Jake Hoeppner

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

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering. Do we then say that our history books are full of lies and there is no truth in that when I read about the 1400s and 1500s of how native people in this area were fighting among themselves? Whole nations were wiped out. People starved to death because of famines. Is that all a myth? Did the white man create that in Europe before he was even here? Is our history that false? Should we rewrite our history books?

What would the hon. member suggest? Does the hon. member want to take the facts or do we want to work on as he said, hypothetical questions, solutions or answers? We have to be honest about this issue. We have to try to resolve that, not just for the native issues or their grievances but there are also grievances on the other side.

I think if we want this country to survive we have to come to a realization that this is a joint problem and we have to work together to solve it or else we will destroy ourselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those comments from the hon. member.

As I said, I am not that familiar with the history of the native people but when I read the history books, it seems to me the native people were immigrants at one time too. They did come to Canada from the Soviet Union across the Bering Strait. North America was settled to some extent by them. I do not know who was replaced.

I can also tell the hon. member that I stood on the ruins of Chichén Itza. That was a Mayan civilization which totally disappeared from North America before there was any white man around. It was because agriculture failed in that area.

I can also tell the hon. member that my forefathers came to this country and bought a quarter of land for $10. After 100 years and having cut down every tree to provide food for this nation, they have lost everything. I buried three of my neighbours who committed suicide just like the hon. member explains because the system we have today took away from them what they had worked for, just like their people have done.

This land has been given to us by our creator. We should use it for the benefit of all people. We cannot totally disengage ourselves from the kind of situation where we want to try to grab more for this person or more for that person.

We have to realize that problems were here before the white man came. I am just wondering what the natives would be like today if it had not been white men who defended these borders against the communist regime in the Soviet Union.

I had the opportunity to talk to some of the native people at Flin Flon or Pine Falls recently. I listened to their problems. We have made a lot of problems but we have also done some good for this country. I wish that was acknowledged once in a while.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I am not an expert on native affairs, land claim settlements or treaties that were signed years ago. However because I am the only Reform member from Manitoba, and Manitoba being probably a model of self-government for the rest of Canada, I would like to point out a few things that could have some effect on self-government for Manitoba which are

kind of laid down in the guidelines in the Sahtu Dene and Metis bill.

Through the agreement the government, as far as I am concerned, has shirked the wider public interest in dealing with aboriginal land claims. North of 60, which is the Northwest Territories and Yukon, comprises 40 per cent of the land mass of Canada. Ownership up to now has been with the federal government, which should control it in the best interest of all Canadians. It would appear however that the government like the one before it is more concerned with being perceived as politically correct than it is in administering the land in the best interest of all.

The people in this part of the country have seen four major territorial agreements. There have been four massive land claim agreements since 1984. The Inuvialuit agreement covered the western Arctic. The Gwich'in agreement dealt with the Mackenzie River Delta and the Nunavut agreement covered the eastern Arctic. Now we have before us the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement which covers the Great Bear Lake region. These agreements typically give vast amounts of land to a relatively small number of people. The land settlement agreement to Sahtu Dene and the Metis includes land equal to 28,000 square kilometres or about five times the area of Nova Scotia.

There are, however, only about 1,755 beneficiaries. This works out to approximately 160 square kilometres per person, an area 10 kilometres by 16 kilometres per individual. If you take that into miles it is 6 by 10 miles which is 60 sections per individual, 36 sections in a township. Each individual will receive approximately two townships of property.

These agreements give generous concessions to the recipients, including the constitutionally entrenched rights for aboriginal fishing, trapping and hunting forever. If any outside group wants to use this area in the future for something like forestry or the development of oil and gas it would have to go through several complex layers of regulations including native negotiations. This could seriously deter any potential investors from setting up shop in these areas.

This bill will also provide cash payments of $130 million over 15 years. This works out to approximately $74,000 per person. Also included in this agreement is a percentage of resource royalties from any gas, oil and mineral development. No indication is given as to how much money this would include.

When combined with the agreements that preceded it we have an area of over half a million square kilometres. That is half the size of Ontario and it is granted to a population of 23,800 individuals. These actions have taken this land with its untold resources out of the hands of all Canadians and put it into the hands of a few.

This bill has special significance to me because I am the only Reform member of Parliament from Manitoba. The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has indicated that Manitoba will be a test case for aboriginal self-government. I am very concerned that this Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement sets a precedent for future Manitoba agreements. Manitoba has a native population of about 84,000, four times the amount that these four agreements include.

