EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 134
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 7, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GEMINI AWARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MERRICKVILLE, ONTARIO
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL RURAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BERNADETTE MCCANN
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1405
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DISCRIMINATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SACRED WALK FOR HEALING
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SACRED WALK FOR HEALING
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1410
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL EASTERN TOWNSHIPS DUCK FESTIVAL
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
1415
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1430
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1435
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1440
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1450
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAN
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1455
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NAV CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARMS EXPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1500
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments during Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1510
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kosovo
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-51
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1515
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-439. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-440. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dan McTeague |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAN
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1520
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Property Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Candu Reactors
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divorce Act
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1525
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MMT
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Wolf Hunt
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1530
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-51. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1535
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1555
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1635
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1650
1655
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1710
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1725
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCHOLARSHIPS NAMED AFTER OLYMPIC ATHLETES
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. M-374
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1745
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1820
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1825
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1830
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1835
1840
1845
1850
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1855
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1900
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1905
1910
1915
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1920
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1925
1930
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1935
1940
1945
1950
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1955
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
2000
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
2005
2010
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
2015
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
2020
2025
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
2030
2035
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
2040
2045
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
2050
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
2055
2100
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
2105
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
2110
2115
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
2120
2125
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
2130
2135
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
2140
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
2145
2150
2155
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
2200
2205
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
2210
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
2215
2220
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
2225
2230
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
2235
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
2240
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
2245
2250
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
2255
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2300
2305
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
2310
2315
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
2320
2325
![V](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2330
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 134
![](/web/20061116191142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 7, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Saint
John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
GEMINI AWARDS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this past weekend the 30th annual Gemini awards were
held in Toronto. These awards honour all aspects of English
language television production in Canada. On behalf of this
House I would like to congratulate all nominees and award
winners.
I would especially like to recognize the CBC for its outstanding
achievement and commitment to excellence in Canadian television.
Of the 67 Gemini trophies awarded, a total of 41 went to CBC
shows and an unprecedented 11 went to TVOntario. This year the
majority of prizes for the best and most innovative Canadian
television programs were awarded to publicly funded broadcasters.
The Gemini awards are a wonderful tribute to the talent that
exists both behind and in front of the cameras.
Once again, my congratulations to all nominees and award winners
for their dedication to providing Canadians with excellent
Canadian television.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, allegations of abuse against aboriginal people by their
own councils abound. Native people have been trying for years to
get answers as to where money they have earned or been given has
ended up.
Their councils have dismissed them and the department just
sticks its head in the sand, unwilling to help them in blatant
violation of its duty to these people. While this is occurring,
aboriginal people are living in third world conditions where
violence, sexual abuse, substance abuse and diseases ranging from
tuberculosis to diabetes tear away at the very fabric of their
society.
People of the Pacheedaht and Kwicksutaineuk bands and others are
pleading for answers. The minister of aboriginal affairs must
get her head out of the sand. She must do forensic audits on
some of these reserves so these people can get the answers they
deserve. She must stop the thuggery that is taking place on some
of the reserves. She must do her job to help these people to
help themselves.
* * *
MERRICKVILLE, ONTARIO
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the aftermath of the ice storm that hit eastern Ontario only
eight short months ago, it is an honour to stand here today and
congratulate the village of Merrickville which has been
recognized as the prettiest village in all of Canada. The
village of Merrickville won this award through the Communities In
Bloom program which was launched in 1995.
This program is committed to fostering civic pride,
environmental responsibility and beautification through community
participation and the challenge of national competition. I know
how hard the people in this community had to work to get their
village in shape for this competition. Their community spirit
and determination has certainly paid off.
I commend the organizing committee which consisted of Gary
Clarke, Rhoda Drake, Joan Spencer and Doug Struthers, as well as
the countless volunteers who supported this initiative.
Here's to Merrickville, the best bloomin' village in all of
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL RURAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on October 15, women the world over will celebrate International
Rural Women's Day.
In Canada, women living in rural communities make a large
contribution to the diversity and the excellence of the Canadian
agricultural sector. They have shown us how vital their role is
by playing a direct role in farm operations and management.
In Canada, over 25% of farms are run by women and 30% are run by
married couples. Rural women play an important role in keeping
communities going and sustaining rural life, through the long
hours they devote to volunteer and community activities.
On behalf of my colleague, the Secretary of State for
Agriculture and Agri-Food and Fisheries and Oceans, the member
for Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet, who is responsible for
this file, I encourage all rural women to continue to be active
in agriculture, and I thank them for the tremendous contribution
they are making to the cultural, social and economic life of our
country.
* * *
[English]
BERNADETTE MCCANN
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is in every true woman's heart a spark of
heavenly fire, which lies dormant in the broad daylight of
prosperity, but which kindles up and beams and blazes in the dark
hour of adversity.
The name Bernadette McCann has been a shining symbol of hope for
abused women and children in Renfrew county who have sought the
comfort and solace of the institution which bears her name.
Bernadette McCann raised 11 children in Pembroke, Ontario,
including the colourful former mayor Terry McCann. Bernadette was
a humble and unassuming woman who went to church every day. When
she died, over 30 priests attended her funeral. She was a
tireless worker with a strong commitment to her family, to her
friends, to her God, to her church and to her community. She left
behind a legacy of caring and compassion that remains to sustain
us in this altered world of ours.
It is with great pride that I say thank you to a great Canadian
and great woman, Bernadette McCann.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prairie Pools reported: “In 1997 total
net farm income in the prairies has dropped by 35% in Alberta,
40% in Manitoba, and 84% in Saskatchewan. Farm cash receipts for
the first six months of 1998 are significantly lower than last
year”.
The minister of agriculture says that current government
programs are sufficient to address this looming economic crisis
on the prairies. The minister is burying his head in a stubble
field. Using off-farm income figures to hide from this western
crisis will not protect the minister for long.
1405
He knows the average NISA account will not adequately cover the
needs of most western producers. Some farmers had to withdraw
cash from their NISA accounts this year just to buy seed to plant
their crops. Next year will be worse.
Is the minister going to let prairie farmers blow in the cruel
winds caused in large part by almost three decades of
mismanagement by Liberal governments? Do something now.
* * *
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada and the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development are hosting this week in Ottawa a ministerial
level conference on electronic commerce entitled “A Borderless
World: Realizing the Potential of Global Electronic Commerce”.
Electronic commerce makes goods and services from around the
world or around the corner available, literally at the click of a
mouse. It allows people to connect with each other. It
facilitates the improvement and delivery of government services,
reaching citizens where they live.
[Translation]
This leads to the growth of new industries, while meeting market
requirements in a more timely and effective way.
Once again, Canada, like many countries, knows that it must play
a leadership role in E-commerce.
* * *
DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here
we thought the fight for equality had been won. We thought
discrimination in all its forms was a thing of the past. Men
and women were equal before the law. Long before that, race
equality was established in our country. And before that, the
poll tax was eliminated.
Indeed, rich and poor, white and black, men and women, we
thought we were at last all equal, not only before the law, but
in the eyes of our employers. That is, until another head of
the hydra of inequality appeared, in the form of the so-called
orphan clauses in collective agreements under which, in
situations where skills, seniority and education are equal,
children will earn less than their father.
So we will fight this latest battle too, to ensure that
discrimination on the basis of sex, race and income is not
followed by the latest incarnation of the monster,
discrimination on the basis of age.
* * *
[English]
SACRED WALK FOR HEALING
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today and recognize the
efforts of Bishop Beardy from Muskrat Dam in my constituency. He
is the first aboriginal bishop in the Anglican church. He is the
spiritual leader of over 50 parishes scattered over 800,000
square kilometres in northern Ontario and Manitoba.
In August, Bishop Beardy and community members began the second
Sacred Walk for Healing. They began in Lac Seul and have today
reached their destination of Ottawa.
The purpose of the sacred walk is to raise awareness of past
abuse in First Nations communities, to foster reconciliation
between aboriginal peoples, non-aboriginal people and the church,
and to raise money for community based healing initiatives.
As Bishop Beardy himself has said “You can't witness so much
pain and do nothing. This is something we all can do, everyone
together”.
I hope members of this House will join me in recognizing and
applauding the contribution Bishop Beardy is making toward a more
positive future for all Canadians.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, recently the
foreign affairs minister said that we cannot allow the
humanitarian desecration in Kosovo to continue.
I want this House to go beyond a sense of concern. Obviously,
Canadians are outraged over the horrors being endured by
civilians in Kosovo.
As winter approaches, almost 275,000 ethnic Albanians are
homeless while Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic continues to
disregard the idle threats of NATO and the United Nations. This
hurts the people of Kosovo and the people of Serbia.
The slaughter in Kosovo is finally forcing the western world to
take bold action against Milosevic.
We have been discussing the murder of civilians for almost a
year, and we must now stop the killing. Instead of remaining on
the fence, it is time for Canada to act with its NATO allies to
stop the slaughter.
It is time for NATO to use strategic strikes if necessary to
break the chain of violence that is going on in this troubled
land.
* * *
SACRED WALK FOR HEALING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us
pay tribute again to Gordon Beardy, Bishop of the Anglican
Diocese in Keewatin, and his companions.
Bishop Beardy is in the House today completing his Sacred Walk
for Healing '98.
Two years ago Bishop Beardy led his first walk to show
solidarity with survivors of abuse of aboriginal children in
residential schools in the 1950s and 1960s.
1410
Last year the walk involved him and people from 25 communities
in a trek of 3,000 kilometres.
Bishop Beardy began these walks to raise awareness, promote
healing and raise funds for victims of abuse.
This year Bishop Beardy has again carried his message from the
Lac Seul First Nation near Sioux Lookout through northwestern and
northeastern Ontario to the nation's capital. Along the way
Bishop Beardy stayed overnight in Peterborough riding and visited
the Curve Lake First Nation. He attended a reception in his
honour hosted by All Saints Anglican Church.
It is said we cannot judge a man until we walk a mile in his
shoes. The actions of Bishop Beardy and his companions speak for
themselves.
* * *
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Thérèse Casgrain, former president of Voice of Women, once said
“the only defence is peace”.
I am appalled at this government's callous attitude toward the
Canadian merchant mariners who risked and often gave their lives
during the second world war. It is time for this government to
make peace with these veterans instead of waging a war of
defensiveness and time.
In February the minister responded to an urgent letter of mine
by writing “Canada is a world leader in the area of veterans
benefits and that is a source of pride to our country”.
I am ashamed that this government finds a source of pride in
denying justice to our merchant marine veterans. This government
could and should finance a just benefit settlement instead of
playing its heartless waiting game hoping that this issue will
fade as our merchant mariners decline in numbers each year.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this coming
October 17 has been set aside as the International Day for the
Elimination of Poverty.
On September 24, 1997, the Prime Minister said, and I quote
“Poverty is the factor that interferes most with a good start in
life”. He went on “We will invest in children, our most
important resource”.
In keeping with their tradition, the Liberals did exactly the
opposite.
They took billions of dollars from the pockets of low income
families, by refusing to index the child tax benefit, income tax
tables and GST credits.
In addition, they pushed the parents onto the welfare rolls
because they were not entitled to employment insurance benefits.
Since 1989, the number of children living in families receiving
welfare has increased by 68%.
On behalf of the children arriving every morning at school
without breakfast, on behalf of their parents, these men and
women in despair because of the Prime Minister's political
choices, I ask him to put people at the centre of his
priorities.
* * *
[English]
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
merchant navy vets are on the ninth day of their hunger strike to
get compensation and equality with other vets for their role in
World War II. The vets on the hunger strike have already lost
approximately 12 pounds and there is still no response from this
government.
In April the minister promised to introduce legislation by June
1998 to make merchant navy vets equal with other vets in the
regular armed forces. He has broken that promise. That is why
these brave individuals who put their lives on the line for peace
and freedom that we enjoy today began this hunger strike.
Merchant navy vets were denied many of the benefits afforded
World War II vets. All they seek is fair compensation and equal
treatment. They gave the Minister of Veterans Affairs the
benefit of the doubt. They approached him in good faith and
unfortunately he has not extended them the same courtesy.
It is our hope and the hope of all Canadians and other vets that
the government will do the right thing and offer the vets—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL EASTERN TOWNSHIPS DUCK FESTIVAL
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from
October 2 to 31, 1998, the municipalities of Bromont and
Lac-Brome are hosting the third International Eastern Townships
Duck Festival.
This is a high quality gastronomical event that is already
well-known abroad. The international duck festival received the
award of excellence in the tourist event category at the recent
Quebec tourism awards.
1415
The Government of Canada contributed $128,000 to support the
promotion and marketing of the festival on foreign markets, and
to promote the development of international tourism in the
Eastern Townships.
Given the current rate of exchange for the Canadian dollar, we
must take advantage of every opportunity to attract tourists
from abroad. This is what the riding of Brome—Missisquoi is
doing, with the greatly appreciated support of the Government of
Canada.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general is supposed to be the nation's top cop. He
is supposed to enforce the law, not prejudge it or jeopardize
investigations that are ongoing like he did last week.
Why is the solicitor general still sitting in cabinet?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear, as I said on Tuesday, that the
allegations which have been made are unfounded. I denied them.
The person I was speaking with supported my position.
The hon. members are joining in this story when in fact there is
no reality in it.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a funny thing that a Liberal lawyer might just agree and
corroborate with him.
Last week the solicitor general publicly bragged to his long
time Liberal pal on the airplane what a hot rock he had become in
Ottawa. Yet he bragged at the same time about the secret Airbus
investigation and about who the fall guys might be for APEC.
These petty boasts have betrayed sensitive government business.
When will the Prime Minister demand the solicitor general's
resignation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to refer the hon. member to what was said
because she referred to Airbus in the scrum by the member for
Palliser, the famous member we have to watch for all the time.
“There was absolutely no reference per se to Airbus. I do not
recall the solicitor general ever saying the word Airbus in the
course of the remarks that were made”.
Again the hon. member does not have her facts right, as usual.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a funny thing. If a lawyer betrayed his client he would be
disbarred. If a doctor revealed sensitive information about a
client he would lose his practice. However the solicitor general
discusses sensitive government business about Airbus or
individuals connected with it or APEC, and what does the Prime
Minister do? He defends him, supports him and brags him up.
How could the Prime Minister defend behaviour that would have
other Canadians disbarred, banned, fined or fired?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said to the hon. member that the member for
Palliser said the word Airbus was never used or heard by anybody
or discussed.
That is the best proof coming from that member. She knows it.
She is bringing it up, repeating it, having no respect for what
is known in the House, that there is some respect for the truth.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
until now it has been a sacred parliamentary rule that solicitors
general do not talk about cases that are under their
jurisdiction.
Yet this solicitor general felt at ease discussing Frank Moores
and Karlheinz Schreiber who are principals in the Airbus affair,
if not by name at least by implication. He was comfortable
discussing the outcome of the APEC inquiry, and he did all this
with a fellow passenger on a public commercial airline. That is
a public forum.
Does the Prime Minister not see that the solicitor general has
compromised the integrity of his position and that he must ask
for his resignation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is absolutely no respect for the truth. There was
no discussion of Airbus in that discussion.
It is not only the solicitor general or the lawyer; it is even
the member for Palliser who said that the word Airbus was never
mentioned in relation to any of this.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by
refusing to ask the solicitor general for his resignation the
Prime Minister is setting a dangerous precedent.
It means that there is a new rule for solicitors general. It
means that confidential investigations under his care are fair
game and open for public discussion and debate, and even
prejudgment in public fora.
To restore public confidence in the position of the solicitor
general, the highest lawmaker in the land, will the Prime
Minister do the right thing and ask for his resignation today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that there was no discussion at all, according
to the member for Palliser, about Airbus.
1420
The hon. members have written questions. They are not quick
enough to correct them. They have to read them again. I am
telling them not to refer to Airbus. According to the member for
Palliser there was absolutely no discussion of Airbus during
that—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his
letter, Mr. Toole not only confirms that the topic of APEC was
indeed discussed by the Solicitor General last Thursday on the
plane, he also states that he did not interpret the words of the
Solicitor General as prejudicial to the RCMP inquiry.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the Solicitor General's
alibi is nothing more than a letter from a friend, who
interpreted what he heard as a good little Liberal, and that it
therefore does not have much substance to it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows very well that an inquiry has been under
way since Monday.
All we are asking, and all the government wants—and the House of
Commons as well, I hope—is for the commission to look at the
matter, hear witnesses describe what occurred in Vancouver that
November afternoon, and report to the government, which will act
accordingly.
At this time, however, Parliament should let the commission do
its job, instead of speculating about hearsay.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister would like the investigation to focus on what
happened between the protestors and the RCMP. But what we would
like to know is what the Prime Minister did, and what his
Solicitor General had to say on the plane.
Does the Prime Minister not think that Mr. Toole's letter, his
presence in Ottawa yesterday, his statement that he had not been
asked to do anything further, all smack of someone following
orders, just like the situation between the RCMP and the Prime
Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I have said, there is no need for concern, because I want the
truth to be known.
I owe no one any apologies for my favourable prejudice toward
the RCMP. They did an excellent job at the G-7 summit in
Halifax. Prior to APEC, we had visits by the President of the
United States and the Premier of China, with no problems
whatsoever. For that reason, I had confidence in the RCMP in
connection with the important meeting in Vancouver.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister may have faith in the RCMP, but we in Quebec know what
the RCMP is capable of.
On Monday, the Solicitor General suffered a complete memory
lapse. Yesterday, he was able to make subtle distinctions about
what he did or did not say aboard the plane.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that his Solicitor General's
suddenly revived memory has no credibility, makes no sense and
leaves a bad smell, and that he should demand his resignation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
10 a.m. yesterday, the Solicitor General rose in the House of
Commons and made a statement explaining his position, which was
confirmed by the lawyer with whom he had had a conversation.
To me, that is good enough. As for the notes allegedly made, are
they accurate or not? When we are having a private conversation,
we do not expect the people around us to eavesdrop.
I thought we had rules in this House requiring members to
respect each other—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the only thing
missing in the Prime Minister's answer is the fact that a
Solicitor General is supposed to have enough common sense not to
discuss his business on a plane.
I cannot blame the Prime Minister for wanting to defend his
Solicitor General, who is his shield. Does the Prime Minister
realize that there is not one single Canadian left who still has
faith in the Solicitor General, his shield, and that he should
boot him out?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Solicitor General has been a highly respected member of this
House for as long as he has been sitting in Parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: He has been involved in every social
issue brought before the House of Commons, including the
disabled persons issue. He has traveled extensively to advance
the cause of the most vulnerable in our society. That is why I
have faith in the person currently holding the position of
Solicitor General.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have heard compelling reasons why the solicitor general
should go.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: They are trying to understand the
Prime Minister's reasons for keeping him on.
If the solicitor general resigns, who will act as cover for the
Prime Minister? Is not that the real reason the Prime Minister
refuses to fire the solicitor general?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I spend most of my life, every afternoon in the House of
Commons, on this side. I have never needed any cover to defend
myself.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister does not need cover in the House of Commons;
apparently he needs cover at the commission.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister said it himself: Pelletier and Carle did not
wait for a subpoena. They volunteered to appear before the
commission.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to do the same thing? Does
he have something to hide?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask everyone to let the commission do its work. After that,
everyone will know the truth.
When we hosted summit participants from 18 countries, we had a
mechanism in place to ensure their safety and the peaceful
conduct of proceedings, which is standard practice the world
over. The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister had a
duty to ensure that things went well in Canada. On the occasion
of other summits and meetings held in Canada, the police did
their work very well—
The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the Right Hon.
Prime Minister. The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
now has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, for weeks the solicitor general has lectured the
House about the impropriety of comments on APEC. Yet all it took
was a flight home and the solicitor general became Mr.
Chatterbox.
He chatted about APEC, Airbus, and private citizens attached to
the subject of an ongoing ill-founded investigation. The
solicitor general's lack of judgment proves him unfit to be in
cabinet.
Will the solicitor general be accountable for his mistakes? Will
he act honourably? Will he resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the matter of acting honourably it has been
established by the member across the way that Airbus was never
even mentioned, but this hon. member resurrects the idea as if it
was discussed. I think the request from hon. members hits back
in the other direction.
1430
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canada a government of
integrity, yet he has delivered a solicitor general who talked
openly about sensitive government matters in public.
The solicitor general took an oath to respect the rule of law
and he violated that oath on an airline chat about APEC and
numerous businessmen and politicians connected with Airbus.
Who is reliable? Who is credible? Who is discreet? The
solicitor general general strikes out on all three of those.
Will the Prime Minister now show some integrity, some leadership
and ask for the solicitor general's resignation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I quoted to the House of Commons a statement by the
member for Palliser to the effect that he did not discuss Airbus
at all. I cannot have a better witness than the member for
Palliser.
The hon. member is the fourth member to use Airbus, when the
solicitor general and the member for Palliser have said there was
no discussion of Airbus. Who is not following the rules? He
just wants to score cheap political points.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
As the Prime Minister knows, our entire ministerial system of
government is based on confidentiality and accountability. This
minister had public discussions on the airplane. Everyone can
make mistakes. He talked about the new international centre for
correctional studies in Canada. That is before the cabinet of
this country.
This minister violated an oath by talking about something that
is before this government. Should he not resign over that issue
alone?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have debate. At this moment everybody is talking
about the next budget. Everybody is raising questions about what
we should do.
In the old days, nobody debated anything until the Minister of
Finance decided. Today we have participation because we have an
open government. When it is not confidential, I hope that
members of the cabinet and the caucus discuss with their
constituents what the government should do. That is democracy.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, learning from this government we can say anything we
want on an airplane, but just do not admit it.
Let me ask the solicitor general. At 3.30 p.m. on Monday,
outside this House, he did not know who the person was, male or
female. Would he advise this House what time he got on the phone
and talked to Mr. Toole and asked him to write a letter to defend
him? What time did he do that on Monday?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said yesterday when the question was originally
put, it was unfamiliar to me. I could not recall who I was
sitting with on the airplane.
Over the last five years I have taken that flight 300 times.
Consequently, I inquired to find out who was on the plane. I
determined who was sitting beside me. I made a phone call. I
found out what the discussion was about. That is the basis of my
position and it is the truth.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Even Mr. Toole, a member of the Liberal Party, does not wish to
go any further than what he has written to cover the minister.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that the Solicitor General's
defence is pretty slim and that he should do the honourable
thing and resign immediately?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have discussed this problem. What we want is for the
commission to be able to do its work as soon as possible, so
that all Canadians will know exactly what went on in Vancouver
last November. That would serve everyone's interests.
The Solicitor General rose in the House, stated his position,
confirmed by a letter from this lawyer, and I accepted that. I
am confident that the Solicitor General is perfectly able to
perform his duties, given his outstanding track record as a
public servant in New Brunswick and his work as an MP here in
the House of Commons.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask the Prime Minister not to change the subject.
1435
We are not talking about the commission, but about his minister.
Mr. Toole's letter is clear. During the flight, the solicitor
general discussed the APEC investigation, and he should not have
done so in his capacity as solicitor general.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for to do the only honourable
thing, which is to ask for the resignation of his minister and,
more importantly, to accept it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
answered that question yesterday and again today. The solicitor
general has the confidence of the government.
I provided a clear reply and I am very proud to have a person of
his calibre and experience serving in my cabinet.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
us summarize here. We have the solicitor general prejudging the
outcome of the APEC inquiry. He is publicly commenting on Frank
Moores and Karlheinz Schreiber. Finally, he is breaching cabinet
security.
As a Yankee's fan he must know that three strikes mean you are
out. When is the minister going to resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all three of those allegations are false.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me put this in words that the minister will understand. There
are two exits in the front, two exits over the way and two in the
back. When is he going to pick one and resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this entire exercise is on the basis of notes that were
taken by a person who was two seats away from me on a plane, when
in fact the person to whom I was speaking has substantiated my
recollections of this discussion.
I think it is unworthy of this place. I have too much respect
for parliament not to suggest that this is unconscionable in this
country and in this place.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Regardless of the actual content of the discussions between the
solicitor general and Mr. Toole on the plane last Thursday, the
fact remains that the solicitor general should never talk about
his files in a public place.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that the carelessness of the
solicitor general makes him unfit to fulfil his duties, and that
he must therefore resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is no.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, discretion is an essential requirement for a solicitor
general. It has now been proven that this minister has loose
lips.
Is this not a sufficient motive for the Prime Minister to
relieve him of his duties immediately?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general rose in this House. He followed the
tradition by making a solemn statement, telling the House what
he remembered from the conversation. This has been confirmed by
the person to whom he talked, while someone was snooping on
them, contrary to the ethics usually followed by the members of
this House.
As far as I am concerned, eavesdroppers are not of the same
calibre as Tommy Douglas and David Lewis.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what is unconscionable in this House is that this minister does
not have the good sense to resign. His indiscreet comments have
convicted Staff Sergeant Hugh Stewart without a trial. Headlines
across the country indicate that he is the fall guy. I thought
people were innocent in this country until proven guilty.
I am going to ask the solicitor general again: Is he going to
have the good sense here today to resign?
1440
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said many, many times, I have incredible
respect for this process. I speak of the process very often
publicly, in support of the process and in support of getting to
the truth. I have done that on many occasions and I have done it
on many occasions in the House. I believe that we have an
obligation to let that process get to the truth.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general is attempting to fasten his seat
belt and ride through the credibility storm. It is unbelievable.
He has obviously prejudiced the outcome of this procedure.
Because the solicitor general will not resign I will ask the
Prime Minister, is he going to ask for his resignation today?
Yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, six times I have said no. Maybe they are not listening.
We have an inquiry that is looking into the matter at this
moment.
What is is amazing is that hon. members only have this to talk
about. It is a great compliment to the government when I see,
for example, the opposition finance critics getting up but not
talking about the finances of the nation.
There is only one little problem. We want the inquiry to give
us the truth as much as they do and as soon as possible. They do
not want to have the truth because they have nothing else to talk
about.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the Prime Minister wants to speak of truth, Mr. Toole did not
say in his letter that the Solicitor General had not spoken of
APEC but that he had not interpreted the Solicitor General's
words about APEC as prejudicial. In other words, the Solicitor
General did speak of it.
I am asking the Solicitor General if he will tell us today
whether or not he spoke of it, because his—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. leader of the Bloc
Quebecois.
The Solicitor General now has the floor.
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I spoke of my respect for the process to get to the
truth.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
In recent months, the world economic situation has become more
and more precarious.
[English]
We have seen the government's efforts at the recent meetings of
the Commonwealth, as well as the G-7 and the IMF.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us when he will present
Canadians with a complete picture of Canada's economy, where it
stands and how we will meet the challenges which face us now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is indeed correct, the world is in the grip
of serious economic instability, although one would not know it
from the questions of the opposition.
Within this context we must recognize that the choice we will
make today will govern this country for generations to come.
I am therefore pleased to inform the House that I will appear
before the Standing Committee on Finance on October 14 at 2
o'clock here in Ottawa.
[Translation]
I am going to present the country's economic statement on
October 14 at 2 p.m. here in Ottawa.
* * *
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general talked publicly about fall guys in the APEC
inquiry, presuming guilt before the inquiry even takes place.
When the solicitor general is questioned about this the Prime
Minister covers for him. When the Prime Minister is asked about
it the solicitor general stands up.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, since the solicitor
general really is Canada's worst security breach, why does the
Prime Minister not stop covering for him and start firing him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have replied to the same question many, many times.
The answer is that the solicitor general is a man with a great
reputation, who has been a member of the House for five years. He
has been an extremely diligent member. He has said that he has
never debated anything in relation to things that were not part
of the public discussion at any time with anybody, and I believe
him. That was confirmed by the lawyer with whom he was talking,
but not confirmed by someone who was snooping on him. Usually a
snooper does not get his facts right.
1445
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): That was
then, this is now, Mr. Speaker. The solicitor general mentioned
Frank Moores and Karlheinz Schreiber in his conversation with Mr.
Toole.
If he was not talking about Airbus, exactly what was he talking
about?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as has been stated even by the member for Palliser,
Airbus did not come up. The rest of the conversation was private
and the hon. member has no right to bring a private conversation
to the floor of this House.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is fascinating to see the reliance on the member for
Palliser. The solicitor general has now admitted that the hon.
member for Palliser had it right about Airbus, right about the
sweat lodge, right about the Yankees and right about his great
future as an ambassador.
The solicitor general cannot have it both ways. Will he now
admit the member also got it right about APEC? Will he fess up?
Will he tell the truth? Will he resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Palliser basically took a few words out
of the air and fabricated a story. This parliament is not going
to operate on that level—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: On both sides we are getting very close in
our language. I ask you all to be very judicious both in the
questions and in the answers.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister knows the Malaysian government has brutally beaten
former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar, has arrested peaceful
demonstrators and gay men and has jailed opposition MPs.
Since the Prime Minister has said that human rights is on the
APEC agenda, does he agree with the Liberal member for Quadra
that Malaysia is an inappropriate venue for the upcoming APEC
summit? Will he boycott the Malaysia APEC summit?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the government the Minister of Finance and
the Minister of Foreign Affairs last week protested against the
Government of Malaysia very openly.
At this moment there is no member of the APEC nations planning
to boycott that type of meeting. Should we boycott the UN
because they are at the UN? Should we boycott every
international organization because they happen to be members of
those organizations?
I would like to repeat to the hon. member that as far as
Indonesia was concerned, President Suharto was—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, whether
the Solicitor General's conversation was a private or public one
is not the question. What is important is that the minister
responsible for the RCMP has revealed details concerning an
investigation that is under way to a citizen who is not a party
to that investigation. This is unacceptable.
That conversation, coupled with his behaviour over the past two
days, leaves him no choice whatsoever. Will the minister do the
honourable thing and resign?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the hon. member is alleging is absolutely not true.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that the Solicitor General will not assume responsibility
for his actions. If the Prime Minister allows the Solicitor
General to retain his cabinet seat, he is sending the message
that he accepts his minister discussing, in public, inquiries
that are clearly confidential.
Will the Prime Minister protect the confidentiality and
integrity of future inquiries? Will the Prime Minister show
respect to this House by asking the Solicitor General to resign?
1450
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister made absolutely no allusion whatsoever to the
Airbus inquiry. There was no reference to it.
Even the hon. member for Palliser has said that this matter was
not mentioned at any time. That, for me, is sufficient. If he
had discussed it, I would act differently, but he did not. If I
am given concrete, real facts with evidence to back them up,
then I will act, but I will not act on hearsay and rumours like
these.
* * *
[English]
IRAN
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on July 21, 1998 Iranian authorities executed
Ruhullah Rawhani for practising his Baha'i faith. There are
presently four more Baha'is on death row.
Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs please explain to
Canadians Canada's position regarding Iran's abhorrent policies
against the Baha'is?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think all members share the great concern the
member has expressed.
I took the opportunity last week at the United Nations to raise
the matter directly with the foreign affairs minister of Iran,
making the case that these arrests were not justified and that
they should be released and furthermore that their freedom should
be established in Iran as it should be established around the
world.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
1994 privy council code of conduct, which all members of the
front bench opposite claim to respect, states public office
holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical
standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity,
objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and
enhanced.
The Prime Minister and the solicitor general are making a
mockery out of these principles and embarrassing this whole House
in front of all Canadians. When will the Prime Minister ask the
solicitor general to resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand what that oath is about. I respect it. I
uphold those principles in this House. I have upheld those
principles around this commission's inquiry. I take this
extremely seriously. I know what the truth is and I am very
confident in this position.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
How can the Prime Minister consider what the member for Palliser
says as the norm, as reliable, when he speaks on the Airbus
affair, but as inaccurate and unreliable when he speaks on APEC?
Should we believe him in the Airbus case, because it suits the
Prime Minister, but not in the APEC case, because it would mean
having to fire the Solicitor General?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the Airbus affair, both the minister and the lawyer said the
same thing. Even the hon. member, in his attempt to embarrass
the minister with his fabrication, recognized that he had not
talked about Airbus. This is even better.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, once again I ask you to be
very judicious in your choice of words today because we are
getting a little carried away.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as a child I
used to watch Robin Hood, and Robin robbed the rich to give to
the poor.
But the Robin Hood I grew up with has changed. Today's Robin
Hood robs the poor to give to the rich.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I hope Robin Hood is not here today. I would ask
the hon. member to please put his question.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Ours was a fairy tale Robin Hood. He is not here
today.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Will he establish a
separate employment insurance fund, so that the rich do not get
richer at the expense of the poor?
1455
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a debate on this. The hon. member is welcome to
participate in this debate and tell us what he thinks we should
be doing in this regard.
It is interesting to note that other members are holding public
consultations. According to Le Soleil, a poll conducted by the
member for Rimouski—Mitis in her riding showed that it is not a
major concern and that people would like us to invest in all
sorts of programs. I could table the press clipping in the
House.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, in a few
weeks environment ministers will be meeting in Buenos Aires to
follow up on the Kyoto climate change conference. The provincial
and federal energy ministers will be meeting in Halifax next week
to discuss the Canadian position.
I hope this government has learned from its make it up as you go
approach in Kyoto on climate change. It had no meaningful
dialogue with Canadians, no meaningful dialogue with the
provinces and at the eleventh hour meeting in Regina the agreed
to position was abandoned the very next day.
Given the mistrust created by the Regina debacle, would the
energy minister commit today that any position agreed to in
Buenos Aires will have the full support of the provinces?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first ministers of this country met within 48 hours
after Kyoto to put in place an inclusive process involving
provinces, industry, environmental organizations and many others.
Energy and environment ministers met in April to launch that
process. That process is now underway. Fifteen issue tables are
examining all the dimensions of this issue. Four hundred and
fifty Canadian experts are involved. This is an open, inclusive,
transparent effort and Canada is going to do a job on climate
change.
* * *
[Translation]
NAV CANADA
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Nav Canada
recommended to the Department of Transport that the Gatineau
flight information centre be transferred to Quebec City.
In the interest of transportation safety, could the Minister of
Transport tell the House whether Nav Canada can effect such
changes without his department's approval?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. We have analyzed the study by NAV
Canada on the proposed transfer of flight information services
from Gatineau to Quebec City. We have found it deficient in some
safety areas. Today we have informed NAV Canada that it must
revisit its aeronautical study and address all our safety
concerns and the concerns of users who are not well informed as
to the reasons for this decision. Nothing will happen until we
are absolutely assured on the safety of this transfer.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general says he did not discuss the Airbus affair on
the airplane the other day. Yet he did not deny bringing up the
names of Frank Moores and Karlheinz Schreiber.
If he was not talking about Airbus, what was he talking about?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been established that we did not talk about
Airbus. The conversation on the aircraft was private and nobody
should have been eavesdropping.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his
letter, Mr. Toole confirms that he and the Solicitor General
discussed the matter of APEC on the plane.
The Solicitor General said yesterday that he had nothing further
to say about the discussion, since it was a private
conversation.
I would ask the Solicitor General if he considers it usual to
discuss, allegedly privately, but in a public place, a highly
confidential matter involving his duties. Does he consider that
usual and responsible?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I discussed in detail the public complaints commission's
work, my faith in it, my respect for it and my desire that it get
to the truth in this matter. That is what I discussed.
* * *
[Translation]
ARMS EXPORTS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Customarily, the Minister of Foreign Affairs tables a report in
this House on Canada's arms exports.
When will the minister be tabling this report so we may have an
idea whether the government sold weapons to Suharto's Indonesia,
in 1996, for example?
1500
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems already to know what is in the
report although it has not been presented yet. That is the way
the opposition seems to work these days.
I will be tabling the report very soon. I think the hon. member
will find it very interesting.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
there is a well known maxim in the law. I know it. The Minister
of Justice knows it. The solicitor general knows it. The Prime
Minister knows it. Justice must not only be done; it must be
seen to be done.
The public complaints commission investigating APEC is now mired
in controversy as a result of the revelations and the inaction of
the government on this issue. In the name of justice will the
Prime Minister not now do what I asked him to do three weeks ago
and set up an independent judicial inquiry to get to the bottom
of this issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the inquiry started on Monday and the testimony started
this afternoon.
The students will be witnesses. The RCMP will be witnesses. The
people will know exactly what the facts are. They will be in a
position to judge whether the RCMP acted according to what was
normal under the circumstances.
Three competent people were appointed to that body. They will
report to the government, as is their job according to the law
which was set in parliament, not by this government but by the
previous government.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery today of a delegation from Kuwait.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Is the hon. member's question of privilege
arising from question period?
Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
1505
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question of privilege arises from question period. I beg the
indulgence of the Speaker to bring forward my point because quite
certainly it is unrehearsed and unprepared. However I am going
to try to make my point as succinctly as I can.
It has much to do with my privilege being breached in that there
have been many times over the course of the last several weeks,
and maybe even months, that during question period there are very
important questions being put by the opposition. Just as weighty
and just as important are the answers being put forward by
members from the government side.
Unfortunately during the point at which one is trying to hear a
question or hear the answer, we are cut off by the 30 second
clock. Quite frankly, in a day when we are speeding through
time—we have the one minute egg and the 30 second breakfast and
everything else—I think this place deserves more than to have
the Speaker moved by a time limitation. It stops me from hearing
the question—
The Speaker: As a question of privilege I would judge
that is not a question of privilege. However I think the hon.
member has a point. The House of Commons, in its wisdom, has had
discussions. The hon. member has another avenue by which he can
pursue this matter. I am sure we can give him this advice a bit
later.
