Dave Chatters

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member opposite drew such bizarre conclusions from what he heard myself and the other Reform Party member talk about. The fact is the Canadian government resisted entering into a treaty with the aboriginal people of this area for some time, choosing to leave them live a traditional lifestyle and to not disrupt that way of life.

If one examines the history of the area, one also notes that it was the aboriginal people who on a number of occasions requested that the Canadian government enter into treaty with them. In fact, the leadership of the very communities that we speak of in this agreement put their signatures to treaty No. 11.

Therefore we had the situation where the federal government had no responsibility to the aboriginal people. It was the choice of the aboriginal people themselves. They chose to enter that agreement.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-16.

I have particular interest in the proposed legislation, having lived and worked among the people of this area. Perhaps I have a better understanding of this part of Canada and its people than someone living in suburban Ottawa, Toronto or Edmonton.

As I have repeatedly said, I strongly support the right of Canada's aboriginal peoples to self-determination and self-reliance. Therefore when representatives of the Sahtu Tribal Council first presented the agreement to me I was supportive. There are many elements of this proposal that moved the aboriginal people of the Mackenzie Valley toward the objectives I support. I am referring to the rejection of the objectionable apartheid principles of the reservation system of more southern parts of Canada.

The co-operative approach to resource management and free access to their traditional lands for traditional purposes is positive. The requirement to contribute to the tax system to help support their own government and the preservation of the social safety net system so essential to all Canadians including aboriginals is also a positive step. In my view the taxation provisions of the agreement are very complex and no doubt will be the subject of legal interpretation.

On these points and in the hope the cash payment and the share of the resource revenue would end the devastating cycle of welfare dependency which has robbed these once independent, hardy people of their self-esteem and initiative, unfortunately the closer I examined the agreement the more I came to realize these positive things would never be achieved through the agreement.

More and more I began to question the motivation and objectives of those negotiating on behalf of the people of Canada. When I contacted public affairs of the department of Indian affairs and Northern Development and inquired as to the objectives of this process, I was told it was to right the injustices of the past and to supplement rather than replace the provisions of treaty 11.

Immediately I have to ask what injustices are we trying to right. If one is familiar or cares to study the history of the area north of the 60th parallel, one would discover that there is a substantial difference from the history of more southern neighbours.

To begin with, life for aboriginals in the land north of 60 has traditionally been a subsistence existence, harsh and unforgiving. From the earliest encroachment into this land by European settlement, the federal government has recognized its responsibility to the people living there and made efforts in spite of the vast wilderness and harsh climate to provide, where possible, help through RCMP outposts and local missions.

I will not accept the popular myth spread by certain self-serving interests that the encroachment of European settlers constitutes an injustice against the aboriginal people here or anywhere else in Canada.

At the turn of the century western and northern Canada was a vast, mostly uninhabited land in real danger of being annexed to the United States. The aboriginal people living in this vast territory were eager for the technology which the Europeans brought with them, in spite of the problems that came with them.

It was under these circumstances that the then Government of Canada, through a series of grossly distorted and overly optimistic ads, invited Europeans from all parts of Europe to come to western Canada with the promise of 160 acres or a half square mile of land for the sum of $10 and a freer, richer lifestyle, but

all the time having the real objective of asserting sovereignty over western and northern Canada.

It was under these circumstances that my grandfather along with thousands of others came to Canada, not to perpetrate an injustice upon the aboriginal people but to accept the opportunity being offered.

In spite of the great disappointment upon arriving in a bush covered, swampy, fly and mosquito infested homestead in northern Alberta, my grandfather and grandmother built a home with the trees on the land, cleared the land with only an axe and a team of horses, and built a farm in spite of the injustices of hail, frost, depression, injury, disease and government misrepresentation. That is how to build self-esteem and self-worth.

