Mike Scott

[Division No. 318, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, last week I rose in the House on several occasions. I provided the Minister of National Revenue with information with respect to a consortium of environmentalists in British Columbia. I provided him with a document and I asked him why these organizations were continuing to receive charitable status, in other words a tax holiday, particularly in light of the document that had come into our hands.

Essentially the document outlines about a dozen environmental groups, many of them Canadian, that are involved in a strategy which amounts to nothing more than an attack on mining in British Columbia, and more specifically mining in my riding of Skeena.

The minister is aware of the participants. Some of them are the Sierra Club, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund and the Suzuki Foundation. There is a list of them. At least some of these organizations are getting charitable tax status.

At the same time, and this is outlined in the document of which I have a copy here, they are accepting huge contributions from wealthy American corporate trusts and family trusts, hundreds of thousands of dollars from American corporate and families trusts in a paid campaign to attack a mine proposal in northwest British Columbia.

Redfern Resources has a proposal called the Tulsequah Chief Mine. It was actually an operating mine many years ago. It has been dormant and the company wants to reopen it. It went through a 3.5 year rigorous environmental review in which the federal and provincial governments and all their various appropriate line ministries participated. The state of Alaska participated in it. Last year, at the end of that process, the Premier of British Columbia publicly stated that the mine was to get approval to go ahead.

The environmentalists have shifted gears. They do not want the project approved. They do not care about the facts. They do not care about the fact that there was an environmental review done. They do not care about the science. They do not care about truth. They do not care about balance. Above all, they do not care about people, particularly the people in my riding who are counting on that mine as an economic development opportunity.

They have joined forces with Alaska Governor Tony Knowles in pressing for this project to be reviewed at the International Joint Commission. Furthermore, the same Alaska Governor Tony Knowles is an environmentalist and wants the project halted.

He is the same governor whose rapacious actions on Pacific salmon have devastated many coastal communities in my riding and have hurt recreational and commercial fishermen. Commercial fisherman on the north coast are devastated as are commercial sport fishing operations. Virtually all commercial sport fishing operations were shut down last year. Aboriginal fishermen, aboriginal people who are fishing for food, ceremonial and commercial purposes, have been dramatically prejudiced by the actions of the same governor whom the environmentalists want to join in lockstep to shut down this mining opportunity in northwest British Columbia.

It is clear these organizations may be getting charitable tax status. I have given the minister the names of all the organizations and asked him to provide me with that information, but I am aware that some of them are getting charitable tax status.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I see that we really are making some progress here this afternoon and I am grateful for that.

The hon. member is quite right. This is not the Government of Canada that is doing the advertising, but it is the Government of Canada that is facilitating this charade. It is the Government of Canada's policy that allows Canadians and others to advertise in foreign publications and say bring us your criminals. You are a bank robber, come to Canada and if you get caught in Canada we have a criminal justice system that will not deal with you anyway. It is a haven for criminals.

I cannot understand why the hon. members do not understand. We are talking about priorities. We are talking about what is in the best interest of Canadians and what is in the best interest of Canada. Certainly when we see an advertisement like this in a foreign publication we are hard pressed to believe that the government's priorities are in the best interest of Canada and Canadians.

We are hard pressed when we hear this terrible story of this doctor working in an emergency ward in Vancouver that the priorities of this government are for the health of Canadians. This doctor was exposed to a serious contagious disease as a result of immigration's failure to screen people coming into this country as immigrants, to screen people coming into this country who desire citizenship here.

It is really disappointing to see that from all the noise on the other side they still do not get it. Canadians are not satisfied with this. They want something better. They want a better set of priorities. They do not want criminals and people who are infected with serious contagious diseases coming into this country and threatening the health and safety of Canadian citizens.

I wish the members on the other side would get it. Obviously they are spending more time talking than listening.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I got their attention. The reason we are talking about criminals, for the hon. member's edification, is the fact that we have a government and a policy which invite criminals to come to Canada and become citizens here. We have a government—

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share with the House a story that I recently heard on CBC radio as I was driving through British Columbia.

It came on in late afternoon. A doctor was being interviewed by a CBC reporter, a doctor who I believe was working in Vancouver in an emergency ward in a major hospital. She was called into the emergency room to assist a young man who was having severe difficulties. The young man appeared to the doctor to be in good health. That is the way she related the story. However, he was having a great deal of difficulty breathing and she determined immediately that he needed mouth to mouth resuscitation or mouth to mouth assistance in breathing if he were to survive.

She had made some inquiries before going into the emergency room and found out that this fellow was a recent immigrant to Canada from Honduras and had only been in Canada for a very short time. I think it was in the neighbourhood of about six months. Naturally the doctor assumed that being a recent refugee Immigration Canada would have checked his health status and would have found anything that might have been wrong.