I am not sure that this government can define everything that would be included in self-government but to put it in perspective, if the agreement that C-16 deals with is used as a model and the same concessions are eventually given to Manitoba's 84,000 natives, the government would have to agree to land claims of about 13.4 million square kilometres.

Since Manitoba covers about 650,000 square kilometres this is obviously impossible. This would mean that the federal government would have to purchase another 20 Manitobas somewhere to settle the land claims. Maybe this would be a way of selling my farm land which I am told is very valuable, although it is hard to get the money out of it.

Based on the funds that are given under the Sahtu Dene and Metis deal, about $6.2 billion is going to be handed over to the 84,000 Metis. Where will the federal government get that type of money to settle all the land claims? What is the figure eventually going to be for the rest of the native people in Canada?

One week after the Charlottetown accord referendum was defeated a leaked government document indicated that the government had few answers as to what self-government would entail. It had no idea of how much it would cost, where it would get the money or how many aboriginal groups would want to be a part of this.

I am simply not confident that this present government has a better grasp on these matters. Yet, through the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement the government will enter into a future agreement for self-government.

As I stated, the model for self-government is not clear. Thee is a reference in appendix B of the land claims settlement agreement for local law making on a range of powers that are normally exercised federally or provincially. I would hope that the government could assure Canadians that this does not mean a new legislative law making body would be set up with a new judicial system all for the benefit of fewer than 2,000 people.

As I mentioned, huge questions surround how Manitoba will become a testing ground for aboriginal self-government. The number of acres of land that will be set aside for Manitoba natives and the amount of money involved are two more of the

obvious questions, but there are no answers because they do not make sense in this agreement.

What will the related costs add up to, for example the cost of policing a judicial system? In appendix B of the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement there is a framework that considers transferring not only administrative responsibilities but also legislative powers. The extent to which this applies in any self-government initiative remains to be determined in future negotiations.

This leads to a number of questions. Would this include a special and separate native police force? Who will be responsible for the hiring and training of such a police force? Who would be responsible for the incredible costs involved?

There is also the question of whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would apply to any self-government arrangement negotiated in accordance with this agreement. That is a question that is not answered in this agreement.

A very questionable aspect to this agreement is the additional layer of bureaucracy it creates to administer the land, the water, the resource and the wildlife provisions. Renewable resource councils will be established by each community. A renewable resource board will be created by the government. Sahtu Dene and Metis will make up half the membership on this board. An arbitration panel will be formed to settle disputes relating to this agreement without going to court. A land use planning board and a land and water board will each be set up, with 50 per cent membership for the Sahtu Dene and Metis.

There will also be an environmental impact review board and a surface rights board. Together with an expected act on the Mackenzie Valley resource management, this agreement will give rise to a whole new layer of bureaucracy.

Who will pay the salaries and expenses of the members on this new layer of government? Are we just training the Sahtu Dene and the Metis to become bureaucrats? Currently all of these functions are performed by either the department of Indian and northern affairs or the government of the Northwest Territories. I see no commitment to phase out these current boards. I wonder if they will continue to exist even though their jobs have been taken over by someone else.

The department of Indian affairs has a budget of about $5 billion and has a staff of 3,400 people. In this year's estimates salaries and contributions to employee plans amount to $134.4 million. This works out to an average salary of approximately $40,000. Will this department with a huge budget and a large staff continue to exist as we set up another bureaucracy?

This land of course will have roads, bridges and similar infrastructure that will have to be built and maintained. Presumably this will be the responsibility of the new native administration. Will it still be federal funds that will be applied for?

I think it is worth mentioning that health care under this agreement will remain unchanged. It will still be administered by the federal government. As I can expect that self-government will be introduced into Manitoba, this is of concern to my constituents. In the report to the Manitoba standing committee on medical manpower concerning the year 1991-92, I learned that the total health care service expenditure per capita for natives was much higher than for the rest of the province. In my own area of the province, which includes Morden and Steinbach, the average cost was about $140 per person. In Winnipeg it was about $200 per person. The Manitoba average was $185 but on the southern native reserve it was $260 per person. One doctor told me that half the people on the native reserve are afflicted with diabetes-how sad. It is of real concern to the other people in that area that these problems get corrected and how that will be accomplished.

It is similar when we look at the average expenditure for each hospital visit. For towns like Winkler and Steinbach the cost was about $23 per visit which was about the same as the Winnipeg and Manitoba average, but for the reserve natives, the average cost was $50, more than twice as much.

Clearly this indicates that there are special health care requirements for Manitoba's native population. It is a social issue because we should be looking at ways to improve their overall health but it is also a financial issue and I think it is important to realize that these costs will remain after these land claims are settled.

