36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 183
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 17, 1999
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NUNAVUT
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| DAUPHIN—SWAN RIVER
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| CLSC NORMAN-BETHUNE
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| LIBERAL TASK FORCE
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
1405
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1410
| NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
|
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
| PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1425
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1435
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1440
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1445
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ARMENIAN COMMUNITY
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1450
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1455
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CULTURE
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1500
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1505
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Public Service Alliance of Canada
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1510
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1515
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1520
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| The Speaker |
1525
1530
| Motion
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| PETITIONS
|
| Gap Between Rich and Poor
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1535
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| THE BUDGET
|
| Financial Statement of Minister of Finance
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1540
1545
1550
1555
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Amendment to the amendment
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1620
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1625
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1630
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1635
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1655
| Mr. René Canuel |
1700
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1705
1710
1715
1720
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1725
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1730
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1735
1740
1745
1750
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1755
1800
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1805
1810
1815
1820
| Mr. John Cannis |
1825
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1830
| PEACEKEEPING
|
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1835
1840
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1845
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1850
| Mr. David Price |
1855
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1900
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1905
1910
1915
1920
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1925
| Mr. René Laurin |
1930
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1935
1940
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Mr. René Laurin |
1945
1950
| Mr. David Price |
1955
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
2000
2005
2010
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
2015
| Mr. Julian Reed |
2020
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Mr. André Bachand |
2025
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
2030
| Mr. David Price |
2035
2040
2045
| Mr. Art Hanger |
2050
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
2055
| Mr. Julian Reed |
2100
2105
| Mr. Art Hanger |
2110
2115
2120
2125
| Mr. David Price |
2130
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
2135
2140
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2145
| Mr. Paul Crête |
2150
2155
2200
2205
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2210
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
2215
| Mr. David Pratt |
2220
2225
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2230
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
2235
2240
2245
2250
| Mr. Bill Graham |
2255
2300
2305
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2310
2315
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2320
2325
2330
2335
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 183
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 17, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
.TUC Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will led by the hon. member for
Souris—Moose Mountain.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday decades of dreams became a reality for the people of
Nunavut when they held elections for the first government of
Canada's newest territory. In this historic vote, they elected 19
MLAs who will govern this territory being created from the
eastern part of Canada's Northwest Territories. This starts on
April 1. Throughout Nunavut people gathered to watch the election
results as the polls closed in each of the three distinct time
zones.
The new legislative assembly is the achievement of Inuit and
non-Inuit people working together. It will help Inuit become
full partners within Confederation and to take charge of their
own destiny. This government, which is representative of the
northern population as a whole, will be accountable to the people
of Nunavut.
On behalf of Canadians, especially those in London West, my
constituency in southern Canada, I extend congratulations to the
newly elected MLAs, to those who stood as worthy candidates in
the election and to the people of Nunavut. Well done. Welcome.
* * *
DAUPHIN—SWAN RIVER
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my constituents in Dauphin—Swan River, Manitoba work hard, abide
by the laws, and do their best to create communities safe both
for the young and the old.
But wheat, cattle, and pork producers, the backbone of
Dauphin—Swan River, have fewer and fewer markets to go to. When
they sell their produce, they get less and less.
In fact, the one thing they can count on getting more of is more
taxes. They pay higher and higher taxes to the federal
government and get less and less. They get longer and longer
speeches from the finance minister. They get more and more empty
rhetoric from the Prime Minister.
It is time for less rhetoric, shorter speeches and tax relief
for Dauphin—Swan River.
* * *
[Translation]
CLSC NORMAN-BETHUNE
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently we learned that the Quebec minister of health
and social services, Mrs. Pauline Marois, had received a request
to change the name of the CLSC serving the Chomedey-Laval
district from CLSC Norman-Bethune to CLSC/CHSLD Ruisseau
Papineau.
I believe it is imperative that the name Norman-Bethune continue
to be associated with the health sector. In January 1929, Norman
Bethune came to Montreal's Royal Victoria Hospital to study
surgery; he was rapidly recognized as an expert and a prominent
person in the medical field.
The author of many papers, Norman Bethune realized that the
state undoubtedly has jurisdiction over public health and
therefore has a crucial role to play in that respect.
In a word, because of Norman Bethune's contribution, reputation
and skills, I consider that his name—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
* * *
[English]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today I stand in support of the Liberal government's
1999 budget which will increase prosperity and lead Canadians
into a new world economy for a new century.
At the beginning of this century the prosperity of the Canadian
economy was of course dependent upon a world economic environment
that provided funds for investment and markets for exports.
One hundred years after Sir Wilfrid Laurier was responsible for
that profound provident policy, Jean Chrétien's government is
continuing to keep—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North—St.
Paul.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a sad commentary that the opposition due to
partisanship cannot find the courage to applaud, nor the
magnanimity to acknowledge, the good news budget '99 brings to
all of us.
It builds on the previous five budgets of this government which
has shown its sound financial management of the country:
eliminating the deficit, balancing the budget and creating the
surplus, thanks to the will and hard work of all Canadians.
Now, cash transfers for health to the provinces will increase by
$11.5 billion over the next five years, $425 million for
Manitoba, in addition to $1.4 billion of direct investment in
health research and preventive programs.
Indeed budget '99 is a healthy transfusion to safeguard and
strengthen medicare, the crown jewel of Canada's social programs.
Its focus on health, in addition to reducing taxes by $7.7
billion and to investing in the creation, sharing, and
application of knowledge speak of our faith as a people that in
the finance minister's own words “there is no ambition too great
for this country”.
Let us salute the government and the Canadian people.
* * *
LIBERAL TASK FORCE
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
Sunday afternoon the member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia, who is the chair of the government's western
alienation task force, was the guest on a two-hour radio show
across Canada.
In the entire two hours there was not one single call of
support. And one listener even told the member to get himself a
hearing aid because it was clear from his inattention to the
callers that he was not listening.
The government does not even listen to the messages it gets from
the Liberal Party of B.C. on issues like Nisga'a, criminal
refugees and crime control. Why would anyone think for a moment
that the western alienation task force is going to take the
slightest bit of notice of input from the west?
After all, if the Liberals were serious, they would only have to
listen to and act on the input that Reform MPs are giving them
every day in the House.
The name of the western alienation task force should be changed
to the Liberal alienation task force because it is the Liberals
who are the ones who are alienated out west. The voters just do
not like them.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to congratulate our finance minister and in fact all
Canadians for this good news budget and their extraordinary
achievement of turning our country's economic fortunes around.
However at this time I want to expand upon the comments made by
the leader of the Reform Party and further introduce his cast of
characters for the Robin Hood story.
They are the member for Wild Rose as Friar Tuck; the member for
Langley—Abbotsford as Little John; the member for Edmonton North
as Maid Marian; the member for Medicine Hat as Robin Hood; and
lastly, the member for Calgary Southwest as the true Sheriff of
Nottingham.
This band of miserable marauders have nothing more to offer than
silly anecdotes. Once again Canadians see the Reform members for
what they truly are, a bunch of medieval morons so entrenched in
the past—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Verdun—Saint Henri.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Finance brought down an economic and
social confidence-building budget.
1405
This is a budget for health. It translates into a $3.5 billion
increase in funding for the provinces.
The Canadian government has listened to the people of Canada.
That is why the Minister of Finance announced such significant
measures to be implemented in the coming years.
This is one of the key points in yesterday's budget. I encourage
the people of Canada to peruse it; I am sure they will
appreciate the major impacts it will have in the next few years
in an area as important as health in Canada.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
very day the budget was presented, the situation in the
emergency rooms of certain hospitals was critical.
The Minister of Finance does not appear to listen to the news
before he retires. If he did, he would not spend millions of
dollars, when he prepares his budgets, on fattening up the
mandarins of Health Canada and ordering empty studies on matters
of no concern to him.
This House must realize that, with the hundreds of millions of
dollars the federal government will be wasting in duplication
and useless programs, such as telecare, the provinces could
create hundreds of jobs and make available thousands of beds in
emergency rooms so as to help the sick directly.
Let us remind the Minister of Finance that Internet does not
attend to fractures, people do. No, the Minister of Finance did
not listen to Canadians and Quebeckers in this budget. He tried
instead to respond to the federal government's obsession with
its own visibility.
It is sad to see that this budget marks the start of the ravages
to the social union agreement that—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians can take great pride in our armed forces. They have
demonstrated time and again their dedication, bravery and
professionalism. It is unsurpassed. What a great disappointment
then to read yesterday's budget.
Since the Liberals took power in 1993, the defence department's
budget has been slashed by more than $7 billion. This has had a
devastating effect on both operational readiness and morale.
Fixing low morale is not a simple matter of increasing pay
levels. Morale is also affected by equipment that personnel must
use. Our air force is flying aircraft that is 20 to 45 years
old. Our army is driving 30-year old APCs and outdated trucks.
Yesterday's puny budget increase of $325 million addresses only
one side of the morale question, a tiny fraction of what has been
cut. This meagre increase is to be devoted to pay and benefits.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
behind the highlights of the budget presented yesterday by the
Minister of Finance lies the need to build today for the future.
As in past years, the Liberal government has made a point of
saying that Canada must not return to the hell of deficits.
And so the Minister of Finance set out clear principles:
maintaining sound financial and economic management; investing
in major economic and social priorities that have a profound
effect throughout Canada; taking definite steps to reduce the
tax burden and improve fairness in the tax system; eliminating
the budget deficit and reducing the debt burden to keep Canada's
economy on a solid footing.
Quebec will receive $1.4 billion and $11 billion, that is 29% of
all provincial transfers, despite the fact that it has only 24%
of the population.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
morning millions of Canadians woke up to find their beloved CBC
missing.
Over 2,000 technical staff who work at the CBC went on strike
for fair pay and decent working conditions. They have rejected
the most recent offer of zero, zero and zero.
This Liberal government has cut public funding to the CBC by 25%
and we are now seeing the results.
Management at the CBC seems hell-bent on the elimination of
regional programming and forcing more and more concessions from
dedicated programmers.
It is criminal that those who support better broadcasting have
to walk a picket line, while those who seem dedicated to destroy
it sit in management, on the CBC board or in the cabinet.
Canadians expect quality programs from the CBC, not reruns.
Canadians want fair labour practices from our public broadcaster.
New Democrats and concerned Canadians demand that this
government intervene now to get management back to the bargaining
table with a meaningful offer so Canadians can once again wake up
to the CBC.
* * *
1410
NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 50
years ago today the Parliament of Canada approved the Terms of
Union with Newfoundland and Labrador.
Confederation was a hotly debated issue in Newfoundland in 1949.
Many felt it would mean a loss of our independence and identity.
Today we celebrate the full benefits for both sides of this
historic partnership.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are proud to be members
of the Canadian family. As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we
invite our Canadian brothers and sisters to join us in
celebrating Canada from our unique Canadian perspective.
Soiree `99 is a year-long festival of history, folklore, arts
and culture. We will also reflect on the strength and diversity
of Confederation at the Canada Conference.
As we celebrate this historic milestone of Confederation, I
encourage all members and indeed all Canadians to join us this
year in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada's youngest province.
* * *
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Public Service Alliance of Canada employees are having
demonstrations on Parliament Hill today.
Last week PSAC employees in my riding held peaceful
demonstrations. They are frustrated that the table two
negotiations have broken down and they are now on strike. They
have not been awarded pay equity with their counterparts in the
same trade across the country. They have yet to receive an
increase in wages for the past seven years.
The members of table two have been left with no other choice but
to strike after over two years of negotiations with the federal
government. I must question what this government has been doing
in the past two years. Obviously very little.
The table two PSAC members only want fair and just treatment. It
is this government's responsibility to negotiate with labour in a
fair and equitable manner. Treasury Board must take that
responsibility seriously and act now.
I urge Treasury Board to go back to the bargaining table and
negotiate in good faith with those members.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, in New Richmond, people from all
walks of life from the Gaspé, Magdalen Islands, Lower St.
Lawrence and Acadie regions sent an appeal to the Government of
Canada.
People from these regions want to live, not just survive. They
are saying to the federal government “Stop impoverishing those
of us who live in coastal and forest regions and depend on
seasonal work. The spring gap is waiting for us”.
These people are demanding that an independent employment
insurance fund be established and administered by
representatives of the contributors, that the employment
insurance program be improved, and that the EI surplus be given
back to them.
To this, the Minister of Finance replies contemptuously but
shamelessly “You little people from the regions, wait some more.
Ottawa still needs to take your employment insurance money to
appear to be resolving the crisis in the health care system, to
alleviate the plight of high income taxpayers, and to put Quebec
in its place”.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party's mean-spirited attack against environmental law
and conservation groups is appalling. These public interest
organizations perform valuable services for all Canadians. With
limited financial resources, they are at the forefront of
research and public education.
Unlike the Reform Party, Canadians recognize that a strong
economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand.
Once again the Reform Party has put its support of single
special interests ahead of the public interest. Why should these
environmental and public interest groups lose their charitable
status while the charitable status of right-wing special interest
groups such as the Fraser Institute is unchallenged?
The hypocrisy of the Reform Party is evident. They only care
about taxpayers' dollars when the views of the organization
contradict their own.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Order, please. Before we begin Oral Question
Period, I want to address myself directly to the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
It is reported on page 11887 of Hansard that the hon. member
used the word “liar”. I am asking him to withdraw that word,
which is unparliamentary.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at the end of this year, after all this talk of tax
relief, Canadians are going to be paying $42 billion more in
taxes than they were when this government took office.
While the economy grows at 2% to 3% per year, the government's
revenues are growing at 8%. Never in Canadian history has any
government taxed Canadians as much as this government.
My question for the Prime Minister is why, after so much talk of
tax relief, are Canadians paying the highest taxes in their
entire history?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has more revenues because the economy is
performing very well. The government has more revenues because
1.6 million people who had no jobs five years ago are working in
Canada. The government has more revenues because there is
optimism in the country because we have reduced the deficit from
$42 billion to zero. The government has more revenues because it
is the first time that we have had two balanced budgets in 50
years.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, no prime minister in history has taxed Canadians as much
as this Prime Minister.
No prime minister in history has cut health care more deeply.
For the last four years the accumulated total of health care cuts
is over $20 billion. The budget proposes to put $11 billion back
over five years and health care deteriorates as a result.
How does the Prime Minister intend to explain to Canadians that
when they are paying the highest taxes they have ever paid, they
are getting less health care than they have ever received?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just want to tell the House of Commons that the Reform
Party said that the government should immediately restore health
care services by reallocating a minimum of $2 billion in new
health transfers to the provinces.
The problem that we have with the opposition party is that it
cannot take yes for an answer.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister refers to others because he is really
afraid of his own record.
The real result of this government's health care policy is a
two-tier health care policy where ordinary Canadians get put on a
list 200,000 names long and wealthy Canadians go to the United
States.
My question for the Prime Minister is how does it feel to go
down in history as the father of two-tier health care?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy with the standing ovation because we are
afraid we will lose the leader of the Reform Party next week.
I do not have to go to the United States because I want to go to
Alberta. One of the guest speakers for this weekend, the premier
of Alberta, Mr. Klein, said on February 17, not a long time ago,
“I am pleasantly surprised. I did not think there would be a
restoration of health care funding that would be of such
significant proportions”.
1420
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
can tell you one thing the Premier of Alberta is not in favour
of. He is not in favour of the provinces having to send all
kinds of people south of the border to get all kinds of
procedures, preemie babies going from Ontario to the United
States to get service because they cannot get it in Canada.
They are not in favour of a young man from Toronto going to
Buffalo to get a tumour removed because he could not get it done
in Toronto.
That is the type of health care the government is giving. I
would like to know how he can justify two tier health care in
Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: It is just not going to work if we cannot
hear the questions or the answers.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there will be a big party this weekend. Some Tories
from Ontario will be there and the leader of the Tory party, the
Premier of Ontario, said last night that it was a very good step
in the right direction on medicare.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
can tell you that the Premier of Ontario does not favour seeing
$5 billion a year leave Canada and go to the United States for
health care every year. That is what is happening under this
government.
They cannot get health care because this Prime Minister is the
prime minister who put the hell into health care. This Prime
Minister is the prime minister who cut $20 billion out of health
care and is proposing to put half of it back and expects people
to be grateful. Thank you very little.
Is that the record the Prime Minister is proud of?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the people of Canada are very happy that we have
the finances of the nation in good shape. They are very happy
that after we have managed to reduce the deficit from $42 billion
to zero, the first big investment we made responded to the wishes
of Canadians. We have invested $2 billion for each of the next
two years into the health care. They are quite happy with that.
I understand that the Reform Party, because of this good budget,
will have to invite again the group therapist from United States
to come and—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we
feared, unemployed workers, who have had their benefits slashed
and are being harassed in employment centres, are footing the
bill for the measures announced yesterday by the Minister of
Finance.
How can the minister be proud of this budget when he knows full
well that the government's gains come at the expense of
unemployed workers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since 1986 the Auditor General
of Canada has asked us to include the EI account in the
government's consolidated revenue fund.
During all the years this fund was in the red, did the members
opposite criticize Canadians for contributing to it? Now, there
is a surplus. I know surpluses are something the members
opposite cannot understand, cannot even imagine.
It is only natural now that all Canadians should benefit from
this fund, which is serving them very well.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): The Minister of
Finance's sidekick is just as proud as the Minister of Finance,
who has an unfortunate habit of dipping into the pockets of
unemployed workers. It is a disgrace.
Yesterday, as I left my office, which is not far from the
Minister of Finance's office on the 5th floor of the Centre
Block, friends of the Minister of Finance were partying and
toasting his budget.
Is the minister aware that, while he and his friends were
celebrating, unemployed workers were facing the prospect of
benefits that were reduced or about to run out at week's end
because of the government's EI cuts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
celebrations were not confined to my office. All of Canada was
celebrating the health budget. Canadians were celebrating the
fact that the federal government has just put an additional
$11.5 billion into the health system throughout the country.
1425
They are celebrating the fact that equalization payments are
going up. They are celebrating the fact that the number of
Canadians with jobs has risen by 525,000 over the past year.
They are celebrating because things are looking good for Canada.
That is what the good cheer is all about.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance decided to unilaterally change the rules for
distributing the Canada social transfer, so that Quebec will
receive less than 10% of the health care money given to the
provinces, while Ontario will get 46%.
Since, in the name of equity, the health care transfer to Quebec
will now correspond to its demographic weight, will the Minister
of Finance promise to use the same criteria for purchases of
goods and services and for regional development, where Quebec
faces an annual shortfall of nearly $3 billion a year.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
we look at transfers to the provinces, we look first at the
Canadian transfer for health care and equalization payments.
When we look at the two together, we see that, within four
weeks, Quebec will be getting a cheque for $1.4 billion from the
federal government—
An hon. member: Zero deficit.
Hon. Paul Martin: Exactly, zero deficit, as my colleague said.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: And that is thanks to us.
Hon. Paul Martin: Everyone knows that within the next five
years, the provinces will be getting $19.6 billion from the
federal government, and that Quebec will be getting—
The Speaker: The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance should say it is thanks to the unemployed
and Bernard Landry that he does not just have no deficit.
An hon. member: It is true. It is true.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Instead of trying to knock everyone flat with
his empty figures, will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that
in the end—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the question from the
member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to knock
everyone flat with his empty figures, will the Minister of
Finance acknowledge that in the end the effect of his budget
yesterday is $33 billion in cumulative cuts to social and health
programs and that the amounts announced represent only a
fraction, a small fraction, of the cuts established in his 1995
budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
empty figures? One point four billion in the next four weeks
represents empty figures? Six billion dollars of new money over
five years represents empty figures? That counts for nothing?
The math of the Bloc Quebecois is clear now. They understand
nothing at all. This is money that will go to create jobs.
This is money that will improve health. This is money that will
go to help all Quebeckers. And it is too bad for the Bloc
Quebecois, but Canada works.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the finance minister. Yesterday Conrad who happens
to be a millionaire got $8,000. John who is single and earns
$40,000 a year got $115, barely enough to buy his bus passes, and
Marika who is homeless got absolutely nothing.
John and Marika want to know why Conrad deserves so much while
they deserve so little.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know who Conrad is but perhaps the leader of
the NDP would introduce me to her friend.
Perhaps I could quote from Roy who is the leader of the NDP in
Saskatchewan. Roy says that the budget is good news. We should
call it what it is.
1430
[Translation]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
wanted a fair budget. They were disappointed.
Florence Sallenav of Montreal expresses this disappointment
well, and I quote: “Had the minister lowered the GST, it would
have been much more to the point, and everyone, without
exception, would have benefited”.
The Minister of Finance preferred to help the rich. Why did he
decide to not touch the GST and to forget Mr. and Mrs. Average?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
like the idea of quoting Canadians. I might quote the B.C.
minister of health, Penny Priddy, who said “I would give the
Minister of Finance a seven, perhaps higher, for the budget”.
For her part, B.C. finance minister Joy MacPhail said “It is a
good budget”.
[English]
This is welcome news for us. We can now join together and
address the problems of the health care system.
The only question is: Why does the NDP in Saskatchewan and the
NDP in British Columbia understand what a good budget it is but
the NDP here does not.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
year Canadians paid the highest taxes in the G-7. Do you know
what? After this year's budget they will still pay the highest
taxes in the G-7. Canadians have a negative—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Kings—Hants.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the truth hurts,
obviously. Members opposite know that Canadians will continue to
pay the highest tax in the G-7 because their government continues
to refuse to provide the type of meaningful tax relief that
Canadians need.
Canadians need this tax relief now, not tomorrow. Due to high
payroll taxes and bracket creep Canadians will actually pay more
after this budget than they did before.
Why is the minister practising give and take economics: giving
Canadians some tax breaks through the front door but taking them
due to bracket creep through the back door?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, bracket creep arises out of the lack of indexation,
which arises out of measures introduced by the Tory government
some time ago.
One of the things I would like to point out to the hon. member
is that as a result of the reductions in taxes in yesterday's
budget in fact bracket creep will be more than covered for all
Canadians for the next three years.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad the minister mentioned the origins of deindexing tax
brackets. That was a deficit reduction measure similar to the
GST, similar to free trade. The minister is not backing away
from those—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Kings—Hants.
1435
Mr. Scott Brison: Now that the minister is saying he has
eliminated the 3% surtax, another deficit reduction measure, why
does he not reindex tax brackets now to ensure that Canadians can
actually get a tax break when he forgets to give one?
The fact is that this minister has used the GST, has used free
trade and has used the 3% surtax to do what they were intended to
do, to pay down the deficit, but the deficit is paid off. Now
will the minister give Canadians the real tax—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Colleagues, I appeal to your
sense of fairness. We must be able to hear the questions and I
am hopeful we can hear the answers.
I do not want to single out any members of parliament, but
surely we deserve to be able to hear the questions and the
answers. I ask you again, please let the members have a chance
to ask their questions and give their answers.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only way we could be fair is if we did not hear the
questions.
As I understand it, the deindexation was introduced as an
anti-deficit matter. The deficit at that time was $24 billion.
After they introduced it, it went to $42 billion. God knows if
they had introduced others what would happen.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
Liberals cut health care by billions of dollars they did it by
saying “we had an emergency, the deficit”. They chose to take
a money emergency and turn it into a medical emergency. The
result is the Manitoba farmer who just had to go to the Mayo
Clinic because he could not find a surgeon in his province.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to guarantee, now that he has
done this fabulous business of putting money back into medicare,
that farmer will not have to go to the U.S. any more?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the $3.5 billion that was
announced in yesterday's budget is available to the provinces
immediately to help them resolve the issues as they wish within
their provinces. We want to ensure that people have access to
the care and services they need when they need them and where
they need them.
The increase in the base of the CHST to $15 billion by the end
of year three will help ensure the sustainability of health
services in this country into the next millennium.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this would
all be understandable if we really had a medical emergency. When
we started we did not, but the taxman took $2,000 per taxpayer
out on one hand and the health care budget dropped by $1,500 per
taxpayer on the other hand. That does not equate for Canadians.
My question again is for the Prime Minister who sat in his chair
and allowed this to happen. Will that farmer from Manitoba not
have to go to the U.S. again for his care? That is my question.
Yes or no.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the
minister of health said very clearly—and yesterday the finance
minister said it clearly—that health care is a priority for this
government.
The $11.5 billion allocated yesterday is the single largest
investment that this government has made. That is the answer to
the member's question.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while hospital
staff is struggling with overcrowded emergency rooms, the
federal government is spending tens of millions of dollars on
developing statistics, carrying out studies and drafting reports
on the performance of provincial health systems.
1440
How can the Minister of Finance justify putting millions of
dollars into studies and statistical analyses, and at the same
time keeping tabs on the provinces, when emergency rooms are
overflowing thanks to him?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the key challenges facing industrialized nations
is to have a modern health care system to meet the great
challenges ahead in terms of population aging and new
technologies.
All levels of government are putting their shoulders to the
wheel for advanced research. Should the only modern government,
be it federal or provincial, in the world not to make an
additional effort in health research be the Government of
Canada? Certainly not with this government in place.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
also announced the establishment of a $25 million fund
supposedly designed to remedy the nurses' situation. But the
Fédération des infirmières du Québec recently issued a statement
to the effect that the fund was far from being an answer to all
their problems.
Does the Minister of Finance not consider that the $25 million
would be better spent on emergency services than on paperwork?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member wants to quote sources from Quebec, we
will go along with that. One third of all funding for biomedical
research from the Medical Research Council of Canada goes to
Quebec. I do not think that yesterday's budget will come as bad
news to researchers in Quebec, quite the contrary.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today 200,000 Canadians are still on waiting lines in hospitals.
But if they are wealthy or desperate they could jump the queue
and fly down to the United States for treatment. They could pay
cash for health care. If that is not two tier, if that is not
American style health care, I do not know what is.
I would like ask the father of two tier health care how will
this budget guarantee that Canadians will not have to fly south
for health care.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that
the priorities and the principles of the Canada Health Act ensure
a contract with Canadians that says that when they need health
care services it is up to the provinces to deliver those
services. The federal government is a partner in funding.
Yesterday we lived up to our commitment by giving the provinces
$3.5 billion immediately and $11.5 billion over the next five
years. We have helped to ensure that the principles of the
Canada Health Act will be ensured and secure for the next
millennium.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talks about the Canada Health Act. Is she telling
Canadians right now that they have equal access to a waiting
line? I do not think Canadians would be too impressed about
hearing this member rattle on about the Canada Health Act.
This government has stripped billions and billions of dollars
out of health care and put a little back in yesterday. The
wealthy and the desperate still fly to Minnesota to the Mayo
Clinic.
Let me repeat that we are seeing an American health care system.
We are seeing a two tier health care system in this country. That
goes against the Canada Health Act. That is Liberal health care.
How come Canadians cannot get a hospital bed in our own country?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the Reform Party opposite,
this party stands firmly in support of the principles of the
Canada Health Act. That party would scrap the Canada Health Act
and lead us down the path to American style medicare. Frankly, it
cannot accept good news.
The good news is that the budget yesterday has secured Canadian
health care for the future. As a partner with the provinces we
have given them the resources they said they need. We gave
almost $30 billion in cash transfers to the provinces in support
of Canadian medicare.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's budget puts the EI
surplus at $4.9 billion in 1999-2000.
According to the chief actuary, however, this surplus will be
more like $6 billion to $7 billion.
1445
By estimating at only $4.9 billion the amount he expects to take
from the EI fund, is the Minister of Finance giving us to
understand that there will indeed be a few improvements made to
the EI system in the spring?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
surplus is looking better because many more Canadians now have
jobs. It is looking better because the economy has improved and
things are going much better. I am very happy with things the
way they are.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance confirm the
comment made on a radio station this morning by the Secretary of
State for Agriculture and Agri-Food that there would be changes
to the EI system in the spring?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, the EI system was
completely reformed two and a half years ago so as to serve
Canadians better, with the result that there are far fewer
unemployed Canadians today than there were a few years back.
This reform was evaluated and monitored, and I will have the
privilege of tabling a report in the House in the coming weeks
on our findings.
It is on the basis of these very specific evaluations that we
will determine what, if any, improvements are needed.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
since this Liberal government has come into power it has slashed
$7.8 billion from the defence budget itself.
Before yesterday's budget, the defence minister said that he
needed $700 million to make ends meet. He got only $325 million.
If that is the best this defence minister can do, maybe it is
time he stood aside.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual, he has it all wrong. The $325
million is one year but the $700 million is over a number of
years.
What happened yesterday is good news for our troops. It was the
first increase the Canadian forces have had in their budget in
over a decade. It also ensures that we can implement the quality
of life measures in a comprehensive way as was recommended by
SCONDVA.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the defence minister said that he needed $700 million. He goes
to the negotiating table, gets pushed around and comes up with
what, less than half of what he needs. That is humiliating at
best.
When will the defence minister step aside and let someone else
do the job?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it sure would not be the hon. member
because he was touting a billion dollar cut in the last election.
I would imagine that if the Reform Party would want to honour its
commitment it would be cutting it a great deal.
We are investing money in our troops to ensure they get decent
pay, decent housing, support for their families and care for the
injured.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
during the lock-up prior to the budget, government officials
could not tell us whether or not the assistance already provided
by Quebec to farmers would be deducted in calculating the amount
of federal support.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister
clearly indicate whether his department will deduct the
assistance provided by Quebec from the financial support that
Ottawa is about to give to farmers?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the program that will be put in place and
is being put in place by the federal and provincial governments
will treat every farmer who triggers the criteria in Canada
exactly the same. It will not matter what province they live in.
* * *
ARMENIAN COMMUNITY
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The courage and determination of Canada's Armenian community has
made an indelible impression on the national fabric of Canada.
Following the debate on Motion No. 329 in the House on Monday,
what new steps are underway to foster and improve communications
along with dialogue with the Armenian community of Canada?
1450
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Canadians recognize the
serious tragedy experienced by the Armenian people. To further
that I have asked the Canadian Armenian community to meet with me
so that we can foster a broad dialogue that will help develop
understanding, heal wounds and forward the process of
reconciliation among all Canadians about this very serious
tragedy that occurred many years ago.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business called
yesterday's budget a disappointment and a missed opportunity.
Small businesses have never worked harder to keep what little
they earn after this finance minister is done with them.
This year he increased CPP taxes 73%, he changed the rules to
keep $5 billion in EI funds and has increased user fees to
crippling levels.
Why is the finance minister punishing small businesses with a
tax hike when it is they, not this government, that create jobs
for Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the government did along with the provinces,
despite all the objections of the Reform Party, was to save the
Canada pension plan.
In addition, what we brought in in the budget was not only no
tax hikes but $16.5 billion worth of tax reductions over the
course of the next three years. These are tax reductions which
are primarily directed at the middle class, basically the spine
of small business in this country.
We are very proud of this budget. We are very proud of the tax
reductions it has in it.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister would not have tax relief in his
vocabulary if not for the official opposition. It is because of
us working that word over the last few years that the minister
has adopted it in his own vocabulary. He takes a lot more time
to talk about it, as we saw yesterday. We would actually deliver
on it.
Small businesses represent 80% of the jobs created in Canada—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam to please keep his remarks down.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, small businesses represent 80%
of the jobs created in Canada in spite of this governement's high
tax policies.
Why is there nothing in this budget for Canada's largest
employer and largest taxpayer, small business?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the vast majority of the tax reductions in terms of the
business community will be enjoyed by the small business
community.
At the same time, $50 million has gone in to the federal bank
for the purpose of supporting small businesses exporting in the
high technology areas. A great deal of the support for research
and development is for start-ups which are essentially small
businesses.
When we look at the fact that we have eliminated employment
insurance premiums for a vast segment of the younger population,
when we look at—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—North Centre.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday Ontario Premier Mike Harris said that
expanding home care is one of his priorities for the new federal
health money.
But as members know, in Harris' Ontario corporate health care
giants are taking over home care services. American corporations
are already siphoning off profits that should go to our public
medicare system.
Why will this government not take steps to guarantee that not
one penny of the new dollars transferred to the provinces will go
to line the pockets of private, for profit corporations?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member quite rightly
identifies that it is the provincial governments that have
responsibility for design, management, administration and
delivery of health care services in their provinces.
The federal government, as guardians of the Canada Health Act,
can ensure that the five principles of medicare are in place:
universal access, reasonable access, portability,
comprehensiveness and public administration. That is our
responsibility. We take it very seriously and we leave the
issues of delivery to the provinces.
1455
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot believe this government is not more concerned
about American for profit companies winning home care contracts
in Ontario.
I cannot believe that this government is not more concerned
about the threat to the Victorian Order of Nurses which has
served this country well for over 100 years.
I want to know from the government why it is doing nothing and
why there was nothing in yesterday's budget to preserve our
public health system from this erosion to private, for profit
companies.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member, as a former
member of a provincial legislature, would understand well
provincial responsibilities in the delivery of health services.
If she has questions such as the one she just posed I suggest
she take them to the provincial premier.
This government is concerned with the Canada Health Act and the
five principles as I have outlined. We are also important
funding partners and we lived up to our obligations yesterday
with $11.5 billion cash, plus tax points, transferred to the
provinces.
We have done our part. Now it is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, a few
weeks ago, the social union agreement was signed, along with a
document saying that any additional funding for health would be
provided in accordance with the current legislation. Yesterday,
when the budget speech was delivered, we found out that a third
administrative body, a trust, will be set up to manage an amount
of $3.5 billion taken from the current budget to be distributed
to the provinces over a three-year period.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Was the establishment of that third administrative body
discussed with the provinces during the negotiations on social
union, yes or no?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the unexpected good
news about the amount of the transfers, including equalization,
came as a surprise to everyone and all Canadians should be
pleased about this.
As for the trust itself, it will give the provinces greater
independence and, so far, all the premiers have reacted very
positively to this initiative. Let me say that, for my province
in particular, the increase in transfers was totally unexpected.
Quebec will be getting one third of the federal transfers.
This may come as a surprise, but it is definitely a very good
one.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
government is once again throwing a monkey wrench into
federal-provincial relations. The minister did not answer the
question.
A third administrative body will be created, while the
provinces, including Brian's Newfoundland and Lucien's Quebec,
will receive less money in the next budget than they currently
do. This is the reality.
I am asking the minister whether or not the trust reflects the
social union philosophy, and whether or not this government is
throwing a monkey wrench into federal-provincial relations.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot resist answering. In fact, the provinces themselves asked
us that the money be made available—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: One should recognize that even the
premier of Quebec signed the agreement on health.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Yes, he did sign the letter that led
to the agreement.
The provinces asked me to make sure that those which could use
the money be able to do so as quickly as possible. This is why
we chose to hold the money in trust. The provinces will then be
free to use that money as they see fit and as needed over a
three-year period.
* * *
[English]
CULTURE
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier today the cultural industries sectoral advisory
group on international trade released a report entitled
“Canadian Culture in a Global World: New Strategies for Culture
and Trade”.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
International Trade tell us how this report would help us and
protect our culture in a globalized world discussion?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm
for the hon. member that the Government of Canada does welcome
the report of SAGIT.
It provides an overview of the issues facing our cultural
industries in the export area. It is also a good starting point
for us to do some consultations with Canadians on these issues.
1500
As a result the Minister of International Trade has sent this
report to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade as it looks at the upcoming WTO negotiations
to try to get the views of Canadians across the country on this
very important industry.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
once we clear past all the smoke and mirrors accounting and spin
from yesterday's budget, what do we find? Surprise, surprise.
The taxes of Canadians are actually going up and not down as a
result of yesterday's budget. That is because of the minister's
annual payroll tax grab and bracket creep.
I have a very simple question. After all the bafflegab is taken
out, why are taxes going up by $2.2 billion in this budget
instead of down?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted at the end of question period to explain
to the hon. member what in fact happened in the budget.
I will tell him: $16.5 billion in tax reduction over a three
year period, $11.5 billion going back into the health care
system, and $1.4 billion going into health research and other
kinds of research.
Essentially what the government did was to invest in
productivity, was to invest in the health care of Canadians and
was to reduce their taxes. I thank the member for the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's
budget contains $153 million for promoting culture and sports in
Canada.
We checked with officials yesterday and were told that no amount
had been set aside in this envelope for professional sports.
My question is for the heritage minister. Are we to understand
that the government finally abandoned any plans to support
professional sports teams, contrary to what was recommended in
the Mills report?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with this
budget, the Minister of Finance is perpetuating the dependency
on employment insurance.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Mr. Yvon Godin: 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.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. What is the amount
of the surplus in the EI fund?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to the
budget, he will see that the amount is $4.9 billion.
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.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of Indian affairs is obviously uncomfortable with her
position on the Caldwell Indian Band, so uncomfortable that she
has declared a stay in the proceedings on the Caldwell reserve.
Yesterday she refused to answer the question of whether Chief
Larry Johnson was a duly elected chief for that band and whether
he has stood for election and is legally the leader of the
Caldwell band as defined under the Indian Act.
Today the minister can set the record straight. Is Chief
Johnson a duly elected chief for the Caldwell Indian reserve
within the last two years?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Chief Johnson was duly
elected according to the custom election code of the first
nations.
* * *
1505
PRIVILEGE
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to invoke your
judgment and that of those in the House on a matter that I
believe infringed on my privilege as a member of parliament and
impeded me in dutifully carrying out and fulfilling my
obligations as an elected representative of this parliament.
Today, February 17, 1999, members of the Public Service Alliance
of Canada set up picket lines at strategic locations of entry to
the region of Parliament Hill and at entrances to specific
buildings within the Parliament Hill precincts, including and not
limited to the Langevin Block, the West Block road entrance, the
East Block entrance, and the pedestrian and road access entrances
to the Wellington Building.
These pickets, I hereby submit, did impede my responsibility as
a member of parliament and my ability to carry out my obligations
as a member of parliament in a timely and prescribed fashion.
The particular picket line that impeded my ability to carry out
the said function and which contravened my privilege as a member
of parliament was located at the west gates of the West Block
where the shuttle buses that carry parliamentarians had to be
rerouted to other access entrances far out of the normal routing
on Parliament Hill. Not only this, but in my individual case no
bus was prepared to run the gauntlet. Thus I had to make my way
to conduct my affairs as a parliamentarian by other means.
I submit this is a violation of my privileges and a
contravention of the centuries old precedent and parliamentary
order and function.
I further submit that other parliamentarians were denied access
to the entrance of their parliamentary office buildings in the
early hours of this picketing, thus contravening in direct
personal fashion the conduct of their affairs and the affairs of
their staff.
There is direct and compelling reference to my question of
privilege in both Erskine May and Beauchesne's. I hereby submit,
Mr. Speaker, these references for your learned judgment and
decision.
Beauchesne's fifth edition states that by definition:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed
by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High
Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually,
without which they could not discharge their functions and which
exceed those possessed by other bodies and individuals.
Beauchesne's states at citation 16:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are “absolutely
necessary for the due execution of its powers”. They are
enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform
its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its
Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and
the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
I submit the events of the pickets in question were in direct
violation of this right and privilege, exhibited a contempt for
the functions of parliamentarians, and were a direct attack on
the dignity of this institution.
1510
I also submit my capacity as a member elected to serve my
constituents was diminished by these pickets similar to the
references as expressed in citation 18 of Beauchesne's.