I cannot and will not be held responsible for the actions of the past political leadership of this country any more than the aboriginal people can be held responsible for their past leadership. Therefore I will not accept the guilt or support compensation for my being here or my helping to develop industries which now support us in the best standard of living in the world. However I would support any agreement or effort to help the aboriginal people of this area to participate and enjoy the benefits of life enjoyed by all other Canadians.

I believe this agreement entrenches in the Constitution commitments on the Government of Canada that may not be in the best interest of all Canadians or responsibilities that Canada can no longer afford.

The richness of this package should shock even the most liberal Canadian. The agreement gives $100,000 in financial entitlement over 15 years plus title in fee simple to eight square miles of land per capita counting children, plus a share of resource revenue amounting to somewhere between $200,000 and $400,000 per year.

In my view the settlement would be acceptable if it would then cause to end the financial responsibility of the federal government to these people. The truth is far different. Clause 3.1.5 clearly states that the participants in the agreement shall have full access to all present and future programs for aboriginal people as well as programs available to all other Canadians.

These programs now include not only a share of the $4.5 billion budget of the department of Indian affairs and Northern Development but also a share of the proliferation of government programs for aboriginals provided by at least 29 specific programs in 15 other departments of government, costing at least another $5 billion. All this is being offered at a time when our country is bankrupt and our most treasured social safety net system is decomposing because of the financial restraints being imposed on it.

On top of the aforementioned benefits the agreement also calls for the establishment of no less than nine separate boards funded by federal money and a written commitment to negotiate a self-government agreement with the institution of this government agreement also presumably funded by Ottawa.

This brings me back to a question that I raised earlier. What could possibly be the motivation or justification of such an agreement? In my opinion there have been no great injustices perpetrated on the people of this area above those imposed on all our lives by the advancement of technology and our consuming lifestyle.

The government is already redistributing tax and resource dollars in a major way to help these people catch up. The Canadian government 73 years ago at the request of these aboriginal people entered into treaty No. 11 and has more than met its obligations. In fact the text of treaty No. 11 states: "The said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada for His Majesty the King and his successors forever all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following limits and also the said Indian rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territory or any other portion of the Dominion of Canada".

Where does this initiative for the land claim settlement come from? In my opinion the initiative comes from the real root of the aboriginal problem in Canada, the insidious parasitic Indian industry. That group of lawyers, consultants, bureaucrats and Indian leaders year after year swallow up the vast majority of money designated to solve the problems of poverty, illiteracy, substance abuse and suffering among our native people.

This agreement does nothing to solve that problem and in fact greatly reinforces it. Instead of continuing to feed this selfish parasitic monster, let us break the cycle by making available to aboriginal Canadians programs available to all Canadians and then providing an affordable amount of the $10 billion plus now spent on aboriginal services and programs to grassroots aboriginal people in the form of a guaranteed annual income.

We will then give the power to tax to the proposed aboriginal governments. These aboriginal governments will then be truly accountable to their people. The people will decide what programs they are willing and able to pay for. They will also decide if their tax dollars should pay for their chief or band administrator to spend in one year $130,000 on travel, as was the case of a band chief in Manitoba, the very birthplace of self-government proposed by the minister of aboriginal affairs. There would still be those selfish, greedy people who would try to exploit these people but at least it would provide a much greater accountability if combined with regular, fair, democratic elections than the system now provides.

In conclusion, I would urge hon. members to re-examine the whole agreement and its implications. I ask members to consider what it means, when in spite of the fact that only 73 years ago the Canadian government entered into treaty No. 11 and the fact that this land claim is in clear violation of the terms of this treaty, we are repeatedly reminded that the rights gained by aboriginals through these treaties is a binding contract on Canada forever.

I also ask members to consider whether we have the right to commit future generations of Canadians to this extremely generous package, considering Canada's financial situation and our doubtful ability to maintain our current social safety net system.

Last, I ask members to question the real motivation behind this agreement and who stands to benefit most. Look at the Indian bands in Canada that have accumulated great wealth through resource revenue and it is obvious that money will not solve the problems we are trying to solve. These problems can only be solved by the people regaining their self-esteem and self-worth. We are providing enough wealth that 982 adult aboriginals need never work or strive to meet goals again in their lifetime. However it will not accomplish this any more than it did for others.

