36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 210
CONTENTS
Monday, April 19, 1999
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1110
1115
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—The Balkans
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1230
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1245
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1300
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1315
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1330
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1345
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARTHUR MEIGHEN
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREST INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1400
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EARTH DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYNE GRETZKY
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VAISAKHI
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RASHPAL DHILLON
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1405
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL TEXTILES WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VOLUNTEERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYNE GRETZKY
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PERSONS CASE
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDY COOK
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1410
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYNE GRETZKY
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VOLUNTEERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1415
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYNE GRETZKY
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR WASTE
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1430
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1435
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1440
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR WASTE
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1445
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1450
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN PRODUCTIVITY
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1455
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VOLUNTEER SECTOR
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1500
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
1505
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-494. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion in concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYNE GRETZKY
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1510
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Grandparents
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sumas Community Correctional Centre
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1515
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—The Balkans
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1520
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1525
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1530
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1545
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1600
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1615
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1630
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1645
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1650
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1705
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1720
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1735
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1750
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1755
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1810
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on amendment deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Veterans Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1825
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Wood |
1830
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Budget
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1835
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Economy
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1840
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Black Lake BC Mine
|
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1845
![V](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 210
![](/web/20061116190056im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 19, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
convene in 1998 a meeting of `like-minded nations' in order to
develop a multilateral plan of action to reform international
organizations (e.g. Internation Monetary Fund, World Bank, United
Nations) so that they can identify the precursors of conflict and
establish multilateral conflict-prevention initiatives.
He said: Madam Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent
of the House for the removal of the words “in 1998” from the
motion. It was written two years ago and 1998 makes it obsolete.
The removal of “in 1998” removes the time course from the
motion and gives it more flexibility.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
asking to remove “in 1998” from the motion in order to make it
more pertinent to this date. Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank the House for
its tolerance with removing the date from the motion.
From Kosovo, to Cambodia, to Central Africa and to many other
parts of the world, we see over 40 conflicts that are taking
place as we speak. Kosovo, the one which has dominated the House
for so long, is just the latest in a series of conflicts that
have torn across the world for many years resulting in the death
and dismemberment of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of
people, and the removal from their homes.
Over 90% of those involved in conflicts, individuals who have
been killed or maimed, are people who do not have arms, are
non-combatants and innocent victims who only want to live in
peace.
Before 1945, we had World War II. Between 1945 to the late
1980s, we have had a cold war with two superpowers glaring at
each other, armed to the hilt with very powerful nuclear weapons.
Since the late 1980s, with the breakdown of the cold war and the
post-cold war era, we have seen a proliferation of conflicts. In
fact, over 40 conflicts have and are still taking place today
throughout the world.
After the post-cold war era there was a belief that we would
have a peace dividend, that the world would now be a safer place
to live. The fact is the world is a much more dangerous place.
We do not have the tools to deal with this fluctuating situation,
a situation that is imperilling more and more innocent people,
costing billions of dollars and wreaking havoc over nation
states, many of which are imploding as we speak.
Although Kosovo has drawn most of our attention, it is by no
means the largest, bloodiest or most destructive conflict
existing today. The largest land mass battle ever to exist in
the world is taking place right now on the continent of Africa.
From Sierra Leone and Liberia to the west, to Sudan, Eritrea and
Ethiopia to the east, right through the Central African Republic
to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and down into Angola, a
bloody war is taking place causing the deaths of thousands upon
thousands of people every single week. Many people are maimed,
many are raped, children are left to starve and entire countries
are laid to waste.
As a nation and as an international community we have been
completely and utterly unable to deal with this situation in any
pre-emptive fashion.
1110
In 1957 Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel prize for peacekeeping,
an innovative measure to save people's lives. Many interesting
initiatives have taken place since then, such as rapid
humanitarian relief and the introduction of peacekeeping and
peacemaking forces around the world.
However, we confuse peacemaking with conflict prevention. It is
not conflict prevention because the moment we need to make peace,
blood has already been shed, people have been killed and the
seeds of ethnic discontent and future conflict are there for
generations to come. We need look no further than to what is
taking place now within the former Yugoslavia.
Slobodan Milosevic came to power and fomented violence against
people. He initially stirred it up with the Croats by using
propaganda and is now stirring it up with the people of Kosovo.
The international community's response has appropriately been to
engage in diplomacy.
When we were faced with the situation of the Jewish people and
many others being slaughtered during World War II, what did we
do? Nothing. If history has taught us anything it is that we
have learned nothing. We continually sit on our hands and do
nothing while people are slaughtered and killed.
The purpose of Motion No. 338 is to do something. It will
change the international organizations that we are part of to
become tools of conflict prevention. When despots are engage in
actions that result in the deaths of thousands of people we will
not stand by and watch. We will act with other like-minded
nations.
The cost of this has been enormous. From 1945 to 1989 the UN
has spent 23% of its budget on peacekeeping. From 1990 to 1995
it has increased that amount to 77%. Peacekeeping is bankrupting
the United Nations.
I will articulate solutions to this problem through the
revamping of the international organization. These conflicts did
not appear overnight. Bosnia has been around for a long time.
Kosovo has been around for 10 years. Many situations have been
brewing for a long time. When General Roméo Dallaire spoke
eloquently and forcefully before the slaughters in Rwanda and
Burundi saying they would spiral out of control and result in the
massacre of hundreds of thousands of people, we did nothing.
There are things we can do. We need to look at the precursors
to conflict. We can see a polarization taking place before
anything else happens. One group of leaders will start to remove
the human rights of others. It will start abusing and
ostracizing groups. It will polarize groups and try to get its
own people onside.
As Michael Ignatieff, the famous author, said, they manage to
polarize groups by focusing on the narcissism of the differences.
Two people can be very similar but their small differences can be
expanded out of proportion. This enables the despot to cause his
people to start killing one another. We can see that happening.
It is very obvious.
We can use the international financial institutions, the United
Nations and NGOs who are on the ground to report back to the UN
crisis centre. The UN crisis centre, headed by Stan Carlson, a
Canadian, can be the centre through which information is
channelled. The information can then go to the UN security
council or farmed out to other organizations as part of the
intelligence needed to determine ground activity earlier.
The security council needs to be reformed. Now that we are on
the security council for the next year and a half there is much
we can do. The security council is obsolete but maybe there is a
way to change it. We could expand the security council by
getting more countries involved, particularly those from Africa,
South America and other developing countries. We would then have
a more comprehensive and representative security council.
1115
Vetoes should be removed from the five security council members.
Granted, this would be extraordinarily difficult. Maybe the way
around it is to ensure that the veto power can be only used for
chapter VII actions under the UN security council. Or we could
require two vetoes to block a motion or an action by the security
council. Or we could require that all actions by the security
council be passed by a two-thirds majority.
The UN needs to be overhauled in terms of its diplomatic
initiatives. It needs to focus on what it needs to do. It
cannot do everything and be everything to all people. Right now
dozens of organizations are doing the same thing. Why not focus
and streamline it so that one organization is tasked to do these
things rather than many?
The actions which the UN can take are many. First, as I
mentioned, propaganda is one of the most powerful tools that
groups use to polarize individuals. For example, Slobodan
Milosevic used anti-Croat sentiment to format anti-Croat actions
by his own people. In Rwanda the Hutus disseminated propaganda
against the Tutsis through short-wave radio.
The UN has the capability to engage in positive propaganda to
bring together like-minded moderates from both sides. We need to
do this. It is essential to do this if we are to dispel the
negative propaganda that despots use to polarize groups.
We need to use diplomacy to bring groups together. When that
fails sanctions can be utilized as well as military actions.
Soft power is good, but soft power needs teeth. We can only
back up soft power if we have strong, sharp teeth. Strong
military action is sometimes required if we are to prevent the
deaths of thousands of people. I would submit that is what we
are engaging in today in Kosovo.
All the diplomacy in the world is not going to convince
individuals like Slobodan Milosevic to come to the peace table,
with an olive branch, wanting peace. These people do not engage
in the same moral frame of reference that we do. It is
different. Individuals like Hitler, Milosevic, Sese Seko Mobuto
and Daniel Arap Moi do not engage in the same moral framework;
they engage in behaviour that is reprehensible to us.
The UN also needs to look at revamping its arms registry, making
it obligatory for countries to sign on to the registry so that we
know where inappropriate militarization is taking place. If the
Jane's fighting ships can engage in intelligence gathering to put
together comprehensive military expenditures, then certainly the
United Nations could do that.
I would like to consider international financial institutions.
The World Bank and the IMF are two parts of a triumvirate. They
were brought together at Bretton Woods after 1945 to engage in
peacebuilding, the reconstruction of societies, improving the
markets of societies and also to engage in exchange rate
stability around the world. I would argue that they have a much
more powerful, potent and important force in the world for peace.
The first thing we need to do is to have them communicate and
co-ordinate their actions. Much to my shock, I learned when I
was in Washington and New York last year that it has only been
since the end of last year that the UN, the IMF and the World
Bank started to talk to each other. They have existed and
operated in isolation. As a result, sometimes their actions have
resulted in matters being worse from an international security
perspective. They need to co-ordinate their actions.
Canada, being on the security council and having connections
with most of these organizations, could act as a catalyst to work
with like-minded nations to pull these countries together.
Canada could act as a force to bring other countries together to
work to reform these groups.
Wars need money. Every time we look at the television and we
see developing nations, we see a 13 or 14 year old kid walking
around with an AK47, the cost of which exceeds what that person
would make in a year.
Where does the money come from? Sometimes the money comes from
us, through the IMF, the World Bank and other organizations.
Sometimes these developing countries engage in destabilizing
activities which result in the deaths of innocent people. We
cannot tolerate that. We should have the power to prevent those
moneys from getting into the hands of world leaders who would
abuse their power at the expense of their people and at the
expense of regional security.
1120
The IMF, the World Bank and other regional development banks
need to pay close attention to where those moneys are being spent
and make the giving of those moneys conditional upon countries
engaging in good governance, peacebuilding and investing in basic
human needs such as education and health care. That builds
peace. Investing in AK47s and small arms does not and we should
not be a party to that.
We could invest in activities through international financial
institutions, which is what the Grameen Bank has done for a long
time. Micro credit loaning to average citizens helps them to
become self-sustaining and self-sufficient, and it also builds
peace.
While the actions of the IFIs can be used as a carrot, they can
and must at times be used as a stick. When leaders of these
countries engage in bloody actions against others, such as we
have seen with Laurent Kabila in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, or with Emperor Bokassa in the Central African Republic,
or what we see today with Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya engaging in
bloody action with the Maasi and the Kalenjin people against the
Kikuyus, why do we support that?
These people cannot be allowed to do that. We need to hold
their feet to the fire. There are things we could do. We could
call up loans and we could prevent those loans from being
renegotiated. We could suspend borrowing privileges.
I remember being in Kenya in the late 1980s when Daniel Arap
Moi, one of the richest men in the world, was begging the world
for handouts. He is a multibillionaire. That should never be
allowed to happen.
There are other tools we can use, such as withholding money and
imposing economic sanctions. However, money needs to go to the
people, as we do not want them to suffer. Money can be
channelled through non-governmental organizations. Good NGOs,
working effectively to provide basic services, could be used as a
conduit to ensure that there is economic stability and that money
is provided to the people so they can provide for themselves in
the future.
Historically the biggest stumbling block to early intervention
has been the concept of state sovereignty. Many people around
the world have said that state sovereignty is sacrosanct. Many
people feel that what goes on within a country's borders is that
country's problem. However, if we look closely at what the
concept means in terms of international law we can see that does
not hold water where leaders are engaging in behaviour that is
destructive to their people.
State sovereignty comes from the belief that sovereignty is a
manifestation of the will of the people. The UN convention on
human rights protects and upholds the will of the people and is
the basis of government. Therefore, international law protects
the sovereignty of a people and the will of the people, not the
sovereignty of the nation state.
Therefore, under international law it is acceptable for us to
engage in actions against state leadership when that leadership
is engaging in brutal behaviour that contravenes the will of the
state and also destabilizes the region.
There is also a very pragmatic and selfish reason for us to get
involved. When wars blow out of control, when countries implode
and descend into hell, who picks up the pieces? These countries
are developing nations, generally speaking. After the conflict
they are more of a wasteland than they have ever been. The cost
to pick up the pieces rests on the shoulders of the developed
world, countries such as Canada. We provide aid and we provide
defence. At times our people lose their lives in peacekeeping
operations, such as those we have seen in the former Yugoslavia.
1125
We have a right to intervene, and to intervene early, because we
pick up the pieces after the war has taken place.
In the first 40 years of the history of the United Nations there
were 13 peacekeeping missions. In the last 10 years there have
been more than 25. Rather than the situation getting better, it
is getting worse. What I am proposing through Motion No. 338 is
that we pull together like-minded nations, such as we did on the
land mines issue. I firmly believe we can do this. We need to
bring together like-minded nations such as Norway, Iceland, South
Africa, Australia and Central American nations; countries that
are interested in pursuing peace. We need to give them a plan of
action. We need to convene a meeting, maybe in Ottawa, to agree
on a common plan of action, not a commitment for more study. We
can take this common plan of action to these international
organizations. If we all have the same plan of action, if we are
all working toward the same goal, other countries will come on
side.
The ultimate outcome will be the revamping and rejuvenating of
international organizations. They will be a tool for conflict
prevention so that the conflicts of yesterday will not happen
tomorrow, and innocent civilian lives that have been laid to
waste in imploding countries will not continue.
We cannot prevent all conflicts of the world, but we can prevent
some. That is what Motion No. 338 is about and I hope members
from all parties will support it. It is something upon which we
can work together, it is congruent with our history as a nation,
and it will save many lives and billions of dollars.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member has
raised a number of very serious issues on the world scene, each
of which represents a separate debate.
One very important issue to which he referred was the reform of
the monetary system. World finances have a great bearing on
conflicts which erupt in various countries. It is not the only
reason, and we certainly acknowledge that. However, the monetary
system in our world is very important. With his indulgence and
with the indulgence of the House I will dwell on the monetary
system rather than try to make an omnibus contribution to this
debate. I want to zero in on that one very important area.
The international agenda recently has been saturated with
initiatives of crises prevention, more effective management of
international financial crises and more sustainable economic
development. What started as a G-7 plan of action is now being
echoed by the nations of APEC, the primary international
organization for promoting open trade and economic co-operation
among 21 member countries around the Pacific rim, which will be
discussed later this month at spring meetings of the IMF and the
World Bank, and in June at the G-7 summit.
There is a groundswell of support for strengthening domestic and
international financial institutions and for economies that are
more resilient to economic and financial crises when they do
occur. Canada is committed to strengthening the international
financial system and the world economy. We started this at the
G-7 summit in Halifax in 1995.
Last year, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis, Canada
proposed a six-point plan aimed at helping to sustain global
growth while at the same time reducing the risk of future
financial crises.
1130
We call for ensuring appropriate monetary policy through G-7
central banks, paying close attention and giving appropriate
weight to the risk of a further slowdown in the global economy;
expeditious action to strengthen national financial systems and
international oversight; development of a practical guide or road
map for safe capital liberalization in developing countries;
agreement to work urgently toward a better mechanism to involve
private sector investors in the resolution of financial crises,
including the possibility of an emergency standstill clause; and
greater attention to the needs of the poorest countries to ensure
they receive the resources and support they need to reduce
poverty and begin growing.
At the G-7 summit in Birmingham in May last year, leaders
accelerated work begun in the 1995 Halifax summit on
strengthening the international financial architecture to help
prevent and better manage financial crises. Key elements of
these efforts include: reports of the three G-22 working parties,
improving transparency and accountability, strengthening national
financial systems and addressing international financial crises
delivered at the G-22 meeting October 5, 1998; the G-7 leaders
statement on the world economy issued October 30, 1998 together
with the declaration of G-7 finance ministers and central bank
governors; the plan for implementing reforms to the global
financial architecture presented by G-7 finance ministers to
heads in December 1998; the February 20, 1999 communique of G-7
finance ministers and central bank governors; the February 1999
Tietmeyer report to G-7 finance ministers and central bank
governors on international co-operation and co-ordination in the
area of financial market supervision and surveillance, and its
proposal for the establishment of a financial stability forum to
provide a mechanism for co-ordination and exchange of views among
financial sector regulators and supervisors; the first meeting of
the financial stability forum on April 13; and two seminars, one
held on March 11 and the other to be held on April 25, 1999,
involving 33 industrial countries and emerging markets to discuss
outstanding issues in the international financial architecture.
Priority areas for strengthening the international architecture
outlined in the October 1998 leaders statement on the world
economy include greater transparency and openness in financial
systems, better processes for monitoring and promoting
international financial stability and improvements in corporate
governance, orderly capital account liberalization, private
sector involvement in preventing and resolving future crises,
protecting the most vulnerable in society, and improving the
effectiveness of international financial institutions.
The latter includes a proposal for an enhanced IMF facility to
provide a precautionary line of credit for countries pursuing
strong IMF approved policies, accompanied by bilateral assistance
on a case by case basis, and with appropriate private sector
involvement. Much has already been accomplished in these areas.
Six areas were also identified in the October 1998 leaders
statement as requiring further attention. These six priority
areas form the basis for G-33 discussion in the international
seminars held on March 11 and to be held on April 25. They
include: examining the scope for strengthened prudential
regulation in industrial countries; further strengthening
prudential regulation and financial systems in emerging markets;
considering the elements necessary for the maintenance of
sustainable exchange rate regimes in emerging markets; developing
new ways to respond to crises and promote greater participation
by the private sector; assessing proposals for strengthening the
IMF, and proposals for strengthening the interim and development
committees of the IMF and World Bank; and minimizing the human
cost of crises and protecting the most vulnerable.
1135
Canada supports the six priority areas outlined in the October
1998 leaders statement as requiring further action and is
committed to advancing work in these areas. In particular,
Canadian objectives in discussions on reforming the international
architecture are presently focused on ensuring that the
substantive aspects of these discussions take place within a
permanent process that is representative of the major
participants in the international financial system, that measures
to effectively involve the private sector in crisis resolution
are established to attenuate imprudent lending, and that the
social aspects of international financial crises are addressed.
Prospects for a successful conclusion of the substantive aspects
of discussions on establishing a permanent process for addressing
international financial issues will be enhanced if they take
place within a process that represents the interests and points
of view of the major participants in the international financial
system, and is anchored within the governance structures of the
IMF. For this reason, Canada is supportive of efforts to improve
the functioning of the interim committee.
The G-22 working group on financial crises agreed on some
mechanisms for enhancing private sector involvement in crisis
prevention and resolution, including collective action clauses in
bond contracts and contingent financial arrangements with the
private sector. Canada attaches a high priority to moving ahead
with their implementation and moving even further to address the
incentives that lead to imprudent lending. Canadian proposals
for greater private sector involvement in crisis prevention and
resolution received general support at the March 11 seminar.
Canada is particularly concerned about the social impacts of
financial instability. We welcome this opportunity to put
forward Canada's position on the reform of these financial
institutions.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to take part in the debate on Motion No. 338, which
was moved by colleague from the Reform Party.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
convene in 1998 a meeting of “like-minded nations” in order to
develop a multilateral plan of action to reform international
organizations (e.g. International Monetary Fund, World Bank,
United Nations) so that they can identify the precursors of
conflict and establish multilateral, conflict prevention
initiatives.
This is very nicely put, but the Bloc Quebecois must point out
right away that it will vote against Motion No. 338. Let us have a
closer look together at the motion.
First it says, and I quote:
Members will agree with me that “like-minded nations” is a very
vague and general concept. According to the logic of the motion,
it would appear that the Reform Party is trying to create some
level of separation, which we in the Bloc Quebecois find
unacceptable, between industrialized countries, otherwise known
as “like-minded nations”, and developing countries.
This is clearly undemocratic and paternalistic. How dare the
Reform Party exclude developing countries out of hand from the
drafting of such a multilateral plan of action?
The reform proposed by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca
would directly affect poor countries since for the most part
conflicts are taking place in developing countries.
Any reform aimed at significantly changing the role of
international organizations such as the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank, and the United Nations must be carried out
in consultation with the countries affected.
In fact, I would like to remind the Reform Party that the main
aim of organizations such as the World Bank or the United
Nations is to help developing countries.
1140
Therefore, why exclude poor countries from this reform? They are
the primary beneficiaries of the assistance provided by these
organizations. It is important to consult these countries before
undertaking any reform, so as to be aware of their needs and
concerns, and have an accurate idea of the reality of the people
affected by poverty or conflicts. This only makes sense.
Any reform must be undertaken in partnership with international
organizations and governments, the people affected and NGOs in
the field. We have a lot to learn from them. But the Reform
Party is advocating unilateral action by industrialized
countries. The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this way of doing
things.
With its delusions of grandeur, the Reform Party wants to reform
everything. But before trying to reform everything on this
planet, it should start right here, in the Canadian government's
own back yard. Believe me, there are lots of weeds in that back
yard.
Since the Liberals came to office in 1993, CIDA's budget for
international assistance has been reduced by almost 30%. Yet,
more than 1.3 billion people are living in abject poverty,
barely surviving on less than a dollar a day. Every day, 34,000
children die from malnutrition and disease.
Before the Liberals took office, Canada was seen as a leader in
development aid. Now, because of the Liberals' poor record in
this field, Canada's image and reputation have been tarnished.
Canada is, in fact, no longer one of the top donors to the
developing countries. It has now dropped from fifth to
eleventh.
Betty Plewes, the president and chief executive officer of the
Canadian Council for International Development, the CCIC, a
coalition of 100 major Canadian organizations active in the
development filed, stated as follows:
The aid to development program has been more affected by deficit
cutting measures than other federal programs.
This is proof that Canada could very well, within the very near
future, no longer be on the list of the most generous and most
committed members of the international donor community.
This government is so irresponsible that it has reached the
stage of neglecting the true human values.
In the last budget, the government added $50 million to its
international aid budget, out of a total CIDA budget of just
under $2 billion.
The Minister of Finance claims to thus be taking a step toward
attaining the objective of devoting 7% of the GDP to
development aid. Yet all this does is to just barely allow it
to keep up. At the rate it is going, the federal government
will not attain that objective before the fourth millennium.
The international aid budget is a perfect example of the
distortion between Liberal rhetoric and the reality of facts and
figures.
I hope that this brief analysis will enable the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to realize that it would be advisable, and
preferable, to look to what is going on in here in Canada before
trying to revolutionize the entire world. Before trying to
create new international structures, let us concentrate on
better adapting the institutions we already have to the new
political, social and economic realities of our day.
Motion No. 338 by the Reform Party is all the more incomprehensible
when one looks at the May 1995 final report by the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, “From
Bretton Woods to Halifax and Beyond: Towards a 21st Summit for
the 21st Century Challenge”. This was a unanimous report
addressing issues of international financial institutions
reforms for the agenda of the June 1995 G-7 Halifax summit.
At page 14 of the executive summary, it states:
Ultimately the world's peoples through their representatives
need to have a democratic voice in the changes affecting global
economic security and development.
The Reform Party supported this statement, because it supported
this report. So, what is behind this sudden change in
direction? Could we say improvisation?
1145
I invite the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to read the very
instructive report on the renewal and reform of the institutions
responsible for international economics, including the IMF and
the World Bank. Had he read this report, the member would
probably not have presented his motion, because it raises the
concerns the member refers to in his motion.
In closing, I would remind you that the Bloc Quebecois has
always had a concern for the operation of international
agencies, such as the UN, the IMF and the World Bank. They have
repeatedly proven their role in the maintenance of world order.
That said, nothing is perfect.
Political, social and economic change occurs on our planet at a
tremendous rate and these institutions must keep up with the
changes. However, if the developing countries are to be denied
a say in the reform of these institutions, as the Reform Party
is proposing, the Bloc Quebecois must oppose Motion No. 338.
The world balance is precarious enough at the moment. There is
therefore no question of heightening the reality of excluding
the developing countries. Globalization is not only economic,
but social and human as well.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise to make a few brief observations on the
worthwhileness and the relevance of the hon. member's private
member's motion. It is probably more timely than the member
might have thought, although I realize he probably initially
regretted that the motion did not come forward at an earlier time
and therefore had to seek the unanimous consent of the House to
amend it and take out the reference to 1998.
It just so happens that in 1999 we are in a position where we
can see the wisdom of the idea we find in the motion, that the
world should be more focused on conflict prevention than it has
been and that Canada should convene a meeting or act in other
ways to bring together like-minded nations that would like to
reform our international institutions in a way which would make
this kind of conflict prevention more possible and more probable.
It is a timely debate. From my point of view and the point of
view of my party, although I realize this is Private Members'
Business, reform of our international institutions has certainly
been a focus of ours for a long time. Just the other day, again
in the context of Private Members' Business, the House
unanimously passed a motion by the NDP member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle on the issue of the Tobin tax, which in a way
addresses itself to an element of what is wrong with the global
economy and what is wrong with it in a way that has come to
prevent or limit the actions of international financial
institutions.
One of the problems we have with respect to the global economy
and the international financial institutions is that they were
designed for a global economy that was much less globalized and
much more regulated. One of the problems we are facing now is
the massive deregulation of capital and capital flows.
This has created a new opportunity for the destabilization of
national economies, the destabilization of regions, and it is one
of the reasons we need to work as an international community on
what might be loosely called a new Bretton Woods or a new way of
regulating the global economy, to do for the global economy what
we once did for national economies; that is to say, to make sure
in the way we once made sure national economies worked in the
national interest, in the public interest for the common good, we
now need to regulate the global economy to replicate in terms of
global institutions those things we once did only at the national
level.
Otherwise we would end up with this totally unfettered global
marketplace in which we see what many have called a race to the
bottom; that is to say, a bondage to a certain notion of
competition.
This means that countries have to cater in an uncritical way to
the needs of foreign investment and international capital, which
leads to a driving down of wages and a reduction in government
revenues, which in turn leads to cutbacks in social programs and
the ability of government to act on behalf of the public, both in
terms of providing social programs and in terms of legislating in
respect of labour and environmental standards or anything else
that might be construed to make us less competitive.
1150
We have a situation here which certainly calls for a more
focused effort to reform our international institutions. I would
say with respect to the IMF and the World Bank that in many
respects now they are part of the problem rather than the
solution. They make countries do things that countries should
not have to do. Through structural adjustment and things like
that they literally make countries, particularly the poorer
countries, starve their own people in order to pay off debts
either to the IMF directly or to banks or generally to their
creditors. There is something desperately wrong about this.
It is why we have seen recently the call by the leadership of
the churches in Canada for something that is called Jubilee 2000,
which is an attempt to use the spirit of the jubilee proclaimed
in Deuteronomy; that is to say, the idea that every 50 years the
debt should be wiped clean and people should get a chance to—
Mr. Peter Adams: Leviticus.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I am sorry, Leviticus, the hon. member
says, a biblical scholar among the Liberals.
In any event the notion we find in the Hebrew testament about
jubilee is something which I think more and more Canadians are
certainly willing to consider. They do not see the point of
driving these poorer countries further and further into
situations which are in the final analysis destructive of their
environment, destructive of the social fabric of their respective
countries, and in the end destructive for all of us, to the
extent that these countries are driven to convert their economies
to export economies and to the extent that they have to destroy
their own environment to do that. If they have to destroy their
rain forest, for instance, to create pasture to grow beef in
order to export it, that is the only way they can get hard
currency to pay off their debts, instead of having an economy
that might better service the food and the social needs of their
own population.
We are not getting anywhere if in the end all the debts are paid
and all the banks are happy but we cannot breathe the air and we
cannot go outside because the ozone layer has been so depleted.
What shall it profit us if the banks gain the whole world and we
lose our ability to actually survive on the planet because we
have driven all these countries into a way of behaving that is
destructive, not just of their environment but of our common
environment? That is certainly one of the concerns I have and
one of the things we need to look at when we look at reform of
international financial institutions.
Finally I will say a word on the United Nations. I do not think
anybody would dare get up in the context of this debate and with
what has been happening in the former Yugoslavia and suggest that
somehow the United Nations is adequate to the circumstances which
the world is experiencing. We have a very serious dilemma
precisely because of the failure of the United Nations to be able
to act in the former Yugoslavia. There is an inability of the
security council to come to any kind of agreement as a result of
the vetoes that exist there and the lack of any long term will at
the UN to develop a capacity to react to these kinds of
situations, even if there were agreement.
1155
Even if the UN had been able to agree to do something in Kosovo,
it would have had to depend on national military capacities and
not on its own military capacity. One of the suggestions that
has been made over the years is that the UN have this standing
capacity in its own name.
We need to look at democratizing the United Nations so that we
do not have the situation where those who were considered to be
the great powers after the second world war still have exclusive
veto over world affairs through the UN. A lot of things need to
be looked at.
One of the problems in the current situation in Kosovo is that
we have things being done in the name of the international
community. I will repeat what I said the other night.
Unfortunately the international community through the UN was not
able to act, but that does not make NATO the international
community.
It causes problems for people who may at some level want to
support what is going on in Kosovo when they hear NATO setting
itself up as the international community because it clearly is
not. Not only that, NATO is being led in this case by a
country, the United States of America, which has clearly done all
it can over the years to marginalize the UN. It does not pay its
dues. It has a significant element within its Congress that
regularly attacks the United Nations.
There is a lot to be further debated. It is regrettable that
some of the countries which now hold up NATO as the international
community are not doing more at the UN to make sure that the UN
can become the authentic voice of the international community.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
be brief because many members are here to speak to the Bloc
Quebecois motion on this opposition day.
The wording of the motion moved by the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is far from perfect. I agree and I think
the member would too. Naturally, it is not just a matter of the
date for the conference, 1998. I am going to take a look at the
wording of the motion.
As other colleagues have pointed out, the motion says
“like-minded nations”.
Some caution is perhaps in order, because if only “like-minded
nations” are going to be involved in changing international
organizations, even if this is just the ground work for such
changes, there must be a consensus of countries belonging to
these organizations.
For all the fine speeches and meetings held with countries that
share our thinking in certain areas, it is becoming clear that
we are shooting ourselves in the foot, as it were, because we
will not be able to make these changes and reach a consensus
when it comes to international organizations.
My Reform Party colleague gave the example of land mines. This
example can cut both ways. Why? Because there was no consensus
among the countries most affected by the land mine problem.
Those least affected, such as Canada, signed the Ottawa
agreement.
The countries most concerned, those wreaking the most havoc with
land mines, were not part of the consensus. The debate must
therefore be extended to take in all countries belonging to an
organization. This debate should perhaps first be held here in
Canada.
Most people do not even know how many international
organizations there are and which does what. It is becoming
increasingly apparent that people are a bit lost and are no
longer very clear on the distinction between the UN, the WTO,
the former GATT, NATO and so on. There are so many names that
people get mixed up. This is true for many parliamentarians,
myself included. There are so many international organizations
that is hard to keep them all straight.
In the motion, “international organizations” seems on the one
hand to include all bodies, and on the other to exclude them.
1200
The motion states:
—International organizations (e.g. International Monetary Fund,
World Bank, United Nations) so that they can identify the
precursors of conflict and establish multilateral, conflict
prevention initiatives.
I am not sure the WTO would play an important role in settling
conflicts. Here again we do not know exactly what this is all
about. Is it really a security issue, or a military, economic or
humanitarian issue? We do not know, and it is unfortunate
because, for the past few weeks, we have been hearing a lot
about three major international organizations, namely the WTO,
which got involved on the eve of the negotiations, the UN and
NATO.
