Jay Hill

[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?

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity go by without mentioning that the Reform Party is not isolationist.

The hon. member referred to the gulf war. The gulf war proved how poorly equipped our Canadian forces are. That has been our main concern in this debate all day long.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will leave it up to the audience watching at home tonight on their televisions to decide who is full of wind and wind and wind after that outburst by the hon. member.

I would say that it is whimsical on the part of our government. Certainly Mr. Clinton is not. He is sending his troops over there with the best equipment in the world. What are we sending our troops with?

We have been raising these concerns on this side of the House for two years. The Reform Party has raised these issues time and time again about inadequately equipping our troops. We ask the same questions today. The hon. member was just asked that question and he evaded the answer again. We are asking because we are

concerned about the safety of our troops, and we get absolute nonsense. I for one am sick and tired of it.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick rebuttal to the earlier speaker. I do not think these are quibbling concerns. These are life and death concerns. We have been raising questions here all day and getting absolute nonsense for answers, when we get any answers at all.

I would like to thank hon. members of the House for agreeing to the extension of the debate. It allows those of us who did not have the opportunity earlier to speak on this issue this evening.

As we debate a renewed commitment of troops to Bosnia, I find myself with many more questions than answers. My colleagues have already raised this concern. How can we have a meaningful debate if the government cannot decide or will not tell us how many troops it will send, what their job will be and under what conditions we will bring them home? But what is new? The government has not had any criteria for three years. Why should I be surprised and expect it to change?

Apparently NATO is expecting at least 1,200 to 1,500 Canadian troops. According to reports, this is more than Germany or Turkey are each committing. The former Yugoslavia is almost on their doorstep yet Canada is supposed to commit more human and financial resources to this effort than they are. Why?

It is far more expensive to maintain our troops across the Atlantic than it would be for a neighbouring NATO ally, I would submit. Has Canada or more important, our soldiers, not already demonstrated a commitment to the peace process in the former Yugoslavia? Canadians spent three years and 10 lives in Bosnia. Unlike what the earlier speaker said, I do not believe it means that Reformers are saying we have already done enough. That is not what we are saying. I have not heard that here at all today. It is time some of our other NATO allies bore their share of the burden, however. As history has shown, achieving sustainable peace in the Balkans is critical to European security.

I commend the Canadian soldiers who already served in the former Yugoslavia. They performed professionally and beyond any reasonable expectation, given an unclear mandate and extremely adverse conditions. They were sent as peacekeepers before there was any peace to keep. They were sent into a war zone inadequately equipped and lightly armed. They protected civilian populations in so-called neutral zones when the parties to the conflict did not abide by the rules.

Despite questionable command structure, poor supplies, low morale and an indecisive government back home with no plan to get them out when the situation took a turn for the worse, despite all of this, they did their jobs. They delivered humanitarian supplies and kept thousands of women, children and non-combatants safe in the middle of a war.

The reason they were sent in the first place was not to keep the peace, for the belligerents were still at war. It was so the government of the day could tell the world that Canada is ready to participate anytime, anywhere, as long as it is called a peacekeeping mission.

There was good reason many NATO allies were not there before. There was no peace accord. But Canada was there. Sadly, it seems that political pride in our peacekeeping tradition takes precedence over the safety of our troops. If someone labels it a peacekeeping mission, they know we will come running. Our soldiers deserve more from us than this lapdog mentality. Let us make sure we are going back for the right reasons, for reasons that Canada defines.

We are justifiably proud of the Canadian men and women who have served as peacekeepers over the years. When they lay their lives on the line, they must know that political leadership has done everything in its power to ensure they are given the best chance for survival.

They have a right to expect some things from their government. We have a solemn responsibility to consider their safety above all else. If we make a political decision to participate, it is their duty to carry it out no matter what the military assessment. They cannot say no. They have to obey orders. Even the generals cannot object after a political decision has been made. It is our duty to ensure we have done everything politically possible to define the parameters and create the conditions for a safe peacekeeping mission before we commit Canadian lives to a war zone.

Make no mistake. Bosnia is still a war zone. Canadian blood should not be shed because our political leadership refuses to take reasonable precautions. Our soldiers are sworn to defend Canada, not to defend the vanity of politicians who want to preserve a reputation at the UN, no matter what the cost in Canadian lives.

