CONTENTS
Tuesday, January 25, 1994
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 259
Bill C-3. Motions for introduction and first reading deemedadopted 259
Bill C-202. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 259
(Amendment agreed to.) 261
(Motion, as amended, agreed to) 261
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 261
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 273
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 279
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 286
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 296
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 296
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 296
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 298
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 298
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 298
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 299
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 299
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 299
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 299
Mr. Cummins 301
Mr. Tobin 301
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 301
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 302
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 302
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 304
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 304
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 304
Consideration resumed of motion 305
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 317
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 340
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 355
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 356
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 365
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 374
259
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, January 25, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape-Breton
Highlands-Canso): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
34(1), I have the honour of presenting to this House, in both
official languages, the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association's report on the annual meeting of the Conference on
Security and Co-operation in Europe, or CSCE, at its
parliamentary assembly held in Helsinki, Finland, from July 6 to
9, 1993.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-3, an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal
Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce a bill that would
prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers.
The Speaker: Order. I presume the hon. member has had
consultations and will need unanimous consent. Is there
unanimous consent to introduce this private member's bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-202, an act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin
transfers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short explanation.
During the discussions regarding the North American Free
Trade Agreement questions were asked whether the passage of
that legislation would not facilitate the sale of water from
Canada to the United States and Mexico through interbasin
transfers. While there may be some concerns in people's minds,
this bill will put those to rest because it would simply prohibit
the export of water by interbasin transfers from Canada to either
the U.S. or Mexico.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1010)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
with the unanimous consent of the House I move, seconded by
the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie:
I. That Standing Order 104 be amended as follows:
1. In Section (1) thereof by striking out the words ``House Management'' and
substituting therefor the words ``Procedure and House Affairs''.
2. By striking out sections (2), (3) and (4) thereof and substituting the following
therefor:
(2) The standing committees which shall consist of not less than seven and
not more than fifteen members, and for which lists of members are to be
prepared, except as provided in section (1) of the Standing Order, shall be on:
(a) Agriculture and Agri-Food
(b) Canadian Heritage
(c) Citizenship and Immigration
(d) Environment and Sustainable Development
(e) Finance
(f) Fisheries and Oceans
(g) Foreign Affairs and International Trade
(h) Government Operations
(i) Health
(j) Human Resources Development
(k) Human Rights and the Status of the Disabled
(l) Indian Affairs and Northern Development
(m) Industry
(n) Justice and Legal Affairs
(o) National Defence and Veterans Affairs
(p) Natural Resources
(q) Procedure and House Affairs
(r) Public Accounts
(s) Transport
(3) The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall also
prepare and report lists of members to act for the House on the standing joint
committees on:
(a) the Library of Parliament
(b) Official Languages
(c) Scrutiny of Regulations;
260
Provided that a sufficient number of members shall be appointed so as to keep the
same proportion therein as between the memberships of both Houses.
(4) The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall also
prepare lists of associate members for each standing committee and standing
joint committee referred to in this Standing Order, who shall be deemed to be
members of that committee for the purposes of Standing Orders 108(1)(b) and
114(2)(a) and who shall be eligible to act as substitutes on that committee
pursuant to provisions of Standing Order 114(2)(b).
[
Translation]
II. That Standing Order 108 be amended as follows:
1. By deleting sub-section (1)(b) thereof and substituting the following:
``(b) Standing Committees shall be empowered to create sub-committees of
which the membership may be drawn from among both the list of members and
the list of associate members provided for in Standing Order 104, who shall be
deemed to be members of that committee for the purposes of this Standing
Order''.
2. By deleting in section (2) thereof the words ``(3)(b)'' and by substituting
therefor the words ``(3)(c)'' and by deleting the words ``(3)(e)''.
3. In section (3)(a) thereof:
(a) by deleting the words ``House Management'' and by substituting therefor
the words ``Procedure and House Affairs''; and
(b) by adding in paragraph (ii) immediately after the words ``two Houses'',
the words ``except with regard to the Library of Parliament;''.
