Val Meredith

[Terrorism, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would not have thought it would take that long to introduce a law making it illegal to raise funds for terrorists.

Last year when I asked the former Minister of National Revenue if he would rescind the charitable status of the Babbar Khalsa, a terrorist organization responsible for the 1985 bombing of Air-Indian and last September's assassination of the chief minister of the Punjab, he did not appear to be overly concerned with the issue.

If the government is truly serious about combating terrorism why is it asking Canadian taxpayers to subsidize terrorist groups? Will it at least revoke the charitable status of terrorist organizations in Canada forthwith?

[Terrorism, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, after last week's cowardly attack in Israel by Hamas both the minister of external affairs and the solicitor general promised to take action to prevent terrorist groups from raising funds in Canada.

The Prime Minister obviously is concerned with the issue, as he is currently in Egypt attending an anti-terrorism conference.

I ask the solicitor general if the government is prepared to introduce legislation to outlaw fundraising in Canada for terrorist groups as a measure of living up to its commitment.

[International Women's Week, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to have this opportunity to speak on International Women's Day. It gives me a chance to acknowledge the contributions of women across Canada, not only the professionals but all the women who have had a very positive influence on their families, friends and even on strangers.

It is a pleasure to respond to the comments of the Secretary of State for the Status of Women and Multiculturalism because I too want to talk about equality. The secretary of state said that equality is a fundamental Canadian value. She stated that equality is a right in this country, not a special right but a human right. She went on to state that her government has a strong belief that every person, every group and every community in this country is entitled to equality.

What she did not say is that in spite of its commitment to equality, the Liberal government has passed a great deal of legislation that will treat people differently based on their race, their ethnic background, their language, their physical abilities and their gender.

How can the secretary of state possibly say that the government is interested in equality when a person has to fill out a form about their ethnic background, their aboriginal status, their disabilities or their gender before it decides how they will be treated?

How can the government state that it believes in equality on one hand and then grant distinct society status to some Canadians on the other hand?

Equality is important in this country. Actually it is vital to the existence of this country. But it has to be true equality. It has to mean that all laws apply equally to all Canadians, regardless of race, creed, colour or gender. It has to mean that all Canadians have the same opportunities regardless of race, creed, colour or gender. Only then will this country achieve the true equality that is so essential and vital to the continued existence of our nation.

The secretary of state claims that economic equality is at the forefront of her objectives. She states that many of the issues that women face: poverty, violence and poor health are linked to economic inequity. Does she suggest that marginalizing women is a positive way to deal with and foster equality in Canadian society?

It is an interesting statement that the secretary makes. Is she suggesting that men are spared poverty? Is she suggesting that men are not victims of violent crime? Is she suggesting that men do not suffer from poor health? If she really believes that poor health is only an issue for women, how does she explain that the average Canadian male will only live to 74.5 years while the average Canadian female will live to be 81 years old.

There is no question that poverty, violence and poor health are issues that must concern the federal government. But I would like to think that any fair minded government would be concerned about these issues equally for all Canadians, not just a select group.

However, the government does not appear to be fair minded. Its response to these problems appears to be the creation of, and I quote "the federal plan for gender equality" which will see a gender based analysis of every new policy, program and law.

In other words, the government thinks it can solve the problem of the economic inequality that women face by having a bunch of highly paid bureaucrats sitting around discussing how everything the government does will impact on women.

If the government is really concerned about the economic situation of women, I will be happy to give them a piece of advice. Quit wasting the taxpayers' money so that women and men can have more money to spend on their families, on their children and on themselves instead of paying higher taxes and the high priced salaries of bureaucrats who are sitting around reviewing legislation for gender inequality.

Striving for equality is a noble pursuit but it has to be true equality. As a baby boomer, I have witnessed a great change in the role of Canadian women. There is no question that there was institutionalized discrimination against women in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

I have had my share of run-ins with male chauvinists who believe that a woman's place is in the home. I have also confronted a great number of females who share that belief. It is not something that only men believe. However, I am happy to say that the vast majority of men and women that I deal with truly believe that men and women should have equal opportunities and be treated equally.

The one noticeable exception is this Liberal government. It still seems to think that women need some form of government intervention to compete with men on an equal basis. I find it somewhat insulting that the government thinks that I need some form of assistance to compete equally with my male colleagues. That may be the case on that side of the House, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is not the case on this side of the House.

If the government is really concerned about creating equality it should remember that to be truly effective, equality, like justice, must be blind. Every Canadian should have the same rights and privileges, as well as the same duties and responsibilities, regardless of their race, their creed, their colour or their gender.

[Immigration, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the minister is adamant in having this terrorist removed from the country.

On Friday the parliamentary secretary for immigration assured us that Bill C-44 was looking after all of these and preventing these types of individuals from using the appeal process. Will the minister continue in this vein and make sure that anybody convicted of terrorist activities in other countries will immediately be deported and be prevented from using the appeal system?

[Immigration, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Malachy McAllister is a former member of the terrorist organization Irish Nationalist Liberation Army. He was convicted of attempted murder of a Belfast police officer in 1982. In 1988 he arrived in Canada and claimed refugee status which was denied and he has been ordered deported. However instead of being deported, McAllister has been working here in Ottawa as a stonemason on yes, the Peace Tower.

I ask the Minister of Immigration: Does this government believe that a way of keeping track of people facing deportation is to give them a job on Parliament Hill?

[Immigration, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, recently this issue has come up. It is not an isolated instance; it is still happening. A Hong Kong crown prosecutor stated: "Canadian immigration is very much a laughing stock of criminals, and Canada is being used by criminals such as drug traffickers as a soft spot for entry of drugs into North America and as an exit point for the laundering of funds".

