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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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-
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
(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
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.
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.
[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
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
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.
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.
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.
(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
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
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
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.
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.
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.)