4. By deleting sections (3)(b), (3)(c) and (3)(d) thereof and by substituting the
following therefor:
``(b) Canadian Heritage shall include, among other matters, the monitoring
of the implementation of the principles of the federal multiculturalism policy
throughout the Government of Canada in order
-to encourage the departments and agencies of the federal government to reflect
the multicultural diversity of the nation; and
-to examine existing and new programs and policies of federal departments and
agencies to encourage sensitivity to multicultural concerns and to preserve and
enhance the multicultural reality of Canada;
(c) Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons shall include, among
other matters:
-the review of and report on reports of the Canadian Human Rights Commission,
which shall be deemed permanently referred to the Committee immediately after
they are laid upon the Table; and
-the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives aimed at the
integration and equality of disabled persons in all sectors of Canadian society;''.
5. By renumbering section (3)(e) thereof as section (3)(d).
6. By deleting section (4) thereof and substituting the following therefor:
(1015)
``(4) So far as this House is concerned, the mandates of the Standing Joint
Committee on
(a) the Library of Parliament shall include the review of the effectiveness,
management and operation of the Library of Parliament;
(b) Official Languages shall include, among other matters, the review of and
report on official languages policies and programs including Reports of the
Commissioner of Official Languages, which shall be deemed permanently referred
to the Committee immediately after they are laid upon the Table;
(c) Scrutiny of Regulations shall include, among other matters, the review and
scrutiny of statutory instruments which are permanently referred to the Committee
pursuant to section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act;
Provided that both Houses may, from time to time, refer any other matter to any of
the aforementioned Standing Joint Committees''.
[
English]
III. That Standing Order 112 be amended:
(a) by deleting the words ``for each envelope except the management envelope'';
and
(b) by deleting the word ``six'' and by substituting therefor the word ``twelve''.
(c) by deleting the words ``Each group of'' and substituting therefor the word,
``The''.
(d) by deleting the words, ``belonging to each respective envelope''.
[Translation]
IV. That Standing Order 113(2) be amended by deleting the word ``appropriate''.
[
English]
V. That Standing Order 114 be amended:
1. In subsection (2)(a) thereof, by deleting the word ``seven'' and by substituting
therefor the word ``fourteen'' and by deleting the words ``in the envelope to
which that committee has been assigned'' and by deleting all of the words after
the words ``permanent members of the committee''.
2. In subsection (2)(c) thereof, after the words ``listed as'', by deleting the words
``members at large in the envelope'' and substituting therefor ``associate
members of the committee''.
3. In section (4) thereof, by deleting the words ``which involve the appointment
to a committee of a member not already a member of a committee in the same
envelope''.
[
Translation]
VI. That Standing Order 115 be amended in section (2) thereof, by deleting all of
the words after the words ``meetings of'' and substituting the words ``committees
considering legislation or Estimates over meetings of committees considering
other matters''.
[
English]
VII. That Standing Orders 91, 92(1), 106(1), 107(2), 113(1), 114(1), 114(2)(a),
114(2)(d), 114(4), 115(4), 119(1)(2), 132, 133(2), 133(3), 133(4), 135(1), 140,
141(4) be amended by deleting the words ``House Management'' and
substituting therefor ``Procedure and House Affairs''.
[
Translation]
VIII. That Standing Order 73 be amended:
1. By deleting sections (2) and (3) and substituting therefor the following:
``(2) Unless otherwise ordered, in giving a bill second reading, the same shall
be referred to a standing, special or legislative committee''.
2. By renumbering sections (4) and (5) thereof respectively as sections (3) and (4).
IX. That the Clerk of the House be authorized, whenever appropriate, to redirect,
after consultation, any references to any committees that have already been made at
the time of the adoption of this Order.
X. That a Message be sent to the Senate to invite them to join with this House in the
creation of the aforementioned Standing Joint Committees.
[
English]
I apologize for having to read such a lengthy motion, but I
think there is unanimous consent for its adoption today.
The Speaker: Perhaps in future if the hon. member has
motions such as these and if there is unanimous consent on all
sides, we could agree to dispense. I am only saying that for some
future consideration.
I was thinking while the hon. member was going through it,
what would have happened if he had had to repeat the whole
thing again. That would have been something else.
261
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
(1020)
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, certainly I support the thrust of the motion.
There is one amendment I would like to suggest that I hope
would meet with the consent of the House. It relates to the
proposed committee in paragraph (2)(k), the committee on
human rights and the status of the disabled.
The previous committee that existed that looked at this
subject matter was a committee known as the committee on
human rights and the status of disabled persons.