This was a recommendation that was made by the House leaders as
far as time is concerned, and I have taken the recommendation to
heart. There are times when because of one reason or another I
would give a little more time for a question and a little more
time for an answer. By and large, hon. members have been getting
their questions in and their answers in under the 35 seconds.
However, the hon. member does have the procedures committee. I
am sure it would want to hear what he has to say about that. As
a question of privilege I would judge it is not a question of
privilege.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House on a point of order to protest
the Chair's acceptance of the words fabricated and fabrication as
used by the solicitor general in response to a question from the
New Democratic Party and the use of the word fabrication directed
in response to a member from the Bloc Quebecois.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to citation 494 at page 151
of Beauchesne's. Both these words are, I would suggest and in my
submission, clearly unparliamentary and I would ask that the
Chair ask for those words to be withdrawn.
The Speaker: Generally speaking there is no word
which in and of itself is unparliamentary. It depends on the
usage of the word and it depends on the context in which it is
used.
With all respect to my colleagues, we do not use the word liar
in the Chamber. We would not permit one member to call another
member a liar. However, in the use of the word itself, if a
member were to say “it has been said that I am a liar”, I would
be hard pressed to stop the member from using the word about
himself. I do not say this facetiously.
The words fabricated, hardly believable, unbelievable or
incredible are all bordering on words that are unparliamentary.
I would hope that words such as fabricated, fabrication and
deliberately fabricated would not be used. That is why I caution
members and I ask them not to use them in the course of our
debates.
1510
When we come that close I dislike intervening when a member is
putting a question or giving an answer. Perhaps I will take the
hon. member's admonition, if I can call it that, as a gentle
admonition to the Chair. I will seriously consider these types
of words when we even get close to an unparliamentary word and I
will consider intervening more readily in the future.
I take the admonition in the spirit in which it is given.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
KOSOVO
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I hope
you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I
move:
That, on October 7, 1998, the House shall not adjourn at 6.30
p.m., but, at that time, a minister of the crown shall propose a
motion:
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 during debate thereon, the first speaker for each party may
speak for no more than twenty minutes, with a ten minute period
for questions and comments, and no speaker thereafter may speak
for more than ten minutes, with a five minute period for question
and comments, provided that the Chair may receive no dilatory
motions, demands for quorum or requests for unanimous consent to
propose motions or waive rules and, when no members rise to
speak, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the Government House Leader have
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
BILL C-51
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, after discussion on all sides I believe you would
find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That when Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, is called before the House, the opening
speech for the official opposition be allotted twenty minutes,
followed by a ten minute period for questions and comments, yet
when the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast rises to
speak later in the debate, he shall maintain the privileges of
the second speech in the debate, as stipulated it by Standing
Order 74(1)(a).
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast have the unanimous consent of the House
to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109
I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to the 10th report of the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Public Account, chapter 29 of the December
1997 report of the Auditor General of Canada, Industry Canada,
management of the small business loans program.
* * *
[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 three
petitions.
* * *
1515
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House
of Commons, in both official languages, the report of the
delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the
April session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, held in Strasbourg from April 20 to 24, 1998, and the
report of the delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association to the meetings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe, held in Paris and Strasbourg from June 17 to
26, 1998.
* * *
[English]
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-439, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act (student loan).
She said: I am very pleased to rise in the House today to
introduce my private member's bill to change the bankruptcy act
affecting students.
The purpose of my bill is to repeal the discriminatory changes
that were made to the bankruptcy act that forced students
suffering from high student debtload to wait from the previous
two years to now ten years before they can access bankruptcy
proceedings.
Despite high tuition fees and increasing student debt 93% of
students do find a way to pay back their loans. It is only those
students who are most desperate and most in debt who seek
bankruptcy protection.
This bill would repeal the extended waiting period of ten years
back to two years to make it fairer for students. I hope all
members of the House will support this bill in recognition of the
severe difficulties that students face today.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-440, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (flight).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code
by adding a provision and penalties for anyone using a motor
vehicle to evade police and in the process causing injury or
death.
Fleeing from police by means that result in a high speed chase
causes inordinate risks to the safety of their officers and to the
public and merits special criminal sanction.
Current dangerous driving provisions of the Criminal Code are
inadequate in dealing appropriately and specifically with such
acts.
Under the bill any individual who operates a motor vehicle to
evade a peace officer is guilty of an indictable offence under
the Criminal Code and is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years.
In addition, anyone who commits such an offence and in the
process injures another person will be liable to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding 10 years. Anyone causing death will be
liable to imprisonment for life.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
IRAN
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, following consultations with members on all sides of the
House, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to put the
following motion, seconded by the hon. members for Rosedale, Red
Deer, Beauharnois—Salaberry, and Richmond—Arthabaska:
1520
That this House express its profound concern over the recent
grave attacks on the Iranian Baha'i community including the
brutal execution of Mr. Rahu'llah Rawhani in July, arrests of 36
Baha'i academics, and confirmation of death sentences of two
Baha'i men and the detention of 11 other Baha'i men for
practising their faith; and calls upon the Government of Iran to
end their oppression of the Baha'i community, ensure the safety
and early release of all those Baha'i imprisoned in Iran, and
respect the principles of the International Covenants on Human
Rights to which Iran is a party.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in view of the ongoing carnage, devastation and genocide
taking place in the former Yugoslavia, I propose the following
motion:
That in the opinion of this House the government should lobby the
United Nations general assembly to indict Serbian President
Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity and lobby the
United Nations to assemble a UN observer force to ensure the
immediate withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo, and allow the
United Nations high commission for refugees and non-governmental
organizations safe and unfettered access to Kosovo refugees.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca have the unanimous consent of the House
to propose this motion?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
* * *
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have petition to table from residents of my riding of
Langley—Abbotsford. They ask parliament to enact Bill C-225, an
act to amend the Marriage Act, so as to define in statute that a
marriage can only be entered into between a single male and
single female.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present on
behalf of the residents of Bruce—Grey two petitions.
In the first petitioners express their support for legislation
with regard to Bill C-304 which would guarantee certain property
rights to Canadian citizens.
CANDU REACTORS
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition from constituents of Owen Sound, Annan, Meaford,
Shallow Lake and Chatworth asks that parliament not finance or
subsidize the sale of Candu reactors to China or any other
country.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
since 1867 it has been a right of Canadians to petition the
Parliament of Canada and the crown for redress of grievances.
I have three such petitions today which are asking the crown to
review the hepatitis C compensation package for Canadians
infected by tainted blood.
I would like to be able to add these to Joey Haché's petition of
30,000 names which was presented to the Prime Minister yet I
found out through the clerk of petitions that the Prime Minister
has not enacted his responsibility by presenting that to the
House.
Therefore I present these 259 names from Okanagan—Coquihalla
and ask where is Joey Haché's petition.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member better stick to the
script for presentation of petitions and present the petition he
has rather than worrying about other ones. I know it might be
interesting to ask that kind of question, but clearly it is not a
proper question at this time.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by Canadians from Saskatchewan and Manitoba
asking parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision
as proposed in Bill C-340 regarding the right of spouses'
grandparents to access or to have custody of the child or
children.
JUSTICE
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to present a petition on behalf of Leone and Peter
Jackson and 99 other from North Vancouver.
1525
They draw to the attention of the House that violent crimes
committed by youth are of great concern to Canadians, that the
incidence of violent crime by youth would decrease if the Young
Offenders Act were amended to hold young persons fully
accountable for their criminal behaviour, and to increase the
periods of incarceration in order to defer young criminals from
committing criminal acts.
The petitioners call on parliament to significantly amend the
Young Offenders Act including but not limited to making the
protection of society the number one priority, reducing the
minimum age governed by the act from 12 to 10, allowing for the
publishing of violent young offenders' names, increasing the
maximum three year sentence for all offences except murder to
seven years, and increasing the penalty for first degree murder
from a maximum of 10 years to 15.
MMT
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition signed by residents of Grand Bend, Burlington, London
and Etobicoke.
They note that the use of MMT in gasoline has been proven to
foul emission control devices and adversely affect engine
performance, resulting in higher smog levels.
They call on parliament to set new national clean fuel standards
for gasoline with zero MMT and lower sulphur content.
CANADIAN MULTICENTRE OSTEOPOROSIS STUDY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by residents mainly in the
Lambton area of my riding who request that the government
adequately fund the remaining years of the Canadian Multicentre
Osteoporosis study.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to present a
petition on behalf of a number of constituents and residents in
the city of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
The petitioners are concerned about the existence in our world
today of over 35,000 nuclear weapons. They call on this
government to respond to this concern and draw attention to the
fact that nuclear weapons continue to pose a threat to the health
and survival of human civilization and the global environment.
The petitioners refer to the statement of former
secretary-general of the United Nations Boutros Boutros-Ghali
indicating that the most safe, sure and swift way to deal with
the threat of nuclear arms is to do away with them in every
regard.
The petitioners call on this government and parliament to
support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000
of an international convention which will set out a binding
timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have five petitions on the same subject matter from
the communities of Surrey, B.C., Kamloops, Ottawa, Lethbridge,
Alberta and Nipissing, Ontario.
All five, totalling some 200 signatures, call for parliament to
enact Bill C-225 in order to define in statute that a marriage
can only be entered into between a single male and a single
female.
WOLF HUNT
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition on behalf of 100 people in St. John's East who
are concerned about the wolf population left in the world. A
wolf hunt has been allowed in the Northwest Territories and snow
machines are being used for that purpose.
The petitioners call on parliament to enact measures to put an
end to snow machine hunting of wolves in Canada.
JUSTICE
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to table petitions from my constituents in the St.
Catharines and Niagara area.
The petitioners say they are alarmed and deeply disturbed by the
further victimization of the families of Kristen French and
Leslie Mahaffy by reason of the use of the Bernardo video tapes.
The undersigned citizens of Canada petition the Parliament of
Canada to amend section 486(1) of the Criminal Code by enacting a
specific exemption to the rule by excluding evidence of child and
coerced pornography.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions from my riding of Esquimalt—Juan
de Fuca and British Columbia.
In the first the petitioners request that parliament support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition from my riding and from British
Columbians requests that drastic changes be made to the Young
Offenders Act.
They believe that youth violence is an increasing problem in our
society and that crimes such as murder should be taken to adult
court.
1530
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): My last
petition, Mr. Speaker, again signed by hundreds of citizens of
British Columbia, asks that parliament enact legislation to
repeal the Young Offenders Act and replace it with an act that
will provide adequate penalties to protect society and at the
same time work with the provinces to implement prevention
programs that address the root causes of crime such as the head
start program.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present a petition with the signatures of 51
Canadians, most of whom are from my riding and all of whom are
members of the Mississauga Gospel Temple. They petition
parliament to support a motion that would ensure the fundamental
rights of individuals to pursue family life free from undue state
interference. They also support the fundamental right,
responsibility and liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of
their children.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 111 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 111—Mr. Chris Axworthy:
Is the Department of National Defence planning to change the
communications systems on the Aurora aircrafts and, if so, what
is the cost?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Consideration of changes to the Aurora communications systems has
not proceeded beyond the planning stage. Changes could include
the replacement of the Communications Management System, CMS;
modernization of the data link capability; replacement of the HF,
UHF, and VHF radios; acquisition of a satellite communication
capability, and the acquisition of two additional UHF radios.
Although planning is underway all changes to the Aurora
communications systems are subject to approval by appropriate
authorities. Cost data are proprietary figures obtained in
confidence from a number of individual industries. It is not a
certainty that all changes will proceed or that they will be
implemented at the currently estimated costs.
* * *
[English]
QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 91 could be made an Order for Return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 91—Mr. John Cummins:
With reference to the antimalarial drug mefloquine administered
to Canadian Forces bound for Somalia in 1992-93 and the legal
framework under which it was available for use and administered:
(a) was mefloquine a licensed drug when it was administered to
Canadian Forces, if not what was its status, and how was it
legally available; (b) were the Canadian Forces participating
in the Lariam (mefloquine) Safety Monitoring Study during this
period; (c) was the mefloquine administered in accordance with
the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act;
(d) who was the “principal investigator” responsible for the
Lariam Safety Monitoring Study in the Canadian Forces; (e) who
was the Canadian Forces physician responsible to the “principal
investigator” of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study; (f) what
was the role of Canadian Forces physician, Dr. Martin Tepper, in
the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study; (g) who was responsible for
the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study at the Department of Health's
Health Protection Branch during this period; (h) what was the
role and responsibility of the Health Protection Branch under the
Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act and its
regulations in regard to the use of mefloquine by Canadian Forces
personnel; (i) when did the Health Protection Branch become aware
that mefloquine was being administered to Canadian Forces personnel
bound for Somalia;
(j) what responsibility did the Canadian Forces have under the
Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act prior to
the licensing of mefloquine to inform the manufacturer of its
use; (k) what responsibility did the Canadian Forces have under
the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act to
the soldiers who were administered the drug; (l) did the
Canadian Forces fulfil their responsibility to the manufacturer
under the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug
Act prior to the licensing of mefloquine and if so how did they
do so; (m) what responsibility prior to the licensing of
mefloquine did the Canadian Forces have under the Lariam Safety
Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act to the Health
Protection Branch; (n) did the Canadian Forces fulfil their
pre-licensing responsibilities to the Health Protection Branch
under the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug
Act and if so how did they comply;
(o) what action did the
Health Protection Branch take in regard to the manufacturer on
becoming aware that mefloquine had been administered to Canadian
Forces in association with subsequent unexpected bizarre
homicidal/suicidal behaviour; (p) what action did the Health
Protection take in regard to the Canadian Forces and Dr. Martin
Tepper on becoming aware that mefloquine had been administered to
Canadian Forces in association with subsequent unexpected bizarre
homicidal/suicidal behaviour; (q) what disciplinary action is
provided for under the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the
Food and Drug Act for failure of the manufacturer to comply;
(r) what disciplinary action was taken against the
manufacturer for failure to comply with the requirements of the
Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act; (s)
what disciplinary action was provided for under the Lariam Safety
Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act for Dr. Martin Tepper
or others in the Canadian Forces who failed to comply;
(t) what disciplinary action was taken by the Health
Protection Branch against Dr. Martin Tepper or others in the
Canadian Forces for failure to comply with the requirements of
the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act
during the pre-licensing period; (u) what action was taken by
the Health Protection Branch to remedy the failure to comply with
the reporting requirements of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study
and the Food and Drug Act; (v) did the Health Protection Branch
investigate to determine the nature of the adverse reactions that
occurred among Canadian Forces personnel; (w) what action did
the Health Protection Branch take to ensure that the reporting
deficiencies in the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study were accounted
for in the Study's final analysis of the drug; and (x) as a
result of the Canadian Forces experience in Somalia with
mefloquine, what measures to date has the Health Protection
Branch taken to assess the accuracy of the information regarding
the nature and frequency of behavioral and neuropsychiatric
effects of mefloquine provided to Canadian physicians, in
accordance with the Food and Drug Act?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that 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 Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: In accordance with the order made
earlier this day, we will resume the debate.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, again it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-51, an act to
amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It is an
omnibus bill.
Let me say this at the outset. When we look at the legislative
agenda and when we look at this bill we realize the great
potential that this bill has to deal with issues such as
gambling, homicide, child prostitution, conditional sentences and
organized crime. Does this bill actually take this issue with
both hands and try to implement constructive solutions to deal
with these important issues? No, it does not. That reflects the
ongoing problem that we have in this House. The problems that
are occurring in our country are at best being nibbled at around
the edges and at worst are being ignored.
We simply are not getting our hands into the meat of the issue
and presenting constructive solutions that are out there in this
country and around the world which we could implement.
Bill C-51 deals with gambling. Does it deal with gambling as an
addiction? Does it deal with the huge problems that gambling is
wreaking on certain families? Does it deal with the increasing
problem of gambling as a health issue? No.
What does the bill do? It deals with permitting casinos on
cruise ships to remove the prohibition on dice games. Surely we
have better things to do in this House of Commons than to deal
with that issue.
We could be dealing with constructive issues on how to help
people who are having problems with gambling, rather than seeing
gambling as just another tax grab, which in fact it is in many
areas. It is causing huge problems in many societies and some on
aboriginal reserves.
Are we dealing with violent crime? Are we dealing with ways to
prevent violent crime? Are we dealing with ways to prevent
innocent Canadians from getting hurt? No, we nibble around the
edges and put this pithy amendment that will ensure victims no
longer have to die within a year for it to be called a homicide.
1535
We certainly support that, but surely the government could have
put forth more constructive solutions in this bill to protect
Canadians. Surely the government could have developed ways to
adopt the idea of the Liberal member who put forth a private
member's motion. The member is from Toronto and her motion deals
with consecutive sentencing for violent crimes rather than the
concurrent sentencing that currently exists.
Those convicted of violent crimes too often receive concurrent
sentences. What kind of message does that send to people who
commit murder or violent offences? It tells them that if they
kill one person or rape one person, if they commit assault
causing bodily harm to one person, it is the same as if they do
it six times.
The government could have dealt with that. It could have
implemented the private member's motion but it chose not to.
What an embarrassment.
Child prostitution is a huge problem in our country.
Prostitutes as young as 11 or 12 are being procured. Many are
being put on drugs as a way to force them into lives of
prostitution. It ruins their lives or, worse, it kills them
through violence or through the acquisition of AIDS.
What has the government done concerning child prostitution? It
has invoked suggestions and amendments to ensure that wiretaps
are allowed. Our party has been putting forward constructive
solutions for years.
Why do we have mandatory minimum sentencing for anybody who is
pimping children? Why could the government not take this bill
and put forth mandatory sentencing for people who are hooking
children on drugs, who are pimping 11 and 12 year old girls and
boys, who are grossly abusing these children for life? Why could
the government not put forth a bill to address that?
I encourage and implore the government to listen to the
constructive suggestions that are coming not only from our side
but from all parties. These are constructive solutions on child
prostitution. I challenge the Minister of Justice, whom I know
is very interested in this, to go out on the street. She should
not speak to the people on top, she should find out what is
happening on the street from the prostitutes, the people whose
lives are utterly ruined by this scourge. She should go to
Vancouver or Toronto. She should see what is occurring on the
street.
Let us consider conditional sentencing. I cannot believe the
government did not adopt the motion put forward by a government
member who had a constructive private member's bill that dealt
with consecutive sentencing for violent offences.
Let us consider organized crime. The public would be interested
in knowing that an individual who is sentenced can get parole
after one-sixth of their sentence is up.
An hon. member: They have to apply for consideration for
parole.
Mr. Keith Martin: But the fact that anybody can apply and
receive a release after serving one-sixth of their sentence is
appalling. What kind of message does it send to the RCMP and the
police officers around this country when criminals can be out
after serving one-sixth of their sentence after police put their
lives on the line and worked hard to get the criminals arrested
and convicted?
This bill ensures that people who are members of criminal
organizations have to serve more than one-sixth of their
sentence. Why are people involved in organized crime,
racketeering, prostitution, scams and murder being released after
serving one-sixth of their sentence? That is no way to give the
Canadian people the confidence they require in the justice system
in order for them to be able to say they feel safe in their
country.
We are fully sympathetic with giving people a chance. We are
fully sympathetic with understanding that some people can at
times in their lives run afoul of the law and have a lot of angst
about what they have done. But organized crime has little to do
with having sympathy for a teenager who falls afoul of the law
for a misdemeanour.
It has little sympathy for somebody who has been abused during
their life, who does something wrong and is convicted.
1540
This has to do with people who commit murder. This has to do
with people who take money from immigrants in our country and rob
them for the promise of protection. This has to do with gross
abuse of innocent civilians in our country. Those are the people
we need to be hitting hard. Those are the laws that need to be
made tougher and those are the people we need to be putting
behind bars.
The bill deals with some issues, but it also misses some. The
Reform Party is in favour of good constructive laws that protect
Canadians from firearm violations. We do not approve of gun
registration for the simple reason that it is going to make our
streets less safe. It is taking money out of the functional arm
of justice and putting it into something that is not going to
make our streets more safe. If gun registration was going to
make our streets safer then we would support it. But the cold
hard facts support very clearly the notion that gun registration
will not make Canadian streets safer.
We need to hire 350 RCMP officers in British Columbia, but they
will not be hired because of a lack of funds. However, the
government is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into
something that will not work.
The government had an opportunity to deal with crime prevention.
I know the Minister of Justice has started up a very good program
in Edmonton dealing with crime prevention and I compliment her
for doing that. I think it is a move in the right direction.
The member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe has been a leader in
the national head start program, which she and her husband have
put together, and she deserves to be complimented for that.
Those ideas and ideas from all opposition parties have been put
forth for some time, including Private Member's Motion 261 that I
introduced in May, which passed unanimously in the House. They
need to be looked at, examined and adopted quickly, because we
are simply not dealing with the root causes of crime.
For example, it has been proved that dealing with children in
the first eight years of life can have a dramatic, profound and
positive effect in making sure these children stay in school
longer. It reduces crime by 50%. It reduces teen pregnancy by
60%. There is a net saving to the social programs because fewer
of them are on welfare. It saves the taxpayer $30,000 per child.
How can hon. members disagree with that? The proof is there from
Moncton to Hawaii to Ypsilanti, Michigan where effective programs
have been implemented to prevent crime.
Why did the government in Bill C-51 not utilize the good
suggestions that have come from across party lines, from within
its own caucus, and implement them in a constructive and coherent
fashion across this country?
The government has an enormous leadership role. Although it is
true that many of these programs should indeed be in the realm
and the purview of the provinces, it is within the government's
power to call together the first ministers of health, of justice
and of HRD and ask them to bring to the table what programs they
already have. Then they could find out what does not work and
eject those programs. They could keep what works and integrate
those programs into a national program.
Not one single province, not one premier, not one minister in
any province has the power to do that. It is only the ministers
who are sitting across from us today. Those ministers have the
power, have the duty, have the responsibility to exert the
leadership that has been bestowed upon them by the Canadian
people. They and only they have the power to call those
ministers together and hold that meeting that will have a most
dramatic and profound effect on the lives, health, welfare and
future of young Canadians today.
1545
Let us get on with it. Let us not see a bill such as Bill C-51.
Let us stick our hands into these issues and problems and
implement solutions that have been proven beyond a shadow of a
doubt to work and to save money. They are win-win situations
across party lines.
Let us stop introducing politics into these issues and deal with
the facts. If we dealt with the facts and if we managed to have
some semblance of debate on the facts, we would be able to
achieve to the greatest advantage the potential of members across
party lines in this House.
I implore the government to look at the suggestions that are
going to come from members in the Reform Party, that are going to
come from members on the government side and from members of the
other opposition parties. Look at those constructive solutions.
Look at those solutions based on facts and implement them.
The government could also deal with the horrendous situations on
aboriginal reserves. The member for Wild Rose and the member for
Skeena have repeatedly brought up constructive solutions to deal
with those situations.
I spent some time this summer working as a physician dealing
with aboriginal people in emergencies. They had been beaten up,
had overdosed, had attempted suicide, had been abused or sexually
abused. The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the
non-aboriginal leaders of this country and the aboriginal leaders
in pursuing a course that in my personal view, and I am not
speaking for the Reform Party, is leading their people absolutely
nowhere.
They need to start dealing with the facts. They need to deal
with the horrendous situations that are occurring on the
reserves. They need to break the cycle of an institutionalized
welfare state that we have implemented and which continues to
shackle the aboriginal people in this country.
We need to ensure that the resources that are put forth by the
department of Indian affairs are going where they are supposed to
go. Many of my colleagues and I have aboriginal reserves in our
constituencies. Aboriginal people have been looking for answers
as to where the moneys have gone that they have generated and
which have been given to them by the department.
Are these moneys being used for education? Are they being used
for substance abuse issues? Are they used for training? Are the
moneys being used on the Pacheedaht reserve in my riding to
repair the septic tanks that are overflowing with sewage? The
health department is aware of this yet nothing is done. People
turn a blind eye. They stick their heads in the sand.
Money is given without accountability. Who do they abuse? They
abuse the aboriginal people who have no recourse because when
they go to the department they are told to go to their councils.
When they go to their councils, a blind eye is turned on them
again.
I do not know if many of the members on the other side
understand the profound tragedy that is occurring and what their
actions are doing to these people. The answer is to perform
forensic audits on some of these reserves, not to go on a
witch hunt, not to find a scapegoat, but merely to find answers so
that the available resources are going to the people so they can
stand up on their own two feet and take care of themselves.
The minister mentioned last week that her proposals and the way
her government is pursuing this is a way to integrate and bring
together aboriginal people. In my province of British Columbia
the Nisga'a deal is going to do the exact opposite. It is going
to be the wedge that will split aboriginal and non-aboriginal
people apart. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal people have to come
together in an environment of mutual respect and tolerance so
they can work together to build a stronger constructive society
where everybody can reach their fullest potential.
I have visited reserves where people are being shot. People are
being sexually abused. They have no recourse.
1550
Money that is supposed to go to them for educational purposes is
somehow disappearing. It is alleged that it is going into the
hands of the council. Does anybody look into this? No, no one
does. Who pays for it? Certainly the taxpayer, but more
importantly the aboriginal people on those reserves who in some
cases are being abused by absolute and utter thuggery. Does
anybody listen to them? No. Why? Because we are being
hamstrung by political correctness and we are afraid to.
We have to overcome this fear, not for ourselves but for the
aboriginal people who live in our country in conditions
equivalent to third world conditions. I challenge any member on
the other side to look at this.
Does Bill C-51 have anything to do with dealing with the
violence that is occurring on the reserves? No, absolutely
nothing. Does it deal with the rape, the sexual abuse, the abuse
of children and the violence that is taking place? No, it does
nothing.
Whose confidence do we lose? We lose the confidence of the
grassroots aboriginal peoples. They are looking and pleading for
leadership. They are crying out for help. And what do we do? We
toss some money over to the council, to the Assembly of First
Nations, a political body and not necessarily a body for the
people.
Grassroots aboriginal people have been looking for years for
people to champion them so they can stand on their own feet.
They are not that interested in land claims but they do want to
live in safety. They want jobs. They want to work. They want to
keep their culture and have their language preserved. They want
to be the masters of their destiny. They want what we want.
Why have we continued to pursue a course of separation and
apartheid in Canada? Why have we done this? I ask members on
the other side to look into their souls and find this out.
I know my time is over, but I hope the government members will
work with us and all members in the House to make some
constructive changes to justice for all people instead of
sticking our heads in the sand and dealing with absolute pith.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in regard to the native issues that have been going on
around the countryside on the reserves, I have seen examples from
being on many reserves in my day and currently visiting many
during the time I spend in my constituency. After an election,
people who had jobs on the reserves are arbitrarily fired the day
after the election, obviously for having voted wrong or supported
the wrong person. Hydro has been pulled out from a given
residence. These are documented cases.
The problem seems to be a lack of democratic accountability.
That democratic accountability does not seem to be as much as
what we have in our municipal, provincial and federal
governments. Those governments are not perfect in accountability
in regard to access to information and labour laws and those
kinds of things, but I would ask the member to comment in regard
to that type of democratic accountability. Is there room for
improvement in all provinces in that regard?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, that question hits at a
very important issue which many grassroots aboriginal people are
concerned with. It deals not only with what is occurring now but
what will occur in the future after land claims are settled. It
deals with the issue of democratic accountability.
On Vancouver Island three grassroots bands have come to me, the
Becher Bay band, Pacheedaht band and the Kwicksutaineuk band.
These three bands and many others have been asking their members
of parliament to find answers for them. The issue comes to
accountability, not only for the way the bands are run but also
for where the resources are going.
1555
Right now many bands are run very well but many are not. Money
is going to band councils and it is being put into the pockets of
band council members. When band members ask where the money has
gone, they receive a dismissive note or worse, they are abused.
Some people have had their houses broken into. Some people have
had violence committed against them and their families when they
ask questions.
When those aboriginal people go to the department of Indian
affairs, the minister slams protected on her letters and says “I
do not see anything wrong here. Go to the RCMP if there is a
problem”. The RCMP are unwilling to enter into this. They do
not have the resources.
The bottom line is as my hon. friend mentioned. The grassroots
aboriginal people are caught between a rock and hard place. No
one is helping them out. If the minister of Indian affairs does
not deal with this issue quickly, she will be in trouble because
we will not stand for it any longer.
It is passing strange that members from the government are not
even attempting to stand up on these very important issues on
justice to ask even one question.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as I am the first member of my party to speak to this bill, I
will speak for the 40 minutes accorded me.
To talk on such a vast and interesting topic, I would need more
than 40 minutes, but I will not invoke the Standing Orders of
this House to seek unanimous consent to speak longer. I will
try to limit myself to the 40 minutes allotted me.
Mr. Speaker, as you are considerate toward members, I would ask
you to let me know when I have only five minutes left, as is the
practice in this House.
First off, perhaps some of my colleagues opposite or elsewhere
in this House are wondering why the Bloc Quebecois transport
critic is speaking to a bill concerning major amendments to the
Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and
amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The
reason is quite simple. It is not just because I am a lawyer by
training, but this bill contains a provision we find very
interesting.
Without making any assumption about our party's position at
third reading, I will say right off that this bill can be
improved. We intend to make certain amendments in committee,
which we believe will hold the government's attention and that
of all the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights.
Let me begin by discussing the general provisions of this bill,
before getting to the one which is of particular interest to me.
This bill includes amendments to permit the operation of casinos
on international cruise ships that are Canadian or in Canadian
waters.
It also amends the Criminal Code to permit dice-games conducted
and managed by a province. I am convinced that Loto-Québec will
be very interested in that provision.
The bill also seeks to widen the scope of the offence of
obtaining the services of a prostitute under eighteen years old.
It amends the Criminal Code to repeal the “year and a day
rule”
for offences involving homicide and criminal negligence causing
death.
1600
The bill modernizes the fraud and theft provisions in respect of
valuable minerals.
It also modernizes the provisions concerning the offence of
making likenesses of bank-notes.
It ensures that only officials with law enforcement duties can
execute search warrants.
It provides for the authority to remove lawfully-installed
electronic surveillance devices.
It provides sentencing measures dealing with the consideration
of outstanding charges, the offender's ability to pay a fine and
addressing technical matters.
It provides rules governing when conditional sentences run
following the breach of a condition.
It brings deceptive telemarketing offences against the
Competition Act under the forfeiture provisions for the proceeds
of crime.
Finally, it provides a number of other technical amendments.
The bill also provides for amendments to the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act that deal with aggravating factors in
sentencing and the criminal liability of law enforcement
officers engaged in their duties.
And, finally, it provides for amendments to the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act that exclude those convicted of
organized-crime offences from eligibility for accelerated parole
review.
Because Bill C-51 represents an important victory for the Bloc
Quebecois with respect to the operation of casinos on
international cruise ships, hence my remarks this afternoon, we
support the bill in principle.
We feel, however, that the bill does not go far enough with
respect to money laundering, particularly as it does not remove
$1,000 bank notes from circulation. We know that our colleague,
the hon. member for Charlesbourg, introduced a private member's
bill about this.
Our party also believes that the bill will not prevent the
distressing repetition of cases like that of Joseph Lagana, who
was released from prison after serving only one-sixth of his
sentence.
My colleague, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, will have an
opportunity to take this up later on in the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights.
To come back to the point that interests us, I ask the House to
examine clause 7 of the bill, which would amend the act by
adding the following after section 207 of the Criminal Code.
I believe it is pertinent to read it:
207.1 (1) Despite any of the provisions of this Part relating to
gaming and betting, it is lawful for the owner or operator of an
international cruise ship, or their agent, to conduct, manage or
operate and for any person to participate in a lottery scheme
during a voyage on an international cruise ship when all of the
following conditions are satisfied:
(a) all the people participating in the lottery scheme are
located on the ship;
(b) the lottery scheme is not linked, by any means of
communication, with any lottery scheme, betting, pool selling or
pool system of betting located off the ship;
(c) the lottery scheme is not operated within five nautical
miles of a Canadian port at which the ship calls or is scheduled
to call; and
(d) the ship is registered
(i) in Canada and its entire voyage is scheduled to be outside
Canada, or
(ii) anywhere, including Canada, and its voyage
includes some scheduled voyaging within Canada and the voyage
(A) is of at least forty-eight hours duration and includes some
voyaging in international waters and at least one non-Canadian
port of call including the port at which the voyage begins or
ends, and
(B) is not scheduled to disembark any passengers at a
Canadian port who have embarked at another Canadian port,
without calling on at least one non-Canadian port between the two
Canadian ports.
1605
I would start off by indicating that this clause suits the Bloc
Quebecois for a number of reasons I shall try to explain. It is
also supported unanimously by the greater Quebec City regional
community. I will have the opportunity later to refer to
certain stakeholders who have supported certain actions by the
Bloc Quebecois in the Quebec City region culminating in what we
have before us now, Bill C-51.
I would like to return to one point, and I think it would be
appropriate to do so. Our party, the Bloc Quebecois, had
introduced private members' bills on behalf of the regional team
of Bloc Quebecois MPs.
I refer to Bill C-415, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gaming
and betting), which I have introduced. I think it would be
relevant to see to what extent the government listened to what
the Bloc Quebecois was calling for.
In the latest election campaign, and in the one held in 1993,
some people wondered—and it was often our neighbours opposite,
when we met them in all party debates—what the Bloc was doing
there. There were even some simple-minded plays on words to the
effect that the Prime Minister was serving us or that the
Progressive Conservative leader, Jean Charest, was serving us.
It was said that the Bloc Quebecois would block the system. A
very intellectual remark.
We had, and we still have, a role to play. The victory we
gained because the government listened to our voice on this
amendment to the Criminal Code shows very clearly that members
of the Bloc Quebecois, who represent 60% of the ridings in
Quebec, play an important role in the defence of Quebec's
interests.
Therefore, by introducing Bill C-415, I sought to amend the
Criminal Code to make it possible for someone on an
international cruise ship in Canadian waters to set up and
operate a prescribed casino for the passengers on that ship
under certain conditions. The bill also provides that a
passenger on such a ship may enter such a casino and engage in
gaming and betting.
I will not refer to the amendment to section 207.1 of the
Criminal Code that I was proposing, but I will remind the House
that I had proposed the casino close one hour before the ship
called at a Canadian port. The government preferred to have the
casino close five nautical miles before the ship called at a
Canadian port. We have no problem there. I will have to ask my
friends who are pilots on the lower St. Lawrence what an hour is
in nautical miles.
Members will recall that in another parliament, the Bloc
Quebecois introduced another private member's bill, which
unfortunately died on the Order Paper with the election call on
June 2, 1997.
I must take a few minutes to speak about the antiquated private
members' bill procedure, inherited from the British
parliamentary system, just as your function as speaker and ours
as members of parliament were. There is this procedure for
private members' bills, commonly known as private bills.
The procedure for selecting private members' bills to be debated
in this House is totally archaic. This is incredible, when the
year 2000 is almost upon us.
1610
We are on the eve of a new century, a new millennium. Yet, we
are still using the archaic procedure consisting basically in
picking the name of the member whose bill shall be debated out
of a hat. You did hear correctly, Mr. Speaker, out of a hat. I
noticed you almost fell out of your chair, but I can see you are
sitting back comfortably now.
Members' names are put in a hat and bills are picked at random.
This is a monumental aberration. I think that, on the eve of the
new millennium, we should be able to find a different method for
selecting private members' bills.
By definition, a private member's bill has been drafted by a
member of parliament democratically elected by his constituents,
regardless of his or her political affiliation.
I greatly value parliamentary work and I have respect for all my
colleagues from both sides of the House. Every one of us has a
legitimate right to sit here. We have all been democratically
elected to this place. No one in Canada had a gun to their head
when they voted. No one voted under the threat of machine guns.
That is democracy.
That is why, every opportunity I have, whether in this House or
in committee, I ask that our fellow citizens' wish to have us
represent them to the best of our abilities be respected.
We are not perfect. And no member can claim to have a magic wand
and to be able to perform miracles. We do our best and have
strong beliefs.
I am asking our fellow members of Parliament to respect us as
individuals. There is no ambiguity about the Bloc Quebecois'
role: we are here to promote Quebec's sovereignty, to show that
the federal system does not work, and to protect the interests
of Quebec.
We were elected in a fair manner. Considering that 60% of the
ridings in Quebec are represented by Bloc Quebecois members, I
think everybody should accept the results of the democratic
vote.
Having said that, I want to ask you something, Mr. Speaker,
since you are an active and well-known jurist in the region of
Kingston and the Islands. I would like you to seriously think
about how to improve the selection process of private members'
bills. I am asking you to do that, and I do hope to hear from
you on this issue.
To allow the operation of casinos on cruise ships was one of the
issues on the electoral platform of the regional caucus of the
Bloc Quebecois, before the June 2, 1997 election. The hon.
member for Quebec, who is sitting here and who chairs our
eight-member regional caucus, remembers very well that we got
together and consulted various stakeholders and groups in the
greater Quebec City area. We gained some experience as a
regional caucus during the previous Parliament.
This had given us an opportunity, since 1993, to regularly meet
with various people and groups. Proposing an amendment to the
Criminal Code, so as to permit the operation of casinos on
international cruise ships, was an integral part of our regional
electoral platform.
That is why people in the greater Quebec City area are glad that
the Criminal Code will be amended after the various stages
required in the House of Commons so that this irritant can be
eliminated.
I think it would be appropriate to take a few minutes to explain
what the particular problem was. The configuration of the Gulf
of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence River affected
international cruise ships, most of which operate casinos, which
are one of the activities offered on cruises, as well as a
lucrative source of income for ship owners.