We might be well advised to make these international
organizations better known in this parliament and across the
country, inform Quebecers and Canadians and then ask them what
their opinion is. If Canada can develop a national position, it
will be much more credible internationally.
Canada has a leadership role to play nationally, but also on the
world scene. For decades Canada has played a role in changing,
improving, even creating international organizations.
Unfortunately, over the past few weeks, Canada's leadership has
been tarnished by events in Kosovo. We asked what steps Canada
took before the war in Kosovo, and we are expecting answers.
What efforts has the Government of Canada made? What leadership
has the Government of Canada shown in preparing for the
possibility of an armed conflict in the Yugoslav Republic? We
still do not know.
The UN has been replaced by the flag of war, a war under NATO.
International organizations are changing, and NATO is the prime
example. The purpose of NATO was preparedness if one of its
member countries were to be invaded, and now it has become an
international police force.
Is this grounds for criticism? For questioning, at least. Is
NATO's response in Kosovo not a sign of the UN's weakness?
Perhaps. Maybe this was the only approach or maybe others could
have been considered. Perhaps the UN and leading members of the
UN, such as Canada, have not done their job. There are a lot of
questions that will probably remain unanswered, in the short
term at least.
There are many negative aspects to the motion with respect to
its drafting. We are, however, going to support it because it
calls for examining all international bodies, and this is
something that is needed.
At present, one committee will address the WTO, another some
other body, but there is no overall picture. There is a shift
going on within the international bodies. To take an example
that is not a military one, an examination of international
protection of intellectual property, we realize that the
international organization has no teeth and is calling upon the
WTO to apply sanctions.
It is clear therefore that a shift is taking place within the
international organizations, which creates a need to analyse all
of them.
As part of this process, we should perhaps look here as well in
Parliament at the way Canada joins these organizations and signs
protocols and treaties without parliament having any say, or at
least much.
A reform of international organizations should include a look at
how parliament ought to be changed in order to become a
stakeholder in these international organizations and be involved
from start to finish. That is very important. The government
should learn to use Parliament much more than it does at the
moment.
We want to draw attention to the quality of the motion, perhaps
not in its formulation, but in what it proposes, that is, an
analysis of and profound change in the way the international
organizations operate.
We will support it with pleasure and we hope that this will be
the beginning of a review of this parliament and how it relates
to international organizations.
1205
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—THE BALKANS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) moved:
That this House demand that the government submit to a debate
and a vote in this House the sending of Canadian soldiers to the
Balkans who may be involved in military or peacekeeping
operations on the ground in Kosovo and the Balkan region.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would draw to your attention the fact that the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois will be sharing his time with our honourable
colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry. Later on, throughout the
course of the debate, the Bloc Quebecois members rising to speak
will be sharing their time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, today, we are debating a motion
that is very democratic, reasonable and responsible.
This motion is asking members of parliament to vote on the
opportunity to hold a vote on the sending of Canadian troops to
Kosovo and the Balkan region. The motion before us applies to
both combat troops and peacekeeping forces.
Today's debate may help us find out a little more about the
government's intentions, about what is really going on, about
its military planning and diplomatic initiatives. Our main
problem, and this is the primary reason behind this motion, is
that we sorely lack information. In fact, the government is
providing such limited information that we are better informed
by Newsworld and CNN.
The purpose of this exercise is not academic or hypothetical, as
the Prime Minister claimed last week, in reply to our questions.
The legitimacy of our request is evidenced by the dispatches
published in newspapers yesterday and today, including The
Sunday Observer, and alluding to preparations for a ground
invasion of Yugoslavia toward the end of May.
In the leaflets that it recently dropped over the Yugoslav
territory, NATO itself stated that an invasion would take place
if Serbian forces did not leave Kosovo.
We are not the only ones asking that members of parliament vote
on this issue. Many editorials in the country's major dailies
are asking for the same thing.
For example, in its April 14 issue, the Montreal Gazette said
that our soldiers deserve to know that their elected
representatives are supporting them, adding that the Prime
Minister was “badly wrong” in not allowing for a vote in the
House of Commons.
On April 13, the National Post said that only a parliamentary
vote would give the Prime Minister the moral authority to
involve Canada in a ground war in the former Yugoslavia.
That same day, La Presse said that the government's refusal to
hold a vote was creating a democratic deficit.
On Saturday, the editorial writer for Le Soleil said that
fortunately the Bloc Quebecois would be forcing such a vote
Monday—today—in the House of Commons.
Susan Riley, a Southam columnist, said that it would be better
to abolish Parliament than put it through the travesty of
consultation to which the government is now subjecting it.
There is something strange and disquieting about this whole
business. From the beginning, the government seems to have been
swept along by events. It seems to be making it up as it goes
along.
In fact, it is ironic to say the least that the Prime Minister,
whose constant refrain has been the need for Canada to have a
foreign policy that is separate from that of the United States,
now seems to have fallen in completely with Washington.
1210
We also have the right to wonder if Canadian troops might find
themselves on the frontline because their humanitarian mission
would be transformed into a combat mission. They could get
involved in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia through the
back door, without parliament having had a chance to vote on
this issue.
Yesterday, the government announced that another six CF-18s would
be sent to Italy, thereby tripling our initial participation.
This brings me to ask the Prime Minister a very simple question:
how much will Canadian participation have to escalate before
parliament is asked to vote on this issue?
Technically, Canada could be at war without parliamentarians
having had a chance to vote on the matter.
This seems rather inappropriate in a democratic society and a
parliamentary democracy.
It seems even more inappropriate considering the fact that, in
1991, the Prime Minister, who was sitting on this side of the
House as opposition leader, was clamouring for a vote in
parliament on the issue of military operations against Iraq.
The Liberal leader said at the time that the government did not
have, and I quote, “the moral authority to put this country into
a war situation” since the House of Commons had not approved,
through a vote, Canada's participation in Operation Desert
Storm.
The same member, who is now Prime Minister, should be consistent
since he is the one who said on January 15, 1991, and I quote:
He was referring to Prime Minister Mulroney.
Today, the government is desperately seeking reasons not to have
a vote on this issue and to object to our motion, which is
totally reasonable.
For example, last week, we heard the Prime Minister say in
response to our questions that he did not want to have a vote
because it could show some dissension among us, which could be
exploited by Milosevic's propaganda.
He used this ridiculous argument, knowing full well that almost
all MPs support Canadian participation in an international
intervention that will put an end to the crimes against humanity
perpetuated by the Milosevic regime in Kosovo.
As well, a vote in the House, with the support of 90%, 95% or
98% of MPs, would lend far more authenticity to the government
than the polls the Prime Minister refers to.
If there were any objections at all, they would be the normal
outcome of a sound debate within a democratic assembly in which
it is virtually impossible to achieve unanimity.
This House must hold a debate on this issue. We must set a
democratic example for Milosevic, rather than an imposed and
unverified unanimity. Democracy is our true strength, and
Milosevic's main weakness.
I do not have much idea of what is going on within the Milosevic
government, but I doubt very much that he is waiting anxiously
on the outcome of a vote by the House of Commons in Ottawa to
decide whether or not he will refuse to put an end to the ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo.
Holding a vote on sending troops to the Balkans has nothing to
do with a vote of confidence toward the government, as the Prime
Minister was stating in his roundabout way last week, nor is it
the nonsense the House leader was calling it. Such statements
are not a very good example for the people of Canada or of
Quebec.
It is also wrong to claim, as the government House leader did a
few days ago, that the motion before us implies that any troop
movement, even a normal troop rotation, would have to be
approved by parliament.
This is a ridiculous argument, and it shows just how deep the
government side had to dig to find an excuse to oppose our
motion.
1215
Members, the elected representatives of the people, must have
their say. Citing polls, as the Prime Minister did last week,
is a travesty of parliament. The House of Commons is the
expression of democracy. We do not take polls, we were elected
to represent the people.
It is all the more logical for us to vote since the deployment
of troops on Yugoslav soil was predictable from the outset.
From the time it became clear that the NATO air strikes would
not bring President Milosevic to his knees, the Atlantic
Alliance had three options. The first was the German peace
plan, the diplomatic approach we must build on. The second was
to add ground intervention to the air strikes in order to carry
out the mission of ending the crimes of Milosevic in Kosovo.
The third was to drop our objective, abandon the Kosovars and
let President Milosevic complete the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo,
if not genocide. This would reinforce the aggression of the
Milosevic government and encourage all the other tyrants and
despots in the world.
The situation is clear. For the sake of consistency with the
statements made in 1991 by those who, today, are the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in the democratic
spirit the media have summarized so well and to act on the will
of the people, the government must allow MPs to vote on this.
Canada's position and its participation, if it comes to that,
will be the stronger for it.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois and I have one simple question for
him.
In the current state of emergency with respect to the conflict,
would the will of parliaments not be the best means to counter
propaganda and identify the democratic proceedings and action to
be taken to find a solution to this crisis finally?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, this goes without saying, and
the Germans have shown us the way. It was Germany that proposed
a peace plan and that same country also held a debate in its
parliament. Germans acted in a responsible and consistent
fashion, and they strengthened the diplomatic channels by acting
in a democratic way. These two things go hand in hand.
A vote will also be held by the two houses of the Czech
republic. They too are consistent. This is what must be done. We
must get all members of this parliament involved, and make
sure—and I think all the opposition parties agree—that our
colleagues across the floor wake up, stop yielding to the Prime
Minister and start remembering the days when they displayed some
judgment, when they sat on this side of the House. It seems as
though they have lost all critical judgment since moving to the
other side of the floor.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to address this motion we have
put forward in the context of the growing crisis in Kosovo.
Today's newspapers are reporting that Kosovo is becoming empty.
Therefore, it is essential to continue the debate in this House,
to give members an opportunity to address the serious crisis
being reported by the television, the media and the newspapers.
Quebecers and Canadians have been closely following this
conflict, and there is evidence that ethnic cleansing operations
are indeed taking place and getting worse every day.
Civilian populations are being displaced to neighbouring
countries, including Albania, which is welcoming thousands of
refugees—over 40,000 in the last few hours—Macedonia and
Montenegro. These countries will have to share that task with
other nations such as France and, some day, in all likelihood,
Canada, which said it was prepared to welcome some of these
refugees.
1220
This is ethnic cleansing bordering on genocide, the most
terrible of crimes against humanity, a crime which saw the
creation, in 1948, of a convention whose 50th anniversary we
celebrated last year. The convention provides not only that the
crime of genocide is punishable but also that nations have an
obligation to prevent it.
Today, as the century comes to a close, countries, including
Canada, seem too little concerned with trying to prevent a
genocide that echoes the genocides with which the century
opened: the genocides of the Armenians, the Jews during World
War II and, more recently, the Cambodians and Rwandans.
We must say publicly that we have an obligation to prevent a
genocide. We must say it in parliaments, for parliaments have
the role of informing the public, of presenting the situation
and informing the public through its elected representatives.
Until now, elected representatives have had the less than
satisfactory task of receiving information and passing it on to
the public that duly elected them.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs is the primary spokesperson and
we have had debates on this topic.
When the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is the government's
leading spokesperson on this issue, tells us that it is the
government's prerogative to decide to send troops abroad, he is
forgetting that, in 1991, this parliament voted in favour of
sending troops to Iraq. There is a precedent for voting in
favour of sending troops to Kosovo, whether to impose peace
there or maintain it.
This is an important precedent. We invoke it, and continue to
invoke it, because it belies any notion that the government does
not have to consult parliament and put the question to a vote
because its prerogative does not necessarily require it to
consult that body.
The government should follow the lead of other parliaments. The
Minister of Foreign Affairs himself, during a hearing of the
foreign affairs committee, gave the example of Germany which, by
the way, has proposed a peace plan that the Bloc Quebecois had
asked the Government of Canada to sponsor.
Germany is not afraid of its parliament. There have already been
two debates and two votes in the German parliament on this
issue. The government cannot invoke what is going on in foreign
parliaments to justify an opposition to a vote in the Canadian
parliament.
Hungarian and Czech parliamentarians also had an opportunity to
vote on this issue. The Czech constitution even provides that
the deployment of troops in a foreign country must be debated
and approved by parliament.
This shows that other NATO member states trust their
parliamentarians and their parliaments, and I believe that the
Canadian parliament should also have a decisive role to play on
this fundamental issue.
Apart from saying that parliament must have a decisive role to
play, I cannot exclude dealing with other dimensions of this
conflict which the Bloc Quebecois has been concerned with since
the beginning.
There is a humanitarian aspect about which we must have the
highest concern: there are too many refugees. There are now
hundreds of thousands of them. Kosovo, as I already said, is
being emptied and its people is the victim of ethnic cleansing
and, likely, of genocide.
We must help. We must be generous and show solidarity in this
terrible ordeal the Kosovar people is undergoing. The government
must act in a more transparent way. It must share information.
Militants of the Bloc Quebecois participating in a general
council during the weekend asked the government to be generous
to refugees and to spend the $100 million committed to aid for
the refugees in those countries where they have found refuge.
1225
We must not forget the criminal dimension of this conflict.
There are people, heads of state, politicians who are presumably
taking part in crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide. They
must not escape punishment.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
should one day soon, real soon, bring to justice the individuals
who committed and are still committing crimes against humanity.
As for the man responsible for such crimes, the head of the
Yugoslav state, he should not be spared and escape punishment.
There is also a political role or dimension to this conflict
that should not be overlooked. We in the Bloc Quebecois have
always been concerned with the role the UN must keep on playing
when it comes to putting an end to international conflicts,
settling differences, in order to maintain international peace
and security.
We still believe the security council should play a role, and
Kofi Annan, who is very well received by the Europeans, should
also be invited by Canada to play a more active role.
If it proved necessary, we could eventually ask the General
Assembly of the United Nations, in keeping with the Acheson
resolution, to play a role in maintaining international peace
and security with regard to the present conflict.
We think it is important for the United Nations not to be cast
aside, not to be marginalized, to take part in the dispute
settlement process so that it can maintain its role in the
future.
I conclude by putting forward an amendment. I move:
Lastly, I would like to quote not Euripides like I did last
week, but Victor Hugo. The celebrated poet once wrote that war
is the clash of men and peace is the clash of ideas.
Let us restore peace in Kosovo through every possible means, so
that one great idea, peace, can prevail and future generations
of Kosovars can be spared the horrors of war.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendment to the motion
is in order.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, before putting a question to my hon. colleague
from Beauharnois—Salaberry, who, by the way, is doing a great job
as our critic for international affairs, I would like to say,
with a catch in my voice, that I thought he made a very
passionate speech.
Given what people are saying, what editorial writers are
thinking, what headlines are saying, things like “Kosovo almost
empty of its inhabitants”, I think it is very important that
Canadian parliamentarians address the issue.
1230
When newspapers and politicians use the word genocide, I think
it is important for Canadian parliamentarians to rise in this
House and exercise their responsibility. They must decide, based
on their own conscience, whether or not their country should
deploy peacekeeping forces or land troops, as the case may be,
as mentioned by our leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
I would now like to ask the member a question. In his speech, he
referred to a precedent that occurred in 1991, when the House
had a vote on a similar issue. I know the government can make
its own decisions with regard to international treaties and
agreements. However, it often gives Canadian parliamentarians
the opportunity to do so.
Bill C-27 is a good example of that. This bill, which deals with
the United Nations fisheries agreement, will be put to a vote on
Tuesday. Fish stocks are certainly important to me, but life in
Kosovo is even more important.
Would the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry tell us what role
Canada can play within the UN security council and give us some
clarification about that? I know the fisheries, but I would like
the UN to take this thing seriously and I would like the member
to tell us about the situation in this House.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. While the government, in reviewing its foreign
policy, proposed democratizing it by giving a voice to the
people on the matter, we note that it does not seem to want to
give a real voice to those representing them in parliament.
We have proof of this from the many times it has rejected the
idea that these parliamentarians should vote in favour of
sending troops abroad, not only in this debate, but in other
debates we have had on sending troops to Iraq and the central
African republic. It has always rejected a vote following a
debate on sending troops.
Since my colleague referred to the treaty, if is true that
parliament may at times consider laws implementing treaties,
because it is obliged to pass such laws.
However, this same government will not let the House of Commons
approve treaties before they are signed or ratified.
Here
again, this is a great democratic shortcoming, which must be
corrected and which was corrected to some extent in other
Commonwealth parliaments, such as in Australia and New Zealand,
and which the British government wants to correct.
This government and others before it have put an end to a former
practice whereby important treaties were approved. I can give
you one example, which is very important in the context of the
present debate, since parliament, the House of Commons, approved
it before Canada ratified it, and that is the treaty
establishing NATO.
The treaty was approved in the House before being ratified by
the Government of Canada. There were others, but the practice
was dropped, and for the past few months, with Bloc colleagues,
I have been arguing that the practice should be reinstated in
parliament.
It would be an element of real democratization, which the
present government will no doubt reject, as we will see from the
way it votes on today's motion, unless it considers that
democracy is calling out to it today and is insisting that
parliament also decide matters related to foreign policy.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will begin by
restating why Canada is involved in the action with NATO in the
former Yugoslavia.
In Kosovo the Yugoslav regime has engaged in a campaign of
brutal repression ever since it unilaterally striped Kosovo of
its autonomy and abolished its local institutions in 1989 and
1990.
1235
The United Nations Security Council, acting under chapter VII,
has issued several resolutions regarding the Kosovo crisis which
identified the conflict as a threat to peace and security in the
region.
These resolutions and the October agreements between the FRY,
the former republic of Yugoslavia, and the OSCE and NATO, impose
a clear legal obligation on FRY to respect a ceasefire, protect
the civilian population, and limit the deployment of a security
force in Kosovo.
The FRY is in clear violation of these commitments which were
accepted in October and is violating the obligations imposed by
resolutions 1199 and 1203. The FRY has violated the ceasefire
and has systematically violated international humanitarian law by
launching a campaign of terror against civilians which includes
killing and torturing, arbitrary detention and persecution, and
denial of basic rights based on ethnicity.
Our preference has always been for a diplomatic solution to the
problem of Kosovo. Diplomacy was given every chance to succeed.
Numerous diplomatic missions were sent to Belgrade. The OSCE
created a major verification mission. Finally the Rambouillet
conference ultimately failed because of the consistent
intransigence displayed by President Milosevic.
Only when these efforts had been exhausted and when all attempts
to stop the regime's campaign of terror against civilians had
failed did the allies resort to military action.
Clearly it would have been best if the UN could have facilitated
an end to the conflict in Kosovo. When the security council is
unable to reach consensus, however, we cannot remain passive in
the presence of massacres and humanitarian disaster.
NATO's objective is to make the Yugoslav government end the
savage repression of its own people, to degrade the military
machine which supports this brutality, and to prompt Belgrade to
negotiate an agreement with a just political settlement for the
Kosovars.
The Yugoslav security forces and paramilitary organizations are
now carrying out a campaign of terror and expelling large numbers
of Kosovars. We have corroborated reports that they are
implicated in summary executions and other atrocities against
civilians.
Over one-third of the population of Kosovo has left the country.
NATO is dealing with this humanitarian disaster, not only by
stepping up the military intervention which is the only obstacle
in the way of Serbian ethnic cleansing. It is also directly
assisting the refugees, increasing its assistance to humanitarian
organizations and supporting the work of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
The criticism that NATO action is the cause of the current
deterioration of the humanitarian situation is unfounded. Ethnic
cleansing by the Yugoslav authorities has been going on for
months with forced expulsions, destruction of villages, and
massacres by the security forces in 1998 and early 1999.
The regime blatantly violated UNSC resolutions and other
obligations, harassed international verifiers and built up its
military deployment in preparation for a massive spring offensive
which started as soon as the OSCE verification mission was forced
to leave.
This all happened before NATO began its military intervention.
NATO responded to Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. It did not
provoke it. The ideal course of action remains diplomacy. Any
diplomatic overture must however open the way to a lasting
solution.
Milosevic knows perfectly well what the conditions are for this
to happen. He must immediately stop the campaign of ethnic
cleansing and terror against civilians, withdraw Serbian forces
from Kosovo, accept an international peacekeeping force which
would provide the Kosovars with enough confidence to return home
in safety and commit to a just political settlement.
I fully support Canada's participation in the NATO action
precipitated by a humanitarian disaster. I also fully support
our men and women in the Canadian forces who have responded so
courageously to this situation.
1240
I am not able to support the motion. The government is
committed to consulting with parliament and has been doing so on
an ongoing basis. So far there have been three separate debates
on Kosovo in the House for a total of 26 hours in which almost
100 MPs participated. On the issue of deployment of ground
troops, NATO has not so far requested Canada to provide ground
troops to the action. Therefore the question remains
hypothetical. If this request occurs the Prime Minister has
committed to consulting with parliament.
On the issue of holding a vote I would argue that our system in
which the government and not parliament is responsible for
deploying troops needs to maintain its current flexibility. This
ensures that if necessary the government can deploy troops as it
at times has on an emergency basis.
Parliament is not always sitting and may not be in a position to
respond to an emergency. In practice, when Canadian military
personnel are called upon to support peacekeeping or humanitarian
missions abroad, the need for their presence can be immediate in
very real terms. A prime example is the disaster assistance
response team which is designed to begin deployment of its 180
members within 48 hours. Therefore I believe it would be
inappropriate to tie the hands of the government to respond
quickly and effectively.
I reiterate that opposition to the motion does not mean the
government is denying that parliament has an important role to
play. Parliament has been engaged throughout this conflict, as
have the standing committees on foreign affairs and defence. I
repeat that the Prime Minister has made a firm commitment to
consult parliament if the situation in Kosovo changes
significantly.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
have listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs. The only argument he appears to be
using to justify this Parliament's not voting on this motion is
that of flexibility. That is the only argument I heard.
It is not valid because section 32 of the National Defence Act
gives the government that flexibility.
I would invite the Parliamentary Secretary to read that section
with care, as it provides that, when parliament is not in
session, the governor in council may place the Canadian forces
on active service and that it can, moreover, recall Parliament
within a certain period of time so that the matter may be
presented and eventually discussed in parliament.
That is the only argument he used, and it is not convincing.
What would be convincing, however, would be to hear the
parliamentary secretary, and through him, his government, state
a belief in parliamentary democracy. This is a parliamentary
democracy.
My question is this: ought a parliamentary democracy not to give
MPs a true voice when it comes to sending troops abroad,
soldiers whose lives could be in danger, and to committing major
funding for the purpose of ensuring international peace and
security, as we have since the beginning of the conflict? Does
a parliamentary democracy not require the government to accept,
as a previous government did, our voting on a motion like the
one to authorize sending troops to Kosovo?
1245
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed: Madam Speaker, I also listened very
carefully to my hon. friend's argument.
Historically, Canada has not voted on issues of this gravity.
When there was a vote taken on the Iraq situation, my hon. friend
will remember that it was taken months after the fact. The debate
did not occur at the outset of the hostilities. I believe it was
upwards of four months after the commencement of the hostilities
that there was even a debate.
I suggest to the hon. member that the position of the government
has historically been that yes, parliament must be consulted.
Parliament in this case has been consulted on a regular basis,
probably more often than at any other time of serious conflict.
It must remain the prerogative of the government to make the
instant decisions when they need to be made.
My hon. friend referred to the section in the defence act which
gives flexibility to the government. Certainly that flexibility
has to be maintained all the way across the broad base.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, certainly
I have heard the parliamentary secretary say that the Prime
Minister will consult with parliament before he commits to any
ground troops. It still comes back to the very question today
which is, are we going to have a vote on it?
It is pretty hard to justify to the Canadian public that the
government would not vote on committing the lives of men and
women in our armed forces. What is really wrong with that?
Mr. Julian Reed: Madam Speaker, I would point to the
response I gave to the Bloc critic. Historically, successive
Canadian governments have maintained that it is best to present
unanimity from all sides of the House on a decision of this
gravity and magnitude.
I appreciate the hon. member's position. It is another point of
view, but it is not the point of view that has been held
historically by the governments of this country.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the motion
before the House today is relatively straightforward. It calls
on the government to commit itself to hold a debate and a vote
prior to the commitment of any ground troops to the war in the
Balkans.
There is really nothing odd about such a request. There is
nothing controversial or partisan about this motion. It is
consistent with the best democratic traditions this country can
lay claim to.
What is odd is the fact that the government did not itself bring
forth a votable motion on this issue. What is controversial is
the government's repeated refusal to allow such a debate or vote
to occur. That is what gets our constituents asking why the
government will not let this go to a vote.
The refusal to allow the House to decide what the role of this
country should be in a war is truly astonishing. Let there be no
misunderstanding. The government does not have a mandate as a
result of the three take note debates on Kosovo. Its claim that
it has such a mandate are simply unacceptable and is certainly
not why any of us participated in those take note debates.
In August 1914 this country was simply notified by the Governor
General that it was at war. The decision was made in London. In
September 1939 Canada waited 10 days to enter the second world
war on the side of Britain and France, 10 days in which
parliament debated and voted on the issue. On September 9, 1939
Prime Minister Mackenzie King accepted that the Commons should
decide if Canada should go to war.
1250
That has not happened in 1999. Our pilots have already flown
more than 100 combat missions and the present government has
repeatedly argued that we are not at war. That position is simply
a word game and would please many of the lawyers here, but it
certainly does not please the Canadian public. The man on the
street, the members of this House and our adversaries in
Yugoslavia see things a lot differently. They are calling this
war.
In 1991 when we supported the UN coalition, this House also
debated and voted on a resolution concerning Canadian military
involvement. At that time the current Prime Minister, then the
Leader of the Official Opposition, criticized the Mulroney
government. I quote: “Really Canadians have had enough of
these ambiguities and playing the dice on the table without
telling Canadians exactly what the situation is. Should we have
Canadians involved in war, yes or no?”
The high-minded principles so strongly endorsed just eight years
ago seem to have been mere words, nothing more. They have
apparently been forgotten by the Prime Minister. They have
vanished like smoke in the political wind.
The foreign affairs minister is no more consistent. Before this
House in 1991 he said: “My deepest concern is that they, the
Tories, will be simply using parliament to try to rubber stamp or
ratify decisions already taken, as opposed to letting parliament
be the forum in which those decisions are formulated”. Last
Thursday in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade he also appeared to forget his concern for
this House. He argued that because this is not a republic, the
crown retains the right to make foreign policy and to decide
matters of war and peace.
Canadians might rightly ask what is the cause of this
uncertainty? Why would ministers with such long parliamentary
careers change their opinions so drastically? I will not try to
offer any answers to those questions. Given this lack of
certainty on the government benches, I would suggest we err on
the side of democracy. It is, after all, what this country
expects. We preach democracy abroad, we sell democratization to
other countries, and we must practise it at home.
Eight years after the gulf war this country finds itself once
again involved in a war. It does not really matter at this point
in the debate that our current military intervention was not
sanctioned by the UN. It does not really matter in our debate
today if NATO's long term strategy is unclear. It does not
really matter that we have no idea what the long term objectives
of the current conflict are, beyond the basic moral
considerations that my hon. colleague the Leader of the
Opposition raised a week ago.
These issues are not the most pressing issues of the debate
today. The government's arguments that we cannot debate
something that has not yet happened is equally unimportant. This
motion is to commit the government to a debate when and if the
need to send ground troops should arise. A week, a month,
whenever that should happen, we should have a vote in this House.
This motion is not about the war. It is about Canadian
democracy. Because this issue is so important to our democracy
is why I can strongly endorse this motion before us today.
Despite the fact that I might disagree on many other Bloc ideas,
certainly this is one we should commend it for.
This chamber is the House of Commons. It is the only place in
the entire land that the elected representatives of the Canadian
people can meet and debate the future of our country. This room,
not the cabinet chamber, is the focal point for our democratic
system of government. Here the government of the day must answer
to the people through their elected members of parliament. Here
the laws are made. Here the great issues that affect our people
are supposed to be decided.
Before we send any ground troops to fight in distant lands,
members of parliament must take a position. It is the only right
thing we can possibly do. I do not want to ever stand accused by
the parents, wives, husbands, children of our soldiers that I
failed to take a stand in this House and ask all the questions
that should be asked.
1255
This government does not seem to want to understand these simple
facts. The motion before us is not an attempt to embarrass the
government. It is not about expressing confidence or lack
thereof in the Prime Minister and his cabinet. It is quite
simply a call for the government to respect the rights and
privileges of parliament and to adhere to the most basic
standards of Canadian democracy.
The precedents of 1939 and 1991 clearly and forthrightly
demonstrate that matters of war and peace are not, I repeat not,
the sole prerogative of the crown in this country. The Prime
Minister and foreign affairs minister understood this in 1991. I
am at a loss to explain why they have forgotten that fact in
1999.
The motion before us is several weeks overdue. The official
opposition has been urging for some time the necessity of a vote
in the House before Canada commits ground troops to the ongoing
war in Kosovo. The other opposition parties have also agreed
with us and have been urging the same thing. I commend my Bloc
colleague again for having brought forward this motion today.
There is a saying that there is a time and a place for
everything. The time for a votable motion on the deployment of
ground troops to Kosovo is now and the place is in the House.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I heard the hon. member say that he strongly endorses this
motion.
I would ask that the hon. member note that there was debate in
the House in November and further debate in February. The
minister appeared before the committee in March. Then there was
a further debate last week which went through to the wee hours of
the morning. I thought that parliament had a strong attack of
me-tooism in the entire debate. There was very little dissent
from the position the government had taken.
I am a little hard pressed to know how the hon. member strongly
endorses what is quite easily and arguably a vague and confusing
motion. Is this a motion on a vote to vote, or is this a motion
on a possibility or a hypothetical situation? Does the hon.
member interpret this as a matter of confidence in the
government?
Mr. Bob Mills: Madam Speaker, it is certainly not a
matter of confidence. As I pointed out, it should be a
non-partisan approach to the whole question when we are talking
about the lives of our soldiers.
Regarding the take note debate, I cannot believe that anybody in
the House would stand and say one, that that was a debate and
two, that it was an opportunity to let every member in the House
become informed on the issue. I do not need to talk about how
many people are here when take note debates occur in the middle
of the night, but certainly it is not many.
When we talk about lives, when we talk about something as
important as war, we say that we should put it to a vote. We
believe that most parties in the House would vote honestly and
would vote for support of what is happening in NATO. I think that
would be the case.
I do not understand what the government is so afraid of in
putting this to a vote. Once that vote occurs and the majority
position is held, then I would hope that 100% of us would support
our troops in this war situation. But put it to a vote. That is
politically such a wise thing to do I cannot imagine why the
government is not doing it.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, I thank
the Reform Party critic, who congratulated the Bloc Quebecois
for moving this motion. As we can see, and as the hon. member
pointed out in his reply to the Liberal member, this is not a
partisan issue. This is very clear in light of the position
stated by the hon. member.
1300
Earlier during the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs said “Yes, but in 1991 we had to
wait several months before being allowed to vote on the Iraq
conflict”.
Does the foreign affairs critic for the Reform Party think that
a vote should take place after the conflict? Also, does he agree
with the Liberals that this is a hypothetical issue? Considering
that 43 mass graves with tens of thousands of bodies have been
discovered, this is an urgent situation.
The parliamentary secretary said that a decision could be made
at the last minute.
Has the hon. member ever heard of the House being urgently
recalled for a special vote?
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills: Madam Speaker, I have been talking about
Kosovo in our caucus for at least a couple of years, so it is not
a surprise this was going to happen.