Certainly as a member of that former committee I recall that
people with disabilities felt very strongly that they did not wish
to be labelled as ``the disabled''.
[Translation]
I note that, in French, the committee's name refers to disabled
persons.
[English]
I would also note that under subparagraph 4(c) in the mandate
of the committee it refers to: ``the proposing, promoting,
monitoring and assessing of initiatives aimed at the integration
and equality of disabled persons in all sectors of Canadian
society''.
We are talking about people fundamentally. I would hope that
it would meet with the agreement of the House that we maintain
the previous name of this committee which was human rights
and the status of disabled persons.
I would so move if that meets with the consent of the House.
(Amendment agreed to.)
(Motion, as amended, agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition on behalf of Delores and Edward Howey of Owen Sound
with regard to the Young Offenders Act.
Their daughter Karen Howey Black was brutally murdered in
British Columbia on February 15, 1993. They are asking that the
act be amended to include young offenders who commit these
heinous crimes.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
I am honoured to rise in the House to present a petition from the
undersigned residents of Kootenay West-Revelstoke in British
Columbia who would like their grievance known to this House.
This grievance has to do with a new game to be introduced in
Canada called the serial killer board game. They humbly request
that the House ban the sale of the serial killer board game and
prevent other such material being made available in Canada in
order to protect children.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order to set today's debate in context.
Today is the first of many debates to come. In recent years,
governments have regarded Parliament as an afterthought in
policy development or have neglected it completely.
I made a promise to the Canadian people during the last
federal election that I would restore respect and relevance to the
House of Commons. That is why today we are debating the role
of Canadian peacekeeping and tomorrow, cruise missile testing.
Also, I would like to announce today that next week for the
first time in Canadian history this Chamber will be used as a
forum for pre-budget consultations with members of
Parliament. This will be the first time members of Parliament
will be able to discuss important budgetary issues before the
budget is prepared.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, today's debate concerns the Bosnian issue.
Tomorrow, we will be looking into cruise missile testing, into
whether we should authorize Americans to test their missiles
over Canadian soil. Next week, we will be discussing the
budget.
As I was saying in this House, yesterday, we are trying out an
entirely new political process. In the past, members were always
asked to comment after the fact which meant, for someone in the
opposition, to oppose a decision, once it was already too late to
have a real influence on the government's decision. This
procedure is without precedent. I hope members will try their
very best to make it efficient in order to allow the expression of
views, after which the government will decide. It has been said,
by some, that no vote will be taking place in this kind of debate.
Since its purpose is to make views known to government before
a decision is taken, it is quite naturally so.
(1025)
If opposition members or even members of my own party
disagree with the decision taken, they can always, in the
traditional way, make a motion of non-confidence against the
government. I hope members will have, through this new
262
procedure, better opportunity to express their views and that
debates will be more dispassionate and less partisan.
I take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate all
members of the House. The press will have noted, and
Canadians as well, I hope, that the atmosphere is much better
than it used to be. All this evidently depends both on the
opposition and, very much so, on the government. I have asked
my ministers to restrain themselves since it is so easy, when one
is the last to speak, to make that one last satisfying stab which is
so upsetting to the members opposite.
The new discipline demonstrated by this House is therefore
welcome, and I wish to congratulate all members on their
attitude. I would invite them to express their views in all candor
during the three coming debates concerning Canada's
peacekeeping role, the cruise missile testing and, next week, the
preliminary debate on the budget which is to be tabled in this
House before the end of February.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on the Prime Minister's point of order. I would like to thank
the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs for
making possible this debate and making it possible before the
government arrives at a policy decision.
I would like to make one further suggestion in the spirit of
what the Prime Minister said and that is to suggest that in future
we depart from the custom of having party leaders necessarily
lead off debates. It seems to me we could make a better
contribution by simply sitting and listening to what other
members are saying. If we participate, we could perhaps
participate toward the end of the debate and attempt to define the
common ground that has been defined by members and provide a
basis for the government's policy. Thank you, Mr. Prime
Minister.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I would
also like to add my congratulations to the Prime Minister for
undertaking these debates in the House of Commons. I think
they are very important. The Prime Minister has said these are a
test and something that is being tried. I would suggest the real
test is when the government listens to a variety of points of view.