1615
We met with ship owners like those of the Holland America
company on the MS Veemdam when it first put in at Quebec City.
Two years ago, in September, the MS Westerdam of the same
company also stopped over in Quebec City.
Ship owners told us that, if they could operate casinos on
board, a lot more ships would choose the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes
system for a stopover. As well, ships that already come here,
could do so more often. This would develop many more stopovers.
Most of these ships have American passengers.
The people listening to us are aware that the dollar went
through a terrible crisis this summer, while the government sat
back and did nothing. When it dropped as low as 61 or 62 cents,
the Prime Minister said that this was not serious, that it would
encourage tourists to visit the beaches of New Brunswick. He
was more worried about his golf game, and kept his eye on the
ball more than on the falling dollar.
Be that as it may, given the state of our dollar, we know that a
great many American cruise ship passengers are heading for the
splendour of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its river and the
Great Lakes. Naturally, these are boats whose depth and width
permit them to pass through the locks.
The ship owners told us: “If we could operate our casinos until
an hour before we land, that would add considerably to the port
traffic, not only at Quebec City but also at Trois-Rivières and
Montreal, and for certain ships, as far inland as Thunder Bay.
This is why the Liberal member for Thunder Bay, had already
indicated to me when we sat on the Standing Committee on
Transport that he approved of the private member's bill I had
introduced.
Because of the particular geography of the St. Lawrence, the
limit of international waters fell more or less off Anticosti
Island. Those who know their geography are aware that a cruise
ship had to close its casino when it was off Anticosti, when it
entered Canadian waters. The first landing was only at Quebec
City, two days later, so there was a two-day period when the
casino could not open.
Passengers complained, and the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes route
suffered considerably as a result.
On the other hand, I would point out that the port of Halifax
does not experience the same problem, nor does Vancouver. Once
a ship has left English Bay, it is in international waters
almost immediately. Only an hour after the ship has left port,
passengers can start gambling again, because they are already in
international waters.
We say: let us amend the Criminal Code. Loto-Quebec, among
others, supported the Bloc Quebecois in this regard, as did the
Quebec ministry of tourism. They did not see any threat to the
operation of provincial casinos because ship passengers are a
captive clientele.
Certainly, when the ship docks, the ship operator must, of
course, close down the casino.
We have no problem with that. That is perfectly normal.
I mentioned earlier that this bill had the unanimous approval of
the region's stakeholders. I will name some of the
organizations that supported the Bloc Quebecois' position in
asking the government for an amendment to the Criminal Code to
allow casinos to operate on cruise ships.
1620
There is the Quebec City Region Tourist and Convention Bureau,
the Secrétariat à la mise en valeur du Saint-Laurent, the
Corporation of the Lower St. Lawrence Pilots, the Coopérative
des artisans et des commerçants du quartier Petit Champlain, the
Association des gens d'affaires de Place-Royale, the Quebec
ministry of tourism, Loto-Québec, the Société de développement
économique du Québec known as SODES, the City of Quebec, the
Quebec Urban Community and the Port of Quebec.
I think it would be relevant for me to quote, for your personal
edification, a letter signed by the chairman of the Quebec Urban
Community, Denis Giguère, who is the mayor of Loretteville, I
believe, and who wrote to the Minister of Justice on April 20,
1998.
He said this:
Subject: Changes to the Criminal Code—authorization of casinos
on the St. Lawrence
Madam Minister:
Over the past two years, the council of the Quebec Urban
Community has tried on a number of occasions to make your
predecessor aware of the importance of changing the Criminal
Code to permit the rapid growth of the international cruise
industry on the St. Lawrence and in eastern Canada. I have
appended the letters sent to him and to your colleagues in the
federal government.
On a number of occasions, it was rumoured in the media that the
federal government was prepared to act on this issue and that
the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would be up for
debate before the House of Commons in the near future.
Unfortunately, nothing came of it, and no progress has been made
on this issue. Several stakeholders suggested the reason for
this delay was the lack of consensus among those in the tourist
industry who are closely associated with development of the
cruise ship industry. I do not think so.
That is Mr. Giguère, the president of the Quebec Urban
Community, speaking.
On the contrary, this is a booming industry, and all of eastern
Canada is benefiting from the spinoffs generated in our regional
and provincial economies.
I am therefore asking once again, Madam Minister, that the
federal government look into this matter as soon as possible and
take appropriate action.
Thank you for your attention. Sincerely,
And it is signed “Denis Giguère, President of the Quebec Urban
Community”. We received a copy of this letter.
I think that tourism industry stakeholders in the greater Quebec
City area clearly supported our position, as confirmed by the
government in agreeing to amend the Criminal Code.
My statement about the Quebec port authority supporting our
approach is backed by an article published in Le Soleil on
Saturday, April 25, 1998. The managing director of the port de
Québec, Ross Gaudreault, held a press conference and the related
article can be summed up as follows:
Quebec City appears to be on its way to becoming a choice port
of call for cruise ships. A growing number of passenger liners
berth at Quebec City earlier and earlier in the season—
This fact prompted the managing director of the port de Québec,
Ross Gaudreault, to say:
The article went on to say:
When cruise ships stop over, they generate very important
economic benefits for the City of Quebec. This year, it is
estimated that 45,000 passengers will visit Quebec City and will
spend approximately $110 US each, not to mention crew members
and the expenditures related to the ships themselves. In 1997,
the economies of the Province of Quebec and of Quebec City
benefited to the tune of approximately $5.9 million.
And I will stop here.
I wanted to explain why this Criminal Code amendment was so
important for economic development. This bill effectively
removes an irritant, and I think that the region will now be
able to play its leadership role unimpeded and will be
represented at conferences.
1625
Every year in March, a major North American conference is held
in Miami at which cruise lines decide on their destinations for
the coming years. The Port of Quebec spokespersons, SODES or
the various stakeholders representing the greater Quebec City
area will be able to tell the cruise lines and ship owners that
the irritant of not being able to operate casinos has now been
removed by an amendment to the Criminal Code.
I do not want to go on too long, because I want to leave time
for other colleagues to speak as well, but I will mention that
we raised this issue again with the Minister of Justice in a
letter we sent her on May 21.
On June 8, my colleague, the member for Québec, and I held a
press conference attended by various regional stakeholders. And
on June 9, we questioned the Minister of Justice in the House as
follows: “In order to remove this obstacle to the expansion of
the international cruise industry for once and for all, will the
minister agree to take action and immediately introduce the
required Criminal Code amendments, so that cruise ships can
operate casinos in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?”
The minister's response was a very simple one. On June 11, she
tabled this omnibus bill, which contained a provision that would
allow casinos on cruise ships.
I would ask in closing: why is it important for the greater
Quebec City region to obtain this amendment? We are convinced
that the government will listen to this request because it is
something on which unanimity can be readily obtained.
I found the 1996 statistics on the traffic at the port of
Vancouver in my files. As I have already pointed out, we know
Vancouver does not have a problem. As soon as the cruise ship
leaves English Bay, within an hour it can open up its casino
again. From our experience on several transport committees, we
know what a boom there has been in recent years with the Alaskan
cruises. When their passengers visit ports of call, they leave
money behind in the economy, including that of greater
Vancouver.
I will give some figures for the number of cruise passengers
visiting the port of Vancouver in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996.
In 1992, there were 449,239 passengers; in 1994, the figure had
gone up to 591,409, and in 1996, 701,547. According to all the
economic studies, they contribute a lot when they come ashore.
Let us not forget that these are people who are rather well off.
Last week, the Vision of the Sea, the biggest cruise ship in the
world, docked at the port of Quebec. It carries 2,400
passengers who pay some $10,000 US for a week's cruise. We must
point out that these are not cruises within the reach of the
ordinary American. The passengers are people well enough off to
be able to afford $10,000 US for a week's cruise. When the
cruise ship is in port and these passengers are wandering around
on foot exploring the city, they each leave behind between $110
and $150 US.
If Vancouver had 701,547 such visitors in 1996, one can just
imagine what that represents.
I will get the numbers for 1997, but they were significantly
higher. Unless I am mistaken, they were close to 900,000. I do
not want to give the wrong numbers. I will get back to this if I
have the opportunity to take part in the debate at third
reading.
It is important for the economic development of a large region,
particularly since the Quebec City region is positioning itself
for a new type of cruises. Indeed, the Board of Trade and
Industry of the Metropolitan Quebec is proposing to promote
northern luxury and ecotourist cruises.
Quebec City would become the regional boarding port for cruises
along the Labrador coast, and perhaps even all the way up to
Greenland.
1630
Again, this could lead to some very interesting economic
spinoffs, once this irritant is removed and it becomes possible
to operate casinos in international waters.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to address the bill.
Members may can rest assured that we will be vigilant during the
next stages of this legislation, and the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm will be on the lookout during the discussions
in committee.
While we do not oppose the principle underlying Bill C-51, we
will still move amendments through our critic on justice issues,
the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm. We do hope the government
will be receptive to our recommendations.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-51, an
act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
First I would like to draw the attention of the House, but more
particularly the listening public, to the fact that what we have
before us is an omnibus bill. An omnibus bill is the name given
to a bill that contains many unrelated amendments. We usually
get omnibus bills in the context of amendments to the Criminal
Code, but it is not only in the context of amendments to the
Criminal Code and related acts that we get omnibus bills.
I would remind the House that in the past the House has found
particular omnibus bills to be quite offensive. That is to say,
offensive in terms of parliamentary procedure and offensive in
terms of the limited opportunity that it gives to the House to
express itself on the various matters that are contained within
the omnibus bill.
One of the most paralyzing and significant crises in Canadian
parliamentary history happened over an omnibus bill. It was the
omnibus bill brought in by a Liberal government in 1982.
In that case it was not an omnibus bill having to do with the
Criminal Code, but an omnibus bill having to do with energy
policy that prompted the bell ringing crisis in the early months
of 1982 when the bells rang for 16 days.
Those members of the House who do not go back that far should
know that the bells used to be a lot louder than they are now.
They rang and they rang for 16 days, 24 hours a day, until that
crisis was finally dealt with. That was over an omnibus bill.
I say to the government that, although there is not that kind of
controversy around this omnibus bill, I still find that omnibus
bills in and of themselves provide a great deal of difficulty for
members of the House of Commons, particularly for the opposition
because we are put in the position of having to vote for the
whole bill or against the whole bill. As is often the case with
omnibus bills, there are aspects of the bill that we support and
aspects of the bill that we do not.
With respect to Bill C-51, there are a number of things which we
support, such as the provision to widen the scope of the offence
for obtaining the services of a prostitute under 18 years old, the
provision to repeal the year and a day rule for offences
involving homicide and criminal negligence causing death, the
provision to modernize the fraud and theft provisions with
respect to valuable materials and the provision to modernize the
provisions concerning the offence of making likenesses of bank
notes.
We support provisions to ensure that only officials with law
enforcement duties can execute search warrants, provisions having
to do with sentencing measures dealing with the consideration of
outstanding charges, the offender's ability to pay a fine and
those which address technical matters. We support the provision
of rules governing when conditional sentences run following the
breach of a condition and bringing deceptive telemarketing
offences against the Competition Act under the forfeiture
provisions for the proceeds of crime.
1635
A number of these are housekeeping, modernizing, technical
amendments, but there are a couple of elements in this bill that
we believe are worthy of debate and contention. I refer
specifically to the provision that would permit the operation of
casinos on international cruise ships that are Canadian or in
Canadian waters and the provision to permit dice games conducted
and managed by a province.
After having listened to the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois
I think I understand a little bit better where this amendment
having to do with the operation of casinos on international
cruise ships that are Canadian or in Canadian waters comes from.
It may well be, upon reflection, that there is an argument to be
made for this amendment that is peculiar to the circumstances
that Quebec City finds itself in with regard to international
cruise ships and Canadian cruise ships.
I was grateful to the member for explaining the value that the
province of Quebec and Quebec City sees in this particular
amendment.
Having said that, I will concentrate on the provision that
permits dice games conducted and managed by a province. I speak
to this because I share the concern of a lot of Canadians and
certainly my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, and
presumably members in other caucuses as well, that all parties,
wherever they have been in government, whether they be federal or
provincial, over the last 10 to 15 years have succumbed in one
way or another or are in the process of succumbing to the
gambling game, to a form of gambling addiction which is not just
to be found in those individuals who are addicted to gambling,
but is to be found in governments that are addicted to the
revenue from gambling.
This is a problem that crosses party lines. I do not rise in my
place here to pretend that any one particular political party is
somehow exempt from criticism in this regard. It is simply to
register my own concern and the concern of my colleagues and, as
I said, I would hope colleagues from other parties that as a
country we are becoming a nation of casinos.
I have a casino in my own riding called Club Regent. If someone
had asked me 10 years ago whether I would have ever thought that
driving between my home and my constituency office I would have
to pass a casino every day I would have said they were crazy,
that it would never happen. Yet today that is the case.
I am sure a lot of my constituents are happy that it is there.
It is a good location for them. People enjoy going there and
there are people, many of whom I know as they are good friends,
who seem to be able to go to the casino, not spend all that much
money and just enjoy themselves. They have some kind of internal
limit on what they spend and when it is done they are gone.
Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, but it is not
destructive.
However, the fact is that for a lot of Canadians it is
destructive. It is destructive of their economic and personal
lives. I cannot help but think that in the end it is destructive
of our collective well-being to have governments dependent in the
way they have become on revenue from gambling, dependent so much
so that they are always looking for opportunities to expand this
revenue base.
1640
Where can they build another casino? Can they add a hotel that
would attract more business from outside the city, outside the
province or outside the country? What can they do to induce more
Canadians and more non-Canadians to come to Canada to gamble?
I do not know about other members, but when I grew up gambling
was something that happened in Las Vegas. Gambling was something
that happened in back rooms, with guys playing poker. It was
frowned upon. It seemed to be something on the seedy side of
life.
The provinces have taken this particular phenomena which was
regarded in that way in the past and have elevated it to a major
component of our fiscal and social life. I think that is a
mistake. I think a lot of Canadians think it is a mistake. I
think it is a mistake whether it is done by an NDP government, a
Liberal government, a Conservative government, a Péquistes
government or, God forbid, a Reform government.
I just wanted to put that concern on the record. It is
certainly something that comes not just out of my own political
tradition. In spite of the actions of particular NDP
governments, there was certainly a long tradition of opposition
to gambling in the CCF and in the NDP. I think it comes out of
the social gospel. It comes out of the Protestant churches. My
own church, the United Church of Canada, is still resolutely
opposed to any form of gambling.
I think we are at the point where we need to do some rethinking
of this collective addiction to gambling, rather than expanding
upon it, which is basically what Bill C-51 does. Up until this
point we have not allowed people to participate in throwing the
dice. We saw a bit of throwing the dice when it came to
constitutional matters back in 1992 or whenever it was when the
former prime minister said he was throwing the dice, but I
digress because I am quite serious about this.
I think to expand the parameters of gambling in Canada at this
time is a serious mistake. We know that gambling
disproportionately disadvantages the poor. We know that in many
ways it is a tax on the poor. I feel that instead of looking to
gambling for more revenues, instead of looking to a way of
raising money that disproportionately disadvantages low income
people, we should be looking to a real reform of our tax system
which gives meaningful income tax breaks to Canadians of low
income and looking at ways in which we could make those who have,
and have much, contribute more to the general well-being.
At the moment we have a tax system which basically subsidizes
those who have. If people have enough money to put $10,000 or
$15,000 into RRSPs, if they can max out on their RRSP limit, the
Government of Canada is subsidizing their pensions at the same
time as it is saying to a lot of low income Canadians that they
are going to have to get by on less and less. There will be no
significant increases in CPP or OAS. But when it comes to
subsidizing the retirement incomes of those who are affluent
enough to max out on their RRSPs there seems to be no limit. I
suppose this is some perverse fulfilment of the biblical saying
that for those who have, much more will be added, and to those
who have little, they will have even less. I am paraphrasing,
but members know the teaching I am talking about.
1645
I do not think we ought to see that fulfilled in the way that we
have through the tax system we have now. So I make that point,
but fundamentally I wanted to make the point that I think
somewhere in the eighties we took a wrong turn. Government by
government and province by province we conceded in the eighties,
and the nineties, but it started in the eighties. Actually it
started before that, in the late seventies with lotteries, but it
progressed.
We can argue about when it started, but the fact of the matter
is that somewhere along the line I think we made a serious wrong
turn. I would hope that some day we might see the wisdom of
seeking genuine alternatives to gambling in terms of raising
revenue and return to a time when there was either none or a
whole lot less government sanctioned gambling going on than there
is now.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I too would like to
talk about some of the issues mentioned by the member who just
finished speaking.
I find it interesting how much time we spend in this place
debating justice issues and crime issues. It is particularly true
since the emergence of the Reform Party and its attempts to
overdramatize and frankly to frighten the Canadian public and
people visiting this country, when Canada is by and large a safe
place to live, a safe place to work and raise a family and a safe
place to visit.
I would like to reassure people that our justice system, with
some of its faults, is a fine system. It does provide proper
justice to criminals. It does provide safety and security for
families. When there are tragedies and victims are involved,
there is a mechanism in place that will respond to those
tragedies.
I also say to visitors, to people like Stafford and Lesley Woods
who just arrived today from Europe that their stay in Canada,
even though it will be with me, will be reasonably safe. They
need not worry that they have landed in a country that the Reform
Party would have them think is fraught with criminals, with
organized crime, with gangs running around, with rape and
pillaging taking place. That is simply not the reality
experienced in this country.
I was also particularly interested in the comments by the member
from the Reform Party who said that we should somehow take the
politics out of these debates, to paraphrase those remarks. Yet
in the year and a bit I have been in this place I have seen no
one here who plays politics more with justice issues, more with
crime and more in a tragic sense with victims of crime than
members of the Reform Party.
It is interesting to hear them say how they would support some
form of safe gun legislation or gun registry, yet they have been
opposed to what some 80% of Canadians have supported, which is a
gun control law that does make our streets safer.
Last week or the week before we dealt with the DNA bill which
will provide a system of enhanced enforcement and control for
police right across the country. It is a bill that police chiefs
and police associations have supported in large number. The
police believe and know—and my colleague from Waterloo who I
believe served on the police commission would tell us—that a
system of registering DNA in a proper data bank will assist them
in doing their job.
Yet that was opposed and members of the Reform Party played
politics on that legislation.
1650
Members stand up and say that we should not be on a witch hunt,
yet I see nothing but witch hunts in this place. It has got to
the point that you have to check underneath the cubicle door in
the washroom to make sure no one is sitting there with his feet
up and a notepad trying to catch something someone might say that
could be raised as a point of privilege in an attempt to
embarrass someone who might have been having a private
conversation. It appears there is no safe place where we do not
find members of the opposition lurking about attempting to catch
and trick members of the government, to fabricate and come
forward with a horrendous scandal.
It is scandal envy. Members opposite see what President Clinton
is going through. They see the feeding frenzy of the media in the
United States and the games played by members of the Republican
Party in coming forward in the impeachment process. They ask
“Why can we not have that much fun? Why not make up a scandal
and get somebody? We can write down some notes, put a glass up
to the office wall to see what we might hear. Imagine the fun we
could have”.
All this is done instead of getting on with the business of
running the country. This is done instead of dealing with issues
of serious economic impact, such as the Asian crisis and the
problems our finance minister was dealing with in Washington. We
do not have questions about those issues. There has not been one
question from the opposition dealing with the seriousness of the
IMF situation, the stock markets around the world, and the Japan
crisis. What do we have? Members say that we should not be
playing politics.
It is more than just a joke, it is quite sad. Because in
essence when we get a bill like this bill, which I agree is an
omnibus bill that requires looking at a number of different
amendments to legislation, members opposite want to play politics
instead of dealing with the substantive issues.
I want to talk about the gambling issue. The member from the
New Democratic Party had the unmitigated gall to cast aspersions
around the country when the slippery slope of casino gambling was
started by Premier Bob Rae in the province of Ontario and was
exacerbated by this New Democratic Party premier. He put the
entire economic future of the province of Ontario into the hands
of gambling.
The casino in Windsor generates hundreds of millions of dollars
of revenue. Casino Rama is doing the same thing. There is also
the casino of casinos in Niagara Falls. Can we close them? Can
we say to those communities “Sorry ladies and gentlemen, we have
to take all the jobs away”. The slippery slope was started by
the New Democrats and they should at least have the courage and
the moral fortitude to admit it.
People in Windsor look across the Detroit River and see a city
of several million people about to embark on the construction and
opening of three, count them, three mega casino projects. What
will those casinos do to the casino in Windsor? It has a serious
problem in competing with them.
The rolling of the dice referred to in the bill that often
colloquially is called craps is not allowed in our country
currently.
This bill will at least give Casino Windsor and the one in
Niagara which are across the border from major U.S. metropolises
that will be in the casino business, the opportunity to survive.
1655
What is our option? It is tragic, because what has really
happened here is that provincial governments, and Ontario being
the mother of all provincial governments in size and in economic
impact in this country, now rely on the revenues from gambling.
In fact, with the cutbacks and the changes, Mike Harris has now
closed all the charity casinos in the province of Ontario.
Imagine that. The little charity casinos. Hockey
organizations, scouting movements, volunteer groups from all
across the country and certainly in my community in Mississauga
relied on those charity casinos. What damage were they doing?
The provincial government came along and said “They are
unregulated. They are out of control. The charities are not
making enough money so we are going to embark on a process to
build 44 new casinos in the province of Ontario”.
The provincial government called for proposals. Proponents
submitted proposals and spent millions of dollars. Then without
any thought to the impact of having closed all the charity
casinos, it said to the volunteers and the charities “You can no
longer earn money from this endeavour”. The United Way, all
kinds of groups who rely on them are now before municipal
councils saying “What do we do now? Give us a bingo licence.
Give us some lifeblood. Give us some opportunity to survive”.
Mike Harris and the Conservative government following in the
footsteps of the creators of the great casino migration in the
province of Ontario, the New Democrats, have banned the charity
casinos and cancelled the RFP for the 44 casinos that were going
to open. The charities would have been able at least to apply to
the Trillium Foundation for some of their revenue but the
province told those charities to find some other way to survive.
What are their options? Quite clearly they have to look inward.
They have to look to their membership. Only so many bake sales
and garage sales can be held in an attempt to raise that lost
revenue.
There is enough shame to go around at least in the province of
Ontario on the issue of casinos. But we now have no choice.
Whether a member is in opposition, whether it was that member's
party that brought this in or whether it was the government, we
have to ensure that these establishments survive. They have
become huge generators of economic wealth on which the provinces
now rely for health care, for social care and even for education
because of the amount of money that is going into them.
Therefore, welcome to crap city. That is what we are dealing
with in this country because the casino phenomenon will indeed
expand.
Another part of the bill which I think the opposition has failed
to recognize as being critical is what it will do in the area of
domestic violence. One of the changes in this omnibus bill deals
with something we identified through working with the province
which is that those who are arrested as a result of domestic
violence often try to contact the victims. We all know this.
Having been in politics for almost 20 years, I and I know many
other people in this place deal with battered women, with
families who have suffered through domestic violence and know
from experience that the perpetrators, the people who have been
charged, try to contact the victims in domestic violence cases.
Why do they do that? It is because they want to change the
victim's mind. Or maybe they get their lawyer to offer some kind
of deal or do some kind of plea so that the woman will back off.
Most of the time it is the woman who is suffering from this
violence.
This bill says that cannot be done any more. This bill says
that they cannot contact the individual they are charged with
battering.
A lawyer cannot be sent as some kind of missionary to convince
the battered or abused individual, often a wife, a girlfriend or
a common law wife. They can no longer interfere.
1700
Why is that important? I spent nine and a half years as a
member of regional council and city council in the region of Peel
and Mississauga. We administered social services during that
time and still do. My wife is currently a member of that
council. We dealt at the ground level with the results. We saw
the women, in most cases women, with black eyes and broken bones
as a result of domestic violence.
In addition to the tragedy of domestic violence all too often we
see that women will back off, either through coercion, fear for
their children or their own personal safety. They refuse to
proceed. It is a scourge on society that we should not tolerate
as parliamentarians, as city, local and regional councillors, as
MPPs or MLAs. We must attack domestic violence and eliminate it
from society as much as we possibly can.
If Bill C-51 is worth supporting for one reason and for one
reason only, it is this aspect of the bill. To vote against the
bill will mean this change will not occur.
I ask members opposite to stop playing the games I hear going on
in this place and to look at the benefits of the bill and how it
will assist the broad base of society. It will improve the
justice system in relationship to domestic violence. It will say
to the perpetrators, as I said before, that they cannot contact
the victims or through some surreptitious manner have their
lawyers do it.
Hopefully this will help social workers and people who deal with
the victims of domestic violence to shore them up and give them
the courage they need to go forward so that a conviction can take
place and we do something about ending domestic violence.
That is not the only reason to support the bill. I suggest
there are many others. There is the issue surrounding child
prostitution. As well, the bill will benefit police enforcement.
Why? Because it will permit police to use electronic
surveillance to determine if a person has sought some kind of
sexual favour from a minor. They can use that evidence to obtain
a conviction. It is critically important and does not exist now.
The bill will allow that to take place.
Members opposite might ask for a clause that toughens the
punishment. The government has done that in other areas. This
bill like all bills cannot be a panacea for all concerns in the
justice system. We should not expect Bill C-51 to solve every
problem.
No one in the House on either side, in any party, condones any
kind of sexual offence against children. To suggest otherwise is
playing politics. That brings me back to a private member's bill
that we dealt with in this place earlier in the week, Bill C-284.
There was an attempt to play politics with the issues surrounding
amendments to the Criminal Records Act, the CRA, that deal with
publishing the records of those who have been convicted of some
form of sexual offence against a minor and are pardoned.
The solicitor general already has the discretion to disclose
pardon records to bona fide organizations. Who are those
organizations?
1705
There are numerous examples of convicted people who have been
paroled, finished their sentence or pardoned. I do not know of
any who have been pardoned after being convicted of sexually
abusing a minor, but certainly they complete their sentences and
wind up at some point back in the community.
There are numerous examples of names being published, of
photographs being published and of the communities in which they
are to live being warned that these individuals are back. However
it has been done appropriately. It has been done through the
police force to ensure there is no abuse of anyone's rights.
That is one of the greatest things about this safe country of
Canada, the country I welcomed Stafford and Lesley Woods to, the
country I welcomed people from all over the world to. We are a
safe country. We have a parliamentary democracy that allows us
to put in place laws that will protect women and children, in
fact our entire society.
The bill should be supported unanimously for many reasons, a
couple of which I have outlined today.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to rise on behalf of the official opposition and
on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to address the contents
of Bill C-51. The legislation proposes changes to the criminal
law in the areas of gambling, homicide, child prostitution,
conditional sentencing, organized crime, mineral claims,
provisions regarding the use of computers in copying currency,
and other matters too numerous to mention here.
I listened very carefully to Liberal members. I will dissect
the bill to show them its anatomy. The Liberals are doing six
things with the bill. Let us remember that number. I will go
over those six things very soon.
Like so much legislation we have dealt with in this session
since our return to the House in September, the government has
chosen to do as little as possible in the bill. In Bill C-3 the
Liberals tied the hands of law enforcement agencies by denying
them full use of DNA identification technology. The Liberals
ignored victims of crime and the safety and security of Canadians
to ensure the rights of the accused would be protected. The
Liberals care more about criminals than about victims.
Last week we saw Bill C-53 on fast track in the House. The bill
was rammed through the House at first and second reading in four
working days. The Liberals fail to address problems with the
government's small business financing program. It is another
failure.
In the process of doing very little in terms of what they should
do and could not do to improve the small business loans program,
the Liberals ignored the recommendations of the auditor general
and 90,000 members of the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business.
Bill C-35 is another example. Last week the government did not
go far enough in amending the legislation governing anti-dumping
and anti-subsidy tools applied to imported goods. The Liberals
again ignored the interest of businesses and Canadian consumers
that are downstream from an import duty or countervailing duty
being imposed on an imported product.
Liberals could have granted the request made by our frontline
police officers regarding the use of DNA identification to fight
crime. Liberals could have helped small businesses prosper and
create more jobs in the country. They could have simply provided
for downstream businesses and consumers to be considered earlier
in the process that would affect them.
In Bill C-51 the Liberals treat each of the six Criminal Code
amendments in a very shallow manner. What they are proposing in
the bill is very weak and indeed very meek.
1710
The title of the bill mentions that it will amend the Criminal
Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Looking at the
title, one would think this means the Liberals were to do
something about drug related crime, drug gangs or other things.
The first issue the Liberals say they are addressing in Bill
C-51 is illegal gambling. Can we imagine the dismay of my
constituents and I when we realized that in terms of gambling
solutions the government is doing only one thing. It is allowing
international cruise ships to operate casinos while sailing in
Canadian waters. That is all it is proposing in the bill.
There is no cleaning up of numbers games, bookies, illegal
gambling rackets or underground black market racketeers. There
is nothing of that sort. Canadians do not even take cruise ships
because they cannot afford it. Canadians are so heavily taxed
and our dollar is so low that they stay at home on their
holidays. They cannot leave this country with a 65 cent dollar.
They can only travel as far as their 10 year old cars can take
them.
The Liberal government is not fooling anyone. In my
constituency of Surrey the provincial government has approved
slot machines and gambling and the local municipal government has
not. There is a contradiction between both governments.
In Bill C-51 the federal government has moved toward legalizing
some form of gambling. Something is wrong when various levels of
government contradict themselves. Would it not be nice and
progressive if all levels of government complement each other
rather than contradict each other? Do the Liberals forget what
synergy means? Do they want to make two plus two equal three or
five?
The second effort in Bill C-51 is the homicide amendment. It
does away with a 19th century law which says that in order for a
murder to be considered a homicide the death of the victim must
take place within a year plus a day of the incident which
allegedly caused the death.
We had a death recently in my constituency of Surrey Central.
Sandor Nyerges was a deaf and mute 80 year old veteran of two
world wars. He was attacked in a botched robbery attempt in his
home. This brave, strong and determined Canadian was a survivor.
He lived in the hospital for several days before he succumbed to
his injuries.
It is a good thing that the Liberals are finally doing away with
this 19th century law. Not all victims die immediately and we
should make room for that in our criminal law. Why did Canadians
have to wait for a full century for this law to be changed?
The third thing the government is doing with the bill is
allowing the use of wiretapping to solve the crime of living off
the avails of child prostitution, keeping a common bawdy house
and using underaged prostitutes. Also the bill makes it a crime
to communicate with anyone for the purposes of obtaining or
attempting to obtain the services I mentioned.
North America has a serious drug abuse problem. In the lower
mainland of British Columbia this problem is well known.
Injection drug use is on the rise and prevalent. It is the most
dangerous and serious of the drug use categories. It causes
people to become sick, reckless and desperate. It is good that
Bill C-51 is helping the law enforcement community to deal with
this problem.
The Liberals could have gone further. They could have taken the
opportunity to increase the penalties for those convicted of
these offences. However the Liberals are not getting tough on
crime.
1715
The fourth thing the government is doing is changing the
conditional sentence portion of the law. This amendment will
ensure that while a conditional sentence is being served, the
clock is stopped immediately once a breach of the conditional
sentence takes place. The clock starts ticking again once the
breach of the conditions is dealt with and a new sentence
commences.
It used to be that a court hearing regarding the alleged breach
of the conditional sentence had to take place within 30 days of
the alleged breach. Not anymore. Bill C-51 will make the
requirement for a court hearing of a breach to be held as soon as
practical. This will make our law less harsh in terms of dealing
with breaches of conditional sentences.
The Liberals did not take the opportunity to prevent the
application of conditional sentencing to violent offences. The
government missed another opportunity today to get tough on
crime.
The fifth area the bill deals with is organized crime. No more
can a mobster be considered for parole after serving one
sixteenth of the sentence. There is a big change. Canadians do
not want anyone being released on parole after serving one
sixteenth or even one third of the sentence they have been given
by the court. We do not give sentences by square root. It does
not mean five years. Twenty-five years means twenty-five years,
but here we are talking one sixteenth.
Gangland figures are already given the full benefit of our
generous system of day parole, full parole and statutory release.
The Liberals are leaving Canadians with a penal system designed
to process criminals as fast as possible. The Liberals return the
criminals to the streets as soon as possible so that they are not
taking up space or time in our penal institutions.
Canadians know the Liberals are allowing minimal if any concern
to be given to the possibility that the offender will commit more
crimes or more offences.
The Liberals are more concerned about the rights of criminals
and they are less concerned about the rights of victims and the
safety of Canadian society.
The Liberal government should not be concerned about the
rehabilitation of the criminal. It should be concerned about the
criminal committing further crimes. Instead, the government is
concentrating on aspects of how early a person convicted of a
crime can be released. Again the Liberals are not getting tough
on crime.
In the sixth category of changes this bill proposes, we have the
catch-all category and the Liberals are going to do a number of
housekeeping things. For example, Bill C-51 proposes to put a
stop to using computers to copy currency. That looks good but in
this category there are other measures but my time will not
permit me to go into them.
In five of the six categories I have mentioned, the governing
party in the House has disappointed us and let us down again. The
Liberals are not taking concrete measures to protect Canadians,
make our homes and streets safe and reduce crime through
deterrence measures. Gambling, drugs, prostitution, organized
crime, gangs and even homicide are a sad and threatening part of
our culture.
Last week the British Columbian attorney general stated that our
law enforcement agencies are losing the war against organized
crime, gangs, drugs, prostitution, et cetera.
Most of us wish we did not have to deal with these things. Yet
again, we want to deal effectively with the perpetrators of these
crimes and reduce their harmful effects on innocent victims.
Speaking in terms of government and society, we can see that all
over the world different governments approve of different things
for their societies.
Some governments permit liberal use of dangerous drugs like
heroin. In some societies prostitution is legal. Sometimes the
results are very bad and harmful in those societies and sometimes
not, as hard as that is to believe. For example, in some
societies gambling is allowed.
1720
The problem we encountered with these activities was that very
often where one activity is treated as a crime it is often linked
to other vices. In the same geographical area where gambling is
legal they may have problems with organized crime and
prostitution. Through education and prevention we can improve
the way our society handles these vices. Our government should be
proactive and not just reactive.
My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had the House pass a
motion supporting a national head start program for our youth.
The goal was to care for each child and ensure that the needs of
each child are met. This would help our children to lead crime
free, healthy and prosperous lives.
The people of Surrey Central want our federal government to
exercise a leadership role in terms of getting tough on crime.
The Liberals have not done so with Bill C-51 which we are
debating in the House.
On this side of the House we hope the Liberals will want to
strengthen Bill C-51 along the lines that I have been talking
about at the committee stage and the bill's progress through this
House.
Having said all these things, I will not be supporting Bill C-51
in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, most
definitely, when we open up our morning papers and read about
crime, of course we feel we are under attack. When we see
abused children and women, we say it makes no sense.
We live in a society where there should be no crime but we know
very well that crime does exist—and we see far too many reports
on it. I will ask my hon. colleague this later, but will there
be less crime tomorrow, or next year, just because we strengthen
an act? I am not sure of this.
We do need laws, of course. In my riding, a priest, Father
Leblanc, gave a ride to someone and lost his life. I will say
no more about this, because the case will be coming before the
courts, but a good Samaritan stops and picks someone up,
disappears, and is later found dead after a search.
My question does not address crime per se. Everyone is against
crime, and agrees it must be stopped. But how? How can we
eradicate it in a highly civilized society? I would love to see
crime totally eradicated, or at least gradually reduced. I
believe this can be done through prevention.
A child aged two, four or five years who is not loved already
has great anger bottled up inside. It grows, and becomes part
of his very being. At aged 12 or 14, he is teased by his
classmates and he then gives vent to that hidden anger. If his
teachers, his parents or his guardians do not equip him with any
ways of overcoming it, that anger will be expressed even more
strongly.
1725
My point is that what is needed is prevention. How can it be
that so much money is put into law enforcement and not into
prevention? I am asking my colleague what means of prevention
could be created to put an end to this?
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I give credit to the
hon. member for the important question he has put forward. But it
does not mean I necessarily agree with him in what he is saying.
Prevention is always good and prevention is better than a cure.
We in this country are in a damage control mode as far as crime
is concerned. We are not in a preventive mode.
The worst part is that I am surprised at how government members
represent their constituents when they are not listening to them.
All Canadians are demanding that our laws be tougher so that we
can prevent crime.
Bills we see in this House do not have any teeth. The Canadian
Police Association has demanded from this government DNA
legislation so that it can solve more crimes and prevent more
crimes from happening. But this government has not done that.
Our system is such that it is a motivation for the criminals to
commit crime. It is not a deterrent to prevent crime.
In a newspaper article I read that there is rationing of
gasoline in RCMP cars in my constituency. How can we control
crime, how can we spend money and not get anywhere? This
government is at fault.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the hon. gentleman from the Reform Party how
he can justify voting against this bill when in doing so, he is
saying he is opposed to abolishing provisions that prevent
prosecuting individuals for homicide or criminal negligence when
more than a year and a day has passed. He is opposed to making
it easier to prosecute people who obtain services from underage
prostitutes. He is opposed to helping judges and police deal
more effectively with offenders who breach a condition of a
conditional sentence order. He is opposed to making people
convicted of organized crime offences ineligible for accelerated
parole review. By voting against this bill he is saying he is
opposed to giving new powers to justices to order an accused who
is detained pending a bail hearing not to communicate with any
witness or other person.
