forces
base in all of British Columbia and sprinkling it across the country.
Imagine what would have happened if this had been in another
province, perhaps Quebec.
Imagine the reaction that would have occurred if someone said
``there are no more armed forces bases in Quebec, we are pulling
them out''. Many people would argue we should not be building
infrastructure in Quebec at a time when things there are so
uncertain politically.
Be that as it may, the Liberal government thought nothing of it. It
pulled it out. It was a lousy decision. It was a poor decision then
and it is a poor one now.
The reasons it should have been retained are obvious, to protect
Canada's infrastructure in British Columbia. The value of that
property and buildings was $470 million. That will be lost. They
will recoup a small portion of that when they sell. That is what the
value of the property and infrastructure was.
They should have maintained a military forces presence in
British Columbia. I tried to explain to the ministers. Imagine what
this is doing when people in the military are told that their tour of
duty will go from Gagetown, through Edmonton, forget B.C, back
to Gagetown and around we will go. British Columbia has been cut
out of that. If the government thinks that is a good way to increase
our feeling of being part of Canada and part of the decision making
process it is sadly mistaken. There is ample evidence that we
should have had CFB Chilliwack in place in case of the need for aid
to the civil power.
(1615)
CFB Chilliwack was formed in 1946 because it is Canada's only
year round ice free training facility. It was put in place because the
engineers said they needed a place like that to train. As a matter of
fact, they have been transferred to Edmonton and they are in
Chilliwack right now to practise their bridge building as we speak.
It cost $100,000 worth of damage to the bridge when they moved
their equipment in, which is the only bridge over the Chilliwack
River, because they should have been there all along. They are back
because they know this is the kind of facility they need.
Major General Clive Addy, now retired, on July 29 spoke to the
Pan-Pacific Hazards Conference in Vancouver: ``We suffered quite
a compromise from the closing of Chilliwack. Chilliwack is
closing and I have lost the regular force presence in British
Columbia, which I find a military risk. It is a civilian risk as well
because our presence there was in my view necessary''.
What about the claims from the defence minister that the base
was closed on the advice of his officials? He got all the advice from
land forces command and it was the thing to do. Here is what we
got from our access to information request some time ago. From a
memo dated October 14, written by Colonel Daigle who at that
time was in land forces command: ``It is estimated that only about
60 per cent of the savings that the minister is projecting would be
actually materialize. CFB Chilliwack should be retained. Some of
the dollar savings anticipated by the program review could easily
be eaten up by the up front costs of relocation and reconstruction
needed for reinstallation elsewhere, and potentially significant
costs at the new location must also be taken into account''.
It is no wonder that British Columbians feel a sense of alienation
from the federal government. National policies seem to be con-
4878
ceived somewhere in the halls of power here in Ottawa. They are
dictated down to the furthest provinces and they are carried out in
this case without consequences to what it might mean to British
Columbia.
What about the costs of CFB Chilliwack? I said time and again
to the minister: ``Come up with the dollar figures that show how
you are going to save money. I am with the Reform Party and I
have made a lot of noise about saving money, about doing the right
thing fiscally. You show me on a piece of paper where you are
going to save the money and maybe I will have to support you''.
Here is what is actually going to happen. According to DND in
1995, the cost of closing CFB Chilliwack would be $230 million.
That included everything. That included new construction,
severance for staff who were going to be let go, environmental
clean-up, moving costs, miscellaneous. The total was $230 million.
Total savings were supposed to be $66 million a year by moving
our facilities out of Chilliwack.
Last October we released access to information documents that
showed that the government could only realize 60 per cent of these
savings, and that nearly doubles the payback period that the
minister has been bragging about that he will get a return on his
investment.
Since then we have received other documents and it is now
estimated that for construction alone the cost would be $93 million
in Edmonton, $17 million in Gagetown and the cost of moving
CFB Calgary, which is part of this reorganization, would be another
$27 million. That is $137 million just for the costs there.
Our access to information documents show that construction
contracts already awarded to reconstruct CFB Edmonton and CFB
Gagetown total $204 million. The total cost of the whole package
was going to be $230 million, and just the construction now is $204
million. It is impossible to say exactly how much was actually
spent on each of these places because of the way the government
gives us the information. There appears to be a $67 million
discrepancy so far.
(1620)
On September 11, the Calgary Sun announced that DND would
spend yet another $42 million on CFB Edmonton for a new rifle
range and all the other facilities that already exist at CFB
Chilliwack. In total, the Calgary Sun article points out that changes
to the Edmonton base alone could approach half a billion dollars.
Two hundred and thirty million to a half a billion dollars is the
inflation in one year.
The closure of CFB Chilliwack was the wrong decision from a
military point of view. We have heard that. It was wrong from an
emergency planning point of view and now we see that it was also
wrong from an economic point of view.
There is obviously something wrong with the federal
government. It is not listening. If the minister does not want to
listen to me, I accept that. The minister does not listen to anybody
from British Columbia so why should he listen to me? But he
should be listening to the needs of British Columbia. He has closed
his ears to any arguments and has said that it will be done, do not
confuse me with the facts.
It begs the question why is the government really moving CFB
Chilliwack. Is it politics? Is it partisan politics? This could be
military politics, pure and simple. It could be that somebody in the
general staff decided they did not like to come out to British
Columbia so just get rid of them. It could have been, but it is
increasingly becoming obvious that partisan politics has played a
role in closing the last armed forces base in British Columbia.
General Boyle was in our town not too long ago. He told officers
at CFB Chilliwack I have since talked to that whoever is going to
close this place down must be nuts. He was not in command at the
time the decision was made. It does not matter whether your from
Gagetown or the chief of defence staff; it is a wrong decision to
close the base, and anybody who goes out there will see it at a
glance.
It has been asked if it was nasty partisan politics, military
politics or just a bad decision. It has been said never to attribute to
malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I am not
sure to what we can attribute the closure of CFB Chilliwack but on
wither count, whether malice or stupidity, I believe the Liberal
government is guilty of a gross mismanagement of public funds.
The people of British Columbia will hold it to account for it
years from now and even in the next general election. People are
already starting to line up and say that if CFB Chilliwack was
closed for partisan politics-and the proof is starting to roll
in-then they will never again be able to support a Liberal
government.
The last five base commanders in my riding, now living in
Chilliwack, have all given me the same story, that CFB Chilliwack
should have been retained. CFB Chilliwack is an integral part of
the Canadian Armed Forces and certainly plays a key role in any
engineering efforts by our armed forces.
The decision to close it is another decision that I think years
from now this federal government or successive federal
governments will live to regret.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member attentively. I find his remarks about
partisan politics in the decision with respect to Chilliwack to be
offensive, and I really mean offensive. This is not partisan politics.
The announcement to close air command was made well over a
year ago. I think it was in the 1995 budget. Where is air command?
4879
It is in the riding of Winnipeg St. James, which I have the honour of
representing. It has nothing to do with partisan politics whatsoever.
Sometimes we have to make tough decisions. Sometimes they
come down hard and these decisions are difficult for members of
Parliament, be they Liberal, Reform, Bloc or whatever.
In addition to air command being closed, naval command was
closed. And where is naval command located? It is located in
Halifax, Nova Scotia. As far as I know there are not too many
Reform MPs from the province of Nova Scotia. In fact, I do not
think there are very many Conservative or Bloc MPs. They are all
Liberal.
(1625)
The fact is this government has a responsibility to run the armed
forces and sometimes that means there has to be reorganization.
Sometimes it means closing air command, sometimes it means
closing naval or army command in the province of Quebec. This
has nothing to do with partisan politics.
I suggest the viewers watching this program, having listened to
the hon. member from British Columbia make that kind of charge,
will be very upset hearing those kinds of allegations because they
are totally without foundation.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the government does have a
responsibility to run the armed forces and it is running them into
the ground, as we have seen week after week here in the House of
Commons.
I started out with a different attitude. I begged the minister to
show me the documentation on how he could save some money. I
said: ``If you can save some money and you lay it out for me in a
document, and I am not talking about a one-page press release, I
am talking about showing me how you can save the money, if you
can save the money and still fulfil the role of the armed forces then
hey, I am a Reformer and I will go for it. Let us do it. If that will
save some bucks I am all for it''.
This is not about saving money. That is why Colonel Daigle said
in his analysis, the memo sent to the minister on which bases
should be closed, that CFB Chilliwack should be retained. He went
on to say they will not save money shutting down CFB Chilliwack.
General Clive Addy said you cannot do your job if you shut
down CFB Chilliwack. The last five base commanders, all of them
engineers, all who have seen the development of CFB Chilliwack
and realized the role it plays in the greater military, the whole
engineer training school and so on, have written to me and have all
said the same thing, that this base should not be closed.
It should be retained and you cannot save money by sending
people to Gagetown or to Edmonton and ask them to use ground
engaging equipment in December. You cannot ask them to practice
their grading techniques in January. You cannot ask them to build a
road or practice their bridging techniques on February 5. You
cannot ask them to build Bailey bridges and to practice their rafting
on March 4 in Edmonton.
Right now they are trucking all our guys from Edmonton back to
Chilliwack to practice their bridging and rafting. As a matter of
fact, to move their equipment in they damaged the bridge and it is
going to cost $100,000 just to fix the bridge. It is not a good move.
It is not a good move militarily. We heard that from General Clive
Addy and others.
It is not a good move economically. We have heard that from our
own access to information documents and from the government's
own analysis. It is not a good move even right down to the idea-I
do not want to make this into a national unity issue-of
understanding what is going on in the regions of the country. It is
important that the military have some institutional knowledge of
British Columbia.
It is interesting and I hate to say it is typical but as an aside they
changed the boundaries of my riding. It is now going to be called
Fraser Valley. I phoned Elections Canada in Ottawa and I said I
needed some maps to let me know exactly what it is I am looking
at. The response from the people in Ottawa was: ``Fraser Valley.
Where in Alberta is that?''
I get the same feeling from this government when it comes to
issues related to British Columbia. It is like the official who phoned
me up one time on a speaking tour and asked if they went to
Vancouver Island could they drive the George Massey Tunnel to
get back to the mainland by quitting time. I deal with this all the
time.
