Val Meredith

[British Columbia, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday when the House was debating a motion on federal issues that are adversely affecting the province of British Columbia, we witnessed a litany of Liberal members inform this House that they are responsible for B.C.'s booming economy. Never mind that B.C. had been doing just fine prior to this government's election in 1993, the Liberals actually wanted everyone to believe that they were responsible.

However, yesterday the provincial Government of British Columbia announced that it has slashed the province's economic forecast from 2.7 per cent to just 1 per cent.

Well, if you want to claim the credit you also have to accept the blame. So can we expect the Minister of Transport to admit to British Columbians that his government's policies are responsible for this significant drop in B.C.'s rate of growth? Of course not, because this government's philosophy is accept the glory but put the blame on somebody else.

[Immigration, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the information comes from immigration officers within her department. They are the ones who have received this information from the minister.

The Reform Party believes that an escaped dangerous offender who savagely beat a defenceless woman during a robbery should not even be allowed to claim refugee status in Canada, never mind being released from detention. The Liberals think that not only should he be released but he should be welcomed with opened arms.

Can the minister explain why this government is now adopting a get soft approach concerning illegal immigrants and bogus refugees rather than protecting Canadians?

[Immigration, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday when I asked the immigration minister about the case of Dennis Garcia, an escaped American dangerous offender who claimed refugee status in Canada and was released, the minister simply responded by stating that the government has a different view from the Reform Party.

Now we find out just how different the government's view is. She has issued new guidelines to immigration officers that they are to bend over backward to avoid detaining illegal immigrants and bogus refugees.

Can the minister explain why she is issuing guidelines to immigration officers that contradict sections of the Immigration Act?

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

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

from B.C.'s political map things must have changed with the Liberal government, right?

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.

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

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.

[Immigration, September 30th, 1996]

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?

[Immigration, September 30th, 1996]

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?

[Immigration, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see that the minister of immigration took a hands on approach to her portfolio this past summer by getting out into the field and witnessing Canada's refugee laws at work.

And what did the minister discover? Lo and behold, she was amazed to learn that some refugees were not legitimate. She was shocked to learn that when a Chilean claimed refugee status because he was unable to find work in his native Chile he was allowed to remain in Canada.

The minister has since announced a crackdown on bogus refugees and a plan to revamp the Immigration Act. At last a government minister has finally decided to listen to the Reform Party and has found out that what we have been saying in this House for the past three years has been right all along.

But I hear the Liberals have been inspired by the unemployed Chilean who had claimed refugee status. Since the Liberal strategy to resolve our unemployment problems has failed, they are likely considering sending the one million unemployed Canadians across the border to claim refugee status in the United States.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the issue really is the openness, the ability for the members of the committee to choose the person they feel is best able to represent the opposition. I would suggest that there have been times when many of the government members would have liked to have supported a Reform Party member who was presented to them but were told not to.

The day that the Liberal members of these committees are given the freedom, and I mean full freedom, to select who they feel is best able to represent them, we will see some Reform Party members placed in the vice-chair positions.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting to hear a member of the Liberal Party say that the government is fully responsible for the decisions of the committee. In this case the member the government replaced on the committee was recognizing that there was a discrepancy in the information or the testimony of witnesses and questioned and challenged it. Because I had no support from the committee for recognizing there were discrepancies in testimony and that it should be challenged and questioned, I brought it to the House as a point of privilege.

I will quote from the Speaker in his ruling earlier this week: "However in my opinion this is a matter for debate and not a question of privilege. The member clearly has a dispute as to the facts presented to the committee. Should the member wish to return to the committee with the matter, and the committee ought to report to the House on this aspect of the question, the House at that time may choose to deal with it".

The committee refused to even deal with it in the report stage. That is why the member for Scarborough West was kicked off the committee. He recognized that the other members of the committee would not deal with that issue. I would suggest that the government is responsible for the decisions to help cover up.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have sat on several committees and would like to support my colleague by saying there have been some good chairpersons from the government side who have taken on their role very judiciously. However, I have also sat on a committee that broke the rules and changed the membership to accomplish what it wanted accomplished, which was to kill a report from the subcommittee on national security.