Concerning 1991, I will go back to the outrage and total disgust
the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister voiced for
the then Conservative government for not bringing it to a vote
immediately before troops were deployed. I have pages and pages
of quotes from committee and the House of how upset they were
because it was not put to a vote. They then condemned the
government for putting it to a vote so late.
Now that the Liberals are thinking about doing the same thing,
how can they speak with any conscience at all on an issue like
this?
[Translation]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, since the
beginning of recorded history the human race has faced crisis
after crisis. The world today seems to be moving in a new
direction, which history will undoubtedly see as the crises of
our era. While wars between nations were the reality earlier in
our century, this phenomenon now seems on the verge of
disappearing.
I am not telling my colleagues anything they did not already
know when I say that today's wars are increasingly taking place
inside national boundaries. Pluralist countries, in the grip of
extremist tendencies, see the various groups represented in
their population shift from an attitude of peaceful coexistence
to one of pure and simple belligerence.
When this happens, a great many of the victims are found among
the civilian population.
This is deplorable enough, but it is made more deplorable still
by the fact that the worst violations of human rights occur in
these internal conflicts. The principle of national sovereignty
forbids any intervention from outside, so that the international
community could justify its failure to intervene if it
considered nothing but that principle. But do we understand the
cost of failing to intervene?
There is one thing we should never forget about the sacrosanct
principle of national sovereignty, and that is that a nation's
sovereignty counts for nothing if it does not exist for the much
greater good of the sovereignty of its population.
The roll call of these new-style conflicts is a long one. The
names of a few countries will suffice: Algeria, Sierra Leone,
Rwanda.
They will forever be associated with the atrocities of which
they were the theatres and their populations the actors, the
spectators and the victims. While our attention is turned
elsewhere, some of these crises continue to rage. But no
example is more striking by its immediacy and its scale than the
crisis in Kosovo.
[English]
We are here today debating this motion for that very reason, the
very seriousness of this crisis. The motion cuts to the heart of
why I entered politics.
1305
When I was campaigning, many people who came to the door, young
and old alike, told me their concerns about politicians. They
were very cynical about the political process. Many of them said
that they were so discouraged they were not even going to vote. I
told them not give up that basic right to vote because it is one
of the basic principles of our democracy. The minute we give up
that right to vote, we give up our opportunity to change what we
are unhappy about. We give up the right to be a part of
influencing decisions that affect our lives. The right to vote
is a very important. I told them that I do not care whether they
voted for me or for the next person as long as they got out and
exercised their right to vote.
Today, in this particular situation, we need information. In
order to assess this situation, it is important to have the
proper information. We know that information is one of the first
casualties of war. The difficulty we have today in assessing the
crisis in Kosovo is that quite often we do not know if the
information we are getting has been screened or if it is
propaganda from one side or the other side. This creates
difficulties in assessing the situation and making decisions.
This is all the more reason why it is very important that this
matter come before parliament. We need to become as fully
informed as possible.
It is also important in this case to have a vote because we are,
in fact, sending our men and women off to war. It is a very
serious situation. When people are being sent off to put their
lives and limbs at risk, it is important that we as Canadians
have a say in that matter.
I was very concerned about a phrase used by by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs when he was discussing the involvement of a vote.
He mentioned “cabinet government”. We recognize cabinet
government is important. We do recognize that government does
have the right to govern and that it does have a responsibility
that it cannot pass off to someone else. However, that
responsibility does not mean that it cannot consult with, it
cannot be guided by a vote or it cannot bring other input into
the situation.
Flexibility to act was mentioned earlier. Flexibility to act
comes when we have as much information, help and guidance as
possible. That does not mean giving away the right of government
to make the final decision. It means that government makes its
final decision based on all reasonable input, information and
votes. It is therefore very important to not confuse the issue
of cabinet government with the right of parliament to vote.
I feel it is very important to have adequate guidelines before
committing our men and women to any kind of action on the ground,
whether it be peaceful action or more aggressive action. We
should know what is involved. We should know, for example, what
kind of equipment is going to be used, how well the men are going
to be prepared and what kind of support they are going to get. We
also need to know what kind of support these people will get when
they come home from missions because it has been an issue before.
Another concern I have is with reservists. We understand that
reservists can be called into action to help defend their country
but the government will not guarantee them their jobs when they
return home from service. What would they be facing when they
returned home? Would they be facing the same situation as
merchant marines who, after serving their country well, came back
to find themselves without jobs, without opportunities to advance
themselves and with the government saying it had no
responsibility for this?
These are some of the issues that have to be dealt with when we
are talking about sending our men and women as ground forces into
Kosovo. This is why it is all the more important that parliament
be able to debate in a meaningful way and have a vote on the
issue.
Quite often the government says that it has had debates and that
opportunities have been give to express opinions. That is true.
We have had debates and opportunities were given to express
opinions. However, these were not punctuated with the right of
parliament to then make this action concrete with a vote.
I would compare this to the people who talked to me at the door
expressing their concern about politicians and about a having a
say in society. Those people who expressed their views by saying
they were not going to vote, are similar to the take note debates
that we have. There are lots of views and opinions coming
forward but no further action. However, the ones who went out
and voted afterwards transmitted their views into action, which
is what we need from this House of Parliament. We need to be
able to transmit those views that are brought forth in debate
into action by the very important democratic right to vote.
As members can see, I strongly support the motion that has been
put forward. I feel that if, as a member of parliament, I am not
given my right to vote on this issue, then all those people who
elected me and who I represent have lost their right to vote and
their say on this issue of very great importance to Canadians.
The people's voices are heard are through their elected
representatives. If we in the House of Commons do not have the
right to vote on this important issue then we have deprived all
Canadians of their say and their right to vote on this issue.
1310
I urge all members to give this very important motion serious
consideration and support.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member will appreciate that some precision is needed
before one can vote. He said that it is very important and he
encourages his constituents to vote.
The real question is not whether we should or should not vote
but rather what exactly it is we are voting on. Are we voting on
whether we have the right to vote? Are we voting on a
hypothetical situation? Are we voting on whether or not Canada
should go to war?
I would be interested in the hon. member's interpretation of
what this motion means? As I read the motion, that the
government submit to a debate and a vote on the possibility of
sending Canadian soldiers to the Balkans, it is, in my mind, a
very vague motion. I would have encouraged the drafters to be
far more precise in their motion.
Given the vagueness of the motion, what is it the hon. member
thinks he will be voting on when he stands up and is afforded the
opportunity to vote on the motion?
Mr. Gordon Earle: Madam Speaker, I understand the hon.
member's concern. People obviously do not want to deal with
hypothetical situations. However, we are dealing with a
principle. The principle is that we should have the right to
vote on the very important question of sending men and women off
to war. If it does not happen we will not have to vote on it,
but if it does happen we should have that right.
The government has thus far refused to make the commitment that
it will even guarantee us the right to vote on that issue. It
has been indicated that it will be a cabinet decision or the
Prime Minister will decide. We are simply saying that as
parliamentarians we want to be able to decide. That is the
essence of the motion. We can quibble with the wording if we
want but I think every member knows within their heart exactly
what the motion means.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam Speaker, I do
not mean to blame you, but I rose four or five times to speak. I
am very anxious to tell the House what our feelings are with
regard to the conflict in Kosovo, but I will content myself with
the one minute I am allowed to put a question to the member who
just made some good comments.
Today I would like this debate to be non partisan. I would like
to know whether we can co-operate. Just as we talk about
globalized markets, could we not talk about globalizing peace,
and work together with all concerned states at making it long
lasting?
I would like to ask the member whether he shares our view
regarding the globalization of peace.
I will have the opportunity to speak again during the course of
the day.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle: Madam Speaker, I very much agree with
the concept of globalized peace. I certainly agree with people
getting together to do everything they can to bring this about.
I believe in my earlier remarks on Kosovo I said that it should
not be a we and a they thing. I personally do not see it as us
against the government or the government against us. I see it as
people working together to try to bring about some peace to a
very troubled part of the world. That is very important.
I agree 100% with the hon. member that when we are dealing with
the lives of individuals we should be looking at issues in an
non-partisan way.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
like to congratulate my colleague for his speech and support for
the motion. I would like to ask him a question regarding the
vote.
1315
Everyone agrees that what is going one in Kosovo is barbaric to
an extent rarely seen throughout the history of mankind.
We are wondering whether to send in troops to push the Serbs out
of Kosovo. I would like to ask my colleague this: would he vote
in favour of sending troops to Kosovo to force the Serbs out?
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle: Madam Speaker, there is barbaric
behaviour on all sides of this conflict. One could argue that
what is happening is barbaric with respect to the Serbian action
against the Kosovars, but it is also barbaric when poisonous
fumes are being released into the air, destroying our
environment. There is barbarism on all sides.
We are getting into the hypothetical, and I use it advisedly,
when we talk about how we would vote on the matter. I would have
to know what the details would be with respect to ground forces.
That is what we are asking of the government, to commit to
bringing these things before us so we can debate them fully and
then vote on them.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
no pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the Bloc Quebecois
motion on the war in Kosovo and the probable sending of ground
troops.
We are, of course, going to support the Bloc motion, but not the
amendment. Nevertheless, one can never say one rises with any
pleasure in this House when the subject is war, when men, women
and children are dying because of the actions of their regime,
but also because of the actions of those who want to see the end
of that regime, in other words NATO.
Yet this must be discussed, debated and indeed voted on. There
has been reference in recent weeks to the gulf war. There is
nothing perfect about war, certainly; in fact, war is imperfect.
Yet, as far as information and consultation of parliamentarians
and of the Quebec and Canadian public is concerned, it is
important.
I will take a few minutes of the short time I have available to
me to give a very brief overview of the events of 1990-91. But
first I have two comments to make.
If there is one thing that is insulting to an MP—or perhaps I
just lack experience—it is the take-note debates, as this is a way
to cast aside the legitimate work of parliamentarians by
invoking extraordinary rules, which means doing away with the
traditional rules on which this parliament is built.
Since 1993, the government has made use of extraordinary
measures, during debate, that go against the rules that make
parliament run smoothly are concerned: no quorum calls, no
votes, no amendments and so on. Since 1993, this government
has, on several occasions, used extraordinary rules for
essential debates, which makes the debates meaningless. I trust
there will be no more of this.
It is true that the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave evidence
before to committee. The last time, he stayed two hours and a
half, and I salute him for that.
That was not, however, what we had asked for. We wanted a
complete briefing for MPs, not the extension of Oral Question
Period this turned out to be. Perhaps it was a bit better than
nothing, but we did not get any information. We have been at
war for one month, and there has never been any official
briefing.
We have been promised one this week. The foreign affairs
committee is going to meet and is supposed to get a briefing, a
month after the war started. In the meantime, we have tripled
our military presence, maybe even more than that. This is what
we are being told here. This war was off to as bad a start as
far as parliamentary rules are concerned as it was from the
military point of view.
1320
I am not an expert on military issues, but this seems to be an
improvised war. The gulf war had all the negative
characteristics of a war, but members will recall that all
necessary preparations were made. Everything was there:
aircraft, ships, ground forces.
We told Saddam Hussein: “Listen, either you leave Kuwait or we
will take action”. We took action. We did not have to double or
triple our initial commitment in the process. We were prepared.
Regarding the gulf war, on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein tried
to invade Kuwait. On the same day, the UN security council
passed its first resolution.
The UN does not exist for nothing. It is there to serve the
international community. The first resolution urged Iraq to get
out of Kuwait.
On August 6, in the middle of the summer, resolution 661
regarding economic sanctions was passed. On August 10, the then
Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, made a statement. I am doing my
best to make a brief summary of the sequence of events. He said
in that statement that Canada was willing, if necessary, to
support the deployment of troops. At that time, we were mostly
talking about ships. The first ship left Halifax on August 24.
On August 25, resolution 665 said that we would use whatever
means necessary to apply economic sanctions.
On September 14, the cabinet agreed to send CF-18s if necessary.
The first debate took place on September 24.
No guns, no shots had been fired. Not a missile had been
launched. Nobody had died because of the allied forces. The
first debate was held, a 14 hour debate.
The motion condemned the invasion of Kuwait and led to Canada's
support for troops to be sent under the aegis of the United
Nations, a multinational force. In September, we debated this,
and a vote was held.
Another motion was debated on November 28 and 29. No missiles
had yet been launched. We had a second debate. What was going
on? We had a debate before anyone started shooting. We had a
second debate, with a vote, to support resolution 660. A
Liberal amendment, which we have talked about, was rejected by
the House.
Once into January, things started heating up. There were cutoff
dates for Saddam Hussein.
On January 11, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, our
current Prime Minister, as a member of the Privy Council, was
informed by the prime minister of the time. No missiles had yet
been launched.
The current Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, was
entitled to a briefing, because of his position. We have been
waiting a month for such a briefing. The first official
briefing for a leader of an opposition party was held this
morning, one month later, because he is a member of the Privy
Council. One month later. Missiles have been launched, our
military involvement has tripled, but it took a month before
there was a briefing.
In addition, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the
current Prime Minister, said on January 16, 1991, after being
informed in detail:
[English]
“War in the gulf is useless and dangerous”.
[Translation]
I am not sure that he does not regret his words today.
In January, we had our third debate, and no missiles had yet
been launched. We debated for 46 hours. On January 16,
Operation Desert Storm started.
1325
There were three debates and three votes on hypothetical
questions. Were we going to war in the Persian Gulf or not?
These were hypothetical questions. Those in the House at the
time had the opportunity to debate the questions on three
occasions. It is a parliamentary privilege to vote. But it was
on a hypothetical question. Were we going to fight or not? It
came up three times.
As I said earlier today, the government is going to have to
understand that parliamentarians and this parliament are a tool.
We need to have accurate information. We all know what is
going on in Kosovo, or at least we know what the media tell us,
because we cannot trust the government.
We know what is going on in Kosovo.
We know that major crimes are taking place. What is the exact
nature of these crimes? We have our suspicions. There is
increasing talk of mass graves. We know that there are problems
with Montenegro and Macedonia, and that problems with Hungary
are not far off. Trouble is brewing over there.
One month after the first military intervention, we have still
not had a vote. Could we at least have a real debate, a vote on
what has gone on, and if we are officially sending ground
troops, could that be debated and voted on as well?
Unfortunately, we have much to learn from wars. Nothing is ever
perfect. The last time, parliamentary committees were put to
work. I hope the government will understand that parliament is
a tool. War is madness, but parliamentarians and the public can
bring about peace.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
earlier today the member for Red Deer reminded me that the
present Prime Minister and the present foreign affairs minister
rose in the House a number of times condemning the Conservative
government for the lack of debate and the lack of a vote on the
1991 Desert Storm crisis. Today we see the opposite occurring.
According to the Liberal government we are not to have a vote. We
are not having the kind of debate we in the opposition would like
to have. The Conservatives are now attacking the Liberals for
not doing exactly what they were attacked for in 1991. The whole
process gets a little confusing.
I remember in the last parliament the debate on whether we
should send troops to Bosnia. Much to our dismay, while we were
debating whether we should send troops to Bosnia, we learned that
the troops had been sent three days before the debate began.
I certainly agree with the motion. We should have a vote on the
issue. However, would the member not agree that before we can
accomplish anything legitimately in the House of Commons that we
really need some serious changes in terms of open, honest,
transparent debates and freer votes to vote the wishes of the
people we represent and not the wishes of the party whips?
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Madam Speaker, our role today is not to
criticize and tell the government that it did not do a good job
back then, but that it is doing better now. That is not the
idea.
There is lots of time for partisanship. We wanted to respond to
the government's statement that there has been debate. That is
nonsense.
The member is perfectly right. It is time, and perhaps even a
bit too late. At some point it will perhaps become clear that
things have gone further than we think. We will perhaps find
out too late that things have already gone too far and that we
are in much deeper than we thought.
We agree that we must have accurate information and a genuine
debate in accordance with the rules of parliament, but time is
of the essence because the situation is changing very quickly.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first of all, I want to say that I agree with the criticisms the
hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska made about the briefings
given by the government.
We learned earlier this morning that instead of being briefed
tomorrow morning from 8 to 9 a.m., we would be called to a half
hour briefing tomorrow afternoon, and we do not know yet if we
will get the briefing we were promised for next Thursday.
1330
The government is not forthcoming. They obviously have something
to hide. They lack transparency and, throughout this debate, we
have to blame the government as often as possible.
Our colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska indicated that there is a
major precedent in this House that should govern us, that should
inspire those who, for several years now, have been addressing
the issue of sending troops abroad.
Our colleague said that his party will be supporting our motion,
and we appreciate it. However, he also mentioned that he will
not be voting for the amendment.
Why will he not support the amendment?
In 1991, his party ensured that debates and votes would be held
before troops are sent in. The Bloc Quebecois would like the
vote to be held before troops are sent abroad and that can be
done, as we saw in 1991.
Mr. André Bachand: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. The
fact is there was a UN mandate in the case of the war in the
Persian Gulf. The security council had agreed on certain
resolutions and on the need for military intervention, and
parliament was then consulted.
Now, if we use words like prior to the possibility of, this
means that before we go to the UN, we need to reach an agreement
here. The logistics of it all become a bit difficult.
However, I do understand my hon. colleague's concern, and after
the conflict, we will eventually have time to review the whole
matter and improve the system.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, today, we are
having another debate on the very important issue of Kosovo.
This time, we wanted to make sure our demands would be crystal
clear.
Over the last 20 days, in fact since the very beginning of the
crisis in Kosovo, we have asked many questions. And each time,
we have been given answers that were incomplete or evasive,
answers that were not answers.
Today, we are asking the government to give us an opportunity to
vote clearly. Obviously, this requires that the government give
us the relevant information, because, before we can make an
informed decision, we need to have all the available
information.
The government still has a long way to go in that regard and
this is why we ask the government, in the case of new
developments regarding the commitment of ground troops to
Kosovo, to hold a debate and a vote on this issue.
The government said no. This morning, its representative, the
secretary of state, told us that the government's refusal was
based on considerations of convenience and availability.
How can members of parliament officially express their opinions
in the House and speak on behalf of their taxpayers and
represent them well, if not by a vote?
In a democracy, the only way members of parliament can make
their positions known officially and without ambiguity is by
voting.
Of course, we can always deliver speeches, which is what I am
doing right now. That is what the government has allowed us to
do so far on the issue of Kosovo. The government said it would
consult parliament by giving members an opportunity to express
theirs views on the issue. So far, more than 130 members have
taken advantage of this opportunity.
But a speech is quite different from a vote. In a speech, we can
always qualify our statements.
1335
We can always make sure there is a way out. But when time comes
to vote, you either say yes or no. This is very clear.
I believe that the taxpayers each of us represents in our
respective ridings have the right to know where their member of
parliament stands. Does he agree or not with what is coming next
in Kosovo? Yes or no, does he support ground military action?
In a speech, the member can always say “I agree as long as” or
“I disagree because of such and such event or because such and
such condition was not met”. But this is not voting.
You cannot vote conditionally. You either vote for or against a
proposition. The taxpayers to whom we are responsible are
entitled to know how we feel on the issue.
Why are taxpayers entitled to that type of respect? First of
all, because it is the very essence of our democratic system.
Taxpayers are entitled to know what we came here to say on their
behalf. Secondly, because this Kosovo crisis is far from being
over. It is not only about the actual crisis and its bombing
raids that are not over yet. Besides, we do not know when all
this will end. There might be ground attacks or not. We do not
know. But what we do know is that it will be long.
And even when a peace agreement is reached, many weeks, months
and even years will pass before the Kosovo problem is settled.
Canadian taxpayers will therefore certainly be involved again.
They might be asked to make sacrifices to help the government
respect the commitments that will have been made during the
Kosovo war. Taxpayers are entitled to know right now what these
commitments are, how far we are prepared to go, how far we are
able to go, and what choices they will eventually have to face
because of the decisions that we are making now.
Taxpayers are entitled to know if today in Canada decisions are
made in the minister's office or the cabinet, without a vote in
the House. Cabinet is ready to commit astronomical amounts. They
were talking about $100 million just to take in 5,000 refugees.
That was simply for bringing 5,000 Kosovars here. Needless to
say that has been put on the backburner for now, but the amount
forecasted was $100 million.
If it costs $100 million to take in 5,000 Kosovars, how much
more does it cost to provide 18 CF-18s, in addition to the troops
already deployed and the humanitarian assistance already
provided to the refugees still in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia and
other adjacent countries?
We figure that several million dollars have been committed to
date. We are asking that the government tell us the truth, be
transparent and allow us to vote for or against this.
So far, we have not hassled the government too much. So far, we
have supported its positions. We have supported them because we
thought it was essential that help be sent to Kosovo, where
children, women and entire families live under the threat of
being killed, harmed or deported. These people are sick, they do
not have a home or anything to eat.
It was therefore essential that we give our support.
1340
But now that the process has been initiated, we can take the
time to ask ourselves other questions. The decisions we make are
made for humanitarian reasons, but they must be made by laying
everything out on the table, so that we can all give to the
taxpayers of this country, our fellow citizens and constituents,
information about the positions we all agreed on.
The government has no reason to prevent us from debating this
issue and voting on it. Why would it deny us this right? The
readiness argument does not hold.
Armed conflicts do not break out every six months.
And if ever there was another one, our motion is not asking the
government to settle things for all times to come. It is asking
the government to ensure that we will have an opportunity to
vote on the sending of troops for peacekeeping, or for other
purposes, in Kosovo and in the Balkan region. This is what we
want to vote on.
We are not committing ourselves for other times to come. We are
not asking the government to promise us anything for other
times. We are saying: “We have this situation. In this
particular situation, we are asking the government for the right
to fully exercise democracy, for the right to be informed and,
mostly, we are asking it to give us an opportunity to express
our opinion, to give our approval with a full knowledge of the
issue”.
That is the least the government should commit to.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the government stands against the motion on the floor
for pretty solid reasons. It breaks with Canadian parliamentary
practice. It deals with a hypothetical question which is clearly
stated in hypothetical terms. It would set an unworkable
precedent in tying the hands of the government when it comes to
the timeliness and effectiveness of future deployments of
Canadian forces whether in a combat or peacekeeping role such as
in the Balkans or anywhere in the world.
In the Canadian parliamentary system the responsibility for
deploying Canadian forces lies with the government. For example,
there was no formal parliamentary resolution in our entry into
the Korean war. Even in 1939 there was no specific resolution
declaring war on Nazi Germany. Parliamentary approval for the
government's policy was shown through support for the Speech from
the Throne and the defence estimates. There was no vote at all
in the declaration of war against imperial Japan.
Since 1950 there have been over 50 peacekeeping support
operations of varying sizes. In many of these cases parliament
was not consulted at all. In the case of roughly 20 major
missions which were debated in the House, there were only five
recorded votes and three motions were agreed to without a
recorded vote. Only three of these occurred prior to deployment:
the Congo in 1960, Cyprus in 1964 and the Middle East in 1973.
If the opposition party really disagrees with deployment it
should not hide behind procedural motions. It should have the
courage to introduce a motion of non-confidence in the
government. Our government has delivered on its—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. member. We are on questions and comments and
not on debate. I trust the hon. member is aware of that and can
ask his question.
Does the hon. member have a question of the member who spoke?
Mr. John Richardson: I question my position to speak
being given to the Bloc Quebecois.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Speaker, I will comment on my Liberal
colleague's comment.
We made comments because it was our turn to do so. We have not
taken anybody's turn. We have 20 minutes to make
comments but we agreed to share our time. My comments were of
normal duration.
1345
I will use the comment the member of the Liberal Party started
making to tell him I find it surprising that he would invoke
parliamentary practices to deny the House such a vote.
When it is time to send a delegation of 5, 6, 7, 8 or 10 members
abroad as part of a parliamentary association or other group,
the House is asked to authorize the required funding. It is
deemed important for the House to vote on this matter.
Today, we are talking about eventually sending soldiers to risk
their lives in Kosovo, and it is deemed not necessary for the
House to vote on this. We are told that a cabinet decision will
be sufficient.
If it takes the approval of the House for 10 members to travel
abroad, its approval should also be required to send hundreds or
thousands of soldiers abroad.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I followed with great interest the hon. member's
presentation.
We have to remind the hon. member, as my colleague mentioned
earlier, we have sent our peacekeepers overseas many times and we
never had a debate. Over the last five years I can remember five
or six debates and the hon. member participated in them.
Further, last week when the Minister of Foreign Affairs was
asked the same question he replied that none of the European
nations debated or discussed the issue. The U.K. is sending
thousands of soldiers to Kosovo and has never debated it. The
U.S. has sent many troops and aircraft and it has never had a
debate.
This year we have had a debate. Everybody is free to express
their opinions.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague to
check his information. A debate was indeed held in Germany, the
country that put forward the peace plan. In the U.S. too there was
a debate. The American government has been keeping its citizens
better informed on these matters than we have here.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: They are not on top of the situation.
Mr. René Laurin: It is obvious that Canada is not comfortable
with its response. As I recall, since the last world war, Canada
took part in military interventions on three occasions only—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry but the hon.
member's time has expired. The hon. member for Mercier.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I think it
is extremely important to speak to the motion today, and I will
take a few moments to read it again:
That this House demand that the government submit to a debate
and a vote in the House the sending of Canadian soldiers to the
Balkans who may be involved in military or
peacekeeping operations on the ground in Kosovo and the Balkan
region.
The Bloc Quebecois has been calling from the start for a vote in
this House on the possible deployment of Canadian troops to take
part in a peacekeeping mission, and even more so if they are to
take part in a ground war which would certainly be a dirty war.
The Bloc Quebecois has not said that it is against such a
deployment, but it wants to have all the information. It wants
this issue to be debated by the representatives of the people.
We hear a lot in the news about what is going on in Kosovo.
However, in the House we do not debate the issue with
the benefit of all the information available to the government.
We had evidence of that on several occasions.
Even though we did not hear about the conflict in Kosovo until
some time ago, it is not a recent one. Last year as
representative of the Bloc Quebecois at a meeting of the Council
of Europe—where colleagues from other parties were also
present—I attended debates on the crisis in Kosovo on two
occasions. These debates were between parliamentarians from all
European countries.
1350
Those were disturbing and harrowing debates. Over there, there
are many parties. Parliamentarians are divided in five blocs
that have existed since the foundation of the Council of Europe
in 1949. Europe has experience in this matter. The debates were
disturbing and harrowing, because everybody wanted a peaceful
outcome.
Calls for a peaceful settlement, for good will, for the
intervention of observers, for third party negotiations were
heard ad nauseam. However, what was mostly heard is that
Milosevic could not have care less and was deaf to the pleas by
the rest of Europe, which has had more than its fair share of
wars.
I will quote only a few sentences, but I heard people like Lord
Russell-Johnston, who is now the president of the Council of
Europe, speak in the name of the liberal group and express his
profound sadness and pessimism. This was on April 22, last year.
He said:
This report dealt with what was going on.
—but there should not be any preconditions to the negotiations
between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Kosovo. As long
as both parties do not move in this direction, the situation
will not change and violence will continue.
In Northern Ireland also, problems were complex and the
situation was serious, but external mediation proved to be
useful. Nothing should be excluded from the talks. The Council
of Europe does not have to choose between Albanian Kosovars and
Serbs. Its only wish is that all citizens live in peace and
tolerance.
A Liberal is not a priori in favour of an ethnic state, but when
the will of a people is so clear—
He was referring to the Kosovars.
Mr. Solé Tura, who spent many years in prison under Franco,
said:
What is happening in Kosovo is definitely not a Yugoslav
domestic problem. Nothing that affects human rights can be
reduced to a mere domestic issue.
And I could go on and on. This was a year ago.
I took part in the other debate held in September. A lot was
learned from that debate.
The Council of Europe was concerned about the hundreds of
thousands of Kosovars who had already been displaced and were
bracing themselves for a harsh winter in the woods without
enough support. Everyone was calling for pressures to be exerted
so that peace agreements could be reached. It did not happen.
Finally, there were the Rambouillet talks, where NATO threatened
air strikes, which many were already calling and wishing for.
Many argued that NATO had to get involved. What did Milosevic do
regarding Rambouillet? From what we were told, he massed 40,000
troops at the border.
We are now 26 days into the air campaign. Yesterday, we learned
that 150,000 soldiers were fighting under Milosevic.
NATO got involved without waiting for the support of the United
Nations for humanitarian reasons.
We do not know what will come of this situation, but one thing
is sure, we are far from a resolution, far from peace.
1355
If, for the sake a consistency with our first campaign, which
has been waged without a UN resolution—which is a first since the
creation of the UN—and with our initial intent, which was to
prevent the expulsion of the Kosovar people from its land, NATO
should decide that ground troops are needed, hopefully with the
involvement of the UN, we must hold a debate in the House,
because this will not be a walk in the park. Other European
countries have not yet decided to get involved. Only 19
countries are NATO members.
We do not know who would be ready to get involved. We need to
know all the facts and have all the information.
We need to know what the particulars would be. And the UN should
be involved.
It seems that some pressure is being put on Russia. We should
keep the pressure on. We know that Russia is in a very
precarious situation.
Sending ground troops into Kosovo would not be business as
usual. We certainly would not know ahead of time how long this
operation would take. And there definitely would be some danger.
Our colleagues opposite should be in complete agreement with us
on our motion that there be a debate in the House. If there is
one important issue in this parliament, in the previous one and
even in others before that, it is bound to be this one.
I have expressed my views with some feeling, but it is
impossible to look at this issue objectively and not get
emotionally involved. Soldiers are human beings, and when they
go, there is no guarantee they will return. I am not saying we
should not go, but the House should debate this issue as if it
were the most important one to be put before us.
The Speaker: We will continue with questions and comments after
Oral Question Period.
It being almost 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ARTHUR MEIGHEN
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to announce
that on June 16, 1999 the city of St. Mary's will be
commemorating the gravesite of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, 125
years after his birth.
Arthur Meighen's political career began as a member of
parliament for Portage La Prairie, Manitoba in 1908 culminating
with his becoming leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.
He went on to become Prime Minister in the years 1920-21 and
again in 1926. He is best remembered in the House as one of its
most brilliant orators.
Other major achievements include the participation and the
creation of the Canadian National Railway, prominence in ending
the Winnipeg general strike and passage of the Armistice Day Act.
He was a good Manitoban.
His legacy on Parliament Hill lives on through his grandson,
Senator Michael Meighen.
* * *
FOREST INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reform has been calling on the government to oppose the U.S.
attempts to restrict the import of specialty wood products. My
office has received over 400 letters from constituents who are
afraid of losing their jobs as Nanaimo—Alberni is one of
Canada's largest suppliers of cedar products.
My riding has already been hit hard by the mismanagement of the
fisheries and we must not suffer further by the loss of jobs in
the forest industry. If the U.S. restriction succeeds, Vancouver
Island will be the hardest hit and stands to lose thousands of
forest related jobs. If mill closures occur, many ancillary
services such as truckers, machinery operators, engineers,
accommodations, small companies and independent subcontractors
will also be affected.
Canada must fight any negative reclassification by the U.S. at
every step along the way. This government must not back down. It
must fight to protect our forest sector jobs.
* * *
1400
EARTH DAY
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is not much to celebrate on Earth Day in the Province of Ontario.
Why? It is because the Ontario government has gutted its
environment ministry, laying off over 700 employees. It has
stopped enforcing environmental laws, thus allowing Ontario to
become North America's third worst polluter.
It has failed to put into place a fair and effective car
emission control program. It has allowed pollution from plants
burning dirty coal to go up by 60%. It has cut spending on
public transit causing the current TTC strike putting more cars
on the road and generating more pollution.