I appreciate that the Prime Minister has undertaken this.
As we are debating Bosnia today, I would like to say very
briefly that I am sure that everyone in Canada shares the view of
our party, that we appreciate the great work that the RCMP and
the peacekeepers are doing in Bosnia.
Again I want to thank the Prime Minister for this opportunity
and I hope the government will listen to what I think will be a
real range of constructive debate in the interests of the country.
We will all have our partisan points of view but I think that all of
us have the interest of the country at heart both in our
international and national roles. I look forward to these debates.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
join my colleague from Yukon, the Leader of the Reform Party
and the Prime Minister in saying what an excellent idea it is to
allow such debates in Parliament, so much the better if they
contribute to more constructive exchanges in this House. For
that matter, this purpose coincides well with the sentiments
expressed by the government in the Throne Speech.
(1030)
This being said, while we are on the subject of the way this
Parliament operates, I would like to add a comment.
[English]
Since we are reflecting on how this Parliament works I do
want to say that we welcome this opportunity to participate in
debate and will participate actively and open up the House of
Commons.
I do, though, want to take this opportunity on the issue of the
workings of this Parliament to restate our concern that even
though the independent members in this place are considered
independent by the Chair and number only 12, we represent 25
per cent of the vote that was cast in the general election.
There is still an outstanding concern that I raised with you on
a question of privilege that really deals with two issues. One is
what place will be left to these members of Parliament to speak
in this House.
It is a very fundamental issue because the Prime Minister and
I think a lot of members who have joined with him have said that
in this place we want to offer all members an opportunity to
participate in a different type of debate.
For that to happen it requires that members be able to first
participate. If that is the spirit of this new House I welcome it.
But I must voice some concern.
I will leave you with one last note. On the element of the
matter just dealt with by the House with unanimous consent,
there was no consultation. I did not object because I do not want
to be in this chair objecting constantly to what is coming forth
but for me that is an example of things that do come forth that in
more normal circumstances would require, if this is a new House
and a new way to operate, some consultation.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I simply want to
thank the Prime Minister for this initiative. It is a new initiative
that I believe the previous government did not use at all in terms
of providing an opportunity for parliamentarians to have a role
in policy making.
The Prime Minister has indicated in the House on a number of
occasions that this will provide an opportunity for all members
who are interested in the issue to state their views on behalf of
their constituents.
I assume that on debate today if necessary we will not see the
clock in order that all members who wish to participate will have
an opportunity if more time is required.
263
263
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs) moved:
That this House take note of the political, humanitarian and military
dimensionsof Canada's peacekeeping role, including in the former Yugoslavia, and of
possible future direction in Canadian peacekeeping policy and operations.
He said: During his visit to Europe, the Prime Minister was
asked whether the government would be maintaining Canadian
troops in the former Yugoslavia in the spring. The Prime
Minister replied that no decision would be made until the matter
could be debated in this House. You will remember that when the
previous government decided to send troops to the former
Yugoslavia, there was no debate, Parliament was not consulted
and at the time our party strongly opposed the fact that a
decision as important as this could be made without consulting
Parliament.
Today, the motion being tabled before the House and inviting
all members to express their views on the issue is, as the Prime
Minister pointed out, in line with our party's commitment to
consult with members of Parliament before making any serious
and momentous decisions.
Our decision, whatever it may be, will have a heavy impact on
our future role in peacekeeping, our foreign policy and our
defence policy.
(1035)
We must also bear in mind that the position we take will affect
our relations with countries that are friends or allies, or with
countries that are very deeply involved in or affected by the
conflict raging in the former Yugoslavia.
The government's position on the broad question of the place
of peacekeeping in Canada's foreign and defence policies is well
known. We are on record as stating that was intend to strengthen
Canada's leadership role in international peacekeeping.
In the upcoming foreign and defence policy reviews, we will
be examining a variety of ways in which this can be done, many
of which we elaborated in the red book. I know that all of you
have had an opportunity to read it, you are all familiar with it,
but all the same I would like, if you permit, Mr. Speaker, to cite a
few examples for the record.
We feel it is important, first of all, to re-examine the notion of
stand-by forces for peacekeeping. Second, we think it is
important to look at the training of peacekeepers; and third, we
think it is important to review our procurement policies.