I ask that members not buy into this guilt trip so skilfully put on us and not enter into another binding contract based solely on racial origin that is to last as long as the sun rises and the rivers flow.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation and I have a couple of questions for the member.

The member outlined two different types of land claims in Canada and how they are dealt with. He explained that the particular agreement falls under the comprehensive land claim policy which states that under the comprehensive land claim agreement entitlement to lands not dealt with under treaty fall in this category.

In my opinion this particular land area is clearly dealt with under treaty 11. Also in my opinion the Government of Canada has fulfilled its obligation under treaty 11 in every way possible. How is this particular land claim justified under that particular area?

[Hibernia, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the revelation this morning that the Hibernia project is $1 billion over budget and one year behind schedule comes as no surprise to industry insiders.

The Hibernia project will be typical of economic development projects promoted and financed by government for political reasons rather than economic reasons.

This project has already consumed $1 billion in direct subsidies and almost $2 billion in loan guarantees by Canadian taxpayers, added to which is the taxpayers' $85 million share of the current overrun plus their liability for the 70 per cent share of Petro-Canada. Clearly Gulf Canada made a wise business decision to take its loss and pull out of this project two years ago.

With the proposed start-up date still four years away, how many more tax dollars will be dumped into this misguided effort to promote job creation in Newfoundland?

[Aboriginal Self-Government, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, aboriginal self-government sometimes if not always is a frustrating issue. The minister has demonstrated time and time again his inability to control his emotions when dealing with it.

As an elected member of this Parliament, I deserve the same level of respect as members opposite, even if we should present a different point of view on the issues brought before this House.

If the minister is truly interested in the benefits of all concerned parties will he consider stepping aside so that we can proceed on this issue without further interruption?

[Aboriginal Self-Government, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

It is becoming clearer all the time that the minister does not understand the widespread concern over the meaning of aboriginal self-government. The minister must know there are several fundamentally different definitions of what self-government actually means. These range from the minimal concept of municipal government to the opposite extreme of absolute sovereignty as a nation state.

Does the minister still not understand why so many Canadians both inside and outside the aboriginal community believe we must define at least some broad parameters around what is and what is not acceptable in the definition of aboriginal self-government before it can be agreed to even in principle?

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the hon. member a question. Our concern is not whether it is new money or old money but whether it is borrowed money. Does she not agree that we are dumping the burden on the next generation?

Also does the member not realize that amortizing $6 billion over the next 10 or 20 or 30 years that we would also pay many times the original cost of these projects?

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am a Canadian who considers himself to be a have not. I am very much a grass roots Canadian. I speak for those of my social and economic level.

It would appear to me from what I have heard from the members opposite that perhaps the government wants us all to be have not people in our society. We are not saying that many of the programs proposed in the budget are not good programs, are not worthwhile programs, our problem comes when we borrow money and we increase debt to support those programs.

If we can afford these programs we should provide them for Canadians. At a time when we can no longer afford them we have to cut back on programs provided for Canadians.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Because we on this side of the House have yet to receive any details about the youth corps program we can only judge the merits of the program from similar programs presented by previous governments. In my opinion those programs were dismal in providing meaningful employment to students of our universities and high schools. Certainly that has been the experience.

Further to the hon. member's comments, the best thing we could do for our young people is to cut the tax burden and allow private enterprise to create jobs and get the economic engine of this country rolling. Stop trying to do what governments have been trying to do since time immemorial, that is create employment through government spending and borrowing money.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of this motion. I and my party believe that if we do not drastically alter our economic policies Canadians will be facing an economic crisis in this country equal to or worse than what was experienced in the 1930s. Many senior Canadians today still remember the famine, financial hardship and personal despair of those years.