In Ontario, Earth Day, rather than a celebration is a call to
action as urged by the Ontario Medical Association which points
to air pollution as the cause of 1,800 premature deaths every
year in that province.
* * *
WAYNE GRETZKY
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Wayne Gretzky's retirement leads many Canadians to
recall with fondness No. 99's glory days with the Oilers.
However, for people in Sault Ste. Marie the wonderful memories
go back even further, to the year when Gretzky dominated the
Ontario Hockey League and gave us the first glimpses of his
greatness.
Drafted third overall by the Sault Greyhounds in the 1977
Ontario Hockey League draft, 16 year old Wayne Gretzky went on to
have a phenomenal 1977-78 season. He dazzled fans with 70 goals
and 112 assists in only 64 games. Regretfully, Saultites watched
him move on the following year to the World Hockey Association.
To honour Gretzky's outstanding contribution to the Greyhounds
and to the OHL, the great one's No. 99 hangs in the rafters of
the Sault's Memorial Gardens.
Only now do we realize how lucky we as Saultites were to have
seen Gretzky's magic develop before our eyes. Sault Ste. Marie
will be eternally grateful for that one unforgettable season that
started our love affair with Canada's most famous son.
* * *
VAISAKHI
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today a special stamp honouring the 100th
anniversary of the Sikh community in Canada will be unveiled by
the Prime Minister.
The stamp is in honour of the achievements of Sikh Canadians who
have made their community such a valuable part of Canada's rich
social fabric. As successful professionals, business people and
political leaders, their contribution to Canada is an example to
all of us.
I am pleased that Canada Post has chosen to honour them in this
way in the year that also marks the 300th anniversary of the
founding of the Sikh faith. On April 13 Sikhs in Canada and
around the world celebrated Vaisakhi which commemorates the most
central event in the Sikh faith.
Today, April 19, Canadian Sikhs can celebrate again as they
receive this much deserved honour from Canada Post.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Punjabi]
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, finally the Canadian Wheat Board has agreed to an audit
of its books by the auditor general.
The Reform Party member for Portage—Lisgar has been calling for
an open audit of the Canadian Wheat Board since 1993.
Farmers have a right to know how effectively the Canadian Wheat
Board is marketing their grain. The audit will provide an
independent and public opinion on the performance of the board.
In addition to examining the primary mandate of the Canadian
Wheat Board, which is orderly marketing, the auditor general must
also determine if the board is maximizing returns for wheat and
barley farmers.
This audit must not be used simply to build a defence of state
trading enterprises like the Canadian Wheat Board for the next
round of World Trade Organization negotiations.
The Auditor General of Canada must be given the authority to
audit the board on a regular basis. The Reform Party will
continue to pressure for legislation that will allow this to
happen.
* * *
RASHPAL DHILLON
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to introduce Mr. Rashpal Dhillon to the House.
Mr. Dhillon is a resident of Richmond, British Columbia. He was
born in 1938 in the Punjab, India and came to Canada in the
1950s. He has a wife, Surinder, three children and three
grandchildren.
Mr. Dhillon has a long and distinguished history in law
enforcement, initially as the first Indo-Canadian peace officer
in Canada. He was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
stationed in the B.C. interior. He went on to become a prison
guard at Oakalla Penitentiary and then a deputy sheriff in
Vancouver.
1405
Mr. Dhillon is now the owner of several agri-food companies and
a golf centre on the lower mainland. He also serves the
community on many boards of directors, including the Farm Credit
Corporation and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. It
is for his work as a pioneer and a philanthropist that we honour
him today.
On behalf of all members, on the day the Government of Canada
officially commemorates the first 100 years of Sikhs in Canada
and 300 years of the Khalsa, I would like to recognize Mr. Paul
Dhillon as an outstanding member of the Indo-Canadian community.
* * *
NATIONAL TEXTILES WEEK
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week marks National Textiles Week in Canada, which is organized
by the Textiles Human Resources Council, to focus and acknowledge
the innovation and excellence within the Canadian textile
industry.
[Translation]
In my riding of Ahuntsic, there are two dozen textile
manufacturing firms, including Silver Textiles, Doubletex and
Montreal Fast Print, to name but a few.
Since 1988, exports have tripled, capital investments have
reached unprecedented levels and, in the past five years, the
number of jobs has increased steadily, from 53,000 in 1993 to
56,000 in 1997.
[English]
The programs established by Human Resources Development Canada
such as the Canada jobs fund and programs aimed at youth as well
as Industry Canada's initiatives focusing on science and
technology and the federal guidelines defining professional
standards are but another example of the way the government helps
the Canadian industrial sector to compete on an international
scale.
I would like to congratulate the Canadian textile manufacturers,
especially those in my riding, for their important contribution—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
* * *
[Translation]
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on the occasion of national volunteer week, I want to pay
tribute to all those who generously give some of their time for
the well-being of our society.
While we acknowledge their contribution during this week, our
volunteers do not make a contribution for a day or a week, but
throughout the year. In an august 1998 study, Statistics Canada
indicated that 16.7 million Canadians, or seven people out of
ten, are engaged in volunteer work.
These volunteers are involved in every possible area, including
health, education, co-ops, the poor, culture, sports, unions and
even politics.
This year's theme in Quebec, “Building tomorrow together”,
accurately reflects what volunteer work means, and it is also
fitting, as we are about to enter a new millennium.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I thank all the Quebec and
Canadian volunteers for their invaluable contribution.
* * *
[English]
WAYNE GRETZKY
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, like most Canadians, it is with mixed feeling that I pay
tribute to Wayne Gretzky today.
Now that he has retired from our national game, it is time to
celebrate an amazing talent, an incredible ambassador of hockey
and a great Canadian.
Wayne Gretzky rewrote the hockey record book and literally
changed the way the game is played. His Canada Cup achievements
produced some thrilling moments. His 894 regular season goals
and his 1,963 assists will never be touched.
A statue of Wayne Gretzky with the Stanley Cup hoisted proudly
above his head adorns the city of Edmonton, which I proudly
represent. It serves as a monument of Wayne's contribution to
our city, our history and our eternal bragging rights of hockey
supremacy in Alberta.
[Translation]
Wayne is retiring the same way he played: with class, humility
and appreciation. Today, Canadians across the country are proud
to see one of their own get world recognition.
Good luck Wayne, and thank you for the memories.
* * *
[English]
PERSONS CASE
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 83 years ago today the Alberta Liberal government
granted women the right to vote, joining Saskatchewan and my own
province of Manitoba, which earlier that same year had that right
of suffrage extended to women.
Much of the credit for ensuring that Canada led the world in
women's suffrage must go to Nellie McClung, who headed the
campaign. She, along with Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Irene
Parlby and Henrietta Edwards, known as the Famous Five, won legal
equality for all Canadian women in the Persons Case of 1929.
May we in this House join today's generation of Canadians in
saluting these early activists for their life-long determination
to end discrimination in whatever form it takes.
What these visionary activists secured for Canadian women, they
secured for democracy; indeed an historic legacy.
* * *
JUDY COOK
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
December last year, Manitoba lost a great person. Judy Cook died
while awaiting a heart transplant. She had dedicated her life to
social justice and to improving the lives of others.
In December a steelworker from Leaf Rapids was given a new lease
on life when a friend from Leaf Rapids donated one of her
kidneys.
1410
It is well established that the organ donation situation in
Canada is serious with our organ donor rate among the lowest in
the western world. Currently, there are more than 3,000
Canadians waiting for solid organ transplants, yet less than half
of these will get an organ they need before the year's end. Lives
are being lost and the costs related to waiting are increasing,
and federal regulations are at the heart of the problem.
The need to increase the organ donation rate in Canada is an
urgent priority. It will not happen by focusing only on public
education and improved hospital systems. It requires innovative
and proactive approaches starting with a national registry of
organ donors to increase the pool of potential donors and a clear
simple mechanism for expressing wishes.
It is important to give Canadians the opportunity to say, “Yes,
I want to donate”.
* * *
[Translation]
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at its latest convention, the Bloc Quebecois tried to redefine
what a true Quebecker is.
What a discovery it made this past
weekend: a Quebecker is a person who lives in Quebec; an Ontarian
is someone who lives in Ontario; an Italian is someone who lives
in Italy; a Spaniard is someone who lives in Spain.
So, once again the Bloc Quebecois continues with its notion of
exclusion.
Fine—vive le Canada.
* * *
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois did indeed hold a general
assembly this past weekend in Rivière-du-Loup, one which will mark
a milestone in the history of our young party.
I wish to draw attention to the open-mindedness and vision of our
leader, and to congratulate him for launching this exercise of
direction-seeking and debate on the future of Quebec. I also
congratulate the members of our four focus groups for the
extremely high quality of their work.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois will be involved in this vast
undertaking of reflection in the months to come.
I also invite all Quebeckers, and all Canadians as well who may
wish to look into the matter of partnership, to peruse the
documents we released this past weekend, for I am sure they will
find in them valuable potential solutions for the political
problems being faced by Quebec and Canada.
One thing is becoming increasingly clear in Quebec: the
sovereignists are discussing fundamental issues that affect our
future: partnership, globalization, citizenship, democratic
practices—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
[English]
WAYNE GRETZKY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Wayne Gretzky retired from the National
Hockey League marking the end of an amazing era. While
redefining the game using his skills to reach new heights, he
brought teammates, fans and a nation closer together.
True to his roots, he represented his country in international
play and made Canadians proud each time he donned the Maple Leaf.
The Great One improved Canada's hockey image and shaped the
game's style.
As an ambassador for hockey and for Canada, his class leadership
defined a remarkable career.
There is an element of humility to Wayne Gretzky's stardom which
sets him apart. His love for the game and commitment to
excellence made him a true role model, a responsibility he never
shunned. To the end, Gretzky downplayed his endless personal
accomplishments and records.
Our hockey cards, the No. 99 and tucked in sweaters provide
wonderful warm memories. Our parents had heroes like Joe
DiMaggio. We had Wayne Gretzky.
In his last NHL game, the scoresheet will show one final assist,
fitting, for he always emphasized team first.
In a complicated world he allowed us to escape for many precious
moments.
The hall of fame and new challenges await you. We wish you and
your family a lifetime of happiness. Thank you, Wayne Gretzky,
for all you have given our country and our game.
* * *
[Translation]
VOLUNTEERS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to report that the Prix Hommage bénévolat-Québec was
awarded to the Société de l'autisme et des troubles envahissants
du dévéloppement, T.E.D., de Laval as part of the National
Volunteer Week.
The Société de l'autisme et des T.E.D. de Laval is a non profit
organization for families of people with autism or severe
developmental problems.
Thanks to the unstinting work of its volunteers, the Société
provides a camp, “Le Chat botté”, known for its programs of
early, intensive and systematic intervention.
“Le Chat botté” helps people with pervasive development problems
improve their living conditions, often very dramatically. The
devotion of the Société de l'autisme et des T.E.D. de Laval
speaks of the best in every Canadian.
Congratulations and a vote of thanks to the volunteers.
* * *
1415
[English]
WAYNE GRETZKY
The Speaker: Before beginning our question period
today, I wonder if I might, in the name of hon. members and in
the name of parliament, send our respects, our congratulations
and our thanks to one of our outstanding citizens. I refer of
course to Mr. Gretzky.
[Editor's Note: All hon. members rose and applauded]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
NATO Secretary General Javier Solana admitted that NATO was no
longer ruling out the possibility of ground troops in a NATO
offensive in Kosovo.
He said that if the moment came when it was necessary to invade
Yugoslavia “I m sure the countries that belong to NATO will be
ready to do it”.
NATO says we should be ready for the ground offensive. Will the
Prime Minister finally get approval from the House and consent to
a vote to clarify Canada's involvement in any such offensive?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no request by NATO to send ground troops to
Kosovo at this time. I said that if we were requested to make a
move like that, there would be a debate on it in the House of
Commons.
It is a hypothetical question at this time because we are not
faced with such a request.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with the
secretary general asking for our involvement, will the Prime
Minister agree to a vote? That is what we are here for.
We stand against the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. We stand with
our forces that are already involved in the NATO campaign. Why
will the Prime Minister not let us stand in the House and vote to
establish the conditions for our future involvement? Does he
really believe he has the right to ready this country for war
without letting Canadians have their say?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, never has a government involved parliament in debate on
foreign affairs and presence abroad as this government has done
over the past four or five years. There have been more than two
debates a year. The opposition agreed on a formula that it was
to have more debates on a take note basis.
I said that if we were to be called upon or requested to send
some ground troops there, there would be a debate. At that time,
depending on the nature of the request, I will advise if we
should or should not have a vote. We have—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about a vote and the Prime Minister should know that.
Over the weekend Canada added six more CF-18s to our NATO
campaign, bringing our total commitment to 18 fighter bombers.
The planes we have committed have taken over half of our combat
ready pilots.
How big does the involvement have to become before the Prime
Minister will think it is necessary that we have a vote on
whether we should be involved further in Kosovo?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was in Aviano on Saturday. I was also
in Brussels the day before and met with a number of NATO
officials.
I must inform the House that General Short, the NATO air
campaign commander, was praising our Canadian involvement. He
said that they were top professional people who were doing an
outstanding job and that they believed in the just cause NATO was
involved in.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): It sure would be
nice if they would answer the questions, would it not, Mr.
Speaker?
Nortel is one of the biggest companies in Canada and one of the
best companies in Canada, in fact in the world. It employs
21,000 people in this country alone in some of the best jobs. Now
it is hinting strongly that it might have to leave because of the
high tax policies of the government.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. How many businesses,
how many reports and how many of the Prime Minister's own family
members will it take before the Prime Minister gets the simple
message that he must cut taxes now?
1420
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I took the time this morning to talk to the president of
Nortel who in fact informed me, as it should be evident to the
hon. member, that it is because of Nortel's allegiance to Canada,
not a lack of allegiance as the newspaper reports seem to
indicate, that Nortel has the very strong presence it has in
Canada.
The hon. member rightly cites the number of employees from
Nortel that are here in face of the fact that about 7% of its
sales are in Canada, together with a very important new
investment that Nortel is making in the Kanata region for
increased research and development. It is a demonstration of the
continuing allegiance that Nortel shows to the country.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is a ridiculous answer. Nortel just finished saying that it
does not owe allegiance to Canada and that it is considering
leaving the country. Nortel has 56,000 people who work outside
Canada.
My question is for the minister who seems to think that high
taxes are good for business in Canada. Why is he not getting the
message? Why is he continuing to make lame excuses for his
government? Why are they not getting down to business and
cutting taxes to attract investment to Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unlike what Johnny one note seems to sing, the fact is—
The Speaker: Order, please. I prefer that we refer to
one another as hon. members.
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to
always sing the same note no matter what the score seems to
indicate. He is intent on constantly portraying the country in
the worse possible light.
My point is simple. Northern Telecom, one of our foremost
companies, continues to invest strongly in the country,
demonstrating its confidence that Canada is on the right track.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few
days ago, the Pentagon called for the mobilization of 33,000
reservists. In recent days, NATO's secretary general has also
taken a tougher stand on the crisis in Kosovo, as have the U.S.
secretary of state and President Clinton in their statements.
Not long ago, the Prime Minister told us that it was impossible
to predict how long this conflict would last. Does he not think
today that these developments point to a conflict that could go
on a long time, and perhaps a very long time?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously, the conflict could go on for a very long time. But
there are people trying to come up with a solution.>
This morning, I spoke at very great length with Victor
Chernomyrdin, the special envoy to the Russian president, about
this issue. I was very pleased to note that the Russians are
looking for a way to end the conflict so that the Kosovars can
return to Kosovo, and so that we can stop the bombing.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
recent days, the Serbian population in Bosnia has questioned the
Dayton accords, and there have been demonstrations by Serbians
in Macedonia, raising concerns about the stability of that
country. At the very beginning of the conflict, the Bloc
Quebecois pointed out the risk of escalation.
Does the Prime Minister not think today that escalation of this
conflict is imminent and likely and that preparations must be
made accordingly?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
clearly, there is always a danger that a conflict such as this
could escalate. It would be unfortunate.
What is clear to the government and to the House of Commons is
that, like the party in power, all opposition parties support
Canada's participation in the current NATO bombing in Serbia
because something must be done to help the Kosovars return to
their homeland and to put an stop to the murders and other
similar crimes now taking place.
1425
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday NATO's secretary general, Javier Solana, and the U.S.
secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, both stated that they
were no longer ruling out sending ground troops to Kosovo.
According to some reports, these troops could be deployed in six
to eight weeks and have a strength of 280,000.
Does the Prime Minister support the comments made by the NATO
secretary general and by Mrs. Albright, and can he confirm the
reports on the time necessary to send ground troops to Kosovo
and on their possible strength?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at this point no decision has been made by NATO on
issues relating to armed forces. However, on Friday the heads
of government of all NATO countries will have an opportunity to
discuss these serious issues. At this point in time, no
decision has been made.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
shows once again that the government is providing information
bit by bit.
Friday, something will happen and we will get information. This
is something about which we were never told until now.
If NATO asks Canada to contribute to the sending of ground
troops to Kosovo, will the Prime Minister pledge at last to
seek the approval of parliament before sending such troops to
the Balkans?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is surprised. Everyone, except the member, knows
that a meeting of NATO heads of government will take place on
Friday, in Washington. The hon. member should know that we are
going to attend that meeting. He should also know that we
are going to discuss the situation in Kosovo. We are not going
there to talk about the weather.
He should not be surprised that we will discuss these issues on
Friday. The hon. member should do his homework before rising in
the House.
* * *
[English]
NUCLEAR WASTE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The Americans and the Russians have a nuclear waste problem.
Against every environmental principle, against the unanimous
recommendation of a parliamentary committee, Canada now proposes
to make the problem worse by transporting highly dangerous
plutonium thousands and thousands of kilometres through Canadian
communities.
Why are we risking Canada's environment? Why is Canada not
telling the Americans and the Russians to clean up their own
mess?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in all my years in parliament, I think that is just
about the most foolish question I have ever heard, frankly.
Trying to terrify Canadians based upon supposition and hypothesis
is a very dangerous tactic.
My colleague the Minister of National Defence and I will be
tabling this afternoon a response to the committee's
recommendation. We have said so far there is no decision to make
any transportation. Any decision will be made on the basis of
all environmental safety standards.
Frankly, for a party that has committed itself over the years to
nuclear disarmament, that was a shameful question.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
suppose we will now hear the same kind of unlikely excuses about
PCBs. Canada is preparing to import PCBs from U.S. military
bases in Japan, PCBs that the Americans have rejected as too
dangerous.
How does this work? Clinton pulls the chain and buddy responds.
Why is Canada becoming the dumping ground of choice for the
world's waste?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe I can respond to the question
about PCBs.
My department has had no request to authorize such a shipment
into this country. If we were to get such a request we would
review it and any action we would take would be absolutely
according to the policy of the government.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
will the Minister of National Defence confirm that Canadian
forces personnel are now engaged in ground operations in Kosovo
and or Yugoslavia?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is
referring to as ground operations.
1430
We have personnel in Macedonia and Albania who are largely
assisting with refugees and things of that order. We do not have
troops. We indicated previously that under a peacekeeping force,
which would come with a post-peace agreement, we would send 600
to 800 troops. Obviously those troops are not there at this
point in time. What people we do have in the area are helping to
assist in the overall effort with respect to the refugees.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
was not talking about the surrounding areas.
I ask the minister, are members of joint task force two now
involved in ground operations in Kosovo and Yugoslavia?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the operations that we have in Albania,
in Macedonia or anywhere in the area have been previously well
discussed and announced in the House. We made it quite clear
that we would not be sending peacekeeping troops under a
condition of conflict, or anything other than what we have agreed
to already, without further discussion.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the industry minister talks about being
on track. The track that Canada's brightest and best are on is
straight to the U.S., which has a tax system that welcomes them
with open arms, while Canada's tax system drives them out of this
country. Now Nortel has joined other captains of industry in
telling the government to clean up its tax act or they are out of
here.
I ask the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, before the
entire high tech industry logs off, shuts downs and exits this
government's odious tax program, will they bring in some tax
relief?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that he take a few minutes
after question period today and drive west with his two-bit
tavern taunter over there to Nepean to look at the skyline around
the Nortel campus, count the cranes, and he will get an idea just
how quickly Nortel is leaving Canada.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Y2K bug has come
early to the Minister of Industry.
The Liberal government's high tax regime is a threat to our
current high tech industry, while the tax system in the U.S. is
welcoming our brightest and best with open arms.
I ask the Prime Minister once again, before the whole industry
logs off, shuts down and exits this tax program, will he bring in
tax relief to keep our high tech industry in Canada, providing
jobs for our brightest?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, year after year we see the Reform Party refuse to
support the kinds of measures we are taking. I think we have
seen the Y2K bug in action over there.
Again and again we invest in innovation. We invest in research
and development. We support university granting councils. We
support R and D tax credits. We hear nothing from the Reform
Party except more and more criticism.
As we grow our high tech sector we see the success not just of
companies like Nortel, but of the myriad of others which have
started in this region and others.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the
Kosovo Albanians are being kept within the country because the
Serbs have mined the roads leading to Albania, 43 mass graves
have apparently been discovered, additional proof that the
ethnic cleansing is turning into genocide.
Since the Serbs have mined the exit routes from Kosovo to
Albania, in order to force the Albanians to remain in Kosovo,
does Canada not fear that the objective of this operation is to
purely and simply eliminate this trapped population?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the fact that the
Serbian regime is now engaged in massive land mine plantation in
and around those borders only compounds the series of criminal
acts that have gone on over the last couple of years.
1435
I believe that one of the most important tasks we will face when
we come to an agreement is to ensure that we provide real
leadership in de-mining to save the lives of the innocent victims
and civilians in that area. I am sure that the House, which so
broadly supported the land mines treaty, will also support the
Canadian government in that kind of initiative.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is it not the
duty of NATO countries to prevent genocide rather than to
discover after the fact that there has been genocide. In this
connection, what do they intend to do to follow up on the
serious indications that there has been genocide in Kosovo?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the last week the Government of Canada, as a
member of NATO, has been party to an agreement with the
international tribunal in The Hague which is looking into war
crime issues.
It has already sent letters to the leaders of the Yugoslav
regime and now we are actively engaged in the investigation and
transfer of information so that the war crimes tribunal can build
a case against those who are committing war crimes in that area.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's problem is taxes. Let us take a
look at the government's priorities: billions lost on business
subsidies, distorting markets; millions wasted on millennium
schemes and parties; and hundreds of thousands thrown away on a
rundown hotel in Shawinigan.
Are Canadians not getting real tax relief because the government
just cannot spend enough? Is that its one-note song?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This
government started cutting taxes a couple of budgets ago and it
will continue to cut taxes. There have been cuts of some $16.5
billion over three years and there has been a reduction in
employment insurance premiums as well.
If the hon. member wants to talk about what the government is
doing, then let us talk about economic policy. Let us talk about
balanced budgets, which we have not seen in the country in 50
years. Let us talk about reduction in spending to 12% of GDP,
the lowest in 50 years.
This government is on the track of ensuring that the country
continues to prosper and we will stay on that track.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, hurting companies know that is a lot of
rhetoric. The government just does not get it. The minister
thinks that companies can sit around and wait for the
government to cut taxes.
The need is pretty clear. Why will he not act? Can the
minister not see that tax relief delayed is tax relief denied?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about
delay. Let us talk about what we have done.
We have raised the basic exemption by $675 for all taxpayers,
removing 600,000 Canadians from the tax rolls. We have
eliminated the 3% general surtax introduced by the previous
government for all taxpayers. The last two budgets have provided
$16.5 billion in tax reduction. That is not all we have done.
We have invested $11.5 billion in health care.
The hon. member talks about investment. Let us talk about the
increase in health research budgets.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned on the
weekend that Canada would increase its military effort by
sending another six F-18s to Kosovo.
Without again raising the issue of the need for our
participation, could the Minister of National Defence tell us
what our involvement in this conflict has cost to date and what
sort of budget the government has set itself for its current
operations in Kosovo?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are in the throes of putting together
some figures that we hope to have later this week so that all
hon. members will have an indication of the numbers involved.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will have 18
planes taking part in the air strikes in Yugoslavia.
Can the minister tell us whether this is the maximum number of
planes Canada can make available to NATO and, if not, how many
more operational planes does Canada have to respond to future
such requests?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not tell the hon. member at this
point. We have not been asked for any additional aircraft over
and above the six, which, with the additional aircraft from our
allies, will now provide for around-the-clock air campaign
action.
Whether any further aircraft will be required beyond that, it is
much too early to say. I talked with General Clark about it and
he does not know at this point in time. If such a need arises,
then we will consider the request.
* * *
1440
NUCLEAR WASTE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in spite
of what the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to say earlier, it
has been reported that the cabinet has approved the test burning
of plutonium from U.S. warheads in Canada's reactors.
If this is true, the decision directly contravenes an all-party
committee that specifically ruled out such a test burn.
What part of no does the minister not understand?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the committee made recommendations,
not decisions. It is up to the government to make a response to
those recommendations and it will be tabling a response.
I go back to what I said in the House many times before. First,
the test uses a minute portion of the fuel to determine its
validity, its safety and its application of environmental
standards. It comes down to a very central question because the
committee also strongly recommended that Canada make a
contribution to get rid of nuclear weapons, to de-nuclearize the
world. We think it is up to Canada to make a contribution.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fact remains that they will be burning this stuff in Canada. The
committee has listened to expert witnesses and concerned
Canadians. It unanimously rejected the test burn idea, but the
government is going ahead with it.
This is the start of a small test of a large problem. Will
Canada become the nuclear waste dump of the world?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman may be confusing two things. With
respect to the testing of a minute amount of MOX fuel, that is
already covered under the existing licence of the Chalk River
facilities. If there should be any consideration in the future
to a full MOX program in Canada it would require not only those
successful tests, but also the complete environmental review of
the proposal in compliance with all federal and provincial laws
to ensure that all environmental health and safety factors in the
country are taken into account.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the President of
Bell Canada, Mr. Monty, already has his hands full with the
operators he wants to lay off. His shareholders will certainly
not appreciate his spending all his time negotiating for the
federal government on the millennium scholarships.
Given that the matter is totally stalled and that students could
be penalized in this new federal flag war, could the Minister of
Human Resources Development shake off the cobwebs and meet in
Quebec City with Minister Legault, who has been waiting for him
for weeks to come and resolve this?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I regret the situation in which
Quebec City appears to want to refuse to commit to the Gautrin
resolution.
This resolution, unanimously approved by the National Assembly,
had identified certain criteria to permit agreement between the
millennium scholarship fund and the Government of Quebec.
I can assure you that the legislation this parliament passed
would readily enable the foundation to meet the objectives of
the Gautrin resolution, which the Parti Quebecois itself adopted
at the National Assembly.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Bombings and violence in the region of Yugoslavia have already
created many thousands of refugees. Can the minister assure the
House that refugee applicants will be treated equally, regardless
of their ethnicity?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada offers protection
based on persecution, not on ethnicity.
Right now we accept the cases referred to us by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and I must say that the
priority is for Kosovo refugees of Albanian origin. However, on
the other hand, at our office in Vienna we process on a priority
basis sponsored Yugoslav family class applicants.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, RCMP officers are being turned into bureaucrats.
Instead of responding to calls and investigating crimes, the
minister and RCMP brass think that in order to cut expenses an
officer's time is better spent logging mileage and pushing paper.
1445
On Friday in response to my concerns about inadequate funding
for the RCMP, the solicitor general referred to an ongoing
resource review. The RCMP do not need another study, they need
adequate funding.
Is the solicitor general proud of the fact that under his
government the RCMP's proud tradition has been reduced to that of
the Kmart of policing?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I told my hon. colleague that the budget
for the RCMP is $1.2 billion. The increase in the last budget
was $37 million. There is a resource review in place. Is my
hon. colleague telling me that he is not concerned at all how
federal dollars are spent in this country?
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, of course we are concerned. But perhaps the hundreds of
millions of dollars that the government is spending on gun
registration could be better spent fighting crime. B.C. RCMP are
understaffed to the point of 400 positions, underfunded by
millions of dollars, and the Liberals need a task force to decide
why the west feels alienated.
I would like to inform the solicitor general from P.E.I. that
two issues paramount on the minds of British Columbians are
organized crime and drugs. Yet according to the RCMP themselves,
the crimes that are put on the shelf due to inadequate funding
are, surprise, organized crime and drugs.
Will the solicitor general today commit to adequate funding to
fight organized crime and drugs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to answer the question. I want to strongly
object to the member describing a member of the cabinet as a
minister from one province. Ministers of the government
represent all Canadians from all provinces.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
which does not presuppose a seeming inevitability to the
deploying of ground troops but which rather focuses on the need
for a diplomatic solution and for people getting back to the
table.
In that respect, I am sure the minister is aware that President
Clinton has reiterated that President Milosevic has to meet
NATO's five points. Given the minister's support for the German
plan which has a different threshold for getting back to the
table, is the government prepared to politely disagree with
President Clinton with respect to the threshold for getting back
to the table and say that NATO's five points are themselves
negotiable, with the exception of course, of—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would look at the declarations by
the UN secretary general, by NATO ministers at the last meeting,
by the president and by the German plan, they all contain the
basic essentials. There has to be a withdrawal of Serbian
government troops. There has to be a stop of the exploitation
and violence against the refugees. There has to be a peace
agreement. There has to be real protection of the integrity and
human rights within that area. It is on that basis the
negotiations are going ahead.
I would like to mention that as part of that process the Prime
Minister spoke this morning to former Prime Minister Chernomyrdin
of Russia. It is all part of the dialogue that is going on to
see how we can begin to engage the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the minister has talked about the essentials. I want to ask the
minister if one of the essentials continues to be the use of a
NATO force post-settlement. That was obviously one of the
stumbling blocks at Rambouillet. It is in the five point plan.
Is the Canadian government prepared to say when it talks about
essentials, that element of the five point plan is no longer part
of the essentials. That would considerably change the threshold
for getting back to the table and we think increase the
possibility of a diplomatic solution which I think—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member back to the debate we had in
the House last week. The Prime Minister did indicate that we
could have a broad international force applying the verification
and monitoring inside Kosovo. That is the basis on which the
discussions are now proceeding, to determine what would be the
composition but most importantly to get Milosevic to agree to
something so we can start serious negotiations.
1450
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, will
the Minister of National Defence confirm that Canadian forces
personnel are already engaged in operations in Kosovo and in
Yugoslavia, more specifically as part of joint task force 2, yes
or no?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all I can confirm is a list that has been
provided for all members of parliament. It indicates the various
forces personnel that have been involved, such as the
verification mission, those involved in the air campaign out of
Aviano, those who were involved in the extraction force in
Macedonia, the NATO airborne and our early warning force out of
Germany. Of course we are preparing under a peace agreement to
send peacekeeping troops in connection with the effort. There are
quite a number of personnel but it is in those capacities.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister did not answer my question.
I am asking the minister whether or not it is true that Canada,
like other countries, but specifically Canada, has armed forces
on a mission inside Kosovo and Yugoslavia? It would therefore
appear that we already have ground troops there. True or false?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no. We do not have ground troops in the
area. We have only people there on the basis I enunciated a few
moments ago.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Today in Ottawa agri-food leaders are delivering their vision
regarding the crucial next round of WTO negotiations. Can the
parliamentary secretary assure Canadians the government will
fight to protect our farmers and ensure the views of this
industry will be part of the negotiations?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1996 at the
fed-prov meeting it was agreed there would be a conference prior
to the negotiations beginning this fall for the next round of the
WTO.