I recognize there is a fine line here. The only way we could completely protect our troops is by never sending them anywhere. However, we have commitments to our NATO allies. We have international humanitarian commitments. We must balance these obligations against our troops' welfare. This decision is not about protecting Canada. It is an optional engagement.

The Prime Minister has committed us to the new NATO force before the peace accord is even signed. Will this time be different from the last time? There is not even a pretence that the implementation force is on a humanitarian mission. There are other roles to fill in the former Yugoslavia. We can hold our heads high if we engage solely in humanitarian activities, as some of my colleagues have indicated.

Why are we having this debate if the decision has already been made? How can we have a meaningful debate when we are told that we might be sending 20 troops or we might be sending 2,500? The Department of National Defence is not sure.

Members opposite have been chastising Reformers throughout the day for not supporting our peacekeepers. We are not talking about supporting peacekeepers. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke and we are not going to buy into it.

We may be there for 12 months. Maybe it will turn into another Cyprus. It looks like the government has written a blank cheque to

NATO. This is a political decision for prestige within NATO and to show solidarity. It is nothing more and nothing less.

What of the soldiers? Before I could advocate sending Canadian troops back to Bosnia I would want more assurances that we have done our job to ensure their safety. Yes, they are soldiers and they would willingly lay down their lives in defence of Canada, but they should not be asked to do it for a political whim.

I have a few questions which the Prime Minister and his defence staff have not answered.

Is there a well defined Canadian mandate? NATO wants to stabilize the situation within 12 months and then pull out. However, the Prime Minister said that we should be prepared to stay there longer. That is unacceptable. If we are going in, it should be for a set period, after which we can assess the situation with a full debate. All the facts should be revealed to the Canadian public, for the army belongs to them, not to the current political party. It is their sons and daughters we are talking about. If we do not have a time frame for withdrawal, how do we know if we have achieved our objectives? Canada must establish its own criteria for participation, not just use NATO's.

Will the Prime Minister make a commitment to hold a comprehensive military and political review after 10 months so our troops will know what to expect by the end of the year? Uncertainty will only exacerbate morale problems. Over the past three years the government has unilaterally extended our commitment without listening to Parliament or consulting the Canadian people. Let us not do it again.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that our soldiers will be better equipped than the last time they went to Bosnia? They are the best trained troops in the world, but there is a limit to improvisation. If we are going to send them back into a potential war zone they deserve the best equipment we can afford. With cuts at DND and outdated personnel carriers, is this realistic?

Can the Prime Minister assure us that Canadian soldiers will be under Canadian command? No one seems to know the answer to that question. We cannot afford another Gallipoli or Dieppe. It should be a precondition for our participation.

Canadian peacekeepers are trained to clear up misunderstandings before they escalate into open conflict. I have grave concerns that the same cannot be said for everyone else in the 60,000 strong occupation force. If civilians are antagonized by inexperienced peacekeepers, will this increase the risk to our Canadian soldiers?

The parliamentary secretary asked for some recommendations. I have one for him. He noted that assistance to refugees and humanitarian assistance is a secondary priority. I believe it should be Canada's top priority. I believe we should focus our involvement on technical, logistical and human support. Yes, we have commitments to our NATO allies, but we have an even greater moral obligation to our troops.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

We don't have any of them.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Remind the minister of that.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the hon. member's comments. I appreciated the courage it took for her to make some of those statements obviously in contrast to the stated position of her party and the government.

Her comments are not all that far out of sync with the position of the Reform Party which has been very outspoken, as we know, against the commitment of Canadian combat troops when they are obviously ill prepared, ill led and poorly equipped, as the hon. member drew attention to.

It is not so much the troops who are the biggest problem. It is the people across the way making the decision involving their lives. It does not instil confidence or morale in our armed forces when the de facto commander in chief does not even know which way to put his helmet on.

If the hon. member feels the government is to commit combat troops when they are not prepared to take on that role, as she said, will she let her feelings be known to the Minister of National Defence and speak out as Reformers have been doing against the commitment of combat troops?