Jay Hill

[Education, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, scholarship recipients are some of the brightest stars of our future. Many could not afford post secondary education without scholarships, particularly those from northern communities who must attends schools in the south. Competition for scholarships is fierce and students work hard to get them.

On the one hand, by announcing increased spending for summer employment the government wants us to believe it is supporting students. At the same time, the government continues to tax student scholarships.

Students are facing massive tuition increases and higher educational costs. With high unemployment and a workforce unqualified to fill the thousands of available high tech jobs, a system that discourages students from furthering their education is ridiculous.

It is one thing for the Prime Minister to urge the private sector to create more jobs. If the government really wants to help students it should make scholarships tax free, or at a minimum increase the tax free amount of $500 established in 1972 to something more appropriate for 1996.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I was recently in Labrador. While I was there I met with representatives of ACOA, representatives of the business development centres, and I talked to them about the problem. The most frustrated people are the people inside the system. They see the huge waste of tax dollars. They are also taxpayers. It has to end.

Perhaps after March 25 we will have a member representing Labrador over here who will be truly representing those people for the first time in a long while.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Say the number of jobs that are going to be lost. There is absolutely no accountability for these agencies. There never has been and there never will be as long as they continue to be run the way they have.

We have seen a tremendous growth in the amount of dollars spent on these agencies over the last few years. In 1991-92 WED, since that is the particular agency the hon. member is directing his attention to, had a little over $185 million to dole out. In 1995-96, our current year which is coming to an end at the end of March, it had almost $500 million to dole out, yet we have not seen the positive effect of that. There is so much money taken up in the administrative costs of running these programs they actually kill jobs, not create them.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the short answer would be yes we are. We have talked as much about WED as we have about ACOA. Therefore, I dispute what the hon. member is saying. We have talked about all the regional development agencies and we say it has to end.

This government talks about balancing the budget. It wants to move toward a balanced budget. It is always asking for new ways in which to bring down government spending. We have been consistent in condemning these types of ridiculous loans to business.

[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?