Is this the type of open for business reputation the government is trying to promote worldwide?

[Immigration, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on May 25, 1992 Canada admitted Lee Chau-Ping and her family into Canada as investor immigrants. Unfortunately Lee was not the hardworking businesswoman the department of immigration thought she was; rather, she is the most notorious female drug trafficker in the world.

Can the parliamentary secretary of immigration explain how this woman was able to immigrate to Canada despite the fact she had been under investigation by the royal Hong Kong police since 1986?

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member I had the expectation that when I came to the House with a new government things would be done a little differently from the previous government. It is interesting for me to see not only in this instance but in many others that the present Liberal government and the former Conservative government appear to be the very same thing.

When the members on the government side sat in opposition they were very much against this type of motion. When my hon. colleague from Berthier-Montcalm read from the transcripts of Hansard in 1991 he quoted many of these members who were very opposed to this type of motion. It is very interesting to see that with the transfer from opposition to government the Liberals have

changed their stripes and are now the same as the Conservative government before them.

I also find it very interesting that in the last session the government was debating issues that were almost irrelevant to the Canadian public. It was debating whether it should add MMT to gasoline and what the national horse of Canada should be.

If this legislation the government wants to reinstate is so important, why were we not debating it last fall and last spring? This is the same government which last spring let important legislation sit for months and months after passing committee and second reading.

This is the government that sat on legislation and tried to pass it in one week before summer recess. If the government felt its legislation was so important to reinstate it in this session, what was it doing last time other than sitting on its hands?

The lack of serious legislation last session does not justify reinstating it in this session.

I would like to know where all the new government legislation will come from to support the honourable things they will supposedly be doing under the new speech from the throne. When are we to get the new legislation to bring in all of these programs, policies and promises under the new speech from the throne? The government does not have any idea where it is going or how it will get there.

The House leader for the government says we will treat Private Members' Business in the same way; we will be magnanimous and allow Private Members' Business to come forward and be reinstated as well.

I am one of the individuals affected by Private Members' Business. I have Bill C-240 which is supported by hundreds of thousands of Canadians, along with Bill C-226 from the hon. member for York South-Weston. Canadians all across the country support those private members' bills. Let me tell government members, in case they do not know, those two private members' bills have been stuck in committee since December 1994. They have not been dealt with and there has been plenty of opportunity for the government in committee to deal with those private members' bills.

To have the hon. House leader tell me he is being gracious in allowing my private members bill to be dumped into committee for another two years is certainly no encouragement.

If the government is really serious about doing something for private members it would separate Private Members' Business from government legislation, stop controlling private members' legislation and allow it to go through in the manner it should. When private members' bills are passed through the House of Commons at second reading they deserve to be heard equally with any government bill. I do not think any government should have control over private members' legislation and bury it to the extent it has.

The government is actually showing contempt for Parliament in the way it has treated not only my private member's bill but my colleague's from across the way. These two pieces of legislation have the support of the Canadian public but the government does not have the courage to bring those bills to a vote. It is content to bury them in the committee where it does not have to face the Canadian public and stand up and either support these bills or vote against them and to be seen by the Canadian public to be voting against some very good legislation.

The government tells me and my colleague that it will be gracious and allow our private members' bills to be buried in committee for another two years.

I have had two chairmen of the justice committee assure me over the period of a year and a half that my private member's bill will be dealt with. I have witnesses who have waiting since December 1994 to appear to speak to this bill. To have the government with two chairs of the justice committee making that assurance to me, I will have another chairman of the justice committee making that assurance.

I would like to know whether it is three times lucky or three strikes and you are out. I would like to know if my private member's bill is reinstated whether it will be buried, whether the government will refuse to have the guts and the fortitude to be accountable for supporting legislation that will provide safety to Canadians, that will kept dangerous offenders off the street, that will keep convicted first degree murderers incarcerated for the period of time the courts deem appropriate.

I would like to know whether government members have the courage to show the stripe they wear or whether they will simply be warmed up Conservatives for another two years. I hope that is not the case. I hope members on the other side will listen to some of the comments about how it is just rehashed Conservative government crap and do things a little differently.

[Evangelical Missionary Church, December 14th, 1995]

moved that Bill S-12, an act to amalgamate the Alberta corporation known as the Missionary Church with the Canada corporation known as the Evangelical Missionary Church, Canada West District, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a committee of the whole.

Madam Speaker, I rise on this occasion on behalf of my hon. colleague from Calgary North.

The Evangelical Missionary Church, Canada West District is a federal corporation incorporated in 1928 under a private act of the Parliament of Canada.

The Missionary Church is an Alberta corporation incorporated in 1927 by the Government of Alberta.

The purpose of the bill is to merge the two churches into one corporation under the name Evangelical Missionary Church, Canada West District. This merger would amalgamate the two churches as one corporation under the laws of Canada and would set out the power, status and administrative terms of reference of the new corporation. A de facto amalgamation has already taken place and the church is now functioning under the name of the federally incorporated church as provided for in the bill.

The merger of the two corporations would result in both groups combining the resources of the ministries to better meet mutual goals. It would have a positive impact on the members of the churches involved as well as the larger public in which they serve and minister. With this background information I believe the bill can be dealt with expeditiously to permit the amalgamation to go forward immediately.

[Finance, December 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. I would like to rise to present a bill from the Senate. I believe there is unanimous consent to allow me to present this. If I may, I will continue.