In any debate on peacekeeping, I feel we have to start by
placing the issue in the context of Canada's historical
contribution to peacekeeping, and go on to discuss the
tremendous upheavals that affect the very nature of
peacekeeping operations.
Ever since the initiative taken in 1956 by former Prime
Minister and then External Affairs Minister Lester B. Pearson,
Canada has been closely associated in the minds of Canadians
and of other countries with leadership and expertise in
peacekeeping. For years we have participated in the
overwhelming majority of peacekeeping operations mandated
by the Security Council.
We continue today to contribute to most of the missions,
including, I would like to say, the most difficult ones. As you
know, the government has clearly stated its conviction that
peacekeeping is a very important component of Canada's
contribution to the multilateral system and the preservation of
peace in the world.
Canadians have always believed in the value of promoting
multilateral mechanisms for security and crisis management.
Peacekeeping is one of the most important of these mechanisms.
Our approach to peacekeeping is rooted in a wider view, which
seeks to promote the prevention of conflicts before they begin,
and the peaceful resolution of conflicts already under way.
Over the years, Canada has developed guidelines governing
its participation in peacekeeping operations. Let me summarize
them.
There must be a clear, achievable mandate from a competent
political authority, such as the Security Council.
Then, the parties to the conflict must undertake to respect a
ceasefire and, of course, must accept the presence of Canadian
troops.
In addition, the peacekeeping operation must be in support of
a process aimed at achieving a political settlement.
Finally, the number of troops and the international
composition of the operation must be suited to the mandate. The
operation must be adequately funded, and have a satisfactory
logistical structure.
These are the broad guidelines that Canada has traditionally
used to make its decisions on its participation in a peace
mission. If we review each of these points, we will see that in
some ways the previous government did not follow these criteria
in deciding whether to commit itself, as was the case with the
former Yugoslavia.
264
(1040)
In the past, it would seem that the amount of risk incurred by
our soldiers was rarely a problem. This is no longer the case; the
risk factor has become an essential element in our
decision-making.
I would invite hon. members to take this aspect, this new
dimension, into consideration in their remarks today.
While these guidelines are still valid, the international setting
in which peacekeeping operations occur has changed radically
since 1989, and will in my opinion continue to evolve. I would
therefore welcome the views of the House in this regard.
Traditionally, let me repeat, peacekeeping operations have
been launched when the parties to a conflict concluded that their
purposes would no longer be served by the continuation of an
armed conflict but by a settlement negotiated with the aid of a
third party. Peacekeepers were thus deployed to monitor a
ceasefire or the withdrawal of troops from disputed zones.
But in 1989 and 1990 far more extensive peacekeeping
operations were introduced, designed to assist the parties
involved to implement a negotiated settlement to a conflict. In
Cambodia, for example, the United Nations had a mandate to
disarm the factions, establish security throughout the country,
repatriate refugees, ensure respect for human rights, supervise
the key departments of the national government and organize
provisional elections. Thus a very important civilian component
was added to the traditional military presence.
A new concept, that of humanitarian intervention, was
introduced in Bosnia and Somalia. Our soldiers were not sent
there to enforce a ceasefire or preserve a peace that obviously
did not exist and still does not exist. Their mandate was to help
humanitarian convoys get through. The example of Somalia in
particular shows that this type of intervention can have very
positive results, for despite the problems we hear about, most of
them centred on Mogadishu, the humanitarian crisis in the rest
of the country has been largely surmounted.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations has
acknowledged this process of evolution in the declaration he
called his agenda for peace, which is based on the principle that
conflict management requires a whole range of tools, one of
which is peacekeeping. The international community's
objectives have thus become much more ambitious: to prevent
conflicts, to consolidate or restore peace by diplomatic means
such as mediation or good offices, to keep the peace and even to
undertake the political and social reconstruction of ruined
societies.
Some operations contain a mixture of these elements. The
term ``peacekeeping'' has taken on a character I would qualify
as rather elastic, often extending beyond the concept of forces of
intervention, as seen in Cyprus, for example.
It is important to note the international context that has made
this process of evolution possible. The end of the confrontation
between the two superpowers has opened the way-at least so
far-for an unprecedented degree of consensus on the Security
Council. Traditionally, the members of the Security Council
used their right of veto to prevent intervention on a number of
occasions.