On my phone consistently are messages saying: ``I am sorry I did
not catch you in the office, Strahl, what is the matter with you?'' Of
course the message is 6.30 a.m. Why? Because they do not even
understand there is a stupid time change in this country. On that
side of the House they do not understand that the country does not
end at the Rocky Mountains.
(1630)
On military endeavours the Liberals are making a serious error.
They recognize that B.C. should have a constitutional veto because
it is a separate region. I do not want to get into a whole national
unity debate. But they seem to understand at least that there is a
region called British Columbia and it is separated by the Rocky
Mountains. It is a hard doggone thing to get across in the middle of
a landslide or an earthquake or in the case of a natural disaster.
However, the Liberals do not have clue one when it comes to
understanding that the military needs an institutional knowledge of
4880
what takes place on that side of the Rocky Mountains. They are
going to pay a price for this. I hope that Canadians and British
Columbians do not pay too big a price for the ignorant decision of
this federal government.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this has been an
interesting if somewhat unresponsive debate. I will raise some of
the key points that have emerged as I have listened to the various
orators.
It is charged that it is a grievous crime that there are not enough
Liberal members from B.C. That can be corrected in the next
election. But I would raise the basic point that it is not the number
of members, it is the quality of the representation. I made the point
in another context with the former Conservative government,
which I think was historically well accepted, that they had more
effective representation of B.C. in the period 1984 to 1988 with
only one powerful minister than in 1988 to 1993 when there were
four or five ministers, one being a prime minister in waiting. It is
the quality of the advice and whether the people work together as a
team that counts.
Let me run through some of the achievements of which B.C.
people can be proud in this period of office of B.C. members. One
is the TRIUMF facility. Does anyone know how many hours of
work that represented, carrying it to the cabinet, discussing it
bilaterally with a minister, discussing it with the western caucus,
persuading other regions of the country to waive their claims? We
made the case that B.C. leads in these areas of fundamental
scientific research and there is a significant spin-off to export
industry. We brought forward the statistics: $200 million export
contracts in foreign trade spun off from TRIUMF, in order to retain
TRIUMF. Give us the money for that. B.C. leads. $167.5 million
spread over five years is a significant gain. That took some
hundreds of hours of work from my office and that of other
members.
Canadian Airlines. We made the point to the cabinet that it is
vital to have two national airlines in Canada and that it should use
its power as a federal government to control the international air
routes, which were given under the foreign affairs treaty making
power. Use that to persuade one of the parties to cease aggressive
litigation. The result of another few hundred hours of work,
discussion in the western caucus, discussion in the national caucus
before a Prime Minister who listens was 7,000 jobs retained in the
greater Vancouver area. That is an achievement. A minister who
listened and a minister who said the work was there and who said
he had been persuaded.
B.C. as a distinct society, the notion that we should be
considered as distinct a society as any in Canada, but with the
important constitutional implications. B.C. is a fifth region and if
there is to be any constitutional veto, we are entitled to that as
much as anybody else. That was accepted again. It took arguments
with ministers, arguments with cabinet, the case presented in the
caucus. That is teamwork.
Softwood lumber. My colleague, the member for Vancouver
South started this. But the argument that historic rights were a key
part of federalism in Canada and should be respected were key in
maintaining B.C.'s historical quota. That argument was made by
the B.C. members and it won and the results are there. Not
everybody was happy with this. In fact, some of my colleagues
from other provinces have asked: ``Have you not managed to get
too much''? We said: ``We have made the case. If you have a good
case, carry it forward''. That is the essence of a good MP carrying
the case for his or her province in Ottawa. It is the not the number
of MPs but in fact the quality of their representations and whether
they do their homework. Somebody was referring to the media and
its power. I have appeared frequently on CFNW. I have been there
for 20 years off and on with my old combatant and good friend,
Rafe Mair. I was on his program and was congratulated on what we
had managed to do on the airlines. Someone asked: ``What have
you done about the francophonie Olympic games?'' I said: ``Look,
I am working on softwood lumber. It is a full time job. Give me
some extra colleagues and maybe we can delegate to them the
francophonie Olympic games''. This is not to say that it is not an
important question but there is a limit to our physical capacity to
handle many jobs together.
(1635)
On the record, I believe we have done well. It reflects the basic
condition in British Columbia. We are the fastest growing area of
the country but it is more than that. It is more than the influx of
population. It is the new dynamism. It is the feeling that Canada is
moving and we are moving more quickly than anybody else.
It is one of the reasons why, in this repeated discussion of
constitutional change, that we have said we would like a larger
vision. It is mistake to jell the status quo. We want to build a
Canada for the future.
Is British Columbia opposed to Quebec? Not on your life. I know
no reasonable, responsible British Columbian who is opposed to
Quebec, to French Canada or the French language and culture and
its influence on our society. If it is simply a matter of repeating
what is already international law and constitutional law by virtue of
the military agreements of 1759, the Treaty of Paris 1763, the
Quebec Act of 1774 and the Supreme Court Act of 1875 so far as it
relates to Quebec representations in the Supreme Court of Canada,
there is no problem in British Columbia. In fact, there is no
particular constitutional obstacle.
It is when we get into the specifics of constitutional change that
we face the basic issue that we have been in some respects in a
constitutional straitjacket since 1982. We have pointed out that
some matters for change require 10 out of 10 provinces to agree.
Other matters require only seven out of ten but it may take a
4881
Supreme Court decision to say which is which. In the meantime,
we have to recognize that politics is the art of the possible.
That is why I and others welcome the agreement, in which we
have played some part, between the Government of British
Columbia, which is not of the same political ideology as the
present Government of Canada, and the Government of Canada,
the memorandum of understanding to study together the future of
the west coast fishing industry.
If we want to change the Constitution, we are into this basic
problem, section 91.12. It is section 91 and 92. On many views
change in section 91.12, by formal amendment, is a 10 out of 10
question. It is at least a seven out of ten and with every
constitutional change involving British Columbia's consent, we
have to have the prior approval of the people in a referendum.
Former Premier Van Der Zalm's government introduced it and it is
the law. It is respected by everybody.
However, there is nothing to say that we cannot change the
Constitution in other ways, that we cannot reach co-operative
federalism by a joint understanding of principles and policies for
future development that we would work out together. This is
changing the Constitution in a practical way if it works, and the
best energies of the British Columbia government we are assured
and certainly the federal government are devoted to this.
I will repeat again that the Constitution is changing. British
Columbians welcome the change in the Constitution. Probably at a
certain point we will be suggesting the simplest of all methods, a
constituent assembly. However, it is a country still in growth and,
as we know from the experience of the 19th century codification, to
act too early is frankly to jell social change prematurely. We are
looking at this, but in the meantime we are doing our best to change
the Constitution in practical ways.
(1640)
The decision of the federal cabinet on softwood lumber is a
vindication of the classic principles of federalism. The intervention
of the British Columbia caucus was very positive and very direct.
I respect the problems to which hon. members opposite have
referred. I understand the concern of members of the Bloc in
relation to the marine service fees. There has been reference to the
fact that 75 per cent of the witnesses took one view and only 25 per
cent the other. Have they considered the reality that in British
Columbia we work collegially? It is much better to have one or two
solid pieces of testimony from British Columbians in favour of the
differential fee for the main services fee, the principle of user pay,
if they represent the same number of people as the 75 per cent. In
other words, the numbers game does not work. It is the weight of
the testimony which is crucial.
I would remind members of the official opposition who raised
this issue that the matter is still open to examination as the
experience with the marine service fees is worked out.
With respect to the closing of military bases, I argued the case
successfully for extending the Chilliwack base by a year. I argued
the case in relation to Royal Roads. The difference in the two cases
is that in Royal Roads the provincial government and the local
communities came up with alternative plans which were accepted.
I regret the closing of Chilliwack, but I accept the notion which
all opposition members have raised. If we want to balance the
budget and reduce external debt, then something has to give. The
sacrifice, as long as it is equal, is something which we can share.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before beginning I would like to draw the
attention of the House to the fact that the Reform Party is once
again trying to pit some regions against other regions in Canada.
Last week it was Quebec against Newfoundland with the Churchill
Falls issue. This week it is trying to pit British Columbia against
other regions of the country. It is sad.
I would like to suggest that the reason the Reform Party is
playing politics this way is because it is continually dropping in the
polls which are taken in British Columbia. In September the Gallup
poll showed that it only has about 21 per cent support in B.C. I
would like to advise the third party that doing politics this way will
not earn it any more brownie points.
During Question Period I asked the Reform member if he
understood the Asia-Pacific agenda of the government and, in
particular, as it pertains to B.C. He said no. He said that trade in
British Columbia is thriving in spite of government efforts.
I would like to take this opportunity to share some information
with him. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government in
November 1993 recognized how important the Asia-Pacific region
is and how important it is to British Columbia. It is no coincidence
that Canada's first Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific is from
British Columbia. I want to share the efforts which the government
and I have made over the last three years for British Columbia.
One of the reasons the Asia-Pacific region is so important for us
is because of the job and economic growth agenda which is a
priority of the government. We led Team Canada missions into that
region: China in 1994, and India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia
in January 1996. These missions have led to some $17 billion in
new business deals and follow-up activities. Other missions led by
4882
other Canadian ministers and myself have also promoted our
commercial interests and through them, jobs and growth at home.
(1645)
It is estimated that every billion dollars of exports in Canada
which are exported through British Columbia generate about
11,000 jobs for Canadians. In British Columbia alone, 50 per cent
of our exports are to the Asia-Pacific region. I can share with the
members some of the successes from British Columbia.
Innotech Aviation of Richmond, a company in my riding has
recently signed an agreement with the Chinese General
Administration of Civil Aviation Authority to complete a major
maintenance project for Chinese Cessna Citation jets. Sun-Rype
Products of Kelowna signed a memorandum of understanding that
is worth $13 million while on a recent trade mission. Chai-na-ta
Corporation has two projects worth $27 million which will sustain
100 jobs in its Langley operation. Kryton Technologies of
Vancouver will create 10 jobs as a direct result of its joint ventures
in Asia through participation in Team Canada.