Erskine May has reference to the access of parliamentarians to
carry out their functions and what would contravene and violate
this privilege. I submit the following reference. Under
“Access to the Houses of Parliament” Erskine May states that to
facilitate the attendance of members without interruption, both
Houses, at the beginning of each session, give directions in the
sessional orders that during the session of parliament the
streets leading to the Houses of Parliament be free and open, and
that no obstruction shall be permitted to hinder the passage
thereto of the lords or members.
I again submit that the pickets denying my ease of access to
parliament are an affront to the centuries old parliamentary
privilege as defined by Erskine May.
The president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Mr.
Daryl Bean, in full knowledge of these pickets did with contempt
violate my privileges and the privileges of others as members of
parliament and did with full knowledge contravene the rules of
this Chamber and the dignity of this institution. I submit that
through the leadership of this union Mr. Bean be held in contempt
of this parliament and in contempt of the privileges of
individual members and be hereby censured for these actions
carried out by his membership.
Mr. Speaker, if you find I have a question of privilege, I would
be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
The Speaker: Before I hear the hon. House leader for the
government, may I ask the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt if
his question of privilege is the same as that of the member who
just spoke.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker, so my comments
would be very brief.
The Speaker: I will hear you. I now direct myself to the
hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. Is your question of
privilege the same as that of the hon. member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I would admit that it is
similar but there are some differences in my case.
The Speaker: Why I am asking you is that I am going to
invite you to speak successively. Does the question of privilege
of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville coincide with this one?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, yes. I just wanted to
give a personal illustration.
The Speaker: Here is what we will do. I will hear the
three members I have just questioned and then I will hear the
government House leader.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning a mob of hooligans used physical violence and
intimidation to stop me from gaining access to my office. While
I do not believe the thugs who assaulted me today are indicative
of all members in that union, it is imperative for you to act
accordingly to ensure that this type of cowardly behaviour does
not occur again.
Mr. Speaker, should you find this to be a prima facie question
of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I join briefly with my colleagues on this particular
point. I arrived at my office around 7 o'clock this morning and
was told I would not be able to enter the office. I went and had
a coffee and then came back and explained to them. At that time
I was allowed with a security guard to go to the office.
In the function of carrying out my duties, this is the first
time in my life I have ever been inhibited or shamed in trying to
get to my place of work. My office was four hours without
contact with my constituency. I could not carry out my duties
because my staff was not allowed to be in my office. As the hon.
member mentioned, that is a violation of the rules and precedents
of the House.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to end this with a brief quotation from
Joseph Maingot. I cannot serve my constituents without my staff
and restricting my staff interferes with my work as an MP. My
staff are an extension of me.
1515
My constituents and the media tried to contact me for
approximately four hours this morning. They could not get
through. It was one of the busiest days we have had in our
office today, right after the budget as members can imagine. The
picketers would not allow my staff to enter. I tried personally
to get them. I explained to them what this was all about and how
it was important to me. I could not get my staff through. I
would be shocked if on one of the busiest days, Mr. Speaker, you
did not feel that this was an infringement of my privileges.
I would like to read a quotation from Joseph Maingot's
Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, chapter
2, page 13:
If someone improperly interferes with the parliamentary work of a
member of parliament—i.e. any of the member's activities that
have a connection with a proceeding in parliament—in such a case
that is a matter involving parliamentary privilege. An offence
against the authority of the House constitutes contempt.
This would clearly include restricting staff to do its work
for a member of parliament.
Again, I was unable to go about my work because my staff was
denied access to my office. Not allowing my staff to accompany
me is a very serious infringement on my privileges.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me say how I think
these conditions are unfortunate and even unacceptable.
I became aware of the picket around 6.45 a.m. At that time I
alerted the House authorities of what I believed was a condition
that could cause difficulties and possible questions of privilege
from members of parliament.
I do not think there is any doubt that if a member of parliament
was assaulted that is unacceptable and is a breach of our
privileges, not only the member in question but every one of us.
That is the first proposition.
The second is on the issue of the picket itself. The picket,
provided it is not on the grounds of Parliament Hill and provided
it is done for information purposes and it respects the law, I
think is legal. It has to respect the law in order to do so.
The allegations we have heard from many hon. members is that it
was not done in a proper way. That is unacceptable as well.
The third proposition brought to us by another hon. member is
that the president of the union maybe in contempt of parliament.
I do not know if the Chair would want to rule immediately on that
third proposition. I think it should be investigated before the
Chair rules on it. I do not know whether the chair of the union
personally not only authorized the picket in question but
authorized it to be conducted in a manner which may have been
illegal. That proposition is a little different from the others.
If I can get back to the original proposition, that members of
parliament were assaulted, the 1751 Mason issue outlined in
Erskine May makes it very clear that it is unacceptable even for
a police officer to stop someone from attending to his duties in
parliament. If it is not appropriate for someone who is a police
officer to stop us from coming here, it is equally unacceptable
for anyone else to try to do it.
I invite the Chair when examining the situation, because it is
equally germane to this issue although slightly different, to
determine whether the privileges that extend to members of
parliament in our attendance here also extend either to the staff
of members of parliament or even to the staff of Mr. Speaker. I
was also approached earlier this day by a staff member of Mr.
Speaker, someone who works for the Commons but not for a member
of parliament, who informed me he had considerable difficulty in
reaching his place of work to do a very essential task for us in
this Chamber.
So the Chair, no doubt, would want to look at that as well.
1520
For these reasons, I would ask that the Chair not rule
immediately and investigate all the points I have raised, and the
come back to the House in order to see whether there is a prima
facie case of privilege on all these points. But I am already
convinced there is at least such a prima facie case in some of
the points that have been raised, in particular the one involving
molestation of a member.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I too want to report to you what happened to me this
morning. I have an office in the Wellington Building as well.
When I arrived this morning there was of course a picket line
outside the door. I spoke to the picket captain and he said that
if I want I can go into the building, they were not inhibiting
members of parliament whatsoever in terms of going into the
building.
I declined of course to cross the picket line and chatted some
more with them. He once again repeated the offer that I could
proceed into the building if I wished and once again I declined.
A similar thing happened to many other colleagues of mine,
including my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. Once again
she was made the offer to enter the building if she wanted to in
a very polite way. We had no problems whatsoever with the people
who were picketing. They were very polite to us and offered
access to the building if we wanted to as members of parliament.
I think Mr. Speaker should know that while deliberating on the
issue.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to lend my
voice because I too entered the press club today to do a taping.
I spoke to each and every person. They were CBC strikers.
However, I had the same experience of no trouble at all. I spoke
to them. I in no way mean to say that the Reform members'
stories are not how they found them.
But I do think it is fair to say that I did not have any trouble
at all. I walked past the Wellington Building. I spoke to all
the picketers. In fact, I got in the line and followed them,
sort of. I then went in and said goodbye.
I am the parliamentary secretary to labour, so maybe that was
okay, I do not know. But I did not have any trouble.
The Speaker: What the hon. member has brought up is very
serious for us in the House. I am going to make one ruling now
and reserve on the other three.
The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt has said in this House
that he was assaulted or touched or pushed. I do not want to put
words in the hon. member's mouth, but if that is precise, I would
like the hon. member to indicate that to me now.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes, Mr. Speaker, all three of those are
correct. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin witnessed it.
The Speaker: I find a prima facie case of contempt
and I will refer that to the appropriate committee.
I will take the advice of the government House leader because I
want to look into what the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast has said.
1525
I also want to consider what the member for Yorkton—Melville
has said because he is expanding this notion. I also want to
consider what has been said by the member for Brandon—Souris.
You have the gist of what I want to do. I will reserve on three
of the allegations that were brought forth.
I now invite the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt to move his
motion.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker I would move that the matter of
denying members of parliament and their staff access to
Parliament Hill and the parliamentary buildings by the public
service union on Wednesday, February 17, 1999 be referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and for the
purposes of dealing with similar action by PSAC demonstrators in
the immediate future, the Speaker instruct security personnel to
take the appropriate action necessary to ensure that members of
parliament and their staff have unimpeded access to parliamentary
offices at all times.
The Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member would limit his
statement to what he said before. His motion is much broader
than the one I ruled on. I would like him to consider including
in his motion that he was indeed assaulted in trying to get into
the building where he was to perform his duties. If he will
limit it to that at this point until I can consider the other
points that have been brought up I would accept that as a motion.
Would he consider doing that?
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is it sufficient to
say so moved?
The Speaker: Yes, it is. That is the easy way to do
business around here. In my judgment it is a prima facie case
and this will be referred to the appropriate committee and the
other three will be held in abeyance until I can get more
information.
1530
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the matter of the molestation of the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt earlier this day be referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Speaker: Is the House in agreement that this
particular issue be referred to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[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.
* * *
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation and Minister responsible for
Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(6), I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the 1996-97 report on Canada's participation in regional
development banks.
* * *
PETITIONS
GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a petition signed by 3,330 inhabitants of my
riding of Québec.
They are calling on the government to form a parliamentary
committee to look specifically at what Canadian parliamentarians
can do to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table a petition
signed by my constituents of Simcoe—Grey as well as concerned
Canadians from all across our country.
These individuals are automotive technicians employed at car
dealerships. As a condition of their employment they are
required to purchase and maintain several thousand dollars worth
of automotive tools. At the present time their professional tool
investment and expenditures are not tax deductible, unlike many
other professions that require similar expenditures.
These tool purchases do not generate any extra tax credits and
therefore the petitioners request that parliament redress this
taxation policy, amending the applicable legislation to allow
current and future technicians to deduct their investment in
automotive repair tools.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present this
petition on behalf of a number of Canadians including from my own
riding of Mississauga South on the subject of human rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world,
including countries such as Indonesia.
The petitioners also acknowledge that Canada is internationally
recognized as the champion of human rights. Therefore the
petitioners call upon parliament to continue to condemn those
countries responsible for human rights abuses and also to seek to
bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
* * *
1535
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all notices of motions for the production of papers be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
THE BUDGET
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the motion
that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to begin the debate on the 1999 federal budget.
My colleague, the hon. member for Medicine Hat, as well as other
opposition members will focus on various particulars of the
budget, in particular the defects for which the government needs
to be held accountable of which there are many. We will also be
constructive. The opposition will be presenting constructive
alternatives in the areas where we feel the budget is deficient,
particularly with respect to tax policy.
It is my intent at the beginning to focus on the big picture,
that is the financial performance and the service record of the
government not just for the last year but since it came to
office, and what that record and what this particular budget mean
to Canadians in the future.
As members know, this is the sixth budget that has been
presented by the current finance minister. If asked to summarize
the net effect of these budgets, not just this one but the
cumulative effect of the six budgets, in one sentence it would be
this: that under this government, Canadians are paying more and
getting less. Canadians are paying more and getting less and
despite all the rhetoric, despite all the spin doctors, despite
all the public relations that accompanied the budget yesterday,
the total tax bill paid by Canadians has increased yet again
while health care services and other services have been cut.
Under this government Canadians pay more for less.
With respect to paying more, Canadians hear all the glowing
references in the budget speech and the public relations that
accompany it with respect to the performance of the economy,
phrases like “unprecedented progress”, “we have strengthened
the sinews of our innovative and productive economy”, “we have
equipped Canadians to succeed”. Most of these phrases and words
have been tested by public opinion firms. They test the words,
find out which words resonate best with the public and those
words find their way into budgets. This is not something
surprising.
But the rank and file of Canadians will be asking at the end of
the day: if everything is so rosy, why do I not have more money
in my pocket at the end of the month and why do I not have more
money in my bank account? The answer to that question in one
word is taxes. Under this government Canadians are paying more
taxes than they have ever paid before.
I would like to take a few minutes therefore to elaborate on
this one simple phrase “paying more” and to demonstrate from
the figures that were tabled by the government yesterday how
Canadians are, at the end of the day, paying more. Let me start
with personal income tax.
At the end of 1993-94 when this government took office,
Canadians were paying $51.4 billion in personal income tax for
the year. At the end of 1999-2000, they will be paying $75
billion for the year, an increase of $24 billion or 46%, an
increase of $650 for every Canadian. The bottom line is that
Canadians will pay more income tax than they ever have before,
46% more in total than when the government took office. Canadians
are now paying the highest personal income tax rates in the
The government taxes its citizens more heavily with respect to
personal income tax than any other government of the G-7. That
has not changed as a result of this budget. The Liberal legacy
is Canadians pay more.
1540
Of course, this government is not content just to tax you when
you earn. The whole idea is to get you when you are coming and
going so the government also taxes people when they spend. We
have the figures on the GST consumption tax, a tax the government
solemnly promised to remove before it became the government.
At the end of 1993-94 when this government replaced the Tories,
Canadians were paying $15.7 billion in GST per year. At the end
of 1999-2000 Canadians will be paying $21.6 billion in GST, an
increase of $5.9 billion or 38%. That is an increase of $156 per
Canadian. The bottom line is that Canadians are paying more GST
under a government that promised to abolish it than they have
ever paid before, 38% more in total than when the government took
office. When it comes to consumption taxes, Canadians pay more.
The government plays a shell game with taxes to try to make
taxpayers feel better off. It announces with great fanfare
certain tax reductions, such as the modest reductions in the
employment insurance premiums, and then it says nothing about or
even hides increases in other taxes such as the CPP increases
that are inexorably taking more dollars from Canadians each year.
There are two ways to cut through the shell game. One is to
elaborate on how the shell game is played with respect to
particular taxes and particular expenditures. I hope some day
the auditor general spends a whole day explaining that kind of
shell game to the House. But the simplest way to cut through the
shell game is to look at the total federal taxes collected from
individuals and total tax revenues. Here the story is the same.
Canadians pay more.
If we look at total federal taxes paid by persons, and this
includes personal income tax, employment insurance, GST and
Canada pension plan, at the end of 1993-94 the total of all
federal taxes paid by persons for the year was $94.3 billion. At
the end of 1999-2000 the total of all federal taxes paid by
persons will be $131 billion, an increase of $36.8 billion or
39%. The bottom line again, and notice the inexorable conclusion
that we come to by working through the numbers, is Canadians
paying more in total federal personal taxes than they have ever
paid before.
An hon. member: More Canadians.
Mr. Preston Manning: The hon. member says to be Canadian
is to pay taxes. That is the Liberal definition.
Finally, if we put all this together and look at the total tax
revenue of the federal government, as expected, we get the same
story. Canadians paying more.
At the end of 1993-94 when this government took office, total
federal revenue was $107.3 billion. At the end of 1999-2000 the
total of federal revenues collected will be $149.4 billion, an
increase of $42 billion or 39%. In other words, there is an
increase in federal revenues collected per taxpayer, and this is
the budget that was going to alleviate the taxpayers from the
great burden of federal taxation, of $2,020 or 24%.
This government has become the richest government in Canada's
history. The economy can grow by 3%, which ought to be good news
for Canadians. But when the federal government's revenues grow
by 8% what that tells us is that when there is economic growth, a
disproportionate amount of that growth is not going to the people
who produce it, not to the companies that produce it, not to the
individuals who produce it, but to the ever present government
and its taxation department.
The great record of Liberalism is going to be this for the 20th
century: a well to do finance minister and a well to do prime
minister running the richest government in the history of Canada,
one that is collecting $409 million per day from the taxpayers of
Canada.
I think I have made the case. I could go on, but the case is
that Canadians pay more.
1545
If Canadians were paying more but getting more in terms of
better government or better services, perhaps the government
would have a leg to stand on or at least be able to explain or
defend its record. But the other half of the equation, the other
part of the bottom line, is that under this government Canadians
are not only paying more but are getting less. In particular,
Canadians are getting less in the one area they care about most
these days, health care.
Time does not permit me to deal with all areas of government
activity in which Canadians are getting less value for their
money, the areas in which the productivity of the federal
government itself is declining. No one should have any illusions
that part of the productivity problem in this country is the
declining productivity of government itself, getting less for the
taxes that are paid and the cost of government being tacked on to
everything we produce and sell in the world market.
I will touch on five areas in which Canadians are getting less.
The first is employment insurance, a big bill. According to the
chief auditor for this program, the government has been
overtaxing Canadians for employment insurance on average by 37%
for at least five years and it continues to do so. Yet during
the same time benefits have decreased and the government has
proposed to return only a fraction of the accumulated surpluses
to the employers and the employees who put it up in the first
place. In other words, with regard to employment insurance
people are paying more and getting less. They are getting less
employment insurance. They are not getting the premium refunds
they should be getting.
The second area is the Canada pension plan. Under the
government's proposals for this plan, a huge area of expenditure
and investment, CPP premiums will increase by 41% over the next
four years. Notice there is not a word about the CPP in the
budget. Yet at the end of the day the most Canadians can expect
from this plan even after these increases is a measly $9,000 a
year pension which is less than half the pension a young worker
would get if those same funds were placed in an RRSP. With
regard to CPP under this government people will pay 41% more and
they will get less.
Third is military spending. Since 1993-94 the government has
cut national defence spending. This is the department Liberals
love to hate. The defence department is the one they do not mind
cutting. They have cut it by over $2.4 billion per year in
absolute terms but the cumulative effect of the cuts is about
$7.8 billion. This has set in motion the downsizing of Canada's
military and a deterioration in morale which has significantly
reduced our military capability. Now the government is preparing
to put about $175 million per year for three years back into the
military but it is not implementing the other reforms necessary
to render Canada's military more effective. With respect to
defence spending Canadians will still pay more but they will get
less.
The fourth area is Indian affairs. According to this budget the
government is putting half a billion dollars into Indian affairs
but the government has done nothing to ensure that much of the
$4.4 billion it is already putting in is not siphoned off by
lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians and consultants in activities
that benefit everybody else except the rank and file aboriginal,
particularly on reserve. While Canadians pay more we would argue
that the rank and file aboriginal on reserve sees less and less
of these funds. Canadians pay more but the ones who really need
the help get less.
With respect to getting less, let us take a look at the area of
health care. This is an area in which Canadians are most
conscious of getting less while paying more. This is an area
where there has been more spin doctoring, shell gaming and
rhetoric than any other, but that cannot hide the ugly truth.
When this government took office transfers to other levels of
government, the CHST, the Canada assistance plan, the EPF and
equalization, amounted to $27 billion per year. In 1997-98 under
this government transfers had decreased to a cumulative total of
$21 billion, a decrease of $6 billion per year or 22%. The
negative effects of this cut in health care transfers are well
known to all members of the House. They include the hospital
closures, the thousands of doctors, nurses and health care
workers leaving the country, the 200,000 Canadians on waiting
lists and all the pain, anxiety and anger these figures
represent.
1550
Canadians were beginning to refer to the Minister of Finance,
the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister as the Dr.
Kevorkians of Canadian medicare. The government finally felt
impelled to do something. So it decided to put $2 billion to
$2.5 billion per year back into health care.
However, the spin doctors said that was not a very big number,
$2 billion to $2.5 billion. They said you will not get a
headline for a health care budget if you are talking about $2
billion to $2.5 billion per year. So they asked if it could be
made bigger. Everyone knows what the spin doctors do when they
get into something like this, they multiply it by something. So
somebody said multiply it by three. Then some genius said no,
multiply it by five. When we multiply it by five we would get a
big number, up to $11.5 billion. This is the kind of math that
goes on behind the budget.
Lo and behold we have an announcement by the finance minister
that the government is going to put $11.5 billion back into
health care. They say over five years very quickly so it does
not get divided by five.
If you are to use cumulative numbers for spending increases on
health care, you had better use cumulative numbers for the
spending cuts on health care and social services to let people
know what you are doing. Those numbers do not appear in the
budget at all. I am sure the minister had them on a piece of
paper and it fell out of the envelope on the way into the
department. I am sure he was going to tell us all about them but
they were not there.
So we have to do the math. We found that the government's
cumulative cuts in the transfers for health and social programs
are $21.4 billion by the end of 1999. Even if we put $11.5
billion back in there is a spending deficit. Canadians pay more
and get less in health care, about $1,500 less per taxpayer than
was spent in 1993-94.
Some hon. members are shaking their heads. They are looking
around and talking to each other, saying this is confusing. Let
me follow their train of thought. I can read their minds. The
hon. members are saying that sometimes we are talking about the
Canada health and social transfers and sometimes we are talking
about the health transfers. If we say there is confusion, we say
who is to blame for that. The government cynically and
deliberately created confusion on that point.
When the government was cutting health care transfers it wanted
to lump them in with the other social transfers so the health
care cuts would be less visible to the public and the government
would not get the blame. So when it cuts it mixes it in with
something else. All of a sudden, now that it wants to increase
it, it wants to make it explicit and visible again so the federal
government can get the credit.
The auditor general is not going to be fooled by this kind of
shell game and neither are Canadians. As I said earlier, I hope
he devotes an entire volume in his next report to the shell game
reporting that goes on with respect to the federal budget.
The bottom line of all of this, the unadulterated bottom line,
the government's financial management since 1993-94, is Canadians
pay $42 billion more taxes since the government took office, or
$2,020 per taxpayers, and Canadians will get less, in particular
$1,500 less per taxpayer, for health and other services. Pay
more, get less is the legacy of the Liberal government in the
dying days of the 20th century.
I got into this yesterday but the minister had spoken for an
hour and 20 minutes and I could not get into this in any great
detail to close off the debate. I want to elaborate on the point
that Canada is becoming like old England. When the real king, King
Richard the Lionhearted, was away on a crusade, a relative,
Prince John, was put in charge. We quoted the little rhyme, “He
wanted to be known as John the First but he ended up being known
as John the Worst”. Why? Because with the aid of his henchman,
the sheriff of Nottingham, he taxed his people to death. Under
his regency the government got richer and richer—this is
historically accurate—and the people got poorer services and
poorer, period. In other words, it was a prototype of the Liberal
government. Pay more and you get less.
They paid more and got less until a green clad reformer named
Robin Hood assembled a group together, sort of a united
alternative of Sherwood Forest, and Prince John's evil ways were
restrained. However, that is another story I will save for
another day.
1555
Perhaps a little more seriously, it is worth noting that a
little later Prince John actually did become king and the major
landowners, taxpayers and business leaders, the barons and
so-called magnates of the realm, staged a taxpayers revolt and
made King John, the king of taxers, sign a humiliating document
called the Magna Carta in which he promised not to overtax and
abuse his subjects.
Finance ministers should take note of what can happen when
taxpayers are pushed too far.
This weekend a group of Canadians will be meeting in this city to
explore new ways and means of uniting Canadians to reduce the
flood of Liberal taxation and the deterioration of health care
under this administration. My hope is that convention will
eventually result in a Magna Carta for Canadians that will free
Canada from the pay more, get less policies of the Liberal
government.
To complement that effort, my colleagues in the House will also
use this budget debate to propose remedies to the current
situation. They will propose ways and means of ending the shell
game by making the government's financial accounting more
accountable and more believable and transparent. They will
propose reforms in health care financing and federal-provincial
relations because the two are connected. They were not connected
in the budget. They should be connected. The proposed reforms
would put health and social service finances on a firmer
foundation.
They will propose broad based tax relief greater in scope than
anything this government has ever conceived so that in the end
Canadians will pay less and get more.
In closing, I move:
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
sixth budget of the Minister of Finance of Canada is not only
disappointing, it is very disappointing.
This morning's Globe and Mail was not shy about telling the
Minister of Finance that he lacked imagination, that he lacked
vision for a minister of finance and that he should make way for
someone else with more vision and more compassion who is better
able to manage the surpluses.
They also wanted a new minister of finance with greater
transparency.
In this regard, the Minister of Finance obviously lacked
transparency from his first budget to his sixth in terms of
releasing the real figures for public finances, for the deficit
and for the surpluses.
1600
One would have expected, and this is my first criticism, that
those who helped put the federal fiscal house in order, those
who contributed to first eliminating the deficit and then
accumulating major surpluses in the Minister of Finance's
coffers would be rewarded for their efforts.
Given a $12 billion surplus for the fiscal year ending on March
31, and given an anticipated surplus of $20 billion for next
year—not the surpluses as they appear in the budget documents
where, once again, the finance minister's figures are zero and
zero, but the real figures which the Bloc Quebecois makes a
habit of providing and which are accurate to within 5%, which is
normal, unlike the finance minister's figures, which are off by
150%—one would have expected middle income families to enjoy
meaningful tax reductions. After all, these are the people who
have had to pay most of the $19 billion in new taxes imposed by
the Minister of Finance since 1994, not to mention the GST
increase, which brought in $5 billion in revenues.
This year, these middle income families, that is those earning
between $30,000 and $70,000, will get a ridiculous tax reduction
of somewhere between $150 and $300.
By contrast, the friends of the Liberal Party, the wealthy,
those who have been enjoying preferential treatment from this
government since 1993, will get a significant tax reduction.
If one's individual or family income is $250,000, one will be
entitled to a $3,800 tax reduction this year, compared to
between $150 and $300 if one earns between $30,000 and $70,000.
Who is this budget for? Who benefits from it? It is the well to
do, even though middle income families are the ones that helped
the Minister of Finance generate the absolutely huge surpluses
that he is hiding shamelessly from Quebeckers and Canadians.
We would have expected some consideration would be given the
unemployed of this country, because the largest part of the
contribution to the improvement of public finances comes from
them. The Minister of Finance together with the Minister of
Human Resources Development have used the employment insurance
fund surplus of $6 billion annually for the past three years to
improve public finances.
With there being significant surpluses, we might have thought
some consideration would be given the unemployed. Nothing.
Zero. On with the government policy of blithely dipping into
the surplus in the employment insurance fund, harassing the
unemployed and denying them their right to contest the decisions
made at HRDC employment centres across Canada.
So they harass them, after they have already been hit with the
scourge of unemployment, in order to create a significant
surplus at the end of it all. We might have thought they would
review the employment insurance plan so that not just 36% of the
unemployed would be covered by it, which means that this plan no
longer makes any sense. But there is nothing in this budget to
help the country's unemployed.
We might wonder where the Minister of Human Resources
Development was, because the Minister of Health and member from
Ontario got funding for his department. The Minister of
Industry, another member from Ontario, got some of the spending
provided in the Minister of Finance's budget. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage, who is also from Ontario, got money as well.
Where was the Minister of Human Resources Development, a Quebec
minister and a Liberal? Where did he make his representations?
What weight does he carry? He seems to be a featherweight, if
the budget results are any indication.
The Ontario ministers got all sorts of things for their
respective departments. Although Quebec and the rest of Canada
agree that the EI fund heist, or surplus as it is called,
designed to give the rich a tax break, should be stopped, and
although there are country-wide demonstrations, and the Quebec
coalition paid us a visit recently, the Minister of Human
Resources Development does not have enough heft to ask the
Minister of Finance to include humanitarian considerations and
compassion in his budget.
1605
With respect to health care, it is clear from this budget that
something amazing happened between the time the Prime Minister
met with the premiers and the time the budget was drawn up. The
Minister of Finance and the government of the member for
Saint-Maurice decided unilaterally to amend the federal transfer
payment formula for health, post-secondary education—which is
often forgotten—and social assistance.
Unilaterally, they decided that this year they were changing the
rules of the game. Now, all of a sudden, federal health transfer
payments would be based on population, rather than on the
traditional shares.
Where were the Liberal ministers from Quebec? The unilateral
change to the funding formula for health, post-secondary
education and social assistance, but especially health, has put
Quebec at a literal disadvantage. The government has just
ensured that federal transfer payments to Quebec for health,
post-secondary education and social assistance will decline over
the next five years.
On the other hand, while government members from Quebec were
asleep at the switch, government members from Ontario lobbied
for and obtained transfer payments for Ontario; as a result,
starting this year, of the $2 billion increase in transfer
payments for health, almost $1 billion will go to Ontario, the
richest province in Canada. Furthermore, if we look at the
regional breakdown, $400 million will go to British Columbia and
$300 million to Alberta.
It is clear today why the premiers of these three provinces have
been staunch supporters of the social union.
And when I say staunch, I mean super staunch. Just last night,
Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario, signed again, before us,
some sort of card—they would rather sign a cheque to charity,
since that is how they do things—but Harris preferred to sign
the social union agreement again because, as he said, “Ontario
stands to gain”. It takes some doing.
Every time the finance minister does a good deed, it is to show
himself off to advantage, as a minister and a potential
candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, but
we are used to that. That is what he did in the maritimes, when
he negotiated an agreement to harmonize the GST and the
provincial taxes. As a reward for playing his game and making
him look good, he gave the three provinces involved nearly
$1 billion in compensation.
In Quebec, we are still waiting for our $2 billion in
compensation, because we had harmonized the Quebec sales tax
with the GST several years earlier. We are still waiting for
the $2 billion.
He has got us used to that. He gives out what amounts to bribes
to compensate ministers or provinces that come on side and
promote the government's overly centralizing ideas.
We understand better now why the social union was so strongly
supported by the premiers of these provinces. Today they get
compensation in the budget. The compensation is $1 billion for
Ontario in Canada social transfer, $400 million for B.C. and
$300 million for Alberta.
Where were the government members from Quebec?
I am thinking in particular of the Minister of Finance, who is
also the member for LaSalle—Émard, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of Human Resources
Development and the Minister of Immigration. That counts for
something, but they are all featherweights, because, when it
comes to Quebec's interests, they have shown with this budget
that they have done nothing, that they have been asleep at the
switch, to use a popular Quebec expression.
1610
It hurt my ears yesterday and again today to hear these Liberal
ministers from Quebec saying that Quebec benefited from
equalization: “Hooray for equalization. There is $1 billion in
equalization payment adjustment for Quebec”.
That is so sad. It is like saying that we in Quebec are
destined to get the short end of the stick. That we should be
happy with the social assistance they give us. But Ontario will
get everything that promotes economic growth, job creation and
wealth.
But Quebec should be happy with band-aid solutions. Ontario will
get economic growth and job creation. That is the message we
have just been given.
And they applaud. The Liberal ministers from Quebec and the
private members as well, all members of the Liberal Party of
Canada, have just applauded equalization. What does that mean?
It means they have just applauded the fact that there are
additional equalization payments, when Ontario is enjoying
wonderful prosperity, at all levels. We will come to that
shortly.
It means that they are applauding the fact that Ontario's
economic performance is stronger than Quebec's. That is what it
means. It means that they are applauding the increase in
Ontario's GDP and the drop in Quebec's. Honestly!
Where were these federal Liberal ministers and members from
Quebec when it came time to draw up the budget? Why were they
not telling the Minister of Finance that it was perhaps time to
right the balance with respect to federal spending on goods and
services in Quebec?
Statistics Canada figures in the Public Accounts of Canada show
that Quebec loses out on $2 billion annually. This has long
been the case.
Where were the federal Liberal party ministers and members from
Quebec when it came to defending the fact that at least our
demographic weight could have been taken into account when
deciding on federal transfer payments for the procurement of
goods and services in Quebec?
The same goes for research and development.
And regional development, as well, where we have lost close to
$600 million a year for the last eight years. Where were these
defenders of Quebec? They were asleep at the switch. That is
where they were. They are supposed to be defending Quebec's
interests. They have just applauded equalization payments, but
have done nothing to restore equity in the procurement of goods
and services, in regional development and in R & D spending in
Quebec.
This is what would pave the way for job creation.
In Quebec, if the per capita criterion—they are good at
selecting the per capita basis—was applied to federal
expenditures on goods and services, and investments in research
and development as well as regional development, if 24% of these
transfers went to Quebec, instead of the current 13% to 19%
depending on the item, starting tomorrow, we in Quebec would no
longer be receiving equalization payments, we would be paying
for the other provinces. That is what would happen if there were
any justice in this country. That is the reality.
And caution must be exercised when talking about the $1 billion
in equalization. Everything is relative in life. This amount was
paid to Quebec because it was owed to Quebec. Because, in the
past three years, a number of parameters in the equalization
formula had been underestimated.
A strict, politically unbiased and non partisan application of
the formula actually sees Quebec receiving an extra $1 billion
in equalization payments.
Since everything is relative, we are getting $1 billion, but $6
billion have been cut over the past five years. Over five years,
the finance minister has taken $6 billion away from us. Now he
is giving $1 billion back, And we are expected to applaud,
especially since these are equalization payments? Give me a
break.
It is like having our apartment broken into and $6,000 stolen.
We catch the thief, who then gives $1,000 back. Should he get a
hug and thanks? How about a bit of common sense, here?
The final point is the social union. This budget contains a
number of new initiatives that constitute a direct encroachment
on a provincial jurisdiction, namely health.
They are describing these intrusions in terms of the social
union, the agreement that was signed by all the provinces in
Canada, except Quebec.
In his budget speech yesterday, the Minister of Finance
mentioned that, under the social union, they would create health
police, a supervisory body to monitor hospital emergencies,
provincial performance, the number of doctors, general
practitioners and specialists required.
1615
There is also an incommensurable number of new initiatives that
are total duplication of what the Government of Quebec is doing.
We did not agree to the social union, but, as the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said, we have just had it stuffed down
our throat. The government has started the disaster, one of the
dreaded catastrophes related to the social union.
There is $1.4 billion in new initiatives. We did the
calculations.
At least $400 million of this is pure loss, as it represents
administrative costs. This is $400 million they might as well
have dumped in the garbage, because it will not help relieve the
pressure in emergency rooms or help people who are sick and
waiting for an operation or something else or improve the system
and the health care networks across Canada.
Do you know what this $400 million means? It means we could
have done extraordinary things for the sick. Recently, with
only $20 million, the Quebec minister of health, Ms. Marois,
managed to set aside $3.2 million in incentives for hospitals to
manage emergencies more efficiently.
With this same $20 million, she was able to open 830 additional
beds, for one month, for those on hospital waiting lists. And,
still with this same $20 million, she hired 900 people for one
month to provide direct health care.
Do you know what Quebec could have done with the $400 million in
administration costs that is simply being written off, Mr.
Speaker? If our share had been based on our population, that
is, one quarter, if we had been given an additional $100 million
for health care, do you know what we could have done with it,
Mr. Speaker, given what Ms. Marois had already accomplished with
$20 million? We could have put $12 million into measures to
reduce crowding in emergency rooms. We could have opened an
additional 3,320 beds to help the sick, not federal bureaucrats.
We could have hired 3,600 health care providers.
If the Minister of Finance had not juggled the surplus figures,
he could have delivered everything the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois, myself as party critic and all members of our party
called for during the Quebec tour and during the finance
committee's Canada-wide tour.
First, there could have been substantial tax cuts for middle
income earners, the very folks who have helped clean up the
nation's finances. Second, the provinces could have been given
the full amount of the cuts, $6 billion, to their transfers for
health, post-secondary education and social assistance. There
could also have been a full review of EI accessibility and
benefits.
All that could have been done if we had been given the true
picture.
But since we were not, everyone remains under the impression
that we could not afford it. Actually, we could and still can in
the coming year. It is a matter of political will and a matter
of transparency as well.
Therefore, I move the following amendment to the amendment:
That
the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after the
words “Budget statement of the government” and by substituting
the following:
We are going to fight this budget.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot had moved an amendment to the amendment. The
Chair will take it under advisement and get back to the House
shortly with a ruling.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat
surprised to hear the hon. member make unfounded allegations
which are very far from the truth.
1620
For the benefit of the House and of Quebeckers, I would like to
point out a few things.
First, equalization, which was expressly designed to eliminate
regional disparities, will greatly benefit Quebec. For example,
over the next five years, Quebec will receive a $1.4 billion
cheque, which it did not even anticipate. This $1.4 billion
given by the federal government to Quebec is almost equal to the
province's annual deficit.
Moreover, over the next five years, Quebec will receive 78% or
$566 million of the $722 million in new funding that comes from
technical improvements to the program.
Also, when it comes to total transfers, including the Canada
health and social transfer and the equalization program, the
figures are impressive.
Over the next 13 months, Quebec will receive $2 billion, that is
48% of the $4.2 billion allocated to the provinces. It will also
receive $5.9 billion, or 30% of the $19.6 billion. Finally,
Quebec will get 29% of all transfers, even though it only
accounts for 24% of Canada's population.
The hon. member should congratulate the Liberal members from
Quebec for their work, along with their colleague, the Minister
of Finance, and the Government of Canada. He should applaud them
for their good work and for meeting Quebeckers' needs.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, if I were a member from Ontario,
I would applaud. My colleague is from Ontario, and it is the
sure winner.
But if Quebec costs Canada so much, why are you doing everything
possible to keep it in this federation? If it costs too much,
you could be saving hundreds of millions, maybe billions, from
what you say.
I would remind my colleague—we will be more serious—of his
remarks. He mentioned 29%. All right, let us say 29% with
equalization payments, but he is mixing apples and oranges.
That makes for a real slop. They do not understand anymore
either, and that is why they keep running the same tape each
time.
But let us look at the 29%. Does the member know how much of
the cuts the Quebec finance minister has had to cope with in
five years? He would not know that. Ontario is the winner. It
is obsessed with the extraordinary gains it has made with this
budget.
In Quebec, however, we have taken 39% of the cuts. That is not
bad, when they talk about 29% in equalization payments. Yet we
always got hit, when the time came to cut, with 39% of the cut.
However, when it is time to distribute, the percentage drops.
So, the truth has to come out too.
Promoting jobs and economic growth for Ontario is fine. All the
Ontario members are in favour. In Quebec, it would be promoted
too if we did not have doormat members asleep at the switch
whenever it comes to making a budget that promotes Quebec. I
think things would go a little better for Quebeckers and
especially for Quebec's unemployed.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, whose
riding is very close to New Brunswick.
Does he agree with me that, in the budget, there is absolutely
nothing for the unemployed—the finance minister confirmed he
had used the surplus accumulated on the backs of the unemployed
to reduce the debt and hand out goodies—nothing for the fishing
industry, which is in a critical situation, nothing at all for
small and medium size businesses and zilch for rural
development?
In regions where unemployment is sky high, like my riding, some
people stopped receiving EI cheques two weeks ago. The work will
not resume before June and they have nothing to live on till
then. People in Albert County collected employment insurance
benefits for 18 weeks.
1625
That is all they got. They did not get 19 weeks or 22 weeks,
just 18, because the Minister of Human Resources Development
still considers them to be from the Moncton area, in spite of
the fact that they are an hour away from Moncton by car.
At the same time, with this budget, a hockey player earning $1
million a year will save $8,000 in tax this year. By comparison,
people who earn $10,000—and there are many in my region who
earn as little as $10,000 a year—will save $51. And we are
supposed to be kissing the finance minister's feet for that
today?
Did I miss something in the budget or can my colleague
corroborate what I just said?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for her question. I also take this
opportunity to congratulate her for hard work in looking after
the interests of her constituents, particularly the unemployed
in her riding.
The hon. member did not miss anything in this budget. This is
indeed what is happening. There is nothing in it for the
unemployed, in spite of the fact that only 36% of them qualify
for EI benefits even though 100% of them contributed to the
fund. There is nothing for the unemployed in this budget.
The government did not think about seasonal workers. It did not
think about the so-called spring gap, which is coming soon. It
did not think about resource regions. Worse still—and I do not
know if the member noticed it in the budget—the government
dared to cut $100 million from regional development.
This country no longer makes any sense.