Today, because of government overspending, ballooning deficits and accumulated debts of the last 25 years, we could soon be facing a similar disaster. Clearly, when one cuts through the rhetoric, misguided optimism and smoke and mirrors of this recent budget, it does nothing to set a new direction or chart a new course for economic healing that we must see if we are to avoid this looming crisis.

Therefore we in the Reform Party are presenting some constructive actions and offering co-operation to the government in seizing the window of opportunity before it is lost for another four or five years.

In the business and non-political community there is general acceptance that we cannot continue to spend huge sums of money over and above our income. Why is it then that the government accepts with many accolades that we should spend in the next fiscal year $3 billion more than last year, accept another deficit of $40 billion and accept $100 billion more debt in the next three years on top of the outrageous $500 billion we now carry?

In modern history where are the examples of countries where governments with debt loads of 100 per cent of GDP were able to stimulate economic growth without becoming involved in another world war? I submit there are many examples of the consequences of government overspending and mismanagement which have brought once prosperous countries to their economic knees. Sweden and New Zealand are but two of the most recent examples.

Speakers and writers from these countries do not like to talk much about the real devastation and hardship that the economic restructuring of these economies caused. However, if one probes behind the stories of rebirth and of economic health there are also stories of despair, bankruptcy and real hardship when there is a major withdrawal of the social safety net, a devaluation of the currency and a downsizing of the bureaucracy.

In spite of these examples, as I have listened to the debate since budget day, I have heard one government member after another praise the Minister of Finance for presenting a budget that will solve the economic ills we face today. They accuse us of being uncaring, racist and without compassion because they say our proposals are Draconian and meanspirited.

The best example of this rhetoric was this morning when we were accused of abandoning the interests of Canadian youth.

The best example of the abandonment of the interests of our Canadian youth has to be the mortgage that we have placed upon the youth of today, offering as an alternative nine months of community service cutting grass and cleaning up the highways for students who worked hard and struggled long hours to achieve university degrees and high school diplomas. It is a disgrace.

I suggest members opposite pull their heads out from the sand and stop misleading and deceiving Canadians by telling them that we can solve our current problems with no hardship or sacrifice. This might have been true at least to some degree when Mr. Trudeau defeated Mr. Joe Clark, or even when Mr. Mulroney defeated Mr. John Turner. However, today with the debt growing faster and faster and with debt servicing combined with social spending consuming 90 per cent of government spending, there is simply no miracle cure and no easy way out.

Therefore let us be honest and, in the best interest of all Canadians, let us work together to inform Canadians about the seriousness of this problem and then present to them a credible, rational, well thought out plan to deal with the crisis.

It is also clear from the debate on the budget that the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have no grasp of the problem or any rational solution when they suggest that social spending is untouchable and if we cut the fat from government operations we can return to economic health. Surely they must realize that the entire cost of government operations amounts to only half of the current year's deficit.

I believe that an examination of political history here and elsewhere would show that it would be in the best interest of this government to demonstrate some honesty and leadership in dealing with the deficit. Clearly if a government is dedicated to improving Canada's economic health and moving it out of these tough economic times it will have to make those moves in the first year of its mandate, if it is to reap the benefits of those measures at the polls in the next election.

If those members opposite continue to mislead Canadians with statements like "we don't really have a spending problem, we have an income problem", they surely will only incur the wrath of the electorate when they realize the utter incompetence of such statements.

I know without a doubt what the consequences would be if I or any of the members opposite were to go out and purchase with borrowed money an expensive car, a luxurious home or an opulent boat and then when the banker presses for payment tell him: "I don't have a spending problem; I have an income problem". The consequences of such an action would be the same as the consequences for Canada: bankruptcy and financial collapse.

In conclusion, I urge these members opposite to remove their partisan blinkers and for the preservation of our wonderful country please examine carefully and honestly where we are heading in this country. With the same care and honesty, I urge members to examine this motion and our offer of co-operation before they cast their votes in the traditional partisan political fashion.