Mike Scott

[Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Area, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of cultural heritage has nominated the Tatshenshini-Alsek wilderness area in northern British Columbia as a world heritage site at the United Nations, with absolutely no public discussion, input or support.

The Tatshenshini contains rich mineral deposits worth more than $10 billion. This represents an enormous opportunity for job creation, real job creation, not taxpayer funded handouts, and huge revenues for governments.

A recent Decima research poll shows that 85 per cent of British Columbians believe it is important to check for mineral deposits when considering setting aside land for parks. Sixty-seven per cent believe that mining and other land uses should co-exist.

Clearly the public wants to maintain a viable mining industry in Canada. A world heritage site designation undermines and threatens the future of the Tatshenshini for resource use, which is clearly against the wishes of a vast majority of British Columbians.

I call on the minister to withdraw this undemocratic and unsupported nomination forthwith.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the Chair that I too was absent for the first two votes and I will be voting with my party.

[First Nations Housing, November 23rd, 1994]

Those are the facts.

It is interesting to note that the Auditor General has in his latest report started to echo the sentiments of many brilliant economists, such as my colleague from Capilano-Howe Sound, who have been saying for years that government programs designated to fix problems such as unemployment and welfare by their very nature increase the demand.

I will quote the Auditor General. He says: "There are indications of possible negative effects associated with social programs". He goes on to say: "We note that most if not all social programs have the potential to produce such effects".

Many effects that have been associated with existing programs include rising social program use and high repeated use, suggest that social programs may be creating a long term dependence among some users. Disincentives to work when benefits from social programs are compared to earnings from jobs and interactions among social programs may result in the programs working at cross purposes.

It is therefore obvious that the solution to native housing, the real permanent solution, does not lie with more government spending or more programs, policies or initiatives from government, but rather must come from the aboriginal people themselves through participation in the economy like all other Canadians.

I might add that there are hundreds of thousands of non-aboriginal Canadians who live in poor and sometimes inadequate housing and who desire to move from their basement rental suites and their apartments and live in nicer housing. The reality for these people, a reality they accept, is that they will have to pursue their own dreams and aspirations using their own re-

sources. That is the way it works and that is the way it should work.

In conclusion, I want to return to the thrust of the motion which is to require the government to spend more resources and increase the aboriginal housing program. My response to that motion is that there will never be enough money. If these people are to rely on government programs, there will never be enough programs, there will never be enough general resources and there will never be general satisfaction among the recipients.

The solution is to find ways to encourage and give incentive to aboriginal people to become self-sufficient and part of the Canadian mainstream. I recognize that this is not either an easy thing to say or to accomplish but in the long run, it is the only real hope for aboriginal people living in our country today.

[First Nations Housing, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today speaks to the need for more aboriginal housing. It is a real problem. Anyone who has ventured on to an Indian reserve, travelled by one, or has had the occasion to come into contact with aboriginal people knows there is a real problem as far as aboriginal housing is concerned.

As Canadians I am sure all of us would like to see the situation improved. We are not callous and uncaring. We would like to see everybody in our society living in decent housing with the opportunity to maintain what we have come to accept as the Canadian lifestyle.

These are some of the facts surrounding current government spending on aboriginal affairs. The Government of Canada is currently spending some $5.8 billion a year to try and deal with the problems we are talking about this afternoon. Out of that amount, some $300 million is directed toward aboriginal housing. According to the latest reports some 3,500 new units are built and 4,500 units are renovated every year.

The Auditor General says that the spending on DIAND's budget is rising faster than the rate of inflation and the increase in aboriginal population combined. This tells me that the positive results of this funding are dismal to say the least. It is my contention that the results will always be a failure because there will never be enough money available in this budget to address the needs of these people.

In my view the only way these people are going to be able to exist in housing that is acceptable to them and engage in a lifestyle that is acceptable to them and to us as Canadians is for them to become economically independent and be in a position to provide their own housing on the same basis as the rest of us.

While I appreciate that the Indian people find that these existing programs provide some relief, they are surely no happier with the situation than we are, the non-aboriginal people and the taxpayers of Canada.

I ask the question: How can someone feel a sense of self-worth and self-respect when he or she has to go begging to the federal government for money to subsidize housing or a standard of living?

