Jay Hill

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for North Vancouver.

I was encouraged to hear that the government has listened to what the Reform Party and many Canadians have been saying all along: Do not raise taxes. However, when the Minister of Finance said that he was staying on course and maintaining the current pace, he may as well have been referring to the reckless spending going on in some areas under the guise of regional and economic development.

We have heard the old rhetoric about the need to eliminate overlap and duplication, yet a slew of government offices are still subsidizing private business with taxpayers' money. Various federal agencies are competing with each other and with provincial bodies for the same client and fighting over which can spend the most tax dollars the fastest. There could be nothing more ridiculous.

The government has talked about eliminating direct loans to businesses. What does that matter if it is still dishing out indirect subsidies? It is just a play on words. The government has no business trying to manipulate the private sector. Not only is this grossly distorting the marketplace, it is creating unfair competition among businesses. It is helping some businesses at the expense of others. The government is propping up the economy and creating a

system of corporate welfare. The government is trying to give us a false sense of security and it is costing us big time.

For example, an audit revealed that 17 failed projects supported by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency have cost Canadians nearly $100 million in grants, loans and loan guarantees. This is just one of many examples of wasted money. As if this pill could get any harder to swallow, the auditors concluded that a good look at the failed business plans would have indicated they simply were not viable.

Government spending entities such as ACOA, western economic diversification and others are actually hurting the people they are supposed to help. Atlantic Canadians pay taxes too. ACOA has put Canadians further into debt. Regional development agencies are nothing but a front for wasting billions of tax dollars on political pork barrelling and patronage.

It is no coincidence that Winnipeg received a disproportionate amount of WED dollars. The WED minister, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, became the patronage saint of pork barrelling after his hometown received a disproportionate amount of WED funding between November 1993 and November 1994. That city received more than $12 million. The next highest was Vancouver. Despite its larger population it received just over $2 million. Calgary and Edmonton combined received just over $3 million. There was also the outrageous patronage in Atlantic Canada during the last ACOA minister's reign.

The government cannot continue its reckless spending to buy taxpayer votes using its own money. Regional development agencies must be eliminated as soon as possible. The savings will put a significant dent in our $600 billion debt.

Consider also the senseless waste of money through administrative and overhead costs of WED, ACOA, the federal economic development initiative in northern Ontario and the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec. For example, WED has an annual budget of about $478 million.

Add to that list numerous other organizations that grant loans and waste government money. There is the Business Development Bank of Canada, the business development centres, aboriginal business programs, business service centres, women's enterprises centres, community futures offices and others. On top of that the provinces have their own economic development initiatives. These various offices are competing for the same client. They are all funded from the same source, the same taxpayers. These organizations report to different people in different governments.

Ultimately the government's right arm has no idea what the left arm is doing. We have a number of players involved in one game: handing out government money. Too many cooks are spoiling the broth. The pot is already bubbling over with debt. It is rising at $95 million per day and $1,000 per second.

In many cases these organizations refuse to release details of their dealings in the interest of client confidentiality. They are not accountable to those who foot the bill: the public. Canadians get angry when they hear of their money being used to fund businesses that are competing with others. There is the potential for one government funded business to push another publicly funded business into bankruptcy and render it unable to repay its government loan.

It has been argued that giving the private sector a boost benefits Canadians in the long run because it fosters private sector job creation and diversifies local economies. That is rarely the case. It has also been said that even the businesses that fail benefit Canadians by taking people off the welfare rolls temporarily. This is misleading. In reality, while some businesses are temporarily up and running, others are thrown off kilter.

ACOA reported to Parliament that it had created 42,000 jobs between 1988 and 1992 but could not back that claim with any evidence except a Price Waterhouse study of which officials refused to release details. An audit found the agency had based some of its success statistics on proposals rather than on results. There certainly has been a lack of consistent monitoring of long term results by the regional development agencies. Simplifying the tax system to encourage private sector job creation would have been a much healthier way to go.

ACOA has a long history of reckless spending. For example in 1990 it invested $13 million in a wallpaper company that failed, then later paid its loans and the bills to clean up the hazardous waste it left behind.