As the member knows, the House standing committee has held
hearings across the country. People have come from across the
country for take note hearings at the committee. The minister
has held bilaterals for the past number of months with
associations and national committees. Today a group 500 strong
of processors and farmers is meeting in the congress centre to
ascertain what Canada's position will be going into the
negotiations. This is not a final position but it is one that
will evolve over time. These producers and farmers will be in the
loop.
* * *
MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
trade minister is out looking for a new job. Word has it he is
out getting endorsements for one of those prize patronage plums
in the other place. In the good Liberal tradition, he is not
looking to get elected, he is looking to get anointed. Are
things getting so bad over there that cabinet ministers are
looking for any way out?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought question period was to be a
serious form of engagement. Perhaps the member might have a
serious question.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN PRODUCTIVITY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today there is
a front page story in the National Post about a troubling PMO
report establishing a direct link between Canada's flagging
productivity and worsening social inequality.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. Does the minister
dispute the conclusions of this report, and if not, what does he
intend to do to break the spiral of flagging productivity that
leads to poverty?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): It is clear, Mr.
Speaker, that the issue of productivity is an important one. It
is vital to the Canadian economy.
We have already invested large amounts in the research and
development sector, in innovation, in education, and in the
millennium fund, which will help Canada prepare for the 21st
century.
This is how we can prepare for the changes which are already
beginning.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Liberal
members are finally realizing that the employment insurance
program is not generous enough.
1455
The Liberal caucus just set up a committee to look at the
problems caused by the employment insurance reform. This a noble
but partisan effort.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development agree that it
would be more productive to have this review conducted by the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, since members
from all parties would then be able to express their views and
make this issue a top priority?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 108(2) is very
clear. The committee makes its own decisions and reviews the
issues that it chooses.
When we undertook the employment insurance reform, we were very
sensitive to its impact on communities and people across the
country. I am extremely grateful to my Liberal caucus colleagues
for wanting to help me understand the employment insurance
reality through their own reality. I can assure members that I will
listen to them very carefully, so as to help our fellow
Canadians.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
will the Minister of National Defence confirm that Canadian
forces are on the ground in Kosovo doing targeting and KLA
support work?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no.
The Speaker: In case Hansard did not get that, the
answer I think was no. Is that correct? I did not hear the
answer of the hon. Minister of National Defence. Could he repeat
what he said?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, no they are not.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we asked the
government several times why it is agreeing to ratify a Nisga'a
treaty that will effectively give the Nisga'a the right to ban
trade unions in the Nisga'a territory.
I ask the minister again, why is she prepared to diminish the
rights of Nisga'a people by accepting a treaty that will allow
the Nisga'a central government to ban trade unions in their
territory?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take
the time to read the Nisga'a treaty. He will find that what he
is purporting is absolutely not true at all.
* * *
VOLUNTEER SECTOR
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
This week is National Volunteer Week. The volunteer sector in
this country is an indispensable part of Canadian life. It
deserves the gratitude of all Canadians, but it also deserves
recognition from the government for the important role it plays.
What specifically is the Government of Canada doing to encourage
and support this most valuable element of Canadian society?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for his very interesting question.
I could not agree more that the voluntary sector deserves much
gratitude from Canadians and from the government. We want to
enable them to play an even greater role in Canadian life.
The Minister of Health, the Minister of National Revenue and I
are working together with voluntary sector representatives to
develop ways to support and strengthen their capacity to continue
their good work. On another front, this Wednesday I will also be
launching a voluntary opportunities exchange, a national Internet
application that matches volunteers with voluntary organizations.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
member of parliament stated in the House that Canadian troops
were currently positioned inside Kosovo's border.
I am asking the Prime Minister to tell this House whether or
not, and regardless of the role to be played by these soldiers,
there are, as we are speaking, Canadian troops on the ground,
inside Kosovo's border.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is quite simple: it is no.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
asked the foreign affairs minister the other day about a uniting
for peace resolution. He indicated that this resolution would
not be appropriate unless there was an agreement by Milosevic. He
talks about getting the agreement first. Perhaps the reason
Milosevic is refusing to agree is because of the venue by which
the agreement is being sought. That is NATO, the party that is
bombing him.
Would the minister not agree that it would be worth trying
another venue and seeking a uniting for peace resolution through
the general assembly of the United Nations?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I just told the hon. member's colleague, the
secretary general has taken a series of initiatives this morning,
establishing a special representative, undertaking a series of
negotiations that is designed to get a security council agreement
to a peace plan, a peace agreement. This would include the
mandate of article 7 which carries with it a series of
requirements of all countries in the world to live up to those
obligations.
1500
As I said to the hon. member, while these important negotiations
are continuing and while the uniting for peace resolution is an
option, the way we should explore right now is to see how we can
support the secretary general's efforts.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
why will the government not inform Canadians and parliament of
the real involvement of our Canadian forces in Kosovo?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do inform Canadians. We do inform
parliament.
I went through a list previously that indicates exactly what our
people are doing in the area and connected with Kosovo.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of the hon. Robert Hill,
Minister for Environment and Heritage of Australia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I am pleased to
table, in both official languages, the government response to the
seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade entitled “Canada and Nuclear Challenge:
Reducing the Political Value of Nuclear Weapons for the
Twenty-First Century”.
Members of this committee, directed by the chair, Mr. Bill
Graham, heard from hundreds of Canadians on the issue, experts
and concerned citizens alike, to assemble a very thoughtful
report. I commend them and thank them.
In addition to the government's response to the report, pursuant
to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased table, in both official
languages, the government's policy statement on Canada's nuclear
policies entitled “Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation:
Advancing Canadian Objectives”.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. Minister of
Foreign Affairs meant the hon. member for Toronto
Centre—Rosedale when he referred to the hon. member by name and
I am sure he would not want to do that again. I know he is as
familiar as we all are with the hon. member for Toronto
Centre—Rosedale.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
[English]
Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 22,
1998, your committee has considered Bill C-251, an act to amend
the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
on cumulative sentences, and agreed on Wednesday, March 24, 1999,
to delete the clauses and the title of the bill.
1505
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 69th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 69th report later this day.
* * *
WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-494, an act to amend the Witness
Protection Program Act and to make a related and consequential
amendment to another act (protection of spouses whose life is in
danger).
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I thank my hon. colleague for
Langley—Abbotsford for seconding my bill today.
I rise to introduce my private member's bill that I call the new
identities act. If passed, the bill will serve to formally
protect those persons whose lives are in danger because of acts
committed by their spouses, former spouses, common law spouses or
former common law spouses, by bringing them into the witness
protection system.
Currently there is an ad hoc program within the departments of
Human Resources Development Canada and Revenue Canada to help
these people create new identities in order to protect them and
their children from potential harm and even death.
Unfortunately the program is without legislated mandate or
adequate funding. We as parliamentarians have the obligation of
doing everything we can to help these people. I hope members on
all sides of the House will give the bill the non-partisan
support it deserves.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the
House gives its consent, I move:
That the 69th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
WAYNE GRETZKY
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this weekend Canadians lived a historic day. Based on
that historic day it is my pleasure to introduce a motion for
which I hope I have unanimous consent:
That the House request Canada Post to issue a commemorative stamp
in honour of Wayne Gretzky in recognition of his unique
contribution to Canadian sport in general and hockey in
particular.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Brampton
Centre have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I spoke to all the House leaders and they all agreed.
Maybe, if you ask the question again, they could clarify their
positions.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is reluctant to continue
putting the question. I am sure the Chair heard a no. I do not
think it is a matter for House leaders to make a blanket decision
on a matter of this kind. It requires the consent of all hon.
members, not just House leaders, and I do not believe there was
consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I believe consent was
unanimous.
1510
The no you heard had nothing to do with the question you had
asked.
The Deputy Speaker: I will then put the question again to the
House.
The House heard the terms of the motion moved by the hon. member
for Brampton Centre. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many constituents requesting that the House
ask the government to amend the Divorce Act to include a
provision as supported in Bill C-340 regarding the right of the
grandparents of spouses to have access to or custody of children
without having to go to court.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of signatories from all across
British Columbia, I would like to present a petition which
requests and prays that parliament will take all measures
necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains
a serious criminal offence, and that federal police forces be
directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the
protection of children.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present three petitions
from constituents of the great riding of Prince George—Bulkley
Valley.
The first one contains several hundred names of people who are
very concerned about the growing trade in child pornography. They
are very concerned about the lack of government action on curbing
child pornography.
These petitioners plead for the federal government to do
whatever is in its power to uphold the current provisions of the
Criminal Code against the possession of child pornography.
ABORTION
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my second petition is also from citizens
of Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
They are very concerned about the practice of abortion in the
country and the taking of over 105,000 innocent human lives every
year. Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to enact
legislation against causing the death of an unborn human by
abortion at any stage along the continuum of prenatal life.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my third petition is from constituents of
Prince George—Bulkley Valley as well.
They are concerned about the misunderstanding of the act of
marriage which is clearly defined by government acts. They pray
that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage
Act and the Interpretation Act, so as to define in statute that a
marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a
single female.
SUMAS COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL CENTRE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in a period of only 10 months four sexual assaults took place in
the Abbotsford area and all four were committed by residents of
the Sumas Community Correctional Centre. The last sexual assault
was committed by a dangerous repeat offender with 63 prior
convictions.
The petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation to
ensure that Sumas Community Correctional Centre officials have
the right to refuse violent, repeat and dangerous offenders who
could pose a danger to society and that habitual offenders and
sexual perpetrators not be allowed to reside at the Sumas
Community Correctional Centre any longer.
This petition raises the total to over 30,000 people, without a
response from the government.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: question No 221.
.[Text]
Question No. 221—Mr. Rick Borotsik:
What is the total number of agriculture and agri-food businesses
in Canada that have declared bankruptcy since the start of the
1996-97 crop year as a direct or indirect result of the falling
commodity prices during the farm income crisis, listing the names
of those businesses?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food,
Lib.): Bankruptcies are caused by a combination of factors that
can include declining prices, production problems, marketing
problems, and high debt
levels. Loss of off farm employment can also be a contributing
factor for some farms. Attibuting a bankruptcy to one factor
would not be accurate. Further, most agri-food businesses such
as restaurants and grocery stores would not be dramatically
affected by swings in the price of farm commodities and it would
be inappropriate to include them with farm bankruptcies. The
total number of farm bankruptcies from the beginning of the
1996-97 crop year to the end of 1998 was 596. From January 1,
1996 to the end of 1998, there were 762 farm bankruptcies. This
represents the lowest three year average of farm bankruptcies for
the last two decades. In the 1980s the three year average ranged from
1,013 to 1,547 and has been declining since 1992 when it reached
1,231.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not have a listing of the
names of agri-food businesses and farms which have had to declare
bankruptcy. Additional information on bankruptcies may be
available from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy at
phone number 613-941-1000.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the other questions
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1515
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—THE BALKANS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the hon. member's speech. I am a bit
concerned about the phrasing of the motion, which is vague to say
the least and creates a bit of a precedent. It is an area of
precedent that the hon. member needs to think about very
carefully.
We entered into World War II without the resolution of this
parliament. We also declared war against Imperial Japan without
the resolution of this parliament and we entered into the Korean
conflict without the resolution of this parliament. The motion
appears to imply that before we enter into war in this instance
the government must get a resolution from this parliament.
Given that this motion is imprecise at best and is really on
whether we should have a vote, and given that it talks about
possibilities and a variety of things which could be interpreted
in a variety of ways, I wonder whether the hon. member is
concerned, given the precedential nature of this matter and the
foundational aspect that it has to our democracy, namely the
right of parliament to direct government. Is she at all
concerned that this motion is not nearly as precise as many
members would like it to be before voting on such a foundational
issue of our democratic process?
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the
hon. member. I am sure that, in giving the example of the
resolution by which our country got involved in the second world
war, he was not suggesting that it would have been better for
Canada to agree to go to war without having a resolution from
parliament. I will not remind the House of the painful memories
Quebecers have of that.
I do not understand why the government is saying our motion is
vague. What we see right now in the news is the possibility of
sending ground troops. If this is not necessary, that is good.
But a solution is not in sight right now, despite the weaker and
weaker reminders that air strikes would be sufficient.
We do not see how NATO could succeed, how the countries that
decided to take on this humanitarian cause could succeed without
sending ground troops.
I repeat what I said before. If troops were sent, it would
not be for a parade. This parliament has to vote on it, has to
decide, with all the information available, if it should
maintain troops within a framework that would be uncertain and
that could also deteriorate. This is true not only for members
on this side, but also for members on the other side, because we
will live with this decision for a long time. A vote must
absolutely be taken in this House.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have an excerpt from a letter sent to me by a constituent. There
is a poem in it which talks about the day the war started. I
thought the poem very eloquently summarized the need for a vote in
this House. It states:
The day the war started
the first green shoots of spring
pushed through the thick carpets of leaves
into mid-afternoon sun.
The day the war started
a Norfolk and Southern diesel
pulled cars of immaculate pine
destined for hundreds of new homes.
The day the war started
couples were married at city hall,
school children learned the beauty of prairies,
the beauty of snow on faraway mountains.
And on that day, too far away to notice,
other children learned the beauty of flames,
the beauty of the planes so high in their white sky
that no one aboard could notice
—that no one could even hear—
the roar of wind drawn into
vast fields of immaculate flames
that once were schools, homes, families.
Does the hon. member not feel that this is a cause which gives
support to having a vote on such an important issue?
1520
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague
expressed in a different way the answer I have just given the
member opposite.
The international situation is serious. It would have been
preferable to have this vote before the air strikes began but,
in the name of democracy, we must have it now, before getting
ourselves into something that we do not know how and when it is
going to end. No other decision will be more important, for all
kinds of reasons. The situation will never be the same again. It
is the first time NATO does such a thing.
Important changes will have to be made to international
institutions.
We do not have time to debate this issue any further right now,
but this dirty war—because if there is war it will indeed be
dirty—requires a vote before any final decision is made.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
member for Mount Royal.
I would like to begin my remarks today by advising the House of
my meetings in Brussels and London over the last three days.
While in Brussels I met with NATO Secretary General Solana, the
Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Clark, and the
Chairman of the NATO Committee, General Naumann. I also had the
opportunity to consult with my Belgian counterpart, Mr.
Poncelot, and in London I met with my British counterpart, Mr.
Robertson.
On each occasion we discussed the full range of issues
pertaining to NATO operations, both the air campaign and efforts
to address the dire humanitarian situation that continues to
unfold.
I want to assure the House that NATO's resolve remains
unshakeable. NATO's steadily intensifying military operations
are destroying, step by step, Yugoslavia's military capabilities.
The air campaign supports the overall political aims of NATO
countries; objectives which are widely supported by the
international community, by this parliament and by the citizens
of Canada.
On the weekend I also had the opportunity to visit our men and
women stationed in Aviano, Italy. I am pleased to report that
their morale is high. They understand the importance of the
mission they have been given and they are proud that Canada has
acted. They are a long way from home and they appreciate the
support they have from the government, from parliament and from
their fellow Canadians.
The air campaign is now in its 27th day. Progress has been
steady and as each day passes the cost Mr. Milosevic is paying
for his policy of humanitarian degradation rises. His military
forces are being hit around the clock and their losses are
mounting.
As each day passes the infrastructure that supports his forces
of oppression is diminished. There is less fuel, fewer bridges
and more broken lines of communication.
NATO is again intensifying its air operations by adding more
aircraft. As I announced on Saturday, Canada will make available
six more CF-18s, bringing the total in Aviano to 18.
[Translation]
This new contribution shows our government's firm commitment to
this operation. We will continue to exercise the necessary
leadership to ensure its success.
[English]
Good government requires many things. Strong leadership is one
of them. Another is the will to make choices based on the
understanding of what Canadians need and want.
Before being elected, the government spelled out its commitment
to increase consultation with parliament.
We were determined to offer Canadians strong leadership, informed
by the views of their elected representatives in parliament. We
have done just that. Since being elected, time and time again we
have consulted the House on major decisions concerning the
Canadian forces and national defence.
1525
The House has debated Canadian commitments to the Central
African Republic, Haiti, the Middle East and the former
Yugoslavia. Since this government came to power the House has
held seven debates on Yugoslavia alone. Parliament has held
three debates in recent times on the very important issue of
Kosovo.
The motion before us today completely ignores the relevant
debates and decisions of this House. The question of Canadian
participation in a Kosovo peacekeeping operation has already been
debated.
On February 17 the House debated Canadian participation in a
force to verify and enforce compliance with an agreement we hoped
would result from the diplomatic talks held in Rambouillet,
France. All parties agreed that Canada should participate in
that kind of peacekeeping force.
During the debate I announced that Canada would be prepared to
contribute 500 to 800 personnel. Although we are currently
engaged in an air campaign, our objective is to bring about
conditions whereby the Yugoslav government will allow for the
deployment of an international military force.
Since then the 500 to 800 strong force, including an armoured
reconnaissance squadron and a helicopter unit, has completed its
training and is now preparing for possible deployment. Debating
this again would be a step backward. In a crisis like this, when
grave human issues lie in the balance, moving forward is the kind
of leadership which Canadians expect.
This government's record of consulting parliament speaks for
itself. We are determined to exercise the kind of decisive
leadership in crisis that Canadians expect. Canadians would not
accept any measure that undermines the authority of the
government they elected to take quick action to protect Canada's
humanitarian and national interests.
This motion, aside from ignoring the actions that have been
taken and the many debates, appears to suggest that without the
very precise vote which it suggests the voice of parliament will
not be heard. Kosovo illustrates the falsehood of that argument
perfectly.
In the three debates on Kosovo, 131 members of this House have
spoken. Many voices have been heard and the consensus has been
striking. Clearly, parliamentarians have expressed their views
and given legitimacy to Canada's actions. Parliamentary debate
is an important tool, but it should be used to facilitate action,
not to undermine it.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. minister. The minister
indicated that the House has debated the question of Kosovo seven
times. The question that we are asking today is very simple.
The Canadian people elected members of parliament to this place.
Why are the Liberals afraid to put the question when we commit
ground troops to a fighting force? Why are the Liberals scared
to put the same question to the House of Commons?
The minister said that good government should lead. I would
remind the minister that the Liberals were elected with
approximately 38%. Therefore, my question to the minister is:
Why not let the Canadian parliament vote on the question?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, whatever percentage
we received was a lot more than members on the other side
received. We have a majority government in this House and that
is the will of the Canadian people. Canadians elected a
government to make decisions.
1530
This parliament has every opportunity to express no confidence
in the government if it does not think it is making the right
decision. Members opposite have not moved a motion of no
confidence. No, because they know Canadians believe in what we
are doing. Canadians believe we should be doing all that we can
to save those people who have been pushed out of Kosovo, those
people who have been subject to ethnic cleansing. People believe
that is the right and humanitarian thing to do, so we are doing
it.
I do not hear people disagreeing with what we are doing. In all
these debates, seven on Yugoslavia and three of them specifically
on Kosovo, I have heard general agreement from all sides of the
House. What is the problem? If hon. members do not think we are
doing the right thing, if they do not think we are making the
right decision, move a motion of non-confidence. But I do not
think that they will. I do not believe they will because they
know that we are reacting to what Canadians feel is the right and
just thing to do.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask the minister two questions.
First of all, he is right when he says that members have had
ample opportunity to express their views in the House and that
over 130 members have already done so. However, when we have a
vote, it is not 137 members out of 301 who express their views.
When we have a vote, it is 301 members out of 301 who take part
in that vote.
Every soldier in Kosovo can say that his or her member in the
House of Commons has supported our involvement or not. Every
soldier supports his or her MP and is ready to do the job he or
she is asked to do.
My other question is this: can the minister tell us whether or
not troops are engaged in a ground operation in Kosovo at the
moment?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, parliament should
have every opportunity, has had every opportunity, and will
continue to have every opportunity to express its views.
When I visited with our troops in Aviano, I told them that the
government of this country, the parliament of this country and
the people of Canada were behind them. They believe that and
they believe they are doing what needs to be done in the name of
all three of those entities. I believe that to be the case.
We are taking this decision in a responsible fashion. The
government has to be able to do these kinds of things, to take
quick action when these dangerous situations arise.
There are no ground troops being deployed to the region. We
have said before that the only troops we are preparing for
deployment to the area in terms of ground operations would be
peacekeepers. That still stands. We have said that if that
changes in any way, then we would come back to this House again
for further debate and discussion.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is a very important day in the life of Jewish people. Today
is Yom Ha Zicharon, the day of remembrance. It starts tonight
and continues tomorrow. It is a day to remember what took place
in Europe from 1933 on and in particular Yom Ha Shoah, the
Holocaust that took place. Last week was Yom Ha Shoah at which
time the survivors told their stories. This week is Yom Ha
Zicharon which is a remembrance of our soldiers who perished
during that time.
As I have watched this whole question of ethnic cleansing,
genocide and crimes against humanity, I can only say that we all
watched with wrenched hearts and with an unfortunate reminder
that this world has not learned. Following the end of the second
world war in 1945 we said that never again would anything like
this happen and passed a law on genocide. It is very unfortunate
that the never again has not been realized.
I have heard criticism here of the United Nations. I would
suggest that there is something wrong in the security council and
with the way the veto vote works, but there is not something
wrong with the UN itself.
We all know there have been approaches time after time in the
security council for action to be taken and for the United
Nations to become involved.
It was turned down each time. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs
has raised the issue on at least three occasions. There was a
prior vote that indicated that the world approved of what we were
doing but there were internal interests that prevented a move
forward. The Russian vote or potential veto was a very important
factor.
1535
I have just returned from a week in Brussels. We devoted our
time to issues about nuclear weapons and about the problems that
confront the major cities. The major concern and attention was
on Kosovo. Over 130 nations expressed their concerns. Yes,
there were a few that supported the Yugoslav position, Mr.
Milosevic's position. For the most part there was unanimous
agreement that this war must stop. Not once was there a call for
ground troops at this time.
This is such an evolving situation and it is a very difficult
one. I heard the remarks made by Mr. Stroyev, the leader of the
Russian delegation who suggested a joint commission for refugees
and a special role for the parliaments of the NATO countries. He
also said that the Yugoslav people should not be punished for the
actions of President Milosevic. But if Mr. Milosevic is not
stopped, the people of the region will continue to be punished by
him. We cannot stand by and let this happen. The NATO action is
not designed to punish Milosevic according to the Russian
speaker, it is designed to put a stop to his abhorrent policy of
ethnic cleansing.
I am sure we all recognize the major role Russia has to play in
reaching a settlement to the crisis. We hope it will play a
major peacekeeping role in the area when the fighting is over.
We share a common interest with Russia in reaching a political
solution to the crisis, and the sooner the better.
When I listened to the discussions, there were many expressions
of serious concern. Why are hundreds of thousands of people, old
men, women and helpless children fleeing in terror from Kosovo?
Are they fleeing from the NATO bombs? I would say no. They are
fleeing from President Milosevic and his ethnic cleansing.
Young male Kosovar Albanians are being forcibly separated from
their families. This is a cause of great concern. Where are
they? What will happen to them? What are they doing? Some of
us have just seen that they are digging graves. That is quite
disturbing. We know what happened when similar events occurred in
Srebrenica. All the men were massacred. This question demands
an immediate answer from the Yugoslav authorities.
Some parliamentarians say that a terrible human tragedy has been
inflicted upon the people of Kosovo and Yugoslavia due to the
brutality of their leader Milosevic. This was a situation that
could not be tolerated and indeed demands were made for a
resolution to the plight of the Kosovar people.
I think we all know as the debates in the House have
demonstrated, that the Canadian people, Canadian parliamentarians
and the Canadian government, as well as all NATO partners, would
have preferred that the conflict be resolved through dialogue and
negotiations. But President Milosevic has frustrated every
attempt to find a solution.
There are no quick fixes in Yugoslavia and in Kosovo. We know
that. NATO's air campaign will continue until Milosevic agrees
to an international military presence in Kosovo that can ensure
the safe return of the refugees created by his program of ethnic
cleansing. He has systematically violated international
humanitarian law by launching a campaign against civilians which
includes killing and torturing, arbitrary detention and the
denial of basic rights based on ethnicity. That is what happened
in 1933. The world did not react then. We have evolved. We are
in a position to see change. For that we should all be grateful.
Milosevic is also contravening two security council resolutions,
resolutions 1199 and 1203 which impose a clear obligation on the
Yugoslavian federation to respect a ceasefire and protect the
civilian population.
1540
Canada has lobbied intensively over the past year for greater
United Nations Security Council engagement in Kosovo. Clearly it
would have been best if the UN could have facilitated an end to
the conflict in Kosovo. However, the Russians have made it clear
that they would have blocked any UN Security Council's condemning
of that ethnic cleansing.
And so NATO moved ahead, and thank God it did for the ethnic
Kosovars in Yugoslavia. NATO was able to save at least most of
that population. The refugee situation is very disturbing. That
is true. That country was challenged by a misguided leader. We
know this is not his first attack on the people there. Bosnia,
Croatia, Slovenia; a lot of history has gone on in that area.
I would sincerely hope when this government comes to a
conclusion that it has no choice but to consider those ground
troops and it asks for our opinion on that matter, we will all be
of one voice and support that move in the interest of the ethnic
Albanians. With respect to the plight of the Kosovar Albanians,
please note that the overall Canadian policy and goal is a
negotiated settlement based on the Rambouillet agreement and that
our overriding concern is humanitarian.
In the interests of international humanitarian law, the right
and the obligation to go into a country not because it has its
own sovereignty but because its population is at risk is an issue
we must support. This world over the last generation has been
one of serious problems whether we are looking at Africa, Asia,
Latin America or right now as we see in Kosovo.
NATO's role was a vital one. I am most pleased we have
supported it to date. I sincerely hope the wish of Kofi Annan,
the wish of this parliament, the wish of our minister and the
wish of our Prime Minister is realized through negotiation, and
that if we do send ground troops that they will be peacemakers
and peacekeepers. I hope we do not have the kind of intervention
that is so dramatic, so dangerous and so costly both to our own
people and to the people who are suffering right now as ethnic
Albanians in Kosovo, in Albania, in all the countries in that
area.
I hope this parliament and its members will understand why we
are not taking a vote right now. The situation changes daily.
The promise of the Prime Minister is one I know he will respect
and keep. Let us hope for a peaceful solution.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the hon. member's speech. It was very well put. I
certainly agree with the contents of what she said. A drastic
thing is going on. Let us all hope it comes to an end soon.
I am concerned when it comes to the debates that take place in
the House. I have expressed this before and I will express it
again. Does the hon. member agree with me that debates should be
open and transparent and that they should be used to help make
decisions regarding issues? If she does agree, could she explain
why in the last parliament when we were debating whether or not
to send troops to Bosnia we learned that the troops were already
on their way, that the decision had already been made? Does she
agree that sometimes these decisions are made without the debate?
Does she agree with doing that?
Hon. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, that is a very
interesting question and it presents a dilemma. I do believe in
transparent and open democracy and I do believe for the most part
that has been the history of this government.
The exception is in circumstances of the nature the member was
talking about, when it involves serious ground troops and the
lives of our men in the air, on the land and on the sea. That is
a very heavy responsibility cabinet must look at, evaluate and
weigh.
1545
For the most part the changes we have made recently to have open
debates have been a demonstration of a great step forward.
Perhaps it is not to the degree some would have liked, but every
statement that has been made in the House has been looked at by
cabinet and has been evaluated by the Foreign Affairs Department.
Good overviews of the views of the House are presented for their
consideration. That is a big improvement over what we had in the
past.
I have been in the House when we had a different story during
the course of very serious interventions and fear on the part of
the people who were at risk, and we did not say anything. It is
time now to never again be silent and to know what is going on.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member
had to say. I want to tell her that, in this area, it is
important that we have all the information available before
making decisions and that we use every means to restore peace as
soon as possible.
In her speech, the hon. member said something like “We need to
be able to influence what is going on”. Would a vote in
parliament not be a way to support the position taken by the
government, to show that this is no longer just a partisan
position, not only the position of one party, but of the entire
House of Commons, where hon. members have the opportunity to
vote, while keeping in mind their responsibilities?
Would it not help to ensure that the peace plan put forward by
Germany, but that could become everyone's peace plan, is
approved as quickly as possible? People from our ridings could
be involved in this war. Would it not be helpful for them to
know how their members of parliament voted on this issue? On
such an important and serious matter, would the influence of
parliament not help to restore peace in Europe?
Hon. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for his question. If there is one thing that has
changed a lot in the last hundreds of years, it is that we now
have television. We can watch hour after hour, day after day,
what is going on in Kosovo and, more importantly, in all of
Yugoslavia.
When I was in Brussels, at the meeting of the
Inter-Parliamentary Union, I asked why the Yugoslavs blocked
access to television so that the Serbs were unable to know what
was going on. It is sad. When people do not know the truth, it
is difficult to know what to do.
That is why I believe we know what we are doing. Members from
this side of the House are just as interested as the member and
all other parliamentarians. I am convinced that we will make an
open and transparent decision in due course. I hope the hon.
member will be satisfied, because the conditions we are setting
are very clear and obvious.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to again rise to speak on this, our opposition day.
The war in Kosovo is now in its 26th day. Who would have
believed that the conflict would have gone on this long? With
NATO and all the new military technologies involved, we might
have expected it to be over in a few days at most.
Unfortunately, we underestimated Milosevic and the Serbian
government. In particular, we had not predicted how fast and
efficient that government would be in its ethnic cleansing
operations against the population of Kosovo.
The Bloc Quebecois has always regretted this war, and all war
moreover, yet intervention in Kosovo was necessary,
unfortunately.
Necessary because Milosevic and the Serb army are engaged in
literally depopulating Kosovo.
The latest figures on the massive exodus of the Kosovar
population are terrifying. The UNHCR is now talking of some
400,000 Kosovar refugees in Albania, 150,000 in Macedonia,
75,000 in Montenegro, and 32,000 in Bosnia.
1550
This is not taking into account the 260,000 Kosovars refugees
within Kosovo itself, nor those who have taken refuge in the
mountains. To date, NATO estimates that this war has claimed
3,200 lives. NATO also believes it has found 43 mass graves.
This is not even taking into account the rapes, the physical
atrocities and the psychological sufferings of an entire people.
For all of these reasons, all available resources must be
deployed in order to relieve the sufferings and improve the
living conditions of the Kosovar refugees in Bosnia, in
Macedonia, in Albania and in Montenegro.
It is therefore important to provide the High Commissioner for
Refugees with all the humanitarian aid and logistical support
appropriate.
To this end, we are still awaiting a clear response from the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the question I asked
here in the House last week. Members will remember I asked her
if the government was prepared to commit to using the $100
million set aside to take in the refugees here in order to
provide additional support to the NGOs on location in the
Balkans.
The minister responded at the time with banalities
such as “the situation is stabilizing at the borders there”.
However, according to the HCR, Macedonia alone expects an
additional 100,000 refugees in the next few days. No need to
point out that the needs are urgent in the various refugee
camps.
When will the minister be announcing that this $100 million will
go to refugees in the Balkans? It is a matter of life and
death, and the money is available here and now.
I would hope that the minister and the government will show
compassion as soon as possible, before it is too late.
It is very clear that we are now facing new realities and that
the NATO forces should reassess their strategies in this war.
That is where the problem lies. The Government of Canada's
haughty attitude toward the members of this parliament, drawn,
it must be said, from the Liberal leader's arrogant treatment of
the opposition members, prevents us from having a clear picture
of the situation in the Balkans.