Will there be any provision under self-government for natives to assume their own health care or will they depend on the federal system forever?

The government has also announced its commitment to continue the northern food mail program which I think is a very important program. This program will cost about $14.1 million in 1994-95. I think it is important for Canadians to realize that these programs continue even after these agreements have been achieved. The Canadian taxpayer's responsibility to fund these programs does not disappear just because natives are being given new land rights and more control over their affairs.

I wonder when the time comes for self-government in Manitoba what the government will do in the way of initiatives to improve the health of this segment of the population. I hope it will not ignore the problem and just agree to another wholesale giveaway of land and resources as it has done in the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement.

I think it is very important that we realize that not just the Metis and the native people but the white are responsible to correct some of these problems and they have to be dealt with and there have to be funds for it. Huge land claims will not deal with these health problems.

In closing, I hope I have served to air some concerns and raise some very important questions regarding Bill C-16. The implications are very far reaching and it is very troubling that some of the more important questions seem to be without answers.

As a Manitoba member of Parliament I hope that when the time comes for any self-government or land claim agreement in my own province it is more well thought out than this one is. The current concept of self-government is so ill-defined and open minded there are serious implications to everyone involved, not the least of whom is the Canadian taxpayer.

A large percentage of native bands in Manitoba are millions of dollars in debt because of mismanagement and corruption. By moving toward self-government are we going to clear ourselves out of this indescribable mess created by Indian and Northern Affairs, or will it simply make the situation worse?

[Trade, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer.

I would suggest that this durum wheat issue goes beyond North America. While the Americans complain about Canadian durum they subsidize their own durum by $35 to $52 per tonne for export to world markets. Meanwhile the Europeans have their own durum shortage and have put a $52 per tonne export tax on it to keep theirs at home.

I would suggest and I would urge the Deputy Prime Minister to insist that the Prime Minister call the President of the United States and be prepared to demand that the American export subsidies-

[Trade, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

According to the American trade negotiator, Mickey Kantor, today marks the beginning of a trade war between Canada and the United States. It is obvious that Mr. Kantor has a chip on his shoulder and will not bring an open mind to the negotiating table. In fact Mr. Kantor says he expects a bit of a dust-up.

Mr. Kantor's attitude and comments are clearly unacceptable. One would hope the Prime Minister has already called the American president and demanded him to rein in his loose-lipped negotiator. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House if the Prime Minister has made such a call and if so, what the president's response was?

[Income Tax Act, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I like this co-operation. It is something I can really appreciate. I have been in the House for only about six months. I have a feeling we have accomplished something already and I hope we will accomplish a lot more.

I plead with government members to listen to us carefully when we admonish them on overspending. That input can be used very wisely for the benefit of this whole nation.

[Income Tax Act, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if I am informed correctly I am the only speaker on this subject.

Today I rise in the House to comment on Bill C-15. This bill is intended to revise certain amendments of the Income Tax Act. I think the Reform Party generally supports the bill except for a few minor suggestions that I would like to throw over to the other side of the House. The bill does, however, provide this opportunity to criticize somewhat what the hon. members on the other side are doing with our tax money.

I was very surprised this afternoon in oral question period when we were criticized for using the telephone to gather information and opinion. I would like to suggest to the hon. members on the other side of the House that it is probably a lot more efficient than using Challenger jets to go and see individuals or small groups of people, and I think we get better information on certain subjects.

The Reform Party position on income tax includes a single rate tax, with larger personal and family exemptions so that families earning below a certain income would pay less tax or no tax. We would also eliminate most of the tax deductions and loopholes which are not general in application for most Canadians. As a party we are opposed to any increases in general income tax burden imposed on Canadians by the federal government.

The flat rate system would be simpler, more sensitive and fairer than the current system.

It helps to look at a few facts and figures since 1984. The Canadian tax burden has been the largest among the G-7 countries. In the fiscal year 1991-92 the personal income tax yielded $61.5 billion which accounts for 49.6 per cent of federal revenues.

The root cause of this serious overtaxation is the problem of government overspending. It seems incredible that government after government refuses to recognize this.

In 1984 the Liberal government was defeated by Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives on a platform of deficit reduction and political patronage. The same thing happened in 1993 when the Liberals defeated the Conservatives on deficit reduction and overspending.

Thank heavens there are 52 Reformers on this side of the House now to watch the spending, even if they cannot do anything on the revenue side. Therefore we have a little more balance which I hope will be positive in this House.