Why do large firms that rake in billions of dollars in profits receive government handouts? Between 1992 and 1994 federal aid to large corporations included a $200,000 grant to IBM for employee training and nearly $76 million to Pratt & Whitney Canada for research and development. Multimillion dollar companies do not require scarce tax dollars. WED handed out nearly $280,000 between November 1993 and October 1994 to lobby groups, some of which lobby against the government.

The government's priorities are mixed up. It would rather invest half a million dollars in a Newfoundland golf course when the people of Goose Bay, Labrador are still waiting for a decent road to connect them with the rest of the country. That is not regional development. Regional development entities and other money agencies are supposed to be lenders of last resort. That does not mean giving money out to anyone who asks.

Hagensborg Marine Farms Ltd., a project to build the first land based fish farm on the west coast went into receivership in 1991. The more than $1 million it received from WED is lost forever. Altero Technologies Inc. borrowed $475,000 to produce exercise

machines. The company went out of business and the loan was written off. These are just two of many examples.

It is more tempting for entrepreneurs to launch themselves into risky business ventures when it is other people's money that is at stake and with loans that can be written off. Certainly there are some cases in which it may be beneficial for the private sector to be able to turn to government as a lender of last resort. However, there is a much better way to do it without the tremendous waste of money that has been going on in the past.

First, there should be only one money lending agency reporting to one minister and it should eventually be self-sufficient. That is, the interest it makes off loans would be used to cover its operating costs.

It should not be a slush fund for politicians to dole out cash to favoured individuals. Borrowers would have to meet certain criteria, including presenting a viable business plan. National standards must be established. Any duplication with the provinces must be eliminated. Any Canadian needing business help will appreciate a one stop shopping office rather than getting the government runaround.

Money lending decisions must be taken out of the hands of patronage minded politicians and distant bureaucrats. Decisions must be made at the local level by a board of business people with proven track records. This would help ensure decisions are made with a community's or region's best interests at heart. Perhaps the community futures program could be used as a model since this program has been quite successful in some provinces.

All decisions must be open to public scrutiny. Private banks scrutinize and monitor their borrowers. Why would the public expect any less with its money? If this government is really serious about boosting the economy, it will do so by fostering a good business environment. However, that does not mean giving away free money because there is no such thing. It means eliminating the deficit, lowering the barriers to trade, reducing taxes, lowering real interest rates and enhancing labour mobility.

Taxpayers want real action, not the pork barrel of false promises we have been getting in the past.

[Young Offenders Act, March 7th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-228, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my hon. colleague for Fraser Valley East for seconding this bill.

The purpose of this bill is to lower the age limit which defines who is a child or a young person for the purposes of the Young Offenders Act. It will now include young offenders age 10 and 11.

Currently the police cannot charge 10 or 11-year-olds who are picked up for robbery or for viciously beating innocent victims. Eleven-year-olds are deliberately recruited by gangs because the law cannot touch them. These youth need help but the system is failing them. They are falling through the cracks and we cannot get them into the appropriate counselling or rehabilitation programs because the current law says they are too young.

If they are old enough to pack a gun or a knife, sell drugs or their bodies, then they are old enough for the justice system to address their problems. The sooner they get relevant help, the easier it will be to reverse their criminal behaviour.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Petitions, March 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present today a petition signed by hundreds of people from my riding of Prince George-Peace River. They are completely opposed to further tax increases in the upcoming budget and specifically request that Parliament not again increase the federal excise tax on gasoline as the government did last year.

Taxes on gasoline are not luxury taxes and additional increases unfairly discriminate against northerners.

[Criminal Code, March 4th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (capital punishment).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to impose the death penalty on adults convicted of first degree murder. Canadians are demanding fundamental changes to our criminal justice system, and almost 70 per cent have called for the reinstatement of capital punishment.

The bill provides additional safeguards against miscarriages of justice by allowing questions of both fact and law to be considered throughout the appeals process. Evidence for whether capital punishment is a deterrent for other murderers is not conclusive, but at least criminals guilty of premeditated first degree murder will not be back on the streets to kill again.

Too many Canadians have died at the hands of violent criminals who show no remorse for the victims of their crimes. These people will never be rehabilitated, no matter how long they stay in prison.

The bill also addresses the growing public concern over light sentences for violent young offenders. It calls for a range of stiffer minimum penalties for youth convicted of first degree murder.