I refer him to issues around domestic violence. He is opposed
by voting against Bill C-51 to changes that will indeed help to
eradicate domestic violence and resolve these other issues of
grave concern to the safety of all people in this country.
Could the hon. member explain why he is opposed to those
amendments, to those changes to the Criminal Code and why he is
voting against those aspects?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am so aggravated
listening to the explanation by the member that it is hard to
answer in the short time I have. Let me ask the hon. member why
his party is not listening to Canadians. Why is it not listening
to the Canadian Police Association? Why is it not listening to
victims? Why is it determined only to listen to the criminals?
Why can Liberal members not see with their own eyes prostitution,
gambling, homicides? Criminals are committing crimes and getting
away with it.
That is why we are not supporting this bill. This government
does not listen to the people. It is not producing legislation
that will work, that will give the RCMP and our police agencies
enough tools to fight crime on the street.
When we go door knocking in campaigns we see the alarm signs on
doors and windows. Not only are people not safe on their streets,
they are not even safe in their own homes. That is why they use
alarms. I ask this member to appeal to his government to put this
in the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
SCHOLARSHIPS NAMED AFTER OLYMPIC ATHLETES
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP) moved
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider establishing full tuition scholarships named after each
and every Canadian Gold Medal Olympic athlete starting with the
1998 Winter Olympics to encourage talented young Canadian
athletes to complete their education at Canadian universities
while continuing to excel in their particular Olympic sport and
with the consideration of naming the first of such scholarships
after the Sandra Schmirler Rink of Regina.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House
today to speak to this very important motion.
This motion was inspired by the incredible victory of the Sandra
Schmirler rink earlier this year. In fact it was on Sunday,
February 5, 1998 at the Nagano Olympics, a victory that was
watched by virtually every resident of Saskatchewan and made
every Canadian proud.
This team of Canadian women from Regina's Caledonia Curling Club
had racked up six provincial championships and three world titles
by the time they claimed their first ever Olympic gold medal for
women's curling since it became a full medal sport at this year's
winter Olympics.
These women have become heroes to a new generation of young
Canadians dreaming of representing Canada in the Olympic games,
in particular those in winter sports. The skip of this rink,
Sandra Schmirler, the third, Jan Betker, the second, Joan
McCusker, the lead, Marsha Gudereit, and the alternate, Atina
Ford, are all Saskatchewan born individuals. They are all
Canadians and they excel in their sport.
I believe we should be establishing this particular scholarship
for many good reasons and I will get into them right now.
I believe it is time to consider what steps go into making
Olympic calibre athletes in Canada and how we can promote
excellence in athletics and academics in our country. Canadian
universities have long had a policy that they will not provide
athletic scholarships in excess of $1,500 annually and not at all
to students entering first year.
I support the main thrust of that policy because it is intended
to steer our university system away from some of the excesses of
the American system in which more money and attention is
sometimes devoted to athletic teams, especially in bigger and
richer schools, than the academic performance of the students
they subsidize.
The big schools raise fairly large dollars from their alumni and
draw the best athletes. They have not always been the best
students, but it leaves the smaller schools scrambling for
funding for their academic programs, which is, after all,
supposed to be their core business activity.
This is what Canadian universities have wanted to avoid.
However, the generous U.S. scholarships are drawing some 1,800
Canadian students annually to study south of the border. For
many young athletes it represents the chance of a lifetime.
For example, the NDP leader of Ontario, Howie Hampton, left Fort
Frances, Ontario as a young boy on a hockey scholarship to go to
an American university. He returned years later after completing
a law degree in Canada to practise law in his hometown, after, of
course, making a stop in Saskatchewan to share in some of the
experience of the New Democratic government of the late 1970s.
When Mr. Hampton went back to Fort Frances he coached some local
hockey teams. From there he was elected to Queen's Park to serve
as attorney general and minister of natural resources, and is now
leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party.
But the point is that those scholarships are the chance of a
lifetime.
1735
Canada has a $350 million education deficit with the United
States in terms of foreign students and now some of the
universities in our western Canadian provinces are trying to make
changes to Canadian policy to stem some of the flow of our best
athletes to American schools, because when the students go the
alumni and parent donations follow.
We all know that the federal government recently made those
contributions tax exempt under Bill S-9 in the last parliament,
while slashing federal funding for post-secondary education
student aid.
I would like to share with Canadians this incredible betrayal to
Canadian education. The Liberal government in the last
parliament passed Bill S-9. It was supported by the Reform
Party, by the Bloc and by the Conservative Party. The NDP was
the only party to suggest that this bill was only a bill for the
rich and the wealthy and that it was totally unfair to our
education system.
While the Liberal government cut education funding in Canada by
$2 billion a year, it is allowing Canadians to make contributions
to U.S. universities and post-secondary institutions and take a
tax deduction in Canada. Now the tax system in this country is
supporting the U.S. education system while we cut back our own
students. This is the Liberal, the Reform, the Tory and the Bloc
way.
Bill S-9 is an insidious bill. I think the Liberals in this
House should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. The opposition
parties should be ashamed of themselves for abandoning young
people in this country for the sake of American institutions. I
cannot believe it.
When I tell people about Bill S-9 they are shocked. We now have
tax deductions in Canada for making contributions to U.S.
universities and post-secondary institutions. Some people say
there is reciprocity. However, the facts show that over 25,000
Canadian students go to the U.S. Following them are donations to
U.S. campuses from their parents, family members and wealthy
corporations. But just under 5,000 U.S. students come to Canada.
It is a five to one ratio. We are supporting the education
system in the U.S. with Canadian tax dollars while we abandon our
students, while we abandon our young people in terms of
supporting their educational desires and needs. It is
incredible.
My proposal is designed to create full tuition scholarships,
paid for by the federal government out of public funds. If we
can afford to subsidize U.S. universities we can afford to
subsidize Canadian athletes and Canadian institutions. My sense
is that this will assist young Canadian athletes and provide them
with the proper academic qualifications they will require in the
global economy.
This would help Canadian universities as well. It would keep
some of our best athletes at home, without unduly taxing their
own alumni fundraising efforts and without creating further
disparities between Canadian universities such as we have
witnessed in the U.S.
By naming the scholarships after Canada's Olympic gold
medalists, starting as I have suggested with the Sandra Schmirler
rink of Regina, we would serve the dual purpose of recognizing
their accomplishments and taking advantage of their status as
role models to inspire the next generation of Olympic calibre
athletes.
The government could finance this proposal easily, by the way,
out of the savings it could reap in tax expenditures if it
reversed the odious provisions of Bill S-9 to which I referred a
few moments ago.
I also want to take some time to express the concerns we hear
every year at about this time in my Regina constituency office
from students and their parents about the state of student aid in
this country and about the outrageous levels of debt students are
required to take on if they do what governments, industry and
indeed the future of our economy demands they do, which is to
acquire at least an undergraduate degree.
Post-secondary training has never been more essential to the
future of our country and it has never been more expensive. The
benefits accrue to industry, government and society as a whole,
as well as students, but the associated costs and risks are being
more and more assumed by only the students. In fact many recent
changes to student assistance on the federal side, including some
incredibly discriminatory provisions last year prohibiting
bankruptcies for 10 years to anyone carrying a student loan, are
being driven by the big banks, which hypocritically lobby against
student grants and lower tuition and then make money from the
interest charges on student loans.
It is no wonder the banks are among the targets of next week's
week of action planned by the Canadian Federation of Students. I
salute and support those efforts by the Canadian Federation of
Students.
1740
The big corporations are tying the hands of our young people
because those corporations will not pay or assist in funding
their education, which would benefit our own country, but we
allow the Reichmanns and the Bronfmans to write off hundreds of
millions of dollars, almost on an annual basis, against our tax
system, and they can write it off in the regular term of one
year. Our students are now handcuffed. They have to take 10
years to pay back the loans because we have burdened them with an
average debt of $25,000.
To come back to where I started with this proposal, this morning
I reread some of the news stories about Schmirler's win last
February and was reminded of something she said at that time.
She was asked about being called the best-ever female curling
team and her answer typified the Canadian ideal of sports
personship that endeared her so much to the people in my province
of Saskatchewan. She said “It does not matter if I believe it
or not. We go out there, we play for fun and we play the best
that we can, and we happen to play at this level. Yes, we have
won quite a bit, but I even know that back in Regina there are
plenty of good teams”.
“But are they the best?” she was asked. “It is a good
combination for us and it has been right ever since the day we
put this team together. The personalities click and we are not
bad curlers to boot”.
Wherever they went the women talked of their families, of their
communities and of their country. Their win was an
accomplishment for them. However, it was not in boasting as an
individual achievement, but more as an expression of the
importance of teamwork within a supportive family and community
environment.
Sandra Schmirler and her team represented the best values of
Saskatchewan and they still represent the best values of
Saskatchewan. We in Saskatchewan are very proud of our athletes
for their values of family, of community, of hard work and of
modesty.
We need more heroes like that. This is why I am proposing a
federally funded, full tuition scholarship program to keep young
athletes in Canadian universities to benefit Canada. I can think
of no more fitting example than Sandra Schmirler and her rink to
name the first fund after.
I happen to have a list of other gold medalists who I would like
to see these scholarships named after. They are: Ross
Rebagliati, a gold medalist in snowboarding; Catriona LeMay Doan
from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, a gold medalist in the 500 metre
long track speed skating event; Annie Perreault, a gold medalist
in the 500 metre short track; Marc Gagnon, Derrick Campbell, Eric
Bédard and François Drolet, gold medalists in the 5,000 metre
men's relay short track; the women's curling team, as I
mentioned, which won the gold medal; and Pierre Leuders and Dave
MacEachern, gold medalists in the two-person bobsled.
We also won silver and bronze medals. At some point I would
like to see this kind of a scholarship program extended not just
to the gold medal winners but to those who receive silver and
bronze medals in the Olympic Games.
In summary, I believe this is a very significant move which the
government could make to assist some of the challenges that face
our athletes in Canada and to make them Olympic calibre athletes.
I submit that we could pay for this probably 10,000 times over on
an annual basis if we repealed Bill S-9, which literally drains
money from our Canadian education system and gives it to the
Americans. This is again a bill that was supported by the
Liberals, the Reform Party, the Bloc and the Conservatives.
I think the more young people learn about this insidious
legislation, which is costing them their birthright in terms of
sufficiently funded post-secondary education, they are really
going to make a serious decision come the next election and
decide that maybe what they need is a government that will look
at education from a very serious minded perspective and from a
perspective that will be supportive for our young people because
they are the future of our country.
I look forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues when
they stand to speak to this motion. I will be happy to provide a
five minute wrap up at the end.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish I could, in one sense, stand here and say to the member
opposite that I am willing in whole or at least in part to
support this motion because I think the intent is probably good.
1745
It is unfortunate, however, when we politicize the Olympic games
and our Olympic champions. Who will forget the pride that all
Canadians felt, perhaps with the exception of one or two members
of the Bloc who caused some difficulties with regard to the
Olympics? I will not go into the great flag flap during this
debate. Who can forget? Most of us stayed up until all hours of
the night and morning to watch the events.
We all felt a great disappointment when Canada did not come home
with hockey medals. However, when we look at the inclusion of
the elite players of the National Hockey League, as exciting as
the hockey could have been, might have been and should have been,
the reality is that I never considered those individuals to be
true Olympians in the same sense as the people the hon. member
has mentioned such as Ross Rebagliati, Annie Perreault, Marc
Gagnon and his team. There was excitement in their success and
that of our bobsled team.
Probably we received more television coverage this time around
due to the time change for curling. Some people made disparaging
remarks about curling being an Olympic sport. It can be a
demanding game requiring a tremendous amount of sacrifice and
effort on behalf of the athletes.
The member suggests that the first scholarship fund should be
named after Sandra Schmirler Rink of Regina. There is no
question that we congratulate her and all the citizens of
Saskatchewan. I may be wrong—and the member can correct me if
he so wishes—but I believe Saskatchewan might have led the
nation in medals at the Olympics. One of our smaller provinces
turns out tremendously talented athletes who did—
Mr. John Solomon: And members of Parliament too.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I do not know about that. Probably in
the past that might have been true, thinking back to some of the
member's predecessors like Tommy Douglas and some of the folk I
knew quite well on a personal basis through my family
connections. I will not go into disparaging remarks about the
member opposite in relation to his level of talent.
While I believe his heart is in the right place in trying to
come up with a plan that would establish a scholarship fund named
after Canadians of which we are all proud, I believe in typical
fashion his head is in the wrong place. The reason is that New
Democrats very seldom take into account the economic impact of
motions they put forward.
I give him credit that he suggested wrongly and in a partisan
and political manner the way in which this might be funded. I do
not believe he has done his homework. If he wants to bring
forward a debate on whether or not those credits should be
allowed for people investing in their children's education
wherever the education may be, perhaps that is what he should do.
Perhaps he could hear from the families making the investment to
support their children in attaining higher education and higher
levels of athletic excellence in some instances south of the
border.
Very often we tend to have eight months of winter and four
months of bad skating in Canada. There is a need at times for
athletes to train in warmer climates. Therefore they go south to
train at facilities which are not available here. Unless they are
built indoors at a tremendous cost in most instances to the local
taxpayer, those facilities are not available.
It is not as simple as the member opposite in the New Democratic
Party would have it. He bashes big corporations and American
institutions or the government, which NDPers attempt to do on an
ongoing basis.
1750
The Government of Canada does a number of things to assist
athletes. During the last fiscal year under the athlete
assistance program some 900 high performance athletes received
financial support totalling more than $7.25 million. The
taxpayer is supporting elite athletes in their attempts to
improve their success rate, to bring home the gold, the silver
and the bronze.
While we all revel in the success of our achievers who bring
home some form of medal, is it not equally important to recognize
those who compete, who try, who are a part of our team and
perhaps do not succeed to the level where they bring home a
medal?
There is a real danger of elitism if we are not careful in
recognizing that our entire Olympic team should be supported. It
should clearly be supported by all parliamentarians in all
parties from all parts of the country. That has not been the
case in the past.
The government has supported athletes to the tune of $7.25
million. Athletes receive living and training allowances,
depending on the success and performance level, ranging from $185
up to as much as $810 per month. That can be a pretty major
amount of money to assist an athlete who is training and working
toward an education.
Other forms of scholarships exist which I will go into
momentarily. The awards under the athlete assistance program are
practical awards. They support the worthy. While the highest
individual amounts awarded go to top Olympic and world
championship performers, the largest number of awards go to
athletes who have the potential to excel in high performance
sport. That does not mean they are fortunate enough to be
carrying a medal around their neck, but they have the potential
to succeed.
I noted a story the other night which I believe was on CTV. I
forget the name and I apologize to the individual. A young
athlete was striving to make the national team as a diver. This
is the kind of excellence. His parents were fundraising $12,000
to assist him in achieving his goal of making the national team
and eventually the Olympic team. It is an extraordinary
challenge for a family to undertake.
There are opportunities for fundraising. In spite of the
comments of the members from the left spectre of the New
Democratic Party, corporate Canada supports Olympic athletes. It
supports young people trying to achieve greatness and trying to
do better, whether to excel in the Olympics or to excel in sports
in their home communities.
We also support them through Canada's millennium scholarship
fund which was established in the last budget. It will award
more than 100,000 scholarships annually to full time and part
time students based on financial need and merit, not based on
their ability to leap a bar, swim a course or play a particular
game.
I support assisting our athletes, but to put in place a new
level of scholarship without any concern about the cost to the
taxpayers is more typically irresponsible NDP rhetoric. The
member opposite has much to be proud of about the athletes in his
province of Saskatchewan. All Canadians share that pride.
The member should take a look at the numbers and realize the
government is supporting Olympic athletes and post-secondary
education efforts on behalf of all students in Canada. As a
result I am unfortunately unable to support the motion put
forward by the member.
1755
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this evening we are debating a motion put forward by the
member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. It is a private
member's motion which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider establishing full tuition scholarships named after each
and every Canadian gold medal Olympic athlete starting with the
1998 Winter Olympics to encourage talented young Canadian
athletes to complete their education at Canadian universities
while continuing to excel in their particular Olympic sport and
with the consideration of naming the first of such scholarships
after the Sandra Schmirler Rink of Regina.
As the House knows this is not a votable motion. The House will
not be making a decision on whether to move ahead on this motion.
However, it is an idea which merits debate and consideration in
the House. I commend the member for bringing it forward.
The speech from the government member opposite made me think of
the Rodney Dangerfield line “I don't get no respect”. I am
sure the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre feels that way.
I will probably say a couple of things that may not be construed
as totally respectful, but we all have the highest respect for
Sandra Schmirler and her rink.
I do not know about many others in the Chamber, but I remember
rushing home last winter many times after my office work and my
work in the House to watch the curling finals on the Olympic
channel. It was a real pleasure and a real enjoyment to see
Sandra Schmirler and the other Canadians on her rink from
Saskatchewan be the best in the world, especially when it was the
first time curling was part of the Olympic Games. It was a real
highlight for all Canadians and I think for many of us here. The
member's desire to recognize this achievement is certainly a very
natural and very laudable one.
The member made some rather strong and gratuitous swipes at
other parties in the House for suggesting that Canadians could
save their money and decide to go outside the country to spend
their education dollars. I think the United States was the one
the member chose to attack. He then said later in his remarks
that government actions would tie the hands of our young people
with respect to their educational choices.
It is fair to say to the member that there is some inconsistency
here. He does not want to tie the hands of young people in some
ways, but he is quite happy to tie the hands of young people in
other ways. Rather than imprisoning our young people in Canada
by taxation policy or public economic policy, we should simply
make Canadian educational institutions strong, good and competent
so that they deliver a fine standard of education. Far from
Canadians wanting to go outside the country for education, we
would have people from many other countries flocking to Canada
for the high quality of education. I think that would be a
better goal to achieve.
In that regard I agree with the member that the government has
wounded the post-secondary education system by its slashing and
burning of support for post-secondary education. That is what it
has done. It has taken away a full $1.5 billion each and every
year from the post-secondary education system.
Then it gave back a pittance, $250 million a year or about
one-sixth of what it took away, beat its chest and asked “Is
this not wonderful?”. It forgot to mention that it trampled on
provincial rights and jurisdiction in so doing because
post-secondary education is the purview of the provinces. By
setting up scholarship arrangements in that jurisdiction it
simply trampled on federal-provincial relations.
That has sown some bitter seeds that will bear bitter fruit for
the federal government and for federal-provincial arrangements in
a whole lot of areas where goodwill and good relations are vital.
1800
It is extremely important that we support quality education in
our country. Instead of slashing dollars from that sector
government should find some dollars to slash from some of its
other endeavours. It could cut some of the wasteful spending and
duplications of spending we have pointed out many times on the
record.
I am sure the member will respond to my concern that there is a
double standard in attacking the wish of members of parliament
from all parties except the New Democrats to give freedom of
choice to our students and not to tie their hands in the matter
of educational choices but to give them good reasons to stay in
Canada other than you have to because we will not let you spend
your money anywhere else.
It would be appropriate to address the idea of athletic
scholarships as worthy of support. There are scholarships in
many area of endeavour like science, engineering, music and
literature. Most would agree that the answer to whether athletic
scholarships are legitimate and desirable would be yes.
We want to encourage young Canadians to seek excellence in many
diverse ways by drawing on the best that young minds and young
bodies can achieve. Athletic excellence is a very important
component of human endeavour. Athletic endeavour should
therefore be encouraged and recognized.
Athletic awards of up to $1,500 are currently available to some
students excluding freshmen at some Canadian universities. First
year students are not eligible. The idea was to have students
demonstrate some commitment to an educational program before
scholarships would be available.
At a meeting of the Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union in June
some universities proposed increasing the amount from $1,500 to
$3,000 and making first year students eligible. The motion did
not pass at this meeting because many universities said that they
did not have the necessary funds. We can thank the government
for a lot of that difficulty.
The number of athletes receiving this type of assistance was
estimated to be less than 200. There is a lack of dollars. I do
not think it is because the super rich are being parsimonious
with their support for a lot of these endeavours for helping our
young people as the mover of the motion suggests. There has not
been the commitment on the part of this government to make sure
post-secondary dollars are protected and enhanced where possible.
The naming of scholarships after Olympic gold medalists is an
interesting idea. Recognizing the achievements of our Canadian
athletes in that way would have a lot of favour with the public.
Our Olympic program is valued. Three Canadian cities are bidding
to be the site of the 2010 Olympics, including my home city of
Calgary. The decision as to what site in Canada will be
designated as host city will be made next month. I salute my
city of Calgary for the vigorous bid it is putting forward to
host the Olympics.
The athletes who are looking forward to participating in the
upcoming Olympics have the support and encouragement of all of
us. Sometimes we think that what we do in the House is a bit of
a marathon.
I think our athletes who train and work so hard for these Olympic
games and the cities and volunteers that host them are to be
commended.
1805
I think this is an interesting motion. I appreciate being able
to speak on it. I thank the hon. member for putting it forward
to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the start of my presentation, I would like
to thank the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for making it
possible, with this motion, to finally hold a debate in this
House on funding for competitive athletes in Canada.
The motion refers to study bursaries at the university level for
top athletes. This proposal contains what I call the NDP
illusion, in other words, the good news always has to come from
the federal government, regardless of jurisdictions and
responsibilities.
Education is a provincial matter. The differences between
Quebec and other parts of Canada are very clear. For example,
Quebec already has a system of loans and bursaries. Bursaries,
which are based on financial need, are already available for
students at both the college and the university levels. And
they are available to everyone in all disciplines, regardless of
performance.
The bursaries proposed in the motion are lot like the millennium
scholarships. This is not the right sort.
Still, the member has clearly put his finger on the problem, a
situation that requires examination, but his solution, in the
end, is not a good one.
At the end of the summer, when I did my prebudget consultations,
I met young parents, maybe 35 or 40 years old, who have young
children who are active in high performance sports and could
well compete nationally or internationally one day. These
people are facing real financial problems. This is where we
should look so we can assure parents of the help they need so
they do not have to pay out themselves $2,000 or $3,000 or
$5,000 a year for training for their child whose talents they
want to develop.
One father, a bus driver, talked to me for an hour in my office
about all the sacrifices he has to make and juggling he has to
do to pay for his child's sports and studies. This includes
skates and all sorts of equipment. It adds up to thousands of
dollars very quickly.
The vision for the future has much more to do with ensuring that
thousands of young people can reach their full athletic
potential, take part in competitions, get the necessary support
while they are growing, and seeing that their parents get that
assistance.
During the pre-budget consultation, I made suggestions in that
sense, proposing that tax credits or some other form of
assistance be used to provide some relief to parents, given the
financial efforts they are making to help their children.
I am very aware that parents often face a rather serious
problem. On the one hand, there is the child's talent, while on
the other hand, there is the question of whether the parents can
afford to provide that support. Since we are all very proud when
our athletes win, we should also be very proud to provide them
with adequate training and financial support.
I want to say something to the Liberal member who said earlier
that everyone in this House is proud of the achievements of
Canadian athletes, except perhaps a few Bloc members. This is a
petty attitude which does not at all reflect what happened here
when our Olympic medallists came to meet us.
I do not think anyone went and asked Alexandre Depatie of Laval
whether his parents were sovereignists or federalists. This is
irrelevant when it comes to recognizing the quality of an
athlete's performance. The important thing is to allow our
athletes to develop their full potential and to congratulate
them when they perform exceptionally well and make it all the
way to the world championships.
1810
The NPD's idea to raise the issue of financing, of helping elite
athletes is a good one. This, however, is not the best way to go
about it, as we saw when the heritage committee held hearings on
professional and amateur sport.
The hearings on professional sports attracted a lot of people.
Many members of Parliament came because of the presence of
National Hockey League magnates. However, when we held our
hearings on amateur sport, the audiences were a lot smaller.
There were many empty seats. Yet, the problem that exists is a
very important one.
Could a happy medium not be found between the tax credits
offered for boxes at professional sports events and the
financial assistance actually available to parents whose
children show promise but who do not have the money to pay for
equipment and travel so their kids can develop their potential?
This is not the only level of competition where there is a
problem. Earlier, the Liberal member mentioned federal
government programs to support outstanding athletes when they
were selected for national teams.
People in my riding came to tell me that they had been selected
to attend the World Cup in Germany, but were offered funding
covering only 20% or 30% of the expenses they would actually
incur.
I saw folks who were unable to attend the World Cup because they
did not have the money it took.
When it has been decided that someone has the skills and the
ability to attend such an event, the funding should be adequate.
There is perhaps nothing wrong with asking the athlete to
contribute a portion, but it should be along the lines of 80-20,
that is 80% funded by the government and 20% by the individual,
by the student, not the reverse.
It is a bit insulting, when it comes right down to it. If your
country has decided that you are talented enough to compete
internationally and has selected you to represent it at these
competitions, but you have a month, or a month and a half, to
come up with $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 or $10,000 to pay for your
trip, there is something wrong. These problems should be worked
out in the next budget so that funding can be as fair as
possible.
It hits home even more when put in perspective. For example, if
the City of Quebec is selected as the site of the 2010 Games,
now is when the athletes who will take part in those games are
starting their training. Children who are now six, eight, ten
years old will be 20 or 25 in 2010 and they will be the ones
performing. I hope that Quebec will be able to have a team
then, like all the other nations.
This way, we will be able to say how proud we are of our young
athletes' performance.
There is a detail missing in this proposal. It may sound
technical, but it is nonetheless relevant. This motion refers to
universities. Assistance could be directed not only to
university students but also to college students.
In Quebec, we have vocational and professional colleges,
commonly known as cegeps, where technicians are trained,
individuals who will be available for employment when their
training is completed. Their fields of study include computer
science, wildlife management, animal health, biology and all
kinds of other sectors. They can enter the labour force
immediately upon graduation. Why would these students, and those
in vocational training, not be eligible for this kind of
program?
Why not help students training to become joiners or carpenters
who also have athletic abilities to perform as athletes while at
the same time being able to pursue their education in adequate
conditions? I think this would be a good way to show that we
value manual and technical work.
I am not suggesting the member's intent was to exclude these
people. I just see in this debate a great opportunity to examine
all aspects of the question and to raise all important issues.
1815
Ultimately, and here lies the member's motion's greatest merit,
the government will have to do something to help young athletes
in Quebec and Canada who are taking part in international
competitions. Care must be taken to change the current
situation, where many young people give up, not because they
cannot or will not compete, but because they do not have the
financial support they need. In that sense, we must applaud the
member's initiative in putting this issue forward.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to address Bill 374, a bill that would
effectively establish and name scholarships after Olympic gold
medalists.
Establishing scholarships for students would obviously be a huge
benefit to all those considering attending university. Today's
university students are struggling to cope with high tuition
costs and excessive debt. The average university student
graduating from university owes more than $25,000 and many
students have been forced into bankruptcy. This is totally
outrageous. Even before these students find their first real job
they are straddled with a huge mortgage.
The Liberal answer to this problem was to create the millennium
fund which is more of a monument to the current Prime Minister
than a positive initiative. Only 7% of Canadian students will
actually benefit from this fund.
Despite this bleak outlook students continue to pursue a
university or college education because they realize it is their
best opportunity at finding a decent job.
It is obvious our students require immediate assistance. They
are mortgaging their futures without the hope of finding a decent
job. Youth unemployment is at a staggering 15% nationwide and
with the economic climate as it is today their hopes of finding a
job are dwindling.
Reducing taxes would help stimulate greater economic growth,
thereby providing greater employment opportunities for our youth.
The government could further assist the economy by returning the
EI premium surplus to workers and owners alike, where it
rightfully belongs.
This bill would be beneficial to those students who are
presently in university or who are contemplating entering in the
near future. However, these scholarships would also serve other
very important purposes.
Naming scholarships after Olympic gold medalists would be a
wonderful way to pay tribute to those athletes who brought home
Olympic glory. These athletes' hard work and dedication to their
particular sport could serve as a reminder to our students of
whatever accomplishments they set their minds to they could
accomplish. Whether students are interested in sports or not
these Olympic champions could serve as role models for our
students. They epitomize the meaning of commitment. I am not
necessarily talking only about commitment in sports. I am also
talking about commitment needed to succeed in academics, business
and in life.
Establishing and naming scholarships after Olympic gold
medalists would also help bring recognition to our Canadian
Olympic program. It would help remind all Canadians of the
outstanding accomplishments of our athletes in international
competition.
Canada's Olympic program needs visibility to encourage greater
financial participation from the private sector. Our Olympic
program is suffering from a serious lack of funding. Our
athletes cannot focus their full attention on training because of
a lack of training allowances. Our Canadian athletes need
greater support if they are to achieve world class results and at
present the government is not willing to provide the necessary
funding for them to achieve this goal.
Only a few weeks ago one of Canada's bobsledders was forced to
emigrate to the United States to try to make the U.S. team. The
U.S. financially supports its athletes so they can concentrate on
becoming the best they can be.
Canada still has much to be proud of in our Olympic athletes.
Despite their financial limitations our athletes still manage to
dazzle the world with a number of memorable performances that
have resulted in Olympic gold.
1820
Who can forget the Atlanta Olympics and Donovan Bailey, the
fastest man in the world? For a moment in time his stunning
victory captured the imagination of all Canadians and helped
instill a sense of pride in ourselves that we as Canadians have
not experienced since.
We often make fun of excessive American patriotism, however
perhaps it is time Canadians began basking in our own history, in
our own accomplishments. Canadians should be proud of who we are
and what we have accomplished as a united country.
After all, let us not forget that we are still considered the
best country in the world in which to live. Let us help instill
some pride in our country and pride in our athletes.
We should not have to wait every four years during Olympic
broadcasts to be reminded of the wonderful performance of gold
medal winning athletes such as Nancy Greene, Barbara Ann Scott,
Donovan Bailey, Gaétan Boucher and many others who have been
named here.
Let us help keep the wonderful memories of their accomplishments
alive and well by attaching their names to scholarships.
Establishing and naming scholarships after Olympic gold medalists
would serve a number of purposes I have previously mentioned.
I conclude by congratulating the hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for introducing this very
interesting bill.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo Oktoberfest will be
starting this Friday and will be going for 10 days. I know all
hon. members are most interested in enjoying our hospitality.
I will first make some comments on what the Bloc member said,
that all Canadians from coast to coast, from the Atlantic to the
Pacific, are incredibly proud of the achievements of our Olympic
athletes.
We are proud of them for getting there, for participating at
that elite level. We are also incredibly proud of them in terms
of the medals they brought back to Canada. I think it is a point
of real unity and it is a real understanding for Canadians from
Quebec meeting people from B.C. and other parts of Canada, that
intermingling.
The member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre's suggestion that a
full series of full tuition scholarships for promising young
Canadian athletes be established in the name of Canada's gold
medalists is certainly a great suggestion and it is something
that has response on all sides of the House. I can appreciate
that he would want one of the scholarships to be named after
curling gold medal winner Sandra Schmirler who thrilled many
Canadians from coast to coast.
Every community greatly appreciates its own Olympic athletes.
The late Victor Davis from my riding was one of the recipients at
the 1984 Olympics.
I think all members of this House will agree that seeing
Canadian athletes represent Canada on the world stage provides
Canadians with a strong sense of national pride. Our high
performance athletes are also excellent role models for all
Canadians, particularly our youth.
Their achievements instil pride and inspire young Canadians to
pursue excellence in sports and other endeavours.
1825
The government is playing a great role. We are making great
financial contributions. Let me also stress that it is the
responsibility of all Canadians to make individual contributions.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by members tonight with
respect to this motion. I thank the member for Churchill for
seconding this motion. I thank as well the member for South
Shore from the Progressive Conservative Party who supports this
motion. That is a very important thing to do at this moment.
I assure the member for Calgary—Nose Hill from the Reform Party
that this bill is not a double standard. It does provide an
additional amount of support for our young people for their
education. She says that if we repealed Bill S-9 it would tie
the hands of young people. This will not tie the hands of young
people. It will provide them with all kinds of opportunities.
There are 25,000 Canadian young people attending American
universities and other institutions which is 500% more than the
number of Americans attending our institutions. That was the case
before Bill S-9, which provided tax deductions for making
contributions to U.S. universities, was implemented in the House.
I disagree with the member on that. It is something she should
look a little closer at.
With respect to the Liberal Party, the member for Ottawa—Vanier
mentioned that he thinks this is a good idea. I appreciate that.
However, the member for Mississauga West who read the response
from the government side did not read the motion. He is still
fighting the 1995 Ontario provincial election. That was the
indication I had from his remarks. They were quite provocative.
He was speaking for his government and basically it missed the
point.
It is not surprising that he attacked the New Democratic Party.
He attacked athletes. He attacked young people. He attacked the
unemployed. He is playing politics. He thinks this motion is
something that is not worthy of consideration by this House. As
a matter of fact, what is more political is that he and his
government have cut back education, in particular post-secondary
funding for education, to such an extent that there is a looming
crisis in education for young people in terms of their
opportunity to access it.
In order to buy some political capital the government institutes
a new program called the millennium fund which may over a number
of years provide additional scholarships for 6% or 7% of the
eligible students. It excludes 93% or 94% of all students who may
require some additional funding. The government in my view has
intruded in the provincial scene with respect to the millennium
fund scholarship program initiatives.
The Bloc made a correct observation when the member indicated
that we have not included in the motion funding for cégeps or
technical schools. That is a good idea that could be
incorporated in this motion.
I thank members for participating in the debate. I appreciate
their viewpoints. Although the motion is not universally
embraced, I would ask for unanimous consent to allow this motion
to be votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent that
this motion be made votable?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I ask
the House if it would consider allowing this motion to be
referred to committee for further study.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
have the motion referred to committee for further study?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the order paper.
1830
[Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to a special debate on the situation in Kosovo, pursuant
to the order adopted earlier today.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
KOSOVO
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved:
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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me express my thanks to members of
the House for granting the opportunity for this special debate on
the situation in Kosovo.
It is a difficult and troubling time as we watch a tragedy
unfold in that part of the world. It is one in which I believe
Canadians are deeply engaged in seeing how we can try to find a
solution. The immediate issue we face of course is the imminent
danger to the life and well-being of tens of thousands of people
in that area.
The Yugoslav government has a long history of its involvement.
It is important to point out that in the late 1980s, 1989 to be
exact, it withdrew the autonomous status that Kosovo had enjoyed
with the former Yugoslavia. This gave rise to an insurgent
movement and after nearly a decade of political repression, it
has resulted in open fighting.
We can understand and perhaps could even have accepted the
Yugoslav government's need to preserve its own internal security
and to defend its borders from outside, which it says is the
roots of its campaign of mass military action that it launched
last February and March. But it is clear and obvious to anyone
who looks at what is taking place that the Yugoslav government
has gone way beyond anything that can be justified in terms of
those set objectives.
The brutal tactics of the Yugoslav authorities in countering
the Kosovo Liberation Army have included shelling civilian
populations, burning homes and crops, and the execution of
innocent civilians. A couple of quite tragic examples will
suffice to make the point.
Just one week ago diplomatic observers visited the village of
Gladno Selo, which means hungry village in our language.
Virtually every house in that village had been destroyed. No
furniture or possessions remained anywhere. It was flattened to
the ground. There was no trace of any of the inhabitants of that
village.
On the same day villagers in the Vranic area said that an
indiscriminate Yugoslav offensive had started a few days earlier
with artillery and then infantry backed by mechanized weapon
vehicles. Twenty thousand villagers were reportedly driven from
their homes into the mountains.
The next day the military informed the villagers that it was
safe to return. As their convoy began to work its way back to
the village, police, army and others stopped, attacked, searched
and looted the convoy. The charred remains of 150 vehicles were
later observed along the road to Vranic. Clearly, many people
paid the price with their lives.
[Translation]
It is very clear. Canada and the communities must reject
terrorism as a means of obtaining independence for Kosovo. We
have stated clearly that the solution for Kosovo is independence
within Yugoslavia. No peace is possible in the Balkans if the
borders can be changed by force.
We invested a lot to prevent that in Bosnia. No one in Canada
and in the international community supports the use of violence
to achieve political ends.
1835
We have even less tolerance for the actions of the Government of
Yugoslavia, which controls the military, paramilitary and police
forces, which in turn are using the government's artillery,
tanks and planes to subdue its own people.
[English]
There are times when we have to look at the rules that guide us.
There are precedents, conventions, covenants, agreements,
documents and treaties, but oftentimes those have to be weighed
against the sheer weight of humanity and the suffering that goes
along with it.
Clearly, in this case we have the making of a major humanitarian
disaster. Aid agencies report that close to 300,000 people have
been displaced as a result of the actions of militarists in
Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Thirty thousand have become refugees in
surrounding countries. The remainder are displaced persons within
the republic of Yugoslavia.
We also know that in that part of the world winter is soon
approaching. It is just a matter of days before the snow arrives
and upward of 50,000 people are living without any form of
shelter. I do not think we can afford to wait until they are
frozen on the hillsides to resolve to do something, to draw the
line on the actions of the government that has made them flee in
the first place and put them in this untenable situation.
I want to say that from the outset Canada has attempted to
mobilize and energize international action. Last summer we
underwent a quite substantial diplomatic campaign in capitals
around the world to try to get the United Nations Security
Council engaged directly in this issue, with some degree of
success. It was through those urgings that the security council,
which had lain dormant on this issue for a long period time,
began to meet.
