Val Meredith

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we do have policies on self-government for the native people.

The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had the courtesy yesterday of offering an apology. Will the hon. secretary of state follow suit and offer the same to this House today?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Secretary of State for Training and Youth.

On February 7 two hon. members asked questions regarding native self-government and policing on reserves. Later that day

the hon. secretary of state told CBC television: "Reformers are racist for asking such questions".

I want to know whether this is a policy of the government to label people who ask legitimate questions as racist, or merely a policy of the hon. secretary of state.

[Indian Affairs, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

Yesterday the minister completely side-stepped a question about his alleged remark to Alberta natives over the weekend that the Reform Party hates Indians and wants to be the defender of the white man.

I ask the minister, did he or did he not make those remarks attributed to him by the media, yes or no?

[Indian Affairs, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

On Monday in the House the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stated that the Sawridge band of northern Alberta is probably one of the richest bands in the country. Yet, and I quote, "that band is saying to its people that it will not share".

For the minister's information I spent three years in the early 1980s as an official with the Alberta government helping to prepare native and Métis communities in northern Alberta for local self-government. I observed firsthand both the business acumen and the generosity of the Sawridge band under its chief Senator Walter Twinn.

I ask the minister what evidence he can provide to back up this outrageous insult to the Sawridge band.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it any more than I have said it before. We have laws in our land. There are reasons for our laws. I do not think we solve anything by changing our laws to give in to criminal activity.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I ever said that the problem was unique to one part of Canada. I said that the other parts of Canada have a similar problem but not to the same extent.

There is smuggling in western Canada along our borders but not to the same extent and it can be handled by law enforcement. I am glad the border crossing staff is going to be increased. I think the concentration of the policy should be on law enforcement and not in relaxing the Canadian laws.

I repeat, we do not solve problems by giving in to the criminal element. If we do it once we are going to end up doing it over and over again.

There is a reason for laws and there is a reason to enforce laws. When we start giving in to the criminal element and changing the laws of the land we are in real trouble.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I guess my concern is that this reaction of lowering taxes on one contraband item is not going to solve the problem. I recognize that perhaps for the RCMP this was an easy way to deal with an issue. However, are they also going to suggest the same thing when we talk about the smuggling rings taking on hard drugs or alcohol?

Are we also going to suggest that we should lower the taxes on alcohol and that we should legalize heroin and hard drugs just because it then makes the job easier?

I do not think that is the issue here. The issue is we have Canadian laws for a reason and we should not be giving in to criminal activity and changing our laws just to make it easier for them to change products.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, actually the hon. member has also forgotten the first part of my speech in which I did acknowledge that there are some things in this legislation that are positive. One is giving the same ability to peace officers as the RCMP in dealing with the problem.

However that is where to deal with it, in giving manpower and support to the enforcement of Canadian laws, not giving in to criminals and reducing the laws. To give in to criminals and allow them to change Canadian law because of criminal activity is sending the wrong message. Give more enforcement, more support to the law enforcement people in the country.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned at one time that my constituency goes along the United States-Canadian border. I have two of the busiest border crossings in my constituency and this has not been identified as a major problem.

Yes, there is cigarette smuggling. I do not deny that, but it has certainly not been a problem to the extent that it has been in Ontario and Quebec. I do not think that problems are solved by isolating a solution for one area and putting it over the whole country. If there is a problem in one area of the country, solve it if it is isolated to that area. Do not assume that this problem is all across the country.

I know at my border crossings cigarette smuggling is certainly not at the limit it is in Quebec.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give the same lecture to my hon. friend and seatmate but it will reduce perhaps the incentive to smuggle cigarettes.

It will not reduce the incentive to smuggle hard drugs, alcohol or illegal aliens. The problem of enforcement cannot be solved by reducing the incentive to do it. One has to enforce the laws of the land the same for all people. It is only through enforcement that smuggling will be stopped.