Canadians will have to mobilize against the employment insurance
program—it does not make sense anymore—against puppet
ministers who no longer have any powers in this cabinet, to get
them to listen to reason and to get them to fight for the real
interests of Quebeckers and Canadians, the real interests of the
unemployed. I invite my dear colleague to join us.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the member's comments he addressed the issue of the CHST
adjustments with regard to British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario
relieving the ceiling on the per capita payments.
I would like to ask the member whether he has a problem with
transfers being made to each province on a per capita basis so
that each and every Canadian gets their fair share. Is the
member telling Canadians that equal shares for all is not fair?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I have a problem with a lot of
things in this budget. I have a problem with the fact that the
employment insurance fund is being used to give the richest
members of society tax breaks instead of providing relief for
the unemployed.
Those earning $250,000 get a $3,800 tax break, while the poorest
members of our society, middle income earners in particular, who
are helping the nation put its finances in order, get next to no
tax relief. I have a problem with that.
I also have a problem with the fact that the provinces have
isolated Quebec.
I have a big problem with the fact that they sold out, Ontario,
British Columbia and Alberta in particular, and signed the
social union framework, kowtowing to the Prime Minister and
agreeing to all sorts of interference in areas of jurisdiction
recognized as provincial in the Constitution of Canada. I have
a big problem with that.
Nor am I too happy about the fact that the Liberal Party members
and ministers from Quebec did nothing to restore equity in
transfer payments to Quebec and federal procurement of goods and
services, or regional development policies, where Quebec has
come out the loser in the last eight years. Every year, there
is a $600 million shortfall, $2 billion in goods and services.
And it is even worse with respect to research and development.
I am disgusted with the Liberal members from Quebec for not
fighting to get Quebec compensated for harmonizing the GST with
the QST. We are talking about $2 billion. They compensated the
maritimes, with more patronage appointments, as they did
elsewhere. Quebec is entitled to $2 billion in compensation for
harmonizing the GST and the QST several years earlier. I have a
problem with that.
I also have a problem with the fact that, just days after a
first ministers meeting where it was agreed to increase health
transfers only and to use the time-honoured formula, yesterday
the funding formula was unilaterally changed to Quebec's
disadvantage. I have a problem with that as well.
Does that answer the member's question?
1630
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to have the opportunity today to participate in
the debate on the 1999 budget.
As the government repeated over and over again in the weeks
leading up to this budget, this was to be the health budget. This
was to be the health budget. It was supposed to be the moment
when the government would provide us with the remedy to the
health system in crisis, a crisis caused by its policies. But
perhaps even more important, this was the moment that the
government was to rise and set out a vision for the future of
health care in this country.
The best that can be said about the so-called health budget is
that at least the federal Liberal government finally acknowledged
that it was its policies that were causing the crisis across this
country in our health care system.
An hon. member: It took a while.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: It took a while, that is for sure,
and it took a lot of Canadians suffering and bringing their pain
to the attention of this government to finally get the Liberals
to admit that their policies had put our health care system on
the critical list.
This was not always the case. Four years ago when this
government began to hack and slash away at health care funding,
the Prime Minister and the finance minister were busy telling
Canadians that even with an aging population, even with the
rapidly changing medical technology, even with the escalation in
the cost of prescription drugs, somehow we could spend less on
health care without any real consequences. Regrettably every
Canadian knows today that there were consequences. There were
severe consequences.
Now we have to start repairing the damage done by that hacking
and slashing by a government with no vision whatsoever for the
future of our health care system and no regard for the damage
that it was doing to the health care system of today and
tomorrow.
As the Liberal government took over $20 billion out of the money
that it was transferring to the provinces, emergency wards were
growing more and more crowded. As the federal share of health
care funding fell to just 11%, and let us remember that the
federal share of health care spending was once 50%, and as the
government dragged it down to 11%, the waiting lists grew longer
and longer. More sick patients were sent home from hospital
before they were ready and without a home care program there to
look after their needs.
The Liberals began to blame the provinces. Again this afternoon
in question period we saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Health blame the provinces for the inadequacy of home
care. Then of course some of premiers, like Mike Harris, blamed
the hospitals. For all I know some of the harried hospital
administrators in this country tried to blame the patients for
being sick. Blame everybody, blame anybody, but do not accept
the responsibility yourself. That has been the federal
government's position.
If nothing else can be said about yesterday's budget, this
government has finally admitted that it has been a major cause of
the health care crisis across this country today. Canadians have
been accusing this government of wilful neglect of our health
care system, of tearing down health care, and yesterday the
finance minister finally pleaded guilty. That is the good news
in this budget and we agree with those who say that is welcome
news.
I propose that as part of the finance minister's penalty, as
part of his penance as my clergy colleague would say, the
Minister of Finance should be required to perform some community
service.
Surely that is a reasonable proposition. Surely he should be
required to serve some time. Serve time in an emergency ward. Go
and help the families and help the staff cope with the
overcrowded waiting rooms his policies have created. Surely that
is a reasonable sentence. For the real test of this so-called
health budget will take place in the emergency wards, in the
surgical wards and the chronic care facilities around this
country.
1635
Once the budget day dust settles and Canadians see how health
funding figures have been inflated and exaggerated by this
government, they will be looking to see if this health budget
makes a real difference in the quality of care they and their
families actually receive from the health care system. I honestly
hope it will make a difference. We all hope it will make a
difference because Canadians really deserve a break after so many
years of such devastating cuts to our health care system.
I fear that the crisis is not over. I think most Canadians know
in their hearts that the health care crisis is not over. The
Liberal government has let the problems get so bad and it has
been so slow to respond to that crisis, so slow to offer the
needed injection of money, that I fear it will be a very long
time before Canadians will see any really significant improvement
in the health care system.
The Liberals have inflated the appearance of the new money by
announcing five years of spending in advance. Announcing five
years of spending at one time seems like a neat trick on the face
of it, but at the end of the day this budget will only get us
back to where we were four years ago. That is with no accounting
for inflation, no accounting for the continuing escalation in
drug costs, no accounting for the increased cost of caring for an
aging population or any of the other additional costs associated
with new treatments and new medical technologies.
Canadians do not want their health care system going backward.
They do not want us being dragged backward and they do not want
us just to be stuck in repairing the damage this government has
caused. They want some vision for the future. They want some
leadership in how we are going to implement a vision for health
care in the future.
Canadians are desperate for some action on home care and
pharmacare. They know from experience that the practice of
medicine is changing and that patients are being sent home from
hospitals earlier and earlier after surgery and other treatments.
In theory that is a welcome development. We all know some
patients are better off at home earlier if—and it is an if that
this government seems not to understand or to be willing to take
any responsibility for—the home supports are in place to ensure
people are safe and on the road to recovery.
Right now the reality is quite different. Today and for some
time to come, and this government has provided no assurance that
it is not going to continue for a very long time, countless
numbers of people, mainly women, daughters, mothers and wives,
are pitching in. Another layer of responsibility is being added
to their family responsibilities and to their work lives, to bear
the burden of providing care in the home for which they are not
trained and for which the support is not present.
Early hospital release and outpatient treatment also mean—and
this is sometimes lost and apparently this government does not
understand—that many more prescription drug costs are passed on
to the patient and the patient's family. Before those costs
would have been covered as part of the hospital stay.
As a result of rushing patients out of hospital and placing them
in their own homes, a double burden is being heaped on those
families because with very few exceptions, the costs of those
drugs are borne by the out of hospital patients and their
families.
1640
Developing a health care system where Canadians all across the
country can count on publicly provided home care and where all
Canadians have a drug plan must be a top priority for our health
care system. The Liberal Party promised home care and
prescription pharmacare during the last election. There was no
talk then about how this is of no concern to the federal
government. “This is not our responsibility; it is the
responsibility exclusively of the provinces” is the explanation
we heard today when we raised the concerns again about home care.
We would have thought that in a budget which the government
itself trumpeted as the health budget, it would have proposed
some initiatives on home care and pharmacare. But no, not a hint
that the federal government will offer any leadership or any
initiatives in these critical areas. It is this absence of
forward looking vision that is the budget's biggest
disappointment. If the government is not going to take action on
home care and on prescription drugs in what the government itself
calls the health care budget, then when will the government ever
take action on home care and pharmacare?
The second theme of the budget was tax reduction. At the outset
the finance minister appeared to strike the right note on tax
reform. In his opening statement he said “Most importantly we
must always be fair. If at the end of the day the books of the
country are better and the lives of Canadians are not, we will
not have succeeded”. These are fine words and it is a darn
shame that the finance minister did not act on those words when
he brought forward his budget.
For a budget supposedly designed to improve the lives of
Canadians, the Liberal government gave the biggest breaks of all
to those with the biggest incomes. Those are the facts. That is
not Liberal spin. That is not opposition rhetoric. Those are
the facts of this budget.
[Translation]
The Liberal government gave most of the tax breaks to those
least in need of them.
[English]
With the elimination of the surtax to those earning over
$50,000, the budget delivered over $1 billion of the $2.8 billion
tax package, or 35%, to 17% of the highest earning taxpayers. I
guess that is Liberal tax fairness. What that means is taking
advice from the Reform Party to our right; what that means in
terms of fairness is that the millionaire gets a tax break of
$8,000 while anyone earning less than $50,000 does not get one
red cent of a tax break in this budget.
Surely that $1 billion could have been better and more fairly
spent on people who desperately need help in this country: the
one million kids living in poverty who will get no help from this
budget; the 800,000 unemployed who are no longer eligible to
receive unemployment insurance because the government has gutted
the unemployment insurance program; the 1,000 workers at Devco
who are losing their jobs, their source of income and their
pension entitlement after 20 or more years on the job
sacrificing, as we were reminded this weekend by a coal miner's
wife, their health, their limbs and in too many instances their
lives; and the hundreds of thousands of homeless people crowding
the streets and relying on food banks and shelters for
sustenance.
1645
The child tax benefit was boosted by $300 million in order to
raise the floor at which the benefit is phased out. This change
is to be welcomed, but it will only provide very modest
additional relief to families with incomes over $26,000 and about
$184 a year for families between $40,000 and $60,000 with two
children.
The major problem with this measure, with the federal
government's child tax benefit break, is that it fails to do
anything for the poorest of poor children, for the poorest of
poor families.
Those families on social assistance who have been struggling to
get into the paid workforce or who are at home raising their
young children without the benefit of the oft promised child care
program from the government, another broken promise, will
continue to go with no benefits whatsoever from the so-called
child tax benefit extension.
Three years ago the finance minister sold this child benefit as
the answer to child poverty. Since the unanimous adoption in
parliament of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent's motion in 1989 to
eliminate child poverty in this country by the year 2000, the
number of poor kids in Canada has actually risen by over 500,000.
It has not declined but has risen under this government's policy
by 500,000. Today one child in five in the country lives in
poverty. Over one million of them are in families on social
assistance. These children will receive no help whatsoever from
the budget. Not a single cent.
How does the Minister of Finance measure this breach of
fairness? How does the finance minister explain this breach of
fairness? He has balanced his books but the lives of the most
destitute of Canadians remain untouched.
The finance minister has provided some general assistance to all
taxpayers by raising the basic personal exemption to $7,131 from
$6,456. This gives about $124 more to individuals. That is 40
cents a day. The government likes to point out how many people
have been taken off the income tax rolls by this measure. However
they will still be forced to pay the GST. They receive no break
there at all.
Our priority would have been to implement a 1% reduction in the
GST? In that way all Canadians would have benefited and it would
not have depended on their earnings level. That surely would
have been a fairer way to bring in tax relief and would have been
a job generator.
The most eloquent and most telling part of the budget, however,
is in its silences. Health care is not the only emergency we
face. Indeed, many cities across the country have officially
declared homelessness a national emergency. Not in living memory
have so many Canadians found themselves living on the street and
without adequate shelter.
They understand that homelessness can be a complex problem
including poverty, unemployment, mental health, addiction, family
breakdown and many other problems, but surely complex problems
require extra effort and special attention.
The Liberal government has done exactly the opposite. Faced
with this complex problem it has simply walked away from its
responsibilities. It is in the process of getting out of any
responsibility for social housing at a time when its
participation was never more needed.
The Liberal government's approach to homelessness has been to
simply walk on the other side of the street.
1650
There are many other evidences of silences in the budget:
silence on child care, silence on support for parents, silence on
helping young people finance their education or get the training
they need, and silence on eliminating wage discrimination and pay
inequities. These silences speak volumes about the extent to
which the government is out of touch with the lives of ordinary
Canadians.
If the government were in tune with the lives and the values of
ordinary Canadians, it would not engage in the endless
self-congratulations that we have seen in the last 24 hours. It
would accept that in a democratic society we have a
responsibility to provide for the most vulnerable.
It is clear that the government lacks the sensitivity and the
humility to acknowledge that it has failed to provide for the
most vulnerable Canadians. That is why we on this side of the
House have our work cut out for us.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a comment and then a question. My first comment has to do
with the issue of poverty. The member has raised poverty in this
speech and other speeches. I congratulate her for it. It is an
important issue. Also she correctly pointed out that it was a
complex problem for which there is no simple solution.
She dealt with issues such as mental health, physical
disabilities and alcohol and drug abuse addictions. She also
mentioned that family breakdown was the single largest
contributor to not just child poverty but family poverty in
Canada.
My question has to do with health because it was a health budget
and the member dealt with that. In view of the fact that
pursuant to the Canada Health Act transfers from the federal
government are directed specifically to hospitals and doctors and
the delivery of services and ancillary areas are clearly and
constitutionally the responsibility of the provinces, does she
believe that the federal government, notwithstanding the social
union accord developed with the agreement of all provinces except
Quebec, should have unilaterally proceeded with something to do
with pharmacare and home care and ignored provincial
jurisdiction?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, let me say how much I
welcome that question. What I fear is that I will not have
enough time to deal with the many questions raised. Let me go
right to the heart of it.
I noticed the member did not ask the question about what we
should have done for poverty. Let me say what they should not
have done, and that is ignore it as they did.
Let me go to health care. He raised the question of whether the
government should have totally ignored that delivery of health
services is provincial, acted unilaterally and shown some
leadership on home care and pharmacare programs. I have two
responses.
Where were those thoughts when the Liberal Party went all over
the country during the last election campaign specifically
promising a national program on home care and a national program
on pharmacare? The Liberal government acted unilaterally when it
did that and it continues to do so.
Tommy Douglas used to say it was a darn shame that we have only
put the first two parts of a universal health care system in
place: hospital insurance and provision for physician services.
We have yet to put the third and perhaps the most important part
of the health care system in place. That means expanding what
the federal government now includes in its description of
universal health care to add to medical services and hospital
care a range of other services such as home care and pharmacare
that are desperately needed by Canadians.
1655
I do not believe for one minute that any provincial government
which cares about its citizens would stand and oppose the federal
government showing some leadership and taking some initiative to
expand the insurable services under health care. Until we do
that we will not have a universal health care system.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first off,
I wish to congratulate my New Democratic Party colleague for her
great sensitivity to the less fortunate, particularly children.
As I said last week, everyone agreed back in 1989 that we should
eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Today, the number of
poor children stands at 1.5 million, a 500,000 increase.
What this means is that, since 1993, this government has shown
no compassion.
This is terrible, when children do not get enough to eat, when
they go to school without a lunch, when they do not have proper
clothes to wear and are made fun of, and at the same time the
taxes of rich Canadians are going down. I call that a scandal,
an outright scandal.
I hope the members opposite will agree with the NDP leader that
this is a scorched earth policy, and that is exactly what I
mean.
I ask my wonderfully sensitive colleague how we are going to get
to zero poverty in the near future, if it is possible at all,
because I am losing hope. Fortunately, we already have a zero
deficit. However, we must get to zero poverty in four or five
years.
Zero poverty should be everyone's goal.
How can we make them understand? I do not know if they have it
in them. How can we get together and make them understand that
zero poverty should be everyone's goal?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague's
comments.
[English]
It is very true we have witnessed under this government an
increase in the incidence of child poverty that has added 500,000
more children to the ranks of poverty in the country. It is a
disgrace.
That is why we challenge the government on its sense of
priorities. What does it say about the priorities of the
government and the finance minister, that they would bring in a
measure which gives $8,000 extra to every millionaire in the
country while there is not a single benefit for the one million
children in the country who do not have enough food to eat? What
does it say about the government's priorities?
It is not that the government does not know what can be done and
what must be done to address the problem of poverty. It gutted
the unemployment insurance system. Many families are not
receiving the income replacement for which they have paid
insurance premiums.
The government has so slashed federal transfers to provinces
that the social assistance system is no longer working to keep
people out of poverty. One of the things about which I will have
a lot more to say in the days ahead is that it is absolutely
clear, as the government congratulates itself on its health
budget, that it has no intention of increasing transfers for
education and for social welfare over the next five years.
With that so clear, so apparent, so transparent in the budget,
there is every reason to be even more fearful about the lot of
over one million poor children.
In conclusion, that is why it is time, 10 years later, after
all-party endorsement of a resolution to eliminate child poverty
within a decade, for us to rededicate ourselves and make the
elimination of child poverty the real millennium project for all
of Canada.
1700
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the
government laying out its priorities on health care. The member
is absolutely right. It was health care.
One province has already indicated it will use the money to hire
more nurses, to reduce waiting lists for cancer and neonatal
services and to expand home care services. We have decided on
our priority.
The hon. member hired the former Saskatchewan NDP cabinet
minister who said “One cannot live on borrowed money forever.
Sometimes it catches up to you. You cannot mortgage your
children's future to the point where you can live high. It only
leaves them with a debt”. Take his advice. Stop saying spend,
spend, spend. We laid out our priorities. It is a health
budget. The member should stand up and applaud.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, this is not about
spend, spend. This is about priorities. The record will show
that the priority of this government is to give an $8,000 benefit
to millionaires and not one red cent to one million children in
this country who do not have enough food.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I wish to
inform the House that the amendment to the amendment moved by
the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is in order.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are profoundly disappointed with this government's
budget. This was summed up best in today's Globe and Mail
editorial: “Poor marks for the finance minister's budget”. It
said that he has left the impression of a man more interested in
short term political popularity and budget sleight of hand than
laying the foundations for a stronger economy in the long run”.
This is a very important time for our country. We are entering
the 21st century, a time of global opportunity. The decisions
and choices we make today as a country can either limit or reduce
the choices we have as Canadians in the next century. We fear
that the minister is making the wrong choices.
The Liberal government did not address the fact that Canada
currently has the highest personal income taxes of any of the G-7
countries, the highest tax burden of any of the industrialized
countries.
The Liberal government did not address the fact that our
productivity growth has been the worst in the G-7 over the last
two decades. Our incomes, after taxes and inflation, have been
declining while our neighbours to the south have enjoyed soaring
incomes.
We live in a world with unprecedented change. Globalization and
the forces of technology are driving that change.
1705
Governments will be successful in bringing their countries into
the new millennium to be full participants in the global economy
only if they have the vision and leadership to do so.
Our party believes in the free market system but we also believe
that all Canadians deserve an opportunity to participate in that
economy. They need access to the levers of the free market
economy. Without that we will not have the type of society that
Canadians want, a prosperous society, a society where all
Canadians have equality of opportunity regardless of where they
are from in the country, regardless of the income level or the
socioeconomic status of their parents. We want to see all
Canadians participate in economic opportunity.
This government really has no meaningful agenda. The Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance have demonstrated no real
vision. This is a government on cruise control. It is a
caretakership government, a government without real leadership.
This was nowhere more evident than during last summer's dollar
debacle when the debate surrounded the dollar and the dollar went
to record lows of sub 65 cents. At that time the Prime Minister
actually had the economic naivety, I should say audacity perhaps,
to say it was good for tourism, implying that somehow the lower
dollar could help the Canadian economy, implying that we can
devalue our way to prosperity.
The logical corollary of his argument would be that if we reduce
the dollar to zero by high taxes and productivity inhibiting
policies ultimately we would become the greatest exporting nation
in the world.
We all know a country cannot devalue its way to prosperity. To
achieve success and prosperity in a global environment requires a
country that values productivity, that values its people and
their opportunities.
Instead of looking into the next century the Liberals are
focused on the next election. The finance minister is focused on
the next leadership campaign. Canadians deserve better than
this. Economic policies are not short term in nature. They
require consistency, a long term focus and they require vision.
Last year when the government even had a vague whiff of a
surplus what did it do with that? It took $2.5 billion from
Canadians for the millennium scholarship fund, $2.5 billion out
of last year's budget, and stocked it away for the future. It
took it from Canadians who needed the economic stimulus, who
needed the investment in the economy last year and said they
could not have it.
That is clearly unacceptable. Not only does it offend the
auditor general but it offends Canadians and it offends good
economic policy.
We have seen the results of five years of this government.
Those results have been a beleaguered health care system, a
health care system that is not there when Canadians need it. The
tax burden has grown from $112 billion in 1993 to over $150
billion last year under this government.
What we have here is a budget surplus and a leadership deficit.
Canadians deserve a full opportunity to succeed. That is the
least they deserve. Our leader, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, said
recently that sound economic and fiscal policies are the bedrock
of any country that wants to function effectively in the modern
world and economic growth is the means to achieve all the goals
we set for our society.
There are some dire warnings out there about the Canadian
economy from organizations like the IMF and the OECD, one of the
world's greatest economic think tanks on these types of issues.
The OECD, headed by a former Liberal cabinet minister, warned
recently that current trends could “lead to a substantial
decline in Canada's per capita income relative to the OECD
average”.
In short, Canada is falling behind our trading partners, behind
other countries, and Canadians will pay the price in the future
for a government's lack of vision now and the Liberal
government's lack of courage in tackling the real problems facing
Canadians and the Canadian economy.
Canadians and our party understand the importance of fiscal
responsibility.
In 1979 Joe Clark introduced the first fiscally responsible
budget of a generation, which was defeated for purely partisan
purposes. The last P.C. government reduced the deficit to GDP
ratio from 9% when it took office to around 5% when it left
office.
1710
The real price to reduce the deficit has been paid by Canadians,
Canadians who have seen their health care system slashed,
Canadians who have seen $19 billion taken from their health care
system, Canadians who have seen taxes rise dramatically from $114
billion to $151 billion, EI premiums kept at a ridiculously high
rate and benefits slashed. Only 30% of applicants or those who
pay into the system of EI actually qualify when they need it.
This is clearly unacceptable.
The Liberals have fought the deficit by charging Canadians more
and giving the provinces and Canadians less. They also had some
help. The Economist said that much of the credit for
deficit reduction goes to the passage of time and to successful
reforms implemented by the previous government, including free
trade, deregulation of financial services, transportation and
energy and of course the GST that the Liberals used to be opposed
to but now embrace and which the Prime Minister claims on foreign
trips to have invented.
Good government will require better choices than this government
is making. The previous government gave it the opportunities to
make the right choices, because that government had the vision to
make the right choices.
In this budget there is no tax relief for Canadians. I think it
is very important that point be made clear. What we have is a
fiscal shell game and an illusion that there are tax benefits in
this budget, but in fact there are not. Cutting taxes and giving
more money back to Canadians who have borne the brunt of deficit
reduction is not important to this government. Government
members feel they have cut the deficit. We see them over there
like trained seals during question period applauding their
efforts. They feel they cut the deficit. Canadians paid the
price for reducing and eliminating the deficit and Canadians
deserve a break now.
The Liberals increased the basic personal exemption a little in
this budget and they said it will take 200,000 Canadians off the
tax rolls. What about the 1.4 million low income Canadians who
have been dragged kicking and screaming on to the tax rolls by
this government by refusing to reindex tax brackets?
There has been a huge tax grab in the EI fund, $19 billion this
government has taken from workers and employers, workers who need
that fund during difficult times, seasonal workers. During a
transitional period, during a time of immense change, both
economically driven and technologically driven, there are regions
of our country where people need help to make that type of
change. This government has turned its back on regions of this
country, including Atlantic Canada. The message was very clear
in the last federal election. I would add that the message will
be clear in the next federal election as well.
This government is practising a give and take tax policy where
it will give some tax breaks through the front door but then
through the refusal to reindex tax brackets will take it through
the back door.
Bracket creep is costing Canadians around $1 billion per year.
This government has not addressed that issue. The budget does
not address the brain drain issue, the fact that the tax
disparity between Canada and the U.S. remains immense. In Canada
one reaches top marginal tax rate at about $65,000. In the U.S.
it is around $400,000 Canadian. In Canada the top marginal tax
rate, federal and provincial, is about 50%. In the U.S. it is
about 40%.
The members opposite will say yes, but things are better here.
The fact is things used to be better when we had a decent health
care system, when we had a health care system people could rely
on. But for the difference in take home pay after taxes,
Canadians are discovering they can buy health care in the U.S.
when they need it.
The fact is no one in the House or at least in our party
advocates a private health care system, because we believe in a
single user pay system that works for Canadians and is provided
by the government. We believe very strongly in that because all
Canadians, regardless of income levels, deserve access to a
quality health care system.
This government has devastated the health care system and at the
same time has continually raised taxes, driving some of our best
and brightest south of the border.
1715
The EI premiums are an extraordinarily regressive tax. Payroll
taxes are particularly regressive. Someone making $39,000 per
year will pay the same amount of EI premiums as someone making
$300,000 per year. This is the government's idea of a fair tax
policy.
In terms of corporate taxes, in June the Mintz report was tabled
to the finance committee. It pointed out some of the disparities
between business taxes in Canada and business taxes in the U.S.
and our other trading partners. It pointed out that one of the
biggest impediments we have to economic growth and productivity
in Canada is our tax system and particularly our business tax or
corporate tax system. There was not a mention of really
addressing the fundamental issues of corporate taxation in the
budget.
We will continue to lose foreign investment to other countries
because the budget has not addressed the fundamental issues. In
time we will continue to see substandard job growth in Canada.
The government said unemployment has gone down in recent years.
It has gone down in the U.S. as well. In the U.S. the
unemployment rate is at the lowest point in 20 years. Canada
maintains an unemployment rate double that of the U.S. That is
clearly unacceptable.
When we talk about lower taxes it is very easy to not really
explain how important it is to the lives of average Canadians.
We advocate tax reduction for three reasons.
Canadians need a break. Canadians have seen their disposable
incomes decline by 9% in recent years. During the same period
U.S. disposable incomes increased by 11%. Canadians need jobs
and opportunities. In every jurisdiction high taxes kill jobs.
In a global environment it is not possible to maintain an
artificially high tax rate. We need to ensure that our tax
system is competitive and thus Canadians can be competitive in
the global environment.
Job creation has been led by Ontario and Alberta. Why? The
governments in Ontario and Alberta have recognized that lower
taxes create economic opportunity and jobs. By lowering taxes in
Ontario the Harris government has actually taken in more tax
revenues. It is imperative that the government learn from some
of its more rational provinces in terms of appropriate tax
systems.
What was really cynical in this budget is it mentioned the
homeless but there was not one single initiative for the
homeless. How dare the Minister of Finance mention the homeless
but not provide one single initiative to help the homeless.
The budget may talk about poverty, and it is a major issue. One
in five Canadian children is living in poverty. We had a debate
in the House sponsored by our party on the issue of poverty. Why
are children living in poverty? Their parents are living in
poverty. We have slashed access to EI benefits for seasonal
workers in regions like Atlantic Canada without providing
anything in the wake of those draconian slashes. We have
maintained artificially high taxes which have inhibited job
growth. More Canadians need jobs.
The parents of these children who are living in poverty want to
work. They want opportunities to compete and to succeed. The
best way to ensure this is to reduce the tax burden on all
Canadians to create economic growth and opportunity such that
these people can participate in the economy.
In my riding there are many constituents with families living on
less than $10,000 per year.
1720
Members opposite have dismissed poverty as something that really
is not there or they have said that we should change the way we
measure poverty because the way we currently measure living in
poverty in Canada is statistically incorrect. I heard a member
of the Reform Party compare poverty in Canada to third world
poverty by saying there may be some Canadians who are starving
but not many.
In my Canada and our party's Canada it is unacceptable that any
Canadian is starving or that any child is living in poverty. The
only way we are going to change that is to recognize that we need
to attach the hands of Canadians to the levers of economic
growth, get this government of high taxes and high regulation out
of the way and provide Canadians with the opportunity to compete
and succeed.
This was supposed to be the health care budget. The last budget
was the education budget. I forgot that for a moment because the
results of the last budget, being an education budget, were
fairly nebulous. There was a $2.5 billion millennium scholarship
fund taken out of last year's books. Of course it will not
benefit any Canadian until after the year 2000, even then it will
only benefit only 4% of students seeking higher education.
Interestingly enough, the year after the Liberals' education
budget, 12,000 graduates have declared bankruptcy. I shudder to
think what will happen after the health care budget but it cannot
be any worse than what the Liberals have done before.
The minister expects to be commended for an $11.5 billion
reinvestment in health care, which will only bring health care
spending up by the year 2004 to the 1995 level. That ignores
the $3 billion yearly growth in the cost of health care due to
inflation and an aging population. That would be like thanking
an arsonist for burning down your house and then rebuilding a
smaller one on the same site eight years later. This is
ludicrous.
The way the Liberals are spending on health care, they have cut
indiscriminately since 1993 and now they are preparing to spend
indiscriminately. Nowhere in the budget was there mention of
engaging the volunteer sector to better maximize the health care
spending of organizations like the VON which have served
Canadians well in the past and will continue to do so in the
future with very little help from this government. What is the
strategy to address the fundamental issues of pharmacare and home
care? What about palliative care with an aging population? Where
is the strategy for developing a real program working with the
provinces to provide not just a more expensive health care system
but a better health care system?
We will be addressing issues in the budget debate over the next
several days. This budget has clearly not dealt with some of the
fundamental issues in the Canadian economy and health care
system. On the economic front this government has not set firm
debt reduction targets. Again the government is ducking the real
issues.
I remind the Minister of Finance who recently said the economy
is clicking on all cylinders that the economy continues to
sputter for many Canadians and that we want to see the economy
firing on all cylinders. The minister talks about the
government's strong fundamentals. John Kenneth Galbraith,
Canadian ex-patriot and economist, once said beware of
governments that say their fundamentals are strong. That is very
appropriate for this government.
Let us look at the fundamentals. We have an unemployment rate
twice that of the U.S. We have record high rates of personal
bankruptcy, a negative savings rate, the highest personal debt
rates ever. The IMF and the OECD are saying cut taxes. Brain
drain is taking our best and brightest. The economy is not
clicking on all cylinders and we want to see it click on all
cylinders for all Canadians.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak but after hearing the
outrageous comments of my friend from Kings—Hants I felt
compelled to do so. Transport is my game but I have a night job,
trying to look after some of the interests of the government in
Canada's largest city. There are 4.6 million people in the
greater Toronto area. We are particularly sensitive to the
plight of the homeless in that city and in other cities across
the country. I take umbrage at my friend for saying there is
nothing in this budget to deal with homelessness. He obviously
has not read the budget.
I believe this is the first time there has been a specific
mention of this plight in any document of a budgetary nature in
Canadian history. I think that took great courage on the part of
the Minister of Finance. We at the federal level or at any level
of government do not want to own this issue.
1725
This is an issue that has to be dealt with by all levels of
government. All Canadians have a stake in dealing with the
plight of the homeless across the country.
Let me tell the House what this government has done in the past
to deal with this issue. We have the youth employment strategy.
We have the RRAP to fix up residential housing. We have made
facilities such as armouries available in Toronto and in other
cities.
In this budget $11.5 billion has been allocated for health care.
Thirty per cent of the homeless on the streets of cities like
Toronto are people who have mental illnesses and who can be
institutionalized. It is up to the provinces. It is up to
people like Mike Harris, their soul mate, to say we now have the
money, the money has come through health from the federal
government, we can deal with this issue.
One last point is that the Mulroney government put the cap on
the old Canada assistance plan. What that meant to the
wealthiest provinces like Alberta, B.C. and Ontario was that they
were restricted in the amount of money they spent on social
services. We are lifting the cap on the CHST and that means Mike
Harris and everybody else can now start to treat the homeless as
a priority, as they should.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for
his gentle and erudite comments.
The minister said the Liberals are sensitive to the issue of the
homeless, which was similar to their treatment in the budget
documents. It was kind of a warm, touchy feely way to mention
the issue.
On behalf of the homeless I want to thank the government for
mentioning the homeless in its budget. That is cold comfort to
the homeless. There is a role for the federal government to work
with the provinces and to work with the municipalities to develop
a real strategy to deal with the homeless.
When I said the government did not address the issue of the
homelessness and that it only mentioned it in its budget for
political purposes, I was quoting one of the heads of the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities who said during an
interview last night that it was another level of government that
has to deal on the front lines with the homeless.
This is similar to the way the government handles a number of
economic issues or social issues. It talks about the homeless
but there is no way that the government provides a program to
deal with the homeless.
It talks about tax cuts as well. After this budget someone
making $39,000 per year will pay more taxes due to rising payroll
taxes. This is a government that likes to talk the talk but it
seldom walks the walk on important issues like homelessness.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure my colleague from the beautiful province of
Nova Scotia is really concerned about the crocodile tears shed by
the Minister of Transport and his Liberal colleagues when it
comes to homelessness.
If John Cleghorn of the Royal Bank makes $2 million to $3
million he gets a $16,000 tax break. If Al Flood of the CIBC
makes $3 million he gets a $24,000 tax break. Instead of giving
tax breaks to the wealthiest Canadians, would that money not have
gone to better use, for example, to compensate for all hepatitis
C victims?
I speak not on behalf of or for the member for Saint John, but
would that money not have gone to better use for our beloved
merchant marines who have been struggling against this government
to try to get recognition and compensation for their work?
Instead this government in this budget turns around and gives the
wealthiest Canadians tax breaks. Would he not agree that is a
shame?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
This government is not interested in making the tax system more
progressive. It believes quite strongly in a regressive tax
policy.
1730
I need not remind the member of the EI tax, the most regressive
tax there is. I mentioned earlier that someone making $39,000
per year will pay the same amount of EI premiums as somebody
making $300,000 per year. That is fundamentally unfair.
I would advocate tax reform in Canada that would build a fairer
tax system. I would also advocate a flatter tax system. However
the most pernicious, offensive and regressive taxes in Canada
right now are our payroll taxes and EI premiums which are
excessively high because the government is using them to pad its
books and make its bottom line look better.
It is important to recognize that while the government is in the
black, Canadians, particularly low income Canadians, are in the
red.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Kings—Hants used what he thought was a
clever turn of phrase when he complained about a budget surplus
and a leadership deficit. I submit that when that party was in
power there was a $42 billion budget deficit and a leadership
surplus that the Canadian public dealt with by firing every
member of that party but two in 1993.
Would the member not agree that when 36 cents of every tax
dollar collected goes into paying off a $560 billion deficit
created by that party, it is contributing more to creating
homelessness because the government of the day did not have the
money as a result of the overspending of that party when it was
in power?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. He has been spending too much time asking
softball questions of ministers opposite, because that is a
softball question.
The fact is that he speaks with some level of authority about
building deficits. As a Liberal he understands that fully,
because under Liberal governments our deficit in Canada grew from
zero to $38 billion by the time the previous Conservative
government took office in 1984, which was 9% of our GDP. The
Conservative government reduced that from 9% to about 5% of GDP
by the time it left office. Not only did it start deficit
reduction. It also implemented the policies which made it
possible for this government to eliminate the deficit.
I would love for the hon. member to explain to the House where
he stood on free trade, where he stood on the GST, and where he
stood on deregulation of financial services, transportation and
energy. Where did he stand on these policies? He probably did
not stand anywhere except in opposition to them.
The fact is that he is absolutely right about leadership.
Leadership is necessary to address issues. There is no
leadership in the government to provide visionary policies that
will ensure the next government, which will be a PC government,
has the opportunities provided by strong visionary policies by
the government now.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after hearing a couple of hours
of rhetoric I hope to be able to communicate to Canadians what
was in the budget rather than what most members opposite believe
in their own minds and use to their own political advantage.
Yesterday in the House the Minister of Finance delivered his
sixth budget. It describes a vision of higher standard of living
and a better quality of life for all Canadians. The budget
articulated a well thought out vision for tomorrow. It also
reinforced a plan for today, a plan that will make that vision a
reality.
Maintaining sound, economic and financial management is
certainly an essential component of the plan, but restoring order
to the nation's finances is not, as the Minister of Finance said
yesterday, an end in itself. He indicated in his speech
yesterday that a better standard of living also requires us to
invest in key priorities such as health care. It calls for
continued tax relief. That is exactly what the 1999 budget
proposes to do.
In my remarks today I should like to examine the fiscal and
economic foundation on which we are building this vision.
1735
As a nation our capacity to strengthen the health care system,
to provide tax relief and to make other strategic investments
depends upon the strength of this foundation. For the second
consecutive year the government has brought down a budget that is
balanced or better. Canada has moved from a deficit of $42
billion before the government came to office to a $3.5 billion
surplus last year.
In the current fiscal year the government will again balance its
books or better. It will be the first time since 1951-52 that
Canada has been deficit free for two consecutive years. In fact
by the accounting standards used in most other industrialized
countries the government will post a financial surplus for the
third year in 1998-99. It is this fiscal hat trick that is
remarkable, not only in Canadian terms but in global terms. In
the global arena Canada is the first G-7 country to post three
consecutive surpluses in this decade.
As the Minister of Finance confirmed in his speech yesterday,
the government is committed to keeping federal budgets balanced
or better in both 1999-2000 and the year after that.
When we came to office Canada had a history of deficit
financing. Today deficit financing is history. As recently as
the early 1990s Canada's budgetary position was worse than that
of any other G-7 country. Now, when making comparisons across
countries, adjustments must be made for differences in accounting
practices and in the distribution of responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
In light of these considerations the most appropriate measure is
the total government budget balance. On a comparable statistical
basis our total national accounts based government sector deficit
reached a high of 8% of GDP in 1992. It was more than double the
3.8% G-7 average at the time. Today our position is better than
that of any other country in the G-7. It has improved each and
every year since 1992.
It is our success in balancing the books that makes it possible
for the government to consider significant investments in
priority areas. First, our success in the fight against the
deficit has made it possible to begin providing broad based tax
relief for Canadians, both in last year's budget and again in
this year's budget.
Next, the fiscal balance in previous budgets has made it
possible for us to make a significant investment in health care
in this year's budget. This investment, which amounts to $11.5
billion over the next five years, is the largest single new
investment the government has every made since coming to office
over five years ago.
The 1999 budget also includes a $1.4 billion investment aimed at
strengthening Canada's health care system through additional
resources for information systems, health research, as well as
prevention and other health initiatives. This budget and this
investment in health care are more than just transfers to
provinces. It is all about ensuring that there is
accountability, ensuring that there is investment in prevention,
and ensuring that there is research in service delivery. It is
all about ensuring that Canadians in every province now have a
better opportunity of receiving better quality health care.
Fourth, we have proposed investments that will build on the
Canadian opportunities strategy by advancing Canada's knowledge
and innovation agenda. We said from the beginning that the plan
we laid out in 1994 would be followed. Again, in this last
budget we are building on previous budgets and building on the
Canadian opportunities strategy, a strategy that ensures
opportunity for individuals to acquire skills that they need in
order to compete in the upcoming millennium.