Improving Canada's trade performance and links between
countries is one of the best moves we can make to create jobs in
Canada. Another way of linking Canada and the countries of the
Asia-Pacific is through the open skies agreement. We understand
how important the open skies agreement is to Canada and how the
overall transportation system on the west coast is so important to
British Columbia. It is no coincidence again that Canada's
transport minister is from British Columbia. The Minister of
Transport has done a great job.
I still remember that when we first got elected, the first thing I
did was to meet with the airport authority to talk about how
important the open skies agreement was. The former Minister of
Transport and the present Minister of Transport, who is an hon.
member from British Columbia, have done a tremendous job in
implementing that policy. In February 1995 the agreement was
signed.
How important is the open skies agreement for British
Columbia? It has made Vancouver the gateway to the Asia-Pacific.
The reason the tourism industry has flourished and so many airlines
have started using us is that we have the open skies agreement.
Talking about high tech industries in British Columbia, because of
that agreement, Richmond will no longer be at a competitive
disadvantage because of poor airline connections.
I am proud to announce that Vancouver has been chosen as the
site where Canada will host the Asia-Pacific Economic
Co-operation conference in November 1997. It is no coincidence
the Government of Canada decided that Vancouver should be the
site. We recognize it is important for Vancouver to have that
opportunity, to showcase Vancouver, British Columbia and in fact,
the whole of Canada to the Asia-Pacific region. This is also why the
Prime Minister will announce later that 1997 will be the year of
Asia-Pacific for Canada. This is all because we want to put
emphasis on helping Vancouver and British Columbia and Canada
to do much more in the Asia-Pacific region.
(1650)
Talking about the technology industry, I would like to remind the
member that in the 1995 budget we planned $165 million for
TRIUMF, which is one of the flagships of the high technology
industry in Canada and indeed in British Columbia. This was done
at a time when a lot of research and development projects in other
parts of the country were being cut back.
The reason we managed this is that all six caucus members of the
Liberal Party from British Columbia worked very hard to convince
our colleagues in the rest of the country that it is important for
British Columbia to continue with the TRIUMF project. It is
important that those scientists and technologists who are so
important for this country stay in the lower mainland to continue to
provide a lot of spin-off benefits for the high technology industries
in British Columbia.
It is no coincidence either that because of the hard work of the
Liberal caucus members from British Columbia as my colleague,
Mr. McWhinney, has mentioned-
The Deputy Speaker: This mistake has been made repeatedly
this afternoon, colleagues. We are not to refer to a sitting member
of the House by his or her name and only by his or her constituency.
Mr. Chan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier my colleagues
mentioned the efforts we have put forward to make sure that we
kept our entitled quota on softwood lumber. It is because we all
worked so hard that we were able to convince the ministers in
charge that softwood lumber is critical for the future of British
Columbians. We finally won what we set out to do.
Talking about the deficit, whenever I go back to my riding to
meet with British Columbians they all talk about the necessity of
keeping our irons in the fire to make sure that we do a good job to
maintain our target goals on our deficit reduction project. Even
though the agenda we put forth on the deficit reduction process has
a great deal of impact on the other regions of Canada, and at the
same time British Columbians have less of a burden in this process,
the cabinet and the Prime Minister have been able to pursue and
continue with-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver North.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the member some questions about his representation in
B.C.
My first question is: Why did the member ignore the input from
two, not just one but two public meetings in his riding which told
him not to support any recognition of distinct society for Quebec
4883
when he voted for the government's initiative against the wishes of
his constituents?
The second question is: Is it true that the member mentioned that
he would not be a minister if it was not for the fact that he was
Asian? If that is true, how widespread is this problem of racism in
the Liberal Party?
My third question is. On the issue of astronaut families, the
member comes from a riding that contains a high percentage of
Asians. I have an article here from the Vancouver Sun of September
25. It states: ``In the past two months dozens of high-end homes on
Vancouver's west side have been listed, including four priced at
$2.5 million or higher, that went on the market the same day
because Asians are fleeing the country, because they are going to
be required to pay taxes on their worldwide incomes by the new
provisions introduced in the budget last year''.
To link the article, it describes reports from KPMG Accountants
and a number of others who estimate this astronaut family problem
to be a major problem. That is certainly the experience that came
from New Zealand when they clamped down on this tax evasion.
Three years ago Reformers were called racist for even trying to
bring this subject up. Now it is clearly a major, major problem here.
I would like the member to tell me, does it affect 10 per cent, 20 per
cent, 30 per cent or 40 per cent of his riding? How many tax
evaders are there in his riding?
(1655)
Mr. Chan: Mr. Speaker, I have no apologies to make. If the
distinct society clause is what will keep Canada united, then that is
exactly what I believe was necessary at the time of the referendum.
The Prime Minister came out boldly to support that cause and
carried through with the legislation to honour his promise to keep
Canada together.
As an immigrant who came to this country-and I love this
country-I came here for freedom, but I want a united Canada. I
have no apologizes to make to support the initiative to keep Canada
together. On the contrary, I would ask the Reform Party: Where
were you in the referendum? Where were you to be seen? During
the referendum I went into Quebec three or four times-
The Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. member please put his
comments to the Chair rather than across the floor.
Mr. Chan: Mr. Speaker, I get excited when it comes to the unity
of the country.
I was in Quebec three or four times to urge Quebecers to vote no
in the referendum. I have no apologies to make in that regard.
Speaking as the minister for the Asia-Pacific, right after the
report was made in the Vancouver Sun I made a strong statement to
tell the public that it was not true. Indeed the fact that I as an
immigrant of Asian origin am able not only to share the wealth and
well-being of Canada because of the generosity of Canadians but
also to share in the political power of the Canadian establishment is
a true indication of how generous Canadians are, how open our
society is. The statement was false and I make that very clear. I
thank the hon. member for giving me this opportunity to clear those
points.
On the astronaut family issue, this is where we differ with the
Reform Party. Mr. White suggested that every immigrant that
comes into-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister has been here now for
three years and I think he should know to address members by their
riding rather than by their names.
Mr. Chan: The hon. member opposite who asked a question
suggested that all immigrants who come to this country should
report to the customs officers at the border whether they have paid
taxes or not. How could the Canadian government treat immigrants
differently from Canadians? I do not think it is practical to treat
every immigrant as a criminal before they come into this country.
For the hon. member opposite to ask me how big the problem of
astronaut families is, I do not know. I do not think any one of us
would know. I do not think it is a big problem because most
immigrants from Asia are no different from immigrants from any
other part of the world. Most of them are law-abiding citizens and
most of them have contributed greatly to the success of this
country. I look at myself as a great example. I came to Canada with
$20 in my pocket. I completed my education here. I have built a
family and a career and I am contributing to the country. I am an
Asian immigrant.
I hope that the Reform Party and the members opposite will not
continuously attack Canadians or immigrants because of their
ethnic origin.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
will, of course, permit me to comment on the discussion that took
place between the member of the Liberal Party and the member of
the Reform Party, earlier, when they were speaking about distinct
society. On a number of occasions today, we have heard our
colleagues in the Reform Party berate the Liberals for supporting
this concept.
That being said, government members have on each occasion
been at pains to make it clear that they were supporting the concept
only in so far as it meant as little as possible and that absolutely no
power was involved. One minister even told us this during question
period.
4884
(1700)
This is a clear illustration of the fact that distinct society means
different things to different people. Today, during the debate
between government members and members of the Reform Party,
the government took the trouble each time to make it clear that this
concept did not involve any specific or additional power. In that
sense, they supported it. It is very worrisome to hear such things.
These people are saying that they have promised to recognize the
concept of a distinct society, and that they will keep their promise,
as long as it does not mean anything. We could doubt their good
faith and sincerity when they come selling us all sorts of promises.
That being said, let us return to the motion proposed today by the
Reform Party. This debate always leads us back to the
constitutional debate, because there are many problems associated
with the division of powers in this country.
Today, the Reform Party is complaining that the federal
government is impeding progress in western Canada through its
mismanagement of the affairs of the nation. It gives a series of
examples: discontinuation of Coast Guard services, the closure of
military bases, the elimination of federal Ports Canada policing,
and so on.
I will take the few minutes allotted me to draw a parallel with the
situation in Quebec regarding the federal government. One of the
problems, and the problem that will eventually lead to the
reconfiguration of Canada without Quebec, in which Quebec will
simply be one of Canada's trade partners, is this centralizing
tendency that has always dominated thinking over the years here in
Ottawa.
We see there has always been a movement in western Canada
that favours decentralized government, a movement that never
found favour with a government that has always been at the mercy
of the bureaucracy or the bureaucratic inertia of the people who
make the real decisions here in Ottawa.
That also led to the current situation: excessive debt. It also
means that we have a federal government that is responsible for
spending more than $160 billion annually, which is
disproportionate to the role government should play if we had a
real confederation instead of a federation. What the Reform Party
proposes today brings us back to the crux of the problem, where
there are certain choices we will have to make, choices that will be
made in the years to come.
As I said earlier, I will discuss the similar situation that exists in
Quebec, without necessarily commenting on the situation in British
Columbia, with the exception of a few areas for which I have some
figures. I will start with defence spending.
I find that ridiculous. We often hear people, especially on the
government side, harp on the fact that unemployment levels are
higher in Quebec. They get all excited, they are in fact delighted,
and they think it is just one more weapon to fight the sovereignists,
and they told us that to our face.
I say this because last night I was watching a news feature on
RDI, I think it was ``Le Point''. In this program they explained,
using statistics and interviewing an economist with Statistics
Canada, why there was a difference of about 3 per cent between
unemployment levels in Quebec and Ontario. With the automotive
industry removed, we could see it clearly accounted primarily for
the difference. If the automotive industry had been transferred to
Quebec, Ontario would have had 3 per cent more unemployment
than Quebec.
The same sector is responsible for the fact that the level of
investment in Canada is higher in Ontario than Quebec.
Historically, who made the decision that the automotive industry
would be concentrated mainly in Ontario? These are political
decisions that were made here in Ottawa.
This, together with spending on research and development, on
which I will say more later, means that the interests of the province
of Ontario have always come first. Ontario, in the final instance,
has had the advantage of an economy that attracted productive
investment, often at the expense of Quebec and perhaps of other
regions as well. All this has made one region stronger
economically, while other regions have been able to improve their
economies thanks to other factors.