More recently, thanks to this new consensus, the Security
Council has been able in the last few years to exercise an
authority that is indeed recognized by the United Nations
charter but that has until now existed only on paper.
(1045)
It must be recognized that this process flies in the face of our
preconceived notions about the nature of peacekeeping and how
the international community should respond. Without wishing
to launch into a terminological discourse, let me point out that
the new concepts used by the Secretary-General in the agenda
for peace each have a specific meaning. The term
``peacemaking'' refers to essentially diplomatic activities
pursued to resolve a conflict, while ``peace enforcement'' is a
situation where the international community uses force against a
member state, as in the gulf war.
As you will see, Mr. Speaker, what complicates things a great
deal is that an element of force is increasingly being introduced
in the Security Council resolutions mandating peacekeeping
operations and, in a way, changing them into peace enforcement
operations. This is obviously the case with Somalia and also
with Bosnia.
The effects of these changes on the United Nations are
obvious. The UN suddenly finds itself in a position where it
must manage operations involving over 68,000 soldiers
worldwide. This increase has had a profound impact on the cost
of peacekeeping. Canada's assessed peacekeeping
contributions, for example, have remained at a steady 3.11 per
cent of the total UN peacekeeping budget in the past five years.
In absolute terms, however, Canada's contributions have risen
from $10 million to $12 million in 1991-92 to some $130
million today. That is a substantial contribution, which requires
us to think and very closely review the commitments we must
make in this field; we shall pay very close attention to any
suggestions parliamentarians make to us in this House during
this debate. Clearly, the UN does not have the human, financial
or technical resources for this task.
To make up this shortfall, the UN is relying more and more on
regional organizations such as the Conference on Security and
Co-operation in Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, the Organization of American States, and the
Organization for African Unity. This co-operation between the
UN and regional organizations was foreseen in the charter of the
UN,
265
but its extent in practice is new. Here again, I would like the
House to inform us of its views on the implications of this trend.
The sharp rise in the number of peace missions has brought
many challenges with it. First of all, there are political
challenges, as the international community is increasingly
taking on responsibility for situations that, just a short time ago,
were confined to the internal affairs of the states involved. Then
there are military challenges, as we see a demand-which is
growing constantly, and at an exponential rate-for soldiers
adequately trained and equipped for missions as dangerous as
they are complex. I will not hide the fact that, because our
Canadian soldiers are very competent and very well trained,
they are in demand worldwide. As soon as there is a request at
the UN for a new peace force, people spontaneously think of
Canadians and ask them to participate in these peace efforts. I
am talking about challenges: political challenges and military
challenges; but I am also talking about the financial challenges
created by operations with personnel numbering in the tens of
thousands, rather than the few thousands of yesteryear.
(1050)
To meet these new challenges, the UN and its member
countries will have to thoroughly review the way peacekeeping
operations are managed.
At the national level, we will have to be ever more critical
about the commitments we make, and especially about how we
determine to make such commitments.
At the international level, it is urgent that the UN's capacity to
respond quickly and professionally to crises be reinforced.
Canada responds generously to requests for experts by the
United Nations and regional organizations. The
Secretary-General's military advisor is a Canadian, General
Baril, and many other Canadians have been made available to
the United Nations and the CSCE. We pay our financial
contributions in full and on time and have submitted to the
Secretary-General recommendations on making the UN
structure more effective.
We are determined to increase this effort and to exercise the
leadership that other countries expect from us in this field.
[English]
I would say that the Canadian men and women serving under
the United Nations banner are saving lives and relieving misery.
None of us will forget the poignant images of the soldiers who
aided the helpless victims in a hospital in Bosnia. It is also clear
their living conditions are increasingly dangerous. Here another
picture comes to mind, that of the 11 Canadian soldiers
threatened by Serbian troops near Sarajevo last month.
Events in Bosnia are thus very much in the public eye. The
powerful images of the suffering of the Bosnian people and the
challenge facing our troops have became an integral part of the
evening news. However we must look beyond these images to
the larger questions which Bosnia poses.
These questions, I submit, fall into two categories: the future
of our commitment to the UN effort in Bosnia itself and the
implications of this episode for our peacekeeping policy
generally. These are the questions with which the government is
now wrestling. The views of the House and of the public
generally are of critical importance to our deliberations.