The doctor assumed wrong. Much to her horror she found out that she had made a terrible assumption because, as she later found out, this young refugee who was lying in a hospital emergency room, who looked and appeared to be healthy and who was a recent immigrant to Canada, only having been here a few months, was in fact a fellow who had full blown AIDS and active tuberculosis.

The doctor made a life and death decision and assisted or attempted to assist him with mouth to mouth resuscitation. She found out later the patient was infected with the AIDS virus and tuberculosis. She had herself checked out when she found out what the patient's medical history really was. Thankfully she did not acquire the AIDS virus, but she did test positive for tuberculosis and now she is very concerned she may develop that disease at some time in her life.

I know members opposite think it is funny, but I do not think most Canadians find it funny. Frankly I know the doctor involved did not find it funny at all.

How could it happen that a young fellow recently admitted to Canada as a refugee could be admitted to an emergency room and a doctor treating him not knowing his medical history? How could this individual be in Canada with these very serious diseases that he had obviously had for a long period of time and immigration not even check?

What the doctor discovered and what she related to radio listeners that day was that immigration does not routinely check immigrants for serious diseases as they are accepted into Canada. They do not check immigrants to Canada for contagious diseases. They do not put public safety as a first priority when accepting immigrants into Canada.

There is something very wrong when Canada does not take these kinds of precautions to protect its citizens. Our citizenship and immigration department is so caught up with optics, spin and being political correct that it is willing to jeopardize public safety for the sake of being seen as politically correct. This is apparently the case because I have in my hand an advertisement that was recently found in a foreign publication which I will read verbatim into the record: “Canadian immigration to Canada with the purchase of a Fleet rent a car franchise, total investment of $50,000 Canadian, approximately $30,000 U.S. You are guaranteed immigration to Canada even with a criminal record”.

This is an ad that was placed in a foreign publication. How can our immigration department be so obviously skewed and so incapable of doing its job that Canadians are recognizing that there is financial opportunities in attempting to entice criminals from other countries to come to Canada and guaranteeing them access to Canada if they have the ticket price to pay the $50,000 or $30,000 U.S.?

How can anyone watching the debate feel the government has as its first priority the public safety of Canadians? How can anybody watching this debate believe the government has its priorities in order? Refugees are not screened for serious illness and disease. There are ads to attract criminals into Canada. Canada needs to totally revamp its immigration policy and put as its first priority the health and safety of Canadians. In both these examples we see the government does not have its priorities right and it is not putting the health and safety of Canadians as its first priority.

The next priority the government should have with respect to immigration is to encourage immigrants who are ready, willing and able to make a positive contribution to our economy and to our country. Immigration has always been an extremely valuable and positive force in this country from its inception until now. I can speak with a bit of knowledge on this because I come from a community in northwest British Columbia, Kitimat. Kitimat was largely created during the 1950s when Alcan built a huge aluminum smelter and the community and the country at that time were accepting refugees from all over the world.

We had at that time people from Portugal, Italy, Germany and people from all over the world who came to our community. It was considered a melting pot. It was considered an exemplary community at that time. At that time we had an immigration policy that made sense. We had an immigration policy that looked to potential immigrants in terms of what kind of positive contribution they would be able and willing to make to our country.

Sadly the priorities of government have changed over time. Sadly we have a government that puts as its first—

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of my friend in the Liberal benches. I am always interested in hearing his comments. He usually has a very erudite way of putting things. He had some valid points to make.

I am very disappointed that we are dealing with time allocation. Even with a government that has a legislative agenda bereft of ideas and initiatives, it is beyond us to understand why it needs the hammer of time allocation to ram this thing through parliament without proper debate. One can only assume that it does not want any more scrutiny on this bill than it absolutely has to because it is afraid of what Canadians will think of it.

Today my colleagues have talked at length about a flawed process that has led to a flawed deal. This is not just about a flawed process right now, it is a process that goes back to the beginning of the whole notion of equalization and how the formula for equalization was to be drawn up and used.

For example, when I was elected in 1993 one of the first private member's bills I brought to the House of Commons was a bill that would require that revenues based on hydroelectric sales be included in the equalization formula and calculations. Those are not included. Some provinces, for example my province of British Columbia, the province of Quebec and other provinces, derive significant revenues from hydroelectric sales. That is not included in the equalization formula. Those revenues often flow directly into the coffers of the provincial government. As we know, many provincial governments own many hydroelectric installations. I cannot believe the Government of Canada would not take into account this massive influx of revenues based on hydroelectric sales.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the cost of production in many provinces is not taken into account. For example, in my province of British Columbia the cost of production in tree harvesting is not taken into account. What this leads to is a distortion based on this convoluted formula that is all about political manipulation and delivering political objectives. It has very little to do with true equalization.