I recommend that the government allow a free vote on the bill and encourage all members to seek actively the views of their constituents on this important issue.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[The Constitution, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday December 13, 1995 was a black day for Canada. Canadians remember the Charlottetown accord.

In the end, even Mulroney had the decency to consult the people on constitutional change and abided by the results of the referendum.

What was the lesson the Liberal government learned from Charlottetown? Do not give the Canadian people the right to vote on their Constitution; they might not vote the way you want them to.

We saw the same arrogance last night. Despite the pleas for help from the majority of Quebecers, who voted no in the referendum, the government turned its back on them and granted a veto to the separatist Government of Quebec.

I believe any veto over constitutional change should be given to the people through referenda, not to politicians, not to provincial legislatures.

Yesterday the government defied the expressed wishes of all Canadians who voted down Charlottetown. The Liberals have made a mockery of democracy.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite attentively to my hon. colleague's comments about the Reform motion that has been put forward today.

We really have to describe the reason behind it. Perhaps we have not been explicit enough in explaining it. We feel very strongly that the British Columbia government at this time lacks credibility and does not have the confidence of the B.C. people to continue to proclaim it has a mandate to bring about some very comprehensive claims agreements and new treaties for British Columbia.

I listened to the member say that trust was absent in British Columbia. Certainly it is, but we have to ask why it is absent. I assert that it is because of the bungling of both provincial and federal governments in the past.

Given the claims in the territories which in the opinion of a great many Canadians were very generous, is it any wonder there is concern among Canadians about the extent of the claims in British Columbia?

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that three government members have addressed our motion so far today. If memory serves me correctly, all three of them gave accolades to Mr. Jack Weisgerber, the leader of the B.C. Reform Party. I remember the hon. member's words: "I congratulate him for his vision and foresight". I would certainly agree that Mr. Weisgerber is a man with vision and foresight.

I would like to read into Hansard the following quote: ``The vast majority of British Columbians rejected the backroom deal that was Charlottetown. They rejected the constitutional entrenchment of an undefined inherent right of self-government and so I. They rejected a third order of government for native Canadians enshrined under the Constitution and so do I. We also reject the government's formal recognition of aboriginal title''. That is from a speech given on October 4, 1995 by Mr. Jack Weisgerber, the leader of the B.C. Reform Party.

I wonder if the hon. member who is so free with accolades for this gentleman, which are richly deserved, would agree with those statements and that he truly is a man of vision and foresight.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member opposite has covered a lot of ground.

She said I said I favoured direct cash compensation and that I did not favour negotiated settlements. That is ridiculous. That is not what I said at all.

I said I was in favour of cash settlements but obviously it will have to be negotiated. How can government come to some agreement on how much cash to turn over to the natives without negotiating it? That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. That is not what I was saying. The only reason she said that was she was hearing, as is so often the case, exactly what she wanted to hear when she was listening to my remarks.

That points to the fundamental problem Reformers have in the House and outside the House. We try to shed light on subjects that are politically sensitive, as so many are, whether outstanding native claims or immigration or gay rights, whatever is deemed politically incorrect to speak on.

When Reformers and put forward the policies we want to put forward, we are attacked. If we spend all our time trying to defend ourselves from the statements we heard this morning once again in the House, we will never be able to put forward our own alternatives, which is the function of an opposition party, to put forward alternatives for the Canadian people.

That is the real question here. Will we have an open process? Will we have a process that welcomes input from everyone? Will we continue to see these types of settlements actually being done behind closed doors where there are a very few people included in the process: the native leadership, the native industry comprised of consultants and engineers and lots of lawyers. Will we broaden that to include the people themselves, not only the aboriginal people of British Columbia but the non-aboriginal people in the process and make them aware of what is happening?

Further, the member made a comment about the legal basis of these. What I was referring to is I do not see anywhere where there is a legal basis for entering into treaties. Yes, we have to have settlements. We have to have agreements. I do not see where we have to enter into a treaty which confers on one group special rights, constitutionally entrenched, not conferred on all Canadians.

As long as we have that we will see more divisiveness. We will be driving the wedge between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people deeper and deeper instead of trying to mend the problems of the past that I referred to in my speech and instead of trying to move beyond that eventually.