This deplorable attitude is reflected in this government's lack
of transparency in releasing information on this war.
As a member of this House democratically elected by the people
of the riding of Laurentides, I am very frustrated by the Prime
Minister's refusal to allow a debate followed by a vote on the
possibility of sending Canadian troops in the Balkan region or
on any other initiative, whether military or diplomatic.
Yet, according to an Angus Reid poll, 59% of Canadians would be
willing to support the deployment of ground troops, and 61%
would agree to the involvement of Canadian soldiers in this
ground operation, if it became necessary.
Why is the government still stubbornly refusing to allow a vote
on this issue here in the House? Considering the Angus Reid poll
results, it would be in the best interests of the government to
vote on this issue. The government would then come out stronger
in its support, as would the Canadian democratic system.
Let us remember the Gulf war in 1991. At that time, Liberals
were in the opposition. Despite the three votes taken in the
House of Commons about that war, the hon. member for Shawinigan
had openly criticized the government for its lack of willingness
to fulfil its duty of having a consultation and a debate.
Eight years later, the Liberal government is trampling not only
on Canadian democracy, but also on its own ideas.
Even Yves Fortier, the former Canadian ambassador to the UN,
publicly blamed the Prime Minister for his lack of transparency
regarding Canadian positions and actions in the Kosovo crisis.
Since the beginning of the war in the Balkans, the government
has been providing information on the conflict in dribbles. It
is time the government stopped acting that way. Quebeckers and
Canadians as well as members of parliament have a right to know
the different military or diplomatic options to which the
Canadian government and NATO are giving priority.
To this day, the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties
have all supported the decisions of the government, but this
does not mean that the Bloc Quebecois is ready to sign a blank
cheque.
We demand a substantial debate followed by a vote, to allow
members of parliament to take a just and informed decision on
the opportunity to send ground troops to Kosovo.
Why such lack of transparency compared to other governments?
Germany has voted twice on the advisability of air strikes in
Kosovo.
1555
The United States will also vote on the granting of additional
funding requested by the Pentagon to increase the American
participation in Kosovo. The Hungarian parliament also voted to
allow NATO aircraft to fly over its territory. The Czech
Republic voted on the same issue. What is the Canadian
government waiting for to show the same openness?
The lack of democracy created by the silence of the Liberal
government could have a negative impact on the consensus we now
have in this House.
Indeed, how are we expected to be able to assess NATO's
diplomatic or military initiatives if the government does not
think of providing us with adequate information, which would
encourage this House to debate and vote on these initiatives?
Eventually, the Bloc Quebecois might be forced to raise serious
concerns on the advisability of those initiatives, which could
bring the present consensus to an end.
In 1991, during the gulf war, members of the House received
excellent information on the state of the conflict and
governmental initiatives but this time we are better informed on
the crisis in Kosovo by the medias. This is not right.
In closing, I remind all members of the House that the Bloc
Quebecois is deeply disturbed by the atrocities and ethnic
cleansing activities directed against Kosovars. To put a stop
to such atrocities, all diplomatic and military alternatives,
including sending ground troops to Kosovo, must be debated in
this House and approved through a vote. What is at stake is the
health of our democratic system, the legitimacy of this
government, and perhaps even the survival of a people.
I would like to conclude with a short poem written by a pupil at
the École des Ursulines de Québec. Her name is Sarah-Émilie
Mercier. Her poem is about peace, and I will read it now:
Why does peace elude mankind?
Why not put our hate behind?
With fighting and poverty all round the earth
Peace has retreated for all it is worth
And though I seek it near and far
It has become like a distant star
What is so hard to comprehend?
Love one another, and wars will all end.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that was a very nice poem and I commend the Bloc member for
reading it to the House.
What does the hon. member feel is the reason that the government
is not willing to put this debate to a vote for the members of
parliament? Is it afraid at this point that we will be
questioning its commitment, or does the member think the
government will bring the debate forward after it is committed,
should it ever come to that situation? Hopefully it will not?
What would be her opinion?
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
I think that in any parliament democracy must rule. What is
happening in this parliament is worrisome for the future and the
decisions that will have to be made, especially when we are
asked to send in soldiers to defend the interests of people who
are at war and in a desperate situation.
As I indicated in my speech, even opinion polls are in favour of
sending troops. Therefore, I do not see why the government would
not consult members from all parties. The House could reach a
consensus, which would provide stronger moral support to our
troops who would be deployed over there.
This is disappointing because we are here to represent the
people.
I represent every single constituent in the riding of
Laurentides, and these people might have liked to see me take a
stand here in this House on sending troops to Kosovo.
1600
I sincerely hope, because I doubt the government's decision is
final, that the government will make the right decision in
letting us debate the issue in the House so that all parties can
eventually vote on this decision.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
after question period, many questions were raised on the
opposition side, mainly by the Bloc Quebecois and the
Progressive Conservative Party. We are concerned, and rightly
so, that the national defence minister may have already
committed ground troops.
My question to the hon. member for Laurentides is this: could
the government act in secret and deploy troops in Kosovo without
consulting parliament and without a vote in the House?
Mrs. Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the government
could certainly send troops without consulting the House.
However, I think it would be ill-advised. The government would
have a heavy price to pay for making decisions without
consulting the members of this House. It would be undemocratic
to send in troops without informing us. This kind of decision
should be discussed and made in the House. Members have views
they want to express. There are members from all over Canada who
also have an opinion on the matter and who are certainly getting
phone calls at their riding or Ottawa offices from people who
take a stand and want to know what their member really thinks of
this war, but who may not have all the information.
We have a role to play, and we should be allowed to play it in
the House. Otherwise, what is the use of electing members of
parliament? To act like a bunch of yes-men and women just
supporting the government? That is not what we are here for. We
are here to represent our constituents and vote on important
issues like sending in troops to participate in the ongoing war
in Kosovo.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
early last Tuesday morning, I had the opportunity and the
privilege to speak in this House to explain why I am personally
in favour of the current military intervention in the former
Yugoslavia.
Why do we have to debate this issue again today? I would say or
I would be tempted to say that it is because of the government's
bad faith. But I will not talk about bad faith, but rather about
clumsiness. I do not want to presume right from the start that
the government is acting in bad faith, so I will say that it is
being clumsy.
Why is it being clumsy? Because, despite the consensus that was
expressed spontaneously regarding the intervention in the former
Yugoslavia, despite the fact that all parties in the House have
spontaneously supported the government in its intervention, the
government is acting in a mean-spirited way toward the opposition
parties by giving them very little information, voluntarily
creating confusion and giving an impression of improvisation. I
think shows the government as well as Canada's and NATO's
intervention in the field in a bad light.
I can only hope that there is no such improvisation in reality.
I would even go as far as saying that I am convinced there is no
such improvisation, which leads me to think that the government
is indeed hiding information from the House.
We only get spurious answers to our numerous questions. We are
being told that the question is hypothetical, that NATO
officials have made no such request, that the question is
premature. In fact, we have been given that type of answer at
virtually every stage of the conflict since the beginning.
1605
The defence minister insidiously stated that we had to consider
sending ground troops, then backed down a few hours later,
saying: “We have yet to reach that stage”. When we enquired
about the opportunity of sending peacekeepers in Kosovo we were
told that “the situation is hypothetical, we have not received
any request so far, we have yet to reach that stage”. However
we learned a few days later that the government was preparing to
send 600 troops for a peacekeeping mission in Macedonia.
The same thing happened when we heard that additional CF-18s
could be sent because the U.S. president wanted to double NATO's
air capability.
We asked: “How many additional aircraft will be sent to satisfy
this request?” The government replied: “We have not received any
request so far, we have yet to reach that stage, this is a
hypothetical question, it is premature”. At last, we learned
that 6 additional CF-18s have been sent or are about to be sent
to the theatre of operations.
Now we learn that Canadian troops are probably already in
Kosovo. Again, we ask the same question and we are told once
more that it is a hypothetical question and that we are not at
that stage yet. We got the same old answers we have been getting
for some time now.
We recognize that in a conflict situation, strategic constraints
prevent us from disclosing the details of operations and
preparations. This would certainly be against the national
interest and that of the allied forces.
In that case, why not be a little more open and frank and say
“As things now stand, we cannot, for strategic reasons, give the
House a clear answer to this question”. This would be better
than misleading the House and its members by stating “It is a
hypothetical question. We have not received any request to that
effect. We are not there yet. It is premature”.
Somebody famous once said that war was too important an issue to
leave it to politicians.
I believe this saying applies to the government and the military
staff that stands behind it in this conflict. Indeed, it seems
universally recognized that members of parliament are not
knowledgeable, credible or serious enough to be able to deal
with matters as important as wars and conflicts.
By its mean attitude, the government is jeopardizing the strong
consensus that had spontaneously formed around him on the issue
of the military intervention in the former Yugoslavia.
The government is taking this consensus for granted, as the
Prime Minister made very clear today. He allows himself to treat
the opposition in a very condescending way by saying “Anyway,
they all agree”. We are not throwing back into question our
position on the intervention in the former Yugoslavia.
Unfortunately, some kind of mistrust of the government is
emerging and that is unhealthy during a conflict.
As I said earlier, the government's attitude could give the
impression that it is improvising to some extent. This
improvisation takes many shapes, including that of appearing to
let others take the lead. We could have expected that Canada,
with its long peacekeeping and peace-seeking tradition and its
seat at the UN Security Council, would have shown leadership in
trying to reach a negotiated solution to the conflict.
Instead, Canada kept silent. It embarked in military operations
without necessarily looking for a political solution or giving
the impression it was looking for one. Our German friends have
come up with a very detailed peace plan, which, of course, we
support, but Canada seems to be dragging its feet.
1610
It was also said that, as far as military operations are
concerned, Canada was trailing behind NATO and the USA. On that
point, allow me to put into perspective this so-called
submissiveness to American interests.
I remember that, in 1991, during the Gulf war, many of those
opposed to the conflict told us that it was somewhat shocking to
see the USA, and the international community behind it, launch
military operations in Kuwait while doing nothing about the
conflict that was breaking out in Bosnia at that time.
These bleeding hearts were saying “Of course, there are economic
interests at stake in Kuwait; there are oil fields.
If there had been oil in Bosnia, they would have intervened”.
Now, these same people often wonder why Canada is following the
United States. The same people who criticized the United States,
NATO and the international community for not intervening in
Bosnia are now condemning this intervention in Kosovo. I think
the situation must be put in perspective.
My Bloc Quebecois colleagues and myself have explained at length
why it had become absolutely necessary to intervene. At the end
of World War II, we believed that mankind had changed, that it
had learned from its mistakes. Unfortunately, the tragic events
in Rwanda showed us that this was not the case, that we had not
learned from our mistakes, that we had not changed as much as we
thought we had.
At that point we told ourselves that we would never again let
the situation deteriorate to the point of witnessing such mass
killings.
Therefore, we intervened in Kosovo. The former Yugoslavia
refused the German peace plan, and the United Kingdom's defence
minister, the NATO secretary general and the U.S. secretary of
state are suggesting that Milosevic must be removed from office
in Belgrade. This leads us to think that the conflict will be a
long one and that it will probably require the sending of ground
troops. Should this be the case, it would be totally
unacceptable for the government to decide to send Canadian
troops to the theatre of operations without first consulting
this House. We are talking about the lives of our fellow
citizens, and we are accountable to them.
Earlier, I heard the minister say “We have the support of
Canadians”. This government seems to be governing by polls. It
should remember that its legitimacy lies only in the general
election that led to this parliament and that, consequently, it
must consult the House before sending ground troops.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to call on the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes,
who has been sitting in this House for six years and who has a
masters degree in political science.
I would like him to tell us why parliament should really have to
deal with an issue such as this one? Why is it not enough to let
the government decide, on such an issue? Why is it critical to
call on parliament, as other parliaments have done—and my
colleague could provide examples of other parliaments that
debated the issue and voted on it—to have a decisive say on this
issue?
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit embarrassed at
having to answer such a relevant question by my hon. colleague
from Beauharnois—Salaberry, an eminent law professor. Such a
question risks leaving me stunned and incapable of responding.
However, despite all, I will try to respond and trust my answer
will find favour in the eyes of my colleague.
It is true that,
under Canada's Constitution and its National Defence Act, the
government is not obliged in theory to seek the approval of the
House before acting in such matters. However, it goes, I would
say, a little beyond the legal principle.
1615
There are moral principles. There is the government's right to
send soldiers to take part in an armed conflict that puts their
lives at risk, without first taking a vote in parliament.
Earlier, my colleague from Joliette said appropriately that we
did indeed have debates in this House. It is true that many
parliamentarians have had the opportunity to speak on this
important question, but what Canadians and Quebeckers want to
know is whether their particular MP is in favour of sending
ground troops and this they can know only if the government
takes the trouble to consult this House.
My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry pointed out rightly
that, among the NATO member states, a number of governments have
had the decency, drawing on this principle of legitimacy and on
these moral principles, to consult their parliament.
Today in fact there is a debate in the British House of Commons,
and there have been two votes in the German parliament on the
issue of intervening in the former Yugoslavia. The two houses
of the Czech Republic are preparing to vote today on such
intervention.
I would remind the members of the government, that at the time
of the gulf war in 1991, the official opposition at the time
called for a vote in the House on an armed intervention. I call
on the government majority to recall the remarks it addressed to
the government in 1991 in calling for consultation of this
parliament.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time
with my colleague from Mississauga West.
I feel it is essential for me to address the House and comment
on the critical issue we are grappling with today.
Certain members of this House seem to feel it would be
appropriate for the government to allow not only a debate but
also a vote on the decision to deploy Canadian ground troops to
the Balkans who might become engaged in military operations
and/or peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and the Balkans.
First of all, I would like to say that I am opposed to this
motion, just as I was when we debated a similar motion on three
occasions during the past year.
We remain convinced that by adopting such a motion we would
paralyze the government for no good reason in the midst of
situations which often require a rapid and effective response.
We also believe that in adopting this position we are respecting
the wishes of the Canadian people. Finally, we persist in our
belief that parliament is capable of making an important
contribution under such circumstances through the process of
consultation.
I would point out that the government is taking into account the
vital role played by parliament in this crisis. We obviously
feel that obtaining the support of all members of this House is
essential. Government decisions can only gain further
legitimacy in the eyes of the international community when they
receive the unanimous support of parliament. And it is in this
spirit that we have decided to hold three debates on this issue
thus far.
In October 1998, the House held a special debate on the
humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and the special measures the
government planned to implement in concert with the
international community in order to resolve the conflict.
In February 1999, when we were hoping to see a peaceful end to
this crisis, we held another debate, this time focusing on the
possible deployment of Canadian troops to Yugoslavia.
And last Monday, April 12, we again debated the issue, allowing
every MP who wished to comment on this serious humanitarian
crisis to do so.
I would respectfully point out that on every one of these
occasions we fortunately saw our policy receive unanimous
support from members of every party.
1620
As the Prime Minister himself has pointed out several times, it
is critical that we speak with one voice and that Mr. Milosevic
be in no doubt as to the position of the Canadian government.
Peace, respect for human rights and democracy constitute values
that are unanimously respected and supported by the Canadian
people and their parliament.
The current situation is so serious and so important that we
must not allow him any openings whatsoever. Mr. Milosevic must
understand that our position is unwavering. This is no time for
playing political games. To act otherwise would only display a
lack of respect for Canada's democratic institution par
excellence, the House of Commons.
The government remains committed to consulting parliament.
It has undertaken to ensure greater parliamentary involvement in
reviewing major issues relating to foreign and defence policy,
and it has held a significant number of parliamentary debates.
Since 1994, the government has consulted parliament regarding
many of the internatinal missions carried out by the Canadian
forces. For example, we held two debates, in April 1998 and
February 1999, regarding the deployment of a peacekeeping force
to the Central African Republic. We held a debate on potential
military action against Iraq in February 1998.
In November 1996, we debated Canada's role in alleviating the
suffering in the African Great Lakes region. We also held more
than one debate on Canada's role in implementing the measures
taken by the international community to maintain stability and
security in Haiti, in 1995 and 1997.
With respect to our involvement in Yugoslavia, we have held
seven parliamentary debates so far. I will not list the
innumerable sessions of the House of Commons defence and foreign
Affairs committees at which Canadian participation on a wide
variety of peacekeeping forces was discussed.
In 1994, a series of joint committees were specially organized
to take an in-depth look at Canada's foreign and defence policy.
These committees held unprecedented and comprehensive public
hearings. Their work has led to the adoption of a new defence
policy and the review of Canada's foreign policy.
Parliament has also played a major role in many other aspects of
foreign and defence policy.
For example, the expansion of NATO, the renewal of the NORAD
Agreement that provides for the security and defence of North
America, and Canadian policy on the non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons, arms control and disarmament have all been the subjects
of consultation with parliament.
In 1998, the Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs,
which I had the honour of chairing, carried out an unprecedented
study on the social and economic challenges confronted by
Canadian Forces members. This study contributed significantly
to the development of a government quality-of-life program
designed to meet the challenges posed by military life.
Furthermore, this committee is currently examining the federal
government's procurement policy and holding hearings with the
defence industry across Canada.
All these measure testify to the government's willingness to
consult parliament in shaping Canada's foreign and defence
policy.
I would like as well to reaffirm the position taken by the
Minister of National Defence: the government is fully committed
to consulting with parliament and, as I have shown, has proved
repeatedly that it has kept its promises in this regard.
1625
However, the Canadian government, which is duly elected by the
Canadian people, must not relinquish its ability to govern
responsibly and to make hard decisions where necessary. To do
otherwise would be irresponsible and would be viewed as such by
the Canadian people.
Any additional steps in the deployment process would undermine
Canada's ability to respond rapidly and effectively to
international crises. Requiring a vote on the deployment of
Canadian forces abroad could even impose pointless delays.
Once again, I must underscore the fact that the situation is so
serious and the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo
so great that it cannot be used as a pretext to serve political
agendas. Even if we were to agree to consult the Canadian
people and the members of this House, we would still be as
determined as ever to do whatever possible to maintain, and in
some cases to re-establish, peace and freedom. We have listened
to Canadians and we have consulted parliament.
Our government and the Canadian people are proud of the role
played by Canada both as a world leader in peacekeeping and as a
faithful partner in times of crisis.
We will continue to consult parliament, both through debates in
the House and through the testimony of ministers and other
spokespersons before standing committees. Anyone who wants
government to remain sensitive to the opinions of the elected
representatives of Canadians will understand that this must be
the case.
But those same Canadians will understand how misguided it would
be to adopt a motion that might compromise Canada's ability to
respond when events call for immediate intervention.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
find the words of the parliamentary secretary interesting when it
comes to pointing a finger at the opposition. When I say the
opposition, from one party to the other, they are actually
supporting the government on this issue. They are actually
supporting the government on this Kosovo crisis and our
involvement with NATO.
The accusation coming from the parliamentary secretary is
accusing the opposition of political jockeying. Because the
opposition has basically unanimously sought to have a vote on a
very important issue it is being accused of political
manoeuvring or political jockeying.
I believe it is incumbent upon this House to show unanimously
that Canadian troops have our total support, that we stand behind
them morally and that they know this from their elected
representatives right across the country. What is happening now
is that the Liberal government is accusing the opposition of the
very opposite, which is not true.
I am curious as to why the parliamentary secretary would use
such damaging words about the opposition and its support for our
troops.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech,
I have mentioned on a number of occasions that opposition parties
support the government in sending our troops. I mentioned that I
appreciate that. However, what they also seem to be saying is
that we are closing off debate.
I know it has been mentioned before, but I am going to mention
it again. This is the fourth debate we have had on Kosovo.
According to the Minister of National Defence, over 131
parliamentarians have spoken on the subject.
1630
I would also like to point out that this afternoon a few of the
members, and I know it was probably done accidentally, seemed to
be suggesting that we have soldiers in Kosovo right now. I would
just like to mention that as the Prime Minister and the Minister
of National Defence have said, we have no soldiers in Kosovo
right now.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The matter before the House and part of the debate of course
centres around the vote as the Bloc motion clearly indicates. It
has nothing to do with what question period information was
brought forward about troops burying some—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I do not think the
hon. member is raising a legitimate point of order. He asked a
question and he is getting an answer. While he may not agree
with the answer, I am afraid he is stuck with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Your arguments are
not convincing, sir—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry must address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's
arguments are no more convincing than those of his counterpart
at foreign affairs.
One of the reasons they are even less convincing is that this
morning one of his colleagues reminded us that this House had
voted on several occasions on sending troops, not only to Iraq,
but also to the Congo, Cyprus, and the Middle East.
There are examples when the House voted. Why is the government
refusing to change the practice it brought in when it came to
power, according to which it refuses to hold a vote after a
debate?
The government should learn something from this war, a lesson in
democracy.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand at all the
attitude of the members across the way.
I said it over and again in my speech as well as before when I
answered the question put to me by my colleague from Calgary
North, I know neither how many debates were held nor how many
members rose in this House to discuss the issue.
We should not forget either that every day, technical briefings
are given at National Defense Headquarters by people from DND
and the Department of Foreign Affairs. There is an awful lot of
information out there. People only have to go and get it.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst, The Budget; the hon. member for Markham, The
Economy; the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Black Lake BC
Mine.
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
hon. members know I do not believe in fighting.
At the outset I would like to congratulate the Bloc for using
this opposition day in a constructive manner to put on the floor
of this place an issue that really should be debated.
I said last week that I thought the opposition day was misused
by the official opposition when in fact Canada is at war. If
somebody wants to put an issue forward to discuss a vote, why not
do it this way?
Why not use the opposition day which is parliamentary tradition
and put this issue to a vote instead of standing up and saying
one thing in question period and doing another at a time when the
opportunity presents itself to have an opposition day?
1635
While I can say that I congratulate the Bloc, which is not
something I would do often, for taking the opportunity to put
forward this motion to allow for constructive debate, it would
probably not be surprised to find I cannot support the motion as
it stands. But I do support the concept of having debates in
this place, particularly when it involves the three words we have
heard in the media lately that really are foreign to this
country. Canada at war. Those are the three words. I believe
there is a show on CBC tomorrow evening. It is an astounding
thing to think about in 1999.
An hon. member: Are we?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, clearly we are. We are
involved aggressively with our allies in a war to try to resolve
a problem.
I do not think anyone in this place would question the
intentions or the desire to bring peace to that region. Part of
the reason I have difficulty with the concept is that we would
have a debate in here about whether or not the next step in our
military deployment should be this or should be that.
Think about it. There is a potential of putting our armed
forces at risk. We are going to say to Mr. Milosevic “Hold on.
We are going to have a debate in parliament. Don't do anything.
We will get back to you. We have all our men lined up and ready
to go with weapons cocked but we have to have a debate in this
place called parliament in Canada and then we have to have a vote
and we will decide whether or not we are going to deploy our
troops”.
Never before in the history of this country would that kind of
process have been undertaken. It was not undertaken in 1939 when
this country joined forces to fight the Nazis. It was not
undertaken when we declared war against imperial Japan. It was
not undertaken when we declared war on Korea. It is unbelievable
to think that a responsible parliamentarian would want us to have
some kind of debate and a vote. Imagine what would happen.
What kind of message would we be sending if for some reason the
vote was extremely close? We know with a majority government we
could carry it. I do not believe that the official opposition or
anyone in opposition wants to send a message of instability or
mixed messages to the people who are putting their lives on the
line. I just do not believe it.
I will read a quote and then say who said it. “It is also our
view as I wrote the Prime Minister on March 31 that once the
decision was made to commit Canadian air forces to the NATO
effort in Yugoslavia, we in this parliament should not engage in
second guessing the mission when it has scarcely begun. Rather,
we should offer our steadfast support, our political support, our
moral support, our vocal support to those brave Canadian
personnel who are involved”. The Leader of the Official
Opposition said that on April 12, 1999.
We would have to say that is a responsible position to take.
Once again it is not often I throw accolades to the official
opposition. I think it makes sense to take a position such as
this when people are putting their lives on the line.
This is another quote which was made in this place. “I would
say right up front on behalf of the NDP caucus that we certainly
support the idea that Canada should fulfill its international
obligations and should take every measure possible to try to end
the suffering, to end the senseless bloodshed that occurs in a
lot of these countries and to bring about some humanitarian
efforts and to try to stabilize the countries”.
1640
That was said by the New Democratic Party critic, the member for
Halifax West. Again, I think that is a responsible position that
an opposition party should take.
To politicize this war into the opportunism we hear during
question period or that we hear members opposite making is
frightening. Frankly it is dangerous. We are not going into a
war by committee. We are not going into a war where we have to
say “Hold on, we will get back to you. We have not had a vote
yet. There are 301 people in our parliament who need to vote on
this”. We would be tying the hands of the military leaders. We
would be tying the hands of the government to require such a
thing to occur. I do not think Canadians are fooled by the
rhetoric which would suggest that somehow we should do it that
way.
I have a couple of points about what is going on in the region.
Many will recall a debate in this place that was somewhat
rancorous. It was about whether or not members of parliament
should have a small Canadian flag on their desks. I recall it
rather well. There were cars painted with the Canadian flag
driving around Parliament Hill; all kinds of my nationalism is
bigger than your nationalism; all kinds of attempts at
one-upmanship. Frankly, I think we were as guilty as some
members opposite who engaged in that debate.
My colleague, the member from Owen Sound, made a very
interesting remark to me. He said “What really bothers me about
this is it is nationalism and it is dangerous”. There is a
difference between being proud of our country and standing up and
shouting and yelling we are the best or we are the strongest.
What we are seeing in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia is nationalism and
tribalism gone mad.
In 1990 as a member of the provincial legislature I was part of
a parliamentary delegation that witnessed the first free
elections since the second world war in Croatia. I spent time in
Zagreb and went down the coast and met with many Croatian people.
I remember on election day people queuing up to vote with tears
in their eyes because they had not had that freedom under Tito.
This was their opportunity to say “Zivjela Hrvatska”.
This was their opportunity to vote for independence, to vote for
a strong Croatia. We are in the same region.
The other night when I was watching a newscast I heard one of
the commentators, I think it was Henry Kissinger say that what we
have in this part of the world is irreconcilable hatred. We have
to think about that. It is absolutely true. I do not know how
we resolve the hatred and the passion that people feel. I am not
sure we could even understand it, never mind resolve it. I do
not know how we can suggest that we are going to magically sit
down at a peace table and resolve a conflict that is not 10 or 20
years old but hundreds of years old, perhaps thousands of years
old. That conflict is there in such a personal fashion it is
hard to conceive.
In no circumstances could I support putting our soldiers at risk
in that theatre. To suggest that we have a vote on this issue
would do that and it would send the wrong message. We should be
supporting our personnel. I support them as I hope all members
will.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.
Maybe he does not know it, but there have been votes in the
House to decide whether our troops would take part in military
missions abroad. I will not give a list of these votes since
somebody else did it in a previous speech.
1645
So there is a precedent in the House where parliament was used
as an important tool in the area of foreign policy.
I want to ask the member if he thinks that, considering the
seriousness of the current situation in Kosovo and in the
Balkans, a vote in parliament would be an important tool that
should be used by the government to tell the international
community that not only do the Government of Canada and the
parties represented in the House of Commons agree on this issue,
but that all members of the House of Commons share the same
position with regard to the need to send in ground troops.
Would it not have some political weight and would it not advance
the cause of democracy if we showed all Canadians that the
members they elected to represent them in parliament had the
opportunity to vote on this most important issue?
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the sentiment, the
principle or the idea that the Canadian parliament should vote on
matters of national and international interest is valid. However
the practical reality of having a vote and having some kind of
potential for the opposition perhaps to use it for political
statements, or for an opportunity to try to somehow embarrass the
government, is the wrong kind of issue to do that with.
The member knows that what they are doing is absolutely
appropriate. They are putting forward a motion that will
generate a vote on an opposition day so that we all have the
opportunity to stand in the House and put our position forward as
to whether or not we support the government on the actions that
are being taken.
I think we have to be careful and we have to depoliticize as
much as possible the issue of whether or not ground troops are
sent in. I pray to God that will not have to happen, but I fear
that looking at the situation that it might well have to happen.
We have to give them flexibility and the ability to deal with
that at the military level.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a comment or two followed by a short question. It seems like
the member for Mississauga West often engages in demagogic
attacks at important times when we should be discussing matters
of national interest. We are not under any imminent threat of a
strike by Serbians or anyone else, so there is lots of time to
debate the issue.
The House has not been given the full opportunity to debate it.
No opportunity for a vote was given. His own prime minister, his
own leader, when the war was going on in Kuwait accused the
previous prime minister of being an American stooge for not
bringing the issue before the House for a vote when he supported
the Americans in that.
What does he think of the situation now that his party is in the
position of being the governing party of the country? Do they
want to be thought of the same way, or will they allow a vote
finally to take place on the issue because there is time and a
real need?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I will accept the fact
that I have stood from time to time in this place and thrown
castigations at the opposition parties. I did not do that in
this speech, precisely for the reason that the hon. member
mentions. This is much too serious an issue for us to be
worrying about partisan shots at one another. We can live to
fight another day on those issues, and I am sure we will.
I even quoted the Leader of the Opposition in a positive light
from Hansard and congratulated him for his statement. I
quoted the New Democratic member for Halifax West. I
congratulated the Bloc for using an opposition day in what I view
to be an appropriate manner.
This is much too serious an issue for us to be politicizing it
and taking cheap shots at one another. I certainly did not do
that and have no intention of doing that.
1650
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to address the motion proposed by the
Bloc Quebecois. It does not happen often on this side of the
House that the Bloc would receive congratulations from the
official opposition.
I believe the debate is certainly well timed. It could be
carried a bit further, but so be it. The fact of the matter is
that it is before the House for debate and actually for a vote to
encourage, if nothing else, the government to take the right
steps, that is to take a vote on the issue of entering or
escalating our presence in the Kosovo crisis.
I have been listening to some of the comments on the issue of
voting on this motion. I will read the motion again for anyone
who may be viewing or listening:
I also include the amendment of the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry: “prior to the possibility of”.
Over the short time I have been sitting in the House listening
to the debate, the comments from that side of the House toward
the opposition or toward anyone seeking to have a vote on the
issue are amazing. It has nothing to do per se with the events
happening over there.
First, alarm bells have been sent out: “We will not have time
for a debate in the House on this issue because it could be an
emergency”. It is not an emergency. There is ample time to
debate the topic about sending ground forces in. There is plenty
of time for the government to prepare and for the opposition to
receive pertinent information so that all hon. members of the
House could be well informed about a vote. As well there would
be a substantial show of support throughout. There is no way out
once members stand in the House to take a vote on an issue as
important as this one.
The opposition has again been accused of trying to turn the
House into a congressional system. What on earth does that mean?
To have a democratic process involved in the sending of troops,
or whether or not one supports sending troops or escalating our
presence in the Kosovo crisis, what on earth does that have to do
with turning the House into a congressional system?
Ms. Val Meredith: It means where one person does not make
all the decisions.
Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, as my hon. colleague said, it means
that one person does not make all the decisions. That is what
seems to be the point of greatest fear on the other side of the
House and the government has clear support, if a vote is taken,
even from the opposition members.
In this case I inform the other side of the House that the
Reform Party, the official opposition, supports the government's
role and the troops in NATO thus far.