I also wrote directly to Russian foreign minister Primakov
reminding him that as a permanent member of the council and a
privileged partner with the Belgrade government, Russia had a
special role to play in putting effective pressure on Milosevic.
As many members will recall, when we had the meetings of the G-8
summit in London and Birmingham last spring, there had been a
direct commitment by the Russian government to intercede with
Milosevic, to ask for the kind of response on the humanitarian
basis that was required. As I said, they have that special
access. We have made a particular effort to try to have the
Russians live up to that kind of commitment and to use whatever
special offices they may occupy with the Belgrade people.
I have also just recently repeated the same message to the new
foreign minister, Ivanov, just before he travelled to Belgrade
this weekend.
I would also like to report that we also sent our special envoy
to Belgrade and to Kosovo over this past weekend to begin to
undertake direct Canadian representations within that area
itself, but not with a great deal of success.
I think these actions are clearly reflective of the combined
actions of many other countries that have been introducing
envoys, making representations and trying to get a peaceful,
political reconciliation or resolution to this dispute.
In September the security council adopted a resolution that
demanded that Yugoslav forces cease attacking civilians and
withdraw forces that were being used to oppress their population,
that they should begin meaningful dialogue and negotiations with
political leaders in Kosovo with a view to achieving a political
settlement, that the Kosovars themselves, the KLA, refrain from
violence and also come to the negotiation table, and that there
be clear commitments to allow for the delivery of humanitarian
assistance and freedom of movement for international observers.
At the same time, there has been an opportunity for
organizations like the OSCE and others to send missions in. Again
Canada has participated in observer missions within Kosovo in an
attempt to provide an international presence and an opportunity
to monitor these areas.
1840
The United States government has made a variety of efforts,
including one that is still ongoing with its special envoy to
again try to come to grips with the Yugoslav government and the
Kosovars to say that there are ways and means of resolving this
and the international community is behind them.
It is clear that up to this point the Belgrade government has
simply been playing a cat and mouse game with the rest of the
world and has been toying with the lives of its own citizens. It
has claimed that the Kosovo crisis is purely an internal affair,
that there is no violation of human rights, and that it is simply
responding to terrorist attacks. This is after close to 15,000
Kosovar refugees have already crossed the border into Albania.
When NATO ministers agreed to prepare a wide range of
contingency plans to prevent a spillover into the neighbourhoods
of Macedonia, President Milosevic again promised that mediation
and peaceful activities would ensue. He had promised President
Yeltsin in a widely publicized meeting that he would implement a
plan of action so a group of observers could come to Belgrade to
start talking about the return of the international community to
the OSCE. He agreed to set up centres where displaced persons
could seek help.
However, just to show the calumny that takes place, within two
weeks of making that commitment, the Yugoslav army intensified
shelling and pursued actions which pushed more people out of
their homes and their villages. Police routinely denied any kind
of access for international observers. Over the summer the tempo
of aggression toward its own people had increased.
The Belgrade authorities had clearly decided two things. First,
to uproot as many Kosovars as possible, torching their homes,
destroying their livelihoods. The price of supporting the
insurgents would become too great. It was an act of terrorism.
Those the army and the police could not convince, the winter
would. Second is very much the point of tonight's debate. It was
clear they did not believe the international community would act
so decisively to prevent this from happening.
When we look at this record of attempts and efforts to try to
come to grips with the situation and the duplicitous responses
from the government itself, we can see how those conclusions
could be reached. The question is what are the choices and
options before us. That is the point of the debate tonight and
why we welcome the participation of members of parliament who are
speaking on behalf of their constituents.
To focus that debate I turn back to resolution 1199 which was
adopted in September and the demands that were made. At the same
time those demands were clearly articulated, NATO, which is the
only international organization that has the capacity to mobilize
any form of international action in the area, also began to
prepare plans for air intervention and to implement and look at
the contingencies for those plans. As NATO countries identified
their contributions, Belgrade again in its cat and mouse game
began to moderate its behaviour.
Resolution 1199 has clearly called upon the Yugoslav authorities
to meet a series of conditions. As the secretary general said in
his report which was tabled on Monday, those conditions have not
been met. He reported that there still continues to be violations
of human rights, that there still continues to be transgressions
against humanitarian principles and standards, and that any
compliance is clearly far from complete.
1845
While the security council continues to wrestle with its
problems in trying to come to grips with this issue it is also
important that the broader international community of which we
are also members begin to look at how it can exert maximum
pressure and follow through on the declarations that have been
made. It is clear that the Belgrade authorities are not of a
mind to negotiate willingly. They must feel the full weight and
pressure of the international community to bring them to the
table and find a solution. NATO is an important part of this
effort.
I have urged NATO colleagues from the outset to look at the
broadest possible range of contingencies they can take to promote
a resolution with particular emphasis on having a proportionate
response using the right modulated measure to suit the condition.
NATO has prepared a number of actions to show Milosevic that he
has gone too far and must change his ways. These plans include
air strikes aimed at the capacity of the Yugoslav army and police
to drive people from their homes and to try to use that in a
selective way to show they cannot use these forces as a form of
intimidation and terror against their own population.
I emphasize that NATO is also looking at ways in which it can
create a more secure environment for displaced persons to return
to their homes. As the NATO meetings continue to the end of this
week we will continue to emphasize the importance of developing
those plans and actions that can ensure proper treatment of the
displaced persons and the access to humanitarian assistance. It
is also clear that NATO must be ready to act. It is also clear
that Canada must be able to contribute to its readiness to act.
It is also clear that such actions do not come easy. They are
difficult and they must be wrestled with. That is why it is very
important that we use this opportunity to consult with the House.
I was at United Nations last week for several days, meeting with
the secretary-general and I spoke to members of the security
council, a body by which we hope some time tomorrow we will be
accepted. In the meantime we can only make our representations.
I expressed that it is preferable that the security council use
its article VII mandate to give clear direction. It ought to do
that but there is also another reality that one or two permanent
members of the security council who hold the veto power have said
they will refuse to give such a mandate.
That is a tough dilemma. I still expect that tomorrow or the
day after there will be further attempts to have the security
council come to resolution but if not and the veto is exercised
or the security council itself does not take action, does that
mean that we stop and give up and allow the humanitarian tragedy
to unfold? That is a dilemma we have to face.
I want to give every assurance that we have made every effort on
the phones, in the corridors and in the various embassies around
the world the last several days doing everything we possibly can
to find a way of ensuring these actions take place within the
right context and the right frame. We still have to face the
terrible tragedy that we may have to decide that without that
clear mandate there is enough legitimacy in resolution 1199
already passed and the clear statement by the secretary-general
that has not been complied with that we would have to contemplate
other actions and other measures. These would be considered at
NATO council meetings at the end of this week.
It is one of those tough choices that have to be made by all of
us in this setting. However, under these circumstances we must be
reminded of the saying that all it takes for evil to triumph is
that the good do nothing.
1850
I am here in the House this evening to invite members to express
themselves on this issue and give us the best of their judgments
so that we can take into account, as we go through as a
government some difficult decisions in the next three or four
days. I hope members will remember that all it takes for evil to
triumph is for the good to do nothing.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
number of questions for the minister. I will try to be brief.
I realize how difficult the situation is. I guess the question a
lot of people are asking is what are we going to bomb if we bomb
something. That is a question we need to ask. We also need to
know what happens after that. What are the contingency plans?
What are we going to do to help those 270,000 homeless people?
There is also a real concern about the expansion, things like
the predicament Russia is in and the impending decision it might
make. What will be the reaction the minister would foresee to
action by NATO after it has vetoed a potential UN involvement? I
could of course also ask about Turkey, Greece and all the other
countries but let us just zero in on Russia.
The other thing Canadians want to know is the level of
involvement the minister foresees for Canada. What are we
actually going to do? We hear about the independent
Kosovo. That is what Kosovans want.
Could the minister clarify that he is not looking at that sort
of thing?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening
remarks, there has been a quite active series of examinations by
the NATO council, the strategic command within NATO and the
military forces of a series of contingency phases.
I do not think it would be very appropriate for me to outline
what the steps would be until the decisions are taken. I can
assure the member that one of the clear options would be to use a
form of air strikes. Where the targets would be and so on I am
not at liberty to discuss. We would hope the clear will and
determination that could be shown to use those would mean that
they would not have to be used. There is some suggestion that in
the past, as we know in Bosnia, when the question of air strikes
came up Milosevic did come to the table. That is the kind of
equation we are dealing with.
As far as our relation with Russia, again it is not easy. The
Russians have made very clear statements. They were in Belgrade
just this last weekend. There will be meetings tomorrow in London
of the contact group. I was in touch with certain foreign
ministers today to talk about that.
We would hope that those discussions would lead to discussion
with the Russian foreign minister which I hope would lead to a
more active and positive contribution in the security council
itself and the support of a resolution in the security council.
I cannot say that I am wildly optimistic about that and the time
grows short.
1855
There will be a planned meeting I believe on Friday of the
NATO-Russian joint council. Members will recall that when we
talked about the NATO expansion there was an agreement to have
this joint council that brings NATO and Russia together. I
believe there is a meeting planned on Friday before we go into
the weekend discussions at the NATO council level.
As for the commitment at the present time, Canada has six CF-18s
in the theatre stationed in Italy. They have been part of the
contingency planning at this point. It is probably more proper
to raise the question with the Minister of Defence who will be
here later this evening, but at this point there are no further
commitments on that.
It is one of the areas we have been emphasizing during the
discussions both at the UN and at NATO that we also see the need
for some form of provision for security within Kosovo from the
point of view of humanitarian assistance and for assurances of
protection of displaced persons. These people are afraid. They
are not going to come back to their villages. They are going to
freeze. They think when they come back they are going to be hit,
and that is the difficulty we face. I have to say to the member
for Red Deer that is part of the contingency plan as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
three questions for the minister.
In his speech, he referred to the fact that two permanent
members of the Security Council could exercise their veto. We
all realize that Russia is one of the members, since he said so
clearly. Could he tell us which other member he considers
likely to exercise its veto and why it would do so?
My second question concerns the work done by the minister's
personal representative.
I think the minister made a very good choice in calling on James
Wright, an official with his department, who is very well liked.
I have had the opportunity of working with him on a mission to
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I understand that he has met Yugoslav
government officials as well as representatives of the Kosovars.
I would like to know what the minister's personal
representative had to report and what was the outcome of the
discussions he referred to earlier.
Third and last, I would like to know what the minister thinks of
a statement made at the start of the week, I think, by someone
described as arcane and a notorious warlord, who said, and I
quote—
[English]
“We shall not kneel before NATO missiles. We shall not allow
ourselves to become enslaved to NATO or any other foreign power”.
[Translation]
Is the minister concerned about such statements? Does he think
that military intervention under the NATO or UN banner could
lead to a dangerous war for the people of Kosovo and the
Yugoslavs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the questions.
The answer to the first is that reports are that China has also
indicated that it would exercise a veto. But I think that again
depends on the resolution itself. As I said, there is still some
time to play.
As the hon. member knows, because he and I talked about it at
length, based on this question of the balance between
non-ingérence that is classic under article 2 of the United
Nations charter versus the broader humanitarian issue, I will not
give a full description at this time but that is one of the major
transition issues that we are facing today. How far can the
international community go to its international organizations to
hold nations accountable to humanitarian standards?
That really is the issue which is at stake at this point in time.
1900
I certainly agree with the hon. member's assessment that Mr.
Wright is by far the best and most appropriate person, which is
the reason he was there. I have not received written reports,
but we have had telephone conversations.
He was able to get access to Belgrade authorities and was able
to deal directly with the Kosovar civilian people, not the armed
rebels. But he did not have a great deal of success. They do not
seem to be willing to change what is going on at this point in
time. But we never know. We were there. We were making the
case. It was heard and listened to and we can only hope that the
cumulative effect of that will perhaps have some influence over
the next day or two.
As for the statement that was read, it is somewhat of a
threatening statement. It is not unusual. I am not surprised by
it. We certainly heard similar kinds of statements when we
wrestled with the problems in Bosnia. I do not think it will
result in a wider conflict. In fact I still have very much hope
that by having debates such as this, by showing that there is
some will that is going to be exercised, we may be able to find a
political solution by the end of the week. But it has to be
accompanied, clearly, not simply by the minuet that has been
going on; it has to be accompanied by a much clearer sense of
direction and it must be made clear that we are prepared to use
the necessary measures.
Before I conclude I want to assure members that we have already,
as a concern related to Canadians within Yugoslavia, given
warning notices to dependants and the non-essential staff at our
embassy. They have been given notice to leave. We will likely
maintain a small skeleton staff at the embassy for the duration.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, certainly it
is my pleasure to speak to this issue. I guess it is the sort of
thing that one wishes they did not have to talk to in this
parliament.
I have to go back to when I first came to this parliament. I
think the very first week we were here we were discussing Bosnia.
That was one of the first issues on the table. At that point we
again had a take note debate and again we were dealing with the
issue of how to deal with this sort of situation.
It is obvious that we do need to deal with it. There are
275,000 people suffering, both of Albanian and Serbian
background. There are 50,000 or more homeless people. All of us
are touched by that. We all watch television, and we all believe
that we must respond.
I do not think the question is that we need to respond, that we
need to do something. However, there are a lot of questions that
we need to address, that we need to bring forward. Therefore,
this evening I will try to ask some of these questions. Some of
them are not answerable, but I still think Canadians expect us to
discuss them in this House.
It is symptomatic of the age in which we live, the post-cold war
period, that we have a lot of these problem areas which require
action.
We agree with much of what the minister says. That is the case
on issues such as this. Certainly we have to support the fact
that we may require NATO action because people like Slobodan
Milosevic seem to understand only one thing and that is the big
hammer over the head. It is unfortunate that people like that
exist, but there are many of them in many parts of this world
that we have to deal with. We obviously support that sort of
NATO response or the ultimate probability that that response will
be required.
We as well read the report of Kofi Annan this week. We read
about the 6,000 to 7,000 buildings which have been destroyed. We
saw villages totally damaged, being shelled, and people living in
fear of returning to their homes.
1905
As I look at those pictures on television I cannot help but
think back to travelling through some of those valleys in Bosnia
where there was mile after mile, kilometre after kilometre, of
bombed out villages. There was nobody there. The only thing we
could see were the graves in the ditches as we drove along in the
bus. There was total silence. I have never experienced war.
There were not even birds flying in the air. It was totally dead
silence. There were nothing but graves.
That brought it home very quickly. We could not step off the
roadside. We could not drive our vehicle off the road. We were
told to only stand on what looked like old pavement because there
were mines everywhere. There were mines in the corn fields. Cobs
of corn had plastic explosives in them. When someone picked that
cob of corn they would loose an arm or a leg. They would be
maimed.
The most serious thing I saw was in a schoolyard. The children
had all gone into the school. I visited with those children.
They wrote to me about what it was like to live in a war zone. I
have 12 pages of 10 and 11 year old kids telling me what it was
like and what their future would be like. What I saw in the
schoolyard were Coke tins. They looked like full Coke tins
sitting on the table. I said to the translator “Those are Coke
tins. The kids are going to love those”. He said “Let me grab
a big stick”. He grabbed a big stick and pushed the Coke tin
off the table. There was a loud boom and the table disappeared.
There was a mine underneath that Coke tin. Some little kid was
going to grab that Coke tin when they came out from class. That
would be retaliation.
That is what we are talking about. That is the kind of
environment that we as Canadians cannot imagine exists anywhere
in the world.
It is obvious why we need to get involved. The humanitarian
factor is so obvious, but the problems are many. We saw the guy
on television carrying the limp body of his young child. That
wells up something in all of us and says that we must respond to
this kind of terror.
As well the minister mentioned the problem of the United
Nations. This is a problem that we are going to have to deal
with. This problem is not just in Kosovo. We can go back and
talk about Rwanda. We can talk about Nigeria. We can talk about
Bosnia. The inability of the United Nations to respond is
becoming a more serious problem.
I travelled to India and Pakistan this summer. The inability to
respond to the problem in that area is something that the world
has to deal with. We need to deal with the Kashmir problem. I
have said, and I will say it again, that Canada has an important
role to play. We can show some leadership. I call it diplomatic
leadership. I call it mediation. We could become the mediators
of the world. I use some of these examples and I would even
carry it as far Kosovo. We have a reputation which would allow
us to be there and do things that the Americans cannot do, the
Russians cannot do, the French cannot do and the British cannot
do. No one can do it but a country like Canada which is a middle
power. We are in the G-7. We belong to NATO. We belong to all
kinds of things. We would be respected in playing that role.
I am frustrated, as I am sure the minister is. I grabbed from
my notes a note of March 23, 1998 when I talked to our caucus
about Kosovo. I could grab other ones. I said that there has to
be action. People are being killed. Women and children are
being killed. We are now in October and we are still talking. We
have done nothing. That is extremely frustrating for all of us.
We have to end it. We have to find a better way of dealing with
these kinds of situations. I wish I had all the answers and
could say “Mr. Minister, this is what we have to do and it will
all work”. I can give him some suggestions, but I do not know
that they will answer all of the problems.
I have difficulty with take note debates. I repeat this and I
will say it every time we have one of these debates.
I think the better way would be to have the House invite someone
to give us a complete briefing. It would be for all members of
parliament and it would be done in a non-partisan fashion. We
should bring in the best experts we have in this country, and we
have a number of them. Let them tell us all about this issue so
that we as Canadians understand the issue much better.
1910
Then we could let two speakers or four from the government and
two from the opposition, whatever the formula, give the position
of their respective party.
Then we could have an honest vote, based not on partisan
politics. This is not partisan stuff. We are talking about
lives. We are talking about people. Then we could vote on what
we should do. We could come to a consensus. I think foreign
affairs lends itself to that and we would be respected. We would
feel better in ourselves. Many feel they should speak on these
issues but do not necessarily have the background, understanding
or information to do it. I would put forward that suggestion as
being a better way than the take note debate we are having here
tonight.
I think the problem of being so slow to respond is probably more
frustrating than anything else about this issue. I would like us
to address that. When we deal with someone like Slobodan
Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, or whoever we want to put in this
category, we know what kind of person we are dealing with and,
therefore, we should be able to build a response to these kinds
of people.
Canadians want to know a number of things. They want to know
what we will bomb if we have to bomb something. They want to be
assured that we are not just going to create more victims. They
are concerned about the nature of the police force, the nature of
the Serbian clean-up and the ethnic cleansing. Can we really go
in and bomb unless it is decided that we are going for Belgrade
and we are really going to teach this guy a lesson? He would
understand that all right, but is that really the solution that
we should be talking about? How far do we go? We should talk
about that.
What about the dangers for Canadians? We should talk about that
too. We understand that in Serbia there is a really good radar
system. There are missiles, there are rockets and there is a
defence system set up there.
If Canadians are at risk we should know that ahead of time. I
know it is fine to say military is always at risk, but I think
the levels of risk could certainly be discussed more fully.
Are we considering using ground troops? We know ground troops
would be the way to make it work. In Bosnia it works because
there are people with big guns and they use a big stick.
One thing I learned from talking to people there was that the
hatred is still there and they are waiting. They are waiting
because that big gun will go away some day and when it does they
will kill their neighbour who killed their grandmother, their
grandfather or their child.
These kids can talk about what happened in 1942. They are 10
years old. They can relate what happened in 1536 when the
Ottoman Turks came. My goodness, they are living 500 years of
history and it is affecting them.
The answer would be to get on the ground and come up with a
plan.
I think we always have to ask about U.S. dedication to this
whole issue. That is a question that we all need to know because
I do not know that any of us could be there without that big U.S.
stick.
We need to know and we need to be assured by our defence
minister about the readiness of our troops and equipment. We are
proud of them. Those of us who have travelled in war zones, when
we see the Canadian flag on the troop carrier, it makes us darned
proud. But we have to be sure that they are equipped to handle
this sort of thing.
As well, besides saying that we need a long term plan, we should
be a part of the contact group. I think we have earned our
stripes. We have been there from the beginning. I cannot see
how we cannot force ourselves, more aggressively, to become a
part of that contact group.
Our future involvement should partly depend on our having a say
about what our troops do.
1915
When we talk about a long term plan we need to involve the
European Union. We need to ask what it is prepared to commit in
its backyard. I know the difficulties in asking that question. I
posed it to Germans and French and have received opposite
stories. They need to face up to that as well.
We need schools. We need infrastructure. We need planned
society for 30 years or 40 years if we are to fix that part of
the world. Who has the commitment and the money? Only on a big,
collective issue can we do it. Then we could be proud and say
that we have done something for that country.
The concept of regional instability troubles us all. We are
concerned about Russia economically, from a nuclear standpoint
and from a stability standpoint in Europe and the rest of the
world. We are concerned about Macedonia and Albania and a
potential flare-up. We are also concerned about Greece and
Turkey, two NATO partners that may come into conflict in terms of
this decision. We need to ask those questions and need to be
sure we have looked at them before we get too far into any kind
of military action.
I wish I could say tonight that I have the solution, that this
is what the minister should be doing and if we were government we
would do it. However, this is not situation we are looking at.
We are looking at a situation where Canadians need to understand
our involvement. We need to get that information out through
members of parliament of all parties. We need to answer their
questions. We need to address the issues. Then we can say we
have done what we are here to do in terms of an issue like this
one.
I hope the minister thinks seriously about a different approach
to take note debates. If it does not work we can always come
back to this method. If we could just give it a try we would
have better informed members of parliament, better informed
Canadians, and more pride in the actions we take to help people
of the world in serious crises such has the one in Kosovo.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for my colleague, the member for Red Deer.
Since we are not in a position to evaluate the costs of any
intervention by Canada or the form such intervention would take,
would he like to see this issue debated again in the House or by
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade?
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, we had what I would consider
to be a fairly successful debate in committee regarding the Haiti
situation. Experts came before us and resolutions were put
forward. I see the chairman nodding on the other side. He would
agree that it worked quite well. It was extensive. We had a
chance to ask a lot of questions and we had a chance to debate.
The problem was that it was only members of the committee. It
did not get out to Canadians the way it would if we used the full
House for something as important.
It needs more debate. We need to get the information out. This
take note debate will not do it. I am firmly convinced of that,
even though our briefings will help solve some of the problems.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have taken into account the comments of the hon.
member.
I will defer to my friend from Vancouver soon.
1920
I do not consider this debate to be necessarily the only
opportunity we will have as parliamentarians to deal with the
issue. We wanted a take note debate now because we will be
facing, particularly this coming weekend, decisions at the NATO
council and at the United Nations. It is important to get the
views of parliamentarians before we actually move forward with
those and have to make a decision as government.
I know there is a break next week, but I would certainly
undertake to members of the House to work with the critics and
the House leaders to organize some system, whether through the
committee or whatever, to maintain a degree of information and
briefing and so on. We can work out the techniques for that.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
might I address the hon. member for Red Deer and ask him whether
I am correct in assuming that his party would authorize the use of
armed force involving Canadian forces.
If so, would he relate that to existing security council
resolutions which are territorialized rather precisely, or would
he base it on more general chapter 7, article 51 provisions? In
particular, what is his feeling on the use of aerial power? How
would he relate that to the protocols additional to the Geneva
protocols of 1977?
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, as we have always done in
take note debates, we would support the ultimate decision to use
military force if dealing with someone like Mr. Milosevic. That
is the only thing he understands. We also believe that these
questions should be asked and answered. That is what Canadians
want to know.
Overall our party and Canadians support our involvement in
international situations. Obviously, though, we are responding
to a humanitarian need. It is very troubling that the veto will
be used. We may end up fulfilling NATO action as opposed to UN
action.
That is troubling because I believe it greatly weakens the
position of the United Nations. It means that more and more
people will challenge its authority. Going outside the UN does
nothing but hurt that organization and could ultimately lead to
its demise.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to mention a couple of things for the member for Red
Deer and the minister.
Both the minister and the opposition critic used personal
examples of the ongoing horror in Kosovo. That in itself is
justification to take decisive action. The problem many
Canadians and I are having understanding is what the decisive
action will be.
The member for Vancouver Quadra asked whether we would support
air strikes. I would support air strikes. I would support quite
a bit if I knew for sure what the objective was. The difficulty
is that we want to stop the horror and the suffering, but I am
puzzled what we will consider a victory.
We can call up air strikes, one of those surgical things we can
do which do not get our hands too dirty. We want to solve it. We
do not want to get our guys in harm's way but we will want to
blow up a few fuel dumps and stuff. The difficulty is what we
will consider a victory once we start the process. What is the
political and military objective when we start the process?
When I think of committing the Canadian Armed Forces to the
process, I would like to know what we will accomplish, what is
the end goal. I want to stop the suffering. I want peace. I
want all those good things it is easy to be in favour of. The
difficulty I am having is what we will consider a victory.
Kosovo has been not annihilated but mostly annihilated. What
will get people back into their areas? What will get the
refugees to come back? What assurances, what political stability
do we hope to offer in the long term?
1925
What military assurances can we give those people? We could
take out all the fuel dumps we could find and take out the heavy
military stuff, the stuff that can be taken out with aircraft,
but we cannot protect them from the presence on the ground of a
bunch of Milosevic's animals.
The people will not go back. They need the assurance of a long
term of 30 years or 40 years, a generation or two of stability.
Although this is a take note debate and I understand we are
limited in what we can do, I still remain puzzled about what we
hope to achieve in the long run both politically and militarily.
Because we want to do something we will send in the jets. I
think that is what will happen. Dammit, we want to do something,
but what will we offer the people of Kosovo that says when we are
finished this is what they will have? I have not seen it yet. I
do not know what it is. There is no simple answer.
Will we do this with F-18s? Will we strike and make a
statement? Milosevic will pull back a bit and say that it is
still his because we cannot do the military and political things
required to keep him out of there in the long term.
That is basically what I wanted to say comment-wise. However,
what are will we do that is more than the emphatic and heart-felt
desire to take decisive action? What will we offer the people of
Kosovo that will give them assurance that pinpoint bombing and
then a withdrawal will make any difference in their lives?
What is the long term plan? What is the vision? If it is just
to bomb and strafe a few regions to make our point, I am not sure
what commitment we can make. Other than I wish it would stop
over there, I do not know what commitment we can make that will
make any difference in the long run.
It is discouraging for me because we all want to take that
decisive action. I am afraid we will take action that in the
long run the people of Kosovo will say thanks for the bombing but
still have no homes, no future, no stability, no political
structure, and no civil society.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer deserves
some time to reply. He will have about 30 seconds.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, I think the frustration is
obvious. The minister has expressed that. I think all of us
would express it.
If I were answering that question I would say that the bombing
will bring Milosevic to the table because he understands a plank
over the head. Then the real problem starts because there has to
be a long term plan to provide the people with a solution. I
would start with education, hospitals and infrastructure.
We could ask about dollars and who will do that. Then the
diplomatic work starts to get everybody involved in solving the
problem. Do we have the will? Do we have the money? Those are
the questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, may I
make a request? I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has
to leave, but I would like to make a comment that might perhaps
give him an opportunity to answer a question. Could I have the
unanimous consent of the House for that purpose?
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Our difficulty is that the House
agreed not to have people seeking unanimous consent during this
debate. That is the order under which we are operating. That is
why the Chair is being put in a rather difficult position here,
and there will be other requests.
The hon. member now has the floor. He can make a speech and the
minister may want to question him or make a comment on it later.
Does the House want to hear the minister say something further
in response to a question?
Mr. Bill Graham: Ask for unanimous consent.
1930
The Deputy Speaker: That is the problem. If we do it on
one we are going to get it later. Perhaps with the leave of the
House, the minister will give a response but we are not getting
consent to do this.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think my colleague's concern is interesting. The minister
replied that he could not give the House specific details of the
form of military intervention.
A question that I think is much more important and that merits
perhaps an answer or at least a comment from the minister is the
following: If President Milosevic gives assurances, how good
would they have to be for the idea of military intervention to
be dropped? I put the question because Mr. Milosevic has given
such assurances in the past, to Russia in particular, without
following through.
The Deputy Speaker: I have an idea: the Minister may answer,
but it will be included in the time allowed the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has the floor.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will not eat into the
hon. member's time but let me say first that resolution 1199
passed by the security council does set out very specific
conditions that we would want the Belgrade authorities to meet.
Beyond that I think it is important to look at the text of the
secretary-general's report which also indicates that in order to
have this occur there would have to be a more active form of
international presence. I think that answers the previous
questions regarding how to get some form of guarantee, some
assurances, particularly to the displaced people, that they can
come back. That would have to be part of any discussions and
negotiations at the table. There is that combination.
I am not trying to be vague. I think these comments are very
helpful. There is still security council activity potentially
tomorrow, Thursday. There will certainly be NATO meetings
beginning on Thursday, Friday and likely Saturday. These types of
comments will inform us as we make representation in terms of
formulating the ultimate plan that will be decided at the NATO
council.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for your flexibility this evening, which has enabled us to
obtain from a minister the answer to what, in my opinion, is a
very important question, one that is at the heart of the debate
that will go on for some days. It will, without a doubt, be of
interest to the Kosovars, the Yugoslavs and the entire
international community, which is seeking a solution to this
armed conflict, a conflict which has already left so many
Kosovars dead or in exile.
I would like to begin by indicating our party's agreement with
the proposals by the Reform Party. It is not often that we both
agree, but where foreign affairs are concerned, we do sometimes
support some of their initiatives, as we did for instance last
spring when the hon. member for Red Deer introduced his motion
on debates on peacekeeping operations and the role parliament
ought to play in this.
We indicated our agreement that parliament, this House in
particular, ought to have a greater presence, be more active.
The proposal by the hon. member for Red Deer is interesting in
that it is intended to be instructive. It seeks to get the
members of this House more interested in foreign affairs and to
ensure that MPs are aware of the issues behind major conflicts
and therefore better equipped to make informed decisions on
action the government wishes to make on behalf of this country
aimed at keeping, or in some cases restoring, international
peace.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the motion before the House this
evening. It supports an initiative aimed at putting an end to
the cycle of violence that has really occurred in Kosovo, in the
federal republic of Yugoslavia.
1935
As early as last March, the Bloc Quebecois drew the attention of
this House to the urgent need to act before the situation in
that region of the Balkans deteriorated. The conflict has been
degenerating since March, forcing us today to have an eleventh
hour debate as the international community prepares for more
aggressive action to pressure President Slobodan Milosevic into
honouring his country's commitments under the UN charter.
Canada announced that it would impose sanctions, but the
sanctions that were eventually imposed in the spring and summer
were quite modest, as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and
then parliamentary secretary admitted. He even said that these
measures were perhaps too modest to deal effectively with the
problems at hand. Six months later, we must recognize that the
sanctions imposed by Canada and other countries were not
successful, and the situation is much worse.
In fact, the kind of soft diplomacy exemplified by these
sanctions gave attackers plenty of time to consolidate their
positions, while their victims, who are confronted to this
situation on a daily basis, are forced into exile as part of a
mass exodus. The member for Red Deer mentioned that in excess of
250,000 Kosovars have fled their villages and communes and
sought refuge outside their country.
They also took refuge in European countries that are neither
immediate neighbours nor states likely to provide a safe haven
for the victims of the terror imposed by Slobodan Milosevic and
his troops in Kosovo.
Economic sanctions are only effective if there is a real
political will to demand that the actions of a foreign
government which violate human rights be immediately stopped.
The brutal acts of violence and the repression of the Kosovo
people by Serbian security forces are now well documented. They
have been known for a long time, in fact for too long. These
acts of violence and this repression justify a response on the
part of the international community, but it must act in a
consistent and coherent manner. But, first and foremost, the
international community must act before it is too late.
Canada must act jointly with other countries, including those
that are part of the contact group that the member for Red Deer
would like Canada to join—it is not for lack of trying on our
part, but this select club simply does not want to invite Canada
to join.
Canada must work in partnership with the countries that are
members of the contact group, and with the other members of the
UN security council, to act quickly and decisively, so that a
clear and unequivocal message is sent to Mr. Milosevic.
The numerous calls for negotiation made this summer by the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and his officials have remained
unanswered. These appeals have been fruitless.
This is why we must now use a different approach.
We must now resort to means other than diplomatic and economic
sanctions, because these too have been ineffective.
1940
It is not that there has been no Security Council intervention,
for on March 31, 1998 it adopted resolution 60, and more
recently, on September 23, resolution 1199, to which the
minister has referred several times in his speech. Intervention
by the Security Council, which has obviously had only limited,
if any, effects, now must be more energetic and more significant
than ever before.
It is time for the Security Council to act for reasons that are
essentially humanitarian in nature.
It is time to act, because too many people have been forced into
exile, because too many people may be slaughtered. Many have
already been the victims of massacres, but many more Kosovars
have been driven out of their communes, out of their towns by
the killings, rapes, inhuman and degrading treatment, and
torture.
Too many fear what is going on in their homeland, and
have vivid memories of what went on in Sarajevo, only a few
kilometres from the capital of the Republic. Too many women and
children, too many young and old people, have chosen exile
because winter is approaching and their harvests have been
destroyed by this filthy war, a war which has laid waste to
village after village, commune after commune, a war which will
leave famine in its wake.
Now the people of Kosovo are turning to the international
community, to the Security Council itself, for the only ray of
hope they have left.
The message the international community must send to the
Yugoslav Republic and its president must be a clear one:
civilian populations must not be abandoned. Efforts must be
made to ensure that they are spared further misery.
Above all, the international community must act out of concern
for these populations. Its actions must be consistent. The
international community must intervene in Kosovo, in the
Yugoslav Federal Republic, to ensure that its people have some
chance of a better life. Not only must it engage in
humanitarian efforts, but now it must go beyond them to
contemplate armed retaliation, military action, until peace is
restored to this region of the Balkans.
The international community has had to intervene in this region
and is still involved in Bosnia, especially in Sarajevo, in
certain areas where the Bosnians, the Serbs and the Croats were
killing each other and where a threat remains to the lives of
all these people.
At the time, however, the international community and Canada
were slow to take real action against this constant threat to
peace and security by, yet again, Slobodan Milosevic and his
Yugoslav government.
We also tried at the time to impose sanctions and to promote a
return to diplomacy and dialogue. We hoped these measures would
succeed, measures that we thought Slobodan Milosevic would act
on. We were forced into military intervention only in the face
of the parties' refusal to negotiate a lasting ceasefire.
We considered the problem at the time with blinkers on,
intimating that the problem was in Sarajevo and should be
settled for Sarajevo, where the conflict was better known, more
dramatic, receiving more media attention and more symbolic. Few
countries intervening in Bosnia thought that the problem could
surface in Kosovo.
1945
So today, we must consider our intervention in much broader
terms to prevent this conflict, once peace is returned to
Kosovo, from moving on to Macedonia, as it well might. Kosovo
refugees are already on Macedonian territory. Refugees could
find themselves in neighbouring regions as well.
The current situation therefore calls for consistent action, a
strong humanitarian commitment by UN member countries and by the
members of the Security Council and the General Assembly and of
NATO, which could implement the provisions of the Security
Council. Consistent action is called for.
We must act quickly in concert with our international allies.
I understand the dilemma the Minister of Foreign Affairs
described. Obviously, the UN Security Council could be prevented
from taking action under chapter VII, if Russia and China were
to use their veto.
This is a major dilemma, because action taken by the
international community, through a group of countries or through
NATO, may be construed as illegal under international law. The
member for Vancouver Quadra is perfectly aware of the illegal
situation the international community would put itself in by
acting without the council's approval.
But what the minister is telling us is that the international
community, that a group of countries, that NATO may act
illegally, because military action is justified in this case.
We have a motion before us, a motion that may be too modest, too
timid.
There is no mention, in this motion, of the use of armed forces
or of Canadian participation through NATO. It only refers to the
humanitarian situation facing an increasing number of men, women
and children, the well-being of whom we must be concerned with,
even though Ottawa is thousands of kilometres away from Kosovo.
The government is asking that we take notice of this terrible
situation. It is indeed time Parliament took notice of this
situation. The government has announced its intention to take
measures. But what measures?
Reform Party members were right to point out that we do not have
here, this evening, concrete indications on the measures that
Canada favours, or wants to favour, in the debates that will
take place at the Security Council, the NATO council and in
other forums where this issue will be discussed over the next
few hours or days. We are told that these measures seek a
diplomatic solution to the problem. This is fine, but what
specific measures? What would be Kosovo's status within or
outside the Yugoslav Republic? We should consider any solution
that respects the wishes of the Kosovo people.
All this seems pretty weak. The motion does not go far enough.
It should have been worded in stronger terms, because the daily
tragedy of these populations deserves stronger wording.
I will conclude by saying that this is a matter of justice. I am
going to quote someone, not George Washington—whom the minister
likes to quote, as he did yesterday during a debate on a piece
of legislation—but Blaise Pascal, a philosopher whom some of
you know and like. Pascal said: “Justice without strength is
powerless. Strength without justice is tyrannical. Therefore,
both justice and strength must be present and, to that end, we
must make sure that what is just is also strong”.
In this particular case, justice and strength must be combined
to end the tragedy suffered by the people of Kosovo. We must put
an end to their tragedy.
1950
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will take advantage of the legal expertise of the hon. member
for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
The possibility was mentioned of a NATO-led intervention. The
hon. member is well aware that NATO is a regional association
governed by the UN charter, that it is limited by charter imposed
conditions regarding the use of armed force.
He will certainly recall that, during the Korean War, the
well-known resolution 377(V) passed by the General Assembly was
used to compensate for the gaps in international public law.