We have heard a lot about British Columbia today. The main
economic advantage of this province is based on a growing Asian
market that will continue to grow in the years and perhaps decades
to come. They have managed to position themselves strategically
between the Asian economy and the U.S. economy.
(1705)
However, when we consider the situation in the Maritimes
which, up to a point, has been similar to that in Quebec, we see that
the federal system has not been very favourable for partners other
than those who control the decisions here and are located mostly in
Ontario.
The Reform Party members mentioned the defence aspect,
because they have lost a major infrastructure in British Columbia
as a result of what they consider to be unfair distribution of federal
spending. Let us look at the expenditures per province, and more
specifically per capita, for the Department of National Defence.
The provinces benefiting most are, in order: Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Manitoba, with Ontario ranking fourth, PEI fifth,
and Quebec sixth.
I can, of course, understand the Reform Party members'
disappointment with this, since they are not the ones to benefit
most from these expenditures. But the situation in Quebec speaks
volumes: $316 per capita, on the average, compared to $1,200 for
Nova Scotia, for instance, or four times more; $1,050 for New
4885
Brunswick; $471 for Manitoba; $420 per capita for Ontario; $365
for PEI, and $316 for Quebec.
There has, moreover, been a study saying that the federal
defence underinvestment in Quebec had deprived Quebec of $650
million in economic fallout every year for 15 years. Just think,
these are considerable amounts which, when recirculated into the
economy, increase the development of the service sector, as well as
investments in other sectors. They generate economic activity, and
we are not talking of a pittance here, but of $650 million annually.
Now, for some other figures. Personnel expenditures account for
15 per cent of the budget. I am referring here to the 1992-1993
budget. There may have been some changes to the figures, but
nothing drastic. Personnel expenditures, therefore, represent only
15 per cent, while the figure for DND infrastructure investment in
Quebec was 13 per cent.
Other things that have happened have also triggered strong
reactions. In August 1995, for instance, the federal government had
a major contract to award, relating to personnel carriers. It will be
remembered that this was awarded without a bid process-and
where? To Ontario, of course, GM to be precise.
Yes, there was a contract for parts and so on to be awarded to
Quebec, but it did not come at all close to generating the same
economic activity, and certainly was not of the same magnitude as
what went to Ontario without a bidding process.
Once again, this was an arbitrary decision, one which has
always, over the years, favoured the same area. How, after that, can
one wonder why in Quebec certain sectors have a higher
unemployment rate than elsewhere?
There is no doubt that, when the federal government decides to
be an active player, it comes and takes billions of dollars in revenue
from each of the provinces, $30 billion from Quebec, and spends
them in a rather arbitrary manner, often with questionable
judgment. Obviously, this leads to distortions. Some lose, and
others gain.
Furthermore, Statistics Canada officials are doing some very
interesting studies, although they are not known to be sovereignists
or to have any political association, and they said that Quebec's
share of federal investments, and they had studies to back them up,
was clearly below the percentage for its population. They said that
Quebec's contribution to Gross Domestic Product was 18.6 per
cent, while we represent 23 per cent of the population. There are
those who may say that 5 per cent is no big deal, but when you are
spending billions of dollars, each percentage point adds up to
hundreds of millions. So when you are talking 5 per cent, obviously
that is a lot of money not invested in a province like Quebec that
should have been invested there.
Obviously, I fully expect to hear members from the Reform or
Liberal parties say: ``Yes, but, on the other hand, you benefited
from equalization payments, you received transfer payments for
more than your share of the population, for example, for
unemployment insurance, welfare and so on''. That is true, but
because of an infrastructure that was not well enough developed
and was distorted by political choices made outside Quebec, we
ended up with a higher rate of unemployment and a higher jobless
rate, leading inevitably to greater numbers of people on
unemployment insurance and welfare, as well as additional costs.
(1710)
We are compensated, less and less I might add, through transfer
payments and told: ``Quit whining, we pay a sort of social
assistance to the provinces and you should be happy with that''.
But never in a month of Sundays does this make up for all the
political decisions that led to this situation. I would much prefer
that we receive a fairer share in research and development, in
procurement and in all these sectors that help us take control of our
economy.
I will give you an example. During the last referendum
campaign, I had the opportunity to visit a plant involved in the
purchase of goods and services-this time by the Government of
Quebec, but the example still shows how important an issue this is.
This company had obtained a government building maintenance
contract which enabled it to develop a computer-controlled system
for ventilation, air conditioning, electric power and so on. Thanks
to its government contracts, the company was able to develop an
extraordinary technology, which it is now exporting throughout the
U.S. for use in a large number of buildings.
But, first of all, they received the necessary jump start from
having obtained a government contract, which added to their
credibility. Of course, when the federal government does not give
Quebec its just dues, contracts like this, with their significant long
term economic fallout, are not obtained. The obvious results of this
are less research and fewer investments in such a province.
I do not want to get carried away, to overdo it, blaming the
federal government for everything that is wrong in Quebec. Far
from it, but we do have to face reality. They talk about not wanting
to make a connection between the economic debate and the
political one, but one is possible. I am not afraid of doing just that. I
am a sovereignist, and a great economics enthusiast, and I can tell
you that, while there are cultural and historical reasons which cause
me to opt for sovereignty, there are also some very pragmatic ones
which are linked to the economy. If one looks at the situation, one
cannot reach any other conclusion.
4886
Now, moving on to research and development. This is another
sector in which, over the years, Quebec has not been overwhelmed
with federal expenditures. For example, in 1990-91, Quebec
received 19.5 per cent of federal expenditures, compared to
Ontario's share of 53 per cent. Once again, these are Statistics
Canada's figures.
In 1990-91, 13.8 per cent of federal R&D expenditures in federal
laboratories went to Quebec. Here again, Ontario was the big
winner. Between 1979 and 1989, in a study over the longer term,
Quebec received an average of 18.5 per cent of the federal
government's total R&D spending. For those ten years alone, this
represented a loss of $2 billion in R&D spending.
I can give you more figures. There are plenty of statistics.
Ontario has 73 federal research centres. This works out to one per
150,000 inhabitants. There are 50 in western Canada, 30 in Quebec
and 24 in the Maritimes. If we compare Quebec and Ontario, we
have a ratio of 30 to 73.
I remember that in university I had a chance to do a study on
research and development, and it was clear that the way spending
was distributed was most unfair. There was a definite bias in
laboratory expenditures in Ottawa or in the Outaouais, where 3 out
of 41 centres are in Quebec. Hull, Gatineau and Aylmer are not that
far away, so it would not have been a problem to have more, which
would have made for more balanced statistics on research and
development.
It goes on and on. Look at what happens with procurement. Here
again, Quebec has never received more than 19.1 per cent of
spending on goods and services. That was in 1981. A long time
ago. This percentage has varied between 15 and 19 per cent. I
repeat, we always get several percentage points less in procurement
and research and development than our population sends in taxes to
Ottawa. About 23 per cent of taxes collected come from Quebec,
but we never get more than 17 or 18 per cent of investment
spending.
It should come as no surprise today to see more people drawing
conclusions about the positive impact of political systems like the
one we have now. This government has had ample opportunity to
change its power structure, to limit its spending powers and
decentralize its jurisdictions, but it has always failed to produce a
positive response, even when at times western Canada showed an
even stronger political will to demand some level of
decentralization.
(1715)
Today, we see practically everyone on the Canadian side rallying
behind Ottawa's strategy, which is to go for broke. It has taken a
very hard line and painted a threatening future for Quebecers. They
say there will be total chaos, legal chaos and economic chaos,
uncertainty, and so forth.
However, they offer no alternative because they are incapable of
defining one. They do not want to. Deep down they probably think
that fear of the unknown will lead people to opt for the status quo.
Surprise. Since last October, we see more people drawing different
conclusions, and next time, there will be even more.
Before I finish, I may recall the program I watched
yesterday-very well presented and very objective-on the
economic situation. The program explained the difference in
unemployment levels in Quebec and Ontario.
With figures to prove his point, an economist with the Bank of
Canada explained the variables: investment, the unemployment
rate, the importance of the automotive industry in Ontario. These
are the reasons why today we have the kind of differential in the
unemployment rate that we see between Quebec and Ontario. The
difference is about 3 per cent. It has always existed. This is not
new. This has been going on for 25 or 30 years.
I would like to send a message to our federalist friends opposite,
especially those from Quebec. They should take another look at the
statistics they are spreading around left and right and stop getting
excited because jobs were lost in Quebec for two consecutive
months. I urge them to start digging, to see what is behind all that,
instead of always blaming everything on political uncertainty,
which is being used as an excuse for just about anything today. Let
them look at how political decisions made over the years have had
a negative impact on the development of Quebec.
I am not talking about the situation of the airports in Montreal or
the Borden line or the rest, I am simply talking about a few major
sectors. I am talking about how decisions made over the years by
the government for which they work, where their tax money is
administered, to the tune of $30 billion coming from Quebec, how
those decisions have had a negative impact on Quebec's
development.
I would ask them to take a realistic look at the situation. If they
want them, I will be glad to provide the statistics and discuss the
issues with them to get the right picture and find out how to get this
economy on the road to recovery. They will want a federalist
solution, of course, but that being said, they should convince the
people here in Ottawa to check the imbalance in investment which
has grown over the years, but I doubt they will succeed.
In concluding, people are complaining about the situation in
British Columbia, for instance. I want to provide a picture of the
situation in Quebec which is scarcely better, a picture that the
federal government has certainly not helped to improve.
4887
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to enter into this debate on the Reform Party's
motion.
Some people will think it odd that the member for Durham, part
of Ontario, possible home of General Motors, et cetera, would be
speaking about an area on the west coast. However, I have some
family members who are engaged in the west coast fisheries at
Comox. I had the great pleasure in February of this year to go to
Prince Rupert to talk to many business people and people engaged
in government services, et cetera.
One interesting thing about Prince Rupert and the people who
live there is that there was a certain degree of isolationism not just
from the government in Ottawa but from their own provincial
government in Victoria. I think the problem in our country is that
many rural communities feel dislinked, for whatever reason, from
our urban centres.