This committee met, and I will only use the 1995 year, for seven months. It spent over 35 hours hearing witnesses and preparing a report. During this time the member for Scarborough West was a member of the government and led the government's attack or representation on dealing with a report from SIRC, the security intelligence review committee, that we were reviewing.

This individual put hours of research and represented the government in what I thought was a very competent manner. He has a very astute legal mind and offered a lot in the discussions and debates on this report. As I said, the committee members sat for over 35 hours listening and cross-examining the witnesses to get as much information out as we could.

The members of the committee, which included the Bloc member and the Reform member, got to the fourth draft of a report on September 8. This report was being prepared to be introduced and tabled in the House of Commons by the end of that month.

However, lo and behold, one of the other members of this committee, obviously on instruction from the party and the government, which the member for Windsor-St. Clair who maybe had not understood the issues but who participated in the discussion, had been involved in bringing this report to a fourth draft.

On September 19 the government made sure that this report would not go on, would not be tabled in the House of Commons. The government took the member for Scarborough West off the committee. He was the only government member who probably had actually read the report under discussion and knew anything about it and he was taken off the committee. The government

replaced him with an individual who had not sat for over 35 hours listening to witnesses with a chance to cross examine them.

The second meeting of this committee with the new members from the government side lasted for 10 minutes before they adjourned it. They waited until they had eaten the sandwiches. We met at suppertime because that was the only time we had available as busy MPs. They waited until they had filled their faces on the sandwiches and fruit before they adjourned the meeting because they did not want to address the report.

There was one government member who decided they would rewrite the report after the committee got to a fourth draft. The member for Windsor-St. Clair went away and rewrote the whole report without any input from the opposition members on the committee. What a farce.

The government, in order to keep this report from being tabled in the House of Commons, did not even respect their own member. It did not even respect the chair of that committee. The adjournment by his own party members was done without his knowledge. They adjourned our meeting early on three occasions in order not to deal with the issue. They did not even have the courtesy to tell the chairman who was representing the same party, the government party, that they were doing this.

It shows to me the absolute disregard and disrespect the government has for the independent operation of a committee to get down to the real work and to determine whether something is in the best interests of the people of this country.

It is about time the government realized that each one of us is here to give the best that we can, including the government's own members. If they happen to find something that is wrong and that should be brought to the attention of the government, they should be allowed to do that.

I have watched time over time this kind of interference by the government whip. I watched it in the justice committee when we were debating Bill C-41. Two Liberal members had gone through the process, had gotten replacements signed in to show up and sit down and the party whip came in and said: "No, you are not representing the government. Here are the replacements that we have approved".

There is total disregard for the process and the rules that are in place so that we as members of Parliament can do the job for the Canadian people in reviewing legislation in committee to make sure the end result is the best possible for the people of Canada.

I would suggest that the government has a long way to go before it is fulfilling its red book promise of giving more independence to committees, of giving more members of Parliament the ability to affect legislation and to help in the creation of legislation.

I am another private member who has a bill that made it through second reading in the House of Commons. Mine passed unanimously two years ago. It is sitting in the justice committee and has been for two years. The Minister of Justice introduced a bill on the same subject two years later. Why did the committee not deal with a private members' bill that was dealing with dangerous offenders and how to keep them off the streets of Canada? Two years ago that was passed unanimously by this House, placed into the committee and totally disregarded.

I would suggest that the tyranny of the majority which one of the Liberal members referred to earlier is precisely what this country has with the present government. Because this government has such a massive majority, it feels it has the right to totally disregard the rights of its own individual members of Parliament to represent the Canadian people in what they feel is right and just.

Anytime there is a critical review of something which may point out an issue or an area that the government should back away from or reconsider, it is disregarded. Maybe I have misread the position of the member but I thought we were all here to do the best job we can for the Canadian people and to make sure that those who follow us have the best legislation, the best rules to govern the country to make sure that it is a strong, vibrant and unified country in the years to come.

I do not see that our work in committees is allowing us to do that. I have seen interference by the government, not only on opposition members but on government members which is in contravention of the parliamentary system.

If the government wants to return to this House with any majority let alone a mass majority it had better pull up its socks and start listening to the Canadian people because it may not be given another chance.