Does the hon. member think that there is a new category of
humanitarian intervention distinct from the charter, or are
specific security council resolutions necessary before Canadian
troops can be sent in?
He is well aware that the resolutions passed for Bosnia apply to
a very specific area. What way is there around this legal
impasse? Does he have any useful suggestions?
He is also certainly aware that the protocols, additional to the
Geneva protocol of 1977, set very tight restrictions on the
use of air strikes.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, the House wants to hear about
international law tonight. How very interesting.
Earlier tonight, the member for Vancouver Quadra had a test
question for the member for Red Deer, a very difficult one too.
The member for Red Deer gave a very political answer.
I will try to reply to the question using the knowledge we
share, which we want to see benefit the House, moreover. There
is some value to having expertise and to being willing to share
it with one's colleagues during debates such as this.
It is difficult under current international law to claim that
force can be used under chapter 7 without the formal approval of
the Security Council.
The use of force was possible during the Gulf crisis because the
Security Council authorized certain states to use force.
Just a few months ago, we debated in this House the potential
use of force against Iraq. Members will remember that, on
several occasions, I asked the government if it thought that
Canada and other states had the authority to use force against
Iraq. That question remained unanswered. I know that legal
opinions were provided on the subject.
But I think it is difficult to claim, under international law as
it currently stands, that the use of force, even in this case,
would be consistent with the charter without prior authorization
of the Security Council.
On the other hand, are we seeing a customary rule emerge from a
practice whereby the states will be able to invoke a breach of
the peace to justify an intervention? I think that circumventing
the charter by invoking a customary rule that would allow states
to intervene in a case like this may be a way to solve the
problem.
Article 51 may be the only legal basis that could be used to
justify an intervention in this case, even though it would
require a very liberal interpretation of that article.
Beyond all that and even as an internationalist, I think we must
weigh the good and the bad in this type of situation.
1955
If we think that an armed intervention is necessary to protect
the most fundamental of human rights, if the international
community agrees that such an intervention is legitimate, and if
the international public is in favour of this intervention, then
it is surely justified. Such intervention will free many people
from the terror inflicted upon them by individuals who, one day,
will hopefully have to appear before an international criminal
tribunal and be held accountable for their war crimes and their
crimes against humanity before the international community.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot quote Pascal or Washington, but the quote I have dug up is
one by the Greek philosopher Pindar who said “the test of any
man lies in action”. Versions of this have been regurgitated
over time.
I do not have the answer for the question I have for the member
but I would like to have his comment on it. Why is it that
problems in central Europe receive, necessarily, a very high
priority at the United Nations but often other equally horrendous
human rights abuses in other parts of the world do not seem to
grab the United Nations by the throat to say that it is a
compelling problem that has to be solved today?
One example I can think of is what is going on in Algeria.
According to Amnesty International thousands of people have been
massacred in rural areas, and there is not a blink and no
resolution. It is a human rights abuse on a grand scale and no
one says anything.
In the southern part of Sudan there are Christians and tribal
communities that are being actively ethnic cleansed by a Muslim
government in this case. It is persecuting people systematically
and no one blinks.
There are problems in Angola. We certainly know about the
problems in Rwanda and they are entering into more problems in
Rwanda, hopefully not as bad as they had. There are hundreds of
thousands of refugees from Somalia.
There is systematic and systemic abuses in a large part of the
world, a lot in Africa, and the United Nations just does not
consider these to be the crisis that it does Kosovo. It is a
crisis in Kosovo and that is why we are here. We all agree about
that. However, I wonder why this is and I wonder if the member
has thought about it.
Regardless of whether it is the Geneva convention, section 77 or
security council resolutions or whatever technical things, why is
it there are so many other areas of the world that the western
world remains quiet about but the problem in Kosovo is seizing
the world? I have some ideas on why this is happening but I was
wondering if the member had any ideas.
I think it is a tragedy that the United Nations and those of us
who are concerned about human rights abuses do not treat all
human rights abuses as a problem for all of us. Martin Luther
King was right when he coined the phrase.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good
question, and a very difficult one to answer. Maybe the simplest
answer would be that there are double standards in the
international community. There are too many double standards
when it comes to human rights and the ways in which the United
Nations and other international organizations intervene when
there are conflicts. That is the simplest answer.
The more complex answer would be that when human rights abuses
bring a real threat to peace and security, that is when there is
a drive toward involving the security council and other organs of
the United Nations.
2000
That is when it happens. Because there was a severe threat of
international peace and security in Bosnia there was an intervention
of the international community and there still is. There was
also a threat of international peace and security in Somalia, in
Africa. The member also mentioned Sudan and Algeria. When there
was a very important threat to peace and security in Somalia
there was an intervention of the UN.
Maybe because of that the problem of the intervention of the UN
in Somalia was created, especially in the eyes of the Americans.
That is why there is a very cautious attitude to intervene in
Africa. That is very unwise. Africa is a lost continent. It is
continent that is sacrificed nowadays. I do not think it should
be. We should not accuse the United Nations of that. We should
never forget that the United Nations is composed of member
states. Those states allow or disallow the intervention of the
security council.
That is the more complex answer. It does not justify double
standards. Once double standards are lifted we will live in a
better international community.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if I might seek the leave of the House to
divide my time with my colleague from Halifax West.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House prepared to allow this
division of time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have 10 minutes
with 5 minutes questions and comments.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing
my appreciation to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for giving the
House this opportunity to debate this very important motion.
My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party support the
motion.
[Translation]
As the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry said, we were hoping that
it would go further, that it would be stronger, that justice and
strength, two fundamental principles, would have been expressed
more clearly in this motion. Nevertheless, we support the
motion.
[English]
It was last week that this House unanimously spoke with one
voice following the terrible atrocities that were brought to
light by Human Rights Watch, the massacre of 18 innocent
civilians in a forest in the Drenica region. Other members have
spoken of this earlier. The House spoke with one voice urging
the Government of Yugoslavia, Milosevic and the parties involved
to put down arms immediately and start negotiating a solution
with the help of international organizations like the United
Nations and the OSCE.
It was last week as well, a few days afterward, that Human
Rights Watch issued a report that documented the terrible
violations of international law showing that the Serbian special
police and the Yugoslav army units have executed civilians,
systematically destroyed civilian property and attacked
humanitarian aid workers.
The director said it has been clear for seven months that the
government is conducting a brutal war against civilians in
Kosovo. These are war crimes. These are crimes against humanity
and yet the Government of Yugoslavia and Milosevic refuse to
co-operate with the international tribunal investigating it. They
have gone further and have restricted the work of domestic and
foreign journalists seeking to report on these terrible
atrocities.
These atrocities can also strike home. The hon. member for
Churchill spoke with family members in a community that she has
the honour of representing who have family in Kosovo who were
terribly injured. This strikes home to her and to each of us at
a very profoundly human level.
2005
This has gone on for far too long. We have heard the same
threats, the same promises of action in the case of Kosovo that
we heard in the case of Bosnia, and there the international
community failed terribly. It took three years, 200,000 people
who died and too many warnings before finally when spurred by the
terrible mortar attack by the Serbs on a crowded marketplace in
Sarajevo in August 1995 the west took action.
Tragically that action was not taken by the United Nations. One
of the great dilemmas and tragedies of the situation in Kosovo is
that we cannot rely on the United Nations in these circumstances
to definitely respond to this humanitarian crisis. We cannot
assume the security council will adopt a resolution that will
authorize the kind of firm military response that clearly is
warranted and was likely warranted some time ago.
We saw the effects of Serb aggression in Bosnia and now we see
them in Kosovo. I witnessed them when I visited Vukovar. I
witnessed the Serb aggression on Croatia and its people. I will
never forget walking through the ruins of a church in Vukovar and
picking up a small piece of wood, the remains of a small wooden
cross.
The community of nations has to say that the occurrence of this
kind of atrocity is not acceptable. The United Nations' own high
commissioner for refugees has estimated that over 280,000 people
have been displaced by the fighting since March. This is mostly
within Kosovo. Some 50,000 have not found shelter yet. Many
others are living in very difficult conditions. Over 700 have
died. And with winter fast approaching there is a very real
danger of a humanitarian disaster.
I urge the Government of Canada to respond to that disaster, to
step up donor funding for reconstruction and winter emergency
plans in Kosovo and to provide financial assistance to
Montenegro, to Albania and the former Yugoslav republic of
Macedonia hosting many of the refugees and which desperately need
support as winter fast approaches.
We would prefer a resolution of the United Nations security
council. We would hope the OSCE, the regional security body in
that region, would be able to come to a consensus, but we cannot
allow the veto power of Russia and possibly China, the consensus
rule of the OSCE to prevent the kind of action that very likely
must be taken, the kind of military action that must be taken to
save human lives.
Let us be under no illusions about the possible risk to
Canadians. Canada has six CF-18 aircraft on the ground in
Aviano, Italy, 130 Canadian pilots and ground crew. They are
courageous men and women who will be directly affected by the
decision our government makes. I am sure that every member of
this House wishes those men and women well at this very difficult
time. I am sure we all recognize that when we talk about the
possibility of military action, it is our sons and daughters who
may very well be on the front lines, who may be fired on by those
ground to air missiles that the Serbs have threatened to use.
This is a humanitarian disaster. I believe that as Canadians we
have an obligation not to stand by but to act.
The member for Fraser Valley has spoken at the same time, and
rightly so I believe, of the fact that there is certainly a great
deal of selectivity in the international response. Of course we
are profoundly concerned about the situation in Kosovo and we
must recognize that air strikes alone fall far short of what
would be a thoughtful and appropriate response. If there is not a
presence on the ground, that could exacerbate the situation and
make it even more difficult.
2010
We must remember as well that in whatever military action that
may be undertaken innocent people's lives must not be put at
risk, whether Yugoslavians, Kosovars or anybody else, but we made
the mistake globally of waiting too long in Bosnia and we cannot
afford to make that mistake in Kosovo.
The world though has stood by, as the member for Fraser Valley
said, in cases of other humanitarian disasters; the genocide in
East Timor, a third of the population, 200,000 people, murdered
by the Suharto regime. Where is the international outcry on that?
Where is Canada's voice on that?
There have been ten resolutions at the United Nations on East
Timor and Canada shamefully has either abstained or voted against
every one. So the member for Fraser Valley is right. There is a
double standard, whether in East Timor, the situation with the
Kurds, in Turkey, northern Iraq, Colombia, Sudan.
Again, my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party support
this motion. We desperately hope that Milosevic will come to his
senses, pull back, respect the rights of the people of Kosovo to
determine their own future, hopefully have the kind of autonomy
they had previously, but to respect their rights to
self-determination, and that we can avert the continued horrors,
because already too many people have died, that would in many
respects be totally unacceptable not just to Canadians but to all
civilized people should the global community not respond, not
just with words but with action. La justice et la force.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, there exists a strong possibility after hearing the
addresses already in the House that there will be a political
consensus. It may be an all-party political consensus within the
House. I wonder if he could help us over the next stage and
comment on the suggestions by the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry.
There is a new concept of humanitarian intervention which is
separate, its origins different, from classic intervention. It
is still subject to some limitations. The OSCE is like NATO, a
regional security organization and cannot exceed charter
conditions and limitations.
Would the hon. member believe either through customary
international law or through the general assembly that we might
find an adequate base for Canadian armed intervention if that
would arise and also take us over the aerial bombardment issue?
I believe in the war in the gulf he had some difficulties with
the compatibility with some of the operations. Can he help us to
this next step? Customary law can gallop at the present time.
There has been the phrase used, instant customary law. A number
of quick precedents can help make new norms.
Can the hon. member help us here? I think there is a good
possibility of a political all-party consensus emerging.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member for Vancouver Quadra is correct. Certainly as we listen to
the debate tonight it appears there is an emerging political
consensus around the desirability of hopefully the United Nations
with a resolution; if not the United Nations, then certainly the
OSCE as the regional body under article VII.
Failing that—and I think the member asks a very important
question—is there another basis in international law for
military intervention?
2015
Clearly international law is an evolving body of law. There is
a clear and demonstrable threat to human life on the massive
scale that we have witnessed already in Kosovo. This is not an
anticipatory action, as the member is well aware. This is an
action in response to brutal war crimes against humanity. Those
crimes are well described in international law. If the community
of nations in taking action does not exceed what is required to
respond to those well documented war crimes against humanity are,
I would hope that international law would recognize the justice
of that intervention.
It is important at the same time that the intervention not be
excessive. It is important that it be based on humanitarian law
principles and that there be support and follow up. It is not
acceptable to drop bombs, to conduct air strikes, and then what
happens next? If there is no support for the Kosovars on the
ground, there could be massive retaliation by the Serb military,
a situation of complete anarchy could prevail, and it could be
counterproductive.
In terms of the international legal basis for action, had the
world waited for a new concept of international law in the case
of Bosnia as it did in Rwanda to the shame of the international
community, I can only imagine the kind of carnage that would have
continued to take place. If international law does not provide
that base at this point, certainly it may be time to establish
that precedent.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to share this opportunity to speak with the hon. member
for Burnaby—Douglas. I guess I am as pleased as one can be to
speak to a topic of this nature. We all know it is a very
serious topic. It is a very sad event. It is something that
most of us would rather not be discussing.
The motion before the House reads:
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.
As has been indicated by my hon. colleague, the NDP supports the
motion. Interestingly enough it was just a few days ago that our
federal council approved a resolution which read as follows:
Whereas the Serbian armed forces are continuing to attack the
people of Kosovo, killing, injuring and driving away hundreds and
thousands of civilians in their attempt at ethnic cleansing of
the area;
And whereas massacres have been conducted by the Serbian
authorities in Kosovo and that these massacres have been
documented and confirmed by diplomats and journalists;
And whereas all diplomatic attempts by European and North
American governments have achieved nothing to stop these
massacres and ethnic cleaning,
Therefore be it resolved that the federal NDP in condemning the
massacre of innocent civilians of Kosovo demands the federal
Liberal government in Ottawa to use its influence in NATO and the
United Nations to call for intervention to halt the killings and
ethnic cleansing.
Be it further resolved that the federal NDP affirms and
recognizes the right of self-determination for the people of
Kosovo to decide their own political future without the fear of
oppression and the military presence of the Serbian armed forces.
I find it very rewarding to see tonight that the motion the
government brought forward takes into consideration the concerns
expressed by the grassroots people who attended our council.
2020
In reality it shows that the issue we are dealing with is not a
partisan issue. It is an issue that cuts across all parties. It
is a humanitarian issue. It is one that should be of concern to
all of us.
I reinforce the point that I believe was made by the hon. Reform
member who spoke earlier. He talked about the fact that this was
a take note debate and that it might well have served us better
if we had a gathering where we could have been informed as a body
about what was really happening and obtained the appropriate
information so that as we debated the issue we would be more
informed.
I say with all due respect that since I started the political
business far too often I have found—and I am sure there may be
others who have found the same thing—that we as members are
rushing from one topic to the next. We are dealing with all
kinds of things that are coming at a very fast and furious pace.
Quite often people are speaking on subjects in the House and
using notes they made at the last minute. They do not have all
the information at hand they would like to have to deal with the
matters appropriately.
One might say this is the nature of the business, that this is
the kind of life we are living today, that it is a very fast
paced life and we have to be able to deal with it. Perhaps that
is one of the problems with the world today. We are moving fast.
Perhaps that is why we are seeing so much unrest and so many
humanitarian problems in all parts of the world. We do not take
the time to slow down and deal with issues appropriately.
That aside, this is a humanitarian issue. We read statements
about the suffering that has taken place. One news article
contained these words “the television pictures are bad. A
toddler lying dead, pacifier still hanging from her purple
snowsuit. The corpse of a man set on fire while tied to a tree.
The crumpled body of another cut down by machine gunfire from a
passing car”.
And then it went on to talk about 200 villages in Kosovo that
had been destroyed. An estimated 250,000 people were homeless.
Thousands had died as Serb forces rooted the Kosovo liberation
army. It talked about winter coming on and the prospects for
mass starvation.
These things are very disturbing to us. Perhaps years ago we
would not have seen or heard these things, but today we sit in
our homes and see those images in our living rooms as we watch
television, as our young people and our children watch
television. We can see the dire consequences of man's inhumanity
toward man.
This is a serious problem. We know there is a long history
between the two factions fighting in the area. When we look at
it and we hear talk about ethnic cleansing, the wiping out of a
certain group of people, we have to come back to the basics of
what we as a human race are doing to one another.
The Serbian armed forces are continuing to attack, injure and
kill people. Another news article talked about a family that was
massacred. We read about the corpses of five women and two
children, ages 5 and 7, lying in a narrow gully near a makeshift
tent where villagers said the family had sought refuge from the
shelling. All the victims had been shot in the head at close
range, apparently while attempting to flee the attack. The
bodies of several of the victims displayed clear evidence of
mutilation.
We read about a woman aged 28 who was two months pregnant
according to family members. Her belly had been cut open. We
read about an older man, 65, who was found in a makeshift tent.
His throat had been cut open and part of his brain had been
removed and placed next to him.
It is hard to believe in this day and age in the 21st century we
could be talking about such atrocities. Yet these things are
happening. We all agree quite readily that action must be taken
to stop these things. Ideally we would all like to see the
action being other than military action, because we know that
military action in itself creates problems.
2025
The minister mentioned earlier that many meetings had been
attempted to try to bring about a peaceful solution. There has
been consideration of the matter by the United Nations and by
various officials trying to bring about a peaceful end. These
have been to no avail.
When push comes to shove we have to look seriously at how to
make it stop. Also, as was mentioned by an hon. member, we have
to be mindful that if we make a decision to move toward military
aid we are looking at our own men and women going into a very
dangerous situation. We must be assured that our men and women
are adequately prepared with proper equipment as well as properly
equipped emotionally and otherwise. There are many other things
to consider as we look at the total picture and this very serious
situation.
Questions have been raised around how such things can happen,
why there are double standards, why we can allow atrocities in
one area and not deal with them, yet look at them in another area
and deal with them. Ultimately it comes down to the
responsibility of each and every one of us as individuals.
The United Nations is comprised of individuals. The security
council is comprised of individuals. In reality, it comes down
to what each and every one of us as individuals feels in our
hearts in terms of how we deal with our fellow human beings and
whether we allow these atrocities to exist.
I am reminded of a story from a well known book about man who
was travelling from one village to another. He fell among
thieves, was beaten, was stripped of his clothes, was robbed and
left lying by the side of the road for dead.
Along came a very highly educated person who looked, crossed
over and walked by on the other side. Then along came a
religious leader. I am sure we have lots of religious leaders
and lots of highly educated people in our society. Along came a
religious leader who also looked, crossed over and walked by on
the other side.
Then we are told that along came a man, a Samaritan, one of the
people who was despised in that day and age by others. He was
perhaps an outcast. He looked at the person lying in need. He
went to him, bound his wounds, put him on his own beast, took him
to town, left him at an inn and said “Here is the money to look
after him. When I come back, if you have spent more I will repay
you”.
That is the kind of concern that we as individuals—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I have to
interrupt the hon. member. His time has expired.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Madam
Speaker, I listened with great care to the very thoughtful
comments of the member for Halifax West. I wonder if I might
hear his concluding comment.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Madam Speaker, I will conclude very
quickly. The kind of concern we must show for each other as we
sit around a security table, as we sit at the United Nations, as
we in the House debate this very important issue, must be the
kind of concern shown by the man who looked after the person in
need.
It is up to each and every one of us to do that if we are to
build a better world for our children and our children's
children.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker,
this debate concerns a very serious matter, one of life and
death. It merits the attention of all members and all Canadians.
I notice that there are no ministers in the House, no one to
listen to my party's views. That is totally unacceptable.
The government has asked the House to take note of the
situation. During the take note debate in February concerning
sending Canadian troops to Iraq to what might very well have been
a dangerous situation I said that it was the weakest
parliamentary engagement a government could undertake.
2030
The government refuses to place a substantive question before
the House when it concerns defence matters. The government
refuses to let members vote to support or condemn its policy when
it concerns defence matters. It is clear that the government is
ashamed of its policy when it comes to defence matters, and
should it be any wonder.
The Prime Minister likes to tell Canadians that he has consulted
the House of Commons. But Canadians know that the Prime Minister
will not let the House vote on this issue, just as he has not let
the House vote on every other military issue. He refuses to put
his policy to a vote, a fundamental characteristic of democracy.
In doing so, the Prime Minister weakens his case when he tells
other nations how they should behave.
The issue before us is the Yugoslavian province of Kosovo.
Slobodan Milosevic is the Serbian leader of Yugoslavia and the
evidence suggests that he has ordered the slaughter of thousands
of ethnic Albanians. This is not new evidence. The west has
known publicly about these atrocities at least since February.
Now 200 villages in Kosovo have been destroyed and more than
250,000 people have become refugees. Thousands have been killed.
The west has failed to act, and Canada under this government has
done nothing to urge the United Nations or NATO to take action
sooner. Only now when the President of the United States and the
Prime Minister of Britain decide it is time to take action will
the government move. That is not leadership. But then Canadians
have not come to expect leadership from this government. From
this government they have come to expect excuses.
In Bosnia the European Union looked foolish. In Bosnia the
United Nations failed. Only when NATO took action, belated
action admittedly, did Milosevic respond. That action was late,
but it was tough.
In 1995 air strikes led to the Dayton accords, a fragile
settlement that is being monitored by 1,300 Canadian troops to
this day.
Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, came out with a statement
that condones military action. While the west has been late, it
is important this action be taken now.
As some of us have learned, this century's greatest lesson is
that if an aggressor is appeased, their appetite only grows.
Although leadership on this issue has been lacking, NATO must act
now.
But it is not a straightforward issue. Kosovo is a province
inside Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is ruled by Milosevic. Should we
be in favour of Kosovo independence at this juncture? This is a
classic case of how not to deal with ethnic minorities, but it is
certainly a difficult dilemma between self-determination and not
breaking up countries.
If only it could be as simple as pointing to Canada as a beacon
of how two distinct peoples can live together with occasional
debate and heartache, but mostly a great love and respect for
each other. If only Milosevic listened to reason the way the
people of Quebec and the people of Alberta listen to reason, the
Balkans would be a lot safer place.
But Mr. Milosevic is not a reasonable man. By all accounts he
is a murderous tyrant who must be dealt with and must be dealt
with harshly. NATO has proven that it is the only credible force
that can act at this time.
This government talks about taking measures. If these measures
do not include helping our NATO allies who will be using force,
then my party will have to disagree with the government.
Canada has six CF-18s based at Aviano Air Force Base in Italy.
They must be used. There is no reason that I am aware of that
Canada could not fly air cover for this mission. If there are
reasons why they cannot be used, the minister has to tell the
House right now. But there are risks and the government must do
all that it can to prepare Canadians for these risks.
First, the CF-18s will be flying over hostile territory.
Milosevic has no small force. He has four brigades and will
attempt to shoot down any NATO planes.
This is a risk, but a risk that Canada must take.
2035
Second, Milosevic has threatened retaliation against NATO troops
anywhere, and that includes Bosnia. As I mentioned earlier,
Canada has 1,300 troops in Bosnia. I visited them last spring
and they are certainly up to the task but there will be danger.
They will be threatened and that is a danger. The government must
tell the Canadian public about this danger. The Canadian public
must know that Canadians will be part of this operation.
Third, after this bombing, it may be necessary to put troops on
the ground. U.S. Secretary of Defence Cohen said yesterday in
Washington that might indeed be necessary. He said that if it is
done, it will only be European troops. Canada needs to know if
that has been agreed to and exactly what role Canada will be
playing after the initial bombings.
There are other factors. There is the Russian factor. As the
House knows, the Russians are related ethnically and religiously
to the Serbs. They have told us that they are against NATO
bombing. That is unfortunate, but unfortunately NATO will have
to go ahead without their approval. Hopefully they will get on
side once the urgency of the matter is made clear to them.
There is another factor that I must make reference to and that
is the Clinton factor. The president is weakened because he is
under investigation in a legitimate legal inquiry under the U.S.
constitution. At this time, in my party's opinion, it is
important for our NATO allies to show solidarity more than ever.
While U.S. leadership is essential, if Canada is assertive and
plays its role as it should, the world will know that NATO
continues to be history's finest example of collective security.
And while the situation in Kosovo is certainly a humanitarian
crisis, it is also a military situation.
Bosnia showed that NATO was the only credible force Milosevic
will respect.
At this time the foreign minister, who has no understanding of
the world, is talking about Canada leading the way in calling for
total nuclear disarmament, a policy that would have Canada
expelled from NATO. Now is the time for this government, this
minister of defence to be serious about Canada and the world and
live up to its good name.
Canada must play a role of responsibility. It must understand
that NATO is the one structure that can make a difference and it
must take action with our allies.
My party will stand behind this government if this government
stands behind its soldiers.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks I would like
to inform the House that I just returned from Greenwood, Nova
Scotia from a memorial service for the victims of the tragic
helicopter crash last Friday that took six lives. I know all
members, both present and not, would join me in expressing
sympathy to the families of these brave Canadians.
The sad events of last Friday serve to remind us of the
contribution that is made by the men and women of the Canadian
forces.
There are times when international peace and security and
respect for human rights are a threat and where action must be
taken. Canada has always considered these issues worthy of its
concern. On occasion the Canadian forces have been called upon to
be the instruments of our resolve.
I believe we face one of those moments today. What is occurring
in Kosovo represents a serious threat to international peace and
stability and it undermines our most basic belief in the
principle of human rights. For these reasons, I join with my
colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs who spoke earlier, in
endorsing Canadian participation in operations with our NATO
allies, if such action is deemed necessary.
Canadian participation with our allies in Kosovo is in every way
consistent with our traditional approach to international
security threats and the protection of human rights.
We have always been ready to join the international community in
opposing threats to stability and to peace.
2040
[Translation]
For all these reasons, we are one of the founding members of
NATO. The men and women in the Canadian armed forces have been
involved in NATO peacetime operations for over 50 years.
[English]
We have been engaged from day one. If the alliance to which we
belong becomes involved in an operation to promote peace and
stability and restore human rights, Canada should play its part.
This willingness to stand up and be counted reaches all the way
back to the early days of Canadian statehood. We went to Europe
in 1914 to help return peace to that continent. We returned in
1939 to do so again. In the early years of the cold war Canadian
forces went to Korea to preserve the peace. They did it for the
same reasons that we twice fought in Europe.
Some six years after, Prime Minister Pearson gave the world a
simple yet powerful idea, military forces of the international
community should be used to maintain the peace between
conflicting parties. As history shows, the idea caught on.
With few exceptions, the United Nations peacekeeping missions
almost always involve the men and women of the Canadian forces.
For Canada, two of the fundamental tenets of our foreign and
defence policies are rooted in the concept introduced by Mr.
Pearson. First, the promotion of international peace and
stability is of paramount importance to Canada. Second, the
promotion of this stability is best undertaken collectively
because it clearly demonstrates the will of the international
community.
For these reasons Canada may be required from time to time to
commit its military resources to protect deeply held Canadian
interests and values, and our record of doing so speaks for
itself.
We must remember that Prime Minister Pearson's concept of
peacekeeping was not limited to only providing troops when the
fighting had stopped. He clearly understood that military forces
sometimes have to be employed not merely to monitor peace, but to
create the conditions in which peace can be re-established. This
decade alone has given us several examples of just such
circumstances.
In Bosnia NATO has had to use selective force to bring about the
conditions for peace and stability.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait the international community
had to employ its military resources again. We were there with
our allies. We recently returned to the gulf to pressure Iraq to
comply with the United Nations weapons inspections.
In this case UN Secretary General Kofi Annan went to Iraq to try
to secure the compliance of Saddam Hussein by diplomatic means.
He was successful in doing so, but in his words from Baghdad at
the end of the session, and they are worth reflecting on, he said
“you can do a lot more with diplomacy when it is backed up with
firmness and force”.
Canada has been an active player in the troubled region of the
Balkans since 1991 when war broke out. We participated first in
the European Community monitoring mission and then with UNPROFOR
from 1992 to 1995. Over the years, thousands of members of the
Canadian forces have made Canada's presence felt.
Canada remains in Bosnia under SFOR as part of our longstanding
commitment to security in this region. Currently we have almost
1,300 Canadian personnel in Bosnia-Hercegovina. They are
supported by a contingent of six CF-18s located in Aviano, Italy,
whose role is to help enforce no-fly zones over Bosnia, and to
participate in NATO led flight operations intended to demonstrate
our resolve with respect to Kosovo.
2045
In the last SFOR renewal debate held in the House, member after
member stood up and agreed that Canada should do its part to
preserve the peace brought about as a result of NATO's
intervention in Bosnia. We agreed that our work was not done in
this important region of the world. That was a good thing
because our interest in Europe's stability is not merely
altruistic. Let us not forget that over 100,000 members who
served in Canada's forces are buried in European soil. They are
the reminder of the importance we place on peace and stability in
Europe.
For several months in Kosovo we faced the problems of ethnic
violence, ethnic cleansing and the displacement of thousands and
thousands of refugees. The cold blooded murder of innocent
civilians has again confronted us in recent days. The heavy hand
of the Yugoslav authorities in dealing with the Kosovars is
unacceptable. We also deplore the abuses of the Kosovo
liberation army, the UCK, and Kosovar Albanians must be pressured
to participate in negotiations in good faith.
However, diplomatic pressure may not be enough. Earlier this
year NATO aircraft were deployed to demonstrate our resolve in
this matter. We did this with the notion of diplomacy backed by
force. Canada augmented its longstanding contribution of troops
to this European region by deploying six CF-18 aircraft.
The Canadian Forces have the capability and the readiness to
participate in NATO led operations should they be deemed
necessary. Our contribution to operations in the former
Yugoslavia, our recent deployment into the Central African
Republic and our recent deployment to the gulf clearly
demonstrate that they are ready and they are capable.
[Translation]
Naturally, Canada would prefer a diplomatic solution.
Traditionally, we always appeal to reason and we have tried to
restore peace without using force, without even the threat of
using it.
[English]
It is not our tradition to retreat in the face of intransigence.
Our freedom and our regard for the dignity of human beings of all
ethnic and religious backgrounds mean little if we will not stand
up for these principles when they are violated. If necessary,
Canada must be ready to act with our NATO allies.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker,
the minister says we will be ready but if there are NATO air
strikes will we be actively participating? If so, are we
preparing our troops on the ground in other parts of Bosnia for
the retaliation that will probably happen?
It would have been nice before this debate had we had an
all-party briefing to prepare us a little more. That is what
happened the last time and it would have appreciated if we could
have had the same type of thing this time. I hope we can expect
that there will be briefings along the way as this file
progresses.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Madam Speaker, in terms of an
all-party briefing, I remind the hon. member that events have
moved very rapidly. There has been every effort made. My
colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has spent a
considerable amount of time trying to bring a diplomatic
resolution to this matter. He has recently been to the United
Nations to try to bring that about. That has been uppermost in
this government's mind. Every effort has been made to bring
about a diplomatic resolution.
Time is now running out. Winter is approaching. There are
people who have been displaced. There are refugees who risk
starvation, who risk freezing to death this coming winter. So we
have had to move very quickly.
All the issues involved here and the difficulties in getting
security council support for further action if necessary had been
part of the daily media coverage.
I think we have a pretty good idea of what the issues are here.
2050
This take note debate provides every opportunity to hear
different opinions on our involvement and the precedent setting
issues that could be involved here if there is no further
resolution of the security council and if NATO makes the
determination to take further action.
If NATO decides to take further action, we have military assets
in the area that could be made available subject to a decision of
this government. We are trying to get the input before we make
the decision which is why we are here tonight. We have six CF-18
aircraft and a Hercules air refuelling aircraft that would be
provided. We have had discussions accordingly with the supreme
allied commander in Europe with respect to that. Upon a final
decision by this government and upon a final decision by the NATO
those assets and the personnel involved would be made available
as part of an operation.
As I said quite clearly in my remarks, if our NATO allies are
going to go in there, if action has to be taken, if we cannot
come to a diplomatic resolution, Canada expects to be there with
its allies.
As far as troops on the ground are concerned, that matter is
under active consideration. It would most likely be necessary
but it has not yet been finalized. The military authorities of
NATO are examining the possibilities, the size, where the
operations might take place on the ground. I expect we will be
asked to participate in that as well but that is still in the
preliminary planning stage. At this point two activation
warnings have been given by NATO. Both relate to the possibility
of a limited air option, a limited air strike. The other is a
phased air campaign. If the first one does not work then there
is the possibility of an ever accelerating air campaign.
I reiterate our hope that a diplomatic resolution can be found
but we know the history in terms of Mr. Milosevic with respect to
Bosnia. We know that air strikes worked there to bring him to
the table. As the hon. member indicated a few moments ago, that
led to the Dayton accord. If we have to use these means to bring
him to the table then, subject to the decision of this government
and the decision of NATO, those resources would be made available
to do so.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I begin by thanking the Minister of National Defence and
the Minister of Foreign Affairs for their comments this evening.
For the record I support the positions they have stated. I
support the use of military intervention. As the minister stated
and as somebody said earlier, the only thing Mr. Milosevic
understands is being clubbed over the head.
I will add a few comments and some concerns. I understand it is
very difficult to get the permission of the UN security council.
As we know, there are some vetoes likely to be used by Russia and
China. They may proceed under a current security council
resolution or they may end up proceeding under NATO but we will
have to let that take its course. I support Canada's involvement
there and the use of Canada's military. We have a role to play.
Someone's first question might be why should Canada be there. We
have to state from the outset that we have seen the slaughter of
thousands and thousands of innocent individuals. We have seen
something in the magnitude of 250,000 to 300,000 people driven
from their homes. We have seen entire communities burned. This
is clearly not acceptable to a civilized nation such as ours. I
believe we have a duty to intervene.
I do not know if words can describe how bad it is over there. I
came back from the Canada-Europe parliamentary meetings in
Strasbourg. This was an emergency debate over there. I had an
opportunity to speak to many of my colleagues from the European
Community. They also expressed exactly what I have stated in
this House.
2055
This is the feeling I had after speaking to some of these
people. I will read a few sentences from an article written by
Gwynne Dyer on October 4 of this year, very current. It will set
the tone. I cannot go very far into it because it becomes
unacceptable to read it in the House: “They stripped one woman
and cut off her ears, nose and fingers, said a farmer who watched
from a hiding as the Serbian police massacred 18 members of the
family ranging from 18 months to 95 years old”.
I could not go on reading because it gets worse and worse. It
makes my stomach turn to realize that this is what is happening
over there, that Mr. Milosevic has ordered his officials to carry
out these types of tasks. They burned out entire villages.
We have heard the foreign affairs critic for the official
opposition talk about his observations driving down the roads and
seeing grave after grave and entire villages burnt out.
I believe Canada has a duty to participate. This type of ethnic
cleansing is equal to what we have seen and heard of the
Holocaust in World War II. It is not acceptable. I think Mr.
Milosevic has had ample opportunity to comply with current UN
security resolutions and he has elected not to do so.
I do not have the same optimism and I may be mischaracterizing
the minister of defence when he says our goal is for a peaceful
resolution. I honestly believe he does wish we could achieve
that. However, I do not think that is possible with this man we
are dealing with. He may even agree with that. I think Canada
and the rest of the world have been more than patient with Mr.
Milosevic and we now must act as the slaughter of innocent people
by the thousands is clearly not acceptable anywhere in the world
now or at any other time.
Let us assume we are going to proceed. I support that whether it
is under NATO or whether we get a UN security agreement or we
have to proceed under an existing one. What happens next? We
know there are hundreds of thousands of these families and people
who have been driven to the hills. As the minister has correctly
stated, winter is fast approaching; 300,000 people left
shelterless and homeless.
I think we also have to be prepared as a nation to make a
commitment, whether it is the UN or NATO. That has to be
followed up after. Yes, the air strikes have to happen. I am
not even so sure that we want to bring Milosevic back to the
table or we just want to find some place where we can put him. I
am not sure whether we can reason with a man like that.
I guess the point I am emphasizing is that we as a nation have
to make a long term commitment to ensure that what actions we
carry out now are not temporary, that there is an overall plan, a
goal we have to achieve. It is a very difficult situation. The
Serbs are not prepared to give up the province of Kosovo for all
kinds of reasons. Yet it is 90% Albanian.
I think we are there for the long haul and hopefully part of a UN
force that will be present to ensure the safety of these
individuals.
2100
Hopefully this region could become a republic separate from
Serbia. That may be argued against by some of my colleagues. We
have had a very interesting debate. Some of them do not think
that is achievable, that in the long term it could not become an
independent republic but would have to remain a part of Serbia,
with autonomy, as it did prior to 1990.
These are fascinating debates when we look at all the details.
However, at the end of the day I would like to offer my
encouragement to both ministers who were present tonight. I hope
there will be a long term commitment on the part of Canada. I am
very pleased to be a part of this debate and to see that
everybody is focused on the crisis in Kosovo and looking toward a
solution in the near future.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
government's motion tonight is timely, appropriate and sound.
Each member who has spoken before me has supported the motion of
the foreign affairs minister in his call to resolve the conflict,
promote a political settlement for Kosovo and facilitate the
provision of humanitarian assistance to refugees.
In Kosovo we face a very complex situation for historic and
symbolic reasons. It was here I learned that in 1389 the Serbs
fought their battle of the Kosovo polie; namely, the field of
Kosovo battle against the Turks. It was in Kosovo that the
church of Serbia was born. It is here we find the symbolic
values the Serbs attribute to Kosovo, to their religious ground,
virtually their holy land or the equivalent of it.