It is very important that we as a government find ways to bring
those people together in a common cause. There has been a great
deal of stress in our country because of a traumatic shift away from
an east-west based economy to a north-south one. This is no less so
for the people of Prince Rupert. I spent a good deal of time with
these people and I have discovered that Prince Rupert has
tremendous potential. It is clearly 35 hours closer to the Asian ports
of Korea and Japan.
(1720)
Many people spoke to me about the cost of shipping through the
port of Prince Rupert and that grain could be shipped cheaper
through the port of Prince Rupert except for a number of economic
determinants which belittled that.
I was able to bring back some of the issues to Ottawa to have
them addressed by the government. I am happy to see that as part of
that process the minister responsible has recommended a task force
to deal with the whole issue of Prince Rupert and the northwest
transportation routes.
I spoke to some of the good friends I made in Prince Rupert and I
discovered today that the task force has been travelling to places
like Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers and that there has been little
or no representation by the Reform Party.
It would appear to me that the Reform Party is not particularly
interested in the process of renewal but rather wants to focus on
regionalism and wants to try to divide the country by pitting region
against region. That is not good enough. That is not the policy of
the government because it sees the importance of linking all our
communities together.
Members of the Reform Party talk incessantly about dismantling
the Canadian Wheat Board. If that happens it will be the port of
Prince Rupert and the people of that area of British Columbia who
will be most devastated by that process. It will fractionalize the
marketing of grain in this country. Right now the preference is to
go through the port of Vancouver for a variety of economic reasons
which I will get into. By breaking down the structure of the
Canadian Wheat Board it will be even more devastating to the
people of Prince Rupert.
The port of Prince Rupert grain handling system was partially
closed down last year. I am happy to report that the terminal on
Ridley Island and the Prince Rupert grain authority has opened
again with an expected larger crop this year from the west.
It is interesting that the ability to load freighters in the port of
Prince Rupert is a lot faster than at any other terminal on the west
coast. We then end up with many ships waiting in the port of
Vancouver to fill up when they could be moved more efficiently
through the port of Prince Rupert. There are a number of reasons
why this happens under the Crow rate system and also the
rationalization of how CN charges freight rates.
They often do not properly account for the cost of grain cars
which are held in storage prior to being unloaded. In fact, I believe
there is a very nominal rental fee in their accounting system which
works against the port of Prince Rupert. Even though the port of
Prince Rupert technically is somewhat further away from the main
transportation routes it can move the cars through the port much
more quickly. The ships can be loaded and unloaded much more
quickly which means that the shipper does not face demurrage
charges and other charges by ships being anchored in the port
waiting to be filled.
From all accounts the port of Prince Rupert should be the
preferred port for grain shipments from the west. Why is it not?
Because of the things I spoke of earlier. In addition, there is an
ownership structure which exists within that terminal that is owned
by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and Cargill and a number of other
owners. Many people in the region note that one of the larger
terminal shippings is owned by the same consortium in Delta.
Some people wonder whether a different ownership would provide
more competition in the area and create more business for Prince
Rupert.
(1725)
The Reform Party has been totally silent on this issue. It does not
seem to be addressing these problems of major concern to the
people of Prince Rupert and the hinterland of that area.
Coal is another big shipping item from the port of Prince Rupert.
Much of that coal comes from Alberta. A lot of it could be shipped
more efficiently through the port of Prince Rupert. Once again I do
not hear the members from those parts of Alberta represented by
4888
Reformers talking about how they could more efficiently move
coal through the port of Prince Rupert. Indeed it would appear to
me that the representation from the members in this area is almost
silent.
I had some other interesting things happen to me when I was out
there. People would talk to me about government problems and I
was able to help some of those people. One of the issues was in a
town called Port Edward. Mayor Wampler was having significant
problems with the infrastructure spending program. The House will
recall that the Reform Party never liked the infrastructure spending
program. These people thought it was an excellent program.
The town of Port Edward is a town very close to Prince Rupert
but it basically had no sewage treatment system. It was dumping its
raw sewage into the ocean. It has wanted to deal with that for years
and years to find some way to treat the sewage so it would not be a
pollutant. The town had an arrangement with the local pulp mill.
The pulp mill would allow it to use part of its sewage treatment
system and upgrade it so it could treat the whole town. It made
application for infrastructure spending money for that very
purpose.
By the time I got there it was of some concern. The pulp mill had
decided for one reason or another that it did not want the liability
that went with that project and had withdrawn from the application.
People in the town were very concerned. They thought that even
though they had made an application under the program it was
going to fall back to the bottom because the nature of it would
change.
They wanted to create their own unique system and not use the
pulp mill's facilities. They had found a way to do this for equal or
less cost than in the original application. Because of the way the
applications were, they felt that the province of British Columbia
for whatever reason was going to not only delay their application
but also put it at the back of the pecking order and therefore they
would not be able to develop the system.
I was able to talk to some of the B.C. people who were dealing
with the infrastructure spending program to get this rectified. I am
happy to say that the mayor has come forward and thanked me for
representing that area and getting the problem solved.
What I am saying is there is a real question about the issue the
Reform Party is bringing forth today, which is basically that these
people are not being represented by their own representatives. It
seems to me that is the bottom line of what they are saying.
People in Prince Rupert and others on the west coast are very
much part of this country. They want to continue to be part of this
country. They want to share in what we have to offer as a
government and they want to be plugged into the system.
There are many other problems that concern the people of Prince
Rupert. As I said, with the grain handling aspect they have a
tremendous potential. It is a port that is under utilized. As a
government, we need to do more to recognize that our markets are
in southeast Asia. The whole issue of trading with southeast Asia is
an important feature and our government is very focused on that.
That is why we have implemented a task force to do just that, to
go around and ask the people how they see their community and
their economy evolving in the years ahead. I am happy to say we
have had many many fine suggestions. I believe that the task force
is to report very shortly on how to regenerate the economy of
Prince Rupert and the whole northwest transportation route.
(1730)
For the Reform Party to come here and say that we are ignoring
the west is just two-faced. The reality is that in some ways it is not
doing its own job of representing its own people.
I would like to thank all the people in Prince Rupert and on the
west coast for their kind hospitality when I was there. They are
some of the nicest people I have ever met and we continue to have a
great friendship. I look forward to helping them in any manner I
can in dealing with their government which is very much
concerned about their issues, about their problems, about their
continuation and about the underpinnings of their economy.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments about the speech of
the previous speaker. First, we are going to talk about Prince
Rupert. Our next speaker will do that.
Second, when it comes to the infrastructure program and the
various dealings with the infrastructure program, as the member
knows, that was a federal-provincial initiative. The provincial
member who represents Prince Rupert also overlaps with my
riding. The federal member for Skeena is not here today and so I
feel some obligation to talk about how that infrastructure program
works in British Columbia and about how there has been much
co-operation with the provincial MLA in terms of expediting
projects.
In my case my overlap is in the Bella Coola area. Indeed we have
co-operated and we have created a good project with their
waterworks program. I know that type of thing would be very
possible with the influential member of the provincial legislature
who is a cabinet member. This is not a unique thing that the
member talks about and it is not foreign to the British Columbia
members.
Third, the mayor of Port Edward and many of the other
municipal politicians from that area of the province met in
Penticton from September 19-20. They all have common concerns
with Reform members of Parliament in British Columbia. We did
4889
indeed have conversations and areas of common concern, many of
which were brought up earlier today in addressing our motion.
Mr. Shepherd: Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the
member's comments. The motion before the House today is
basically criticizing the government for not taking into account and
failing to recognize the people of the west coast generally. It also
mentions the movement of grain. It talks about the movement of
grain to the port of Prince Rupert.
I remember sitting in this House on a Sunday about a year ago
when we had a rail strike in this country. The issue was that we
were not going to move grain through the port of Prince Rupert
because the rails were going to be strike bound. There were only 11
members of the Reform Party in this House at the time. Are they
going to tell me that is a commitment to the west coast? I am afraid
not.
(1735)
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in rebuttal to the last point of the hon. member, if the
government had listened to Reform, there would not have been a
rail strike. We wanted some pre-emptive legislation that would
have prevented that very thing from happening. The hon. member
talks about this type of nonsense.
He is questioning the representation of Reform members from
northern British Columbia on the issue of the port of Prince Rupert.
I will quote from a letter I sent to the previous minister of transport.
I sent this November 17, 1995 and detailed three issues dealing
with grain transportation, for the hon. member's information. That
is almost a year ago. One dealt with the allocation of grain cars in
my region of northeastern British Columbia.
The second issue dealt specifically with the pricing policy
dealing with the grain transportation rate, the differential between
the Peace River country to Vancouver versus Prince Rupert, how it
was damaging to the port of Prince Rupert, what could be done
about it and some suggestions on that.
The third dealt with the differential, the inequity between the
domestic and export grains, the transportation rates in this country
along with the demise of the Federal Freight Assistance Act and
what that would mean for the domestic transport of grains.
They were three very important issues dealing with grain
transportation. I sent that on November 17, 1995. The new Minister
of Transport responded finally on March 1, 1996 totally
inadequately.
He said-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry,
hon. member. Resuming debate.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I could be corrected, but I understood that the
government side was using the 20 minutes plus 10 minutes
questions and comments, which would mean that time is not up.
Am I incorrect in that?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member used only 10 minutes, therefore we have 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in any event, let it be very clearly understood that I am
sharing my time with my colleague, the member for North
Vancouver. I am not sure that point of sharing was clear previously.
As a British Columbian, I would like to point out that
governments over our history in Canada have not totally
understood British Columbia. People cannot do so without a bit of
appreciation of our geography and history.
Geography is terrifically important. We know about the Rocky
Mountains, of course, going north and south. We know, more or
less, there are other mountain ranges in there: the Purcells, the
Selkirks, the Monashees, the Cariboo Mountains farther to the
north and the Coast Range. All these mountains going north-south
have had quite an effect on the history and economy of British
Columbia.
There are only four passes that have been used for rail or road
traffic through the mountains. There again, it is an integral part of
the history and development of the province. There is the Crow's
Nest, Kicking Horse, Yellowknife and even the one I was
unfamiliar with, the Pine, farther to the north. These are important
bits of what makes B.C. the province it is.
The rivers that flow through B.C. are just as important as are the
fiords on the coast. Our history is a function of that in part, the
geography. Our history starts really on the coast of B.C. It can go
back 6,000 to 8,000 years with the native population having been
recorded as being in that area. In latter years, only the last 200
years really apply.
