Debates of Sept. 30th, 1996

Supply

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

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.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

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.

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.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

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.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

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.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

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

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.

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

be trusted to self-declare, making their travel easier and freeing up our valuable resources for concentration on high risk areas.

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.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

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.

[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.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

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.

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.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

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.

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?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

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.

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.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

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.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

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.

[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.)