The New Democratic government in British Columbia is in the process of taking B.C. from a have province to a have not province as we speak. So I have to be a little careful. We may be in need of some equalization in British Columbia one of these days unless we do something about that government.

The current equalization formula is full of inherent contradictions and inconsistencies. This delivers a distorted and easily manipulated formula which invites political interference. We have seen that recently. My colleagues have been referring to it all day. We saw it with the Government of Newfoundland and the things that took place prior to the last election in Newfoundland. There is no doubt or question that succeeding federal governments have used equalization as a political lever to gain political advantage in different parts of the country at different times. Because it has been used as a lever of political interference and political advantage, it is inherently unfair. The overall effect is really unfair for most ordinary Canadians. Equalization is reflected in provincial tax rates. Have not provinces can maintain lower tax rates than have provinces and still deliver the same services to their citizenry. Because lower tax rates benefit high income earners the most, the net effect of equalization under the Liberals is that poor families in rich provinces subsidize rich families in poor provinces.

I will repeat that because I think it is a really important point. Poor families in rich provinces subsidize rich families in poor provinces which is exactly the opposite effect that equalization is supposed to bring about, I submit.

Government interventionist programs, in particular where they are not well thought out or not properly rationalized, tend to have unintended consequences. Let us call it the law of unintended consequences. These almost always are unfair.

If we think of it, a poor family somewhere in Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta is subsidizing a rich family somewhere in one of the other seven provinces. That is an unintended consequence of this bill. It is inherently unfair but it is what comes when we have a politically manipulated, artificial equalization system that is there largely for political ends and purposes rather than for a real attempt at equalization of incomes across Canada.

After decades of unfairness and the unintended consequences that I have talked about, because this policy has been in place for decades, we would think the government would be willing to look at a new idea, something different, something that completely breaks away from the past because the past is demonstrated as a failure over and over again. But no, the government cannot. It stands with its back toward the future, gazing serenely at the failed policy fields of the past and it thinks if it could just tinker with it a little, if it could move these few words over here and change that clause over there, it would somehow turn this all around and make it fair, make it equitable and make it work.

Frankly, I think that is the main reason why the government does not wish to have any more scrutiny or debate in the House than it has to with time allocation. It does not legitimately want to have the average Canadian taxpayer exposed to its own failures.

I suggest that it is these kinds of government interventions that are inherently unfair, that are premised on political advantage and not on truly trying to do the right thing which lead to divisions in this country. It is one of things that drove me to politics. I was annoyed by the continued manipulation of the federal government and how that affected me as a taxpayer in British Columbia and how it affected my family, my friends and my co-workers, how it affected all British Columbians. It was one of the reasons I got into politics.

I never had any intention of being here. I never had a lifelong wish to be a member of parliament. I never graduated from high school with a burning passion and desire to be a politician. I came here because of this kind of nonsense.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the Liberals just do not get it. They just do not want to face reality. They just do not want to face the fact that what they have cobbled together years and years ago, tinkered with and played with over decades is not working and is driving Canadians to distraction. It has driven me to politics. It is the kind of policy that is in part responsible for the creation of the Reform Party of Canada.

I would argue that the Liberal government has not demonstrated any capacity for change. I do not believe that with this administration we will see any new ideas come forward. It has a legislative agenda that is almost barren. Yet it does not want to give it full and proper debate in the House of Commons.

When the Reform Party forms government and we have a Reform administration, we will have real change to equalization so that the provinces that are really in need of equalization will get it. We will not end up with the ludicrous situation where seven out of ten provinces are called have not provinces. I suggest that is patently ridiculous.

[Taxation, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Minister of National Revenue twice why organizations like the B.C. Spaces for Nature, the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki Foundation get a tax holiday as registered charities when they act as a front and accept huge contributions from wealthy American corporate and family interests to kill jobs and investments in Canada. The minister said he did not have the evidence and so I provided it to him yesterday. Now that the minister knows the truth will he commit now to act and remove this charitable status from these ecoterrorists?

[National Revenue, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Yesterday I revealed to the minister that wealthy American corporate and family trusts like Hewlett-Packard, Ted Turner and the Rockefeller Foundation are funnelling millions of dollars into Canadian environmental organizations with charitable tax status in a paid campaign to kill jobs and investment in Canada. These are not charities. These are economic terrorists.

I ask the minister again, when is he going to end this sham and revoke this charitable tax status to these economic terrorists?

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it would be easier for us on this side and certainly easier for me to proceed with my intervention and to keep the personal comments to a minimum if my colleagues on the other side were not engaging in this kind of heckling in debate.