(1740 )
We are talking about the Spaniards who travelled here in 1774.
We are talking, after that, of British sailors, Captain Cook and
George Vancouver. We are talking about enterprises such as the
Hudson's Bay Company with its fur trade. We are talking about
explorers who came here as recently as 1793 such as Alexander
Mackenzie, who went overland through the mountains to reach the
west coast. All of these things are part of the make-up of British
Columbia.
There was the gold rush of 1857. Prior to that there was the
American influence. They said they would claim land to 5440.
They had the campaign slogan ``5440 or fight'', which was finally
settled by the Oregon Treaty.
4890
All of these things have shaped British Columbia. There is
inadequate feeling or knowledge of all of the history and
geography of British Columbia in central Canada.
Transportation, when we come down to it, is one of the most
important things still today. We will get around to Prince George
and Prince Rupert on this matter.
In 1867 people in eastern Canada were joining Confederation.
Four years later British Columbia finally agreed to join, provided
there was a railway. It took 15 long, agonizing years for the railway
to get through. The railways are still important.
I heard the Crow arrangement mentioned today. The Crow's Nest
Pass agreement goes back to 1897. It said that there would be an
adjustment of rail tariffs to accommodate settler supplies going one
way and grain the other. That continues to be important. As long
ago as 1897 we were talking about the Crow. We are still talking
about it today.
Then we come to the Trans-Canada Highway. When was there
pavement in B.C. which went from east to west? Not until 1962.
Prior to that those of us who travelled through British Columbia
had to dip down into the United States if we did not want to go over
dicey gravel roads.
All of that, I suggest, is lost on a lot of the establishment of
central Canada.
Let us move on to talk about the Prince Rupert grain terminal
within the context of the history and geography which I have laid
out. In doing so, I would like to pass on congratulations to my
colleague, the hon. member for Skeena. He has done a lot of work
not just with respect to the port of Prince Rupert but to all of the
northern area, integrating the knowledge that is up there and
making it available to people such as me.
The points my colleague has made I would like to make again. I
acknowledge, at the very least, that the hon. member for Durham
has visited Prince Rupert and has come away with some good
points. I was happy to hear him mention them.
First, the Prince Rupert grain terminal is one of the most
efficient terminals in the world, but it is under-utilized. Prince
Rupert is a day and a half in shipping time closer to the Pacific rim
markets than is the lower mainland of B.C.
Compared with most other terminals in Canada, the Prince
Rupert terminal turns around its grain cars in a fraction of the time
it takes other terminals.
(1745 )
When a ship comes into Prince Rupert to take on grain it only
has to go to one berth whereas other terminals require ships to
move to different berths, up to four times, before getting their full
load. There are lower pilotage costs and lower berthing costs; that
is berthing as of ships not of babies. Maybe there are lower
birthing costs of babies in Prince Rupert, I do not know. However,
business is there to be done. The facilities are there but we are not
taking sufficient advantage of them.
The member mentioned the amount of operating time that this
port has been under. Before July 14 of this year there were two
shifts operating in Prince Rupert but from July 14 to September 29
it was closed down. Just last week it received word that it would
open up again to two shifts starting today.
Maybe the member for Durham, with all of the information that
he has been able to glean from his visit to Prince Rupert, would be
able to tell me what has been happening. Why is this? We
encourage the use of Prince Rupert much more than has been done.
Why is it suddenly coming back on stream? Will we go to three
shifts at Prince Rupert to fully utilize the facilities there? I would
like to know.
I would also like to know on the point where the member said:
``Oh yes, I have been there and I was certainly very helpful to the
folks around Prince Rupert and Port Edward''. That is great, but did
the member come down and talk to our minister of agriculture and
our current minister of transportation? That is the sort of help that
is needed.
I am going to quote from a letter from the Prince Rupert
Chamber of Commerce addressed to the Minister of Transport and
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. It states: ``The Prince
Rupert and District Chamber of Commerce is very concerned over
the current and suggested status of the Prince Rupert grain
terminal''.
This letter is dated September 3. Madam Speaker, you are
standing?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is because
you are sharing your time and your 10 minutes are done. I will give
you 30 seconds to close your comments.
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, I will try to wind it up. I have not
been keeping tabs on the time. I thought it was way under 10
minutes but I have to accept your ruling.
The Prince Rupert Chamber of Commerce letter continues: ``We
urge that your ministry, in conjunction with your colleague, the
minister of agriculture, appoint a co-ordinator as outlined in the
enclosed report. We believe minor concessions by each of the
parties involved could put the terminal back on a firm footing while
some of the more complex problems facing the grain transportation
industries are resolved''.
All the chamber has had in response to that is an
acknowledgement-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Questions or
comments.
4891
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want
to thank the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan for the brief
geography lesson he gave us on British Columbia. I must admit
to the member that there were some things that I did not know
and I appreciate him expounding on the history of British
Columbia and how it was developed.
I was a bit disturbed when he said that we in central Canada,
which is where I come from, do not understand British
Columbians. I wonder if the reverse could be said also, that he, as
the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, does not understand central
Canada?
I grew up in Prince Edward Island. I must admit that when I
came to the big province of Ontario to live I did not remember that
Toronto was the capital of the province of Ontario. I assumed that
Ottawa was the capital of everything here. I hear from members of
the Bloc Quebecois that Quebec is very special to them. As
individuals each province is very special to us wherever we live
across the country. To say that we do not understand one another
seems to come right down to the point where we are talking about
national unity in this country.
(1750)
Why do you think I as an Ontarian do not understand you as a
British Columbian? I hope I do. I recognize you as a brother from
B.C. and I hope that you would look on me as a friend from
Ontario.
Do we need to navel gaze quite so much? Can we not recognize
what happens in other provinces and recognize that we are each
unique in what we do and where we live? Can we not try to respect
each other without saying we do not understand you or you do not
understand us. I would like to hear your comments in relation to
national unity in this country in that regard.
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to respond to that
question.
I happen to be from British Columbia but I have lived in
Manitoba, I have lived in several parts of Ontario, I have lived in
several places in Quebec, in New Brunswick and other parts of the
world. I think I have picked up an appreciation of what Canada is
all about and having travelled continually back and forth I have a
reasonable appreciation.
I have given the history and basic geography lesson by way of
pointing out that all of this understanding of the mechanics out in
B.C. are not understood. We get people like Allan Fotheringham
writing in Maclean's. He does it in a jocular way but he is always
talking about the lotus eaters or those of us from lotusland. Fine.
He does it in a jocular way but underlying it is sort of a sense that
we are different out there. I guess we are different but it is these
physical and economic circumstances that make us different.
To address the member's last question, where I would love to see
us get together is here in this House and in the committees of the
House. There should be much less confrontation, much less of the
old line party politics dictating this is the way you are going to go.
There should be an open atmosphere, of saying let us discuss things
toward a solution for all of Canada or for its various regions.
Perhaps that is what we should work on first. Eradicate some of our
ignorance of other areas of the country and build on some sort of
atmosphere where we would dialogue easily and not in a
confrontational way.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, with
regard to this motion I am going to concentrate on accountability
from the government with respect to B.C.
Madam Speaker, if you were in business and your partner took
50 per cent of your income, you would surely want to be able to
question any actions the partner took which affected that income,
especially if the partner never did any of the work.
Today in Canada the average family is paying close to 50 per
cent of its income in taxes to various levels of government, so it is
really not a surprise that the average Canadian wants more input
into the running of its government. They are not happy with the
lack of accountability that we see from the partner that takes 50 per
cent of their income.
Mismanagement of the country's affairs by this Liberal
government affects all of Canada but we are certainly perceived by
the public and particularly in B.C. to spend a disproportionate time
focused on the affairs of Quebec, that it really affects everything
we are doing here because of the political situation. This feeling of
alienation from the governing processes is especially strongly felt
in B.C. because of the natural barriers of the Rockies and the time
zone differences, and because there is hardly any representation on
the government side from that province.
Even the government knows that there is a serious
communication problem between the federal government and
British Columbians. That is a quote from a report written about by
a local commentator in B.C., Barbara Yaffe when she wrote in
Saturday's newspaper about a report prepared for the
intergovernmental affairs minister by the MP for Simcoe North, the
parliamentary secretary to the minister. He had travelled the
province, asked questions, had meetings with British Columbians.
According to his report there is a perception in B.C. that the
national agenda is controlled by separatists and that there is a real
sense of alienation, that all of the decisions are being made
elsewhere. British Columbians feel that Ontario and Quebec are
dominating the agenda. This is a very strong feeling. It is right
there in a report to the minister by a member of the government
side.
4892
(1755)
We saw the reaction of the transport minister in the House this
morning when I asked him why he would not appear on a local
radio talk show to answer questions from the public of B.C. about
his conduct. He insulted the people of B.C. with his answer. He
espoused the old line party system of: ``Basically they are too
stupid to understand, so I am not wasting my time going on the
show''. These ministers are obviously part of the problem. They
just do not want to hear what we Reform members have been
telling them in the House for three years.
There is another minister who is a big source of irritation in
B.C., the Minister of Canadian Heritage. My office, as I know are
the offices of my colleagues, has been receiving a steady flow of
calls and letters complaining about the minister's free flag
program. There is nothing in government that is free. The
minister's giveaway is consuming the entire amount of taxes
remitted to Ottawa by 1,600 families this year. One thousand, six
hundred families are paying taxes for that program.
I would also like to mention another minister who is a source of
significant irritation in B.C., the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, who like the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Transport, refuses to make himself accessible to the
people of B.C. on the most listened to radio station in the province.
There is no accountability.
Let me quote from an editorial by Rafe Mair on the morning of
January 16 of this year.
``Well, Mr. Minister of Indian Affairs, you are not the first to
come up with this evil ``pied piper'' theory which has me appealing
to the baser instincts of my stupid, insensitive audience. I heard this
during the 1992 referendum from John Crosbie and, indeed, Prime
Minister Mulroney and I have heard it from your colleague, the oh,
so humble Minister of Transport.
``You have betrayed the same rock-headed notions held by all
Ottawa politicians, Mr. Minister. The public are stupid, ill read,
unable to think for themselves and easy prey to anyone who can
talk a good game.