However, against this background it must also be said that
although the Serbs pretend to be civilized members of the world
community, they have failed miserably to prove themselves. For
weeks and months now we have witnessed a situation to which we
cannot remain indifferent despite the distances and the ocean
between Europe and us. The suffering is immense, the atrocities
unbearable and the crimes unforgivable.
As members of the human species we must resolve this conflict
and find ways to resolve it soon. We must push for a political
settlement. We must provide humanitarian assistance to the
300,000 displaced people and the 30,000 refugees.
Several speakers have referred to a NATO intervention. I hope
we will not be so naive as to believe that NATO air attacks will
solve the problem. They will only strengthen the already rigid
and unbearable position taken by the Serbs. Instead, NATO ground
forces to protect the entire civilian population would represent
the first necessary step.
In that context let us have no elusion. The presence of troops
to protect the population may be required for years. Kosovo
could turn out to be another Cypress and the presence of troops,
be they NATO or the United Nations, may be necessary for many
decades to come.
The Council of Europe, where this parliament has, through the
Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, observer status,
produced a political report prepared by Andras Bargony of
Hungary. It is entitled “Crisis in Kosovo and the situation in
the federal Republic of Yugoslavia”. The recommendations of the
report, adopted two weeks ago by the Assembly of the Council of
Europe, include the following elements considered as essential by
European parliamentarians in reaching a lasting peaceful solution
to the crisis.
2105
The first element is to guarantee the security of all people
living in Kosovo, to be achieved through the withdrawal of the
Serbian security forces, the disarmament of armed groups of
ethnic Albanians and the deployment of an international peace
force.
The second is to give a new political status to Kosovo based on
a high level of autonomy within the Yugoslav federation, based on
the prerogatives the province enjoyed according to the 1974
constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
adapted of course to the new situation and, where necessary,
enlarged.
Thirdly, such status would include the highest possible form of
self-government for Kosovo in lawmaking, the executive, the
judiciary, public order, economy, education and culture with
respect to the rights of Serbs and other minorities living in
Kosovo, and finally the direct participation of Kosovo
representatives in federal institutions and also through the
adoption of democratic reforms.
The fourth element is to give international guarantees, ensuring
respect for the future agreement and preventing any attempts to
return to the status quo or to secede.
The final element is to introduce democratic reforms implemented
through the federal Republic of Yugoslavia, guaranteeing full
compliance with the Council of Europe standards concerning the
functioning of a democratic political system, the rule of law and
the protection of human rights and the rights of national
minorities, notably in Kosovo, in Vojvodina and in Sanjak.
It seems to me that these are very sensible proposals made by
the Council of Europe, by the assembly and by our European
colleagues. The assembly also considered that in the absence of
a clear and unequivocal position of the international community
the political and military pressure exerted on the two sides to
engage in negotiations would remain largely unaffected.
Therefore, it would seem that a clear and unequivocal position
of the international community is urgently needed. The future
status of Kosovo must be placed at the top of the international
agenda. That is quite clear now. The participation of all
interested parties, governments and relevant international bodies
is essential.
I am sure that everyone will agree tonight that we must not fail
the people of Kosovo. We must prove that the international
community can intervene in the name of humanity. It is high time
that we do so.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, as we in this
House are peacefully discussing international problems, as we
speak freely, in peace, in confidence, in the respect of our
institutions and in the safety of our own homes, in another part
of the world people are dying, being martyred and abused,
watching their children being raped and their families being
separated, without a flicker of hope that this conflict will be
quickly settled.
In another part of the world, people want autonomy so they may
be their own leaders and control their own institutions.
A bloodthirsty president, who does not share their opinions, is
making them suffer and depriving them of their dignity.
2110
Today, we are wondering what we could or should do to help the
people of Kosovo, these Albanian-speaking people who are being
victimized. Last winter, serious situations were experienced in
some parts of Canada and Quebec, which warranted a humanitarian
operation. The people who had to leave their homes temporarily
and relocate away from their familiar surroundings were finding
themselves in need of assistance.
Back then, if we had known of any means of stopping the wind,
the rain, the storm and the ice, all the people of Quebec and of
Canada would have agreed that that means ought to be used to
halt the force of nature, whose effects become devastating when
spread over a period of days or weeks. All would have agreed
that everything should be done to spare a few children and
families a disagreeable situation lasting a few weeks, one which
did not endanger their lives.
If we spared no effort in trying to limit the ravages of nature
in our own country, how could we not agree today that the
Government of Canada should take the necessary action to help
people who are 100, 1,000 times worse off than we were?
Our floods and our ice storm pale in comparison with what is now
going on in Yugoslavia, in Kosovo. It is not just the lives of
these particular people that will be marked, but the lives of
several generations to come. We have the means of helping to
resolve this situation quickly. Perhaps we have even delayed
too long.
The government is moving that action be taken because it is
clear that diplomatic efforts have failed. But while our
diplomats were talking, people were being driven out of their
villages and homes. They were being forced to take refuge in
the mountains and the forests, sometimes without their children.
Sometimes, it was the children who had to flee, who sought
shelter because they no longer had any parents. Some of these
fleeing children were even missing limbs. They were orphans.
If we could experience, even for half a day, the horrors of
being victims of domination, we would not need a full evening's
debate in the House of Commons to decide that Quebeckers and
Canadians are in agreement on going to the assistance of a
population that is the victim of a cold-blooded adversary once
again, one who has not yet been made to heed the voice of
reason.
I myself would not subscribe to the policy of an eye for an eye,
a tooth for a tooth, but what we are dealing with here is not
attacking someone we do not like, but preventing an attacker
from continuing his inhumane actions against defenceless
populations.
2115
The idea is to give these helpless people the means to protect
themselves against a ruthless aggressor. It is not a case of “an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, but a matter of
self-defence. It is a case of protecting oneself against an
invader that will simply not listen to reason.
Even the pressure exerted by the international community was not
enough to make Mr. Milosevic realize that his action is
condemned almost everywhere in the world, except for a few
countries that have not clearly expressed their disapproval.
Canada must not hesitate. We must offer our modest contribution.
We are not, of course, as powerful as the United States, but we
are a country whose military capability and humanitarian
intervention forces are well developed and can enable us to
fulfil our role in the world, our obligations to other
countries, and our commitment to provide humanitarian
assistance.
We must now do for others what we would like others to do for us
in one, five, ten or twenty years should the Canadian or Quebec
people be attacked by dictators of that type, who might decide
to rule over people who decided some day to have their own
government and institutions.
Everything has been taken from these people, including their
institutions, their right to practice a religion, their
universities, their newspapers, their radio stations, their
means of expression, their means of being themselves.
Such is the justification of the bloodthirsty dictator who wants
to subdue these people. This is why he is pursuing these people
into their homes, and even into their bedrooms.
This is a barbaric act. It is an unacceptable action which
Canada must not condone. I am convinced our country must take
the necessary measures advocated in today's motion.
I am sure all Canadians and Quebeckers will agree that our
officials should act so as to put an end to this massacre and
restore peace in Kosovo.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me
to rise in this House today in support of Canada's participation
in a possible NATO operation in Kosovo.
There are many excellent reasons for Canada to participate in
such an operation.
First, like the rest of the international
community, Canada is very concerned about the climate of
violence and human rights violation that continue to prevail in
Kosovo. We have been appalled by the recent massacre of 14
civilians. We are holding the Yugoslav leadership and President
Milosevic in particular, directly responsible for the current
situation in Kosovo.
The Yugoslav republic's failure to co-operate with the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
constitutes a serious breach of its international obligations.
The number of displaced persons, that is those brutally forced
out of their homes, has already exceeded 280,000.
2120
Our country, with its long and proud tradition of promoting
respect for human life and human dignity throughout the world,
cannot remain indifferent to such abuses, such atrocities. The
time has come for action in Kosovo.
Second, as loyal members of NATO, we feel we are duty-bound to
continue to unreservedly support the efforts of our allies and
the international community to prevent a catastrophe in this
region that has suffered so much already.
Third, such participation would be in keeping with our
commitment to the principle of collective security.
It would be in line with our foreign and defence policies.
Fourth, this participation would constitute a logical extension
of our prior commitments in the Balkans.
In fact, since 1991 we have been involved in the efforts by the
international community to put an end to the violence and the
taking of innocent lives, and to restore peace to this region,
within either the UN or NATO. Since the signature of the Dayton
agreement, we have been playing a vital role in the measures
taken by NATO in restoring stability to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
At the present time, we have six CF-18s stationed at Aviano,
Italy, where they are backing up the ground element of the
Bosnia stabilization force.
These aircraft take part in the effort to enforce NATO's no-fly
zone over these territories and in a NATO partnership for peace
exercises in this region.
Resolution 1199 passed by the United Nations security council on
September 23 shows how seriously the world community takes this
situation.
Canada calls upon the warring parties to fulfil their
obligations under this resolution and especially, pursuant to
the ceasefire agreement, to take measures to bring the
humanitarian crisis to an end and to come to a peaceful
solution.
NATO is developing plans for various possible operations in
Kosovo.
It has started to take stock of all the resources its member
states could provide if it was decided to launch a military
operation.
Members of the alliance have yet to decide if they are going to
take military action in Kosovo. However, should NATO decide in
favour of military action, Canada should take part in it.
There are two main reasons why I wholeheartedly support Canada's
participation in possible NATO action in Kosovo. First, I have
personally been witness to the horrors hidden behind the
antiseptic term “ethnic cleansing”. Also, I was able to see with
my own eyes the positive impact of the presence of Canadian
troops in Bosnia and the remarkable work done by our forces
through NATO's stabilization force.
As the chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs, I had, last November, the honour of heading a
delegation of eight members of the defence and foreign affairs
committees visiting Bosnia.
We saw how Canada helped implement policies to establish peace
in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peace was maintained through our
military involvement in the stabilization force under NATO.
We visited reconstruction projects carried out with the help of
Canadian NGOs and the Canadian armed forces.
2125
I would like to digress a moment to remind my colleagues that
Canada's participation in the region continues. In fact, since
March, Canada has contributed $430,000 to UNICEF emergency
measures, $435,000 to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and
$400,000 to the Red Cross for aid to refugees.
During our fact-finding trip in November of last year, we
witnessed democratization initiatives being undertaken with the
co-operation of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, the international police group and many more
organizations. Judging from all we have seen there, we have
concluded that considerable progress had been made in Bosnia
since the Dayton accord.
We have been proud to hear and see for ourselves that Canada has
played a major role in the military and civilian aspects of the
peace accord, and members of our group unanimously concluded
that Canada should continue to take part in this international
initiative.
In all the places we visited, we felt a deep emotion and pride
when we heard people tell use repeatedly how important our
presence was.
They also asked us to thank Canadians for their contribution and
their efforts to help them rebuild their country.
During that November trip, my colleagues and I saw for ourselves
the horrible destruction brought about by ethnic cleansing.
Ruins could be seen throughout the countryside. In every village
we visited, we could see houses that had been destroyed by
bombardments during the war and other houses that had been
destroyed to make it impossible for their occupants to return
home.
When we first arrived in Bosnia, one of our first briefing
sessions dealt with the use of land mines as a means of ethnic
cleansing. We were told to stay on the paved portion of the
roads and to avoid walking in the grass around the villages.
We were told that, for years, the fields had not been planted
with crops but with mines.
We were told that in Bosnia there were still probably a million
mines left. Brief though our visit was, we were horrified by
this constant, invisible and insidious threat. We could not
imagine how the local people had, for years, been able to live
in such an atmosphere, knowing that death or mutilation awaited
them or their children at every turn.
It is difficult to describe the horror of such an experience,
difficult to understand the hatred that drives neighbours who,
the day before, were friends to kill each other, difficult to
understand the extent of the violence of which humanity is
capable.
I therefore urge my colleagues to approve Canada's participation
in any NATO action in Kosovo.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak in this debate on
Kosovo.
We have been here before. When I was first elected in 1993 I
remember a debate in the House on the same conflict. What the
intervening five years have proven is that we have learned
nothing.
2130
While over the last nine months Albanians in Kosovo have been
slaughtered, murdered, mutilated and raped, we in the
international community have wrung our hands, pointed fingers and
done nothing. This has happened time and time again. The last
five years have proven that we have learned no lessons
whatsoever.
With respect to Kosovo, in 1989 Slobodan Milosevic came to power
with a promise to rid Kosovo of its 93% ethnic Albanian
population. This was a promise he made and true to his word he
has been engaging in the process of ethnic and cultural genocide
of the people there.
First he started to close down the schools, then he threw
Albanians out of jobs. What are they supposed to do? They
started the Kosovo Liberation Army to try to defend their people.
They were successful initially but they have been losing quite
badly.
As we speak, 250,000 innocent civilians have been displaced and
50,000 innocent Albanian people from Kosovo are in the forests
freezing, starving and sick. Some have been subjected to some of
the worst atrocities any of us could possibly imagine. And we
still sit on our hands.
It is remarkable that as we stand here today trying to decide
what we are going to do, for months people have been slaughtered.
We have only one option in the face of a despot like Milosevic.
That is to bomb. He understands one thing and one thing only and
that unfortunately is force. I am certain that is not what his
people want but he, a man of shrewd political and ruthless means,
wants to do that. He will understand nothing but force.
We have tried diplomatic initiatives time and time again and
they have been completely fruitless. He has played games with
us. He has teased us with the hope that he will negotiate rather
than fight, but this is only temporary and he goes back and
continues the onslaught. No more. There are some solutions that
would solve the problem.
One, Milosevic has been given the ultimatum. We know from
Secretary General Annan that he is not withdrawing his troops and
we must bomb. We must bomb hard military targets, hard military
Serbian targets within Kosovo and move into greater Serbia if
necessary.
Two, we have to ensure that in the future, after that is done,
there will be a continued reinforcement of the blockade around
Serbia. Right now it is a joke. The Russians and the Greeks are
providing arms and cash, and military hardware to the Serbs,
thereby fueling this problem. The Russians want a foot in the
Balkans. That blockade has to be strengthened if we are going to
meet success.
Three, the legitimate concerns of the Serbian people have to be
met. Kosovo is to the Serbs what Jerusalem is to the Jews. The
Field of Black Birds is a very important symbol for them.
Unfortunately it is a negative symbol for them but it is an
important one and one that must be respected. It is a shrine for
the Serbian people. They must be allowed free and unfettered
access to it.
We must not support an independent country called Kosovo. If we
were to support the pre-1989 situation when Kosovo was an
autonomous state, then I think we would find a reasonable
compromise which would enable the Albanians in Kosovo to live
peacefully and would enable the Serbs and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia to have free access to those shrines.
If we do this, a compromise can be made. However, the
compromise is being made much more difficult by the actions of
President Milosevic. Through his genocidal actions he is
polarizing communities and laying the seeds of future violent
ethnic discontent for years to come. Unfortunately this tragic
situation will bubble up again.
We have heard some discussions today about intervention. It has
been proven over the last several decades that the world has been
unable or unwilling to deal with conflicts when they occur and
only get involved after a huge loss of lives has taken place.
From Rwanda to Chechnya, to Cambodia, to the Sudan and to others,
the world has sat on its hands while innocent civilians have been
slaughtered.
2135
That is why international law respects, acknowledges and
supports intervention by outside powers within the borders of a
country if gross human rights abuses are taking place. The
reason it supports that is that although we support the integrity
of a nation state, international law respects the integrity and
safety of people over and above the nation state. In other words,
a despot cannot abuse people and expect to go away unscathed.
We collectively have a responsibility to protect people not only
on humanitarian grounds but also for very pragmatic reasons. What
happens in a conflict half a world away winds up on our own
doorstep through increasing demands on our defence budgets, aid
budgets and our social programs domestically as people migrate
away from an ethnic conflict and wind up as refugees on our
shores.
International law respects and supports intervention. The proof
in the pudding is when we look at who pays the price. Civilians
pay the price. It was not always that way. In World War I 85%
of the casualties were soldiers. Wars took place between nation
states. In World War II 60% were soldiers. Today 85% of the
penalties that are paid in blood, in death and in rape are paid
for by innocent unarmed men, women and children. The civilian
population pays the price in conflicts that are by and large
ethnic conflicts within the boundaries of a country. They
generally are not wars between nation states.
We need political will. We need a spine, we need guts and we
need courage. I and my colleagues do not want to stand here five
years from now on a debate about another group of people who have
been murdered and slaughtered while we sat around waiting for
somebody to go first.
Canada with its enormous diplomatic ability and international
respect can work with other nation states to pull them together.
I introduced a private members' motion last year asking the
Minister of Foreign Affairs to bring together like-minded nations
to have a common foreign policy in certain areas and particularly
the area of conflict prevention.
I am very happy to see that the Minister of Foreign Affairs
signed a treaty with Norway. We need to expand this treaty with
other like-minded nations such as New Zealand, Australia, South
Africa, Sweden, Finland and Costa Rica for starters. There are
others. We should bring them together maybe in Ottawa to discuss
a common foreign policy for certain areas. We should have a
common focus in a certain part of our foreign policy that deals
with one thing, conflict prevention.
Early intervention by identifying the precursors to conflict and
having the tools to address them are essential. We should first
start with non-military means and then work up to military means.
I was disappointed earlier today. I introduced a private
members' motion asking the House of Commons to call on the United
Nations to indict Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes and to allow
the UNHCR and NGOs free and unfettered access to the refugees in
and around Kosovo. I was deeply saddened that the House did not
give unanimous consent. I hope the government will take heed of
that motion and adopt it as soon as possible.
I am glad we had this debate. We must remember that in the
future we cannot allow this genocide in Kosovo or in other
country to continue. We must work early and preventatively
because the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women
and children are at stake.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his positive contribution to the
debate and his usual insightful observations about the situation
we have to talk about tonight.
I have been listening to the debate tonight and, if I may say, I
have been impressed with the change in the attitude of the Reform
Party. In earlier debates we had on Bosnia and other issues
there was a great deal of reticence about the engagement of
Canada.
I now notice that the party of which the member is a prominent
member is much more active in recognizing the engagement of
Canada in the world and our necessity to participate.
2140
I listened carefully to the words of the member of parliament
for Red Deer who represents the member's party as its foreign
affairs spokesman. I noticed perhaps a slight nuance between the
member who just spoke and the member for Red Deer.
I felt that the member for Red Deer was saying that if we act
without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council,
which as the foreign minister clearly indicated is probably
unlikely because of the position both of Russia and possibly of
China, that will cause a great deal of problems for us and for
the United Nations in the long run. The member himself was much
more aggressive in saying that we must act and we must act now if
we are to answer to the humanitarian requirements of this
terrible situation.
Can he help us with his view as to how he believes this will
impact on the relationship between Canada and the United Nations
and other countries in the region if NATO moves in a somewhat
more ambiguous area than one that would be given the comfort of a
cover of a firm security council resolution?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague and friend from the government, the talented chairman
of the House standing committee on foreign affairs. His question
is an excellent one.
He points to the first thing that I think we all desire, which
is support from the United Nations. We have a larger commitment
here and a larger rationale for involvement: the humanitarian
reasons that many members in the House articulated earlier today.
We would like to have the UN involved, but if it is not
involved, NATO certainly has the power and the ability to do
that. The justification comes within the confines of
international law which supports intervention in environments
where gross human rights abuses are clearly taking place and in
this case where genocide is occurring.
I think NATO has a responsibility. Although as the hon. member
mentioned it is slightly out of its purview, NATO is largely
responsible for a good segment of the security of Europe. If the
situation in Kosovo expands, the expanding conflict would involve
Montenegro, Greece, Russia and other nation states in the
surrounding area. All those nation states could be involved in
the larger conflagration. If that happened, the world simply
could not turn a blind eye.
In the larger scheme of things, in an effort to prevent more
bloodshed and in an effort to save more lives, while NATO would
like to have the UN's tacit involvement, it should go ahead
regardless because I think a larger principle is involved. It
would add a lot more credibility to the United Nations in its
ability to act early to intervene.
With respect to Bosnia, we were far too late in intervening. As
a result, 250,000 people were killed and the countryside was laid
to waste for generations to come.
If there is any lesson to be learned from recent history, we
should look at Bosnia and see the abysmal failure of NATO. If it
moves a little further along within the confines of international
law to act where it is appropriate, then I think it will be
justified in the long term not only within the nation states that
participate but also history will take a favourable view to the
intervention.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important
debate this evening.
It is important to recognize the tremendous unanimity of views
in the House tonight, faced as we are and watching as we do the
tremendous destruction and the devastation of the livelihood of
innocent people who live in Kosovo. We have now been watching
this for more than a year.
The humanitarian situation in Kosovo is disastrous with hundreds
of thousands of displaced people and refugees, some of whom lack
basic shelter and basic necessity.
What is the most shocking is that many of the problems are the
direct result of the due actions of the Yugoslav government which
itself is charged with the basic responsibility of its own
people, its own citizens in that area.
It is clear we are watching the war of a government on its own
citizens, determined to drive them into the country, determined
to drive them into the ground.
2145
The situation of violence and oppression is creating a
humanitarian situation of enormous proportions. Some 290,000
people have been displaced as a result of the conflict in Kosovo.
I come from a city of 3.5 million people. If we had 300,000
people displaced in the city of Toronto, imagine how we would
cope with that tremendous problem. We are having problems coping
with homelessness, with disease and with other issues within our
own communities now. How would we cope with the enormity of that
disaster?
For those who go back to the Quebec ice storm, think of what it
would be in terms of humanitarian tragedy if the people the ice
storm struck had nowhere to go, nowhere to return, and were going
back to bombed houses, totally destroyed places. This is the
type of life that the people in Kosovo are living at the behest
of their own government. This is the terrifying aspect. Winter
approaches. Some 50,000 people, children and elderly, are
without shelter and afraid to return to the remains of their
homes.
We watch the situation on television. We read about it in the
newspapers but we have little firsthand experience. This evening
in the House we heard from the Reform member for Red Deer. He
spoke of when he travelled to Bosnia. I can echo that. We have
some experience with it, as does the Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of National Defence. We travelled to Bosnia. We have
been there. We have seen devastation in those areas. The same
is now taking place in Kosovo.
There is a difference between what is taking place in Kosovo
today and what is taking place in Bosnia today. That difference
is the fact that in Bosnia some years ago NATO chose to act. We
acted with efficiency. We finally were pushed into the situation
where we had to do something. We did it. Today, while we have
to live with the tremendous situation the member for Red Deer
described, to some extent we are seeing a situation where peace,
security and civil society are returning. Farmers can till their
fields. Children can play. Birds can sing again. There is a
chance for life, which does not exist in Kosovo.
Why is there that difference? The difference is, as the
minister pointed out in his opening statement, the Yugoslav
authorities have a plan to terrorize their own population. That
plan is succeeding for one reason and one reason only. It is
that there is no credible threat from the international community
that will stop them.
Stopping them with resolutions was proven in the Bosnia
situation not to be successful. Words are good in parliaments.
They are a part of our work. However words will not deal with
Slobodan Milosevic. We learned that in Bosnia. He will only be
stopped by actions. That was our experience. There is no reason
it would not apply here as it applied in Bosnia.
The need to act is clear. All members in the House that I heard
speak tonight have echoed that. How to act, however, is less
clear. There will be debate and there will be reasonable
discussions about how we should act. We know, as the member from
Esquimalt and many others have pointed out, that NATO has the
capacity to act. The question we must ask ourselves is a
reasonable one. What is the legal authority by which NATO will
act? If we act without legal authority that is an issue.
I had the privilege of attending the debates of the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe, in Copenhagen this
summer. We debated a resolution on Kosovo. A strong debate took
place between those of us who wanted to ensure there would be a
capacity to act and those who were more determined that whatever
action would be taken would be taken under legal authority.
2150
Eventually the OSCE adopted a resolution which provided that
military measures should be taken in Kosovo with the explicit
endorsement of a relevant UN security council resolution.
I opposed that aspect of the resolution when it came up in the
OSCE assembly. I would oppose the same approach we are taking
tonight. The foreign minister addressed the reason in his
remarks. If we depend upon a clear security council resolution
with Russian and Chinese approval, there is a serious chance it
just will not happen.
The member for Red Deer put that in context tonight. We have to
look at that as members of parliament who believe in a world
society which is governed more and more by the rule of law. The
very humanitarian principles we seek to apply tonight are those
that create the sense of the world law to which we want to adhere
if we are to have a rule of law we can all live within. It would
be similar to the rule of law those of us in the House adhere to,
wish to adhere to, and wish to build in a world community in the
same way we have in our wonderful Canadian society. We must be
aware of that.
While the security council resolution is important and may put
the UN authority in jeopardy if we act without it, we have to
face the fact that if we allow the UN security council issue to
prevent us from acting the UN will lose its authority in the
world. It will be eroded to such a point that it will become
irrelevant for all of us.
I believe my view echoes that of most members who have spoken
tonight. We must prepare to act. It must be a preparation that
is credible and determined. It is only this credible and
determined action and the ability to deliver it that will provide
the Yugoslav authorities with a reason to back down. Only that
will bring them to the table. Only that will force them to act.
If not, we will see this situation drag on. We will see problems
develop in the region that will be worse than those if we do not
act.
I met with the Macedonian ambassador today. He told me not to
be hasty in this matter. He said that they would be ineffective
if precipitous NATO action was taken. I asked him what would
happen if this situation were to drag on for another year, what
would happen to the communities and societies living on the
border of this untenable situation.
That is what the situation will be. It will drag on for years.
We will not see 200,000 refugees; we will see 400,000 refugees.
Inevitably people will be dragged into the situation. If we do
not act now, the worst thing that will happen is that we will
have to act a year from now when thousands of lives will have
been lost and the situation will be much worse. It is always
that way. We are forced to act.
We must deal with Russia's reaction, with Turkey and with
Greece. All of this is true. The risk of not acting is worse
than the threat of acting. We must act if we are to preserve the
moral authority of our situation in a world where we must
preserve humanitarian rights in the face of the determination of
states to deny rights to their own citizens.
I read a little history as I prepared for my speech tonight.
Count Bismarck who subsequently became Prince Bismarck, the
chancellor of the German Empire as it was then, said in 1890 “If
there is another war in Europe it will come out of some damned
silly thing in the Balkans”. This is not a damned silly thing
we are talking about tonight. This is a human tragedy. We are
on the threshold of the 21st century and nothing has changed.
We owe it to ourselves to act as parliamentarians and as
citizens of the world to make a change. Let us pledge in the
House tonight that we will act together to make a change. Let us
pledge that we will keep the spirit of the House tonight in which
all members are saying that we must act. Let us encourage our
government to be positive, to act and to end the humanitarian
tragedy that we are facing. If we do not act today we will act
in the future and it will be worse.
2155
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I value the comments of the hon. member for Toronto
Centre—Rosedale. They are always highly intelligent and highly
constructive. I would like to pose a few questions and some
challenges to him as chairman of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs because he wields significant power on the other
side in the area of foreign affairs.
As he correctly and eloquently said, the problem has been
inaction. Since 1890 until now we have seen inaction in the face
of gross human rights abuses. There are solutions. The
solutions require changing the way in which we think of conflict
and changing the way in which we deal with conflict. Essentially
it boils down to conflict prevention and how we identify the
precursors to conflict and the actions necessary to deal with
those conflicts. I suggest we start out with non-military
intervention, particularly economic intervention.
Will the hon. member, in his capacity as chairman of the
committee of foreign affairs, submit to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs the following?
First, we should convene like-minded nations in Ottawa to
develop a concerted, united effort to deal with conflict
prevention in whichever forum we happen to be in, be it the
United Nations, OSCE, OAU, OAS or whatever.
Will he work behind the scenes to support the private member's
motion I put forth on that idea and Motion No. 477 that I put
forth today to have our country present to the United Nations a
proposal to indict Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity
and to ensure that refugees in the region around Kosovo will have
free access to representatives of the United Nations High
Commission for Refugees and other humanitarian NGOs?
Mr. Bill Graham: Madam Speaker, as usual, the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has a way of being able to put the
challenge right on the table. I cannot pick up that challenge in
every respect, but I can certainly say that I will take the
issues he has referred to, to the steering committee of the
foreign affairs committee, particularly a recommendation for the
indictment of Mr. Milosevic. His party is represented
excellently by the member for Red Deer and the member himself is
an associate member of our committee.
I had the opportunity on the weekend to meet with Madam Arbour,
our representative in Brussels. She is doing a wonderful job as
a Canadian representative on the War Crimes Tribunal. We will
raise that issue with her. We have seen Canadians rally together
around such issues. We saw the tremendous support for Canada
from other nations on the land mines issue. There is an
opportunity to bring like-minded countries together.
I believe the member will give credit to the foreign affairs
minister who has been very active on these files. Our foreign
affairs minister is not a quiet person. He is an activist as we
know from the land mines debate. I can be confident that he is
doing everything to deal with the situation and to bring
like-minded states together.
The parliamentary secretary is in the House tonight and will be
speaking to the motion. He is also active on this file and is
trying to deal with like-minded nations. I am sure that he will
be able to speak to this issue when he rises shortly.
In our committee we will do our best to respond to all the
suggestions of the member, largely because this is an issue which
is bringing us together. We can work together in an all party
way to try to resolve a humanitarian issue. Canadians can bring
a special quality to bear on this debate on the world stage. I
thank the member for his questions.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in listening to the
exchanges that have taken place tonight, it is an honour to be
part of this debate.
Sometimes when we face crises and are able to put aside the
partisan differences in the House it rises to a new level. It is
a privilege to participate in this brief time.
2200
Many of the things I will say will perhaps be a repetition of
what has already been said tonight, but I believe they are worth
saying and emphasizing. Since March of this year the security
forces of the federal republic of Yugoslavia have been waging a
brutal campaign of violence and repetition against the civilian
population of Kosovo.
While the Yugoslav government has argued consistently that its
actions have been directed solely against the armed Albanian
separatists of Kosovo, the security forces have undertaken a
consistent strategy of destroying villages, burning and looting
homes and directly targeting innocent civilians. Numerous
reports, including those made by the Canadian team working in the
Kosovo diplomatic observer mission, have documented the abuses of
the security forces. It is obvious that grave breaches of
international humanitarian law, human rights standards and the
law of armed conflict have taken place. While the world
recognizes a sovereign state's right to defend itself against
armed insurrection, the actions of the Yugoslav government in
Kosovo have clearly gone far beyond the pale of acceptable
behaviour.
These atrocious actions have ramifications which are being felt
far beyond Kosovo in a region which has been torn by war and
fractured by leaders who have shamelessly played on people's
fears. In inciting conflict the actions of the Yugoslav
government are again victimizing the weak and moving the Balkans
away from advancement and integration.
The displacement of Kosovo Albanian civilians and the
polarization of communities which has resulted from the conflict
has direct implications not only for Serbia and Montenegro but
for the neighbouring countries of Albania, the former Yugoslav
republic of Macedonia and Bosnia as well.
The consequences of this conflict are reverberating through
southern Europe. The international community is simply not
prepared to stand by and allow the government of Milosevic to
carry out this campaign of violence and oppression which is
rapidly leading to a humanitarian crises of terrible proportions.
As winter fast approaches some 50,000 people including children
and the elderly are either without shelter or are afraid to
return to what remains of their homes. Unless the Yugoslav
government completely withdraws its security forces from their
field deployments and begins at once substantive dialogue on
broad autonomy for Kosovo these people will begin to perish and
what is now a humanitarian crisis will quickly become a
catastrophe. Despite numerous warnings and several opportunities
to cease the campaign of violence, President Milosevic continues
to defy the will of the international community.
The claims that his security forces have ceased their operations
in Kosovo are too little and they are much too late. The
military and police forces which have been responsible for the
intentional deaths of civilians, the destruction of homes and
property and the deliberate creation of a humanitarian crisis
have for the most part yet to leave Kosovo and remain capable of
returning to their destructive tasks at almost a moment's notice.
Rather than respecting international humanitarian law and human
rights agreements by withdrawing the security forces which have
been used to repress civilians, President Milosevic has instead
allowed his forces to conclude their offensive and displace
thousands of people before offering any sign of compliance with
the demands of the international community.
2205
Yet again President Milosevic has done the bare minimum in an
effort to forestall the action against him.
President Milosevic and the Yugoslav government have had ample
opportunity to end and to prevent this conflict, or at the very
least to attenuate its effects. Instead, a policy of heavy
handed tactics has been pursued which has served only to
aggravate the humanitarian situation and to further polarize the
communities in Kosovo, making a settlement all the more difficult
to achieve. As a result of this deliberate decision to shun
accommodation and pursue violence, President Milosevic must now
shoulder the blame for the situation which confronts the world in
Kosovo.
Since the outbreak of hostilities NATO has been fully engaged in
support of the international community's efforts to bring an end
to this terrible conflict. The alliance has consistently
demonstrated to the Yugoslav government and to president
Milosevic that it is prepared to act in a decisive way. As an
important guarantor of stability in Europe, NATO cannot stand by
and allow this humanitarian crisis to unfold.
The international community is in clear agreement that the
Yugoslav government must not be allowed to continue its policy of
intentionally creating a humanitarian crisis among its own
people. NATO is ready to act to support the will of the
international community by assuring that this policy stops.
Canada has played an important role in the Balkans in recent
years. After several years of peacekeeping, as part of United
Nations forces in Bosnia, we continue now as an alliance member
of the NATO led stabilization force. To make significant
contribution to peace there, the international community
recognizes that NATO has proven vital not only in bringing about
peace in Bosnia but in helping to preserve that peace and moving
the country closer to stability and normality.
Several months have passed since the fighting began in Kosovo.
President Milosevic has made and subsequently broken numerous
promises to stop fighting and begin serious negotiations. The
time for inaction and wringing of hands has run out. NATO must
now act. It must act to bring an end to the violence, to
demonstrate that a peaceful negotiated settlement must be found
and to ensure that the thousands of displaced persons can be
accessed by humanitarian organizations and eventually return to
their homes. Canada stands ready to play its role in these
important efforts.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could give us the
benefit of his views as to the role of the security council,
following the rather cogent and learned intervention by the
member for Rosedale who seemed to place great importance on the
security council's playing a role in Kosovo and overcoming the
difficulties it faces internally with respect to the possibility
that Russia would impose a veto on any resolution.
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
that question.
As members know, Canada has always preferred that the security
council pass the resolution that would determine what the world
would do with the situation in Kosovo.
We are deeply disappointed that if such a resolution were
attempted to be passed Russia would object and possibly China
would object. Therefore we find ourselves in a situation where
our preferred situation is not going to work. The humanitarian
crisis is there nonetheless.
2210
Winter is setting in and things are get worse actually by the
hour in Kosovo. Therefore Canada stands ready to act with NATO.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to follow that up with the parliamentary
secretary.
I recall when the minister was speaking the parliamentary
secretary was here as well. He pointed out that the secretary
general's report in respect of the situation in Kosovo had
clearly indicated that the conditions which security council
mandated for an improvement in the situation in Kosovo have not
been lived up to.
Would the parliamentary secretary agree with me that if perhaps
there is not a formal resolution at least it is clear that within
the United Nations situation itself there is a clear opportunity
for NATO and Canada to say we must take advantage of this
situation and deal with it and that the secretary-general, by his
findings, has indicated that the situation for an imperative
intervention is there? Would that be a fair way of putting it?
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, the report of the
secretary-general actually shows that the world is appalled by
this situation. When he came back to report that Mr. Milosevic
had not undertaken to comply with the security council resolution
it stands to reason that while NATO may be the one that has to
take action, essentially the whole world will be in support of
this action.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the United Nations secretary-general has released a
report in which he lays the lion's share of the blame for the
current humanitarian crisis in the province of Kosovo squarely on
the shoulders of the Yugoslav authorities.
The humanitarian situation in Kosovo is disastrous, with
hundreds of thousands of displaced people and refugees, some of
whom lack shelter and basic necessities. What is most shocking
is that many of these problems are due to the actions of the
Yugoslav government against its own citizens.
In particular, the report points to a clear policy of the
Yugoslav authorities intentionally driving civilians from their
own homes and in many cases from their own countries.
We call on Yugoslavia and on President Milosevic as head of
state with the ability to act with decisive authority to meet
their obligations under international law and to lead the way
toward a just solution.
We hold President Milosevic and all Yugoslav authorities fully
accountable for the actions of their security forces and urge
them to co-operate with the international criminal tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia in this regard.
The actions of the security forces are exactly what fuels
extremism and violence in the Albanian Kosovor population. The
Yugoslav government should instead show leadership by creating
the conditions for meaningful dialogue on a political solution
and by fully addressing the humanitarian crisis.
This can be achieved only by calling an immediate end to the
offensive and repressive activities of the police as well as the
military and by offering gestures of good faith to the Albanians
of Kosovo such as a commitment to offer real, meaningful autonomy
for Kosovo.
At the same time, we strongly urge the Albanian Kosovars to
return to their earlier policy of peaceful engagement, to pursue
their legitimate goals within the borders of the federal Republic
of Yugoslavia.
While Canadians understand the frustration and anger the
Kosovars feel, especially in light of the scant regard the
Yugoslavian authorities have paid to legitimate Kosovar
grievances, violence is not the means to a viable solution to the
problems Kosovo and the rest of the region face.