This budget invests and builds on that strategy and advances
Canada's knowledge and innovation agenda. That will provide
direct support for employment, particularly for youth.
1740
Even with the important investments announced in this year's
budget, Canada's program spending as a percentage of GDP is on a
clear and downward trend. In 1993-94 program spending amounted to
16.6% of GDP. For 1998-99 program spending is expected to drop
to 12.6% of GDP. By 2000-01 it should fall to 12% of GDP.
This will be the lowest level of program spending relative to
the size of the economy in 50 years, and that is while we are
continuing to invest in Canadian priorities: health, education,
providing tax relief and continuing to pay down debt.
Focusing our spending on key priorities and putting an end to
decades of deficit financing have allowed the government to make
significant inroads in its fight against the debt. Last year
Canada's debt to GDP ratio saw its largest single yearly decline
since 1956-57. It fell from 70.3% to 66.9%. For the current
fiscal year it is expected to fall still further to about 65.3%.
By 2000-01 the debt ratio should come in at just under 62%.
Economic growth is not the only cause of this remarkable decline
in debt relative to the size of the economy. The government is
in fact doing what Canadians have asked. Canadians have asked
that the government pay down the debt. The Minister of Finance
pointed out in his speech yesterday that we are only one of a few
countries in the world which is actually paying down its debt.
Nonetheless, Canada's debt to GDP ratio is still too high. Among
our G-7 counterparts only Italy has a higher level of debt in
relation to the size of the economy. We are therefore committed
to keeping this debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward track.
To this end the government is following the debt repayment plan
set out in last year's budget.
As part of this strategy we will continue to present two year
fiscal plans. These plans will be based on prudent planning
assumptions and will continue to include a contingency reserve, a
buffer against unexpected financial pressures.
The current plan contains a contingency reserve of $3 billion
each and every year. When it is not needed, as was the case last
year, it will go directly to paying down the public debt. This
is very important. Only three years ago when the debt to GDP
ratio was at its peak, 36 cents of every dollar of federal
revenue went to pay interest on the debt. Last year with the
debt ratio dropping, the portion of each revenue dollar needed to
service the debt fell to 27 cents, which allows the government
more flexibility and more opportunity to reinvest in Canadian
priorities.
These numbers tell a powerful story. They tell a story of a
nation that is in control of its destiny, a Canada that is
securing for itself greater economic freedom.
A diminishing debt burden is freeing up resources to strengthen
health care and access to knowledge, to provide needed tax
relief, to fight child poverty, to improve the environment and to
invest more in a productive economy.
However, spending initiatives and tax cuts will be introduced
only when they are sustainable, when the government is reasonably
certain that it has the resources to pay for its actions. We
will not commit to tax cuts, to spending that we cannot afford.
We have turned the corner. The government is committed. Members
on this side of the House are committed never ever to go back to
the reckless spending years of the Tories across the way who
continued to bury the country with $42 billion of deficit and
continued to ensure that Canadians did not have the opportunity
they were looking for.
1745
Prudence is at the heart of this government's approach to
managing the nation's finances. And so it should be, for there
is absolutely nothing to be gained by introducing tax relief if
it means running the risk of driving the country back into
deficit. There is nothing to be gained by bringing in new
spending initiatives one year if the government has to hike taxes
the following year to pay for something it thought it could
afford.
I know that our opposition critics love the government's prudent
approach. We heard about it this afternoon. Why do they love it?
Because the opposition will always be able to complain that we
are not moving quickly enough to bring down taxes. We heard it
from the leader of the Reform Party. We heard it from the
Tories. Or that we are not acting decisively enough to beef up
spending. We heard it from the NDP earlier today. We heard it
from the Bloc.
What does this strategy mean for Canadians? That is whom this
government is speaking for. It is speaking for Canadians and it
is speaking to Canadians. For Canadians it means they can always
have confidence in this government's ability to deliver
sustainable measures. It means they can count on us to continue
to provide tax relief and to continue to invest in key social and
economic priorities year after year after year and budget after
budget.
The continuing improvement in this government's fiscal situation
is helping to keep interest rates low. In fact, short term
interest rates, currently around 4.7%, have returned to the
levels of early last year before the financial turmoil in Asia
sent them rising. Long term interest rates are near historical
low levels. The level of interest rates is further proof that
Canada's economic fundamentals are strong.
The member for Kings—Hants made reference to how this
government continues to talk about economic fundamentals. The
essential difference in the management of the economy between
this government and the past administration is that we focus on
economic fundamentals. We ensure that the economic fundamentals
are in place before we embark on any investment and before we
embark on any tax cuts.
Reckless spending and promises that do not mean anything to
Canadians and that cannot be fulfilled do not cut it with
Canadians any more. They are looking for sustainability. They
are looking for priorities that will be invested in and they are
looking for leadership. This government has provided leadership.
With the help of Canadians it will continue to provide
leadership as we move into the next millennium.
A person does not need to be an economist to understand the
benefit of low interest rates. When rates are low, the benefit
is felt directly by consumers. It is felt by Canadians. It is a
bottom line benefit for anyone who has a mortgage to pay or car
payments to make. It is a bottom line benefit for businesses of
all sizes that borrow money to invest in capital equipment or to
expand their operations and create jobs.
While the Tories ridicule the idea of fundamentals, fundamentals
provide a climate of low interest rates and low inflation. They
provide an environment where businesses can continue to prosper
and create those jobs Canadians are looking for.
Speaking of jobs, one of the most encouraging developments in
the last couple of years has been a surge in employment.
Employment jumped by 453,000 jobs in 1998, building on the
already impressive gain of 368,000 jobs in 1997. Canada's
employment performance in 1998 was the best for the decade.
The hon. member for Kings—Hants also made reference to the G-7.
The G-7 said that Canada will outpace the rate of job creation in
any other G-7 country. The trend continued in January of this
year with 87,000 new jobs created.
It is not the government that creates these jobs. It is the
private sector. This government has been successful in providing
an environment conducive to job growth. The private sector
continues to be profitable.
When it is profitable and meeting the needs of the global
economy, the private sector will be hiring Canadians. We will
continue to provide that environment.
1750
The unemployment rate today stands at 7.8%. It is the lowest
jobless rate this country has seen since 1990.
Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of Canada's job performance
is the fact that almost 40% of the new jobs created in the last
12 months went to Canada's youth. This represents 202,000 jobs,
a 10% gain. The yearly employment gain recorded for youth was the
strongest in over 25 years.
As far as the overall prospects for economic growth are
concerned, yesterday the Minister of Finance emphasized once
again that Canada has been affected over the past year by the
financial instability in the global market. We all know what
happened in Asia. We all know what is happening in Russia. We
know the impact of what may happen in Brazil.
Lower world commodity prices were the most significant channel
through which the Asian crisis dampened economic growth in Canada
last year. In a survey conducted at the beginning of this year,
private sector forecasters indicated that they expected growth in
Canada to slow to about 2% this year before picking up to 2.5% in
the year 2000.
Even with the lower growth prospects, both the International
Monetary Fund and the OECD expect Canada to be among the top
performers in the G-7. These organizations also expect Canada to
continue to lead the pack in job creation. When the hon. member
makes reference to the IMF and the OECD, he should make sure that
he tells the House and Canadians the complete story. The IMF and
the OECD are continuing to provide Canada with high marks in job
creation.
The 1999 budget invests in health care. It invests in research
and innovation and other key areas. The government is continuing
to provide general tax relief to all Canadians without borrowing
money to do so. The government's ability to move on these three
fronts is a result of its firm commitment to good financial
management.
The figures in this year's budget plan make it clear that Canada
is breaking new ground and putting in place a strong economic
foundation. It is the foundation on which we will build a better
tomorrow, an enduring period of prosperity and an improving
quality of life.
The actions of this budget are mutually reinforcing. Unlike
what the parties opposite say, the initiatives we are proposing
will work together to ensure that this ambitious but realistic
vision of 21st century Canada will manifest itself not only in
our finance minister's eloquent words, but also in the day to day
lives of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, listening to the hon. member opposite I had a
great deal of difficulty restraining myself.
I cannot imagine how the Liberal members opposite manage not to
choke when they speak in a debate like the one on the budget
tabled yesterday.
It is as if we were living on two completely different planets.
I believe the hon. member is from Ontario. Before making those
kinds of remarks, he should come and travel across Quebec and
the maritimes.
Having done that, if he still cannot show more compassion, he
may at least not get so carried away about how good this budget
is, as he described it. I noted a few things. I will first make
a comment and then put a question to the member.
The hon. member praised the work done by the Minister of
Finance, saying that the minister was working with standards
widely used in the G-7. I am not sure how widely used they are in
the G-7. But one thing is sure: he was unable to tell us if these
standards were widely recognized here, in Canada, by Canadians,
so that comparisons could be made.
1755
Neither could the hon. member bring himself to admit that the
finance minister had his wrists slapped by the auditor general
precisely because this is not a transparent approach allowing
figures to be compared from one year to the next.
In fact, to find out what the actual breakdown by province is
today, one has to request from senior Canadian officials special
tables, which show in black and white what the Government of
Quebec told us, and that is that the province is getting no more
than $150 million for health care. That is my first point.
Second, he said that the Liberal government's priority for
health care would be to make people more accountable and to make
the management of the health care system more transparent. They
dare brag that they will establish audit systems to ensure that
care is actually provided.
I believe I am in the Parliament of Canada, which has the role
of protecting the Canadian Constitution, although some would say
it is not my job. The Constitution, which parliament must
honour, must recognize at least that health care is under
provincial jurisdiction. Let them not boast to Canadians
watching us that they will establish accountability.
Another odd thing in the speech by the previous member is that
the Liberals are accusing the Conservatives of increasing the
country's debt.
The Conservatives were in office only two terms. What the
members opposite forget to say is that the deficits started
under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I would remind the member that we
were not in a recession at that point. People who want to
provide a lesson should reread their history.
The federal government says that Canadians can now trust it and
it will not spend foolishly, or something like that. Can we
trust those opposite?
They got elected in 1993 and said they would scrap the GST.
From 1993 to 1999, that is six years. This is the sixth budget
brought down by the current government. It had the opportunity
to eliminate the GST, but not a word was said on that in last
night's budget. Should we trust the federal government?
I will give another example of what happens when the Liberals
say we should trust them. Following the 1995 referendum in Quebec,
they supported a motion in this House recognizing Quebec's
unique character. This implied that if Quebec wants to do things
differently, it should have the right to opt out of programs.
But what did the government do at the first opportunity, when it
started making a surplus, last year? It created the millennium
scholarships, which was yet another intrusion into areas of
provincial jurisdiction.
The Liberals could have eliminated that program in yesterday's
budget. They did not. This is another example of an unkept
promise. And they are asking us to trust them.
I have a question for the hon. member. I do not see many members
from the maritimes here today, but they could put that question
to him. Health and education are areas of provincial
jurisdiction. Fisheries, as far as catches are concerned, is a
federal jurisdiction.
What is there in the finance minister's budget for fishers, who
will lose everything in May of this year? This is a federal
jurisdiction. The federal government could not care less.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, the rhetoric of rubbish
is the only way I can speak to that.
What I want to—
1800
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder if my comments were misinterpreted, because the member
referred to them as rhetoric of rubbish. Yet, I did not use any
vulgar expression and I would appreciate it if the member
opposite could choose his words more carefully.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would ask the hon.
member to choose his words carefully.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. What I said
was that it was rhetoric of rubbish. I do not know if that is
vulgar or not. It is not, as far as I was concerned.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, I once again rise on a point of
order. In dealing with certain issues, I mentioned historical
facts. I did not used bad words. And if this how he sees it,
then the answer—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point of
order, this is a point of debate.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, the two areas that I will
address, because the member was up for quite a bit of time, are
with respect to the G-7. He made reference to the accounting
practices of the G-7. G-7 countries make use of what is called
the financial requirements way of doing their books. We actually
use the national accounts system which is a bit more stringent.
In fact, if we moved to the way the G-7 looks at countries and
the way they do books, our numbers as a country would look much
better.
In terms of the health care issue, the member was taking
exception to my comments about making the health care system
perhaps a bit more transparent. What I was really making
reference to was when a physician perhaps in Quebec or a
physician in the maritimes or a physician out west may make an
advance or a discovery in terms of service delivery, there is no
system in place right now throughout the country where there is
an exchange of this type of information.
When there is an exchange of this type of information we end up
with a better quality of health care. I am not sure that the
hon. member really would want to say he does not want to have
Quebecers receive a better quality system of health care. That
is the whole intent of the health care budget, that whether one
lives in Quebec, out east or out west, one has an ability to
receive quality health care.
There is no question that the delivery of health care is a
provincial jurisdiction and that there is no intent by the
federal government to invade provincial jurisdiction, because I
know that is a big problem for the members opposite. What this
health budget does is transfers $11.5 billion to provinces in
order to deal with health care. But it also provides opportunity
and framework for provinces and health care providers to
communicate with each other so that they can provide greater
efficiency in the health care system.
That is what it is all about. It is about Canadians regardless
of what province they live in. Canadians want better service and
this budget will help governments deliver it.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure as the chief finance critic of the official
opposition to respond to the federal budget today, introduced by
the finance minister yesterday.
I must say at the outset that the budget read more like a fairy
tale than an honest accounting of the government's financial
position. I want to explain what I mean by simply pointing out
one thing. As I went through the budget documents yesterday I
found it absolutely amazing that nowhere in those documents was I
able to find the number that told us how much the government was
prepared to spend this year; $104.5 billion was the number.
I think we need a much larger debate in this place about how we
report on the government's financial position. Sadly I think the
government has taken to using the budget as a propaganda tool
instead of an accounting of the government's financial position.
The official opposition has many particular concerns with this
budget but these can be summarized simply by saying this budget
will mean that Canadians will pay much more in taxes and receive
far less in health care. Pay more and get less. Members may have
heard that theme but we will continue to say it because it is
absolutely true.
I ask the House to consider this. In 1999 the average Canadian
taxpayer will pay over $2,000 more in taxes than they paid in
1993. It is logical to expect that if we pay $2,000 more in
taxes per taxpayer we would get more services.
While that is logical, it is absolutely not the case under this
government.
1805
In 1999 the government will spend $450 less in health care per
taxpayer than last year. Put another way, the total cuts to
health care this government has delivered over the last three
years per taxpayer amount to about $1,500 per person. This is
coming from a government that claims to be so caring about health
care, a government that claims that health care is part of our
national fabric. I do not believe the government even believes
its own rhetoric anymore.
Let us examine how this whole thing happened. The government
argues that it had to keep raising taxes and slashing health care
in order to eliminate the deficit. I will argue the government
did not eliminate the deficit at all. All it did was transfer it
on to the backs of taxpayers. It transferred a big chunk of it
to taxpayers in the form of $2,000 a year more in taxes every
year.
I see the hon. member from London is speaking in House. This is
great to see because as far as I know he has never delivered a
speech in this House before. It is good to hear him at least
heckling.
The other chunk of the deficit was transferred to people who
needed health care. This came in the form of a $1,500 per
taxpayer reduction, as I pointed out a minute ago. I do not
think that is the proper approach that this government should
take if it truly cares about the citizens of Canada.
What is the alternative? I think the government had some
alternatives and did not follow them. In the first place, going
back to 1993 when this government took power, it should have
acted a lot faster. It waited a full 18 months before it brought
in a substantive budget of any kind. When one is carrying a debt
of over $500 billion, time literally is money.
Did this government act right away to save money for Canadians?
No. It took its merry time. In the meantime, it cost Canadians
literally thousands of dollars per taxpayer in the form of higher
taxes and thousands of dollars per health care patient in the
form of less services for health. The government really should
have acted faster.
Secondly, the government should not have cut our most important
services while maintaining our least important services. As
Goethe once said, those things that matter most should never be
at the mercy of those things that matter least. However, this
government does not seem to understand that.
Consider that while it cut $20 billion out of health care over
the last several years it did not touch a lot of the wasteful
spending. It cut the things that make us healthier, smarter and
more productive but did not at all touch many of the things that
many Canadians consider to be extraordinarily wasteful. I want
to talk about some of those things.
An hon. member: Name them.
Mr. Monte Solberg: I am happy to do that. Let us talk
about the $4 billion in pork barrel regional development grants
spent over the last four years. My friend across the way, the
hon. Minister of Transport, will know that some of that money was
even spent in the Prime Minister's riding, given to a business
associate of his under circumstances which people could only
describe as very suspicious.
Let us talk about regional development. Let us talk about the
millions upon millions of dollars—
Hon. David M. Collenette: Madam Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. We cannot sit here and listen to the hon. member
directly cast aspersions on the Prime Minister and his
constituency.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will ask the hon.
member to choose his words more carefully, please.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, unfortunately we all
face the consequences of our actions, and that includes the Prime
Minister.
There are millions of other dollars wasted every year in
regional development. I am glad that my colleague, the Minister
of Transport, helped me make that point. Over the last several
years we spent $3.2 billion running a television network in
Canada at the same time as we were cutting billions of dollars
out of health care. I think that is completely inappropriate. It
shows that the government's priorities are totally mixed up.
Over the last few years we have spent over $4 billion in
redundant bureaucracy in the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
1810
My friends across the way know that the auditor general
routinely chastized the government for its bungling of the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The
department recently spent $91 million to negotiate treaties and
not a single treaty was actually negotiated. This was brought to
the attention of the government by the auditor general.
There were many things that the government spent money on that
it did not need to and that it should not have spent money on. At
the same time it was cutting the heart out of health care. I
point out that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation routinely
uncovers hundreds of millions of dollars in wasteful spending.
It was not very long ago that Walter Robinson, president of the
federation, a position held by my colleague, the member for
Calgary Southeast, held a press conference and unveiled access to
information documents showing the federal government routinely
makes loans of hundreds of millions of dollars to some of
Canada's most profitable and most successful corporations and
then fails to collect on the loans.
My friend across the way says it is not true but he cannot
provide a shred of evidence that it is not true. Instead of
providing that money to health care we see it go to companies
that are making literally hundreds of millions of dollars in
profits. That is a complete mix-up in terms of priorities.
How easy for the Liberals to spend other people's money so
unwisely. Even more aggravating is the fact that the voices of
business, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business,
Catherine Swift, Garth White, the Chamber of Commerce, the
Business Council on National Issues, routinely plead with the
government to quit subsidizing business. There is not a year
that goes by when the finance committee does not have those
groups come before us and say please quit distorting the
marketplace. Quit taking money from successful businesses,
giving it to the government, letting it take a share, passing it
on to other unsuccessful businesses so that they can be
subsidized and then turn around and compete against these
successful businesses. That makes absolutely no sense.
If there is so much wasteful low priority spending in the
federal government why is the federal government cutting high
priority things like funding for health care, education and RCMP
services? Why is the federal government producing dumb blond
joke books, giving grants to incredibly profitable businesses and
building bureaucracies when sick people are forced to sleep in
wheelchairs and in linen closets in Canada's hospitals? I argue
that this government truly is the government that put the hell
into health care.
When we look beyond the bafflegab in yesterday's speech from the
finance minister, three things become very clear. The first
thing is that the government wants us to think that after being
world champion tax hikers it is now serious about reducing taxes.
The second is that after savaging health care it wants us to
believe that it really did not mean it and that taking a dollar
out and putting 50 cents back in will fix the problems in health
care.
The third thing that becomes abundantly clear is that the most
important thing to the Liberal government is not health care, it
is not reducing taxes, it is making government bigger. It wants
to take more of our money and more our options so it can tell us
how to live our lives. If members doubt for a moment what I am
saying, look at the budget documents from yesterday where the
government announced $30 billion in new spending. Where did that
money go? Only about $11.5 billion went toward health care
initiatives. Only $7.7 went to tax decreases. The remainder
went to all kinds of other new spending, non-priority spending.
This government has a huge spending problem. I fear that it has
returned to its old free spending ways, its big government
Liberal ways. Canadians know that is precisely how we got into
the situation we are in now, $580 billion in debt.
Let me explain why we must have substantive tax relief, why
making health care healthy requires more than just cash and why
big government liberalism hurts the poor and the sick and those
without skills while sucking away our prosperity and our spirit
of innovation.
1815
Let me talk specifically about why we need tax relief. I want
to lay out four different arguments for why Canada needs tax
relief.
The first point I want to make is that it is the taxpayers'
turn. It was taxpayers who balanced this budget. We have had at
least, to be generous, 38 tax increases since this government
came to power. We are now in the 35th year of having increasing
taxes in Canada. We have not had a tax break in Canada in 35
years. We have surtaxes that were added specifically to eliminate
the deficit. Well the deficit is still gone but the 5% surtax is
still there.
The machinery of government was preserved through all of this,
but the taxpayer was hung out to dry, absolutely hung out to dry.
We saw government bureaucracies in some cases not only not
shrink but actually get bigger.
The first big reason we need to give Canadians some tax relief
is simply because it is their turn. Everybody else has benefited
in the past with what the government has done, but not the
taxpayers. Taxpayers are the ones who have been the long
suffering, very patient heroes in this whole mess. They are the
ones who bailed this government out. It is time that taxpayers
got their share.
The second point I want to make is that the economy needs a tax
cut right now. I heard the parliamentary secretary talking a few
minutes ago about what is going on around the world and about
Brazil, Japan and Russia. We are all very aware of that.
We also know that we had a crisis this summer when the dollar
hit new lows which was in part because Canada's tax regime was
completely bloated. We could not compete with a tax regime that
had Canadians paying some of the highest personal income taxes in
the world.
I heard the member for Waterloo—Wellington give a member's
statement about how he was so proud that the dollar had now
recovered up to 67 cents. I have never seen anyone so inspired
by mediocrity in my life. This government seems to think that a
67 cent dollar is just fine. I can guarantee to members across
the way that the Reform Party does not agree with them. We think
the dollar is a barometer of the health of the economy. We will
not accept a 67 cent dollar. We will do things to ensure that
Canada's dollar strengthens.
First on the list is to start to cut taxes. I do not agree at
all with my friend across the way who says that now is not the
time to cut taxes substantially. We disagree with that. We say
let us cut taxes substantially. If we do that, the next time
there is a crisis in the world, money will come to Canada instead
of fleeing Canada like it routinely does under this Liberal
government.
The third reason we need to cut taxes immediately is to stem the
brain drain. We see a massive brain drain from the member from
London. We see it right now. There are four reasons people are
leaving Canada in droves.
The first is that young people get their university educations
in Canada, subsidized, and then they leave to go to the United
States. The reason they go is that there are more jobs in the
United States, 4.3% unemployment, than in Canada.
The second point is that the United States pays better. The
jobs pay more because there is more of a demand for good
employees down there. Jobs end up paying more.
The third point is that they get to keep more of what they earn
because their taxes are much lower. The industry department
itself pointed out just the other day that in Canada Canadians
are paying far higher taxes and their incomes are far lower than
those in the United States.
The government's own industry department has chastised the
government saying it is time to get our taxes in line with the
United States. The Reform Party agrees completely. We point out
that if we did cut taxes our revenues would go up just as they
went up in Ontario.
The fourth reason people do better when they go to the United
States is that the U.S. dollar buys more. We have a 67 cent
dollar in Canada, the northern peso. I am embarrassed of our
dollar. I think it is ridiculous that my friend from London
thinks it is so wonderful.
An hon. member: I am not from London.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Well, from Mars or wherever he is
from. He is certainly not from this planet.
1820
My friend across the way is heckling but never have I seen him
speak in the House on a bill. I suggest to him that he should
have the courage of his convictions and rise to his feet and
debate this budget instead of heckling and spouting inanities
from the other side.
The fourth reason we need to cut taxes in Canada is simply
because we have to put some chains on government. I fear very
much that government in Canada is starting to grow again. I am
concerned that we will see a return to the old-style liberalism
where government starts to interfere more and more in people's
lives. It already interferes substantially in people's lives and
many Canadians today resent it greatly.
What we see after yesterday's budget is a huge increase overall
in spending. We saw the government go $7.6 billion over budget
in this year's spending. It is proposing to go somewhere in the
range of $30 billion, I would say over budget, over the next
three years, at least if this year's budget numbers are used as a
standard for the next three years. That is crazy. We are in a
situation where we have had exactly two surpluses to date.
It is time that we put a rein on government, that we put some
limits on government so that those surpluses can accumulate for
the benefit of Canadians, so that they can go back to people in
the form of lower taxes, so that we can pay down the debt, not so
that we can build up more government programs. We do not need
that. That is extraordinarily dangerous.
The government continues to tax away $11 billion a year from
people who make less than $30,000. That is absolutely
irresponsible. We are punishing people at the low end of the
income scale.
The best way to chain a meddling and clumsy government is to
quit giving it so much in taxes. I argue it is time to start
cutting taxes in a substantive way. My party has come up with a
program that would give Canadians $26 billion in tax relief over
the next three years, pay down $17 billion in debt, put $6
billion into health care and also start a debate with the
provinces and the public on how we can fix health care in Canada
today.
I argue it is time to take a new approach. The only think that
stands in our way is the 157 Liberals across the way, including
the member for Haliburton—Victoria. I did not know where he was
from because he never stands up and speaks.
I encourage people across the country, if they are tired of high
taxes and slashed health care, help us throw the Liberals out
because it is time for Canada to have a new fresh approach.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Since
there are quite a few members who want to ask questions of the
hon. member for Medicine Hat, I would suggest two minutes per
question.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I was quite surprised when the member for Medicine Hat
stated only about $11.5 billion and the rest are unaccountable
for.
He touched upon an issue that is so important to all of us, and
I know it is important to them as well, which is the investment
in our future, our youth, our future scientists, researchers and
what have you. He failed.
Does the member not agree that the $240 million to support
development of the Canadian institutes for health research will
help the future scientists and researchers stay in Canada? Does
he not understand that the $200 million to the Canada Foundation
for Innovation is a worthwhile investment? Does he not
understand that the money going to support our soldiers is a
worthwhile investment? Does he not understand that $190 million
to better meet the health needs of the first nations and Inuit
communities is a good investment?
I could go on and on but time is short. That is where the rest
of the money is going.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon.
member recognizes that people are fleeing Canada in droves and
the government in its feeble way is trying to staunch the flow. I
would simply point out that many of those people who are leaving
are being scared away. They are being punished by high taxes in
Canada.
We argue that the government should introduce sweeping tax
relief. We argue that we should attract investment here for the
high tech and biotech industries by cutting the capital gains
inclusion rate in half.
1825
Many Canadians in those fields argue that we are on the right
track. I point out that people from Nesbitt Burns, the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business and the Chamber of Commerce
chastised the government in the strongest possible language for
its performance in the budget this time around. These are people
who have a vested interest in ensuring that our high tech
industry is well looked after. They think that what the
government did was extraordinarily feeble.
I would encourage the member to revisit the budget and consider
that there is a much better approach and we offered it just a
minute ago.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member mentioned the importance of our high tech industries.
Earlier in his speech he was critical of the government with
regard to the technology partnerships. The government is in
partnership with a large number of companies to support our high
tech industries.
The member also repeated an allegation from the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation that these refundable loans were not being
paid back. The fact is that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
included in its calculations amounts of loans which were not
currently repayable under the terms of the agreements. All of
those loans are being serviced in accordance with the agreements.
Is the member ignorant of the facts or is he just trying to
mislead the House?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, there is a lot of
ignorance on the other side. I think that is a fact.
My friend is ignorant if he does not understand that when
billions of dollars go to high tech companies, it means that
billions of dollars do not go into health care and they do not go
into giving low income Canadians tax relief. I think my friend
across the way is ignorant if he does not understand that
Canadians know much better how to use that money. He is ignorant
if he does not understand that the money will be better spent by
investors if it is turned back to them in the form of lower
taxes.
I urge my friend to become more knowledgeable. Ignorance does
not wear well on him.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the party opposite is always fond of supporting family
values.
The member overlooked in his speech that portion of the budget
which dealt with the tax breaks to low and middle income
families. I refer him to page 130 of the budget plan. A one
earner family of four earning $30,000 is going to get $353 more
in tax relief as a result of the budget. Similarly, a family of
four earning $50,000 is going to get tax relief of $373 with this
budget.
The member should acknowledge that we are doing something very
positive for the nuclear family.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, how sad that my friend
is perpetrating the shell game.
The government is going to raise payroll taxes through the
Canada pension plan by $7.2 billion over the next three years; it
is going to raise through bracket creep another $2.7 billion,
$9.9 billion. The government is offering $7.7 billion in tax
relief. In the end, Canadians are worse off by $2 billion. If
they are worse off by $2 billion, I ask my friend from Hamilton
how does that leave Canadians better off? If they are paying
more money out of their pockets, how are Canadians better off?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant
to the order made Tuesday, February 16, 1999, the House will now
proceed to a special debate on peacekeeping in Kosovo and the
Central African Republic.
* * *
1830
[English]
PEACEKEEPING
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) moved:
That this House take note of possible Canadian peacekeeping
activities in Kosovo and the possible changes in peacekeeping
activities in the Central African Republic.
He said: Madam Speaker, at the outset let me gain the agreement
of the Chair for a division of time between me and the Minister
of National Defence. We will use the opportunity if we may.
Let me say that tonight we have the opportunity in this forum to
discuss the situation in two troubled spots on two different
continents, Kosovo and the Central African Republic, and to
discuss Canada's contribution in resolving the conflicts faced by
these regions and the people in these regions.
This is a demonstration of the range and the extent of Canada's
worldwide interest and the responsibilities that the
international community expects Canada to undertake on behalf of
the large question of ensuring peace and security in the world.
Members will recall that last October the House took note of and
supported the need for the international community to support and
prevent an impending human disaster in Kosovo. Fortunately the
disaster by the actions of the international community was
averted. The underlying issues, however, were not resolved. We
were simply put in a position where an agreement was made, but
the parties to that agreement were not prepared to fulfil their
commitments.
Therefore once again the international community has been called
upon to take action when the breakdown of responsibility in
Kosovo was so apparent to many of us in terms of the human
tragedy that was occurring.
It is important, however, to recognize that in the course of
that we learned a very fundamental lesson. The willingness to
take action, the fact that NATO and Canada as a member of NATO
were prepared to be part of the preparation to take strong,
effective action, did bring the parties to the table. Once again
the capacity and the capability of a group of international
players of which Canada is a part were put forward and brought
about the new negotiation.
In the case of Kosovo we are in the situation now where an
ultimatum has been given to the parties. Either they come to an
agreement to withdraw their troops, to arrive at a settlement
that will allow for free elections in an open democracy, that
will provide for police and security forces which reflect the
population and that they will respect human and civil rights, or
once again we will be called upon to take action.
I am here in an optimistic mood in the sense that the
negotiations in Ramvouillet are continuing. No one can foresee
the outcome, but it is important to recognize that if an
agreement is made, if the parties can come to an agreement based
upon the principles which were put forward by the top contact
group, by the NATO council and by the United Nations Security
Council, then there will be a call upon resources of a
peacekeeping nature; a responsibility to make sure the agreement
is enforced; and a robust intervention which will ensure, as we
did in Bosnia, that the breakdowns, the transgressions and the
violation that have been so much part of the story of that region
will be intercepted by an effective international presence in
Kosovo.
The Minister of National Defence and I cannot be in the House
tonight to tell members exactly how many or where or what. The
minister of defence will do his best to outline what the nature
of the rules of engagement would be and the responsibilities.
However, it is important for us to be able to indicate to the
international community that we are prepared to participate and
that we are prepared to make a commitment in this very serious
and very important condition in the international community at
this time.
It is also important to note that the commitment is not simply
just for peacekeeping troops. That will be a very important
commitment, but accompanying that commitment is also a
peacebuilding responsibility. There is no point just simply
sending in a group of good soldiers to separate the combatants,
if we are not also prepared to invest in helping to put in place
the building blocks of a resolution to start helping to develop a
society in which elections can be held and in which the
communities can begin to develop some degree of responsibility
for their own government in which human rights are respected.
It is important to notify the House and have it acknowledge that
this is simply not a peacekeeping initiative. It would also
require participation through the OSCE and other bodies of a
responsibility to help ensure fair and free elections, to help in
a commitment to develop a civil society, to help in the
resettlement of refugees of which there are close to 300,000 in
that country right now, and to help with the basic humanitarian
requirements.
1835
It is important to note that we already have 40 Canadians in
Kosovo as part of the verification mission and that CIDA has
already contributed several millions of dollars to humanitarian
aid.
I want it to be clearly understood by the House the reason for
having this debate. If an agreement is reached and Canada
participates we will have more than just troops, as crucial a
role as they may play. There will also be the civil
peacebuilding role that will have to accompany it at the same
time.
I would make the case that it is the kind of contribution
Canadians would want us to make. It is an investment worth
making because to help ensure stability, to help protect the
security of helpless civilians who have been harassed and
violated and transgressed against, is part of what Canadians can
make as a worthwhile, serious contribution to world peace.
The third element which is also important is that as the
president of the security council this month we will also be in a
position to ensure that the United Nations Security Council is
fully engaged on this matter. In the last rounds of negotiation
the council did endorse the peace proposal that came out of the
meetings of the NATO council. Canada played a role in ensuring
that part of the responsibility of the council was met.
We would also clearly like to see, if there is a decision or an
agreement this weekend to go ahead with the development of an
international presence in Kosovo, that the security council
endorse such a movement and that there be a full and open
exchange at the council to assert its responsibility under
chapter 6 of the charter to exercise that particular role. Those
are the kinds of conditions we have.
The importance of having the debate now is clear. Next week the
House will be in recess. We will not have the opportunity to
debate. If there is an agreement this weekend, which I am sure
we all heartily hope there will be, then it will be necessary for
us at least to have this initial debate so that when the
government decides what course to take, what role we could play,
we will have had the full opportunity to hear from members of
parliament from all regions what they think the best judgment
should be of Canadians on this very crucial issue.
I would like to speak for a moment as well about peacekeeping in
the Central African Republic, the other theme of the motion. As
the House knows, this is not a new initiative for Canada. We
have already been in the Central African Republic, but let us
just stop for a moment and look to see what is happening.
I cannot give a full discourse, but throughout central Africa
and west Africa we are seeing a continuing situation of breakdown
of governments. We are seeing the rising emergence of the
warlords. We are seeing the interventions of those people who
prey and profit off conflict by selling goods, by selling arms.
We are seeing the incredible tragedy of young children being used
as human shields. We are seeing the case of young children being
recruited into armies. We are seeing the attempt in that area of
societies that are trying to redevelop out of extreme poverty,
being faced with, as someone said, the most effective weapon
today: a young male under 15 with an AK-47. That is the
situation we are now facing around the world.
Last year we were asked by the secretary general to offer
support for a peacekeeping mission in the Central African
Republic in order to provide needed communications in both
languages. That was a prerequisite for other African members of
that peacekeeping mission to be able to mount their
effectiveness.
That comes up for renewal. That is one of our responsibilities.
We would also like to invite members of parliament to indicate
their support for a continuation if the United Nations Security
Council decides to go ahead with the MINURCA-UN project of
peacekeeping in the Central African Republic. We believe that
Canada should continue to play an effective and useful role as
part of a partnership with other African states in the
peacekeeping matters there.
Clearly, again, we need to have and would like to have the views
and positions of members of parliament from all regions so that
we can take that decision based upon the best judgment possible.
When I spoke in the House in October about the role of the
international community in preventing humanitarian crises, I said
that we need to act even in imperfect circumstances because all
that is required for evil to triumph is a good do-nothing. The
same formula applies. It is not perfect. There are difficulties
ahead with some risk attached, but if we stand back and do not
play our role then evil will triumph and that is not the Canadian
way.
1840
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, today we are taking note of possible
peacekeeping activities in Kosovo and in the Central African
Republic.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has just explained to the House
the context for Canadian participation in an extension of the
commitment to the Central African Republic and our potential
contribution to a NATO led peace monitoring force in Kosovo. I
am in complete agreement with the arguments that he gives for
Canadian participation in both.
I would like to focus on the operational aspects of these
missions. They will have an important bearing of course on any
government decision.
Let me first deal with the Central African Republic where the
situation is stable but tension remains. The Canadian forces
currently have 47 personnel deployed in the Central African
Republic, including four staff officers attached to a
multinational force headquarters, a national logistics and
command element, and a signals unit.
The Canadian contingent provides the communications backbone for
this multinational force which is known as MINURCA. This force
would not have achieved its past success without Canada's
important contribution in communications.
While MINURCA's extended mandate would remain essentially the
same, as would the communications role, the number of personnel
involved would remain the same with one possible exception. We
may be asked to augment our current contribution during the
presidential election period which is expected this fall. These
troops would enhance the force's communication capability during
the elections. This was already done last fall during
parliamentary elections. It involves only the deployment of
another 16 members.
I can assure the House that a continuing contribution of this
scope is sustainable, particularly over the initial six month
period that the Secretary General of the United Nations is
recommending. After a 10 month period we would have to assess
our ability to continue to support MINURCA. However, given that
the UN intends to end the mandate 60 days after the fall election
is announced, we do not see any problem with respect to
sustainability.
Because we are serving as MINURCA's communications backbone, the
withdrawal of our troops we feel would seriously compromise that
entire operation. Nonetheless, there are some operational
considerations that must be satisfied before the government can
agree to extend Canadian participation.
The French intention to withdraw from the force at the end of
the current mandate raises several important issues. Canada must
be satisfied that the alternative UN plans to cover logistics,
medical and security arrangements will be adequate. We are
working with our MINURCA colleagues to resolve these matters,
including assurances that a plan and the capability exist to
withdraw our troops should the local situation come to pose
serious dangers.
I can assure all hon. members that the government will not put
the Canadian forces at an unacceptable risk in this or any other
operation.
All in all we believe the prospects for this mission are
promising. So long as the outstanding operational questions can
be resolved, I believe the House should fully endorse our
continued participation in this mission.
Turning to Kosovo, in Kosovo we face a different kind of
military commitment with different operational considerations.
Its deployment would first and foremost require a diplomatic
agreement and a permissive environment for operations. The
ultimate size and shape of this NATO led force will depend on the
role it is assigned and the specific conditions governing its
operations. This of course depends on the outcome of the
negotiations.
Nonetheless, we can expect that the key elements of the mission
would be to deter new conflict in Kosovo, to monitor the
compliance of the parties with the interim agreement and, if
necessary, to enforce compliance with that agreement.
The force would also likely be charged with broad support for
the implementation of the civil aspects of the interim agreement,
including support to other organizations involved in humanitarian
assistance. Support of demining efforts would also be an
important task for the force.
1845
Where do our friends stand? All of Canada's key allies have
announced that they will participate. The U.K. and France will
lead with a troop contribution of approximately 8,000 and 5,000,
respectively. The U.S., Germany and Italy plan to contribute
approximately 4,000, 3,000 and 2,500 troops, respectively. Other
non-NATO countries are expected to contribute as well.
This is an impressive display of international resolve and a
significant moment for NATO. On this, the eve of the 50th
anniversary of the alliance it has demonstrated its continued
relevance and ability to act as a force for peace and stability.
Canada has always championed collective action. That makes an
important contribution to international stability. It is
inconceivable for me that under these circumstances Canada would
choose not to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies.