The hon. member for Mississauga West made a very accurate
statement about our leader and his position, that we did in fact
support the government. He could have continued on to inform the
House and those viewing the debate that our leader also advised
the Prime Minister and the House that if any escalation were
contemplated which might require ground troops being sent in, the
Leader of the Opposition clearly stated that we would seek to
have a vote in the House on the matter and another debate. That
is the conclusion of the opposition leader's statement.
There was also a statement from the Liberal side relating to the
issue of the vote, that to vote on this issue would put the
troops at risk. Can anyone on the other side of the House tell
me how a vote would put our troops at risk? I cannot understand
that.
1655
How would we be jeopardizing their safety by having a vote on
this issue? I would like to be shown how we would place our
troops at risk by the mere fact that we would debating and voting
on the issue.
I can tell members that our troops would feel very supported if
the majority of members in the House rose in support of their
action over there. I believe they deserve our support.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
brought forward a statement accusing the opposition of political
jockeying. What are we jockeying for? The majority of
opposition members support our role and the government's role in
this NATO crisis. Where is the political jockeying?
All we are seeking is to have a vote on the issue in parliament.
It is that simple. There is no political jockeying involved. It
is a simple declaration that we support this initiative but we
want a vote on it in the House. That is democracy.
All these matters have been raised in the last few minutes.
Another statement was directed from the Liberal side toward the
opposition, that the opposition was using this issue and this
motion for political statements and posturing. Is this the
actual view of the Liberal government of the opposition that has
claimed time and time again that we are supporting the action
over there just because we are asking for a vote?
There are some other underlying reasons the Liberal government
is accusing the opposition of all these things. The
parliamentary secretary to the foreign affairs minister stated,
as reported in Hansard, that historically successive
Canadian governments had maintained that it was best to present
unanimity from all sides of the House on a decision of this
gravity and magnitude.
How would it even know that? Since when has the government side
been speaking for every member in the House? It is not speaking
for every member in the House. There is an opposition here which
has a role to play in the parliamentary system. It is not
speaking for every member in the House, in spite of what the
foreign affairs parliamentary secretary had to say.
Those are all the reasons brought forward in the last two hours
of the debate. The accusations have been plentiful on that side
trying to discredit or put down the opposition.
I am not speaking for every party but I certainly am speaking
for our own. We support the government action in NATO on the
Kosovo crisis. Why would the government side continually want to
shut down the issue of a vote? There is only one reason I can
think of. It does not want votes on important issues to take
place. It does not want the democratic process to actually—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt, but did the member for Calgary Northeast indicate he
was sharing his time with the member for Fraser Valley?
Mr. Art Hanger: I am.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member has one
minute to go.
Mr. Art Hanger: My apologies, Mr. Speaker, for not
letting you know earlier.
Obviously the government does not want votes on important
issues, even if it means having to send ground troops into Kosovo
and place the lives of men and women in the military in possible
danger. It does not want to vote on it.
1700
That is the history. We could go through a list of other things
like hepatitis C compensation. There was no vote on that issue
and it was an important issue. The issue of APEC funding
consumed much debate in the House. There were many questions
from the official opposition and other opposition parties to the
government, but there was no debate.
We could also talk about the issue that brought some infamy to
the secretary of state for financial institutions, which is the
taxing of single parents or single income families. It is
shameful. We could talk about the banning of kiddie porn. The
list goes on and on. That is the real reason this government
does not want to have a vote on the issue of Kosovo.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to explain to people watching that this is an
opposition day. Each year each of the four opposition parties
receives a certain number of days on which they can pick any
topic they want to debate. Today we are debating a motion by the
Bloc which has to do with Kosovo.
We just listened to the third speech made by a Reform member.
In that speech, as in the ones we heard this morning, there was
the usual criticism of the government and much sanctimonious talk
about democracy and how we should be dealing with Kosovo. By the
way, this is our fourth debate on Kosovo. What people watching
may not realize is that the Reform Party had an opposition day on
which it could choose any topic it wished. That opposition day
followed the all-night debate on Kosovo. The Reform Party picked
a Mickey Mouse motion. It was a tragic-comic, partisan motion
about alienation.
My question to the Reform member is this: If he is so keen on
this issue, as he purports to be, why is it they picked the comic
strip motion the day following the Kosovo debate instead of
supporting the Bloc motion today? That is not a party which
normally supports the Bloc. It is the party which says “No more
prime ministers from Quebec”.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the member, up to a point. I think he has been rather
unduly critical of our party; in fact, very much so in his
statements. I believe that nothing is comic in the House,
including our opposition day motion.
However, the issue of the vote is clear. We asked for unanimous
consent to have a vote on this issue the day it was debated in
the House. We had an all-night debate on the issue. What
happened? The Liberal side said no. The next day it was the
same thing; the Liberal side said no. We asked for that vote and
they would not agree to it.
I encourage the hon. member not to hurl these kinds of
statements back to the opposition.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. Reform member undoubtedly heard the hon. Liberal member who
spoke before him quote my words, in which I indicated that we
felt very strongly that every avenue should be pursued to try to
bring an end to the useless bloodshed. One of the avenues we
have been pursuing quite rigorously in light of that is the
uniting for peace resolution. We feel that it is important to
get this issue before the general assembly of the United Nations.
That seems to be constantly shoved aside by the government. It
is almost as if it does not want to bring the matter before a
larger international body other than NATO.
I would ask the hon. member what his views are with respect to
that suggestion.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that every effort
should be pursued diplomatically while the issue of this attack
is ongoing.
Diplomatically it is incumbent upon our government to pursue it
at great length. I applaud the member for taking that
initiative. I will tell him personally that I will support the
initiative to see that it does go to the UN as one more step in
attempting to bring a reasonable resolution to the crisis in
Kosovo.
1705
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
whether we have the United Nations or a united nation, I believe
that a vote in this House would mean that we would be speaking
with one voice. We would be a united nation, uniting behind our
troops for their morale and our allies for support. It would be
more than just the largest party in this House—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Calgary Northeast has 15 seconds to wind up.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague
for that question. That is exactly what it shows, that this
House, on a standing vote, with everyone being accounted for, is
supportive of our troops and the initiative we have embarked upon
with NATO. I agree with him and I thank him for the question.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the House for the opportunity to debate this very important
issue. A very important motion has been brought forward by the
Bloc Quebecois today. It basically boils down to whether the
House of Commons should not only be consulted but also have an
opportunity to vote on any deployment of troops, especially
ground troops, in the Kosovo region.
I will take the House back to 1995 when I brought forward Bill
C-295. That bill would have provided an approval process for any
deployment of troops overseas in a combat role. I was on the
foreign affairs committee at the time. What triggered this bill
was an all-party defence committee report which was tabled in the
House in the fall of 1994. Part of that report stated that
defence policy cannot be made in private and the results simply
announced. Canadians will not accept that, nor should they. Nor
should the government commit our forces to service abroad without
a full parliamentary debate and accounting for that decision. It
is our expectation that, except in extraordinary circumstances,
such a debate would always take place prior to any such
deployment.
That was the unanimous decision of an all-party defence
committee report of 1994, which followed the major defence and
foreign policy review. I see some members here who took part in
that report. One of the conclusions they came to was that not
only should parliament be consulted, but that consultation should
take place, except in extraordinary circumstances, prior to any
deployment of troops overseas.
The all-party committee which recommended that would be
saddened, as I am today, to see that six fighter bombers went
over to Kosovo, then twelve and now eighteen. We do not have any
idea of what other commitments the government will be making
because we take note in our debates but we never vote and we
never know before the government acts. This is in complete
contradiction to an all-party decision, which I think is even
more powerful than the government, which says that is not the
right way to do it, and the government does not enjoy broad
Canadian support when it acts unilaterally.
I brought up other things that are very germane to the debate we
are having today. If this bill had been adopted we would not be
having this debate because it would not be necessary. The member
for Red Deer brought forward two similar motions since Bill
C-295. They were all along the same line and all of them were
defeated by the government.
The benefit of having a vote in the House of Commons is that
through this political process Canadians would decide Canada's
role. Our reason for sending ground troops must meet the
satisfaction of the Canadian people. Many people in this debate
and in the previous take note debates have talked about the
necessity of military intervention. On this side of the House we
are not denying that it is a necessary role and that Canadian
troops need to be and are a part of it.
However, the political process, the approval of the House before
those troops are actually deployed, is the very least that the
opposition demands on behalf of Canadians. We all should be
involved in sending troops overseas when they are put in harm's
way.
1710
Second, I believe that asking for that vote, not just the debate
but the vote, would allow the government to gauge support for the
mission before Canada actually commits troops. I think it would
be unanimous. I have not heard a single member stand to say that
we should not be over there doing what we can to stop the ethnic
cleansing. I think it would be a unanimous vote.
This an opportunity for the government to gauge the level of
support. Parliament should be the instrument. We should not be
reading the National Post or the Globe and Mail and
waiting for Léger & Léger to do a poll. That is not the way to
do it. If the government is as sure as it says it is, and in
this case I think it is reading the tea leaves pretty well, it
should put it to parliament, let all of us vote, and go forward
with the confidence of knowing that the House and not just the
government supports the move.
Third, a vote would strengthen the ministers' hand. When the
Minister of Foreign Affairs goes to Brussels and enters into
negotiations with our NATO allies, and when the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs and National Defence deal with cabinet, it
strengthens their hand to know they are going forward with the
confidence of the House behind them.
This an opportunity for them to say to cabinet “We have to move
and this is why we have to move. You saw the vote. You saw the
House. The House brought its decision down and we had better
listen”. It is not just us, it is the Canadian people who are
represented. This is an opportunity to strengthen the ministers'
hand by having a vote in this place.
As a corollary to that, I have some fears with the government
having made this decision. What would happen if sometime down
the road one of the parties opposite started to criticize the
decision? What if, heaven forbid, someone was killed? It could
happen. It is a war zone. If someone was killed, a member on
this side of the House could get cold feet and say, “I sort of
supported it in my speech, but I sure never would have voted for
it”, which is probably malarkey. However, by asking members to
stand and vote, to actually stand in their places and tell us
what they think, there will be no turning back. They would be
saying “I supported the decision. We sent our men and women
overseas and I am behind them all the way”.
This brings me to my fourth point. A vote sends a message to
the troops like nothing else can. We bring forward motions. It
was tried last Friday to bring a motion forward regarding Wayne
Gretzky. There was a member today who talked about Wayne
Gretzky. We bring forward motions of support about things which,
frankly, are not terribly life threatening. I am a great hockey
fan, but it does not stir me like the very deep, troubled
emotions I have over what is going on in Kosovo.
We could send a message to our troops by standing and voting in
support of a measure that the government could bring forward.
Then we would be sending a message to our troops that not only
did we stand here literally, but we are standing with them
symbolically as they do Canada's work abroad, putting themselves
in harm's way, to who knows what kind of detriment in the months
to come.
The last time I spoke to this topic I told the story of a person
from my riding, Mark Isfeld, who was killed in a land mine
accident in Bosnia. It was a very sad moment in my community.
There was a huge funeral and a terrible outpouring of grief that
followed in our community, which is not that large.
Heaven forbid that would happen, but before it could happen I
would hope that members of the House would be able to stand and
say “We are with you, members of our armed forces. We are
standing here, and by standing here we are standing with you. We
appreciate what you are doing for peace, what you are doing to
prevent more slaughter and more ethnic cleansing.
We are with you as you stand to represent the values that
Canadians hold dear about truth and peace and trying to do the
right thing in a very difficult situation”. However, we cannot
do that in the same way unless we vote.
1715
I am happy to support the motion. It is a half measure, given
that we are already involved in the Balkan conflict, but I think
all Canadians would like to see their members of parliament stand
and be counted. I for one would stand and say “Ready, aye
ready” along with our men and women of the Canadian Armed
Forces.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just
as the Reform Party did, we have many criticisms of the
consultation and discussion process. This process will not end
in a vote as it should. This should have abeen voted on long
time ago, especially since the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs has recommended it.
I just received a document that shows how little the government
wants to inform us and how much it lacks transparency.
I have just received a note by a person responsible for the
Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade
that informs us that the briefing on Kosovo that was scheduled
for 10 o'clock tomorrow at National Defence Headquarters will
not take place.
I would like to ask my colleague of the Reform Party what he
thinks of the last minute cancellation of this briefing. Also
what does he think about the meeting tomorrow at the Standing
Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. That
meeting should last all of 30 minutes, and that is going to be
the only briefing the members of the House will get. Will we
have a briefing on Thursday, as promised? Maybe it too will be
cancelled. So, can my friend from the Reform Party say what he
thinks about these cancellations and this lack of transparency
on the part of the government?
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I can sympathize with the
member who brings up the problem of trying to get all the
information on the table in a short, 30-minute briefing in a
formal committee structure.
As we have seen so often, a minister might make a 10 or 15
minute presentation which leaves other parties—not to mention
government members who may or should have questions about the
same issue—with maybe two three-minute questions, maybe the same
amount of time for answers and then no follow-up. It is a very
inadequate briefing for something that appears to be escalating
quite rapidly.
We sent six fighter bombers, then twelve and now eighteen.
Negotiations are taking place in NATO circles regarding numbers;
50,000 to 100,000 ground troops. It is a huge discussion and
should be part of a huge debate that should, I would argue,
eventually lead to a vote, and not a vote just in committee where
eight or ten people might be well informed for 30 minutes.
A motion should be brought forward by the minister with a
proposal in hand giving the House the situation and the military
and political objective. We all know the moral objective is to
stop the ethnic cleansing. However, the minister should come to
the House and let all of us be briefed, not just the few who are
fortunate enough to attend committee.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know the hon. member has been following the debate in the House.
I am sure he is aware that over the course of the past century we
have entered into quite a number of conflicts all of which have
primarily been done without a resolution of this House. We
entered into the second world war, the Korean conflict and so on
without a resolution of this House.
Has the hon. member read the resolution? I am curious as to
what it is he is actually voting on. The resolution states that
this House demand that the government submit to a debate
beforehand with a vote in the House of the possibility of sending
Canadian soldiers to the Balkans who may be involved in military
or peacekeeping operations on the ground of the Kosovo and Balkan
region.
Is he voting on whether we have a vote? Is he voting on whether
we are hypothetically sending troops? Is he in effect
sanctioning what the government is already doing, namely having
already committed airplanes to the conflict and to bombing
missions? Is he sanctioning a military operation, in which case
is he prepared to—
1720
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, I need
to interrupt. The member for Fraser Valley has 60 seconds for a
response.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I do have the motion in
front of me as amended. It is pretty straightforward. It says
that this House demand that the government submit to a debate and
a vote in the House prior to the possibility of sending Canadian
soldiers to the Balkans who may be involved in military or
peacekeeping operations.
From my point of view and taking this at face value, we are
asking the government, prior to sending people in as peacekeepers
or into combat in a military zone, to submit a proposal to the
House for debate and a vote. It is straightforward, it is the
same in both official languages and it is easy to understand. I
encourage all hon. members to support the motion. It is a step
forward for democracy.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today.
The proposition before the House today is very interesting. It
is as if there was not already precedence in the House of
Commons. The House of Commons works on the concept of
precedence.
This government and governments before it have allowed soldiers,
sailors and airmen to go offshore, either to act on behalf of the
United Nations in peacekeeping or peacemaking; or, in the case of
the second world war, to go to war; or, in the case of the Korean
conflict, to go into another area of live fire and face death.
These conflicts were not voted on and have never been voted on in
the House of Commons.
We are looking at a precedence. We have given this subject many
hours of debate. As a consequence, we keep hearing “Why do you
not do this?” We are following the practice of the well-worn
and well-tried system of the British House of Commons theory
which is to practice by precedence.
This breaks the parliamentary practice. The proposal put
forward by the sponsoring member is hypothetical. If we ask a
hypothetical question it is generally turfed out. We do not work
on hypothetical situations in the House of Commons. We work on
real situations.
In looking at the situation as presented, it would and could be
unworkable. I do not want to get into a debate on it. I feel it
is ultra vires because it breaks the precedence in the House. We
believe the energies of the House are best directed toward
considering ways of resolving the crisis in Kosovo not engaging
in procedural wrangling like this.
The Canadian parliamentary system responsible for deploying the
Canadian forces lies with the government. It is the
responsibility of the government, through the Speech from the
Throne, through the empowerment of the defence minister and
through the government as such. We should not go off trying to
invent a new form of style in the government at this time.
The opposition should remember that we sent troops to Cyprus, to
the gulf war and to the Golan Heights. We have sent troops
offshore and many of them at the request of the United Nations.
In this case there is an explicit commitment involved. We are a
member of a security alliance which has asked us to participate
in the action in Kosovo and thereabouts. As legitimate alliance
members, we are being asked to participate on that team and we
are doing that.
As members of this group, and through information from our
foreign affairs committee and defence committee, we know it is
our solid commitment to take part.
1725
I do not know why we are coming up with all of this cobweb
stuff, with a little bit of angel dust on it, when it is not the
reality. The reality is that we have a commitment in writing to
participate with our defensive alliance. We should make that
commitment and we will make that commitment.
I should mention at this time that I will be splitting my time.
The government delivered on this and we said it would have take
note debates and have an airing. If there was an airing where we
were doing something wrong, it would have been picked up
sufficiently by the opposition and the opposition's commitments
would be there. However, there has been no such identification
of somewhere that we are off on the wrong track. We are on track
by being with our allies. We are on track by trying to bring
peace to a bewildered and beleaguered country.
We have no plans to deploy any armed soldiers on the ground in
Kosovo at the moment. That does not eliminate the possibility of
this happening. We always have to keep paratus in front of us as
the model of readiness in the infantry.
Very few of our NATO allies have put the Kosovo incident to a
vote. The United Kingdom has not voted nor debated this issue.
France has not voted. President Chirac decided to intervene and
consult the legislature but has had no vote. We are not off
centre with our allies.
The motion before us could be a very unworkable precedent if it
passed. It suggests that it would be appropriate for the House
of Commons to micromanage the aspects of troop deployment in the
Balkans, even on simple housekeeping items.
Canadian forces members are currently deployed on nine missions
of varying size in the Balkans, each of these managed on a day to
day basis by established Canadian forces policies with respect to
personnel rotation and replacement. Under the terms of the
motion, all of these decisions would be subject to House
approval.
The BQ would have the House convene to vote on whether a cook
could be dispatched to Croatia. Even deciding to dispatch a
rescue team for a downed Canadian pilot could be subject to a
House vote. The motion would slow down Canada's ability to
respond swiftly and flexibly to the kind of rapidly developing
humanitarian crisis that has become so much the norm in the past.
The cold war conflicts, of which Kosovo was just the latest
example in the Balkans, would draw us in.
None of our current missions in the Balkans were voted on by the
House. There is no question that the swift deployment saved
innocent lives and, for us, saving lives will always be the
priority over procedural wrangling.
Mr. Milosevic's unacceptable conduct predates the current crisis
in Kosovo. His use of the Yugoslav army to support fellow Serbs
during the war in Croatia and Bosnia materially contributed to
the ethnic cleansing that occurred during those conflicts.
Prior to Mr. Milosevic's rise to power, Kosovo was made up
mostly of ethnic Albanians who had a constitutional autonomy
within Yugoslavia. This right was stripped away by Mr. Milosevic
in 1989 and from that point forward he has deliberately worked to
impoverish the oppressed Kosovars.
Since early last year his security forces have mounted a
campaign in which innocent civilians have been subjected to
ethnic atrocities similar to those we witnessed in Croatia and
Bosnia.
We were part of the European community monitoring mission for the
United Nations protection force from 1992 to 1995. More than
1,300 Canadian forces personnel remain in Bosnia at this time as
part of the NATO led stabilization force.
1730
Our commitment to peace and stability in the region is well
established. This commitment is a logical extension of Canada's
longstanding policy of promoting international peace and
stability.
A diplomatic solution to the Kosovo conflict has always been the
course preferred by Canada and its allies. In March 1998 the
United Nations passed resolution 1160 calling on all parties to
reach a peaceful settlement. This was followed in September 1998
by UN resolution 1199, that both sides cease hostilities and
improve the humanitarian situation.
Regarding parliamentary consultation, on October 1, 1998 all
parties agreed that Canada should join our NATO allies on air
operations. They proved necessary. We had a second meeting on
February 17, 1999. There was hope that a peace agreement could
be signed and that our involvement would be consistent with that
of a peacekeeping force. On April 12, 1999 when the House once
again discussed the events in Kosovo, all parties supported
Canada's position to participate in the NATO led air operations.
In addition, both the defence and foreign affairs standing
committees held a number of meetings on the developments in
Kosovo. There was a joint meeting on March 31 of the ministers
of foreign affairs, national defence and international
co-operation and they outlined the government's response to these
crises. On April 15 the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared
before the foreign affairs committee to discuss the developments
in Kosovo. All interested members were invited.
That is involvement of the whole House at all levels.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to my colleague and I hope he will stay with
us to answer a few questions.
I do not believe that Canadians and Quebeckers see any procedural
wrangling, as the hon. member said, in the fact that we not only
want to debate the deployment of troops but also to vote on the
issue. This is the purpose of our motion, which does not appear
excessive to me, and which would not bind the government in the
future, although it might be interesting that parliament be
called upon to debate and vote on the issue of sending large
contingents.
The member's other argument, actually the second argument I
heard today, is that we should not change the established
practice, based on the British House of Commons' model.
First of all, this practice has not always been followed,
because there have been votes in the House prior to sending
troops abroad. If the hon. member had listened to the speech of
the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, he would know that votes
have been asked for by his party, by the Minister of Foreign
Affairs who was the foreign affairs critic at the time his party
was the official opposition, and that this practice had been
changed from time to time.
Therefore, practices can be changed and I would add that it is
even advisable to do so.
I would like to know what the hon. member across the way thinks
of what Mr. Clinton said today, when he asked Congress to
unanimously and immediately support a supplementary budget bill
authorizing additional funds for the American action in Kosovo.
President Clinton said that these funds are required urgently
and immediate lynecessity and that Congress would clearly serve
national interests by dealing with the issue.
Why would the Canadian parliament not vote on this issue, like
the U.S. Congress?
1735
[English]
Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Speaker, first of all the
proposition put before us is not in line. It is a hypothetical
situation which the hon. member should know well.
Second, the Americans have often gone back to congress when they
need more money for offshore fighting. There is a precedent.
This is nothing new. It is a typical redressing and refuelling
of the number of people they will send over there by making a
budget increase.
A hypothetical question is something we should not vote on. Also
the American analogy does not work. That is a precedent, an
American practice in their politics when the president asks for
more money to aid in a situation such as has taken place with the
NATO operation in Kosovo.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what the member had to say. His
contributions to this debate on the opposition motion by the Bloc
were very useful.
We have heard the Reform Party vigorously support this motion.
We know that the Reform Party has had its own opposition day
since the all night debate on Kosovo. Does my colleague have any
thoughts on why it is the Reform Party chose to debate a very
trivial motion for an entire day following the Kosovo debate,
rather than put a motion of this type forward itself?
Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party does a
number of things that do not always make sense. I was not here
when that motion was put forward so I cannot speak with any
authority upon it. I would just say that I cannot answer that
question with qualified authority.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, very briefly I would like the member to explain why his
colleague asked him to state the Reform Party's intentions and
positions rather than asking the Reform Party. Can he explain
that?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I realize the member has only just joined us, but I did ask the
same question of the Reform Party earlier this day.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is really a point
of order, but perhaps the hon. member for Perth—Middlesex would
care to respond.
Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Speaker, again I do not feel I
am in a position to make a response to that question. I would be
working in the dark on that one.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that excluding
the last several hours of debate, this House has already had the
opportunity over the last couple of months to have 26 hours of
debate on the important issue of Kosovo. Over 100 members have
participated. There has been 20 to 25 hours of work in
committees. There has been a major examination during the study
of the estimates by the committee to determine the responsibility
and accountability of the government on this important issue.
It is a little strange that there has been these great calls
about lack of information, lack of consultation. In fact if we
look at the record of many of the other countries in the NATO
organization there has been no debates, no votes whatsoever.
I point that out not for reasons of comparison, but simply to
point out that in this parliament we have established very
important advances in engaging members of parliament in the
decisions relating to foreign policy and international
activities.
For example, I heard the previous question to my colleague, the
parliamentary secretary. I want to point out one thing. I was
here during the time of the gulf war. The warships were sent
from Canada in August. Parliament was not even reconvened until
the end of September, almost five weeks later. There was not any
parliamentary involvement whatsoever. There was not even a
debate for another month beyond that. We went almost two and a
half months without any kind of parliamentary consideration, even
though Canada had committed itself to a major enterprise in the
gulf war.
1740
When the vote did come a month or two later, it was not to
authorize troops or ground involvement, it was simply a vote to
endorse a UN resolution. That was the vote, pure and simple. All
precedents that have been cited by hon. members opposite simply
do not conform with the parliamentary history or the
parliamentary facts.
The fact is important. I always pay great deference to my
predecessors. I point to the statement made by the Rt. Hon. Joe
Clark who was the Minister of External Affairs at that time. I
notice that he took occasion this morning to talk about
parliamentary responsibility. On September 25 he said that we
cannot always wait for deliberative bodies to deliberate and act,
which is why he said he would not guarantee a vote in the House
of Commons on the use of Canadian forces.
When we go back and cite history and precedent, it is important
to get the facts right. What we decided when we became the
government was to change all that, to open up the format so that
parliament would have the opportunity to be heard, to hear the
voices. We already have. Over 100 members of parliament have
expressed themselves very clearly on the most unmistakable
commitments.
I want to acknowledge the fact that the House has made itself
unified on the question of the reprehensible terrorism that is
being wrought on the people of Kosovo by the Milosevic regime. We
have made ourselves heard on the need to come to the aid of the
hundreds of thousands of refugees.
Indeed I would say we have recognized that as we go through a
transition in world affairs, we are also making a very major
statement as Canadians toward the acknowledgement that new
humanitarian standards are being established in the world. We
are establishing new norms of behaviour which say that even the
so-called sacred altar of national sovereignty should not stand
in the way of protecting the lives of innocent human beings, of
civilians who are being repressed and terrorized by their own
government.
I acknowledge that that is a change. Just as the world has
changed in geological terms, there is a shifting of the plates of
international relations. I am pleased to say that as Canadians
over the last several years we have increasingly been on the
forefront of establishing a need for new standards and new norms.
We say innocent people should not be killed by those weapons.
Whether it is the land mines campaign, advancing the work of the
international court, or standing up against the trade in small
arms, it is all part of the same fundamental, elementary process.
This is to say that we now must begin to provide higher levels
of protection for the safety and security of individuals, of
human beings, of people.
That is why it strikes me as somewhat curious that the House
would spend so much of its time on the question of a vote as
opposed to getting down to the essentials, which is how does this
country prepare itself to take the action required for that
protection of human life, of individual security, of human
responsibility and safety? That is what Canadians are interested
in.
As the Prime Minister said in the previous debate last Monday,
each circumstance will present itself. The government will make
a choice as to what the nature of that parliamentary consultation
and that parliamentary role will be. But to insist now on a vote
on something that has not happened yet simply runs contrary to
the very essence of relevance of the House. Please do not expect
us to vote on proposition, speculation, what might be, what could
be, what should be.
We want a government to make a decision and bring it to the
House. That is what it is about. Under the cabinet parliamentary
style of government, we assume that we give responsibility to
confidence of the House, of parliament to a government. If the
House does not like it, then it has every right to take that
confidence away. It can put a motion of non-confidence in the
government.
1745
As my hon. friend pointed out earlier, there have been occasions
when the opposition has done that. The Reform Party did not do
it in the last motion, but it had the opportunity to do it as it
has done in economic matters and other matters. That is the way
parliament works. Those are the fundamentals of parliament. It
is not to suggest that somewhere, someplace down the road, there
may be a commitment and that we should therefore tie our hands.
In the incredibly fluid situation that we are in, we are finding
out that a decision one day may not be what we need the next day.
Changes have to be made. There has to be a flexibility of
response. There has to be the capacity to make judgment calls
because we are also working inside an alliance.
Canada is not acting as a sole agent. We are not in this by
ourselves. We are members of a broad alliance of a wide range of
countries. We are engaged on a number of fronts. There is the
military campaign and the incredible commitments to humanitarian
assistance that we are making. There is active diplomacy going
on. That requires the responsibility and capacity to be able to
make those judgments, to be able to make those assessments, and
to be able to try to respond to the circumstances as they are.
I do not think that any hon. member of the House would want to
provide a handcuff on the capacity of the Government of Canada,
representing Canadians, to make those judgment calls and to be
able to respond, but to do so in the full recognition that
parliament has a role.
There is no other place in the world in which governments show
up every day to be questioned by members of the opposition. When
we talk about accountability, where else would it take place as
it does here every day? President Clinton does not show up in
Congress every day. The British Prime Minister goes once every
two weeks. Our Prime Minister is in his seat every day to answer
questions on where they come from and who provides them.
When we talk about the role of parliament, I suggest to members
opposite that it is a vital role, a critical role, and a role
that is being exercised very well by parliament. Hon. members on
both sides of the House are deeply engaged in this critical
issue. Whether it is through caucus meetings, their questions in
the day, by showing up for briefing meetings or by making their
commentaries known, parliament is engaged on behalf of Canadians.
It would be a serious mistake if we all of a sudden tried to put
a restraint or limitation on what parliament can do, adapting day
by day to the changing circumstances. We have had the
opportunity to debate the principles, the fundamental objectives
that Canadians do not want to see a government repress its own
people and deny them the dignity of their rights. It is prepared
to take action necessary through a broad based alliance to
establish a new standard of human security which provides the
sense that individuals in the world, someday, somewhere, will
know that they can count upon the international community to
protect their integrity as human beings and their rights as
members of the human family.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my
intervention, in recognition of the minister's appearance in the
House this afternoon I wonder if we could seek unanimous consent
to extend the period for questions and comments by 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if anybody from any other democracy, I might say any
real democracy, were to read the motion, it would give him or her
cause to pause and reflect that we would actually be debating in
the House a motion calling upon the government to let us have
votes on matters of grave national importance. This is unheard
of.
I have lived in countries where parliaments always operate this
way, where the government puts forth legislation and it is
immediately approved by all and sundry because that is the only
choice they have. I would really hope for something better in
the Parliament of Canada.
As I read this motion, what is being proposed is simply that this
House have a voice—
1750
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs,
if he wishes to respond.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to use
this opportunity to respond to my hon. colleague. He asked what
people in other democracies would think. In the United Kingdom,
the mother of the parliamentary system, there were no debates or
votes; in Belgium, no debates and no votes; in France, no debates
and no votes; in the Netherlands, two debates and no vote; and in
the United States of America it is a decision made by the
president.
Under the circumstances there is the Canadian record of coming
to the House for debate which authorized the mandate to
participate in the Kosovo mission; a debate which authorized,
through the expression of views of members of the House, a
peacekeeping implementation; and a debate last Monday night that
went into all hours of the morning. We had these briefings. I
think Canadians can stand proud.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the foreign
affairs minister has mentioned countries where there has not
been a vote. I could mention one where members voted twice, and
that country is Germany, the peace plan sponsor.
Canada could have shown leadership and put the matter to a vote
in the House.
When members change sides in the House, they tend to forget
certain things. I wonder if the minister will recall the
following statement “As we now stand, in the present situation
we are looking at very long-protracted sanctions in the gulf—which could
take months. We are looking at a very major military build-up... and
we are looking at a potential military option.
We would like to get some assurance specifically from the
government that we will not
engage in any offensive action in this region unless there is a
consent of parliament”. This is a quote from the current foreign affairs
minister.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, this is what the parliamentary
process is designed to do: to give parliament an opportunity to
state its position and consensus in debate.