``What is wrong with the public, Mr. Minister, or dare I say it, is
governments which are utterly unable to lay any facts supported by
any evidence before the public on the excuse that it is all too
complicated to understand''.
He goes on to say: ``The fact is, Mr. Minister, that the courts, that
is to say the Supreme Court of Canada and the B.C. Court of
Appeal have said with astonishing clarity that there is no aboriginal
title in land. There is no aboriginal title to a commercial fishery and
there is no aboriginal claim to the inherent right to
self-government. Whatever you may say, sir, that is indeed what
the cases say.
``I have consistently stated that there are aboriginal rights in
land, rights as opposed to title, Mr. Minister, an important
distinction. These rights must be honoured and where possible
restored where they have been impaired or taken away.
``Why then do the senior governments constantly say that there
is an unextinguished aboriginal title to land, that there is an
aboriginal right to a commercial fishery and an inherent right to
self-government? If we are going to ignore the law of the land, why
bother going to court, Mr. Minister? And you can hardly say that
you are using these court decisions as a guide to your decision
making, when you are telling the public that they say just exactly
the opposite to what they actually do say''.
The problems that I have illustrated talking about three different
ministers are really examples that I have chosen to illustrate how
different the vision of this government is to what the people of B.C.
feel and want done in their province.
We have 98 Indian bands in our province. Land claims are
tremendously complex negotiations. There have been specific
court rulings which set guidelines for us to start negotiating. For
some reason our senior level of government chooses to go on its
own way ignoring all of the guidelines, ignoring the wishes of the
people and wanting to give away our province without due
consideration and discussion with the people of the province.
(1800)
One of the things Mr. Mair said in his commentary on January 16
I think is worth mentioning here: ``Mr. Minister, I have consistently
agreed that land presently held by your government should be
turned over immediately to the tribes and bands occupying those
lands as reserves. Put your money where your loose lips are, Mr.
Minister, and transfer your land before you snipe at me for not
being too quick to give up mine''.
There is another minister who creates some irritation in B.C. and
that is the minister of immigration. There appeared in the North
Shore News on September 6 the results of a survey taken in the
ridings of North Vancouver and Capilano-Howe Sound. The
survey indicates that 85.2 per cent of those surveyed want criminal
refugees and bogus refugees deported immediately. What does the
minister do about it? Nothing. We heard the answer which she gave
in the House today to the question from the member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. It was a joke. It was no
answer at all.
There are 1,300 people in the Vancouver area under deportation
order today. It is a disgrace. I have people in my riding who have
been convicted of passport forgery, bogus refugee claimant; bogus
refugee claimant with drug trafficking; bogus refugee claimant
with breaking and entering and sexual assault. I have five criminal
4893
cases in my riding under deportation order and I cannot get rid of
them because the minister will not act.
The minister does not listen to the message from B.C. She is
quite happy. The province of Quebec gets more money per
immigrant than anywhere else in the country. Here we are in B.C.
with the biggest problem and getting no attention at all.
In winding up, I do need to make one correction to an earlier
statement I made. I did say that B.C. has 98 Indian bands. It is
actually 198, so the House can see that the problem is twice as big
as I portrayed.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I sat here quietly, but after
listening to the Reform Party members, it is difficult not to stand up
in this forum to respond and question.
What the Reform says is more a reflection on democracy, that
they have the right to speak, than the substance of what they are
saying. They are saying that we do not know B.C. The member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan says that we do not know B.C. I just came
back from spending four days in British Columbia. I was in his
riding at a big event at which there were ministers, provincial
politicians and to which he was invited. He did not even bother
showing up or sending his regards. That is not ancient history; that
was Friday.
The member for North Vancouver quotes from the paper and
calls the conduct of a minister a disgrace. He talks about the misuse
of public funds on flags going for unity which was done above
board. Everybody knows the way it is done in a democratic forum.
I will give him a quote. The Reform Party has an expert called
Thomas Flanagan. Maybe the member can give us reflection on
Mr. Flanagan. He wrote last week on misuse of public moneys, that
the leader of the Reform took tax money and used it to go to
Hawaii, which he says-this is Reform's expert-breaches their
democratic constitution.
(1805 )
The member talks about disgrace and how we treat aboriginal
people. Yet it was a member from the Reform Party who said of
ethnic minorities that in our society we can send them to the back
of the shop.
I sat here one day and heard Reform members talk about native
people living in a south seas environment, and they know. This is a
member who has never been to a reserve but comes here full of the
whatnot of the Reform Party and says that he knows native people:
``I know these people. The men sit around and they burn the
women''.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Irwin: The Reform members laugh but they said that and
that is a disgrace. If we want to talk about disgraceful conduct, I
suggest the Reform members should look in the mirror. They
should view what they have said on the record in this House over
the last three years. To me that is the biggest disgrace that the
taxpayers of this country are paying for.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I am not going
to deal with Mr. Flanagan in this reply because Mr. Flanagan is
from Alberta. I will be pleased to deal with that on a day when we
talk about Alberta.
I would like to concentrate on the issues in B.C. I have never
heard such a load of rubbish in my life as what has come from the
minister. I have two Indian reserves in my riding, and the member
who is in the riding next to mine, the riding of Capilano-Howe
Sound, also has a reserve.
I can see on a daily basis what happens to them. I am the one who
gets the calls from the Indians on reserve saying that because there
is no democracy down there they are suppressed by their
leadership.
A lady called me from the reserve. For 30 years she has been
trying to get a house, but because she is not related to somebody in
high places she is ignored and she is living in a trailer home. I
wrote twice to the chief. I phoned the chief three times. I never got
a letter back, I never got a phone call. Nothing was resolved.
In another instance a lady called me. She had received a special
grant from the province to open a corner store on reserve land on a
main road in north Vancouver. The chief nixed it because it would
compete with his sales of cigarettes from his back door.
I could go on with a list of infringements on democracy that
occur.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this
motion concerning a province that I consider one of the
cornerstones of Canada's future prosperity and economic
development. I refer of course to British Columbia, a province
which in the past few years has been a leader in economic growth
and expansion in the all important area of the Pacific rim.
In the Liberal red book there was a commitment to focus on the
Pacific. Other hon. members today have dealt with various
accomplishments such as Team Canada missions to Asia which
have brought home new business deals and jobs for British
Columbians. Nationally, Canadian businesses announced business
deals worth $20 billion. These trade missions show how much can
be accomplished when governments and businesses work together.
Revenue Canada has also played a key role in partnership with
the private sector and other government departments to make
Vancouver the gateway to Asia and the Pacific. We are proud of
4894
this role because in doing so we are participating not only in the
creation of jobs and the enhancement of the economy of British
Columbia, but for Canada as a whole.
We have to talk about Canada as a whole. Let us make no
mistake about it. The prosperity of one part of the country is
something in which all parts of our country should rejoice, not
bellyache, rejoice.
In a modern, integrated economy where goods travel across a
continent in the space of hours and information in a fraction of a
second, the prosperity and the economic activity of one part of the
country cannot but help be beneficial to Canada as a whole. That is
what being a country is all about, not pitting one region against
another. Whether it is any of our provinces, we are a united country
and we want to stay that way.
Canada is not only an Atlantic nation but a Pacific nation. Across
this vast ocean which occupies half of the world's surface are some
of the most interesting and promising trading partners we could
imagine.
(1810 )
We have Japan, a nation which in the space of a century went
from being a very closed and medieval society to one of the world's
leading economic engines. We have countries like China, a nation
old in years but whose economy has been growing at an incredible
double digit rate. We have resource rich countries like Australia.
And let us not forget the growing economies that we have to the
south, Mexico and countries in western South America, which are
also Pacific rim countries.
What role can Revenue Canada play? What role can our
government play in such a scenario? The proper role for any
government in a free enterprise system, which is to facilitate the
creation of wealth, to regulate only as much as is necessary for the
common good and to act as the partner of business so that we have
a strong economy.
I will now explain how Revenue Canada has translated this
philosophy into concrete programs and initiatives, such as the
accord on our shared border, and programs such as ACROSS,
CANPASS and a host of other initiatives, all which are beneficial
across this country, particularly in B.C.
Revenue Canada has played the key role in developing a new
terminal at Vancouver International Airport. This airport is
strategically placed to become North America's premier gateway
between Asia-Pacific and the United States. From 1992 to 1996 the
Vancouver International Airport Authority undertook a $400
million four-year development program to add a new international
terminal building.
Revenue Canada tripled its customs terminal area. The largest
one we now have in any province of Canada is in B.C. The
department added more inspection lines and doubled the baggage
carousels. It added 30 new customs staff which means it can
process 40 per cent more passengers per hour than it did before, all
in B.C. I might add.
Revenue Canada is working to facilitate the flow of more
tourists, more travellers and more trade through its open skies
agreement and its shared border accord with the United States.
Through the smart border concept the department is taking
advantage of its new agreements with the United States and helping
to position British Columbia to take advantage of these
agreements.
Revenue Canada is discussing with the Americans a one stop, in
transit preclearance process at the Vancouver International Airport
to make travel through Vancouver more attractive and to promote
Vancouver as Canada's gateway to the growing world of the Pacific
rim.
If British Columbia is strategically located on the Pacific, it is
also strategically located north of one of the most populated and
dynamic rapidly growing areas of the United States, namely
California and the great Pacific northwest. California has become
America's most populous state, while the states of Washington and
Oregon are also two of the most rapidly growing areas of our
neighbour to the south. That is why Revenue Canada's initiatives
have also been of immense benefit to improving service at the land
border crossings between British Columbia and the United States.
Revenue Canada's initiatives are of importance to B.C. both in
terms of facilitating the movement of travellers but also in the
facilitation of the movement of commercial goods.
The importance of facilitating the movement of travellers can
hardly be underestimated. We know that tourism is B.C.'s second
largest industry, contributing over $4 billion to the provincial
economy and providing 80,000 jobs. We do not want to harass
people at the border. We want them into Canada. We will target
high risk travellers, but we will facilitate low risk travellers to
Canada. A cornerstone of facilitating the movement of travellers is
the CANPASS program.