Canadian forces are in a position to make a meaningful
contribution to this mission. The appropriate composition of our
contingent as in the case of the entire NATO led force must await
the outcome of the diplomatic process. However, I can say that
we are in a position to consider making available certain
elements of our land forces, possibly supported by helicopters.
As members of the House are aware, we have six CF-18s stationed
in Aviano, Italy. These aircraft would support the NATO
monitoring force as well. As we discussed last fall, they are
also there in case any air action is taken with respect to Kosovo
should the negotiations break down in Rambouillet.
Aside from being appropriate to the tasks the NATO force would
perform, our contribution must be sustainable. It is clear that
any operation in Kosovo would need to be mounted for some time,
probably at least three years. A sustainable Canadian
contribution must take into account the current and future
commitments of the Canadian forces. On the domestic side we must
be in a position to respond to the potential Y2K disruptions. We
hope they will not take place but we must be prepared. On the
international side we are already busy. The Canadian forces are
currently deployed in 18 missions around the globe.
With this range of commitments our potential contribution has
limits. I can inform the House that while the file number will
depend on the nature of the agreement that will be reached in
Rambouillet, France, we could make a sustainable contribution in
Kosovo in the order of 500 to 800 troops.
I can assure the House that a Canadian contribution would be
structured to respect our long established practice of only
deploying militarily viable units under Canadian national
command. I can also assure hon. members that a Canadian
contribution would respect our equally longstanding principle of
deploying Canadian personnel only within acceptable levels of
risk.
The creation of a powerful NATO force is the appropriate answer
to the concerns about risk. Canadians can be confident that a
military operation with our closest allies will be successful.
The NATO force will be robust and very able to provide for its
own protection. The Canadian forces are ready to participate.
They would join a Kosovo bound force with a wealth of experience
in Bosnia behind them. If they go to Kosovo let this House and
all Canadians give them the support and gratitude they deserve.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
have a question to either the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs or
the Minister of National Defence. In his mention of the Central
African Republic, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs also
mentioned west Africa. Does that include Sierra Leone? Could
someone elaborate more specifically on what our troops would be
doing.
I recall seeing videotapes and hearing reports of various
peacekeeping missions where it seemed the people being sent over
were pretty helpless in preventing certain things from happening.
They had guns pointed at their heads and they were in situations
where they saw people being slaughtered but they were unable to
actually intervene because of the nature of the peacekeeping
mission, so to speak.
1850
Will our troops be able to protect themselves and to intercede
in situations where it appears that human life may be in danger?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is for
the hon. Minister of National Defence. Is there unanimous
consent that either one of the ministers may answer?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in answer to the
first question, in my opening remarks I wanted to draw the
attention of the House that within Africa there are number of
major trouble spots.
We have been able in the Central Africa Republic to effectively
participate in a peacekeeping mission that has stabilized one of
the areas. In the case of Sierra Leone the tragedy is ongoing.
In the west African nations there is the peacekeeping force,
ECOMOG force. We have already made $1 million contribution to
support that.
Right now as president of the council of the United Nations we
are sponsoring a major discussion about what to do in Sierra
Leone. What we are talking about is a specific mission in the
Central Africa Republic of the nature described by the Minister
of National Defence.
We should be aware of the fact that as these things unfold there
will be a continuing necessity for the House and the government
to look at how we can help in Africa to build up a higher
level of stability and to support many of our partners in Africa
that are taking on the responsibility of peacekeeping.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I realize that the
questions from the member were for two different ministers. It
is unusual to do that but with the consent of the House the
Minister of National Defence could answer also. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Madam Speaker, the second
question was what would the troops be doing.
This has not yet been worked out. We are in the throes of
seeing that done. There is a NATO meeting of military personnel
tomorrow in Brussels who will finalize the preliminary plan. I
say preliminary plan because until the parties in Rambouillet
agree on a formula for allowing ground troops to go in in a
peacekeeping role, we cannot finalize what the exact roles will
be. In turn we cannot finalize what the roles for Canadians
would be.
When that is done we would then get two weeks notice to give a
formal response agreeing to NATO's request which would be issued
sometime after the agreement is reached. Then there would be 60
days to actually put them in the field.
He mentioned the difficulties we are experiencing in Bosnia by
the UN troops. That is one of the reasons they went to NATO
troops. NATO troops operate under a different set of rules of
engagement and are able to overcome those kinds of difficulties.
In the case of Kosovo we are again looking at a NATO led
operation that would be quite successful in being able to keep
the hostilities from happening again.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time for
questions and comments has expired. If the ministers were to
agree and with the consent of the House we could add another 10
minutes to this period.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker,
my question is to the minister of defence.
Last week with the joint committee of foreign affairs and
defence regarding Kosovo, we heard that we have roughly 2,000
troops out now. We talked about the possibility of 1,000 other
troops. The minister mentioned this evening that it might be up
around 800. We were told that a 1,000 troops would be really
stretching things.
What are we going to do in terms of any emergency that comes up?
The minister is stating that we are not looking at a short term.
Three years is not what I call a short term in this kind of
mission, especially with the kind of back-up that is required.
We still have Bosnia ongoing and our 2,000 other troops out there
who need to be supported.
1855
I am wondering what we do in the case of an emergency.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Madam Speaker, we have outlined
in the policy framework for defence, the 1994 white paper,
exactly what our contingency levels of commitment are in terms of
NATO, the UN and NORAD. We will continue to meet those. Those
are always taken into consideration when we decide to deploy
people overseas.
We currently have about 2,000 on 18 missions although
three-quarters of that number are on two missions, the largest
number being 1,300 in Bosnia and the second largest being 185 in
the Golan Heights where we also at the moment have the commanding
officer position.
We can manage this at a 500 to 800 level. Quite right, we would
be stretching it at the 1,000 level, particularly in terms of
sustainability, but that is why we have recommended the 500 to
800 level. I know that is somewhat of a spread but as NATO firms
up what its needs will be, and as the agreement is reached
hopefully in Rambouillet, then we will be able to pin down more
precisely the exact number.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
tomorrow's edition, Le Monde quotes President Milosevic, who
says this on the subject of the potential deployment of an
international force of 30,000 in Kosovo:
Our negative attitude to the presence of foreign troops in
Kosovo is not just that of the Yugoslav government, it is also
that of the people of our country, and the unanimous attitude of
the representatives of the people in the Serbian Assembly,
independent of their political leanings.
These are the words of President Milosevic. In the light of
this attitude, it is highly likely that the troops to be
deployed will not be doing peacekeeping, but rather carrying out
air strikes.
I would like to know from the Minister of National Defence what
the situation is in his opinion, in the light of the statement
by President Milosevic, and whether the Canadian contingent
would be different depending on whether the mission is one of
more peaceful deployment or has the mandate to carry out air
strikes in Yugoslavia?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should first point
out that under no circumstances are we talking about a force that
would be going in as an active intervention. What we are
discussing in the House is a peacekeeping mission that would be
required to fulfill an agreement that was arrived at by both
sides.
As members know, in any negotiations various bargaining
statements are made by both sides in order to up the ante and to
gain leverage. It is somewhat encouraging that the Russian
foreign minister, Mr. Ivanov, whom I spoke to directly a few days
ago, is undertaking a very specific mission to try to convince
the Serbs that it would be in their best interests to reach an
agreement. The alternative is frankly what we discussed in the
opening statement.
We still have in place the activation orders of NATO that could
be used in the way of air strikes. But that is the only form of
NATO action being contemplated of a non-peacekeeping nature.
I want to assure the House and the hon. member that what we are
talking about here is purely peacekeeping activities of ground
forces that would be required under an agreement if it is arrived
at this weekend.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I have listened fairly closely to the minister of defence. There
seems to be a misconception, and I ask for clarification, that
this is not a NATO participation role in Kosovo. Is that
correct? In other words, it is a UN peacekeeping mission.
1900
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: It is NATO led.
Mr. Art Hanger: If it is a NATO led force my
understanding is it will be interventionist. They will go in and
make peace. That is also some of the discussion that has gone on
in spite of the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If
we are not going in as peacemakers but as peacekeepers is it
under the UN banner? I do not think that is very clear.
What kind of equipment will they have? The equipment they have
right now in any hostilities would not be adequate.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Madam Speaker, as the Minister
of Foreign Affairs clearly stated, we are not going in there
under some war like conditions if we go in there with ground
troops.
We would be going in under similar conditions as in Bosnia to
enforce an agreement and ensure peace. That is the basis on
which troops would be deployed. They would be deployed on a NATO
led basis. The UN security council would be asked to endorse,
and certainly every indication is that it would want to endorse,
any agreement that is reached between the parties because the UN
has quite clearly said that it wants the killing to stop. It
wants the parties to come to an agreement. If they do come to an
agreement it would be a NATO led force but it would not be just
NATO that would be there. We would expect and hope the Russians
would be there and other non-NATO countries, just as we have
currently in Bosnia.
If the hon. member looks at the situation in Bosnia in terms of
the division of different forces under a NATO led banner he would
see a similar situation that would happen in this case.
In terms of the equipment, we are going to send our people in
with the best equipment. We bought some new armed personnel
carriers. We have in terms of our reconnaissance vehicle the
Coyote, one of the best found anywhere in the world. We have been
getting new clothing and many new aspects of equipment and kit
for our troops and we would send them in there with the best
equipment so that they could do their job. They will do a very
effective job as they have done in many cases before.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, there are
a number of issues I would like to deal with.
The first one is central Africa. We have a briefing set for
central Africa tomorrow. Of course the debate is tonight but
that is probably not a problem to the government.
I contacted foreign affairs yesterday, five times today, and at
6.53 this evening I got my briefing sheet on the Central African
Republic. I think that probably tells us the level of importance
of what we are doing here tonight when this kind of blatant abuse
goes on in parliament.
To deal with this situation first, the government did not have
the briefing and therefore I felt it was essential that somebody
at least try to find out a bit of what our mission is all about.
This is a rather unstable former French colony of 3.3 million
people. It has had a very fragile France sponsored democracy
since 1993. Basically the French government has propped up
various dictators and regimes from about 1979.
There was a 1,400 man French force that was withdrawn on April
15 of last year and replaced by 1,350 international francophone
peacekeepers, of whom Canada had 45.
1905
Today the number of Canadians there is 47 and basically they are
attempting to maintain stability. When we look at the stability
that is being created this is the sort of thing we have.
President Patasse has faced three armed rebellions
since May 1996 and really could not have remained in power
without these foreign troops, the French and 47 Canadians.
Mutinies are motivated by unpaid wages, ethnic hatred of the
president and the story goes on. Human rights records are that
there are routine summary executions, torture, restrictions on
basic freedoms, looting by the peacekeepers, mistreatment of
women and of a whole race of pygmies in the area.
With no information from foreign affairs or DND we are here to
endorse the keeping of Canadian troops there.
There are only 47 but those are 47 Canadian lives we are saying
we should leave there or extend there, whatever. But we do not
live in a dictatorship. We live in a democracy where we need the
information. Canadians need the information. We should be
talking about this and it should not be a partisan issue. We are
talking about Canadian lives, men and women, our armed forces.
That is the kind of disrespect the government shows for those
fighting people of our country.
There is much more that we can talk about with Kosovo because
all of us have watched CNN, we have read the news and we have
been part of this debate for a long time. It was back in about
1990 that everybody felt Kosovo would be the part of Yugoslavia
to break away first. It has always had a problem and that goes
back maybe 1,500 years.
We can also be fairly certain as Canadians that a decision has
already been made as to what we will do. On January 29 when the
Prime Minister committed Canadian forces he did not do that
by accident. That decision had already been made. The
defence minister of course immediately questioned it. The
general questioned it. He said we really could not do that.
Our critic from Calgary North questioned it.
Certainly we said we should be debating it. In the February 16
Toronto Star the defence minister also said maybe we will
have to skip a debate in the House and go on with that. On
February 16 when asked that question in the House, it was rather
interesting to see the House leader jump up and answer the
question. He said dare you ask that question because at the
House leaders meeting today we are going to be discussing that
issue.
How am I supposed to know what will be discussed at the House
leaders meeting after question period? Our House leader
certainly did not know what the agenda would be and I am not even
sure what that answer was all about.
The decision has already been made. The government does not
care much about this. It wants this for bragging rights, to say
the issue was brought here to be debated by parliamentarians so
that parliamentarians had a say in what would happen. Of course
that justifies anything that happens.
These are men's and women's lives we are talking about. We
should not be talking about politics. It should be non-partisan.
We should be talking about whether we should participate, what we
are participating in, how much it will cost, what our role will
be and who will command those troops. All those are the kinds of
questions that should be dealt with here tonight but which I
doubt will even be mentioned.
How could we do it better? This will now be the sixth time I
believe we have had a take note debate since I have been here.
The proposal I will put forward again will be very simple.
The way to really accomplish all we want to accomplish is to have
a committee of the whole with 301 MPs who should be responsible.
They should be in the House listening to this because it is men
and women from their ridings who could conceivably lose their
lives. We should be here to give support to those troops who do
such a heck of a fine job. I will always remember meeting those
troops in Yugoslavia and thinking wow, these people are
Canadians. I was proud of the flag and proud of seeing them
there. They need to know we are 100% behind them.
1910
What should we do? We should have the experts come in and tell
301 members of parliament the exact and complete information.
Then what we should do is have two or however many party members
from each party and extra ones from the government present the
party position. Then we should have a free vote. We should be
voting on this item because it is the lives of our men and women.
That is what is really important.
I do not know why the government does not like that idea. We
would inform members of parliament, we would inform Canadians and
we would then have an intelligent presentation and a free vote.
The government would not fall if it was the decision of 301
members to not go to a country. Maybe we should not be going to
the Central African Republic or staying there. Maybe we cannot
be the 911 number for all peacekeeping missions. Those are the
kinds of things this House should decide and the onus should be
on us to decide.
Let us get to the committing of troops to this imaginary UN or
maybe NATO force that we might send. Should we commit them?
Obviously all of us have seen the newsreels. We have seen the 40
people from a village brutally killed and mutilated and tortured.
All of us are sickened by that. They are unforgettable sights.
All Canadians are hurt by those. All Canadians say we should be
involved in trying to stop those. That is not the issue.
It is a lot deeper than that. We have to understand the
cultural nature of these conflicts. We have to understand the
propaganda involved. We have to understand the interrelationship
of history, religion and the conflict going on.
I think we would all say those tragedies have to stop. We all
abhor them. We cannot stand them and we want to do something. I
think the question that comes down is what should we do. As
Canadians I am not sure that it is fair or that it helps us to
send troops, to send planes, to send whatever it takes unless
they are equipped and unless they can do the very best possible
job they are required to do. I am not saying they would not try.
The problem is that we handicap them.
Again I go back to Bosnia when I saw those Canadian vehicles
with patches, part paint jobs, 35 years old, belching diesel fuel
and then I saw some of the other countries' equipment, silent and
fast moving. I thought our guys and girls are there trying to do
the job for us. But we are handicapping them. We have to be
hurting them and their pride just because of what we do.
1915
We have to take that into consideration. We cannot simply go
everywhere. Many of our veterans are particularly touched by
this issue as well. During the world wars we were right there.
We were part of the decision making. We were leading in a lot of
situations. There was a huge amount of pride. We had a huge
role in many of those conflicts.
It was a Canadian prime minister who started peacekeeping back
in the Suez Canal days. There was pride. There was pride when
we went to Cyprus. I believe we have hurt that pride. We have
done in this country something to lessen our position. By
sending off troops and again asking them to do something, we do
not really know what, we are doing nothing to help enhance that
pride.
I cannot help but remind the House about 1996 and the Zaire
mission. The Prime Minister and his wife were sitting around
watching television. They saw a terrible massacre on CNN and
said “We should call Raymond and tell him to do something about
this”. They called Raymond down in Washington and Raymond went
flying over and said “Yes, we will be the saviours; we will be
the white knights”. The only problem was that nobody else
followed.
We started moving troops there. We did not know what they would
do. It was probably one of the biggest military-foreign affairs
embarrassments we had ever had. A week later it was all
cancelled, and we said we had to watch the Prime Minister
watching television.
We also have to ask about our UN Security Council position. I
am glad we are there. I hope we can make a difference. We must
remember that we held it in 1948-49, 1958-59, 1967-68, 1977-78,
1989-90 and 1999-2000. We have had it every 10 years for the
last six decades. That is what we would expect. We are along
with Gabon, Namibia, Slovenia and so on.
We should not brag too much about that. We should do something.
Instead of just talking we should do something. As far as soft
power is concerned, as long as there are no bad guys left in the
world it might work, but flower power will only go so far.
There are lots of bad guys out there: the North Koreas, the
Kadaffes, the Saddam Husseins and the Angolas. The minister is
very proud of our record in Angola where we have spent $2.3
billion on UN peacekeeping. We are about to reduce the 1,000
peacekeepers down to 100 and basically leave in disgrace. The
British ambassador says that the crises in Sudan, Angola,
Somalia, Sierra Leone, Eritrea and so on demonstrate that the UN
is powerless to cope with crises as they arise. While we brag a
lot, maybe we should ask what we are to do.
A lot of questions need to be asked about Kosovo. Who will make
the decisions on what happens there? Who is in the contact
group? Will we have any say as to what happens to our 500 to 800
troops? What are the NATO objectives? Do we agree that there
should be a referendum in Kosovo in three years and a vote
possibly to separate? Do we agree with those kinds of politics?
What will we bomb if we bomb something? What sort of long term
plans do we have? Will we just be a police force with a big
stick? The minute we leave will it go back into crisis again?
Or, will we really try to accomplish something? What about the
expansion of this conflict? What are the chances of it spreading
to Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and so on? Has anybody thought
about that? What happens when we put this force in Kosovo? Will
it spread out?
1920
We have to ask about the cost. We have to ask about the 300,000
refugees. Who will take care of that problem? Who will work on
that? What kind of plans are there? We are being asked to
provide troops. Will we also provide infrastructure? What are
we being asked? Are we being asked for a blank cheque, or what
exactly is it that the government wants?
These questions have not been answered. We are not equipped to
handle it. We will not have any control over our troops. As I
say, it is a blank cheque. We are showing no leadership. We are
showing no new spending.
Basically I am embarrassed when NATO calls upon us that we are
not prepared to deliver. It is embarrassing for us as
parliamentarians. It is embarrassing for our troops. How can we
support a full mission? We want to support it. Obviously we owe
that to NATO. I think we have tied our hands behind our backs.
Governments for the past 30 years have made it very difficult for
us to support something like this.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that
this debate is not about whether we bomb anybody. It is not
about whether we send troops into a conflagration. It is a
debate about peacekeeping forces and whether they should go into
the Central African Republic and into Kosovo. It has nothing to
do with bombing. It has nothing to do with striking.
I would like to cut through all the convoluted rhetoric I have
heard across the House and ask the hon. member for Red Deer
whether or not he wants to send troops. Yes or no.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer is that we
are talking about going into a very difficult area, into a war
zone. Obviously I am saying we are not equipped to send troops
and therefore we cannot send troops.
We can provide some support, but we basically cannot get into
this without knowing more details about our ability to deliver.
We just do not know any answers. The government has not given us
anything.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
the same question as the parliamentary secretary.
I have also heard a lot of rhetoric. I heard someone whose
position was not very clear. The government's position is that
we should offer to take part in these peacekeeping missions, if
peacekeeping is what is involved.
The Reform Party critic is not acting as a responsible member of
the official opposition should. I think the Bloc Quebecois was
a much more responsible official opposition.
This is an important question: Should Canada participate or not
in a peacekeeping force to Kosovo and the Central African
Republic? I repeat the question: What does the Reform Party
member think? I would like him to give a clear answer.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, we have responsibilities as a
member of NATO. We cannot live up to the full responsibilities
in NATO because the government has undermined our military for 30
years. That is why we cannot live up to what we would want.
If we had the best, if we were able to deliver on what they are
asking, yes, we are for that. Because of what the government has
done, we have to take a lesser role. That lesser role means we
cannot send troops into combat in these areas.
I do not now how else to say that more clearly to you except to
answer in that way. We should not send troops into a combat
zone. Show us all the answers to these questions and then we will
say what kind of support we can give.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we get into
the next round of questions and comments, I would appreciate it
if members would address each other through the Chair. No more
personal pronouns.
1925
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member's
recollection is right, it was 29 years since the government was
accused of neglecting the armed forces.
We had a debate a year ago in committee on the Central African
Republic and the provision of peacekeepers. Surprisingly the
Reform Party agreed. There was no dissension.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, we have quite a different
situation. There was no information provided, as much as we
tried. I got the information I just presented. I trust that it
is true. If it is true, we are in a total different situation
than we were then. Obviously our 47 people are in jeopardy, if
the information I related to the House is true.
If it is not true information, I would certainly stand
corrected. It certainly is not because we got any help from the
government in finding out what the truth really was.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
put the following question to my colleague.
Does he not think that the situation in Kosovo is a lot like the
one in Sarajevo? And Canada took part in the events in
Bosnia-Hercegovina.
The Reform Party was in favour then. In this case, it is not
Canada that has taken the peacekeeping initiative. It is an
initiative by allies who have talked and decided to contribute
what they can to ensure stability in the Balkans.
If the Reform Party agreed back then, what does it think is so
different this time around that it raises considerations of
available equipment and troop numbers? That is not the
question. The question is whether or not Canada agrees to
participate, as its allies are doing, in a peacekeeping
operation, subject obviously to the resources and equipment now
available to it.
That is the real question. It is no different than
Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Reform Party supported that.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, basically the government
wants the best of both worlds. It wants to continue to cut the
forces, not provide any money for new equipment and not provide a
better standard of living for the troops. The government wants
to go everywhere, to be everywhere.
We deplore what is happening in Kosovo. As a NATO ally we
should be equipped to go there and do our part. The problem is
because of government negligence we are not able to do our job.
That is the bottom line.
Do we want to go? Do we support going? Yes, but not the way we
are and the way we are equipped today. We are asking our men and
women to go into an impossible situation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For the benefit of
members in the House who may not have been here earlier and for
the television audience across the country, I will make a
statement now which reflects on issues that occurred earlier
tonight in the debate.
Under the standing orders for this debate, the rules were that
there would be no requests for unanimous consent and no dilatory
motions. One was entertained, so for the purposes of ensuring
that this is not precedential in nature and so there will no
confusion in future dates, I will read it into the record.
The Chair reminds the House that the special order under which
this debate is being conducted states clearly that the Chair may
receive no requests for unanimous consent to waive rules. The
Chair has wanted to accommodate the will of the House and of the
sponsoring ministers in permitting a period of joint questions
and comments after the ministers had spoken. However, the Chair
would be remiss if I did not point out that this is not to be
considered a precedent in the remainder of this debate tonight or
indeed on future occasions governed by similar special orders.
1930
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and to tell you
that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Joliette.
First, I want to stress the importance of such a debate. The
Bloc Quebecois has always supported such debates, because it is
important for Parliament to discuss peacekeeping or
peace-building missions before we send troops to implement
decisions made by a regional or universal international
organization such as the United Nations.
I basically agree with the Reform Party, which proposed ways to
make parliamentary debates more meaningful and influential
because, as you can see, there are just a few of us here in the
House. The ministers have left and a meaningful debate should
take place under circumstances and according to procedures that
would promote greater participation from parliamentarians. In
that sense, it is unfortunate that the motion recently moved by
the hon. member for Red Deer was defeated after a vote in the
House.
It is true that lack of preparation is certainly one the main
problems with this kind of parliamentary debate, as exemplified
by the preparatory briefings held last week on the issue of
Kosovo; briefings on the Central African Republic were scheduled
for tomorrow, but they will be pointless because the debate will
have taken place the evening before in the House of Commons.
That having been said, we have a decision to make on whether or
not to dispatch Canadian troops to Kosovo if a peace agreement
were to be signed in the next few days in Rambouillet as well as
on renewing the MINURCA mandate in the Central African Republic.
Unlike the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois will be clear: we
are in favour of sending a Canadian contingent, should a
peacekeeping mission in Kosovo be decided on, and in favour of
renewing the mandate of the mission set up by the United Nations
in the Central African Republic.
That is not to say that we have no concerns. With respect to
Kosovo, I would like to share two concerns of ours, which
deserve consideration by this House.
First, regarding the nature of the mission to be deployed in
Kosovo, what we are expected to be debating this evening is
obviously the dispatch of a peacekeeping mission. But it is far
from certain that this is the kind of mission that will be
contemplated in the next few days, since, as we know full well
today, negotiations in Rambouillet are stalled.
President Milosevic has issued a statement indicating that he
did not want any multinational force in Kosovo.
In this case, unless the President of Yugoslavia changes his
position—the Minister of External Affairs suggested a few
moments ago that it could be a bargaining position—the mission
in which Canada must take part may very well not be a mission to
maintain a negotiated peace, but rather a mission to force the
Yugoslav government to accept a negotiated peace, which would
most likely involve the use of armed force.
Such debate is not taking place but it should because, should
Canada be called upon to take part not in a peacekeeping mission
but in a mission involving air strikes, Parliament should have
an opportunity to debate the issue.
This debate should not be restricted in such a way as to prevent
us from authorizing the government to take part in a mission of
a totally different nature.
1935
This is one concern that had to be voiced by the Bloc Quebecois.
Another concern is the way in which this peacekeeping mission,
if such is the case, will be set up and whether or not it will
be authorized by the United Nations.
On several occasions, I have expressed in this House our party's
concern that such a mission should be authorized by the United
Nations. Obviously, the Security Council does not seem in a
position to authorize such a mission since any country that has
the right of veto can exercise that right.
Consequently, Canada, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who
himself could chair the Security Council, must still make sure
that this question is put to the Council and eventually the
General Assembly of the United Nations, since it can deal with
it should the Security Council be stymied by a veto. The famous
Acheson resolution, which my colleague from Vancouver Quadra
knows so well, would enable the General Assembly to consider
this mission in Kosovo.
So, there are two unanswered questions that should be the
subject of concern to the Government of Canada before a
peacekeeping mission is sent to Kosovo.
Regarding the mission to the Central African Republic, I was in
New York on a parliamentary mission when Canada was asked to be
part of this mission. The Bloc Quebecois immediately indicated
its support for such a mission there.
That is still true today. We know this mission ends February 28
and Canada's participation is to be renewed.
It is important to maintain a certain stability in this African
country, which is starting the process of democracy that will
lead to presidential elections, and it may help if foreign
troops are present as part of MINURCA.
The Bloc Quebecois has always supported the idea of sending
peacekeeping and peacebuilding troops abroad. We believe it is
an investment for and in peace.
When I hear the objections of my Reform Party colleagues, with
more of the rhetoric we saw earlier this evening, I do not think
they show any sign of being able to form an alternative, even a
united one, in Canada, to the government, or of being concerned
with the matters that should concern a party with ambitions of
forming a government.
The concerns of the present government, as presented by the
ministers, have enough merit in our view that our party will be
supporting them.
As it did before, our party reiterates this support and also
notes, as did the Reform Party, that it would like to see
debates such as this one have a greater impact, be better
prepared and be discussed beforehand, probably in the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as was
done before. This way, the public would have a better
understanding of, and be more open to, the investment in
material and human resources required of a country engaged in
peacekeeping missions.
I will close with the statement that, if war is necessary—because
it is likely or at least possible, and the Bloc Quebecois no
more wants to see a war than any other reasonable person, just
to make Yugoslavia listen to reason in its dispute with the
Kosovars—then let us hope, as André Malraux wrote in the
wonderful novel Les Noyers de l'Altenburg that victory goes to
those who go to war but take no pleasure in it.
1940
But I would rather quote Aristide Briand to the House. I address
my words to the Yugoslavians listening this evening, and
particularly to their representative who is in the gallery.
Aristide Briand said “It takes two to stop fighting: you and the
other fellow”.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry stressed very appropriately
the difference between chapter 6 and chapter 7 of the UN
charter. There is a huge legal gap between the two concepts.
Did he consider the fact that international common law prevails?
That was the ruling made by the international court, in the case
of Nicaragua versus the United States.
I support the principle of humanitarian intervention, which was
so abused by colonial powers during the 19th century and even at
the beginning of the 20th century. Some have raised that
possibility. Does the hon. member think this could provide a
legal basis for the actions contemplated by the hon. member for
Red Deer?
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, this evening, as in October, the
member for Vancouver Quadra wants once again to discuss
international law in the House.
That is fine, but let us never forget that international law
must, first and foremost, serve peace. We are reminded of that
in the preamble of the UN charter, which includes its most
important provisions.
Indeed, we can always claim and argue that international common
law now authorizes humanitarian types of interventions,
interventions that are different from 19th century humanitarian
interventions, which were made for eminently political reasons
and far less humanitarian ones.
But I do believe that a practice has developed that would now
allow states to take an action such as the one being
contemplated for Kosovo, or that was contemplated under other
circumstances. That action could be based on international law,
so as to avoid the issue of the legality of such an intervention
without the security council's formal and express authorization.
But still, I am urging the parliamentary secretary to act as a
messenger to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I told him this
afternoon, when the standing committee met, that, in spite of
the possibility of invoking humanitarian international law, if
the UN is to maintain its credibility and its legitimacy in this
intervention in Kosovo, the security council must, if not the UN
general assembly, be involved.
The UN must have an opportunity to approve the intervention by
soldiers from various national contingents on behalf of NATO.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the
Minister of External Affairs and the Minister of National
Defence, we have two issues to debate this evening. The first
one is Canada's participation in the United Nations mission to
the Central African Republic.
1945
On this issue, I too would have appreciated a preliminary
briefing. We had requested a joint foreign affairs and national
defence committee, which was originally approved and scheduled
to sit tomorrow. However, this evening, shortly before dinner,
we learned that the meeting had been cancelled and could not be
held.
It is always desirable that members of parliament be as well
informed as possible before undertaking a debate like this one.
In any event, concerning the United Nations mission in the
Central African Republic, we know that it involves a small
contingent of Canadian signals and logistics officers. This is
part of one of the agreements previously entered into by Canada.
Obviously, the Bloc will support the renewal of this mission.
The second issue we are dealing with this evening is a more
serious issue: Canada's participation in a peace mission to
Kosovo. As the previous speaker said, the Bloc Quebecois'
position is clear on this issue. We have repeatedly expressed
concern about the situation in Kosovo. We have condemned the
repression, brutality and inhumanity of Serb security forces.
I spoke on this very issue in March, as did my colleague from
Beauharnois—Salaberry.
We strongly condemned the inhuman operations carried out in that
country.
We also put several questions in the House, asking the foreign
affairs minister what he intended to do to put an end to this
conflict. We also asked if he was willing to use force, if
necessary, and if he thought diplomacy was good enough when
dealing with someone like Slobodan Milosevic.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Canada sending troops to this
interposition and peacekeeping operation.
On a more general note, we also agree with the use of force to
put an end to atrocities occurring anywhere in the world,
especially when these brutal conflicts or operations are taking
place in countries that can undermine the very stability of our
political system, our democracy.
So, we are in agreement, and I would like to give the House a
few reasons why we will be supporting this government decision.
First of all, the world community has repeatedly called for
hostilities to end and negotiations to start, but its calls went
unanswered.
Also, warnings were given by various countries, including
France, the United Kingdom, the United States and even Canada.
Diplomatic and economic sanctions have been implemented against
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the UN has adopted
resolutions 1199 and 1203, but all to no avail. Instead, the
conflict has slowly escalated.
The present conflict is a humanitarian disaster involving the
killing of civilians, torture, rape, and the massive exodus of
whole villages. The conflict in Kosovo could very well spell
instability for the whole region, and especially for Macedonia,
officially the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYROM,
with an Albanian speaking minority of 30%, and Albania itself,
which is already struggling with economic instability.
1950
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a party to the Dayton
Accords, and its present conduct is contrary to the letter and
the spirit of the accords, and further threatens a regional
stabilization process that is already precarious.
Because of the de facto failure of the Dayton Accords, the
international community has decided to impose the Rambouillet
negotiations, and the deadline the Americans have set to reach a
conclusion is Saturday, February 20.
If it is not to lose all credibility, the international
community must therefore follow through with the use of force if
its warnings go unheeded. In this case, the aggressor has been
clearly identified and its aggression has been going on for
several years.
This behaviour violates international law as well as the spirit
and letter of the UN Charter. It destabilizes the Balkans and
damages international relations. It increases international
instability. It violates UN Security Council resolution 1199, as
I was saying a few moments ago.
In short, for a number of years, the behaviour of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia has violated the basic values and
principles which must guide the international community in its
quest for a world that is safer, that is more fair and that
respects the most fundamental human values.
The Rambouillet negotiations must be the last chance. One cannot
negotiate indefinitely with someone who does not understand
democracy, who does not understand what negotiating is all about
and who can only be made to understand through the use of force.
We must see the obvious and accept the use of force to restore
peace in that country.
However, we think the use of force must meet certain conditions.
The security of civilians, which is the first condition, must be
the primary concern in any intervention. Canada's interventions
must take place under the auspices of international
organizations, ideally the UN, of course, or NATO.
Any action by the international community in Yugoslavia should
ideally be supported by as many countries as possible. The
larger the number of countries willing to use persuasion to
settle the conflict in Kosovo, the easier it will be to achieve
the desired results.
The forces involved in such a mission must be multinational.
The objectives must correspond to resolutions by the Security
Council The specific requirements of the parties to the
conflict must be made publicly and armed force used until the
parties agree publicly to meet these requirements.
Independence for Kosovo must be seriously considered rather than
simply dismissed, because it is one solution to be explored to
restore peace in the region, including at the end of the
three-year transitional period when the Kosovar people will have
to decide on their political status.
The aim of our intervention is not to decide for the Kosovars,
the Serbs or the Albanians. It is to ensure peace while they
continue their negotiations in an effort to find a way to ensure
the safety of civilians.
My time is almost up. There are other things I would have liked
to say, but I hope to be asked questions that will allow me to
complete my comments.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, to help my
colleague, I am going to ask him a few questions. But first I
would like to mention that the member said he agreed about the
need to maintain peace in Kosovo.
1955
My question concerns how long we are prepared to stay. This
relates to something that happened two weeks ago in Washington.
We were briefed on what the United States was going to do. It
is starting to sing a different tune.
Now it says it is prepared to go to Kosovo, but for a very short
period, at the request of other NATO members. It says that this
is a conflict taking place in Europe and one that should
therefore be covered by Europeans, who are right there.
This is perhaps not a bad idea. It wants our presence, it wants
visibility, particularly at the beginning, to put together a
peacekeeping system.
Once the system is up and running, we should withdraw. We should
stay perhaps three months, six at most, and not become mired as
we are in Bosnia, where we will be stuck for a long time.
We know that Kosovo will be the same, that it will drag on if we
become involved. Should we not perhaps consider something like
that, taking part at the beginning and then providing support
for ground forces?
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, if an agreement is reached in
Rambouillet before troops are sent to that country, the
peacemaking process should be a lot easier. It will be a matter
of staying in Kosovo, monitoring the situation and ensuring that
the conflict does not erupt again in a month or two.
On the other hand, if we must impose peace, it could take
longer. As we know, “you can lead a horse to water but you can't
make him drink”.
Getting the Serbs and the Kosovars to stop shooting at and
shelling each other, getting them to stay on their respective
side and to start negotiating again will not be achieved in just
a month.
Such a mission could take three years. This may be a reasonable
minimum.
If, unfortunately, peace is not restored after three years, we
would then have to contemplate alternatives. It could be that
Canada would find another country prepared to take over the
operation. It is not just Canada's responsibility. There are
many other countries in the world. NATO and the UN have many
members and they are all concerned about maintaining peace in
the world.
Canada plays a role because it made commitments to NATO. It
plays a role because it is a member of the United Nations. The
mission may involve 500 to 800 troops. It is reasonable that we
be there, given Canada's credibility, given its international
reputation as a peacemaking and a peacekeeping country.
We must not back off because of a matter of months.
This is an operation which we must support to help make it a
success. Let us learn from our past experiences in other
countries to make this operation a success.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to have an opportunity to speak on this very important
subject.
[English]
On October 7, 1998 we gathered together in this House and had a
debate on Kosovo. At that time we debated a motion put forward
by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs:
That this House take note of the dire humanitarian situation
confronting the people of Kosovo and the government's intention
to take measures in co-operation with the international community
to resolve the conflict, promote a political settlement for
Kosovo and facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance to
refugees.
That this House take note of possible Canadian peacekeeping
activities in Kosovo and the possible changes in peacekeeping
activities in the Central African Republic.
2000
I would say right up front, on behalf of the NDP caucus, that we
certainly support the idea that Canada should fulfil 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 such countries.
I also have to raise a number of issues around this motion and
what we are doing here tonight. First, as was mentioned earlier,
we are to have a briefing tomorrow afternoon on Kosovo and the
Central African Republic. It certainly would have been
preferable to have had this briefing prior to coming here to
debate this very important topic.
I realize and I am learning every day in politics that things
seem to happen very quickly and in a hurry, but I am not
convinced yet that is the way things have to be.
My mother has a phrase she has used many times, haste makes
waste. I am afraid that in this political business far too often
we hurry very important business to the point that we make a lot
of mistakes that would not be made otherwise.
I realize that many times things happen quickly and we have to
respond quickly. I am sure this issue did not develop overnight.
I am sure the hon. ministers could and should have found time to
brief us in advance and then had the debate so everyone is
debating from a knowledge perspective about the issue.
Far too often I find I walk in on a certain day and I am told we
are going to have a debate on this tomorrow night and I am
speaking on it or can I speak on it. One does the best one can.
I am pleased that we are at least having the opportunity to
discuss this. A while back I was quite concerned about this
whole issue when I heard through the media that the Prime
Minister had somehow committed Canadian troops to Kosovo and the
matter at that point had not been brought before this House.
I actually had a question prepared but it did not get on the
agenda unfortunately. The question was this. Canadian troops
have been put on standby for military action in Kosovo. Has the
Prime Minister decided to take unilateral control over decision
making around Canada going to war or has he handed that over to
the NATO generals? Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing
any proposal to send Canadian women and men into battle before
this elected House and ensure that any such action is backed by a
UN resolution? Those questions have some very important points
that are still relevant today as we discuss this issue.
I find it very interesting that I am standing here tonight in
the House and I can count on one hand the number of people who
are here listening to this debate. We had two hon. ministers
come to present their information around something that we are
going to make a very important decision on and they are no longer
present.
I think that something as important—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We let the first one
slide by but we are not letting the second one slide by. We do
not refer to the presence or absence of members. As the hon.
member knows, the parliamentary precincts are full of people
watching this debate from their offices and from other places.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those remarks.
I am very sorry.
The importance of this issue cannot be underscored enough
because we are talking here tonight about sending our men and
women off to very dangerous situations. While it has been
indicated that we are talking about peacekeeping activities I
guess we have to ask ourselves what does this really mean. What
do we really mean when we talk about peacekeeping?
If we look at these countries and see the atrocities taking
place, far too often peacekeeping means actually peacemaking. It
means people going into a very dangerous situation not only for
themselves but for many of the innocent civilians living in the
area.
2005
We are talking about sending our men and women into a war torn
zone. It is a zone where people are killing each other, where
there is senseless slaughter. We are talking about sending our
troops to these areas. We must be mindful of that.