The case before us is really important. Canada's trade with the United States is huge. Eighty per cent of our trade is with the United States. We need them and they need us. It is a very important trade relationship. We need them very badly.

The magazine issue as an economic matter does not even register on the scales in terms of economic importance. It is not important in terms of our economy. Issues like steel, softwood lumber and other trade relationships that we have are vital to the future of the country and vital for the province I come from and vital for the constituents I represent. We have a huge trade in softwood lumber with the United States.

By introducing this bill, the minister is indicating that she is willing to put at risk those jobs and those industries and that trade relationship for the sake of her ego. It is irresponsible in the extreme. She is willing to put our entire trade relationship with the United States at risk over an issue that does not even register on the scales economically. Someone should run out and buy the minister a calculator. She should become acquainted with the numbers and maybe then she would pause and change her mind.

The minister and the government show so much concern for magazines. If the Liberals are that concerned about the trade relationship with the United States and protecting Canadian businesses, why do they not do something about fish?

The people in my riding particularly from the Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Island areas are in deep trouble because of our trade relationship and because of the fact that the government has been totally ineffective at negotiating any kind of an agreement with the Americans on the Pacific salmon dispute. It was totally ineffective in even bringing up the issue, and totally ineffective in even trying to make this a priority because the Liberals do not consider it to be a priority.

When it comes to magazines, oh yes it is a national issue but when it is Pacific salmon, that is a regional issue, a B.C. issue. It does not matter. It does not register on their scales, or the minister's scales.

Where is the concern for the sports fisherman, the aboriginal fisherman and the commercial fishermen who have lost their livelihoods? That is a heritage issue. These people, particularly in the commercial industry, have lost and are in the process of losing a way of life because of government inaction and inability or unwillingness to deal with that very crucial issue.

The province I come from does a tremendous amount of trade with the Americans on softwood lumber. I cannot begin to say how many communities in my riding, never mind businesses, depend on trade in softwood lumber for their sustenance, for their livelihoods. Families depend on a paycheque so they can make their mortgage payments, buy groceries, put their kids through school and have some kind of future.

The minister is willing to put that at risk over an issue that does not even register on the economic scale. The minister is willing to put at risk thousands of jobs in the steel industry in Ontario over an issue that does not even register on the economic scale. The minister is willing to put her ego and agenda ahead of the best interest of Canadians. I am frankly appalled.

I look at my colleagues across the way. They just do not understand that real lives and futures are on the line. If they would choose to venture out of Ontario and come to my riding in northern British Columbia they would see for themselves the economic devastation that northern communities in British Columbia have faced over the last couple of years. Then maybe they would not be so quick to criticize.

We see window dressing action on the part of the minister that is designed to try to persuade Canadians she is concerned about our country and out there doing something. She is really out there attempting to exacerbate the problems my constituents already have in the industries in which they are employed.

I understand the heritage minister being this way because she has demonstrated a track record in this regard for a long time. What I cannot understand is how her caucus, her fellow cabinet and the Prime Minister will let her continue with putting at risk hundreds of millions of dollars of trade with the United States every year over an issue which basically does not even register on the economic scale and is not important to most Canadians. I frankly do not think most Canadians are concerned about the issue the minister is trying to address. I am appalled that the minister is willing to put everything else on the line over this issue.

If the heritage minister and the government were really serious about standing up for Canada's interest, they would get off this issue which for most Canadians does not even register and address some other issues like softwood lumber and Pacific salmon which they have done absolutely nothing meaningful about for five years now, ever since I have been in this place.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case. I am amazed. My friend across the way must be blessed with ESP to know what I was going to say as I just rose.

I have to relate this bill to other things the minister has done to show the arrogance and the egotistical approach she has to her job. I can talk about the MMT, the GST, the flag giveaway, and as my colleague mentioned the $98,000 for a book on dumb blond jokes, which incidentally was just before she had her hair dyed. She demonstrates little concern for the economic wreckage she leaves behind her with all of these initiatives. This bill is a case in point.

The minister professes to care about national unity. She professes to care about keeping Canada together. Then she introduces a piece of legislation such as Bill C-48 which I suggest is going to do more to divide and anger Canadians than anything the minister has done before. We will see the fruits of her labour not too far down the road.

What is amazing is that the Prime Minister continues to let the heritage minister prance around without a leash leaving unpleasant little surprises for us all over the place.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know that unlike my colleagues across the way, you have been waiting for some time for my intervention and I hope I do not disappoint.

The first thing I have to say and which is patently obvious to most of us in the House and most Canadians at this point in time is that the heritage minister's ego and arrogance know no bounds. It is becoming clearer to Canadians all the time. She has demonstrated this over and over again. Let me give this House some examples.

Alongside this bill, what has the minister got for a track record? She has the GST promise. She has the—