2215
Canada has long supported the diplomatic efforts being pursued
to bring about a peaceful resolution to this region. The
Organization for Security and Co-operation has been trying to
play a constructive role in Yugoslavia but has been continually
rebuffed.
United States Ambassador Hill is continuing his efforts to
broker an autonomy agreement. The international community is
working very hard to find a solution, but we need the
co-operation of the combatants to do so.
Problems in Kosovo have recently developed into a major
humanitarian crisis in which civilians are the main victims. But
this crisis has not occurred in a void. Its current phase is
intimately linked to the factors and to the individuals which
created the conditions for the violent dissolution of the former
socialist federal Republic of Yugoslavia and war in Slovenia,
Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, with thousands of lives being
lost.
Irresponsible politicians in the Balkans have for years set
neighbour against neighbour with one key goal, the maintenance of
power at any cost, and that cost is borne by their people. The
suffering of their citizens, whether ethnic Albanians, Serbs or
others, is rarely uppermost in these leaders' minds. Ethnic ties
are betrayed at a whim when it serves the interests of such
politicians. But they find playing off people's fears to be the
most convenient and effective tactic. It is a tactic to which
they frequently resort.
Canadians find such behaviour reprehensible. One's ethnicity
makes little difference if one is hungry, cold, terrified and in
extreme physical danger. Innocent victims are innocent victims,
regardless of religion, language or ethnicity. Simply put, there
is no such thing as collective guilt where individuals are held
responsible for the crimes, real or perceived, of their ethnic
kin. Recognizing this is key to any lasting solutions.
Canada has played a constructive role in all the countries of
the former Yugoslavia since we first sent peacekeepers there at
the beginning of this decade. We have paid high costs, most
notably in terms of the 16 soldiers who lost their lives in the
region. Other Canadians have tried through non-governmental
organizations or international agencies to help the people of the
western Balkans find their own peaceful, sustainable answers to
these many challenges.
Canadian taxpayers have been generous in helping the peace
process bring tangible benefits to ordinary people. We, in turn,
have benefited enormously through immigration from the former
Yugoslavia which provides a bridge between our countries.
We have no agenda to damage anyone's legitimate interests in
that region. But we do have an obligation to make our voices
heard when we see tens of thousands of suffering people whose
human rights have been callously disregarded and who have in many
cases lost all that they hold dear.
When international humanitarian law and international human
rights standards are cast aside in the name of fighting and armed
insurgency in a manner opposed to the letter and spirit of
international law we must not be oblivious to the implications
this has for all of us.
Members of this House must therefore condemn in the strongest
terms the philosophy which lies behind the actions of all the
combatants who commit atrocities against civilians in Kosovo.
Regardless of who commits such actions, the Serbian forces or
the Kosovar insurgents, such actions will never lead to a just
and peaceful resolution for the inhabitants of Kosovo.
We are all deeply concerned with the plight of the displaced
persons within Kosovo and of Kosovo refugees fleeing into
Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia and Hercegovina. Canada has
contributed to the efforts of the UN, the UN children's fund and
the Red Cross, and Canada will continue to do its part.
A stable solution reflecting the best interests of all ethnic
groups in Kosovo is what is needed. There is only one source for
justice, reconciliation and a lasting peace. While Canada and
our partners in the international community do not seek to impose
our own solutions, we cannot be neutral to the suffering being
experienced and to the threat to international peace and security
that is posed by this current crisis.
2220
Through the United Nations and through NATO we must act to help
end the suffering and bring about a lasting answer to these very
complex problems. Time is running out.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the member for
Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford for her very thoughtful and sensitive
appreciation of the situation.
I think she has introduced into the debate tonight an element
that we really have not heard from a lot of other members, which
is the need for reconciliation, because, as we know, violence
begets violence.
While it is clear that the United Nations has indicated that the
majority of responsibility lies with the Yugoslav government
since it has the force of power, there is another party in that
conflict, the Kosovo Liberation Army.
The KLA, while in no way bearing the same level of
responsibility, has a responsibility, which is to return to the
bargaining table and ensure that civil peace is restored.
When one seeks to destroy a state or a society violence comes
with it. It is a lesson in this country that we have to bear in
mind ourselves. This is a lesson for all societies and I think
the member brought that to our attention.
Does the member feel there is some way that Canadians can help
the Kosovo Liberation Army and Kosovars themselves to understand
the way in which they could live in an autonomous region within a
federal state, the way we have managed to achieve in our own
society, where we deal with these problems in a peaceful, civil
way? Is there something we should be urging our government to
do, whether it is through CIDA or another organization, to take
to these countries a lesson from Canada, a lesson from our own
federal experience which will enable them to do exactly what the
member suggested? A peaceful reconciliation is ultimately
required on both sides if we are going to achieve a resolution of
this terrible humanitarian problem.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the insight
shared by the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale. Indeed,
he underlines very well the dilemma.
Canadians have moved beyond their history in some regards. We
have not carried the baggage of some of the European countries
and, as such, we have been freer to take risks and, by so doing,
have created a federalism that is indeed one of tolerance and one
that grows and overcomes the dilemmas which we face.
Canada has a reputation internationally. At one time we
referred to it as a middle power, and former Prime Minister
Pearson exemplified greatly what roles a middle power could play.
I think today we still have enormous credibility in the
international community. We must be peace brokers. We must
exemplify tolerance in our own history when we attempt to hold it
out as an example to as troubled a region of the world as the
Balkans.
But indeed both sides must come forward through CIDA and through
international organizations, through our parliamentary
associations and the opportunity which they provide for us to
stand witness to exactly what we believe and what we act on every
day. I think we can reach out. I do not mean in any way to
sound naive. The history is long. The hatreds appear to be even
longer, but I think they can be remedied by what we bring to the
table. But we must be willing to go to the table as well and to
take the risks.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have had a debate this evening that addresses a very
serious international problem recognized by our government, by
the United Nations, by NATO and, doubtless, by many other
countries around the world.
We have heard tonight ample evidence of the brutality and
suffering in the province of Kosovo. We have heard that there
are some 200,000 to 300,000 people who are homeless and being
brutalized by a campaign of terror initiated by Serb forces in
that province. The terror is intended to bring about the
submission of the people, in response to an insurgency or an
alleged insurgency, calculated to bring about independence.
2225
That poses, potentially, a dilemma for many countries. We do
not in this country condone armed insurgencies. We continually
and constantly commend to the rest of the world peaceful ways of
governance and evolution of governance. While we regret the
appearance of arms in Kosovo, the greater evil now is not the
original appearance of the armed attempt to produce independence,
but the reign of terror now brought by the police response. That
reign of terror includes murder. It is not just murder, it is
murder with a message.
We have seen this message before. We have debated this type of
murder before. It is murder which leaves a message. It includes
the mutilation of the victims and it is intended to bring about
so much fear that it will numb the will, the initiative, of the
victims and the victim group. We have seen this in months gone
by in Bosnia and in Croatia.
For those of us who had an opportunity to be in the Balkans
after the break-up of the former Yugoslav Republic, we have seen
the villages utterly destroyed and burned. What were apparently
happy settlements are settlements no more. The people are gone.
Some are dead. They have certainly dispersed. It is a very sad
situation.
I need only mention Rwanda as another reference point for all of
us, where regrettably the world was not able to act soon enough.
I do not think any of us wants to let that type of scenario
happen again when we have the ability to respond.
Tonight it would appear that most members of parliament who have
spoken have supported an international effort to respond to the
evils that have been outlined. It appears that all of the
parties support an international action to respond to these evils
and our government appears ready to act internationally in an
attempt to end the evils described and to bring about an improved
situation for the victims and hopefully an improved political
solution for the future.
One of the areas that has puzzled me as a layman looking at
international relations for some time now is this business of
gamesmanship theory. When we sit down with an opponent to
negotiate we must in the beginning decide whether or not the
opponent is telling the truth or is lying.
It seems to me that all of our international organizations have
operated without any gamesmanship theory. They have simply
assumed that the party on the other side of the table is telling
the truth. We have seen a number of occasions on which it is
painfully obvious that the party on the other side of the table
is not telling the truth.
2230
If one were to simply operate one's life in gamesmanship theory
without any reference to morality, without any reference to life
and death, I could hypothetically here say why not lie on the
international scene, why not cheat, why not kill. The objective
is to reach our goal, to attain our goal. As long as we get
there, it does not matter how. I have seen this and as a
legislator I do not have a solution.
It is very frustrating to see our international institutions
victimized by countries, interest groups that simply play
gamesman theory with more than one tactic. I think we are
getting better at dealing with deceit. It is sometimes difficult
to call our opponent deceitful when negotiating with them. With
the inability of our institutions and people who in good faith
operate to be able to do this, we lose innocent lives in the
process. We lose valuable time and that is a great tragedy.
I do not have a solution. In the matter of Kosovo, because we
have previous experience going back not too many months with the
parties involved here, we are more able to tell it like it is.
I hope we get better at telling it like it is, calling a liar a
liar and I hope we get quicker at doing it. The quicker we can
reach these conclusions, the better we can respond.
The United Nations is a large, sometimes unwieldy body but
sometimes it is all we have on this planet bringing us together.
If there is a veto gridlock there which has been referred to here
tonight, it is quite possible that the UN may not be in a
position to authorize a specific response to the Kosovo
situation. We are then fortunate in having NATO. NATO is
prepared with indirect authority from the United Nations to do it
and Canada is a player in NATO.
Last Sunday I was at an exhibition of Islamic arts and science
in the Scarborough area of Toronto. A man came up to me quite
unannounced. I did not even get his name. He said please do
something about Kosovo, you must do something. He was a man who
obviously had some personal experience in connection with the
Balkans. That was my read on the situation. I do not doubt his
sincerity in his exhortation to me. He was a new Canadian but a
real Canadian and I do not doubt the need for our Canadian
government to act.
I will not, as a member of parliament, let him or the rest of my
constituents down. I will not turn my back on the victimized
people of Kosovo and I support the initiative of this country to
intervene, to cause the Serb government to cease its evil and
inhumane operations in Kosovo and to allow humanitarian aid to
get to the homeless in Kosovo. I hope this initiative will happen
within hours.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question pertaining to the statement presented by Trent
Lott, the United States Senate majority leader, when Clinton's
administration briefed Congress on what the Americans were going
to do.
He basically said that he was shaken by the presentation made by
Clinton's administration, that there was no real plan and that
there was no plan B.
I wonder if the member for Scarborough—Rouge River would be
concerned about that statement given that we are supporting the
Americans and on the other side of the coin we are bit players in
the whole scheme of things. If there is no plan on that side,
where does Canada fit into the big scheme of things?
2235
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, the question is a good one.
On a hearsay basis it suggests there may not be a plan B in the
event that the likely operation to cause the Serbian forces to
take note and to withdraw is not successful. As I understand
from our minister and from my reading on the subject, in this
case the purpose of the initiative is to exact a toll, a cost, a
price from the military forces doing their evil deeds in Kosovo
and to continue to exact a cost from those military and police
forces until they are prepared to negotiate in good faith without
deceit.
I cannot imagine that any of the military operations intended
here or contemplated would proceed without a backup and a
contingency plan for whatever operation was contemplated. The
initial phases would probably involve hardware and low risk to
military personnel on the operational side. However, we are
dealing with a complex international situation. I have not been
briefed. There may be members of this House who will be briefed
before Canadian forces are operational. My experience in
watching these things is that our forces are very professional,
the NATO forces are very professional and neither the Canadians
nor the British nor the Americans nor the French nor any of the
other participating countries are going to place their forces in
a situation where there is not appropriate backup.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will comment and conclude with a question to my
colleague regarding the willingness to take a risk and to act
even when all the results cannot be within our control. Many of
us have concerns, as I mentioned on Monday in an S. O. 31, about
the attendant risks of a military intervention.
I recall as a young child in 1958 watching the tanks roll into
Budapest and asking my father if we were going to help. I do not
remember his answer because I do not think he had one. As a
graduate student in 1968 I watched again as the tanks went into
Prague and Dubcek. So many hopes and aspirations were stopped.
I fear the inertia that is a component of all that and perhaps
the inertia in Europe today. In discussions with some of our
colleagues from Europe I was told it was complicated. Indeed it
is and there are risks when we take action but I fear having to
watch on television the same scenes in Kosovo that we saw in 1958
and 1968. I believe my colleague would agree with me and I ask
him if it is a risk we must take at this time.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I agree that we have to take
the risk. If we are going to engage ourselves militarily we have
to be prepared to make sure there is containment militarily.
There is a reasonable prospect that objective can be met. In
terms of other risks on the ground after the intervention, the
people we are dealing with appear to operate exclusively on
military gamesmanship theories.
2240
I am not saying they are a one trick pony but we have not seen
any other tactical rationale. If we have a NATO operation
intended to address specifically the one trick pony this is how
we do it, psychology. The hope, notwithstanding that there is
risk as the hon. member points out, is that will be sufficient to
bring about an end game on the Serb military operations simply
because that is the mode they are dealing with which is military
might. Hopefully the Serbian military is not capable of going
much beyond where it is now when faced with sufficient military
force.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me rise tonight to be part of this very
important debate. I lend my qualified support for the
international action to end the suffering in this region of
Kosovo.
Canada has a very undeniable obligation to its allies, NATO
allies in particular. We also have a proud history of
international engagement and involvement in supporting our allies
as well as those who may be in regions of severe conflict and
suffering.
If the alliance decides to take military action I do not believe
Canada can step aside. We certainly have a moral obligation to
take action against ethnic cleansing. There has unfortunately
been quite a history in that region of such terrifying conflict
and Canada has always played a role, sometimes a minor role but
we have been there. We have that moral obligation to take action
against the systematic murder and torture of innocent civilians.
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 its responsibility in this regard.
Nevertheless, quite frankly there are some serious questions
concerning possible military action which give us cause for
serious concern. We have a duty to ask these questions because
we have an obligation to the Canadian troops whose lives will be
put on the line.
These are the questions. Have all diplomatic efforts to resolve
the crisis failed? What are the dangers and possible
implications of military action? Is there true multinational
support for this mission? Is there a workable plan for military
action? What precisely is Canada's role to be? Is the role
realistic in terms of Canada's military capability? Who will
command the Canadian troops?
I will now go through these questions and maybe put a little of
meat to them. Have diplomatic efforts failed? We will see but
the answer to date appears to be yes, they have. The Serbs have
dragged their feet in agreeing to all the terms of UN security
council resolution 1199 passed on September 23. History has
certainly shown that the threat of massive military action has
frequently been the very thing that brings aggressors to the
bargaining table. I think we can all hope this will be a similar
case.
However, at the same time, we cannot be certain the Serbs will
comply. Serbia has a deep historic attachment, however misguided
it may be, to the Kosovo territory. It was in Kosovo that the
Serbs lost their independence to the Turks in 1389. Given their
attachment to Kosovo, the Serbs may not roll over if they just
face a few pinprick air strikes.
The sobering fact is that they may well be in for a long and
possibly difficult struggle.
2245
With regard to the second question, there are obviously deep
concerns that fighting in Kosovo could escalate into the
neighbouring countries. Kosovo is a pivotal territory and it has
always been seen as a linchpin for both stability and instability
in the Balkans. NATO must make every effort to ensure that war
does not spread beyond the borders of Yugoslavia to engulf
neighbouring states.
We must be prepared for the fact that the Serbs may make an
effort to escalate the war. In other words, we should be looking
at the worst case scenario. Perhaps they will attack NATO
troops, including Canadians serving in Bosnia. NATO has to be
prepared for that eventuality.
The answer to the third question appears to be clear. The very
fact that this will be a NATO sanctioned operation implies that
it will have multinational support. Nevertheless, on October 5
the European Union's Council of Ministers failed to agree to use
rapid force in Kosovo. Obviously some concerns remain among the
European members of the alliance.
Is there a workable plan for military action? I believe that
this is absolutely the most fundamental question which remains
largely unanswered and the reason I put the question to the
government side, specifically to the member for
Scarborough—Rouge River. Granted, the member may not have been
briefed on that. Maybe there is a plan, but Canadians should
know. We are possibly sending Canadian troops into an area of
conflict. Why should Canadians not know exactly what is going to
happen?
United States senate majority leader Trent Lott stated that he
was shaken after the Clinton administration briefed Congress on
its plans last week. He said “There is no real plan on how to
carry this out” and “There is no plan B if that should go
wrong”.
Does the plan, if any, entail only air strikes or does it
include ground troops? If ground troops are required, then we
had better brace ourselves for a much larger number of
casualties. Would ground troops be necessary as part of a
subsequent peace enforcement operation? How long would they be
there? Will the UN Security Council approve the action?
If the six to ten Canadian CF-18s already stationed at Aviano
are to be involved, are they the same aircraft which were
recently upgraded to carry precision guided munitions, or are
they a mixture of upgraded and non-upgraded aircraft? Are they
compatible with the system that is in force right now under the
Americans and the British? Our planes are moving back and forth.
Are all of them upgraded to the point where they can fit into
the program that is already there?
A myriad of questions remain unanswered. Does the government
know the answer to any of these questions? I have not heard much
debate in that regard. The debate has been more philosophical.
Preparation is essential. Has the government asked NATO what
will be required? It is impossible to address the question of
whether or not our military has the capability of doing this job
given that we do not know the job they are going to be doing. If
ground troops are sent in, how will they get there? How many
ground troops can we send? The Canadian army is already
stretched to the limit.
Despite the claim made in the government's 1994 white paper on
defence, we cannot send a combat capable brigade overseas. All
we can send is a smaller battalion group force. Even that would
be a severe strain on our capabilities given the present task.
What equipment do they have?
I could give a list of what equipment we do not have, but what
equipment do we have to send over there that will support our
troops?
2250
A number of questions remain unanswered, but in conclusion we
must ultimately support the alliance and support our troops once
committed. We must however be clear and realistic about Canada's
role. That should be spelled out in the House and spelled out to
the people of Canada.
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. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the knowledgeable intervention of the
member for Calgary Northeast as the defence critic for the Reform
Party.
We have had the opportunity of travelling together in Bosnia and
looking at these issues. He is very knowledgeable but perhaps he
will permit me if I say to him that it looks to me as if he is
trying to have the best of both worlds in this debate.
He says that he lends qualified support to the action of
participating, but then sets out a series of conditions which
enables him to say if there is a problem “See, I told you so.
Yes, let us do it but here are the problems and if it does not
work out the way we would like it to, we will be able to stand up
and say we told you so”.
I think the member has more depth to him than that. I have
watched him and I would like his answer to my question. I
appreciate all the questions he raised are appropriate questions
for us to ask, particularly concerning escalation in neighbouring
regions, the true nature of what we will have and Canada's
facilities.
We have looked at what we have at the base at Aviano. We all
recognize that our facilities are stretched to the limit.
We have asked a great deal of our troops. Some of us have had
an opportunity to see the professional qualities that they have
developed in Bosnia and the tremendous professionalism they
exhibit in the way in which they operate around the world.
Whether it is in Haiti or Bosnia or the many other jurisdictions,
we know what wonderful performers they are. We cannot ask too
much of them. All of that is true.
The member knows that NATO has been looking at this situation
for over six months. He knows how NATO operates. He knows that
NATO has some of the most professional people, Americans,
British, French, the top people in the world. They have been
looking at this for six months. Does he not believe that the NATO
planners are looking at the questions that he is asking in the
House tonight? Does he not believe that the NATO planners have
the capacity to resolve those issues?
Does he not believe that what we need in the House tonight is a
commitment to act and act forcefully if we are going to resolve
the questions in the area. At the same time does he not believe
that we need to have confidence that the NATO planners, our NATO
colleagues and our own troops are able to address the logistical
questions which he asked in the House tonight?
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, the member poses a good
question but there is a political side as well as a practical
side to the issue.
The practical side is whether we are in a position to go into an
area of possible conflict with our troops protected with the best
equipment available and under the best command. Are we also able
to rotate the troops over time if that conflict rolls on and on.
On the political side there is a hesitancy on the part of the
European Community which has already hesitated about rapid force
strikes into Kosovo. Why? Does it not want to get into the
fray? The American public is getting very tired of having that
expense and American troops in the Balkan area. There is no
question that debate is raging on in a very substantive way.
On the political side it is not very clear exactly what is going
to happen. Certainly we can debate the issue philosophically but
we must also consider the practical side and not blindly jump
into something without going in a very specific direction and
knowing what our limitations are.
2255
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think Canadians are great people. They have the kindest hearts
on this planet, despite the fact that they are paying high taxes
which is not their fault. Unfortunately from time to time, they
have been getting some ineffective governments ruling this
country.
The government has the habit of not appropriately addressing
various issues, whether it be taxes, the economy, a justice
issue, unity, and so on. The government has done it again today.
The hon. member for Calgary North has given some examples of how
we are jumping without knowing where we are jumping to.
This take note debate is not an appropriate way of dealing with
the important and the sad situation in Kosovo, but this is the
only option given by the Liberal government to members of
parliament.
The issue at hand is very important. It is a non-partisan
issue. The crisis in Kosovo is at a climax. I hope the Liberal
government will show some leadership. The government will
probably come up with a strong, elaborate strategy to deal with
the peace initiatives. We will be dealing with these peace
initiatives in the future as well, unfortunately. We expect that
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.
Kosovo has a population of about 2.2 million. Ninety-three per
cent of the population is ethnic Albanian. Most of the others
are ethnic Serbs. During the communist rule in Yugoslavia,
Kosovo had the status of an autonomous province within the
Republic of Serbia. This status was abolished by Mr. Milosevic
in 1989.
The Kosovo region has a historical significance to Serbia. The
Serbs lost a battle to the Turks in Kosovo in 1389, losing their
national independence. In 1989 Serb President Milosevic launched
his national campaign while celebrating the 600th anniversary of
this defeat.
Since last spring Serb forces of the Yugoslav army have
constantly attacked and terrorized the ethnic Albanian
population. The Kosovo Liberation Army has fought against the
repression and lost ground over the summer.
The civilian population in Kosovo is in a desperate situation. A
quarter of a million Kosovo Albanians have been forced from their
homes and their homes have been raided and burned by Yugoslavian
government troops. Fifty thousand people are without adequate
shelter and are unlikely to survive the upcoming winter.
The official opposition foreign affairs critic, the hon. member
for Red Deer, visited Kosovo. He talked to terrorized children
in various schools. He listened to their horror stories.
The farms, the fields and the residential areas are infested
with mines. Some mines are very cleverly designed to
specifically kill children. Some mines look like attractive toys
and pop cans.
The Serb armed presence remains a significant force in that
area. The disproportionate use of force is designed to terrorize
and subjugate the population. A collective punishment is given
to teach them that the price of supporting Kosovo Albanian
paramilitary units is too high. We must respond to this terror.
We are debating a motion to co-operate with NATO forces in the
military action they intend to take.
2300
There could be two plans. Plan A should be a diplomatic
initiative. I wanted to ask a question of the member opposite
earlier as to whether he could highlight the diplomatic
initiatives the government has taken to address the situation.
The government should have been aggressively pursuing initiatives
long ago at least when we saw signs of this problem.
Now that we know plan A has failed, even though the government
did not pursue it aggressively, we can go to plan B and plan B is
military action. I understand why we have to do that. There are
people who say we should; there are people who say that we should
not take military action.
Perhaps I can tell a story about a donkey that was sick. The
farmer who owned the donkey was giving it medicine that was very
bitter. The farmer's son was helping him by holding the donkey
by the ears. They were forcing the medicine into the donkey's
nostrils because they wanted to cure it, but the donkey thought
that they were pulling his ears.
We have to do that; we have to pull the ears. When diplomacy
fails we have to take military action. This bitter medicine is
the only medicine that will work in this situation. Before we
prescribe this bitter medicine, my constituents, and all
Canadians for that matter, need answers to the many questions
they are asking.
They are asking why we are choosing a military situation over a
diplomatic situation. What are the actions the government has
taken? What other possible solutions could we pursue? What are
the possibilities of finding a long term solution? How are we
dealing with the hatred in the minds of ethnic people? How much
involvement are we asking from the European Community or the
other affected and related countries to deal with this issue in
their backyard?
Canadians want to know whether we are creating more victims by
bombing that area. They want to know how far we will go, how
much is the cost, who is paying the costs, and what share we will
pay.
Did the government assess the degree of risk before committing
the men and women of the Canadian defence forces? Do they have
enough equipment and facilities? What strategy do we have to
deal with the regional security situation? I will be looking
forward to those answers.
Repeatedly there have been serious situations in the world like
in Rwanda, Nigeria, Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, and the list goes on.
Unfortunately this situation will happen again. I am sorry for
the inability of the United Nations to respond in a timely
fashion. We have to show leadership.
Britain, France, Russia and the United States of America, which
is kept busy 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. I ask the foreign minister to look into the
possibilities of peacemaking missions, rather than peacekeeping
missions in the long run.
Let me give an analogy. When a domestic pressure cooker is
heated, steam is produced. To contain that stream we put weight
on the pressure cooker. We try to put military pressure to
contain the steam, but have we ever taken an action to remove the
heat from under the pressure cooker? Have we ever involved an
issue by solving the problem before it happens? Unfortunately the
government has not has taken any action.
The government lacks a pro-active role. It is just reactive. It
does very little to prevent conflicts in the world. The
government needs to have a broader agenda for peacekeeping and
peacemaking issues. The humanitarian crisis is the consequence
of what is fundamentally a political problem. We try to resolve
the political problem by our foreign aid and by various other
issues like military solutions.
2305
I support our allies in this action at this time for Kosovo and
for the sake of the suffering of the innocent people in Kosovo. I
look forward to the government showing—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member's
time has expired.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with sadness that I join in this debate. It is
also with sadness that I have watched over the last while the
images on our television screens depicting what is happening in
Kosovo.
Why should we as Canadians be involved? I think tonight many
speakers addressed that question. I heard many say that it was
time for us to act, that it was our duty to offer support and
that it was our duty to avert further misery and bloodshed. We
need the resources available to participate in whatever action.
I have heard other speakers refer to the fact that we have been
and we are in a state of readiness where we can act. We have the
CF-18 aircraft in Aviano right now. We need to work with speed
because winter is approaching. We cannot allow more innocent
civilians to suffer the atrocities we see nightly on our
television screen.
There are a few comments I want to add because I know many of my
constituents in Etobicoke—Lakeshore come from that part of the
world. Many of them are watching nightly what they seem to think
is the inertia and the inability of the international community
to respond. They are saddened and want us as Canadians and as
the Canadian government to act swiftly, to act with care to make
sure our resources are not barred so that we can get humanitarian
help directly to the people who need it.
These barbarous actions have ramifications that are felt beyond
Kosovo. The displacement of Kosovar and Albanian civilians and
the polarization of communities which has resulted from this
conflict have direct implications not only for Serbia and
Montenegro but for the neighbouring countries of Albania, the
former Yugoslav, the republic of Macedonia and Bosnia. The
consequences of this conflict are reverberating throughout
southern Europe. My constituents who come from that part of the
world know what happens to families and individuals when that
reverberation throughout Europe is felt.
The campaign of violence and oppression that is ongoing right
now, that humanitarian crisis that is before us, calls for our
assistance. What can we do as Canadians? Are we to just stand
here and speak in this debate? Is this doing something? Is this
really my effort to ensure that there is some alleviation of the
pain and suffering? I think it is.
It is important that the federal republic of Yugoslavia, and in
particular President Milosevic as head of the state with the
ability to act with decisive authority, know that I and others
are standing here tonight calling on him to meet his obligations
under international law and to lead the way to a just solution to
the conflict.
2310
To use disproportionate force against civilians will ultimately
prove counterproductive in resisting armed separatist forces.
The actions of the security forces are exactly what fuels
extremism and violence among the population.
We have other places in the world where we have seen the results
of such action. The Yugoslav government must know that we have
said tonight that it must create the conditions necessary for a
dialogue to a political solution and must fully address this
crisis. It must know that we have said here tonight that we are
calling for an immediate end to the offensive and repressive
activities of the police and the military, and that we have also
said here tonight that withdrawing its forces is the thing that
should be done immediately.
President Milosevic and all Yugoslav authorities are responsible
for the actions of their security forces. They must know that
the international community stands in horror at the events that
are taking place right now in their country, under their command.
It is also crucial that they allow human rights managers in
Kosovo to continue their important work. We have to commend
those individuals who would want to go in, those individuals who
have been on diplomatic missions over these past months,
including the work that we are doing as Canadians. The
individuals who are part of those diplomatic missions, who are
part of the human rights missions, must be allowed to do their
work and inform the international community of what is happening
there.
It is important for stability in Europe that this human rights
mission be allowed to continue.
The United Nations and the international community has expressed
concern and outrage. It seems to me that is not enough. Two UN
security council resolutions have been adopted calling for this
conflict to end and for the flight of the displaced to be
addressed. Who is listening? It is certainly not those with the
arms who are using force against the people.
Canada has used every means at its disposal to bring about a
peaceful resolution of the conflict through diplomatic means. In
various international fora and in several places we have, with
numerous friends and allies, tried to resolve the crisis. Despite
numerous appeals, despite talks, despite the plight of
individuals being put before those in power, the situation
continues to worsen. We see it daily.
We are on the verge of a new century. There was a time when
there was a glimmer and a window of hope that there would be
peace in this world. There was a time when we saw a tunnel where
we thought there was some light, that there would be peace and
that leaders and the people who were in the positions of making
decisions would make the kind of decisions for their people that
would see this world at peace.
Whatever needs to be done at this point in time, I am urging
that Canada stand with the rest of the international community,
with NATO and with others, to ensure that we do what is necessary
to bring the horrible and horrendous daily slaughtering of people
that we see on our screens to an end.
2315
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened to the hon. member very carefully. We are talking
about a humanitarian issue here.
It is a very important issue but there is another issue attached
to this, that if we are planning to take any military action or
if we are committing our military support to NATO, that means we
are committing men and women of the Canadian forces.
The question arises here of whether we are well equipped. Are
our brave men and women well equipped with the materials they
need?
I would also like to know from the member how much it will cost
us. For how long are we going to commit our military forces?
What are the long term plans? Can the member throw some light on
that?
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, when I stood I did not
stand as an accountant, not as someone who is looking at the
bottom line. I spoke because, as most Canadians, we are moved by
the slaughter of human beings.
I think Canada has a responsibility to stand and be counted, not
in terms of dollars, not in terms of what it will cost us
economically. I think there is a moral situation here. That
decision has to be one whereby we join with others. We use
whatever resources we have.
When the minister of defence spoke earlier I think I heard him
say the number of aircraft we have, the men and women we have in
that part of the world at this point and our capability at this
point. I do not think Canada will be marching off on its
own but that Canada will be playing a role, supportive and
otherwise, to ensure a quick resolution.
It is not an accounting job here. It is not looking for the
bottom line but it is looking at human beings who are caught in a
very horrendous situation.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
in Montreal tonight but I wanted to come back even at this late
hour—and excuse me for keeping you here so late—to add my
voice to the debate on this motion that is so important from a
humanitarian standpoint, a motion that unites us all in this
House and makes us set all partisan considerations aside.
Few of us, if any, have experienced racial and ethnic conflicts,
armed conflicts where a majority uses instruments of war to
torture, mutilate, kill and drive from their homes members of a
minority whose only fault is to belong to a different ethnic
group or to have different religious beliefs.
For us who have the very special privilege of living in a
peaceful country, it is extremely difficult to understand how a
majority can use such barbarity to impose its views on an
innocent minority. We cannot understand how racial, ethnic and
religious conflicts can plunge humanity into such darkness.
[English]
It is extremely hard for us to understand how human beings can
use all their powers, whatever these be, to destroy other human
beings in the name of race, colour or creed.
We would have thought that the lessons of World War II which are
still fresh in our minds would have taught us that six million
people and more lived the most terrible atrocities, the most
degrading and inhuman treatment, including death by the most
violent means, just because one majority decided that one
minority was not worthy of living in its midst.
2320
Yet in spite of the lessons of World War II, in spite of the
lessons of the Holocaust, one ethnic conflict today seems to give
way to another, killing in its wake tens of thousands of people
all over the world. Lives are lost in the name of racial or
religious purity or racial or religious superiority.
Yesterday it was Northern Ireland. Yesterday it was Bosnia.
Yesterday it was Somalia. Yesterday it was Afghanistan.
Yesterday it was Chechnya. Today it is Kosovo. Tomorrow, so
help the Lord, it may not be.
How can we justify that one and three quarter million of the two
million people of Kosovo should be evicted from their homes,
should be killed, should be brutalized at the hands of Yugoslavia
and its president Slobodan Milosevic because they are of
different racial origins?
President Milosevic would use arms and death and eviction from
their homes of the ethnic Albanians who are yearning for
self-rule to impose his dictatorship just as he did in Bosnia,
disregarding their human right to live, their fundamental freedom
as human beings to exist as we all do with a quality of life,
with a right not only to live but certainly with the essential
right to survive as human beings.
I hope we do not make this into a partisan issue. I heard some
talk about lack of leadership being exercised and I think it is
important to underline what our foreign minister has done. He is
a man of peace. He is a man who has fought extremely hard
against armaments and for the installation of peace in the world.
It is worth mentioning what has been done. Canada lobbied in
New York and in the capitals of the security council members this
summer for decisive council action. The foreign minister wrote
to then Russian foreign minister Primakov in August, reminding
him that as permanent member of the council and as a privileged
partner of the Belgrade government Russia had a special role to
play in putting effective pressure on President Milosevic.
He repeated this message to Foreign Minister Ivanov just before
he travelled to Belgrade over the past weekend. This week we
sent an envoy to underline to the leadership in Belgrade and
Kosovo to stop the violence, to negotiate a solution and
facilitate humanitarian relief for innocent victims.
Canada's actions have actually reflected other efforts
taken by the international community. In March and September the
UN security council adopted resolutions that demanded that first
of all Yugoslav forces cease attacking civilians and withdraw
their forces that are used to oppress civilians, and that they
begin meaningful negotiation with Kosovar political leaders with a
view to achieving a political settlement that would lead to a
significant measure of autonomy for Kosovo within the Yugoslav
federation.
When the Prime Minister took part in the G-8 meeting in
Birmingham, he impressed on the other leaders, including
President Yeltsin, the need for concerted action in Kosovo. In
June Russia with its special influence the Belgrade regime
brought in President Milosevic to Moscow where President Yeltsin
repeated the profound concerns of the international community.
However, it seems as though President Milosevic has decided to
act on his own regardless of world opinion, regardless of the
human lives he sacrifices willy-nilly whenever he wants to impose
his will by force of arms.
2325
We are now faced with the terrible dilemma of having to use
planes and instruments of warfare to instil peace. It is the
irony of our world today. But if it must be, it must be because
the plan eventually is to bring President Milosevic to the
negotiation table so we can negotiate and instil peace. The
people in Kosovo deserve to live as we deserve to live. They
deserve to live not only in the condition they are in today but
to live in peace. They deserve to live in their homes, to create
their own homeland if this is their wish as a majority. This
right must be fundamentally recognized as it has been recognized
in the UN declaration of human rights.
That is why all of us from the five political parties on every
side of this House have united to support this motion. I support
the work of our foreign minister for effective action that will
bring peace and hope to the people of Kosovo and also to the
other people of the world who are suffering. For those in
central Africa or anywhere else in the world, let peace begin. We
need it so badly. We need peace because first of all we are all
human beings regardless of race, colour or creed.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has mentioned some other situations in the past
that have been similar to the situation of today in Kosovo. He
mentioned Chechnya, Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda, Iraq and so on. All
members in this House who participated in this debate have shown
their support of our allies on the Kosovo issue in terms of
military support.
Does the member or his government have any long term plan for
dealing with issues like this? Do we simply have a take note
emergency debate and then decide that because it is a
humanitarian issue we have to show support? What plan does the
government have to prevent this type of conflict in the world?
What role is his government willing to play to show some
leadership so that we can know how to handle such a situation in
the future in a better, more efficient manner?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, Canada is one country
among many in the world today. We are certainly not the most
powerful country of all. Thank goodness we have established a
role which is some sort of leadership role as peacemakers or
peace brokers. That goes back to the time of Prime Minister
Pearson. This tradition has been maintained all along.
This government and previous governments of all stripes have
tried to work closely within the framework of the United Nations
to bring peace around the world. I remind the member that in all
areas where conflict has arisen, Canada has played a leading
role. The other day I heard the president of the Irish republic
tell us what a huge role Canada has played and what a huge role
General de Chastelain played as co-chairman of the peace
agreement. He is today in charge of the commission in Northern
Ireland and is playing a vital role.
How has Canada helped? The other day President Mandela told us
how Canada has been instrumental in changing the state of things
in South Africa. Perhaps Canada was helping in its own way to
avoid racial conflict and bloodshed there.
2330
Today what we are trying to do is bid for a seat on the United
Nations Security Council. Tomorrow there will be a vote in the
United Nations. We have proposed several solutions to reform the
security council so there will be more interaction between the
five permanent members and the other members of the security
council, of which we hope to be one again, so that we can
exercise direct influence on matters of peace. We have
participated in peacekeeping all over the world, as recently as
the terrible Bosnian war, where again we played a significant
role in bringing about peace.
What we are trying to do today is to work in co-operation with
the United Nations and with the NATO membership. If we must bear
force of arms to put pressure on president Milosevic to come to
the table and negotiate, our foreign minister, our Prime Minister
and our government will again play a crucial role as peacemakers.
We have credibility in the world and we will continue to exercise
our influence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no
further members rising, this debate is concluded.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11.31 p.m.)