The other thing I am concerned about is that we saw various
tapes and heard various reports about people who had returned
from previous peacekeeping missions, whether it was in the gulf
war or elsewhere. We heard about the post-traumatic stress
syndrome and the after effects that many of these people
experienced from being on these missions. The question is how
well prepared are we to provide support when our troops return
home. What kinds of preparation do we give people for these kinds
of missions? How well equipped are our troops? This issue has
been raised already in terms of what kinds of equipment we will
have. We have heard stories of people returning from other
missions. As they were crossing over and they knew people were
going, they were exchanging helmets because we did not have
proper supplies for these people.
The other issue that has been raised recently in the House is
with respect to vaccines. We heard about troops who were given
vaccines. There were questions as to whether these were properly
tested, whether they were safe for our troops and so forth. These
are issues that come to mind as well. We saw a person who was
court martialled because he did not want to take a vaccine which
he felt had some very serious questions about his safety and his
health.
These are questions we have to look at when we think about these
missions. Quite often we find that the people who have gone on
these missions have become skilled and experienced. When
it comes time for another mission we redeploy the same troops. We
find these people are leaving their families again and are going
off on missions quite often for unspecified periods of time.
These are questions that have to be dealt with as well.
The other thing I asked the hon. minister earlier is what would
be the duties of these people. What authority will they have to
protect themselves and take action when they are faced with very
serious and dangerous situations. The response was these things
have not been defined yet. These will be worked out in due
course. These are the kinds of issues that are very important
and that we want to know before a decision is made to engage
people in that activity. We want to know the kind of training
received.
The other very important issue is will these missions be backed
by a UN resolution. We find more and more we are moving toward,
as the minister said, NATO led missions. What exactly does that
mean? We know that when it comes to international affairs and
concerns the United Nations is the body that should sanction and
give approval to these kinds of missions. That is a very
important issue that should be dealt with.
Generally speaking, when we think should we get involved in
these missions, I do not feel we have much choice when it
comes to deciding whether to help fellow
human beings overcome adversity. It is very important that we as
individuals, we as human beings, fulfil our responsibility to our
brothers and our sisters. Am I my brother's keeper? I
believe we are. We have an international obligation to fulfil
our responsibilities in that regard. But we must do it under
appropriate conditions.
We must do it knowing the situation. We should not be responding
with a knee-jerk reaction simply because someone else is deciding
that they need us to assist them in that mission. We should know
the facts. We should know the details. We should be fully
briefed ahead of time and able to address these issues with some
degree of knowledge and some base of information.
I want to draw the attention of the House to what I feel is a
very important matter. While we are looking at fighting or
sending our troops to deal with issues in other parts of the
world, it is important that we not loose sight of the fact that
there are many issues at home that have an underlying dimension
which is similar.
2010
We have talked many times about ethic cleansing when we look at
what is happening in some of the other parts of the world. But
we see the same dynamics happening right here at home when we
look at different situations involving our own people here in
Canada. It is a matter of degree as to where the difference is
but basically the same principle is there.
We need to respect each other as fellow human beings and deal
with the issues of sharing of resources. A lot of these conflicts
are based around struggles for power, for resources, whether it
be mines with diamonds or whatever. These are quite often the
things that are causing conflict between people. Everybody is
struggling for these precious resources.
We have the same thing happening to a large degree right here in
Canada. We do not have the kind of sharing of resources that we
should have in order for people to take advantage of them, to get
along together and lead a productive life.
We have to apply the lessons that we learn abroad here at home.
It is just one step beyond that we could find ourselves facing
similar kinds of strife within our country. Far too often we look
at conflicts in other parts of the world and we think it is
happening over there, it is really not the kind of thing that
could happen here in Canada. But is it really something that
could not happen here in Canada?
I was watching TV the other night when the riot police were
called out to deal with the homeless who had come to Ottawa. My
daughter said “Oh my goodness, dad, I have never seen anything
like this before in Canada”. We could have very easily
transposed that scene to a foreign country where there would be
fighting in the street and riot police confronting people. We
are not that different. Let us not kid ourselves.
Even though there are very serious questions around these
missions and even though I am speaking on the basis of a lack of
appropriate information because of the manner in which we have
been briefed on this, I do feel that it is very important for
Canada to support its allies with respect to trying to maintain
peace and harmony in other countries and to help avoid the
senseless bloodshed we see taking place with human beings being
killed, maimed and violated every day in various ways.
I feel it is important for us to fulfill our duty and we would
support the efforts that would be taken in that regard. As I
said before, we must deal with those other issues and not always
be responding after the fact and making the decisions in an
emergency situation when there is sufficient time to get
information in advance and to be briefed on these things
properly.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to quote back to the previous speaker his question, am
I my brother's keeper, and his injunction that indeed we should
be and we should respond positively.
Certainly all Canadians feel that way. The difficulty the
Reform Party has with this in very specific terms is that we have
seen this Liberal government, that wants to bring this motion and
send our troops, gut the armed forces to the tune of $7 billion
and take away their ability to do things.
We have people in our armed forces who are absolutely second to
none. We have heroes and heroines in our armed forces who are
there to serve our country and to serve humanity, as the previous
speaker said. The problem is that it is undefined whether this
is a peacekeeping or peacemaking mission, it is undefined whether
this is going to be strictly under a NATO mandate or a UN
mandate. This seems to be chewing gum and baling wire where the
government is working it as it goes.
The government cut $7 billion from the Canadian armed forces.
The Reform Party has had a consistent position that whatever we
ask our armed forces to do, we must be prepared to give them the
proper resources, training, manpower, equipment, counselling,
back-up support, health care, whatever is required.
If we are not prepared to resource the armed forces adequately,
we should not be asking them to be doing things they are not
capable of doing.
2015
I would like to know what the position of the NDP is relative to
the funding of the armed forces because I labour under the
impression, particularly as a result of some of the comments and
pronouncements that have been made by the member for
Burnaby—Douglas, a very outspoken NDP member, that the idea
would be to cut back and to cut back on the armed forces budget.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot ask our heroes and
heroines in our armed forces to go into these conflicts without
proper backup training, support, medication, counselling and
equipment.
What is the position of the NDP? If we are going to be doing
this kind of activity, would the NDP see putting money, not just
the $400 million band-aid the government is talking about in this
budget, but the proper resources back into the armed forces so
that our people will have the ability to do the job that we are
asking them to do?
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the member
would check the records of the comments we have made on
equipment, supplies and adequate financial remuneration for the
armed forces, he would find that we certainly support that. We
have supported the standing committee's report with respect to
the various recommendations made therein. Personally I was quite
disappointed to see in this budget the relatively small amount
committed to meet the recommendations of that report.
I was also informed today that another Sea King was forced to
land because of difficulties it was having. It struck a chord
when the minister mentioned earlier in terms of this mission of
supplying helicopters and so forth. We feel that it is very
important for the armed forces to have adequate and safe
equipment with which to do their jobs. I have no quarrel with
that comment. I agree with it 100%.
I still feel that we have to support trying to do something to
end the senseless slaughter that is taking place even if it is
scaled down to what we can afford. I do feel that it is
important for people to be properly prepared, to have proper
equipment and that there is proper follow-up when they return.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and
indeed some other members remarked that they were not briefed
before this debate tonight.
I am sure the hon. member and all members will agree that the
reason this debate is being held tonight and not next week is
simply due to a logistical problem. All the House leaders agreed
that the debate should take place tonight because the House will
not be in session next week. As the hon. member and all members
know, the full briefing will take place tomorrow. It is simply a
matter of sorting out the basic logistics and the House leaders
agreed. It should not be a matter of debate in terms of accusing
the government of not doing something.
My hon. friend talks about NATO led forces. Does he believe that
a NATO led force and a UN sanctioned action are mutually
exclusive?
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, on the first point with
respect to the debate, I hope the hon. member understands that I
was certainly not suggesting that the debate be held next week. I
was merely suggesting that the briefing should have been held in
advance of the debate. I do not know why the briefing could not
have been held prior to the debate.
That aside, to come to the question on whether a NATO led force
and a UN sanctioned action are exclusive, no I have not suggested
that either. The hon. minister mentioned with respect to whether
this was backed by the UN, that it was NATO led and that there
should not be any problem getting UN support. It seemed to me
that was putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps the UN
support should have been there and then if it was deemed that it
be NATO led, that would be the route. That is simply what I was
saying.
2020
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment
than a question.
I have been hearing a lot of noise tonight about our government
not giving enough money to the Canadian armed forces. In
yesterday's budget there was quite an amount given to the
Canadian armed forces. I believe it was the first time in 12
years that the Canadian armed forces have had new money. If
memory serves me correctly, there was $175 million for the next
three years and also about another $150 million a year in
incremental terms. We are looking at close to $1 billion over
three years.
The member from the Reform Party says it is a band-aid solution.
I think $1 billion for the Canadian armed forces is a lot more
than a band-aid solution.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, there really was no
question so I will comment on the comment.
When one uses figures and says that the amount is over three
years and which adds up to a large number, what is missed in the
equation is what was cut in the years before. If so much has been
cut to the point that one is operating with an inadequate amount
and then something is thrown back in, it does not necessarily
mean the full need has been met.
I was saying that the recommendations in the report of the
standing committee certainly would have called for a larger
amount than $175 million over three years. The minister's
estimate was at least $700 million to start with.
There was less put in than would be determined to meet the need.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree on that.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform you that I will be splitting my time with my
colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead. You will recall that
my colleague is the one who revealed to Canadians that North
Korean missiles were aimed at Montreal.
This being said, this debate, which is not really a debate, but
rather the opportunity to express our emotions, raises several
questions. Parliamentary rules do not really apply and members
have until 11.30 p.m. to speak.
There is one thing government members have been asking us often
and that is “Will the opposition parties support the government
sending troops to Kosovo?” In fact, the true question is “Will
the government support Canadian armed forces so they can to do
their job” This is the real question. My colleague from
Compton—Stanstead will elaborate on this.
For my part I would like to deal with the diplomatic and
geopolitical aspects of the problem in Kosovo. It has been going
on for some time now. I do not want to trace the history of this
situation at this point, but as members know, throughout
history, wars have caused countries to be born and countries to
disappear, empires to be built and empires to crumble, and
borders to be redefined.
On a regular basis, we see very regional problems following
various operations, various wars that occurred during the last
few decades or the last century.
But our main concern about the situation in Kosovo is the way
these activities will be justified and explained. We are
thinking about sending a peacekeeping force led by NATO. So
there is a problem in that the missions we participate in are
normally led by the UN or, in a few cases, by the U.S. But this
mission would be led by NATO. The foreign affairs minister talks
about “NATO plus”.
2025
This reminds me of when the Americans decided to attack Irak. To
justify that operation, the expression “United States plus” was
coined, but we said we would not go until a peace agreement was
reached. So we hope such an agreement will be reached by
February 20.
If this happens before February 20 and we send troops in support
of a NATO operation, how will the Serbs and the Kosovars react?
These are NATO troops we will be sending over there. These last
few months, we had NATO aircraft flying over the Kosovar and
Serb territories. This is not a peacekeeping force. That is why
it is so hard to justify it.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party have no lessons to
learn from anyone.
We will indeed support sending troops on peacekeeping duty. It
is part of our traditions and we will maintain this tradition.
However, I do hope the government realizes we are facing a
problem justifying our decision internationally.
Serbia, Albania and the whole geopolitical region are fragile.
There are problems in nearby Greece and in Macedonia, where many
Albanians live. In Greece, the problems are with the Turks. Then
there is not-so-distant Russia, which is preventing us from
securing UN support by using its right of veto.
So we are left wondering under which international organization
our troops should be deployed. Next thing you know, there will
be a new international organization. Should our troops be
deployed under the UN? Under NATO? It may not be NATO's role.
Perhaps NATO's role will be redefined. It was the role of the
UN, but it has financial problems and can no longer afford to
send troops on peacekeeping missions. The UN does not have any
money to pay for these missions.
When the UN was established, funding for peacekeeping forces was
to be provided by the UN. In committee this afternoon, the
Minister of External Affairs gave a very good example,
Bangladesh, which used to send highly professional and
disciplined peacekeeping troops but can no longer afford to do
so.
We in Canada keep sending troops. Canadian taxpayers are paying
for that, but the government opposite is not being very
supportive. Otherwise, the men and women of our armed forces
would be better dressed, they would have boots to wear.
Thank God, things are beginning to move in the right direction.
But, once again, we have a problem justifying our involvement.
Working only with NATO is dangerous. It is extremely dangerous.
It sends a very bad message. The Serbs do not seem to take this
threat seriously.
And what will happen should the peacekeeping negotiations fail?
The UN's efforts have failed. NATO's efforts have failed. At one
point, even the OSCE had representatives in Kosovo. There is a
whole lot of people who have gone to Kosovo without having the
mandate to settle the conflict. And we are now trying to justify
sending our troops there. It is extremely dangerous.
We are pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this issue.
I will simply say that I hope parliament will be unanimous in
sending our troops on a peacekeeping mission. This is extremely
important. We must avoid another situation like the Gulf war,
even though this is different, where our Liberal friends refused
to support our armed forces.
I sincerely hope that, together, we will be able to support our
armed forces in this mission. I also hope that we will be able
to provide financial and technical support to our men and women
who will represent us in this peacekeeping mission to Kosovo.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member mentioned the situation in Turkey.
[English]
While it is profoundly important that we debate in this chamber
tonight the role of Canada in Kosovo and our possible role in
Africa, it is also essential, particularly at this very crucial
and difficult time, that we note another human tragedy unfolding,
the tragedy of the Kurds.
I want to take the opportunity of this debate to make a brief
comment on that.
2030
As members know, Kurds around the world have been voicing a
sense of anguish, pain, anger, outrage and deep concern about the
arrest of Abdullah Ocalan or Apo. Here in Ottawa today we
unfortunately saw a violent confrontation outside the Turkish
embassy. Fortunately it was ultimately resolved in a peaceful
manner.
I want to take the opportunity of this debate to call on our
government, the Government of Canada, to end its shameful silence
on the plight of the Kurds, particularly in Turkey but also in
Iraq, Iran and Syria. I fear that our desire to sell Candu
reactors and military hardware as well as our membership in the
NATO alliance have silenced us.
We cannot remain silent on this issue. It is essential that
Canada play an important role. With respect to the arrest of
Ocalan, it is essential that Canada and others in the
international community take steps urgently to ensure an open and
fair trial for Mr. Ocalan, to see that he is not tortured as the
UN special rapporteur on torture has urged as well. I am calling
on our government to send a delegation to Turkey to monitor this
very serious question.
Most important, it is time that our government spoke out with
respect to the underlying massive violation of the fundamental
human, political and cultural rights of the Kurdish people which
have led to the destruction of Kurdish villages, which have led
to the murder, torture and killing of over 30,000 people.
In conclusion I take this opportunity to say that we face
terrible tragedy in Kosovo and the Central African Republic, but
let us not lose sight of the unfolding human tragedy of the
Kurdish people that for too long has been ignored. Biji
Kurdistan.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's comment
interesting.
However, it is obvious that he is quite familiar with procedure;
he is using this debate on a specific problem to raise other
issues. I believe I could have done the same on a topic I raised
this afternoon in committee, namely North Korea, where three
million people have died in recent years, out of a total
population of 20 million.
This being said, tonight's debate is on Kosovo and that
geopolitical region. I have, however, raised the Kurdish problem
in an indirect way.
What I am asking is that the government, through various
embassies, non-governmental organisations or even the minister
himself, continue to apply use accelerated, effective and
productive diplomacy, not only with Serbia or representatives of
Kosovo but with every country in the whole region, in order to
prevent its breakdown.
This issue must not become a time bomb. If we can deal with the
Kurdish problem, so much the better; if we can deal with the
problems in other areas of that region, so much the better.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I listened
carefully. I knew the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas was
straying strictly speaking from the topic tonight. However there
is no question that these issues are all interrelated. I felt,
since we are here enjoying each other's comments, what is a
little bit of extension.
Mr. André Bachand: I love you and you love me; it is a
big family.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Exactly.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the situation in Kosovo is grave. We recently witnessed an
atrocious massacre and the spring campaign season is upon us
within weeks. NATO has given both sides until February 20 to
reach a peace agreement or face NATO air power. The United
States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and our other NATO
allies are preparing to send ground troops into the bloody
province and the NATO secretary general is asking for Canadian
participation.
The Prime Minister, in his usual open mouth insert foot manner
said that we might send ground troops to Kosovo in addition to
our CF-18s based in Italy, without our being asked formally or
informally for troops by anyone.
I cannot imagine another responsible statesman in the world doing
such a thing, but there we have it.
2035
The foreign affairs minister and Nobel Peace Prize wannabe has
said that Canada would send ground forces only if the operation
was approved by the UN Security Council. It seems he has changed
his mind. The defence minister who obviously has not clout
around the cabinet table after yesterday's insulting budget has
said it will not be an aggressive force but simple peacekeeping
like Bosnia. Bosnia has already cost 16 Canadian lives. That is
something I cannot dismiss quite so cavalierly.
The Serbs have rejected any NATO peacekeeping force on their
soil. The defence minister has also said that sending ground
troops would stretch the Canadian forces to the limit, which begs
the question as to where are the troops for Kosovo going to come
from, especially after yesterday's budget which made significant
troop cuts a reality. This lack of Liberal clarity has left
Canadians wondering what is the government's policy on Kosovo. It
has left Canadians with several questions about the deployment of
Canadian military forces to this troubled region.
Lieutenant General Lewis MacKenzie, one of Canada's most famous
peacekeepers and someone who is very familiar with the region,
has questioned Canadian involvement and has demanded that there
be a public debate. This is a public debate in a sense.
Mr. Art Hanger: With no information.
Mr. David Price: Absolutely.
My fear is that the time when we controlled events with regard
to our involvement in Kosovo is now long since past. I want to
join our foreign affairs critic and say that all peace loving
people would like to see an end to fighting in Kosovo and an end
to the killing of innocent civilians. I also think that if NATO
decides to go into to Kosovo we as NATO allies must join our
closest international friends in facing our joint destiny.
I also think that the deployment of ground troops and military
power is the worst decision that any statesman ever has to make.
Once taken by the governor in council Canadians will support the
government of the day.
These are conclusions that all responsible Canadians would come
to with regard to the Kosovo question. The big issue for me is:
Are our Canadian forces ready to go to Kosovo and what units are
going? The problem is that serious questions are left unanswered
about Kosovo.
We have never really had an opportunity to debate government
deployment of Canadian forces to the Central African Republic.
That was done with a sleight of hand, but I will concentrate on
Kosovo today.
The minister has told us that we would only be going in a
ceasefire mode. In terms of entering the area on the basis of
ceasefire, I point out that just because we enter in ceasefire
does not mean that it will hold. We might find ourselves in a
situation worse than an invasion.
Let us look at the state of the Canadian forces. The present
government defined its defence policy with the 1994 defence white
paper which committed Canada to the maintenance of a modern,
combat capable land, sea and air force to deal with operations
all across the spectrum of combat.
In terms of implementing our national security objectives the
government directed the Canadian forces to provide a joint task
force headquarters and one or more of the following: an able task
group of four major service combatants, one support ship and a
maritime air support, three separate battle groups or a brigade
group, a fighter wing and a transport squadron, for a grand total
of 10,000 personnel at one time.
The intent was to have the vanguard of this joint task force in
place within three weeks and the entire force operational within
three months. This was to be done by a regular force of 60,000
personnel. Therefore we have a question today. We have 2,000 on
the ground now. It is tough to get another 1,000 and yet we have
60,400 troops that are being paid. We are supposed to be able to
get 10,000. There are lots of people missing there.
In terms of the navy, the government started out with an urgent
need for a new maritime helicopter to replace the aging Sea King.
The white paper also promised to examine the option to buy United
Kingdom upholder class submarines. Last, the government stated
it would consider replacing our old operational support vessels.
2040
Canada's army was promised three adequately equipped brigade
groups and some 3,000 more soldiers in three light infantry
battalions. The white paper called for new armoured personnel
carriers to replace the obsolete M-113 fleet. There was also a
discussion in very loose terms for the future replacement of
direct fire support vehicles. There was not mention of a new
main battle tank to replace the obsolete Leopard.
The air force was promised an upgrade of its CF-18 fighter
aircraft fleet and new search and rescue helicopters. The
government also stated its intention to reduce Canada's fighter
fleet by 25%, but the remaining fighters would receive new
precision guided munitions for ground support.
In the end, as always, the 1994 defence white paper has been big
on promises and very short on substance, with the result that it
is now sadly outdated if for no other reason than the absolute
lack of leadership and budget.
Canada's navy has yet to see a new maritime helicopter and after
yesterday's Liberal budget it is increasingly unlikely to see
them for probably up to eight years.
There has been little discussion by the government of the
proposed multi-role support vehicles, and the lack of strategic
sealift means that the army is largely landlocked on the
continent. The upholder class submarines will not start arriving
until the year 2000.
The army has just started to receive its new armoured personnel
carriers in the form of the LAV-25, but we do not have enough. I
suspect we do not have enough for a good recce regiment. The
three light battalions were created of about 3,000 soldiers.
However, the army has such a budget problem—and I am told right
now that it is about $170 million in deficit—that it may be
forced to cut 3,000 positions. This cut would be in addition to
yesterday's budgetary slap in the face and would mean cuts
through the other three services.
The air force acquired new precision guided munitions for the
existing CF-18 fleet. It also got the long awaited EH-101
helicopters for search and rescue. They are getting them; they
are not there yet. However the air force lost its air refuelling
tankers and received no new airlift capability.
As of today Canada lacks both strategic sealift and strategic
airlift capabilities and thus is forced to rent these items on
the open market or to be dependent upon the United States for any
large military operation.
The old commitment and capability gap still haunts Canada. The
lack of power projection capability is Canada's biggest force
problem. After that of course there is money. That is the
central issue. The white paper must be implemented if we are to
be able to project our forces abroad effectively in support of
foreign policy objectives, and that includes Kosovo.
The Canadian army and air force are virtually incapable of
projecting power without outside international assistance, and
thus the only real force we have for independent timely service
is Canada's navy. Unfortunately for the government, Kosovo is
landlocked and the navy is just out of the picture. We are left
with CF-18s that the air force says need an upgrade and an army
that lacks the modern armoured personnel carriers, main battle
tanks and troops.
The white paper stated that Canada should be able to deploy
10,000 personnel around the world at any one time, but the
minister has said that it would be stretched to the limit to come
up with just another 1,000 or so for Kosovo. Tonight he said
800. That gives him a 200 leeway so now he is not quite as
stretched. That was before yesterday's miserly defence
allocation.
Having examined the state of Canada's Liberal neglected military
and its deficiencies brings me to my last point. In terms of the
Kosovo operation a number of issues need examination by
parliament prior to the deployment of Canadian forces. For
instance, how long does NATO make a commitment to stay in Kosovo?
Judging by Bosnia it will be measured in years and not just
months. The United States, from my discussions in recent
briefings with United States officials, do not want a long term
commitment. They want to be in and then out. They do not
believe that Canada's participation is really necessary.
What happens if both sides decide to engage in hostilities with
each other or NATO? This situation could turn to war at any
moment. We do not even know how NATO troops, our troops, are
getting in and out if it turns to all-out war. Sadly, next to it
is Bosnia. What happens to Bosnia? Will we send a significant
contingent, perhaps a battalion sized group, or no troops at all?
2045
We do not know what the national command relationships will be.
What are the rules of engagement?
The other day on television a British commander said that his
orders were to shoot to kill. I cannot imagine a Canadian
officer daring to say that, right or wrong, in the present
post-Somalia inquiry climate. We do not know how we will get our
troops over to Kosovo because we have no real sea lift or air
lift capability. How will we sustain them in Kosovo? I would
suggest probably piggybacking our existing air supply to Bosnia,
but no one has said that for sure.
We do not—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please.
Unfortunately your time is up. We were trying to give you a
couple of minutes to wrap up. If the hon. member for
Compton—Stanstead wants 15 seconds to put a lid on it, fair
enough, but that is it.
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, lastly, we do not even know who
will pay for this venture. Will there be a supplementary
increase in the defence budget or are we facing even greater
troop cuts than the Globe and Mail reported? After yesterday's
budget, I think it is a big question mark.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member's comments and his concerns about our
military and about the possible engagement in Kosovo. It is
obvious that we are not getting a clear message from the
government side of the House.
I know that the member for Compton—Stanstead sits on the
defence committee. He has been over to Bosnia. He has talked to
troops from across this country who have served over there. He
has an idea of the record of the Canadian military. Those men
and women served in the Bosnia theatre under a peacekeeping
mission when war was raging all around them. It was the most
foolish thing that probably ever happened to Canadian soldiers
who put their lives in that kind of jeopardy.
Since the member has had some experience in his travels as a
parliamentarian, how does he analyse the situation in Kosovo?
Looking at the equipment that our Canadian military has right
now, would our troops be safe there in any kind of a peacemaking
role? If not, what should they or could they possibly do?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. It gives me the opportunity to continue on a
little bit.
We have been talking all along about the fact that we really do
not have the troops to send into Kosovo to start off with. Our
troops are being rotated so often that they do not have a chance
to get proper training. It is obvious they do not have the
equipment. We keep harping on that but nothing is happening.
This budget ended up giving zilch for equipment.
People watching the debate on TV might think that $175 million
is a lot of dollars, but it is not really. It is $175 million
for this year. We need $700 million just to come up even with
our quality of life study without even talking about what is
needed for equipment. There is no equipment upgrade in that.
The government is going to upgrade the CF-18s by selling off
some planes in order to grab a little cash. The way we
understand it, that is not quite by the book. It is not the way
the government is supposed to operate. If the government is
selling off planes, the money is supposed to come back to the
general fund. Then it is supposed to apply for more budget if it
wants more money for those planes.
An hon. member: The Liberal government works that way.
Mr. David Price: Well, that is what happens. I think the
auditor general is looking very carefully at what is going on.
Our main problem is that our troops are starting to lack a lot
of training because they are being rotated too often. There is
also a sad lack of equipment. Equipment is going downhill all
the time. Rust out is on its way.
2050
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to share my time with the member for Halton and Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last October, in Kosovo, tens of thousands of displaced people
were living homeless as an armed conflict was raging between
separatist Albanian Kosovars and security forces of the federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.
In spite of the protests from the international community and of
the attention by the United Nations security council, the
conflict continued and innocent civilians suffered.
It is only when NATO made a credible threat to use force against
President Milosevic that a humanitarian disaster was prevented.
In spite of the positive effects of the events of last October
and of the agreements with NATO and OSCE, which the Yugoslav
government accepted, no real progress has been achieved toward a
durable peace in Kosovo. Diplomatic efforts have not succeeded
in getting both sides to the table and the ceasefire in the area
remains tense and fragile.
Moreover, I was reading today, in one of the Montreal dailies,
that Robin Cook, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, said
in the Commons, and I quote “Two weeks ago, I warned the House
of Commons that I could not guarantee that the talks would
necessarily lead to an agreement. Today I am sorry to say that
this is still the case”.
Finally, after weeks of provocation from both sides and the
killing of dozens of innocent people, it became clear that, once
again, we had to force President Milosevic and the Kosovar
leaders to choose between serious negotiations or the use of
force by NATO.
NATO support for the diplomatic endeavours of the international
community did produce results in Kosovo. On February 6, both
parties met in Rambouillet, France, to work out a peace
agreement. It is no secret that, to this day, the Rambouillet
talks have not been easy.
We know there is still much to be done and that the eventual
conclusion of a final agreement would be a significant
achievement. Although the outcome of the talks is still
uncertain, the involvement of the international community in
Kosovo is just beginning.
The conflict in Kosovo has ramifications that extend well beyond
the borders of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We should not
ignore the fact that this war-torn region has been devastated
because of leaders who shamelessly play on people's fears in
order to fuel the conflict. Once again, the Yugoslav
government's actions in Kosovo hurt the most vulnerable and make
the peace process and the integration of the various ethnic
groups in the Balkans all the more difficult.
The displacement of Albanian Kosovar civilians and the
polarization of communities resulting from the conflict have had
a direct impact not only on Serbia and Montenegro, but also on
neighbouring countries. Hundreds if not thousands of Albanians
have tried to flee their country because they feared for their
lives. In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and in
Bosnia, refugees have also tried to escape from the country.
The conflict is having repercussions on all of southern Europe
and the international community cannot ignore them.
The Rambouillet talks provide an historic opportunity for the
leaders of both parties. For peace is now in sight, if the
parties gathered in Rambouillet negotiate in good faith and
agree to the fair solution being offered. It is up to them to
fulfil their obligations to the UN, to the international
community and, let us not forget, to the local populations they
claim to represent. This unique opportunity must not be allowed
to go by.
If the antagonists shoulder their responsibilities and take this
opportunity to reach a peace agreement, the international
community should support their efforts. Implementation of a
peace accord in Kosovo will certainly be no easy matter.
Rebuilding the civil institutions destroyed during months of
fighting, introducing a democratic political system and creating
a representative police force are daunting tasks.
2055
The OSCE and other organizations will face quite a challenge
implementing the civilian aspects of a peace accord. Without a
safe environment, however, none of these undertakings will even
be possible. It is impossible to envisage a positive outcome.
But NATO is in a position to make a tremendous contribution to
peace in Kosovo, having already played a crucial role in ending
the hostilities and getting the parties to the negotiating
table. Once an accord has been signed, as was the case in
Bosnia, NATO's presence will be essential to implementing the
military aspects of the accord, separating the forces and
supervising troop withdrawal.
NATO will be just as important in establishing a safe and stable
environment for the civilian reconstruction of the country and
the establishment of peace, and that is what we are talking
about. This is a vital contribution that NATO, with its
incomparable experience, can readily handle.
As regards the United Kingdom, London would like to help by
sending troops to establish peace in the Serb province, but only
as part of an international force ensuring stability.
To respond to the member for Compton—Stanstead, I read in the
same paper that the some 8,000 British soldiers are on standby
and that according to the Pentagon spokesperson, the rapid
dispatch of marines is an obvious option.
We can see therefore that other countries are preparing to
intervene under the NATO umbrella.
As concerns Canada, we have been playing an important role in
the Balkans for a number of years.
After years of peacekeeping with the blue berets serving as part
of the United Nations' forces in Bosnia, we will continue as a
member of NATO and its stabilization force to make a significant
contribution to peace in the region.
The international community recognizes that NATO has played a
vital role, not only to establish peace in Bosnia, but to help
preserve this peace and to bring the country closer to stability
and normality. Once again, NATO is called on to establish peace
in the Balkans and, once again, Canada must be prepared to play
its role.
The international community is contemplating deploying 30,000
men under NATO command in Kosovo to oversee the application of a
future peace accord.
At this crucial time, in this crucial place, we must protect the
investments we and our allies have made in the Balkans over the
past ten years. Recent history has shown NATO can play a
positive role in supporting the international community's
determination to restore peace and promote stability.
Clearly NATO's presence in Kosovo is critical if one wants to
give peace a real chance. It is a well known fact that for a
long time now President Milosevic has been making commitments,
only to break them as soon as he no longer is the focus of
international attention. It thus follows that a peace agreement
without teeth would be easy to ignore and would most likely
fail.
NATO's credibility made these negotiations possible, and without
it peace would not last in Kosovo.
We believe Canada, as an important member of the alliance, has a
crucial role to play in any NATO operation in Kosovo.
We have accomplished a lot, but there is still a lot to do.
NATO's role in Kosovo is clear and crucial, and Canada has an
important role to play to ensure the alliance's intervention is
a success.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier in the evening
during the debate, I inadvertently misled the member for Halifax
West concerning a briefing tomorrow.
Apparently what was news earlier today is not news now. I ask
him to accept my apology and my withdrawal in the spirit in which
it is given.
2100
I could go on as well because my speech will focus on the
Central African Republic. I want to point out to him that
concerning briefings on that part, on February 9 at the regular
House leaders meeting the leaders of all the official parties
agreed that this matter could be dealt with in committee and due
notice was given.
Few areas of national endeavour come close as peacekeeping to a
source of national pride and international respect and influence.
In this House we have a responsibility to examine current and
possible peacekeeping operations. We owe it to the peacekeepers
and to the mothers and brothers and sisters and fathers to make
very good use of this time tonight. Anything less would be a
disservice to those who wear the uniform of the Canadian Armed
Forces and who daily put their lives on the line for us.
This country strongly supports a continued primary role for the
United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and
security. Canada's pre-eminence in peacekeeping has resulted
from our willingness to become involved and our ability to do so
quickly and effectively. This has won us the acclaim and
admiration of the entire international community.
This government is proud of Canada's peacekeeping tradition and
respects the sacrifices of Canadian men and women who have worn
the blue beret. We are asking them to take up the blue berets
once again, travel thousand of kilometres away from Canada and
help unfamiliar people to make sense of their own lives. The
government believes Canada must continue to participate in the
Mission des Nations unies en République centrafricaine, MINURCA.
This is a concrete example of our support for the UN and our
concern over continuing conflicts in Africa.
No area of policy has been more openly discussed than Canada's
contribution to international security. Canadians of all walks
of life continually express their views on Canada's participation
in peacekeeping operations. They demand that parliament ensure
our peacekeepers are properly supported, properly equipped and
that they are sent on missions which make sense and where the
Canadian contribution is used effectively.
The events being discussed here tonight serve to underscore the
crucial role parliamentarians can and must play in examining
matters of international peace and security. The situation in
Kosovo has given rise to careful and meaningful debate tonight.
The standing committees have kept a close watch on the UN
peacekeeping operation in the Central African Republic. The
government sincerely hopes that parliamentarians will continue to
work on Kosovo and the Central African Republic and on other
priority issues of foreign and defence policy.
Parliament is fully engaged as part of the overall Canadian
effort to build a safer and more just global community. We are
gratified by the contributions made by all members of the House
so far and are taking careful note of the points raised by
members of all parties here tonight.
As the ministers have noted, the United Nations peacekeeping
operation in the Central African Republic has been in existence
for almost a year. Canada has been involved since the beginning
for several good reasons. Our troops have performed admirably
and have made a clear contribution to the overall success of the
mission so far. We fully anticipate that this success can be
continued throughout 1999 until the current mandate and
objectives have been completed.
The year 1993 was crucial in the democratic development of the
Central African Republic. After years of struggle for democracy,
the CAR held free and fair presidential elections for the first
time in its history.
The people of the Central African Republic are among the poorest
of the poor.
The CAR is a land locked country with few marketable resources.
2105
The 1998 United Nations human development index ranked the
Central African Republic 154th out of 174 countries. Canada was
marked first. Real per capita gross domestic product is
approximately $1,092 in U.S. currency, less than one-twentieth of
the gross domestic product enjoyed by Canadians. Life expectancy
in the CAR is 48 years. The average Canadian can expect to live
31 years longer than the average person in the Central African
Republic.
In addition to severe economic and developmental constraints and
the growing pains that have come with a brand new multiparty
political system, the CAR has to deal with internal and external
conflicts. The government of President Ange Félex Patasse has
for several years now faced unrest among some members of the
country's military. Soldiers have mutinied on several occasions.
French troops then stationed in the CAR were called on to quell
the unrest.
Under the terms of a 1997 peace accord rebels and forces loyal
to the president agreed to establish a multinational Mission
Interafricaine de Surveillance de l'Application des Accords de
Bangui. MISAB's job was to maintain peace and security in the
capital city Bangui and to monitor the implementation of the
peace agreement.
By early 1998 with MISAB's mandate winding down and long planned
withdrawal of French military forces underway, it was clear that
further international assistance was needed to keep the Central
African Republic on a even keel. On March 27, 1998 the UN
security council unanimously adopted resolution 1159 establishing
MINURCA. This new UN mission has been deployed in the CAR since
April 15, 1998 with some 1,350 troops from six African countries,
France and Canada. A Canadian forces contingent of approximately
47 has been providing core communication services to MINURCA.
MINURCA was mandated first and foremost to assist the legitimate
government of the Central African Republic to maintain security
in and around the capital. Other key functions have included
dealing with surrendered weapons and demobilised factions,
ensuring the security and freedom of movement of UN personnel,
training civilian police, and providing advice and technical
support for legislative elections.
The activities of MINURCA in the Central African Republic have
been absolutely essential to maintaining stability in that part
of the world.
This government and the Canadian people are proud of Canada's
role as world leader in the field of peacekeeping and as a
reliable alliance partner and supporter of the United Nations.
MINURCA is important for Canadians, for Africans and for the
international community.
Let us tell our peacekeepers in the Central African Republic
that the Parliament of Canada is thinking of them, that we
support them and will welcome them home with honour when their
work is complete.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
was looking forward to tonight and to this debate. I have to say
that I was profoundly disappointed. The Minister of National
Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were here to brief
the House and the Canadian people as to the situation is Kosovo,
and to inform everyone of Canada's role, as best they could, up
to this point.
I am confused over some of the information that came from both
these ministers.
2110
On one hand they talk about acceptable levels of risk that our
military men and women would be placed in if sent to Kosovo. They
talked about the rules of engagement and there was some
indication that there would be combat troops sent over. On the
other hand, the foreign affairs minister brought up the point
that it would be a non-interventionist type force, a peacekeeping
force.
The problem that exists right now in Kosovo is that there needs
to be peace. I do not know how peace can be kept in the midst of
war. That sounds like another Bosnia situation to me where our
troops were chained to poles, a sight for the world to see. It
raised all kinds of questions in the minds of the people in this
country as to what our military was doing chained to poles.
It was embarrassing to say the least to know that our troops,
fighting men and women who should have been engaged in battle
protecting themselves and their equipment, were in that kind of
horrible dilemma and needed a negotiator to get them out of
trouble.
I do not want to see our Canadian men and women placed in that
kind of a role again. I cannot imagine that happening. I do not
think the Canadian public wants to see that and yet this is what
seems to be the message coming from the minister of defence in
part but definitely from the foreign affairs minister.
There is need for debate but not from this level because
obviously the government side has to resort to newspapers to
really find out what is happening in Kosovo as the previous
speaker just alluded to in her statement.
There seems to be a real lack of information on the part of the
government. One would have to ask why that information is not
there. Why is the government side not able to information this
House and the Canadian public about what on earth is going on
over in Kosovo? I can only think of one reason, that Canada has
been cut out of the negotiations at the international level, both
in NATO and probably in the UN, because she is no longer a
player, she is no longer able to contribute. That is what I
believe.
To have to go through this situation tonight with the foreign
affairs minister unable to inform this House and all members in
it and the Canadian public about the situation in Kosovo and
Canada's role is a sham. It is disgraceful. I expected a lot
more.
My colleague from Red Deer spoke about the Central African
Republic. I will base most of my comments with reference to the
Kosovo question. It certainly is more complicated than the
Central African Republic but it needs to be addressed in some
terms that we can all think about and questions that should be
answered before decisions of any kind are taken.
I want to take the opportunity first to argue in favour of
lending morale support to international action to end the
suffering in Kosovo. Canada has an undeniable obligation to its
NATO allies. We also have a proud history of international
engagement and involvement and we should not let that lapse.