I wonder sometimes why the governments have tried in vain to get the government spending problem fixed by increasing taxes. The notion that a deficit can be reduced from government revenue increases alone is a misguided one.

Federally higher taxes have failed to reduce the deficit. They have in fact stalled the economy by cutting the spending power of the consumer, by dampening new investment and diverting growth into a flourishing underground economy.

In my riding of Lisgar-Marquette agriculture producers have seen along with the rest of Canadians a reduction in our country's international competitiveness. Our income taxes to our producers and businessmen have got to the rate that the Americans are a lot more competitive just on that one simple tax.

I urge the government not just for the farmers, but for the businessmen, private enterprise, entrepreneurs and constituents, to start thinking of lowering taxes and not raising them.

The evidence is across this country. University educated professionals leave Canada for nations where the income taxes and cost of living are lower. This is after we have paid to educate them.

The government should be looking at a tax break that would help our farmers, businessmen and consumers to increase their buying power, their productivity and our competitiveness.

I was shocked to learn recently that since 1961 Canada's tax freedom day has advanced 73 days. In 1961 the ordinary Canadian paid his taxes by May 5. Today that same taxpayer has to use his wages or productivity until July 15. This type of taxation whether it is corporate tax or income tax is unforgivable.

We are rapidly approaching a point where we will be working for governments full time just to pay for their debt-creating policies and bad spending habits. If we do not break this cycle soon and allow ourselves to implement useful, carefully considered tax breaks, Canadians will see their incomes taxed out of existence.

What direction should the Government of Canada take in its tax policy?

A good example is happening right now in Alberta. Since the election, the premier of Alberta has been on a crusade to eliminate his province's $2.5 billion deficit. He is on track to achieve a zero deficit within three years. This has been done with a commitment not to raise taxes. The message has gone out that he will not raise taxes.

It surprises me that where we live in our global economy technology and freer trade will reduce the importance of political boundaries. Investments and jobs will go to places with highly skilled workforces, good public services and competitive tax rates.

I can tell you what this means to my own province of Manitoba. Recently I have seen two companies move their Winnipeg operations to Calgary. A number of small businesses have moved their production facilities from the Morden-Winkler area to North Dakota. Why? One of the big reasons is income tax, sales tax. Alberta has no sales tax. Alberta has a lower corporate tax. The income tax in North Dakota is about two-thirds of what we pay.

The blunt fact is that Canada's political establishments have overspent and are on the verge of bankruptcy. Governments take 50 per cent of the average Canadian family's earnings. Multiple layers of government drain off the highest personal income tax burden in the G-7 countries and it seems not to be enough.

Reckless borrowing by government still continues as bond rating agencies prepare to downgrade our government credit ratings. Ridiculous tax levels are transferring people's spending power to unaccountable governments. That means retail sales and job growth shrinks and investment falls. It is a simple message that government should heed, or beware.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments. I know unemployment is a big problem.

I hate to always bring up the subject of agriculture, but being from Manitoba it is very important to me. I wonder if the Liberal government would take into account that there are approximately 240,000 farmers in western Canada. According to Stats Canada's latest figures, these farmers earned an average of $16,000 a year before depreciation. It also showed that these farmers earned $32,000 a year from off farm jobs. If we could put agriculture back on a profitable basis there would be 240,000 jobs available to somebody else.

We have lost sight of the fact that agriculture is still the basic industry in western Canada. We have to make this industry profitable in order to provide other jobs.

Looking into the agriculture industry, we see that 500,000 jobs are created in the processing and retailing of agricultural foods. It is very important we make this industry viable again.

I would appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments on this.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the hon. parliamentary secretary. I listened to the stats on unemployment. I also heard that there are 28,000 people who have given up looking for jobs. This is a big concern in Manitoba, especially on the farm scene.

Coming back from there, realizing what the transportation system is for grain and that the terminal operations cannot go to a seven day cycle to start moving grain faster, would the hon. member look at that and initiate some opportunities for people to be employed in that industry in order to give western Canadians a break so that they can really make and fulfil commitments with regard to foreign grain sales?

[Grain Transportation, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Canada's grain exports are being hit hard by reduced rail movement. According to Howard Restall of XCan Grain, ships are waiting from two to three weeks for prairie canola, forcing XCan to pay as much as $10,000 per day in demurrage. Ships are also leaving empty after collecting demurrage of up to $350,000 without any canola.

When will the minister demand that railways honour their commitment to expediently move farmers' grain when markets demand it, instead of constantly lobbying government to allow them to reduce services?