Reserves, in many cases, are located in areas where there is little if any economic opportunity. That is the reality of reserves in Canada today. The people who live on those reserves are relegated to a lifestyle which perpetually looks to the federal government to be subsidized. In many instances these reserves are located in remote areas that are very difficult to access and where there is really no economic activity taking place other than government funding. There is virtually no meaningful employment.

The aboriginal people who have fared the best are the ones who have made the difficult but courageous choice to venture off reserves and become part of the Canadian mainstream.

It is the view of our socialist friends, and we see the evidence of that in such motions as the one before the House today, that the government either has or should have the answers to all of our woes. "If we only had a better program. If we only delivered it more efficiently. If we only earmarked more tax dollars for the program we would achieve our objectives and everybody would be happy. We would achieve a state of nirvana".

After nearly three decades of massive government spending, massive redistribution of wealth from productive people in our society to the have nots, we find that not only has the government not achieved its goals but in every instance has exacerbated the very problem that its programs were designed to correct.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, yes it is. It is not on debate.

I appreciate there may be some cost associated with the government tabling the information in the House. However it is important for the Canadian people and for accountability that we do see the information. I would ask the government to pursue the information with the appropriate officials in the government.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

On May 3 of this year I put Question No. 47 on the Order Paper. It asked for information relating to the travel and entertainment expenses of deputy ministers in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. A part of the question was tabled sometime last week by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. Since an Order for Return was issued, I am asking when we can expect to have the report for 1991 and 1992?

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Trough Day, this auspicious day when 52 members mostly from the Liberal caucus have achieved that noble milestone of having served for six years. Today they are about to reap the rewards of that remarkable achievement.

I must say that these Liberal MPs must be breathing a huge sigh of relief. Their red book promises seem to jeopardize their pensions, but the Prime Minister being the good guy that he is has come through for them. His inaction on MP pensions has guaranteed that the trough is in fine working order in spite of the red book rhetoric.

Oh what a happy day for all the newest members of the pension payoff as they witness the old trough filled to the brim with hard earned taxpayers' dollars.

A word of warning to our gleeful colleagues though. These pensions are not regarded as a sacred trust by either the Reformers or the taxpayers. We will use whatever legal means are available to dismantle the trough and end this shameful abuse of taxpayers' money just as soon as we are sworn in as government after the next election.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this bill. I note that recent disclosures indicate that the Liberals plan to spend $24 million of taxpayers' money to establish a Canadian race relations foundation in Toronto.

Not only will this entail an immediate cost to the Canadian taxpayers, but it will entail an ongoing cost. This is just the latest example of the absurdity of government funded multiculturalism.

Hospital beds are being closed in this country. Social policy review is under way right now. All kinds of government services are being eliminated or reduced to the taxpayers. In the same breath we have this government telling us that it is going to spend $24 million to establish the Canadian race relations foundation in Toronto.

Does the Liberal government really believe that Canadians agree with the expenditure of this kind of money for this purpose? Does the Canadian government really believe that the taxpayers of this country would ever agree to support such an expenditure? If the taxpayers could check off on their income tax returns whether or not they agree to having a portion of their contributions going toward this expenditure, how many Canadians would actually tick off the box and say: "Yes, send my money to pay for this new $24 million race relations foundation in Toronto".

This is another example of how badly out of step this government is with the Canadian people and how badly it has its priorities organized.

We are in a deep fiscal crisis in this country. The Canadian taxpayers know that and the government knows that. We see evidence of that every day. In the face of that, because we have this philosophical conviction on the part of the Liberal government that these things must be funded, they are being funded to the exclusion of other programs.

In concluding my short remarks, I must say that this government once again demonstrates and makes it very clear to all members of this House and to the Canadian people that this entire rationale for the heritage ministry is undermined by the very actions that this government is engaged in even as we speak.

[Lighthouses, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Minister of Transport announced his intention to destaff 35 B.C. lighthouses. A massive protest prompted the minister to announce pubic consultations with mariners in British Columbia prior to any final decision to destaff. However a consultant hired by the government, Mr. Norman Mathews, a former secretary general of the International Association for Lighthouse Authority, has recently made comments in the press in advance of the public meetings that destaffing lighthouses is a done deal.