We cannot achieve equality overnight. The Reform Party is not saying we can wave a magic wand and all of a sudden we are all equal. We recognize that some segments of society, the poorest of the poor, are starting out a lot lower down and we have to give them a hand up. A hand up is not a continual and perpetual handout. The people do not want it and we should not want to give it to them because it is not the answer.

If a handout forever were the answer, certainly spending upwards of $9 billion a year on aboriginal programs within the confines the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and outside would have solved the problem by now.

We are spending in the neighbourhood of $9,000 million on these people. Yes, we all want to see the problem solved, but throwing money will not solve the problem or we would have done it long ago.

It has also been said repeatedly today that a very select few, although a growing industry, are profiting from that, this Indian industry. When I visit reserves in my riding like Fort Ware, a disastrous example of a reserve, I see the assistance that we all so desperately want to ensure gets to the poorest of the poor is not reaching them. It is not doing the job.

No matter how much more we spend every year, it is not doing the job. We have to look beyond that. We have to look for new answers.

The whole thrust of my speech was that in the end the ultimate goal for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, must be equality, the equal treatment of all our citizens.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers will be splitting their time from this point onward today.

I would like to rebut one thing the hon. member preceding me said. She seemed to imply that somehow Reformers would be creating a lame duck government, as she called it. In actuality, the NDP in British Columbia has done a very good job of creating a lame duck government all by itself. That responsibility rests with it and no one else.

We are now entering the 21st century. As we look at the B.C. treaty process we have an obligation to future generations of Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. We must enter into negotiations with a clear view of what we are trying to accomplish. I believe a fundamental objective to any negotiations with native Canadians should be equality.

If there are historical grievances they should be resolved. The end result should be equality, not the creation of two classes of citizens and not the creation of more special rights to individuals depending on race. We are all Canadians and government policy should not be based on guilt or some misguided sense of righting past wrongs.

British Columbians have recognized this. The opposition parties also realize the underlying principles of the current treaty negotiations in B.C. are flawed. It is time to look forward, not backward.

Certainly we must learn from the grim history of past Indian policies in Canada. However, what is the fundamental lesson to be learned? It is simply that policies which have given Indians special rights and status under the guise of protecting them have utterly failed. For many years Indians lost their status and right to live with their families on reserves if they received a university degree or if they defended our country or values in wars overseas. They were not even allowed to vote until the 1960s. Children were taken from their families and sent to foster homes or residential schools. Although Indian communities have known about it for decades, the stories of physical, emotional and sexual abuse suffered by those children are only now coming to light in the mainstream press.

Just this week the church has finally issued an apology for the suffering caused by its members.

That Indians were mistreated, used and abused is well documented. However, it does neither natives nor non-natives any good to dwell on the past. It will not solve today's problems. We must learn from mistakes to make sure we do not repeat them, but it is time to move on.

The treaty process in B.C. is going in the wrong direction. It is designed to perpetuate inequality. In the Constitution Act of 1982 aboriginal and treaty rights were given constitutional protection. That means any treaties we enter hastily into now will be virtually unchangeable, no matter how flawed or unsustainable they may prove to be.

Any legal obligations to Indian communities should be cleared up as soon as possible because until we do, the question of aboriginal title will remain unresolved and the legal uncertainty over the ownership of land and resources will continue.

Settlements must be affordable and settlements must be final. If the federal and provincial governments purport to represent the interests of all Canadians they will only negotiate what the courts have stated the government is legally liable for.

As far as I know, the courts have not said the government has to turn large tracts of land over to native communities. In the Delgamuukw case, as has already been stated, the judges recognized an aboriginal interest in the land but not an outright title. Therefore legally the crown does not have to turn over title to all lands that a band claims as traditional territory, but it does have to recognize certain traditional rights to use those lands.

We must respect these court decisions because they are based on the constitutional protection of aboriginal rights. Therefore any agreements the government signs should fully meet our legal obligations but should not go beyond them. If the government feels it has a moral obligation to offer more, then all such offers should be made outside of the treaty process.

The governments of the day do not have a mandate to incur unsustainable debts beyond their legal obligation in the name of our children. They do not have the right to create citizens-plus by enshrining new treaties which give additional rights based on membership in a particular band or community. This will soon be the 21st century, not the 12th.