This program, which exists in the form of CANPASS airport,
CANPASS highway, CANPASS private boats and CANPASS
private aircraft, is designed to streamline customs and immigration
clearance of low risk travellers at select border crossings. I am
proud to inform members that all these forms of CANPASS, except
for the initiative relating to private aircraft, were initiated and pilot
tested in British Columbia.
The precise operation of CANPASS varies from one part of the
program to the other. For example, at an airport, a traveller uses a
smart card and a hand print to identify themselves at a machine that
is very similar to an automated bank teller machine. At highway
crossings CANPASS participants are identified through a decal on
their windshields. Other procedures are used in the case of private
boats and private aircraft, but whatever type of CANPASS is used
the principle remains the same. The vast majority of travellers can
4895
be trusted to self-declare, making their travel easier and freeing up
our valuable resources for concentration on high risk areas.
(1815)
CANPASS is a refinement and an enhancement of an earlier
customs clearance program known as the Peace Arch crossing
entry program, called PACE, which was successfully piloted at the
customs border point at Douglas, British Columbia. Now under the
name CANPASS Highway, this program is available at Douglas,
Boundary Bay, Pacific Highway and Huntingdon.
Concentration on high risk areas and preventing the illegal
importation of drugs, weapons and other contraband is indeed
important for all Canadians, but especially for British Columbians.
We all know that along with the increase in population and
prosperity urban areas of British Columbia are suffering hard times
because of the social plague of illegal drugs, a plague which affects
all Canadians. It is hard to over estimate the individual suffering
and cost to society of drug addiction which certainly exists in all
parts of Canada but which has been particularly acute in areas of
western Canada.
That is why Revenue Canada is proud of new contraband
technology which has been installed at Pacific region border
services at airports and land crossings. In this connection I would
mention the vivid x-ray unit which was installed at Vancouver
international airport in 1994. This equipment has the unique
capability of specifically targeting organic materials, various types
of drugs and explosives.
There are also the ion mobility spectrometer units which detect
minute particle residues of cocaine and heroin on surfaces of
documents, currency, boxes, luggage and clothing. This equipment
has been installed at the Pacific Highway border crossing and at the
Vancouver marine terminal.
These are but two technological advances that also include
contraband detection kits and narrow beam laser range finders that
help to detect the presence of false walls in marine or truck
containers without the requirement of unloading the contents.
These are important measures which Canadians now have at
their disposal for the protection of our economy and the protection
of Canadian citizens.
In addition to making things easier for travellers, on the
commercial side Revenue Canada has initiated the ACROSS
system countrywide to speed up the release of commercial goods.
The department has taken part in designating an international
commercial centre in Vancouver. This is a bonded warehouse
where value added operations are permitted by Revenue Canada to
level the playing field for small and medium size companies.
Border protection and facilitation is not the only area in which
Revenue Canada has been working to better serve British
Columbians. Another important initiative, designed to facilitate
and simplify our dealings with business, is the business number,
which the department has piloted and introduced on behalf of the
federal government. The business number is designed to replace
the multiple account numbers which businesses have needed to
deal with the federal government. British Columbia has expressed
an interest in using the business number for provincial business
programs.
On April 18, 1996 British Columbia began a one year pilot of six
one-stop business registration work stations. This allows
businesses to register for a series of federal and provincial
programs by visiting one office and using the self-help work
stations to complete the forms necessary for their programs, both
federal and provincial.
Another way Revenue Canada has been able to benefit British
Columbia has been by administering the British Columbia family
bonus program, something which is very important to the families
of British Columbia.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. It seems to me that perhaps the member's time is up,
since we are on the shorter time for the government side now.
(1820 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): This is not a
point of order. The hon. member has 20 minutes and 10 minutes of
questions. The hon. member may continue.
Mrs. Barnes: If I may, I will continue with my 20 minute
speech.
I was talking about the British Columbia family bonus program
in which Revenue Canada is applying the programs on behalf of the
provincial government. This program is entirely funded by the
province of British Columbia but is being administered on a full
cost recovery basis by Revenue Canada using information that the
department maintains for the child tax benefit program as well as
information from personal tax returns.
The Revenue Canada tax centre at Surrey, British Columbia has
been equipped and is ready to respond to inquiries generated by this
program. This example of co-operation, a word I think we all need
to understand, reminds us that while we may have provinces and a
federal government with different agendas and different programs,
there is only one taxpayer who must pay for these programs, who
expects to be served by them and served by them well and also by
their representatives.
Any form of co-operation that decreases costs and improves
services is welcome. I am sure all members of this House can at
least agree on this point.
4896
What is the future? Revenue Canada has accomplished a great
deal through its partnerships with businesses and the provinces and
a lot more can be done. For example, the new national revenue
agency, which was supported by the western premiers during their
June 1996 conference, is something we can talk about. The B.C.
government has expressed support for the federal government's
desire to reduce overlap, duplication and compliance costs for
businesses and to increase efficiency in revenue collection.
As I said earlier, the prosperity of one part of the country is of
benefit to all of us. Revenue Canada is proud to be a partner in the
development of British Columbia with programs that facilitate its
economic development.
In the last century Canada built its industrial base mainly in
connection with the Atlantic world, the industrialized countries of
Europe and the United States. Now the Pacific world is rapidly
being added to the equation. This is a challenge of the future and it
has to be faced not only by Revenue Canada but by every
department of government, by the federal and provincial
governments and by Canadians from coast to coast. I am sure that
those parties representing the province of B.C. will be there to help
us in developing these programs that are good not only for British
Columbians but for all Canadians.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
was particularly interested in the member's comments in reference
to the wonderful job she claims the government and especially the
department of revenue is doing on checking the smuggling problem
in this country.
I have to be in Vancouver a lot. I have talked to many police
officers and many agencies along the border of British Columbia
and they have a major problem. In fact, the problem is so great
when it comes to drugs that it is now filtering into the rest of the
country.
The government's answer to the problem of drugs in B.C. is to
disband one of the more dedicated police departments in the
region, the ports police. The ports police have made it clear that
there is a serious problem with organized crime and that 40 bikers
and associates have been engaged in criminal activity on the
waterfronts. Most of that activity is of course in drugs. It was the
ports police who identified that group of people.
There have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 million
in drug seizures over the last several months and the problem
grows. The problem is so great that many people are dying from
drug overdoses. In 1989 there were 67 people who died from heroin
and cocaine overdoses. In 1990 it was 82, in 1991 it was 124, in
1992 it was 154, in 1993 it was 358, in 1994 it was 311 people. That
is a total of 1,100 people in a very short period of time.
(1825)
The Liberal government's answer to that problem is to cut back
on enforcement at the borders and at the ports. I would like to
inform the government because it does not seem to want to listen to
the police agencies in this country, and so we will say it here in the
House. Crime results from drug abuse and abusers. Heroin addicts
and cocaine addicts commit more crime than anyone else because
that is how they feed their habit.
Now the problem is coming through the port of Vancouver and it
is growing to such a degree that heroin addicts and cocaine addicts
are being developed right inside our prisons because of the free
access to that particular drug. It is coming through the port of
Vancouver. As a matter of fact, the port of Vancouver is the central
point of distribution for heroin in all of North America.
What does the Liberal government say? It says: ``Cut back on
enforcement, let us not do anymore enforcement in that region, the
matter is not a problem''. It is a major social problem in the
province of B.C. What does the government do again? It cuts back
on the numbers, it keeps decreasing them until what?
I would like to know what the Liberal member who spoke prior
to me thinks of the CLEU report that clearly indicates what hacking
away at enforcement agencies on our waterfront will do to the
country. What is it going to do as far as organized crime is
concerned? What is the hon. member's answer to the problem of
enforcement in criminal activity, organized crime, if you are going
to pull the port's police?
Mrs. Barnes: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we have
some eyes open from our member across the way here and he
agrees that there is a drug and smuggling problem in British
Columbia. That is why Revenue Canada has the responsibility for
customs. It is a responsibility that we take very seriously.
I must tell the member about organized crime. They do not
exactly open their books to Revenue Canada and that is why it is
very necessary that we have intelligence. The intelligence that we
have is not only from our own resources within customs Canada
but between our border crossings, between those different points
where Canadians, Americans and other world travellers enter and
depart our city.
We have the RCMP under the responsibility of the Solicitor
General of Canada. We work very closely in Revenue Canada
through our customs agents and customs department in making
sure that we have the best intelligence. We co-operate not only with
the RCMP but police forces across this country. We make sure we
are getting the use of and putting our resources into the highest and
best technology available. We are putting in extra money, not
decreasing. We have added 30 customs officers, for instance, in the
Vancouver airport alone.
4897
We are also involved specifically with drugs and I have been
with RCMP members when they have brought the drug dogs
along. We use dogs not only in our airports but in our vessels and
we use them because they are an effective method. We are going
to continue to train our personnel because we think it is important.
Last year the minister of revenue was in Halifax where there was
a new marine facility established so we could better train our
officers in search. These are very important issues. They should not
be taken lightly. They are important issues to Canadians to make
sure that when we target our high risk we put the appropriate
resources in the right places and with the right magnitude. This is
not something we are going to announce here in the Chamber that
we are going to be somewhere tomorrow because it does not work
that way with organized crime. Drug smugglers do not send us a
telegram saying they are going to bring their shipments across.
Unfortunately the other side fails to understand this. There is not
only intelligence needed in this House on the other side, we also
need it to do our job effectively and properly. We will continue to
do so despite what the other side says.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have a short question for the member.
I listened to her saying what a wonderful job Revenue Canada
had done but she did not mention the high taxes of Revenue
Canada. I would like to ask her a question.
It is estimated that about 40,000 jobs have moved across the
border from Vancouver to Bellingham, which is in the United
States for those who do not know anything about B.C. Forty
thousand jobs have been forced across the border. Canadians own
companies in Bellingham because of the high taxes in B.C.
Is the member quite happy to take the credit for that as well?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
parliamentary secretary has one minute left.
Mrs. Barnes: Madam Speaker, unfortunately with only one
minute I have to advise the hon. member opposite that tax policy is
done by finance. Revenue Canada is the administrative arm and we
do our job well. We make sure that taxes are collected in a fair and
equitable way across the country.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 6.30
p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the
motion have expired.
Therefore, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow,
pursuant to Standing Order 24 (1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)