Given Mr. Mathews' statements the people of British Columbia, and I am sure all people of Canada, want to know why the minister would perpetrate this sham of consultation when his department has already received its marching orders.

This appearance of public consultation is both expensive and cruel. It raises hopes in the hearts of many that manned lighthouses will be maintained and it is costly.

I ask the Prime Minister: Is this the kind of public consultation the Liberals had in mind when drafting their infamous red book?

[Access To Information, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Motion M-304. The motion is put forward by my Reform colleague from Red Deer. I would like to congratulate him on it.

The motion deals with extending the realm of the present Access to Information Act to include Parliament and crown corporations.

I begin by paraphrasing the purpose of the act. The passage will help to outline the true essence and principles behind the creation of the act and how the present motion before the House will only enhance those principles. "The purpose of this act is to extend the present laws of Canada to provide a right of access to information in records under the control of a government institution in accordance with the principles that government information should be available to the public". This is an explanation of the act's intent to foster accountability within government and its institutions.

The motion before the House embodies the same principles and expresses them in a form in which Canadian people deserve to have access to, namely Parliament and crown corporations. It serves to ensure that the business of government is and remains open to the public. It represents the public's desire for Parliament to be accountable for its actions. It embodies the need Canadians have to know that their government and its institutions are not hiding from them. If government has nothing to hide, and it should have nothing to hide, why not open up Parliament and crown corporations to public scrutiny?

We in the Reform Party have been listening to the outraged cries of our fellow Canadians and understand their desire to hold Parliament accountable for its actions. This understanding was shown through our efforts to pass Bill C-210, the bill on recall. It was recently voted down by both the Liberal and Bloc parties. We are trying again.

The motion will allow the public access to financial matters handled by the Speakers of the House and the Senate. However the motion will not sacrifice the confidentiality of MPs' files or cabinet documents. It will, though, for such crown agencies as the CBC and Canada Post, open up their files to public scrutiny.

In this day of incredible national debt and financial strain on the taxpayer, such a motion grants true meaning to open government, something we have been hearing a lot about. After all, do Canadians not have a right to know where their money is being spent?

The Liberal government states on page 91 of its red book which we hear so often quoted in the House: "If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored". The motion will help to ensure that both Parliament and crown corporations are accountable to the public and hence will be viewed as capturing the honesty and integrity it once had.

On page 91 the Liberal book goes on to state: "The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable".

The motion stresses the need Canadians have for a more open process of government. They are tired of being told what to do by the government while not having a government that invokes a sense of trust or integrity among the people it governs.

We hear all too often about more open and honest government, about integrity, about credibility. We hear the talk but we do not see the Liberals walking the walk. That is what this motion is all about. We hear speakers on the other side telling us that they support the motion in principle but that it is too broad in scope and that perhaps there is going to be some Pandora's box opened as a result of the motion passing.

I suggest that what we ought to be doing is making the access to information law as broad as possible with limitations set in areas where appropriate rather than the other way around. What we are hearing from members opposite is exactly that. They want to limit. They are so concerned about having information out there in the general public they want to make sure they have as many limitations as possible in place. That is counter to the whole theme of access to information.

An example of closed, elitist and top down government is the land claim negotiations currently going on in my riding of Skeena. These negotiations are the epitome of backroom, closed to the public input, government deals. These negotiations between the federal and provincial governments and native groups in my province are completely performed behind closed doors without any direct public input whatsoever.

Is this not the kind of process the Liberal government condemns in its red book on page 91? It states: "The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them or that disregard their views or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed doors".

I suggest that is what the government is doing and it can change by supporting Motion M-304. I would call settling a major land claim affecting a large piece of land and a great number of people public business. It is definitely irritating my constituents.

Bring back integrity and trust to this Parliament and its agencies. Allow Canadians to feel proud as they once did of their parliamentary institution. Give Parliament back to the people. Allow them the access they deserve and put confidence in government back in the minds and hearts of Canadians.

In conclusion, this motion M-304 will help Canadians to trust Parliament and its agencies once again. It is essential for the political stability of this country that Canadians trust their elected officials and feel a sense of integrity when proudly telling others in the world that they are Canadians.

There is nothing to fear in this motion. It is straightforward common sense. Let Canadians have the right to an open Parliament and the right to hold their politicians accountable.