If the alliance decides to take military action Canada must
support that. We have an obligation to support that. That is a
moral obligation. No one should accept any form of ethnic
cleansing. There is our moral obligation. And we have a moral
obligation to take action against the systemic murder and torture
of innocent civilians. That has been going on for some time.
2115
There is no doubt that the international community must not
stand idly by while Serbian forces commit flagrant human rights
atrocities against Kosovars. Ultimately we must support our
allies. Canada cannot shirk from its responsibility in this
regard.
Nevertheless, there are some serious questions concerning
possible military action which give us cause for concern. We
have a duty to ask these questions. There is an obligation to the
Canadian troops whose lives we may put on the line. A series of
questions must be asked and no answers have been supplied by the
government thus far. Granted, there may be some questions that
cannot be answered at this point in time but the government does
not seem to be moving in that direction.
These are the questions: One, have all diplomatic efforts to
resolve the crisis failed? Two, what are the dangers and
possible implications of military action? Three, is there true
multinational support for this mission into Kosovo? Four, is
there a workable plan for military action?
Five, what precisely is Canada's role to be? This is a major
point. There are almost conflicting points of view between the
foreign affairs minister and the defence minister. Six, is that
role realistic in terms of Canada's military capability?
Seven, who will command Canadian troops? I think that is a very
important role which will concern a lot of soldiers. There are so
many different countries participating in peacekeeping missions
in that region. The troops could fall under the jurisdiction of
some other commander and they may not be very comfortable with
that. I certainly would not be after having seen some of the
things that have happened in other peacekeeping missions Canada
has been involved in.
Let us go back to the first question. Have diplomatic efforts
failed? We have yet to see. The Serbs continue to drag their
feet. They have been negotiating hard for their own position to
maintain control of that area. They do not want NATO forces in
there. That was pretty clear right from the very beginning. That
question has yet to be answered.
With regard to the second question, there is obviously a deep
concern about the fighting in Kosovo and whether it may escalate
into other countries. We have troops right now in Bosnia. Could
they be affected if things go sour in Kosovo? Who is going to
protect our Canadian troops? Is there some sort of an extraction
force?
The next question concerns a workable plan for military action.
We have not seen anything like that and there have been no
assurances tonight that there will be limitations and what those
limitations will be. It is very unfortunate because there is an
equipment problem in our military and to go into any hot spot, a
high intensity conflict or even a low intensity conflict with
those problems, the lives of our troops will be in danger. There
is no question about that.
All of the questions including the ones I raised tonight have
yet to be answered. It is incumbent upon the government to keep
everyone informed. I do not believe at this stage of the game
that the government is doing that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. Perhaps the
hon. member for Calgary Northeast would clarify this for the
chair. Is it the intention of the hon. member to split his time
with the member for Calgary West?
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has advised me
that he would give me some more time if I needed it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Then it is up to
you. If you keep going then you are taking a 30-minute slot.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a little
more time here. It is important to go back to the points I
mentioned.
2120
The government is very much unaware of the implications when it
comes to sending troops. Actually it seems that the foreign
affairs minister is running the military. The minister has come
up with a policy of soft power. I still do not know what that
means but it sure as blazes scares me. If we are going to depend
on our troops and soft power is the motivating factor, I think we
are in trouble. It sounds like flower power to me and people who
were raised in the sixties would understand what flower power is
all about.
The defence minister has already implied that the troop
selection number will be around 500 to 800. The Canadian army is
already stretched to the limit despite the claim made in the
government's white paper on defence. We cannot send a combat
capable brigade overseas. All we can send is a smaller battalion
group force and that would put a severe strain our capabilities.
Time and time again it comes back to the issue of equipment. I
was over in Bosnia, as was with the member for
Compton—Stanstead. We both have had the opportunity to examine
various equipment that the military is using. I was not aware
that Coyotes were rolling off the assembly line. The minister of
defence mentioned that tonight. It was a remarkable revelation.
There has been no announcement of it. Certainly they are on line
but I would suggest that if troops were going over there, they
would need those vehicles and some pretty good fire power too.
To my knowledge that has not been considered nor is it part of
the completed plan of the military to mount guns on those new
APCs. That is a deficiency right there. That would concern me
if I were a soldier. What kind of equipment is there? Apart
from that, all we have is 20-year old tanks, 30-year old
self-propelled artillery, 40-year old towed artillery and
tactical helicopters.
The minister mentioned something about tactical helicopters for
lift. Obviously the minister has not read the auditor general's
report nor rode around in one of these helicopters. I suggest
that the minister be the first man off the helicopter just before
it lands on the ground. He would have a new hairdo. There is a
static electricity and shock problem. Those helicopters cannot be
used for what they were intended. Not only do they have that
problem but their lift capacity is far lower than what it was
intended to be.
If the military were to use that helicopter as an extraction
machine to pull troops out of a troubled area, a gun cannot be
mounted because it would be too heavy. We have 100 brand new
helicopters that just came off the line last year at a cost of
$1.2 billion, and they cannot be used for what they were
intended. The minister talks about using those tactical
helicopters, and I use the word tactical loosely because they
cannot do the job. They are junk. One hundred new helicopters
and they are junk. They cannot be used as tactical helicopters.
We have the armoured personnel carriers, certainly some good
equipment, yet there are not in full use. They are not coming
off the assembly line fast enough nor from what I understand, are
they armed properly.
Our troops are going to have to live by their wits because there
is no one to take them out if they get into trouble.
2125
Under the circumstances, troops sent into a low intensity
conflict area like that would be sitting ducks. If we consider
the mountainous terrain in Kosovo, it would be a grave mistake if
we were to again send troops into ground like that if we did not
have good support. So we have to turn to our allies again. That
is troubling, because we do not have the capability to survive on
our own, not even to protect our own men and women if they get
into trouble in a place like that.
We have good cause to be concerned about the poor position
Canada is regarding the decision making process in this NATO
area. Because our contribution is so limited now, we do not sit
at the negotiating table any more. The minister ought to know
what the negotiating table is. He has been weak in delivering
funds to support our military. He is also very weak when dealing
with a good plan to keep our troops safe and give them the
support they need overseas.
It all comes down to this. The Liberal government has cut $7.8
billion from the defence department since it took office. It has
effectively removed the combat readiness of our forces. Our
allies know it and it has seriously damaged our international
credibility.
In conclusion, we must ultimately support the alliance and we
must support our troops if committed. We must however, be clear
and realistic about Canada's role. The Canadian forces must not
be committed to a mission which is beyond the operational
capability of the military. We must not send our troops anywhere
without reflecting on the practical implications of the mission.
We must support our allies, but we must also support our troops.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thought the hon. member for Calgary Northeast was just starting
to roll.
The member talked about the famous helicopters and about our
working with our allies. Unfortunately we cannot even work with
our allies because we cannot talk to them. The radios in the
helicopters do not work. They only work to talk to each other.
It is a strange situation.
The hon. member, one of the Liberal members and I were in
Washington a little over a week ago. We had some briefings from
our American friends. What they had to say was very interesting.
First of all they did not even mention Canada. They were talking
about Kosovo and what would probably happen going in there. They
were looking at probably 2,000 to 4,000 troops. It was quite
clear that those 2,000 to 4,000 troops would probably be marines
and would probably be in and out very quickly. They were only
talking about showing a presence on the ground.
That is probably what our Canadian troops should really be
looking at too. We do not want another long term stay like there
was in Bosnia. We do not have the troops to do it. The turnover
is just not working out.
I would like to hear the member's comments on that particular
scenario and how we could go into the area for a while to
establish our presence and show that we are supporting our NATO
allies. By the way, most of our NATO allies who were with us in
Washington agreed that it should be European troops on the ground
in Europe.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
question.
I was in Washington with the member and several other
parliamentarians and there was someone from the Liberal side at
the briefing. There was a tour of various places, the State
Department, the Pentagon, the war college in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania.
It was a real eye-opener, I must say. They talked about risks.
They talked about protection of the homeland. They talked about
Kosovo and the fact that they should be in and they should be
out.
2130
It would be nice to say that Canada should do the same thing—I
would agree with that wholeheartedly—and to say then that Europe
could move back in with its peacekeeping role or its peace
maintenance role and look after things afterward.
I shudder when I look at Canada's military and the backup to it.
Where is the backup? The Americans have all kinds of fire power
behind them. If their boys get into trouble they are in there
with their helicopters and they will take them out of there. We
do not have that kind of capability. We should have because we
have had our members in these hot spots. Bosnia was one such
place. Kosovo is very similar to what happened in Bosnia.
I would not want to see our men and women trapped somewhere and
we could not get them out. I find that unacceptable. I think
most Canadians would find that very unacceptable if they knew the
plight our military was in and the expectations across the floor.
It is not coming from a military standpoint at all. The foreign
affairs minister is driving our military. Unfortunately we could
never participate in a role like the Americans can, even though
we could if we had the equipment. We could never do it because
we just do not have the equipment.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga
South.
This debate is in many respects a reprise of the debate we had
in the House on October 7, 1998 on the peacekeeping issue. It
enables us to reiterate some points in the evolving
constitutional law of parliament.
This government is not the Government of the United States. We
are not bound by the United States constitution. The power to
make war, to declare war, is within the prerogative power of the
executive alone here. Even in the United States undeclared wars,
which are the phenomena of our times, are a different
constitutional system.
What our government has done is to engage, to submit to the
House of Commons any question of the involvement of Canadian
Armed Forces in service outside Canada. That is to say, when
parliament is in session, we will allow a House debate. When
parliament is not in session, a practice which I in fact was the
instrument of in the last parliament when I was parliamentary
secretary, we will inform the leaders or the porte-parole of the
opposition parties of our intention. That is the constitutional
law of parliament today. It is part of our conventions and I
welcome its reiteration in this case.
The issue that I am addressing myself to is really the issue of
international law, the technical base of our involvement, because
many of the high policy aspects, the political foreign policy
aspects have been already covered.
There are others like Dean Acheson, President Truman's secretary
of state, who said that survival of the state is not a matter of
law; it is a matter of power. I think most of us would prefer
President Kennedy's point that a great state wishes its actions
to be in conformity with international law, not merely in terms
of the substantive principles but also in terms of the manner of
exercise, that the more moderate controls less than force are
controlling when they are available.
Our approach to involvement in military operations abroad has
without exception been with the United Nations under the United
Nations charter. It is our great foreign minister and later
Prime Minister Lester Pearson who developed the concept of UN
peacekeeping. It was a notion implicit in chapter 6 of the
charter as drafted, but until the Suez war it was not an
actuality. As has been said in this debate, it involves the
interposition of unarmed forces between combatants who normally
have already agreed to cease hostilities and want a face-saving
way out of that.
2135
The gap between peacekeeping in chapters 6 and 7 of the charter
is a very large one. Chapter 7, the imposition of force,
gets into the areas that are under interdiction in the United
Nations charter itself. The principle of the non-use of force,
which is one of the imperative principles of the United Nations
enshrined in one of the opening sections, article 2(4) of the
charter, is also the key to chapter 7 of the charter. The use of
force is outlawed except in the limited situation of self-defence
which is strictly defined and in accordance with United Nations
practice must be authorized by UN Security Council
resolutions.
It is a fact that even in operations that have been strictly
chapter 7 operations, for example the original gulf war in
1990-91 where the authority was security council umbrella resolutions,
some very general and very many of them under which the United
Nations command force operated, there was no direct involvement
of Canadian forces in armed military offensive action. Ours was
an ancillary role.
This was true again in the activities in 1996 in which we
committed ourselves but in which we were not directly engaged.
Ours was an ancillary, supporting role. We ourselves have been
aware of the difficulty of legal definition and of establishing a
legal base when we get into offensive armed military operations.
The issue of regional organizations has been raised. It is true
that the legal justification or raison d'être of regional
military organizations today comes from the United Nations
today and only from the United Nations charter. They
cannot exceed the mandate of the United Nations charter. They
cannot exceed or transgress the stipulations limiting the use of
force which are established in the charter.
In a discussion with a European diplomat in recent days I talked
about the issue of whether NATO itself, as a regional security
organization, could not give a contractual style legal
justification within its region. The problem with that would be
within Europe itself. This would exclude the strangers to
Europe, and I use that in the geographical sense, Canada and the
United States. For our purposes the security council is our
source of power.
We are aware of the limitations in article 27(3), the veto
power given to the big powers. We are aware of the possibility
of a wilful or intemperate use of the veto power to obstruct the
primary peacekeeping role of the United Nations. As the member
for Beauharnois—Salaberry reminded himself, that was overcome by
the uniting for peace resolution in which it was established
quite clearly that the UN general assembly could fill the gap.
The case of Nicaragua and the United States establishes that the
United Nations does not cover the whole field of international
law. There remains the area of customary international law. This
is perhaps the most interesting area of international law because
it is in the new concept of international humanitarian law.
Humanitarian intervention is given a role more noble and more
altruistic than its 19th century essentially colonialist
application by European and other powers.
It is in this area in which there is not much doctrine—there is
certainly no jurisprudence constante in the sense of court decisions—that
I think the future lies. It is perhaps best there. If we have
reached a situation where common humanity cries out for
intervention, that is where the direction for support should be
placed.
My advice is to rely on the security council resolution and a
recent one where possible, but the new norms of the new
international law are there and they have a habit, the new
customary law, of galloping along to meet new realities.
2140
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to the motion calling on the House to take
note of possible Canadian peacekeeping activities in Kosovo and
possible changes to our peacekeeping activities in the Central
African Republic.
First I would like to address some comments to the issues
relating to the situation in the Central African Republic
beginning with the background to the current situation that we
are facing.
The past several years have been enormously difficult ones in
that country. In November and December of last year, free and
fair legislative elections were held. These were the first
tentative steps toward the restoration of national institutions
since dire political and economic conditions swept the country in
1993.
In recent years, unpaid soldiers mutinied on three separate
occasions and French troops were brought in to quash the
uprisings. In January 1997 the rebel soldiers and those forces
still loyal to President Patassé signed the Bangui accords which
addressed measures necessary to bring peace back to that country.
This agreement also established the Mission Interafricaine de
Surveillance de l'Application des Accords de Bangui, or commonly
referred to as MISAB.
This mission, made up of military and civilian personnel from
France and six African countries, was created in order to
maintain peace and security and to monitor the implementation of
the Bangui accords. In June 1997, MISAB was forced to put down
another mutiny against the government. Meanwhile, conditions in
the country continued to deteriorate.
By early 1998 MISAB's mandate was coming to an end and French
troops had begun their withdrawal. It was apparent, however,
that further international assistance was required if the Central
African Republic was to remain free of violence. In March of
last year the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution
1159 establishing a UN peacekeeping operation to replace MISAB.
The initial three month mandate of this new mission, the Mission
des Nations unies en Republique centrafricaine, or MINURCA, began
with 1,350 troops from six African countries, France and Canada.
As was previously outlined in the debate, MINURCA was given a
variety of roles including maintaining security in and around the
capital of Bangui, training civilian police and ensuring the
security and freedom of movement of UN personnel. This mandate
was extended in July 1998 and again the following October.
The UN Secretary General recognized the progress that had been
made in his December 1998 report to the security council
suggesting that MINURCA was a success story so far. UN
involvement has allowed the Central African Republic to become as
he said “an island of relative stability in an otherwise wartorn
region”. He reported that the mission had played an important
role in the legislative elections just a couple of months ago and
had been instrumental in helping the government prepare plans for
restructuring the army and civilian police force. As we also
know, the UN presence launched a human rights awareness campaign
and provided medical and humanitarian assistance in and around
Bangui. In addition, the stabilization of the country has led to
some economic recovery.
Nevertheless the secretary general also noted that peace remains
fragile and that the political climate is still permeated by
division and distrust. He concluded that continued MINURCA
presence is required at least until the fall of 1999 when there
will be presidential elections. The UN Secretary General, Mr.
Annan, is recommending that MINURCA's mandate should be extended
and that the force structure should remain essentially the same.
The current mandate will expire at the end of this month.
MINURCA still has a very important role to play in a slow but
steady recovery of the Central African Republic. It is important
to seize that opportunity to build on our success to date.
Canadian participation is vital in this regard as our forces are
providing the communications framework for the multinational
force.
At the joint defence and foreign affairs committee meeting last
April, members of parliament recognized the importance of this
contribution and unanimously resolved that Canada should
participate in MINURCA. Today there are compelling reasons to
support both the extension of MINURCA as well as our continued
participation.
The extension would allow MINURCA forces to continue to foster a
secure and stable environment so that the presidential elections
scheduled for later this year can take place in a free and fair
way. It would also continue to foster the process of
reconciliation and reconstruction in the Central African
Republic.
2145
The key considerations in this matter are clear. First, given
our past involvement in the region and our record of leadership
in peacekeeping and peace support operations, it is only natural
that the UN would look on us to stay the course. We are in a
position to share our valuable experience and to work with the
Africans to help them to find lasting solutions to complex the
challenges they face. Through MINURCA and other operations,
through our memberships in La Francophonie and through our
membership in an ad hoc UN group known as the friends of the
Central African Republic, Canada has already made meaningful
contributions to international efforts to maintain stability in
Africa. The UN is looking to us for help by continuing in this
effort.
Second, we are in privileged during our two year membership on
the UN security council, and during our presidency of the body
this month, to make an especially meaningful difference efforts
to improve the situation in the Central African Republic. Our
continued participation in MINURCA is a natural way of making
most of our opportunities in this sphere.
Finally, the skills and professionalism of our troops would
clearly of enormous benefit to our colleagues in MINURCA. As is
well known, Canada has contributed to almost all UN peacekeeping
missions and along the way has developed a wealth of experience.
This experience and our ability to work in English and in French
make Canadian soldiers perfectly suited to work alongside other
military contingents of MINURCA.
In the Central African Republic we have a chance to continue to
help foster stability in a troubled and fragile place. We have
the opportunity to demonstrate once again our continued ability
and willingness to promote international peace and security.
Finally, we have another chance to reflect the wishes of
Canadians who have told us that they want Canada to continue to
work toward a stable global order. In my view if the right
security and other assurances can be provided these alone are
compelling reasons for us to continue our efforts to make a
difference in the Central African Republic.
In the final moments I have I would like to briefly comment with
regard to our position in Kosovo. Earlier this day I listened
carefully to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister
of National Defence. All parliamentarians appreciated their
words of praise for our troops and about the need for Canada's
continued participation, particularly in Kosovo.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs said something that I thought
was very relevant, very simple but straightforward. He referred
to our participation not just as a peacekeeping contingent but
for civil peace building. This aspect of peace building is
extremely important. Canada has developed an international
reputation as peacekeepers as well as peace builders. It is that
reputation, that skill and that ability that we can bring to the
situation in Kosovo.
The minister also referred to the human rights situation, the
fact that young children are being drawn into military conflict
and that Canada as an internationally recognized champion of
human rights around the world is well suited. It is important
for us to play a role there. I wanted to highlight that.
As the minister concluded his speech he finally asked
parliamentarians to put on record their views on this matter. I
am pleased to have participated in this debate and I am pleased
to support the minister's call for parliamentarians to support
our participation in Kosovo as well as in the Central African
Republic.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to participate in this
special debate on sending Canadian troops to Kosovo and to the
Central African Republic to conduct peacekeeping operations. I
will not speak as an expert, I do not claim to be an expert in
external affairs or defence, but rather as the member
representing a riding in Quebec.
I have had the opportunity to participate in this kind of debate
in the past, the debate on Bosnia for instance, because soldiers
from Quebec and Canada were to be deployed. People from my
riding were among those who eventually participated in those
missions.
2150
This gives a different perspective to such situations, and I
think it is important to take the attitude we are taking. I
believe it is important to have debates like the one we are
having this evening.
Basically, what holding a debate like this one means is that we
believe in discussion rather than force. We believe that people
can often be convinced to settle difficult situations
peacefully.
If the Government of Canada wants not only to enjoy the
privileges but also to assume the obligations associated with
its election to the security council and its present position as
chair, it is important that government decisions be supported by
the House, unless the situation is extremely urgent. It allows
us to see, especially with regard to these kinds of
international issues, if there is a consensus, if a common
position can be arrived at to contribute to the quality of the
international debate.
Let us not kid ourselves. What is going on right now in
Rambouillet is a negotiating game in which the various parties
involved will be influenced by the strength of those who favour
a particular way of solving the problem over others.
When the U.S. Secretary of State went to Rambouillet, she told
the parties they had to choose between working hard to find a
compromise that would allow them to live in normal political
states, or to be caught up once again in the vicious circle of
permanent conflict. In this debate on Kosovo, it is important to
be well aware of the role of parliament.
We must also be aware of the fact that Canada must show
leadership, as I said earlier. The time has come for the
international community to take action. We have had signs, over
the last few weeks, that efforts to solve this conflict would
intensify. Members who spoke before me talked about, among other
things, the similar debate that took place in this House on
October 7, 1998. At that time, we talked about the situation in
Kosovo, about the need to adopt a humanitarian approach and to
seek a political solution.
Now, a few months later, there is still no solution on the
table. Proposals have been made. There is a will to come to an
satisfactory solution, and our interventions must be made in
that context. We have to ask ourselves what more we can bring to
the table, what contribution we can make to help both sides find
a peaceful solution.
There is an urgent need to take action, if only on a strictly
humanitarian level. Many Kosovars are already in exile. Many
people are in danger of being killed, raped or tortured. These
people are facing very difficult situations.
We must send a clear message to the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia. We must not forget the civilian populations which
have already suffered too much. It is above all for this reason
that the international community must take action.
All the geopolitical considerations are but one aspect of the
problem. However, the fundamental problem is a human one. The
fact is that we cannot treat human beings as they are being
treated right now. The international community as a whole must
be made aware of the urgent need to address the situation.
Today's debate is a way to help ensure that a consistent and
effective solution is found.
As for us, it is urgent that we take concerted action. The
minister's concern must be above all a humanitarian one.
We should not be afraid to consider every solution which could
lead to a compromise, any solution which stakeholders might
accept in order to pull out of the conflict and try to resolve
this difficult international situation. The further you are from
a problem, the more you tend to believe that solutions are easy.
But when you get closer, you can see all the implications.
There is certainly no easy solution, but there is a will to act,
so let us build on the momentum so that peace is restored as
soon as possible.
2155
So far Canada has remained firm with Mr. Milosevic. We have
shown our position very clearly. The presence of Canada and our
providing a sizeable military contingent, mainly in Bosnia, sent
a clear message about the role and the solutions we wanted to
put forward.
The Bloc Quebecois has often showed how concerned it was about
the situation in Kosovo by condemning the repressiveness,
brutality and inhuman behaviour of the Serb security forces. The
Bloc Quebecois is in favour of sending Canadian troops as part
of interposition or peacekeeping operations. The Bloc hopes that
this peacekeeping mission is the result of a negotiated
agreement.
I read in Le Monde that this is currently one of the major
problems which have not yet been settled by negotiation. The
article says that on Tuesday, three days before the deadline,
Mr. Milosevic reiterated Belgrade's opposition to the deployment
of a multinational force in Kosovo.
Saying today that we support Canadian involvement in a
peacekeeping mission, provided this mission is the result of
negotiations and helps to achieve peace, is our way of
contributing to the search for a solution.
In the meantime, NATO continues to plan for an operation. This
pressure is part of the negotiating process.
If there are no clear signals that we really intend to intervene
if necessary and to help restore sustainable peace or to at
least eliminate violence, the people who are not really
interested in this type of solution will just sit and wait.
If the international community truly supports this type of
position, and I think that tonight's debate will help Canada
make its position clearer, then I believe we can play an
interesting role.
It was clearly established that the deployment of troops is the
main issue to be resolved during the current negotiations. So,
let us send a clear message that Canada believes a peacekeeping
mission might be one of the key elements to a solution, an
approach to the future that would finally restore peace in this
part of the world.
Under these circumstances, the Rambouillet negotiations must be
the last chance negotiations, not in the sense that negotiations
will come to a stop tomorrow, but in the sense that we have to
give these people every possibility to succeed and reach an
agreement before the deadline.
As a parliament, however, the mandate we would like the
government to give our troops must be subject to some
conditions. First, the security of civilians must be our main
concern in any intervention. On this issue, I would like to
qualify the position we have heard from some members in this
House tonight. We hear a lot about the Canadian soldiers who
will take part in these activities and we seem to focus only on
their security.
I think the lives of all the people taking part in this
operation have to be protected.
Obviously, we are responsible for the lives of Canadian
citizens, but we must take a humanitarian approach so that our
first concern is the safety of individuals.
Canada's interventions must be under the aegis of recognized
international organizations, ideally the UN or, failing that,
NATO. With mandates Canada has accepted from the UN, to do
otherwise would not be acceptable in the present situation.
Specific requirements must be imposed on the parties to the
conflict and stated publicly, and armed force must be used until
the parties formally agree to meet these requirements.
We must give thought to the possibility of recognizing the
independence of Kosovo rather than writing off the idea, because
it could be one of the solutions to be explored in order to
restore peace to the region, including at the expiry of the
three-year transitional period when the Kosovar people will have
to decide on their political status.
2200
The solution may lie here. What compromise may be found at the
end of the current debate, following the exchanges and
negotiations being carried out at the moment? All we are saying
is that we must not eliminate an option at the outset. We must
look at all the possibilities and let the negotiations take
their course.
I would like to mention too that this is a time for modesty in
international diplomacy. In this conflict, which began in
1989, the international community, of which Canada is a part,
failed to recognize the Bosnian tragedy and the cost in human,
financial and political terms of the failure to intervene
forcefully when it was time to do so.
The time may have come to draw lessons from that experience.
It is high time Canada, which sits on the UN Security Council
and has been chairing its sessions since February 1, assumed the
necessary leadership to resolve this crisis. This country could
play a greater role in Rambouillet. Following this evening's
debate and the position adopted by this House, Canada's
representations will be more visible, more present and will help
find a solution.
We must also be aware of the stubbornness of certain states that
refuse to consider the declaration of independence of a wide
majority of people over a defined territory, when these people
are being oppressed. As I said earlier, no peaceful solution
should be dismissed out of hand. We must consider all the
options.
Such an attitude did not stop the inescapable independence of
Slovenia, Bosnia and Croatia, but it did not prevent a terrible
war. The international community must take note of the very
recent past and be innovative and open so that potential
conflicts can be resolved.
In Kosovo, it is important that the ongoing negotiations be
supported by the international community. It is important that
Canada fully assume its leadership role in that respect. It is
to be hoped that, following this evening's debate, the Canadian
government will be on solid ground and will feel it has the
support of all members of Parliament.
I would like to say a few words about the issue of the Central
African Republic, which is the second part of this evening's
debate. At the invitation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I
took part last fall in the meeting of African leaders in Burkina
Faso and one thing that struck me was the fragility of the
political situation in Africa. Situations can change from one
day to the next and from one country to the next.
Great care must be taken as to the form of intervention. When a
peacekeeping mission has been set up and it is felt that this
type of safeguard might be needed for a while longer, peace must
be maintained so as to avoid the situation where a decision
taken in haste or in the interests of short-term savings leads to
the outbreak of another crisis.
Let us put all the chances on our side.
The relations Canada has built up with a number of African
countries merit this attention. This is important, because this
is one continent where all the rich nations can be judged by
their international actions. Thought must be given to how
Africa can be helped to build strong governments, improve
governance, and acquire independence and the democratic tools
needed for further progress.
This evening's debate on these two issues shows us that
discussion is valuable. As parliamentarians, we have an
opportunity to bring matters to the public arena. It is
important that we make these positions known to Quebeckers and
to Canadians.
2205
This is the kind of action international peace is built on. Let
us continue to clearly show that solutions can be found by
discussing instead of fighting and making a show of strength.
In that sense, our debate tonight is of the kind that will
eventually contribute to a solution.
We must recognize that the international community ought to
intensify its effort and put extra energy into finding a
solution, so that next week, next month or two months from now,
we are not faced with a tragic situation in both of these
countries.
Canada is already involved in one of them and it would be
desirable for it to intervene in the other, especially if there
is an agreement calling for this kind of peace force.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened to the hon. member very carefully but I would like to
ask him one thing.
Given the present situation of calling this debate on such short
notice and without any briefing to government members on this
issue, perhaps a decision has already been made and this take
note debate is merely a formality. On the other hand, we are
committing our brave men and women of the defence forces to go to
a country without the proper equipment to help them fight a war
or maintain peace in that country.
We do not know what the long terms plans are. We do not know
how much it will cost. We do not know a lot of things and so
many questions have been unanswered.
Given these situations and these uncertainties, does the member
feel we should send our forces or not?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to remind
my colleague that we already had a debate on Kosovo in this
House, on October 7, 1998.
We said then that what was needed was a political settlement on
a humanitarian basis. Several months later, he proposes instead
to wait for more information, to wait and see what happens and
then to hold a debate.
Will this better serve the cause at issue here tonight? Would
this help find a solution in Kosovo? Would this help the ongoing
negotiations in Rambouillet lead to some kind of settlement?
Personally, I do not believe this is the solution.
I do believe that tonight we must send the message that should a
peacekeeping mission be organized, Canada will participate to
the best of its abilities and limited financial resources. If
the government ever spent too much money on this, it would be
held accountable, and we in this House would let them know what
we think.
This does not mean the member is wrong. It would be interesting
to be better prepared.
Indeed we might want to have an annual debate on Canadian
foreign policy as a whole. We could hold a one- or two-day debate
during which members could speak on various aspects of a
specific issue.
The minister could answer questions, not from a partisan point
of view as is done in question period, but in a more open debate
where we would see in advance what the Canadian government's
approach is with regard to the various problems encountered in
international politics. It is an interesting avenue that I think
is worth considering.
In conclusion, to answer my colleague's question, I think it is
important that we have this debate tonight in the House of
Commons, even though we do not have all the information required
on the practical and technical impacts of the intervention, so
we can send a clear and precise message to the international
community.
2210
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with
the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.
I am pleased to address the motion moved by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs regarding Canada's possible role in Kosovo and
the changes that could be made to our peacekeeping activities in
the Central African Republic.
Canada has been a promoter of internationalism for a long time.
We fought tyranny during the two world wars, and also in Korea
and in the Persian gulf. We are a founding member of the League
of Nations, the United Nations and NATO.
Over 100,000 Canadian men and women have served in peacekeeping
operations all over the world. In fact, Canada has participated
in almost every UN mission. We have made exceptional
contributions to international peace and security during
missions in various countries around the globe, including
Cyprus, Afghanistan, Rwanda and Haiti.
The Canadian forces can really be proud of that tradition of
commitment and courage. Today, we have once again an opportunity
to publicly express our support for that tradition and our
determination to maintain it.
Let me first discuss the fragile peace established by MINURCA,
the UN mission in the Central African Republic.
Established in 1998, MINURCA started carrying out its initial
three month mandate with 1,350 soldiers from Canada, France and
six African countries after a series of military mutinies in
1996 and 1997.
At a meeting of the Standing Joint Committee on Defence and
Foreign Affairs in April, committee members recognized the
contribution Canadian forces could make in the context of this
sort of mission. They unanimously passed a resolution
recommending Canada's participation in MINURCA.
MINURCA's mandate consisted in helping the government of the
Central African Republic maintain security in and around the
capital, look after the arms given up by demobilized factions,
ensure the safety and freedom of UN personnel, establish a
civilian police force and provide limited advice and technical
support for the legislative elections.
MINURCA made a lot of gains and in so doing paved the way to the
political progress necessary to national reconciliation.
Nevertheless, despite improvements, the UN secretary general
indicated that a very fragile peace had been established. He
considered that an extension of MINURCA's mandate would help
consolidate the progress made to that point. The secretary
general also pointed out that it would be vital to maintain an
ongoing UN presence to ensure that the presidential elections,
slated for the fall of 1999, are free and fair.
By deploying 47 members of the Canadian armed forces to MINURCA,
our country has made a vital contribution since the start of
this mission.
Provided that certain conditions are met, I think we should
extend our participation in MINURCA. Because we are providing
the signals component, we are pivotal to the mission. Our
bilingual soldiers are getting along well with their
counterparts from other countries also taking part in the
mission.
We have a wide range of experience to share with African nations
regarding all sorts of peacekeeping and peacemaking operations.
Our tradition of and commitment to adopting multilateral
solutions to peace and security challenges naturally inclines us
to provide assistance to others when we can change something.
And, in my view, we can still do this in the Central African
Republic.
For these reasons, we feel that a response to the secretary
general's request to extend the MINURCA mission is imperative.
2215
We also recommend that Canada continue to supply a contingent to
MINURCA, provided that security, logistical and sanitary support
services are put in place.
As for possible participation by Canada in Kosovo, although the
details are different, the broad principles are similar to those
mentioned earlier.
Members will recall that, during the special debate on Kosovo
last October, all parties agreed that the crisis had taken on a
humanitarian dimension. Members also agreed that Canada should
continue to support its allies in this struggle against
aggression and human rights violations.
I for one had given many reasons in support of Canada's
participation in the peace restoring effort in Kosovo. First, we
have an obligation to support our allies and to respond to the
acts of violence and human rights violations in Kosovo. Canada's
commitment to freedom and respect for human rights would become
meaningless if we failed to act.
Second, Canada should be part of any peacemaking force mobilized
by NATO following the negotiations because of the alliance's
proven expertise in carrying out this kind of mission. On the
eve of NATO'S 50th anniversary, we must continue to co-operate
with our NATO allies in maintaining peace and stability in
Europe.
Third, our participation would be in line with our foreign and
defence policies, which are based on promoting Canadian values
abroad and contributing to international peace and security.
Finally, I had indicated that Canada's participation would
constitute a logical extension of our prior and current
contributions to UN and NATO peace operations in that region
since 1991.
My position has not changed since our debate in October.
Unfortunately, the situation has deteriorated in many regards.
We cannot accept human rights violations like the ones in Racak,
nor can we ignore the serious geopolitical problems associated
with this crisis. I am more than ever convinced that the
international community, of which Canada is a member, must be
prepared to take action in favour of peace and stability.
During my first trip to Bosnia in 1994, I was able to see the
damage caused by years of war to the people and the country. I
witnessed the contribution of the NATO stabilisation force in
Bosnia when I went back to Bosnia in November 1997 as part of a
delegation of members from the defence and foreign affairs
committees. At the time we met with members from the Canadian
armed forces and we saw all their efforts to promote peace.
The international community has taken several steps to bring
about a peaceful solution to the conflict which has been going
on in Kosovo since hostilities first escalated in early 1998. We
are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the Rambouillet negotiations
hoping the leaders of the Albanians in Kosovo and the
representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will be
able to settle their differences at the negotiating table.
I urge all my colleagues to recognize the seriousness of the
situation both in Kosovo and the Central African Republic. Under
these circumstances, we would be well advised to maintain our
presence in MINURCA in the Central African Republic. Moreover,
if it is determined that a NATO led implementation force should
be part of the solution to the crisis in Kosovo, Canada would be
well advised to be involved in such a force.
[English]
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
renewed fighting in Kosovo has once again fixed the eyes of the
world on the Balkans and as we debate this issue in the House
tonight we do so with a real hope that a solution can be found.
I direct my remarks to this aspect of the motion we have before
us. The contact group sponsored talks between the Serbs and the
Kosovar Albanians in Rambouillet, France offer for the first time
the possibility of a solution to this struggle. We earnestly
hope the parties can come to an agreement and that the
differences between them can be resolved.
Canada must be prepared to participate in any potential peace
agreement emerging from the Rambouillet process.
2220
Just as we were ready to participate in NATO's implementation
force upon confirmation of success at the Dayton peace process,
we must be prepared to react should these talks also succeed.
As a member of the international community, as a member of the
NATO alliance and as a nation that values peace and democracy, we
have a moral obligation to participate in a NATO led peace
operation in Kosovo should such action be deemed necessary.
Peace and security in the Balkans have been under threat for
nearly a decade now and Canada has joined the international
community from the beginning to respond to those threats.
As I conceive it there are four key reasons why we should
favourably consider a role in any NATO led operation in Kosovo.
First, let me remind members that Canada has a proud multilateral
history. As a major trading nation, this country thrives in a
stable, international system where we protect our interests by
working with others. While Canada faces no immediate direct
military threat, we are directly affected by instability
elsewhere. Our security and prosperity depend on global peace
and stability.
Our willingness to play a meaningful role in international
relations is a Canadian tradition. We went to Europe to fight
for peace in 1914 and returned to do so again in 1939. After the
end of the second world war we fought for those same ideals in
Korea. In addition, we have done so for many years through our
commitments to peacekeeping. Over the last 50 years over 100,000
Canadian men and women have served in peacekeeping missions
around the world. We must continue this tradition.
Canadians are internationalists and not isolationists by nature.
We are proud of our heritage of service abroad. Our
multilateralism is an expression of Canadian values at work in
the world. We care about the course of events abroad and so we
are willing to work with other countries to maintain peace and
stability.
Second, our desire to contribute to international security has
made us active partners in the North Atlantic treaty alliance.
The North Atlantic community is one of Canada's most important
and enduring international links. We are fully committed to
collective defence and see the alliance as a force for stability,
deterrence and rapid reaction to emergency.
Canadians have kept faith with NATO and these ideals for five
decades now. We have always been ready to join our allies in
opposing threats to stability and peace.
Today we face another such situation. If NATO becomes involved
in a peace support mission in Kosovo then we should be there to
play our part. Canadian participation in a NATO peace mission to
Kosovo is in every way consistent with our commitment to peace
and security in the transatlantic region and our commitment to
the North Atlantic alliance.
Third, the Balkan region is highly volatile and represents a
serious threat to international peace and security. Should the
situation in Kosovo worsen, the risk of neighbouring states
getting drawn into the conflict would also rise. Albania, the
former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria, as well as
Greece, Turkey or even more distant powers such as Russia and
Iran could conceivably become involved.
Twice in this century brush fires in the Balkans have resulted
in war in Europe. Canadians are not blind to the lessons of
history. While the chance of another major war seems remote, in
the Balkans and elsewhere we must persevere with our efforts to
maintain international peace and security through the
reinforcement of regional stability.
This brings me to my fourth reason for continuing a Canadian
presence in this troubled region. We have been an active player
in the Balkans since war first broke out in 1991. So long as we
can make a meaningful contribution to improving the situation
there we should continue to do so.
When the warring factions agreed to a ceasefire in the former
republic of Yugoslavia in September 1991 we were among the first
participants in the European community monitoring mission that
was set up to verify the settlement, contributing up to 15 of the
mission's 350 civilian and military observers.
In 1992 the UN security council established the United Nations
protection force in Yugoslavia, UNPROFOR, as an arrangement to
facilitate a negotiated settlement in an atmosphere of peace
and security. Canada contributed two major units, a logistics
battalion and personnel for various headquarters positions.
UNPROFOR's mandate included the protection and demilitarization
of the three UN protected areas, deimplementation of various
ceasefire agreements in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, the
delivery of humanitarian aid and the protection and monitoring of
the no fly zones and the UN safe areas.
2225
NATO's implementation force or IFOR was the next significant
step to establishing peace and stability in the Balkan region.
The purpose of IFOR was to enforce compliance by the warring
parties in the former Yugoslavia with the Dayton peace accord.
Canada contributed more than 1,000 personnel, including a brigade
headquarters, an infantry company, an armoured squadron, an
engineer squadron, a military police platoon and support
personnel.