I would be very pleased if any member opposite, in fact anybody participating in the B.C. treaty process, could point out where in the Constitution it states we must enter into new treaties. I recognize that existing treaties have constitutional protection but I have not found the section that states we must enter into dozens, perhaps hundreds, more treaties.

Government has a legal and moral obligation to resolve disputes or grievances with all Canadians, whether aboriginal or not. I am not aware of the case law which states we must use a treaty process to do it. In every other segment of our society grievances are settled with some type of finite, quantifiable compensation. Why not Indian claims?

It is long past time that historical differences were dealt with, but the end result should be some sort of cash compensation, not a treaty with constitutionally entrenched special rights or status. Cash settlements would allow individual natives to determine their

own futures. They could start their own small business, buy land or put it in the bank for their children if that was there wish.

If land is to be on the table also then it should be transferred to individual recipients on the same fee simple basis as to all other Canadians who own land.

The tax exempt status of the current reserve system afforded by the Indian Act was based on a paternalistic idea that Indians would sell off the land to the first unscrupulous businessman who happened to walk by. Nobody, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, wants the Indian Act any more. That also means getting rid of the tax exempt status. If natives are to participate in today's economy they must participate on an equal footing with all other Canadians.

Anyone who might suggest this would not be just or fair as a settlement is guilty of paternalistic racism. If government or native leaders suggest land can only be transferred as reserve lands held in common, they are suggesting native Canadians are incapable of making sound business decisions and government must still be responsible for protecting native interests because they cannot do it themselves.

What is the legacy of past treaties? First and foremost, it is the reserve system. This was a deliberate policy by the government to isolate and concentrate natives in easily managed groups. It was a bad policy from start to finish. The poverty, low life expectancies, health problems and social problems found on so many reserves across the country cannot be a fluke. Natives from the east coast, from the north, from the prairies and from fishing communities on the west coast are not from the same cultures or traditions. The problems we see on reserves are not because the people are Indians. The biggest part of the problem is the reserve system itself.

I believe first and foremost that all Canadians should have the right to equal opportunities. No one should have special rights or privileges based on race. This means we all pay taxes and we all have access to the same programs. All third party interests should be taken into consideration. This is not what is happening in B.C. today. The majority of British Columbians have grave concerns about the current B.C. treaty commission process.

We must reach just settlements with B.C. natives as soon as possible so we can all move on. These settlements must be final, affordable and must extinguish all future claims to land, resources or special rights and privileges. Without equality we will never have long term social and economic stability in Canada.

The enormous social problems we see on reserves today cannot be addressed through treaties. Treaties and reserves are, in my view, a big part of the problem.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's remarks this morning, as I did with preceding speakers.

For the record I will read the subject of the motion the Reform Party put forward today and then talk about the hon. minister's objection to it and why that is. In part it states:

That the House urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the current provincial government mandate.

The hon. minister said that for the federal government to do that would be insulting. I find that strange and more than a little contradictory because it is the same government that had no problem in arguing quite successfully that the EH-101 helicopter purchase which the Tory government had entered into was not right and we should not be doing that as a nation, that we should not be spending the money on that.

It argued the Pearson airport deal was not right because it was entered into in the dying days of the Mulroney administration and should be cancelled.

It does not find that insulting, to back out of commitments made by previous governments. Yet for some reason the hon. minister seemed to think today it would be insulting the government of British Columbia to insist that we do not enter into any trilateral agreements with B.C. and the natives of British Columbia in the

dying days of that administration. I find it more than a bit puzzling and I wonder if my hon. colleague would care to remark on that.

I note with interest that the hon. minister spent almost his entire 20 minutes bashing Reformers for being aboriginal bashers. I find that puzzling. That type of name calling and labelling is nothing new for Reformers. We have been labelled that and subject to those types of attacks right from the very beginning when we started our party. We are going to insist on carrying forward sensible arguments on this and other issues, even if they are non-politically correct arguments, regardless of how we are attacked or how often ministers openly attack us in the House.

Would the hon. member care to remark on what he has done. One of the things we have heard this morning is that the public is not well enough informed and the expectations of the native people have been raised. What about the awareness? What has this member actually done in British Columbia to bring to the attention of all British Columbians what is happening?