I repeat that 100 members of this House have expressed their
opinion, and that we have had a 26-hour debate and three briefing
sessions for members. It is a great example of what I said 10
years ago.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. minister mentioned that the only vote before was to endorse
a UN resolution. We would certainly welcome that. At the risk
of sounding like a broken record, I would ask the minister if he
would use Canada's seat on the security council to formally
present a uniting for peace resolution to get this matter before
the General Assembly of the United Nations. Then we might have
something to vote on by way of endorsing that resolution.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I
have had some very good exchanges about this matter over the last
week or so. That is a demonstration of how parliament can work,
of how members of the opposition can make their contributions and
recommendations known.
I simply point out to the hon. member that today the secretary
general appointed a special representative. He has been working
assiduously to try to develop a resolution of the security
council. Why that? It is because under the charter an article 7
resolution does carry a broad mandate that will apply to all
members. If we can achieve that, and there is a lot of work
going into it, it would clearly be the preferable option. That
is what we are backing right now. That is why we are working so
hard along with the secretary general.
As I said to the hon. member, if it does not work then the kind
of recommendation he is making should be actively considered. Let
us give the best shot we have right now to help the secretary
general.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if you would be kind enough to define for us the
meaning of the term rubber stamp parliament. I think the hon.
minister might like—
1755
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands knows that the Speaker does not offer
definitions.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
foreign affairs minister for being in the House to listen to my
speech. I know that he came straight from his office specially
to listen to me. I am glad he did because I will remind him of
some of his famous statements. I quoted one a few minutes ago
but I will repeat it for him.
I ask the hon. members to identify who made the following
statements. The first statement from the minister that I would
like to quote was made on September 24, 1990:
As we now stand in the present situation, we are looking at very
long, protracted sanctions in the gulf which could take months—
He was talking about the gulf war.
And most importantly, this last comment:
We would like to get some assurance specifically from the
government—the Progressive Conservatives were in office at the
time—that we will not engage in any offensive action in this
region unless there is a consent of Parliament.
That is what the present minister stated.
The same minister, who was in opposition at the time, also
wanted—I will quote him, if I may, and he can say so if he
disagrees—to propose an amendment to have the House reconvene
earlier than it was supposed to after the Christmas break. He
said:
This is a way in which parliament will be allowed to present
itself as the forum for decision making, not the Cabinet, the
ministers or the Prime Minister but the people of Canada,
through their elected representatives.
The present minister of Foreign Affairs introduced that motion
on January 15 1991.
Further, speaking of Canadians, he said:
They know that there are no decisions more crucial for a
government than those concerning war and peace.
It is up to each state to make its own decisions. They want to
make sure these decisions are made by all Canadians and that
this forum, the Parliament of Canada, is respected.
The distinguished author of this quote is the current foreign
affairs minister.
I will go on as the members opposite had some good ones. On
January 15, 1991, they said, still concerning the Persian gulf
war:
I maintain that the government does not, in the circumstances,
have the moral authority to put this country into a war
situation.
It is not the foreign affairs minister who said that, but the
current Prime Minister of this country.
Still regarding members of this House, and chastizing the
government for recalling the House too late, that is two days
before the beginning of air strikes, and for asking the wrong
questions, a Liberal member said:
However, just like the voters, I was entitled to being consulted
on this fundamental question, which would have enabled all us to
vote on the issue.
It was the current government House leader, a member with a lot
of experience, who asked in 1991 for the right to vote on the
issue.
My last quote concerns a Liberal amendment to the government
motion.
This support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of
Canadian Forces for offensive action without further
consultation with and approval by this House.
In particular, can we get assurances from the minister in the
spirit with which we have been approaching this to have
Parliament consulted before any final decisions are made as to
these plans relating to our forces in the gulf area?
This was a question asked by the current Minister of External
Affairs on October 23, 1990, which was before the start of the
conflict.
Whether it is the Prime Minister, the Minister of External
Affairs, the government House leader or other members who
unanimously supported a report from the national defence and
veterans affairs committee, they were all requesting, when they
were in the opposition and even before the start of the
conflict, that members be allowed to vote. How can we explain
this about-face in the Liberals' position?
We heard a lot of nonsense. I will quote a few of those
comments. One of the last Liberal speakers before the Minister
of External Affairs was saying “We will vote against the Bloc's
motion because, for example, if we want to send a cook to Kosovo
to prepare food for the soldiers sent there as peacekeepers, we
will have to submit the question to a vote in the House”.
1800
They also said “We will vote against this motion because if CF-18
pilots are killed, we will need a vote to send a rescuer to
retrieve their bodies”.
The Liberals said “We will vote against this motion from the
Bloc because we have to act quickly to send ground troops to
Kosovo to fight for us, without the proper training”. They might
decide during the night that 1,000 soldiers will leave for
Kosovo tomorrow morning at 5.15 a.m. Nobody will have been able
to vote then.
The Liberal government has not given any good reason to oppose
the motion.
It has not given any good reason that would invalidate the
position taken by the Minister of External Affairs when he was
in the opposition. It has not given any good reason that would
invalidate what the present Prime Minister said when he was the
Leader of the Opposition.
We can ask why the government absolutely refuses to vote for
this motion. We were also told that no vote was ever taken in
the House concerning the deployment of ground troops. However,
we know that a vote was taken in the case of the gulf war,
another during the 1970s and yet another during the 1960s.
The minister mentioned earlier a few countries where no vote was
taken. I answered that votes have been taken in Germany, and
that two votes have been taken in the Czech Republic to
determine whether the country ought to get involved in such a
conflict.
A vote was taken this afternoon in the United States for the
granting of several billion dollars to continue to defend the
interests of Kosovars in this conflict. It is interesting to
recall that a vote was held today in the United States
concerning the budget.
Twice, last week and this week, we have asked the Minister of
National Defence to say what the estimates are, what it would
cost Canada, at this time, to take part in this conflict.
At the time when the U.S. Congress is voting on a budget that
could amount to $4 billion or $6 billion, the two answers that
my colleague for Joliette got from the Minister of National
Defence were the same “We do not know”. We asked how many planes
have been kept in reserve. At present, we have 18 planes over
there. How many do we have left, if NATO calls for more? We were
given the following answer “We do not know”.
We are entitled to wonder about the apparent improvization by
the Liberal government with respect to this conflict. How much
is it costing? We do not know. How many more planes can we
send? We do not know. Are these state secrets? Is it a secret
for national defence not to know, not to disclose, a budget like
this one? That would be surprising, however, when at the same
time the Clinton administration is voting on a budget for this
same conflict, while the Minister of National Defence and the
Prime Minister are telling us “It is a national secret, whether
this will cost Canadians $40 million, $50 million, $100 million
or $200 million”. We ask these questions but we cannot get any
answers.
The opposition parties are unanimous, a rarity in the House, on
the Bloc Quebecois motion concerning a vote in the House. This
is one of the constructive and positive things the Bloc
Quebecois has undertaken. We asked—
An hon. member: One of many.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, one of many. There are others,
including asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs to take
advantage of Canada's position as chair of the security council
to co-sponsor the peace plan presented by Germany. The response
we got was: “We do not know. We will look into it. We are
waiting”. Just like the answers on the aircraft and the
budget.
In a speech, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois proposed that a
conference of the European Union be held in order to define the
future of small nations, those in the Balkans in particular.
The Liberal side turned a deaf ear.
My colleague from Joliette ironically referred just now to the
fact that, if we want to send a parliamentary mission of 5, 6 or
7 MPs outside the country, to Geneva for instance, in order to
discuss the future of the WTO, we need unanimous consent in
order to free up a budget of $25,000, $30,000 or $40,000.
That is a rule currently in force in the House.
Yet if they want to send 2,000 or 3,000 soldiers to fight in
Kosovo, there will be no vote in the House because parliament
wants this to be decided by the PMO and the cabinet, while 9
years ago we were told that was not the right way to make a
decision.
1805
We have perhaps half or three-quarters of an hour left, and I beg
my Liberal colleagues to open their minds, to think things
through properly, to look at precedent and to support this
motion by the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
matter of fact, the hon. member for Repentigny has quoted the
constitutional example of the United States.
We should not forget that, ever since the declaration of war on
Japan, in 1941, the U.S. Congress has never used the rule set
out in the U.S. constitution. Committing U.S. troops is always
left to the president, to the executive branch.
In a way, Canadians have borrowed the British system inherited
from the past.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver
Quadra, a leading constitutional and international relations
expert, is probably at least partly right.
However, I can say that his colleague, the foreign affairs
minister, when he was sitting on the opposition benches, did ask
for a vote on the sending of troops.
Moreover, a vote has been held on this in the House. I was not
referring to the United States.
Furthermore, as late as last year or two years ago, Bob
McNamara, a former adviser to John F. Kennedy, apologized for
the tragic mistake of the Vietnam war.
Do we want the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Prime Minister
to be in a position, after the conflict, of having to apologize
to the Canadian people? We are asking that members of parliament
be allowed to exercise their responsibilities and to vote in the
House.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the hon. member.
Does he agree that, in our democracy, what the government is
suggesting here is that we democrats not use the most powerful
tool we have to express our democratic views, namely our right
to vote?
The government is saying “You can talk all you want, we will
allow that, we will organize debates. We will allow you to talk,
but when the time comes to really say what you want to say, you
will not be allowed to do it”. A parliamentarian expresses his
or her point of view by using his or her vote. What the
government is proposing is the opportunity to speak.
Does the hon. member agree that the government is violating our
most sacred right, the right to vote?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Joliette for his question.
In 1993, the Liberals' red book talked about restoring public
confidence in the institution of parliament. One of the ways to
achieve that is precisely to respect this historic right, the
right to vote. It is difficult to understand why the Liberals
want to violate such an important right as the right to vote.
In every riding, there are voters who are fed up with politics.
They often tell us “Canada is a dictatorship elected every four
years. We vote for a prime minister and a parliament, but after
that we have no decisions to make. Everything is decided by the
prime minister and his cabinet”.
Unfortunately and ironically, with the example it is giving to
Canadians, this government is proving these voters right.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
consent of parliament was requested by the former foreign
affairs critic, now Minister of Foreign Affairs, as my colleague
mentioned earlier.
However, any consent must first and foremost be an informed one.
One must be well informed before one can give consent and, on
matters of such importance as the deployment of troops abroad,
in countries such as Kosovo or Yugoslavia, the consent must not
be implicit. It must be quite explicit, and it will be only if
we vote.
I would like to ask my colleague if he considers, in this case,
that the consent to which the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the
Minister of National Defence and even the Prime Minister refer
is an informed consent, given that the meeting scheduled for
tomorrow, where we were to be briefed on the situation in
Kosovo, has been cancelled?
1810
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs has told us that 130 members have spoken on the
issue of Kosovo. I do not believe that constitutes explicit
consent on the part of members of parliament. The consent must
take the form of a well informed vote, taken after meetings with
the main stakeholders, that is the Minister of National Defence
and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Too often, they announce at the last minute that a briefing has
been postponed or cancelled and, as my colleague from
Beauharnois—Salaberry said earlier, now these briefings will last
only 30 minutes. With all the small talk, we will not even have
time to ask questions.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I speak in
this House, NATO planes are carrying out air strikes against
Serbian military targets in Yugoslavia and Kosovo.
At the international level, diplomats from around the world are
trying to find a negotiated solution to Serbian attacks on
Kosovo's Albanians.
In neighbouring countries, the staff of non governmental
humanitarian assistance organizations are doing everything they
can to facilitate the arrival of hundreds of thousands of
refugees, whose numbers have been rising since the beginning of
this crisis.
Here, however, no one can or wants to tell us whether or not the
Canadian armed forces are getting ready to send ground troops to
the Balkans.
Once again, this afternoon, the Minister of National Defence
refused to indicate if senior officers were planning Canada's
involvement in ground operations. These statements were not made
a week ago. They were made today in answer to questions put by
opposition members to the minister.
Earlier today, during question period, the Minister of National
Defence said and I quote “The only thing I can confirm is the
breakdown of Canadian troops already in the Balkans.”
When a minister refuses to provide clear answers to questions
put by the opposition and uses carefully phrased statements—and
that is a rather strong word—such as “the only thing I can tell
you is”, one has to wonder if the government is not about to
make a far reaching decision behind closed doors, without
consulting parliament.
This is exactly what we want to avoid in this motion. The motion
is clear. It says, and I quote:
That this House demand that the government submit to a debate
and a vote in the House the sending of Canadian soldiers to the
Balkans who may be involved in military or
peacekeeping operations on the ground in Kosovo
and the Balkan region.
Our goal is simple: we want such a decision, which may put the
lives of fellow citizens at risk, to be taken in a transparent
and democratic manner. Because the government has so far refused
to commit itself to holding a vote before sending ground troops
to the Balkans, we have no choice but to bring forward this
motion, which asks this formally.
It is astounding that we have had to go this far something that
just makes sense. A few people cannot decide alone to send
Canadian ground troops to take part in a conflict that could
still last for months.
We think that parliament must have a say in the Canadian policy
regarding Kosovo. So far, the opposition parties supported the
government's decisions in favour of air strikes against the
Serbian aggressors in Kosovo, but that does not mean—
1815
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I appeal to the diligence and indulgence of my colleagues so
that the hon. member for Rosemont may finish his remarks and be
followed by the usual period for questions and comments.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit
extension of the debate?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to
interrupt proceedings and put forthwith any question necessary
to dispose of the business of supply.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I understand that before I found my way back to the House there
was a request to extend the sitting by approximately five minutes
to allow the last spokesperson to complete his or her remarks. I
know that unanimous consent was sought.
I wonder if there might be a willingness on behalf of the Chair
to ask one more time for that unanimous consent with the
condition of course that there be no question or comment period
following that five minute conclusion of the debate?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to
continue the debate for five minutes to permit the hon. member
for Rosemont to complete his remarks?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: But there will be no questions or comments.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleagues in
the House for allowing me to speak to this important issue.
The decision to involve ground troops can be heavy with
consequence, and I think we must also not ignore the fact that
it could well lead to loss of life. There is no doubt that
parliament must be much better informed than it is at the moment
before it makes a decision. A true debate must be held before
parliamentarians can make an enlightened decision on such a
serious matter. Then this debate must necessarily be sanctioned
by a vote, which will give the government a clear mandate on the
relevance of sending ground troops.
The purpose of the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois is
not to take a stand on a possible military engagement on the
ground in Kosovo, but rather to force the government to have a
debate and a vote on this issue in the House should this
possibility arise. To avoid thinking about it right now would
just postpone a problem we will have to face sooner or later.
It is clear to us that the government cannot claim to have firm
democratic approval if it does not have a vote on this issue in
the House of Commons. Moreover, without a vote, the position of
the various parties carries no real weight. All day, government
members avoided taking a stand on this issue claiming it is only
a hypothetical question.
First of all, I want to say that, as the situation progresses,
the chances of a ground intervention becoming necessary are
increasing constantly.
Also, even though it is just a hypothetical question, nothing
prevents the government from making a commitment today to
consult parliamentarians before sending in ground troops. In
fact, to us, it is impossible to justify the government's
current position, which is simply undemocratic.
1820
Moreover, the government is probably worried that some members
or some parties may express their opposition to the deployment
of ground troops, which would be perceived as dissension and
would send the wrong message to the Yugoslav leaders.
In fact, by acting the way it is acting now, that is by keeping
information from the House of Commons and by refusing to let it
play an important role, the government forces members and
parties to be more and more critical.
If, in fact, members of the House are not informed of diplomatic
or military initiatives and if the reasons for decisions made by
NATO or the Canadian government are not explained and discussed
in the House, this cast doubts in the Bloc members' minds as to
the appropriateness of these decisions.
For the government to refuse a vote for misleading reasons would
send a negative signal to all members of parliament. That would
be denying the House the possibility to play its role and would
jeopardize the present consensus.
The government should not be afraid of having a real debate and
of answering certain critical questions. It would be stupid to
act as though 100% of Quebeckers and Canadians agreed with
Canadian participation in the present NATO operation.
In fact, it is important to stress the fact that many Canadians
are concerned and critical of the situation. The government must
be accountable to them. Taking a serious decision without the
consent of parliament would amount to a denial of our democratic
system.
I will conclude by saying that our riding offices receive many
calls from citizens asking questions. They want their elected
representatives to debate the question. They also want their
member of parliament to represent them well and, for that, there
obviously must be a democratic vote.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.22 p.m., it is my duty to
interrupt proceedings and put forthwith any question necessary
to dispose of the business of supply.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip, the vote on the amendment stands deferred until
tomorrow at the conclusion of the time provided for the
consideration of Government Orders.
Is it agreed that we proceed with the adjournment proceedings?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Halifax Herald ran a cartoon in February 1999 of a T-shirt
with a slogan “I survived Buchenwald and all I got was this
lousy T-shirt”. The caption below refers to the latest efforts
from veterans affairs.
Although the experience of 26 prisoners of war is certainly no
laughing matter, their treatment by this callous Liberal
government is a joke. On February 12, 1999 I asked the Minister
of Veterans Affairs to offer these survivors of Buchenwald
concentration camp a just and honest settlement. I pointed out
to the minister at that time that the compensation paid by this
government of barely over $1,000 each was an insult in itself.
The pathetic inability of this government to succeed where
others have failed in securing just reparations from the German
government is a testament to this government's misplaced
priorities.
The minister had the gall to respond that these survivors were
delighted. Then he seemed to contradict himself with the next
statement, saying that the Canadian government had raised it
again with the German chancellor.
1825
A constituent of mine who survived the horrors of the Buchenwald
concentration camp sent the cheque back to the Liberal government
with the word “refused” across the insulting payoff of $1,098.
The governments of Australia and New Zealand reached a
satisfactory settlement with their veterans who faced similar
horrors.
These veterans were interned in the Nazi Buchenwald
concentration camp instead of a prisoner of war camp where they
should have been sent under the Geneva convention. Other
governments have had the the ability to convince the German
government to provide an appropriate reparation. Our government
has failed itself and failed these brave Canadians miserably.
I do not understand the inability of the government to secure a
just settlement for these Canadians. Is it a matter of
incompetence or simply that the government cares little for the
plight of a small handful of 26 veterans?
The Government of the United States recently arrived at an
enviable settlement with Germany for United States veterans in a
similar position to our veterans. In his letter to the Minister
of Veterans Affairs, my constituent William R. Gibson expressed
the following sentiments:
I am hopeful that the Government of Canada can still come up with
a just and honourable settlement. You may be interested to see
that the American government has negotiated a settlement with
Germany for its veterans ranging in benefits from $10,000 to
$200,000.
Perhaps even more insulting than the cheque to these Canadians
from the government were the words of the Minister of Veterans
Affairs in his accompanying letter. He said: “I am delighted to
be able to close the chapter on this longstanding issue”.
Delighted indeed. It is now over eight years since the plight
of these veterans was discussed in the January 1991 report of the
subcommittee on veterans affairs entitled “It's Almost Too
Late”. Over eight years later I should say that it is almost
too late.
This issue was raised again in committee in August 1994 and in
letters to the ministers of veterans affairs, defence and foreign
affairs in 1997. I have raised this issue time after time for
over a year now and the government still admits defeat where
other governments have succeeded.
A letter from the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to
my office admits failure with these words “Canada has embarked
on several démarches requesting prisoner of war compensation from
Germany, but we have had no success”.
When I attempted to get to the root of the matter in the
interest of these veterans, I was told that the Liberal
government abjectly refused to make public its correspondence
with Germany on this issue. Why is the government afraid of
exposing its ineptitude where others have succeeded?
The Liberal government should take this opportunity right now to
do the honourable thing and agree before the House and all
Canadians that it will immediately begin to negotiate a just
settlement with these veterans and commit to succeed in
finalizing appropriate negotiations with the German government.
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that the hon.
member for Halifax West wishes to condemn the government's action
on behalf of Canadian veterans held at the Buchenwald
concentration camp. Let us get the facts on the table right now.
Some countries, Australia and New Zealand in particular, opted
in the 1980s to make a one time payment of $10,000 and $13,000
respectively to their Buchenwald veterans. Canada had already
chosen a different path in the mid-1970s.
We opted for the payment of monthly compensation for life with a
continuing benefit for the veteran's surviving spouse. Those
indexed payments are equivalent to a minimum of $45,000 in
today's dollars for each veteran with at least 89 days of
captivity. Compensation payments, as in the case with all
veterans benefits, are not subject to income tax. If the veteran
incurred any disability as a consequence of the imprisonment,
that is separately compensated for through disability pension
awards which again are tax free.
In terms of the compensation payment announced on December 11,
that arose because attempts in the 1980s and 1990s to gain
compensation from the German government did not succeed. The
Government of Canada therefore decided that these veterans had
waited long enough and decided to pay compensation on exactly the
same basis as was awarded to the Hong Kong prisoners of war,
namely $18 per day of captivity in Buchenwald, although the
payments to our Buchenwald vets were considerably less than the
payments to our Hong Kong veterans who suffered three and a half
years of unspeakable captivity.
A final point is the Minister of Foreign Affairs made it clear
on December 11 that the government payment of compensation to the
Buchenwald veterans did not close the door for further
representation on their behalf to the German government. Those
representations were made by the Prime Minister personally to the
new chancellor of Germany. The chancellor agreed to look into
the question and the Department of Foreign Affairs has been
following up on that commitment.
In short, everything has been done that there is to be done
right here. I think the hon. member should acknowledge that.
1830
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on February
17, 1999, I asked the following question in the House:
Mr. Speaker, this budget confirms the Minister of Finance's
continuing dependency on the EI fund. He is using the surplus in
the EI fund to fill his coffers and line the pockets of
millionaires.
While the minister is paying off his debt on the backs of the
unemployed, there is nothing in his budget for those who do not
qualify for employment insurance.
I put the question to the Minister of Finance and the Minister
of Human Resources Development was the one who answered. I
asked what was the amount of the surplus in the EI fund.
The minister told me it was $4.9 billion. He went on to add:
However, I am amazed that, on the opposition side, they keep
pushing a pitiful and simplistic solution as the best way to
help the unemployed, and that is to keep them on EI as much and
as long as possible.
We on this side want to give the unemployed hope, a global
strategy that will enable them to join the workforce. Unlike
members on the other side, we want to give them hope, not
dependency.
When it comes to dependency, it is the Minister of Finance who
is dependent on employment insurance. Workers who have lost
their jobs can no longer rely on it.
Even the Liberal member for Fredericton was reported in Time
Transcript as saying “We want him to be generous with the EI
system”. The Liberal members said that, after April 12, they
would meet with the minister to tell him how badly the EI
program was hurting Canadian workers.
They know it hurts and they are even discussing the issue, but
they are not ready to discuss with members of the opposition and
try to find solutions.
Even the bishop of Moncton said last week in L'Acadie nouvelle
that the so-called black hole could not be allowed any longer in
southeastern New Brunswick. Across the country, everyone knows
that changes to employment insurance have hurt people.
I will briefly give an example. I got a call from a voter in my
riding who was part of the Atlantic groundfish strategy. He had
accumulated more than 850 hours. He made an application for
employment insurance because representatives of the groundfish
strategy had told him he was eligible for employment insurance
benefits. He was told that, no, he was not, and that he would
have to go back on the groundfish strategy.
He appealed the decision, but he lost his appeal.
When he returned to the groundfish strategy, he was accepted.
Later, he made another application for employment insurance
benefits with the number of hours supposedly needed, and was
told that there had been a mistake the first time and that he
would receive employment insurance benefits. So he received his
money, plus the benefits of the groundfish strategy. But he had
also worked a certain number of hours.
He found himself in another income bracket, so he now owes
Revenue Canada more money than usual.
He tried to have the problem settled at Revenue Canada, but he
never succeeded. He was not able to obtain a solution from Human
Resources Development Canada nor from anybody else. The system
no longer works.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the money of
which the member speaks belongs to Canadians. Canadians expect
us to make intelligent choices in deciding how to spend their
money effectively.
We are working to help the unemployed, but we are also committed
to investing in health care, skills and higher education, job
creation and helping young families through such measures as the
Canada child tax benefit and changes to the Income Tax Act.
As well as spending wisely, Canadians want us to report clearly
on how their money is being handled. That is why EI funds are
tracked openly in a separate column in the government's books,
just as the auditor general recommended.
While the EI program covers most people who recently lost their
jobs or quit with just cause, there are also many unemployed
people looking for their first job or those who have been out of
work or out of the labour force for a long time.
For these Canadians EI is supported by a number of other programs
to help them get a job. For example, there is $2.1 billion for
those who need help re-entering the workforce; $155 million to
help youth obtain experience; $110 million every year in
communities with high unemployment; and $430 million a year with
the provinces to help Canadians with disabilities find work.
1835
The careful management of public funds is important, but getting
the government's books balanced is just the starting point. Our
goal is to help Canadians achieve secure futures through good
jobs.
I must remind my hon. friend that unemployment is at an eight
year low, at 7.8%, and that the deficit has been eliminated. I
hope most Canadians will say that we are going in the right
direction.
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the federal
Liberal government continues to be the number one obstacle to
growth in this country. Today we were reading about the latest
evidence of Canada's weakening economy. According to an internal
federal report, hikes in personal incomes taxes have contributed
to a significant decline in the after tax income of Canadians.
Stagnant family incomes, a poor middle class and rising poverty
were identified as the consequences of Canada's high tax policy.
In short, the report concluded that Canadians on average have
become poorer in the 1990s.
One of the lesser told stories is the negative impact on the
economy brought about by the Liberal government's cost recovery
program. There is nothing wrong with a cost recovery program
based on reasonable fees, increased efficiency and smarter
performance, but credible evidence suggests that the present
program is the Liberal government's latest attack on the private
sector.
A recent report prepared by the Business Coalition for Cost
Recovery, which represents small, medium and large size firms
that employ 2.2 million people and contribute $330 billion to the
national economy, detailed the devastating impact the federal
cost recovery program has had since 1994. Canada's manufacturers
have been subject to a massive 153% increase in regulatory fees.
User fees charged through cost recovery are among the fastest
growing costs of doing business in Canada. The $1.6 billion in
regulatory fees charged to businesses in the 1996-97 fiscal year
cut Canada's GDP by at least $1.3 billion and cost at least
23,000 Canadian jobs.
The cost recovery fees, as currently structured, are undermining
the productivity and international competitiveness of Canadian
businesses. For of all the problems caused by cost recovery the
government is only gaining 20 cents in revenue for every dollar
in fees charged to businesses.
As I have noted on numerous occasions in the House in recent
months, if the Liberals were truly concerned about productivity
and increased business investment they would have used this
budget to place an immediate moratorium on new or increased
regulatory fees until a complete overhaul of the cost recovery
program were complete. Instead they chose this complicated and
inconsistent cost recovery structure that unduly interferes with
the very private sector we need to grow for a stronger economy.
These regulations and fees comprise a hidden form of taxation
and their excesses need to be curbed to guarantee sustained
growth for Canada's economy. I challenge this government to
start addressing the root causes of low productivity such as the
heavy regulatory burden of the federal cost recovery program.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question concerning
productivity. The available evidence shows that Canadians can
improve their productivity performance relative to other major
trading partners.
Improving our productivity performance matters because the more
efficiently we can combine our resources to produce goods and
services, the more easily Canadians can use some of those
resources in other areas of endeavour they believe are important
to improve their standard of living, including health, education
and the environment. For this reason the government is committed
to building a stronger, more innovative and more productive
economy.
Budget 1999 underlined this commitment by continuing to build
the fiscal base for long term growth. It also provides for
substantive new investments undertaken in partnership with the
private sector in the creation, dissemination and
commercialization of knowledge. Just a few examples of these
investments are: $200 million for the Canada Foundation for
Innovation to build research infrastructure; $60 million over
three years to establish smart community demonstration projects
that will broaden access to the information highway; and $90
million over three years for the networks of centres of
excellence to support partnerships among world class researchers
in the private sector.
1840
These and other investments will help improve foreign activity
and ultimately our standard of living. They are vital at this
time, but they are not the complete answer.
Together we must tackle the multifaceted elements of the
productivity challenge, such as strong business investment,
research and development performance, the commercialization of
innovation and encouraging higher levels of training in areas
appropriate for the demands of the new knowledge based economy,
and improving our trade performance. We must work together on
productivity in the House, in the committees and in our
constituencies.
[Translation]
BLACK LAKE BC MINE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
want to condemn an injustice with respect to the former BC Mine
workers of Black Lake.
When the BC asbestos mine was closed, on November 1, 1997, 300
workers lost their jobs. Two thirds of them were over 52 years
of age.
The Minister of Human Resources Development reacted very timidly
to support Quebec asbestos miners with only $4 million, whereas
the same minister finds considerable amounts for the miners from
Cape Breton in Nova Scotia.
On behalf of the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
Minister of National Defence answered this to the question I
asked on this issue on March 19, 1999:
In this case a workforce adjustment package of $111 million will
be provided to workers with fair severance and early retirement
packages.
To the generous $111 million compensation package I just
mentioned, $148 million will be added by two other departments,
apparently to accelerate Cape Breton's economic expansion.
I condemn this double standard. The people in Black Lake feel
the Minister of Human Resources Development is treating them
unfairly.
The Thetford Mines region feels unfairly treated by the Liberal
government of Canada. Quebec is not getting its fair share.
To the $111 million have been added $68 million from economic
development and $80 million from the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, for a total of $259 million to the miners
of Nova Scotia, while hardly $4 million has been provided for
the people of Black Lake, in Quebec.
That is the fairness of this Liberal government. Four million
dollars for Quebec, and $259 million for Nova Scotia.
I urge the Minister of Human Resources Development to correct
this injustice by reopening the file on the BC Mine workers.
Everyone in Canada must be fairly treated. Why $259 million for
coal miners in Nova Scotia and only $4 million for asbestos
workers at the BC Mine in Black Lake? There is the injustice.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources
Development, in response to a question from the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst, said earlier that the surplus from the
employment insurance fund, which exceeds $20 billion, belongs to
everyone, and not only to millionaires. If this money belongs to
everyone, a good share of the $20 billion should be given back
to the BC Mine workers. That is—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
1845
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government shares the hon. member's concern for the workers
affected by the closure of the British Canadian mine operation at
Black Lake, Quebec.
He compares the situation of the BC mine workers to that of the
Phalen mine workers in Nova Scotia. While the workers in these
two cases faced different circumstances, the government treated
both groups with equal fairness and equal consideration.
Let me explain the measures we have undertaken to help the 300
BC mine workers in Quebec. We reacted quickly and, in total,
provided some $4 million.
As early as September 1997, close to $3 million was set aside to
help the 300 workers quickly re-enter the labour market and this
help is showing some signs of success: nearly 70 workers have
found work; nearly 60 are pursuing training and skills
development to help them find different work; and half a dozen
are trying to establish their own businesses. We know these
people want to work and we hope our assistance will continue to
help them.
In addition, in June 1998 the government also announced $1
million in funding intended to help workers between the ages of
55 and 64. The Government of Quebec gave its approval to move
forward and put this program in place for older workers from the
BC mine last fall.
Meetings were held with former workers and representatives of
Emploi-Québec and federal officials to exchange information and
accept applications.
I am happy to report that eligible workers will begin receiving
early retirement benefits, cost shared by the two governments, in
the upcoming months. The government will continue to offer
support to all Canadian workers through programs to help them
participate fully in the Canadian labour market.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.)