Building on IFOR successes was NATO's stabilization force or
SFOR. Responding to a UN security council resolution, the North
Atlantic council authorized in late 1996 a NATO operation to
support the further implementation of the Dayton peace agreement.
SFOR's mission, still being carried out today, is to provide a
continued military presence to deter renewed hostilities and to
stabilize and consolidate peace in Bosnia-Hercegovina. There are
currently about 1,300 Canadian troops deployed with SFOR. Our
contingent, deployed throughout an area roughly the size of
Prince Edward Island, includes a mechanized infantry battalion
group, national support and command elements and an engineer
design and works team. Canada also provides personnel to various
multinational staff positions in SFOR headquarters.
Our other operations in the Balkans that Canadian forces
personnel have or are participating in include a NATO led
operation enforcing compliance of the no-fly zone over
Bosnia-Hercegovina, the enforcement of a United Nations embargo
of the former Yugoslavia, the United Nations mission of observers
in Prevlaka and the UN preventive deployment force in the former
Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. We have also been contributing to
a variety of multinational operations in Kosovo.
We currently have 23 troops deployed with the OSCE Kosovo
verification mission, established to verify compliance by all
parties to the October 1998 Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement.
Our contributions to current NATO operations in Kosovo include
60 personnel with the extraction force ready to remove OSCE
verifiers and other designated persons from Kosovo should it
prove necessary, eight Canadian forces personnel deployed as
headquarters staff with the Kosovo air verification mission, and
130 personnel and 6 CF-18s with operation echo, ready to
participate in any NATO operations.
The many operations and missions I have just outlined are
illustrative of Canada's strong and continued commitment to
maintaining peace in the Balkan region. More than 20,000
Canadian forces personnel have rotated in and out of that
theatre. We clearly have invested significant personnel and
resources in order to promote peace and security there and have
made a genuine and meaningful difference.
We should maintain that investment because more remains to be
done, as events of the past few weeks have clearly shown. Large
refugee flows, political struggles between various ethnic groups,
continued human rights abuses and the ever present danger of
widespread war are all illustrative of just how much more work
the international community needs to do. With the right kind of
agreement out of the negotiations in Rambouillet, we can and
should once again shoulder our share of the international efforts
in the region.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
given the situation we are facing today, let us keep the question
to one side that the brave men and women of the armed forces are
not well equipped. They do not have enough facilities to go to
those countries. Keeping aside the question of how much it is
going to cost us, keeping aside what our long term plans are, I
would like to find out from the member if he knows how much
involvement we are asking from the European Community or the
other affected or related countries to deal with this issue in
their own backyard.
I would also like to find out from the member what strategy we
have to deal with the regional security in that area?
Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond
to the hon. member's question. First of all, with respect to the
issue of how many troops would be provided by other European
countries, I think it is safe to say that still is part of the
negotiating process within the NATO member countries.
Unfortunately we have not yet got an agreement at Rambouillet
although there are increasing signs that the Americans, the
French and the British are putting significant pressure on the
negotiating parties to come up with an agreement.
2230
Clearly when there was discussion about the number of troops
that would be involved, the numbers were somewhere between 25,000
and 30,000 troops. It is obvious that the Europeans would be
required to shoulder a significant amount of that burden.
A number of my colleagues and I on the defence committee had the
opportunity to visit Germany recently to get briefings on what
was happening with the German armed forces and their views along
with the foreign ministry officials' views of what was going on
in Kosovo. They understand fully the need for more European
participation in a Kosovo operation. They understand as well as
we do that if the situation in Kosovo is allowed to deteriorate,
then the stability of the Balkans itself comes into question.
That is something that no members of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization would want to have happen.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder what the Liberal member across the way thinks about the in
excess of $7 billion worth of cuts his government has made to the
Canadian military and whether or not he thinks that assists them
in their mission overseas.
Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that when this
government took office back in 1993 a number of very difficult
decisions had to be made. There were cuts to transfer payments.
There were across the board cuts in many government departments.
And yes, there were cuts to the military.
We saw in the budget an increase in funds for health care, a
rejuvenation of many programs of departments of the government,
including national defence. We are going to see in the years to
come continued reinvestment in Canadian programs and services.
In terms of the ability of the military to do the job in both
Bosnia and Kosovo, I have the greatest of respect for our
commanders in the field both in Canada and overseas. I had the
opportunity to see them in action during the ice storm and with
my colleagues on the national defence committee when we visited
Bosnia last May.
I say to the hon. member across the way that they are well
equipped in Bosnia. They are fully able to do the job and they
are doing a tremendous job over there. If Canadians had the
opportunity to see what our troops face from day to day they
would be extremely proud as I was to see that maple leaf flag
flying over the camp at Velika Kladusa, in Zgon and in other
camps where the Canadians soldiers are based. They are doing a
tremendous job. They have the equipment and they are getting
better equipment.
Over the years I think the Canadian forces can look forward to
even greater triumphs in terms of peacekeeping and contributing
to world peace and security.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the
folks back home I am going to give them a thumbnail sketch of why
this is going on.
This evening we are debating whether or not Canada should be
sending troops to Kosovo and the Central African Republic. That
is the basic gist of why we are here.
Our servicemen should be commended for their loyalty and
dedication to Canada. Even though their morale is at an all-time
low they should be commended for their continued commitment to
the armed forces. Despite everything else, it is nothing short of
outstanding when we consider what they are making do with under
the circumstances. My hat tips to the Canadian armed forces and
I appreciate what they do.
2235
To give a little background on the issue, the ethnic Albanian
majority in Kosovo is mounting an ongoing campaign to liberate
Kosovo from Serbian control. The Serbs meanwhile are mounting an
offensive against the ethnic Albanians in what appears to be an
attempt at ethnic cleansing. The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, NATO, has served notice that unless Serbian
aggression toward ethnic Albanians in Kosovo ceases, NATO will
use military force against Serbian military positions until the
Serbs back down. Canada has been asked to participate in any NATO
action in Kosovo.
Further to the issue of Kosovo, the population of Kosovo is some
90% Albanian and 10% Serb. Kosovo had political autonomy within
Yugoslavia until 1989 when that autonomy was abolished. The
region is of great historic and symbolic significance to the
Serbs who lost their national independence to the Turks in the
battle of Kosovo in 1389. I will say that date again, 1389. That
is a long time ago, over 600 years. I guess some are beginning
to wonder whether a few even though passionate but poorly
equipped Canadians are going to be able to rectify a situation
that has been more than 600 years to the boiling point.
I would like to quote someone who I think has relevance with
regard to this debate, General Lewis MacKenzie. He stated that a
full parliamentary debate had to be held on this issue. In his
words, “I would like mothers and fathers of soldiers and spouses
of soldiers if and when they are killed to feel that it was a
justifiable cause that only can be determined after a public
debate”.
I would also like to touch on the fact that one of the Reform
caucus members, the member of parliament for Calgary Northeast
and the Reform Party defence critic, has been quoted recently
that if the number of our forces drops below 60,000, as some
people are saying, it is unrealistic to participate in activities
such as Kosovo. I am going to talk about that during my speech.
Despite how badly some of our forces would like to see time in
the field, and I can certainly understand that, nonetheless they
know and I know, and I am going to talk about it this evening,
how they are suffering because of the lack of proper equipment
which they need to be able to get the job done.
Let us run down a top 10 list, a thumbnail sketch of why there
are problems and then I will put flesh on the bones of that.
First, sending our troops to Kosovo is going to put them at
risk. That is always the case with military operations.
Furthermore the current chief of the defence staff and his
predecessor both have said that Canada is not combat ready. I
repeat that, the chief of the defence staff and his predecessor
have both said that Canada is not combat ready.
Why is that? I am going on to my next point. It is because
this Liberal government is starving our military. That is why
this is going on. How has the government been starving the
military? The Liberals have siphoned off over $7 billion from the
military budget since they have come to office. That is why there
is a problem.
The government has cut a third of our military, over 30,000
personnel. I guess we could say it all started with Pierre
Elliot Trudeau and not having a love or appreciation of the armed
forces, but the song goes on with the Liberals.
The government is not giving our troops the tools they need to
do the job. What type of tools are we looking at? Artillery
that is 25 years old, helicopters 35 years old, tanks 35 years
old. They barely have the funds to train properly never mind an
insufficient budget for live firing. They cannot even do live
firing. I have been on some of these ranges. It is absurd that
we are training troops without the ability to do live firing with
live ammunition.
2240
To be a player in international politics we have to pay the
price. If we want to have power and influence to make peace in
places like Kosovo, we have to pay that price. The price is
combat capable armed forces.
The Liberals have failed our hardworking military. They are
starving our military the funds they need to do their excellent
work. This Liberal irresponsibility, inadequate training and old
equipment are putting our troops in jeopardy and the blood of our
troops will be in their hands.
That is a brief thumbnail sketch. I am going to put some meat on
the bones of this.
What type of Canadian contribution to a NATO force is envisaged?
What size of force is envisaged? What equipment will it have?
How can parliamentarians discuss in an informed way what Canada's
role should be when they do not know these facts? We are being
asked to send troops but because of all the problems with the
funding, the equipment and everything else we are going into this
blind. And it is not as if that has not been done before by this
government, has it?
Political decisions are being made by the leading western powers
at negotiations in France, at which Canada has almost no voice.
Why do we have no voice? Because our influence in NATO has
eroded so badly.
When I was in Esquimalt last year I was told that we were going
to be removed from the grid for undersea mapping because we were
no longer in the submarine club. The United States would love to
have an ally to share that information with and to participate in
games with so they could test their capability. But when we no
longer have any ability to provide information for that, they can
no longer justify keeping us on the grid. Because of that
pressure, the government went ahead and purchased the bare
minimum needed to stay part of the grid.
That is the reason Canada is a joke when it comes to things like
NATO. That is a travesty.
We want to participate in a NATO military force but the forces
we have are seriously deficient. We have no combat helicopters.
We have no heavy lift helicopters. We have mostly light armoured
vehicles, not heavy armoured vehicles. We have no ability to
withdraw or reinforce our troops in a crisis due to the lack of
any strategic lift. Those are serious problems with this
mission. The equipment of the forces is a real disgrace. It is
rusting out.
One example is the Griffon helicopters. The auditor general
reported that they have inadequate lift capability. They have
poor reconnaissance capability. They can lift army artillery
only for very short distances. They have a buildup of static
electricity. Yet these are the helicopters we are planning to
deploy in Kosovo. They cannot mount guns. They are unable to be
used for the purposes for which they were bought.
I list off all these things and the government is still
considering going ahead and doing these things when it is not
properly equipping the forces.
We have already one battalion group, 1,300 troops in Bosnia. On
February 9 the deputy chief of defence staff stated before the
House of Commons foreign affairs and defence committee that he
could have no definitive answer to the question of how many
troops could be sustained overseas. Yet we are increasing our
contingent. I know the people in the armed forces would like to
see time in the field. They know and I know and the Canadian
public now knows that they are being sent into these operations
without having what they need to do the job.
That all being considered, Canada because of all these
considerations is going to be reliant on our allies for logistics
in helicopter support. What other option is there? We are
playing Russian roulette with the lives of Canadian troops
because we do not have the proper things to give them in this
particular situation.
A ground invasion of Kosovo has already been ruled out. If a
ground invasion has been ruled out, what is left is an air only
campaign. There is a question of whether or not that is likely
to achieve the desired results. With an air only campaign, we are
sending in helicopters that are ill fitted for the mission.
It has already been ruled out that there cannot be a ground
campaign. It will have to be an air only campaign. Yet we are
sending troops into the area without having appropriate air
support. I do not know how that makes any sense. But I guess
that is Liberal logic when it comes to the armed forces.
2245
I am going to talk about Canada's national interest. We do have
national interests in the Balkans. We certainly have a strong
interest in regional stability. We have an interest in ensuring
that the instability in the Balkans does not spill over into
neighbouring countries. But the question is are these vital
national interests? Whether these are vital national interests
has never been adequately addressed by our government.
Should Canadians die to ensure the stability of the Balkans?
This is a sobering question. But we have to reflect on the fact
that 17 Canadians have already died in Bosnia and more than 100
have been wounded. How big a sacrifice can Canada be expected to
make if our vital interests are not at stake and especially if
this government is not willing to give them the supplies,
material and equipment they need to be able to make sure they are
not putting their lives at any more risk than they absolutely
need to?
The national interest considerations need to be at the forefront
when troop deployment decisions are taken by any Canadian
government. We owe that to our troops and we owe it to the
Canadian people.
Reform has laid out six criteria that should be met with regard
to committing and deploying Canadian troops. One, there is a
serious threat to international stability and that diplomatic
efforts have been exhausted. Two, that so far as possible there
is multinational support for military action. Three, that there
is a workable plan and strategy for military action to resolve
the issue. Four, that the plan includes a well defined mission
and a clear definition of Canada's role. Five, that the role
expected of Canada is within our fiscal and military capability.
Six, that there is a command and control arrangement satisfactory
to Canada.
I have run through six questions and we do not have satisfactory
fulfilment of these six criteria for the deployment of Canadian
forces, all this considering that we have a crippled armed
forces.
I am going to talk about some of the problems we have. This is a
question that was posed a few days ago to the defence minister in
the House of Commons. I quote part of it: “Since the Liberal
government has come into power it has cut over $7 billion from
the defence budget. The Sea Kings were grounded again and unable
to fly. Pilots are taking risks, undue risks, flying old
equipment”.
When that question was posed, and we all know the problems that
have happened with the Sea Kings, what did the Minister of
National Defence say when he was questioned on this important
subject? The minister said: “We are developing a procurement
strategy”. Men are dying in the field. I am happy to know that
our defence minister is developing a procurement strategy. Good
for him.
During the election of 1993 the Prime Minister promised he would
cancel the Conservative government's EH-101 contract valued at
$5.8 billion for 50 helicopters. Those are 1992 estimates. The
cost of the promise was approximately $530 million due to
cancellation costs and penalties.
It is ironic that the new helicopters are similar in design to
the cancelled EH-101s. As a matter of fact, the similarities
between the models are so prevalent that it forces us to question
what the real motives behind the Liberal's 1993 election promise
were. This is an important issue and it will not go away. It will
only get worse.
There was a news conference in Shearwater regarding ignition
problems with our 35 year old Sea Kings. There have been seven
engine failures in a month, six on start-up and one on taxi.
This is the same engine of the ill fated Labrador. We all
remember the complications when we actually had troops die.
2250
Now we have unreliable aging aircraft and the government is
putting lives before budget dollars with this. This is a
question that was posed to the Minister of National Defence. What
did he say when he was asked about our 35 year old helicopters
that have had seven engine failures? He said: “In this case
there have been starter problems with the engines when they start
them on the ground”. Bravo. Where else do you start helicopter
engines but on the ground? Are we supposed to start them in
mid-air? Do helicopters just start a thousand feet in the air
and then plummet to the earth killing the people on board? I do
not think so but our good old Minister of National Defence seems
to think that just might be the case.
My conservative estimate of what Somalia cost us is $30 million
although it could have been higher.
I will talk to the issue of tanks because we have terribly old
tanks. The United States was willing to give us Abrams tanks. I
was told this by people in the U.S. embassy and by our own
Canadian soldiers. Rather than mothball them in the desert in
Arizona, the American government was willing to give us these its
and willing to pay for maintenance costs because we are their
ally. This government turned down those tanks. It would rather
have them sit in mothballs in Arizona than use this equipment,
and it bellyaches about funding. Shame on the government.
In my riding CFB Calgary was closed. There were a thousand
acres of land. The troops were moved up to Edmonton where there
were only 640 acres of land. It does not sound like a very wise
move in terms of the land space but nonetheless that was done. I
have it written down that there was a $65 million price tag but
there are speculations it cost a lot more than that. All this
was going on yet our government continued to cut troops and put
them into commitments it knows it will not be able to properly
fund.
The government wants to go ahead and send our troops to Kosovo.
I know some troops want to see time in the field, and I
appreciate that. I could feel that when I was on the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
I wish I had more time. I could go on about other UN
involvements we have had. For example, they have not solved the
problems in Angola even though the UN tries to play international
cop and does not seem to have what it takes to do it.
I could go on about who will have to pay for this. The Globe
and Mail has talked about the fact that paying for these types
of operations with a shrinking military budget means there will
have to be more troop cuts, that we will have to rotate more of
our troops and they will be more tired and more prone to
accidents and fatalities on the job.
I could talk about the search and rescue problems we have in
Esquimalt. We cannot do our own search and rescue. We have to
rely on Americans because of budget cuts and because we do not
have helicopters. I could go on and on but I have wrapped up my
time. I wish the best of luck to our men and women in the armed
forces. I only wish the government appreciated them more and
funded them properly.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate this evening,
however late the hour, to share with members of the House some
thoughts on this important issue. I do not believe the last
member who spoke bothered to address the second aspect of this
question, whether we should continue our troop presence in the
Central African Republic.
This debate is to deal with two things, whether we should retain
our troops in the Central African Republic and whether we should
make our troops available in the event, and only in the event,
they are needed for an operation in Kosovo. I would like to
address those two items.
2255
The first item is dealt with more simply. It is a smaller
number of troops, some 65 or 75 troops, who are in a
communications position in the Central African Republic.
It is important to speak to this because it shows the type of
commitment that Canada and our armed services are making toward
peacekeeping in the world. We need to keep our troops in the
Central African Republic.
There is an election to be held there shortly. We have
responsibilities as a member of the security council to ensure
peace and security in the world. We have chosen to be on the
security council. We must accept the responsibilities that go
with that post.
It seems to me that Canadians and our armed services as well
would be anxious to serve and to continue to serve in the Central
African Republic to ensure that an election will be held there in
a way that will guarantee establishment of a free and democratic
country there. It is one of the best things we are doing in the
world today where we are able to provide to the world some of the
finest people in terms of peacekeeping.
They are some of the finest examples of men and women who are
able to work in different communities and difficult situations in
order to bring their expertise, particularly in that area which
requires bilingual expertise which is the perfect example of what
we have in our services, and make it work in a way which will
ensure peace in that African country.
It would be a tragedy if the official opposition were to have
its way and, for the reasons given by the last speaker in talking
about the inability of us to survive and provide the services
necessary to keep those troops there, we were to withdraw from
that essential function.
Of far greater import is the debate over the issue of whether we
should be prepared to stand and commit troops to Kosovo.
I will share with the Canadian public and members of the House
an experience which I had in January this year which makes me
believe it is not only our duty and obligation but it is common
sense for us to make available our forces for that operation.
I will address at the end of my comments the observations of the
hon. member who preceded me that we do not have the capacity to
make the commitment I would ask our troops to make.
I happened to be in Vienna at the OSCE parliamentary assembly in
January this year. A group of us came together. The chairman of
the Russian Duma, a member of the U.S. Congress, a French member
of parliament, I and other members of parliaments from around the
world. We crafted a resolution on Kosovo in which we sought to
bring both sides together. We criticized both sides for their
excesses and asked that both sides come together to achieve a
peaceful solution to the dispute there.
As we were leaving Vienna 45 innocent Kosovar civilians were
taken out by the Serbian police in charge of that country and
shot point blank, massacred. I realized then that all the talk,
all the words in all the parliaments of the world in the end
cannot change a situation if we are not willing to back up at
some point our words with some force and some action.
That is where we are at tonight. That is what we have to
determine in this House. Are we, as representatives of the
Canadian people, willing to commit our troops, part of ourselves,
to the process of trying to bring peace to Kosovo?
We would not be where we are in the process of trying to bring
peace to that region if Mr. Milosevic had not been told that
there will be an employment of force. We need the presence of
troops. We need the threat of troops to kickstart the
Rambouillet process. That is now working. We need the presence
of troops ultimately to ensure that process will work.
2300
We have seen before Mr. Milosevic and his lack of respect of
international engagements. Nothing short of the presence of an
enforceable mechanism to make sure that he will adhere to his
responsibilities, if he enters into a political arrangement, will
make any sense in that arena. We have learned that through
bitter experience in the Bosnian theatre and we are learning that
today in Kosovo.
Are Canadian troops needed for that? The Reform Party may well
take the position that everything I have said is correct but that
there should not be Canadian troops there. It is true that we
need a larger presence of European troops. This is a European
problem and Europeans should be in a position to deal with these
issues themselves.
However, there are two features we must bear in mind. We as
Canadians have a specific responsibility in peacekeeping because
we have contributed to the United Nations role in peacekeeping
and we have made a specific and an enormous worldwide
contribution to that area. When we look at the contribution we
have made in Bosnia we recognize that this is exactly where
Canadians can make a difference.
I believe that a force in Kosovo will not be able to make the
difference that it makes with Canadian troops there. I have had
the opportunity and privilege to visit our troops in Bosnia. Our
troops are serving there with great pride, with enormous
professionalism and with great expertise. With all deference to
the member who spoke before me, they are doing so knowing they
are equipped to do their job, are able to do their job, are
trained to do their job and are proud to do their job. The
Canadian people are proud of the job they are doing there.
Canadian troops will make a difference in the event that troops
are required in Kosovo. I urge our government to ensure, if and
when the call is made under the UN mandate and through a NATO
operation to provide troops to make sure that peace will come in
Kosovo so normal men and women can survive and live decent lives
without being threatened with arbitrary execution or being
expelled from their homes, that we will be standing with our
allies and with, I hope, as in Bosnia, not only NATO allies but
Russian troops and troops from other parts of the world who will
join us to try to bring peace to this troubled region.
I have participated in many of these debates on similar subjects
about whether we should commit our forces to the betterment of
humanity and to the advancement of the Canadian goals of
tolerance and of making a better world. In each one of these
debates the Reform Party has taken the same position: “Oh, yes,
we think this is a good idea but we are not equipped. We should
not be there. Our men and women should not be exposed to this
because they are not equipped”.
Do Reform Party members go and talk to our men and women? Have
they been to Bosnia as we have and talked to them? Have they
consulted our troops? The last member was honest enough to
constantly say “I know that our troops would like to do this but
we do not think they should do it”. He is a greater expert in
the knowledge and understanding of what our troops are able to do
and what they would like to do than themselves.
Let him consult our troops or, even better, let him and his
colleagues come with me and my colleagues to meetings of the OSCE
general assembly, for example, in which the Reform Party refuses
to participate. They will not come and talk to colleagues from
Albania, Kosovo, Russia and other countries. They do not believe
in that. No, they do not deign to travel. It is not worthy of
them to be involved in debates with the other members of the
world community so that they could have a better understanding of
what is taking place.
They were not there in Copenhagen where you and I were, Mr.
Speaker, when we debated the Kosovo issue this year in the OSCE
parliamentary assembly. There was no Reform Party member there
because they chose not to come. They do not wish to be
associated with discussions of these issues.
They do not wish to taint their debate in this House with any
sense of knowledge or understanding of these issues. They choose
to sit here wrapped in a blanket of ignorance that enables them
to take the position they are taking in the House tonight. I
think that is most unfortunate.
2305
Let them come out of that eggshell they are in. Let them come
with us, meet the people, come to the OSCE this summer, come to
St. Petersburg, meet colleagues from other parliaments around the
world, get an understanding of the problems that other people
have to deal with, and we will be able to deal with those
together as we could as Canadians, as our troops will be dealing
with when they are there on the ground with their Canadian values
and their Canadian sense of how to make things work for a better
world and for better conditions for people to live in.
I read with great interest an article which the member of
parliament for Red Deer, who is the spokesperson for the Reform
Party, wrote in the National Post recently in which he
accused the government of a failure of being willing to take a
strong stand on issues. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, he
wrote, “is interested in soft power, will do nothing, is
cowardly, cavilling, unwilling to take a stand”. The world in
his view was a Manichaean one, one of darkness and of light, and
we in the Liberal Party were unwilling to ever take a stand on
these issues.
Where are we tonight in this debate when members of the Reform
Party faced with a true, articulated and clear issue of darkness
are unwilling to take a stand? They are the ones who are
unwilling to deal with this. They are the ones that are of soft
power because they are soft on understanding the nature of the
way in which the world operates. They will not participate in it
in a way which enables them to be a real player.
I would like to leave members of the House with this thought. If
we as Canadians are to play the role in the security council,
which we have just accepted this year for the next two years, the
best thing we can do is contribute to the peacekeeping conditions
in which the United Nations and in which other international
institutions are able to keep the peace. If we do not contain
situations such as Kosovo and situations such as prevail in the
Central African Republic, conditions will prevail in the world
which will in turn come and overwhelm us in this country.
It is for that reason we must go forward in this debate. It is
that reason we must adopt the position of enabling our troops to
be available in the sense of availing the world community of a
chance to make peace for the sake of the people who live in
Kosovo, all the people of Europe, and ultimately the people of
the world if we are to have a better life for all of us.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier I listened to all the speeches made by members of the
House. I particularly admired the speeches of two members of our
party, the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for
Calgary Northeast. They have thrown light on this issue. They
brought to the attention of the House very good issues and I
really appreciated listening to those issues.
Just now I listened to the hon. member from the government side.
He is the chairman of the foreign affairs and international trade
committee and I had the opportunity to work with him. I highly
appreciate his knowledge and his experience. He was bragging
about the Liberal government's achievements and the direction it
is giving us on this issue. He was almost name calling with
regard to the official opposition's foreign critic.
Putting that aside, I would like to find out if the hon. member
could throw some light on what diplomatic initiatives the Liberal
government has taken since we had a take note debate in the House
on October 7, 1998. What preventive measures has his government
taken in Kosovo or the Central African Republic?
2310
I would also like to know why his party has not given any
briefing about the situation in Kosovo and the Central African
Republic to members of parliament. We had no briefing and I
would like to find out why not. If the hon. member is so proud
of the government's record and if he is so proud of the $7.8
billion cuts made to the defence forces, why is he pleading that
we should send them whenever we get a 911 call from any country
in the world?
I would like to find out why briefings were not given to members
of parliament. Also I would like to know why this issue is not
put for a vote in the House. If the member is so clear in his
ideas, why is there a take note debate and why is there is no
vote?
The hon. member bragged about peacekeeping initiatives. When we
send forces to the Central African Republic and Kosovo what will
they keep there? Will it be peace? Which peace? Is peace
existing there? Did we make peace first?
I would like to find out from the member how can he keep
something which does not exist there. It is common sense that
one can keep something when something exists. First we have to
make peace. Then we can keep peace. There is no peace. I would
like to ask the hon. member for answers to these questions.
Mr. Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his questions. He says we cannot keep peace where there is no
peace, but in fact the presence of the forces in the Central
African Republic is establishing at this particular point an
important sense of stability in that country to enable democratic
elections which if we withdraw at this time will make it
impossible. The member will probably agree with me that it would
be very foolish for us to withdraw at this crucial time when we
can keep those troops there until such time as the elections can
be held.
The Central African Republic is a special case. I appreciate
that his comments are more directed toward the problem of Kosovo
because that is the more difficult one and the one which will
require the greater number of troops. It is precisely the threat
of the use of force in Kosovo which is enabling us to get to the
point where we may have peace in that region. We may establish a
humanitarian regime for people in which to live.
I would suggest to the member that he would have to agree.
Whether or not, as his party seems to be saying in the House
tonight, Canadians should be involved, would he intellectually
say nobody should be involved? Would he say the United States
should not be involved or the Europeans should not be involved?
In fact the view of his party is that it would be best if
everybody stood back and let this whole thing just blow up.
Should we let the Albanians and the Serbs go to war with one
another, spilling over into other regions, spilling over into
Bosnia where we have our own troops that would be at risk?
I took it from the position of his party in the House tonight
that I do not think he would go that far. I think he would say
some force is necessary but let it not be us that provides the
force, which I do not think is an appropriate response in these
circumstances.
As for votes in the House in take note debates, I cannot speak
to that. That is an agreement the leaders of the House have
taken over the years. It may well be that at some point a vote
in the House would be appropriate for these debates. At the
moment these are called take note debates. They give an
opportunity for the members to share views as we are able to do
tonight in a way that is helpful to the government to understand
issues without necessarily requiring a vote.
As for our party, which he says should be giving a briefing to
his party, I do not know whether his party would really want to
have a briefing from our party. If that is what he would like, I
am sure I would be willing to share with him the views of the
minister if he had attended the foreign affairs committee meeting
this afternoon where the minister came before the committee and
was with us over two hours.
We discussed this issue and the government has always tried to
make documents and information available to every member of the
House. Every one of us would like to have more information. I
share with him the desire to have more information, but I do not
think we can say that the government side or the government as
such is keeping information from members of the House. I wish
that he had had an opportunity to be with us. His colleagues
were there in the foreign affairs committee this afternoon where
we had a discussion of this matter with the foreign minister.
Finally, what are the diplomatic initiatives which Canada has
taken? Canada takes an active role in the OSCE, the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe, an organization which
has been directly involved in the Kosovo issue. It is perhaps
the most significant organization involved in Kosovo. Canada has
played an important role in the OSCE. I know from my own work
there that there are many European and other governments which
would like to see Canada play an even larger role. But we are
not a European country.
2315
We are a North American country. We have limited resources.
But within those resources we play a very important role and we
have provided observers in Kosovo. We have provided police in
Kosovo. In the course of dealing with this situation we have
provided an enormous amount of energy on behalf of the department
and on behalf of the minister to try to bring the sides together,
to persuade the KLA, the armed wing of the Kosovars, to moderate
their demands and to persuade the Serbian government of Mr.
Milosevic to behave in a civilized way in a part of a country
where they are supposed to be managing their own citizens and not
treat it as an occupying army.
We have been active in that and I am surprised to hear the
member suggest that we have not, because what is curious is that
when we do get active in these files we get criticized for
spending our time and energy on them, and our money on them, from
the party on the other side which does not wish to spend any
money, but then when nothing is done it says to us we are doing
nothing.
A great deal is being done by this government in working on this
file. A great deal has been done by our ambassador at the OSCE.
A great deal is being done by all our diplomatic corps in
supporting our NATO allies and other in the Rambouillet process
and I am surprised that the member would seek to use this
partisan moment to criticize what we are trying to do in this
very important matter.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in
this take note debate concerning the situation in Kosovo and the
situation in the Central African Republic.
This debate was arranged at very short notice and without any
briefing to members of parliament.
Minutes ago I asked a question. I did not get the answer. I
wanted to ask the question to any other member in the House to
find out if anyone can explain or highlight the diplomatic
initiative or the preventive measures this government has taken
to address the situation in Kosovo or in the Central African
Republic, particularly in Kosovo since we had a debate in the
House on October 7. From then until now what initiatives have
they taken? I did not get an answer to that question.
The government should have been pursuing initiatives long ago,
at least when we saw the signs of the problem occurring. But it
failed to take any initiative.
Now we know that plan A has failed. Plan A is the diplomatic
initiative or preventive measures. Even though the government did
not pursue it aggressively, we are asked to go to plan B. Plan B
is military action. I call it the bitter medicine for
peacekeeping.
I ask the foreign affairs minister to look into the
possibilities of peacemaking missions rather than peacekeeping
missions in the long run.
The Central African Republic is the poorest of the poor
countries. I lived in west Africa. I was a university professor
in Liberia, west Africa. I have visited many countries in west
Africa. What I saw in the bloody civil wars were 10-year old,
12-year old children with AK-47s. I am talking the real guns
which can kill, not toys.
2320
The point is those guns are not made in those countries. Some
countries in the weapons trade have manufactured those guns and
then sold them to the poor people in those countries. That is how
they get the guns. I wonder what action the United Nations, the
international community and, for that matter, Canada have taken
to prevent infiltration of those war causing weapons,
particularly in poverty ridden countries.
People have problems putting food on the table in the evening.
Their families are starving but they get guns to fight. How can
they afford to buy those weapons? What have we done to stop the
weapons trade? Absolutely nothing.
Some countries sell weapons to those countries and then they
send in peacekeeping missions. How appalling this situation is.
We need to find sustainable, long term and real solutions to
these civil and tribal wars. We should help promote democracy and
education in those countries. A democratic power in any country
should lead to justice. Justice should lead to love. People
should love each other when they get justice because they are
satisfied. No one has worked on these things. When power leads
to justice and justice leads to love that is how we get rid of
hatred, poverty, ignorance and bloody civil wars which we face
every now and then. It is a sad story.
Let me give the House an analogy. When a pressure cooker is
heated steam is produced. To contain that steam we put weight on
the pressure cooker. Here we try to put military pressure to
contain that steam. People of these countries are already deeply
divided based on their ethnic backgrounds or on their tribal
origins. If we do not want that steam have we ever taken any
action to remove the heat from under the pressure cooker? No, I
do not think so. Have we ever resolved an issue by solving the
problem before it explodes? No, we have not.
In most African countries, including central Africa, ethnic and
tribal problems lead to these bloody civil wars. Did any member
of the international community do anything to stop the branding
of the people based on their ethnic origin, based on the tribes
they belong to? That is a root cause of the civil war and tribal
wars in those countries.
In African countries when people meet and greet each other
either they recognize what tribes they belong to or they ask them
what their tribe is, whether it is Loma or Mandingo or whatever.
What education has been given to them to recognize the similarity
among them rather than dwelling on the differences among them? No
one has done anything. These people have similarities. No one
has made them recognize the similarities.
What can we expect from the Canadian government? There are no
efforts to do that even in our country. This government
encourages the concept of hyphenated Canadians. With the
hyphenation concept we divide people, not unite them.
Unfortunately this government has done absolutely nothing on
that.
2325
Our government, I am sorry to say, lacks a proactive role. It
reacts to a situation but does not take a proactive role. This
government does very little to prevent conflicts in the world.
But it is always on the front line making decisions to send our
troops without worrying about what situation they are in or
whether they have enough equipment and facilities, whether they
have consulted elected officials of the House of Commons. The
decision is made before that.
We try to resolve political problems by providing foreign aid or
by sending military personnel. These are the two solutions we
have to resolve these problems anywhere in the world. We either
send foreign aid dollars or we send the military. That is not
appropriate.
The government needs a broader agenda for peacekeeping and
peacemaking issues. Repeatedly there have been serious
situations in countries like Rwanda, Nigeria, Bosnia, Haiti,
Iraq, Sierra Leone, Liberia and the list goes on. Unfortunately
this situation will happen again.
I am sorry the United Nations has the inability to respond in a
timely fashion. I recognize there is a vacuum and we have to
show leadership. Britain, France, Russia and the United States,
which was kept busy for one year by Monica, cannot do that.
We are in a strong position as a nation to be mediators in the
world. We belong to NATO. We belong to the security council. We
are a member of the G-8 countries. We have sent many
peacekeeping missions around the world. We are in a perfect
position to lead. But this government does not have leading
capabilities.
This government is in a better position to lead if it wanted to.
We can take peacemaking initiatives in the world. But
unfortunately this government lacks those initiatives. There is
no leadership. Here is another vacuum.
This is a very important issue but there is also another
important issue. If we are planning to take any military action
and if we are committing our military support to NATO that means
we are committing men and women of the Canadian forces. Many
questions deserve answers before we should commit anyone or
anything anywhere.
The main question arises here as to whether we are well
equipped. Obviously the answer is no. Based on what we have
been hearing in the last few months, the answer is no. The
defence minister asked for $700 million but he received only $325
million in the 1999 budget. Yesterday the minister received less
than half the money he wanted.
I also learned that the Canadian forces have 35 year old Sea
King helicopters, decades old tanks, 100 useless tactical
helicopters, 20 to 45 year old jets and we are expecting to
participate in the air attacks with the equipment we have.
This government has cut $7.8 billion in the defence budget since
taking office in 1993. Our defence forces are starving. The
minister allowed our troops to be inoculated with expired
vaccine. Here is the funny part. He allowed our troops to be
inoculated with expired vaccine and he is so irresponsible and so
uncaring that he inoculated himself with the expired vaccine.
My constituents and all Canadians need answers to many
questions. Canadians are asking why we are choosing a military
situation over a diplomatic situation. I do not have any
answers. What other possible solutions could we pursue? What
are the possibilities of finding a long term solution to this
bloody civil war? How are we dealing with the hatred in the
minds of those ethic people?
2330
We can send our troops on a peacekeeping mission. They can keep
discipline, they can scare people or they can kill people. But
how can they kill the hatred in the minds of the people which is
the root cause of these bloody civil wars? That is most
important. That is the root cause of the problem. Since I have
been here the Liberals have never addressed the root cause.
How much involvement are we asking from the European Community
or other affected and related countries in dealing with this
issue which is in their backyard? What strategy do we have to
deal with the security situation in that region? What
participation do we have from the neighbouring countries?
Canadians want to know whether we will be creating more victims
by bombing in that area. What about those victims we will be
creating? Are we creating more victims of the war by bombing?
What is the game plan? We on this side of the House do not know
what the game plan is. We do not know what equipment we will be
using, how many people are going, for how long, what will be the
cost and how much will be our share. We do not know those
things. Canadians would like to know how much it will cost, who
is paying, what is our share, and whether the government assessed
the degree of risk before it committed the men and women of the
Canadian defence forces. What is the degree of risk? Do they
have enough equipment and facilities? They have old equipment and
absolutely no facilities. They were exchanging helmets on
previous missions.
I am looking forward to those answers but I doubt we will get
them from this government. We will only get answers after our
tax dollars have been spent and our troops have had to take the
great risks.
For how long are we going to commit our military forces? We had
a bad experience in Cyprus. We were stuck there for 29 years.
Can the government members throw some light on that? No they
cannot because the Liberal backbenchers and even the cabinet
ministers are insignificant under the tyranny and dictatorship of
the current Prime Minister. The very few Liberal backbenchers who
are here tonight are pretending to debate in this House. They
only know what they are told to say by the foreign minister, the
defence minister or the Prime Minister. Even the minister feels
like the last one to know. The Prime Minister takes orders from
President Bill Clinton or others. They tell him when and where
they need our troops. Do we simply have a take note emergency
debate and then decide that because it is a humanitarian issue we
have to show support for our allies?
We need answers to all these questions before we decide what we
should do. This government is the root cause. It is causing our
armed forces personnel to jump without knowing where they are
jumping to. An eleventh hour take note debate is not an
appropriate way to deal with the important and sad situations in
Kosovo and the Central African Republic but it is the only option
given by the Liberal government to the members of this House.
We will unfortunately be dealing with these peace initiatives in
the future. We expect the government will come up with some
strategy to educate Canadians, to let them know what we are
doing, why we are doing it and where we are going from here. We
can go to plan B because plan A has not succeeded. We did not
take the aggressive initiatives for plan A so we are going to
plan B which is military action. That is bitter medicine and we
have to use it.
I could understand doing that in order to put pressure on the
conflicting parties so they would come together in an agreement.
But if we really want our forces to go there, I would be
skeptical. Like other members of the opposition, I do not have
full information.
2335
We intend to support our allies and the brave men and women of
our armed forces but we need answers to those questions. We need
a good briefing and then a good logical debate in this House.
Otherwise, whatever we decide has no effect because the decision
has already been made by this government. The Liberals do not
have the courage to put this issue to a vote in the House. They
do not have the courage to educate Canadians on this issue.
In conclusion, let me wish good luck to our brave men and women
of the armed forces.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further members rising
to speak, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, February 16, 1999
this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m.
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11.36 p.m.)