Jay Hill

[Indian Affairs, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was not asking the minister whether he had seen it or heard of it. I was asking him whether his ADM is responsible for it. Does the buck stop with him and his department or not?

We believe in the equality of all Canadians but clearly this Liberal government does not. This week the Prime Minister is adding a new class of citizens by recognizing Quebec as special and giving Quebec distinct society status. Now we learn that the department of Indian affairs is considering granting premier status to Quebec native leaders.

Apparently the Liberals intend to grant distinct status to two groups so far: the Quebec separatist government and Quebec native leaders. How many more do the Liberals intend to recognize?

[Indian Affairs, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a recent memo confirms Indian affairs is planning to throw money at resolving some outstanding issues it has been dragging its feet on. This is a payoff to silence Quebec's aboriginal people during the dream team's constitutional talks in Quebec.

While I can understand that Quebec natives want to see their issues resolved, blatantly bribing them to keep quiet during the Quebec round of talks is an insult to them and to all Canadians.

Will the minister of Indian affairs confirm whether one of his ADMs is responsible for this policy position, yes or no?

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the veto seems to be falling back on the old premise that Quebec supports the concept of two founding nations.

Would the hon. member who just gave such a heart rending emotional speech care to comment on the La Presse Gallup poll released this morning? It stated that 42 per cent of Quebecers polled support the 10 equal provinces scenario while only 37 per cent polled actually believe in two founding nations. The government clings to an outdated way of thinking.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission Act, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I seem to be the only one who would like to participate in this debate with the hon. member.

I take exception to the point the member made that he believes this process will bring greater stability and certainty for British Columbia. That is certainly not what I have seen. I am not opposed to negotiations if they lead to the type of agreements that all of us and the vast majority of Canadians can ultimately support. My great concern and the concerns expressed to me all of the time from my constituents is that these processes are not doing that. They are driving a further wedge between the Indian people and Canadians at large.

A great concern of mine is that we are not bringing about finality or extinguishment of special rights. We are just further enshrining them.

Sometimes I question and am questioned as to whether we are really addressing the concerns of the average Indian in this country who in many cases is living in poverty on reserves. Or, are we really addressing the concerns of the Indian leadership which in many cases is vastly different from the primary concerns of the individual Indian?

It is estimated that combined provincial and federal spending is between $7 billion and $9 billion a year on Indian programs. When I travel to the reserves in my constituency, which, I am assured by colleagues in the House, are not that much unlike other constituencies, I see very few examples of where that money is being spent on the reserves.

I really question whether this process is the best way to address the concerns of the average native in this country.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission Act, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague's comments. He said the whole business of the Indian question and what to do about land claims, self-government and these types of issues will be resolved only through negotiation.

That is true. That is something we can all agree on. But if that is true, why have so many of the Indian bands in British Columbia either backed away from this process or not participated to begin with?

One of the reasons we are opposed to this treaty process is that the only examples we can see are the ones history has taught us. Treaties enshrine special rights. They enshrine racism because certain rights are attributed to one group of Canadians based solely on their race.

The Reform Party believes the ultimate goal of any negotiations, as the hon. member said and I agree, is we must get to the point at which we can negotiate an end to these issues and put them to rest. The end goal must be the equality of all Canadian citizens, not further inequality, not enshrining inequality in agreements.

Another point is the finality. We believe on this side of the House these must be final agreements. They must bring about extinguishment of special rights and they must be final.

Once again when we look at history and at what happened with the settlements in the northern territories, we do not see that finality. Rather, there are clauses in those agreements whereby any future negotiations that bring about benefits south of 60 could also accrue to those bands that have already completed negotiations in the territories. We do not have finality. Canadians do not know what the final bill will be.

One of the reasons the Charlottetown accord was defeated was the ambiguity of the Indian questions. In other words, what did native self-government really mean? How would it come about?

I heard my hon. colleague putting forward the Reform perspective that what we need is a very clear definition of whether self-government will be based on a municipal model or some third level of government. These are the types of questions Canadians want answered.

Where is the involvement of the third party during these negotiations, private landowners? There are a whole bunch of questions not answered and not adequately addressed by this treaty negotiation process presently underway and which this bill would enshrine.

In a constituent survey in my spring householder I asked a number of questions on native land claims because I wanted feedback from the citizens of Prince George-Peace River. The first question was: Does government have an obligation to negotiate modern day treaties with natives?

This is exactly what we are talking about today with this bill. It is interesting that although the returns were low, the sample size was low, of the more than 500 people who returned the questionnaire two to one voted no. They said we are not obligated to negotiate treaties.

For that reason and the others I outlined I will be joining with my Reform colleagues in opposition to this bill.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 9th, 1995]

Baloney.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 9th, 1995]

Nobody has the right except you. You are the only one with rights here.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 9th, 1995]

It does not take much to puzzle you.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's comments on this very important topic.

I note with interest the comments of the parliamentary secretary that Canada works, that his government has been bringing forward a flexible and co-operative approach and therefore he does not understand what the problem would be. I can tell him the problem is that his government is not flexible and has not been very co-operative with the provinces. That is the big reason we have the problems in Canada today.

It is interesting to note that this afternoon during question period, the hon. Minister of Health indicated how co-operative she is. She got up and bragged that she is going to be penalizing Alberta to the extent of over $400,000 a month in cutbacks in the transfer payments. That is how co-operative the government is with the provinces. Is it any wonder we have problems with the province of Quebec as well.

It is very interesting to note that the Reform Party on the other hand has put forward a positive agenda for change and has devolved manpower training to the provinces. That is what we look to for innovative ways to make Confederation work.

Perhaps the hon. member would care to comment on what his experience has been in how co-operative the Liberal government has been over the past two years. Is there further merit in the devolution of powers to the provinces if we are going to make Confederation work?

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments quite closely. I am a little concerned she is still putting forth the idea that ethanol is an alternative to MMT. As my hon. colleague from Athabasca stated, clear evidence was presented to the committee which contradicts what she is trying to say.

Once again in her comments she has said ethanol is one of the alternatives, which is simply not correct. I would like her to retract that statement because ethanol is not an alternative to MMT.