In discussing events in Bosnia we must bear in mind certain
factors that have guided our actions to date. To begin with, we
must recognize that there are two relatively distinct operations
taking place in the former Yugoslavia. Though both are taking
place under the banner of one UN operation, the United Nations
protection force, they are quite different in terms of the
activities under way and the dangers they face.
First, in Croatia our peacekeepers are engaged in a relatively
traditional UN operation. There are two distinct sides and they
have agreed to respect a stable ceasefire line while they are
negotiating over a permanent settlement to their differences.
While these negotiations are in progress the two sides have
asked the UN to provide an international force to monitor the
ceasefire and patrol the line. The situation is relatively stable
though that stability is highly dependent upon events in Bosnia.
I could say-and I am sure the Minister of Defence will expand
on this-our troops there are not at high risk. This is
peacekeeping as we understand it and have practised it for
several decades.
(1055)
Second, in Bosnia however the situation is radically different.
There is no ceasefire and there are certainly no lines. Even the
desire to negotiate seems to be lacking. In these circumstances
the UN Security Council has mandated our forces to engage in
assisting in the provision of humanitarian relief to the civilians
caught in the middle of the conflict and in providing protection
through a small military presence in Srebrenica, a UN
designated safe area.
Our actions in Srebrenica are a perfect example of the
evolution of peacekeeping to which I referred earlier. It remains
an environment in which the peacekeepers require the
permission of the parties to the conflict to go about their duties.
The task in Bosnia is an infinitely more difficult and
dangerous one than that which our peacekeepers have
traditionally faced. In addition to the dangers of simply
operating in a war zone, we must face the fact that some of the
factions do not always want the humanitarian aid to get through.
For all of these dangers it has been argued however that the
UN force is making a critical contribution. The UN High
Commissioner for Refugees and the Red Cross have confirmed
that aid is getting through. People who would otherwise be dead
266
are alive today. Canadian troops have played a vital role in this
effort and continue to do so.
Beyond this humanitarian effort it is often pointed out that
Canada's presence in Bosnia has served to demonstrate our
continuing commitment to act with our NATO allies in the
promotion of European security. It also demonstrates to the
world that Canada is a nation which is prepared to carry out its
international obligations under difficult circumstances, while
others are merely willing to offer advice from the sidelines.
At the same time serious questions must be asked as we debate
our continuing participation in these UN forces. Is there a
reasonable prospect of any progress in the peace process in the
foreseeable future? Will sufficient humanitarian aid continue to
get through? At what point will the dangers to our troops
outweigh the benefits of our presence there?
[Translation]
Concerning the first question, I am in constant
communication with my colleagues who also have many troops
in the region. I have spoken today with the French minister of
foreign affairs about the situation and I intend in the coming
days to speak with Secretary Hurd who has just returned from
Bosnia and who will give us a personal evaluation of the
situation on the ground. France, Great Britain and Canada are
the three countries that have contributed the most troops in the
region. It is clear that we will want to co-ordinate our efforts.
We think that the only solution is a negotiated solution. We
think it is essential that we pressure the factions to come to a
negotiated solution. We will increase our diplomatic efforts in
order to put pressure on those who are the natural friends of the
factions so that those who are in a better position than others can
speak to the Serbs, the Croats, the Muslims, can convince them
that the only solution is a negotiated peace, not prolonging the
war.
(1100)
And I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that beyond the military
operations involved in peacekeeping or in escorting
humanitarian convoys, we will strive unceasingly through
diplomatic channels to find a solution to this conflict.
[English]
I would like to refer briefly to the recent NATO summit where
the question of the dangers faced by our troops was the subject
of much debate. In particular the topic of air strikes as a means
of relieving the pressures on our troops was prominent in major
reports of the summit.
Because some confusion seems to exist in the public mind I
would like to take advantage of this timely opportunity to clarify
the government position on the subject of air strikes and our
understanding of the procedures in place for their authorization.
I hope these clarifications will be helpful not only to members of
Parliament and the public at large but will also be beneficial to
the press that have made some comments in this regard which I
felt were sometimes out of context.
Essentially there are two distinct scenarios for air strikes. The
first envisages the case where UN troops are directly under
attack. In this specific case NATO agreed in June that the
commander of the UNPROFOR could call on the UN Secretary-
General to authorize an air strike to assist UN troops where they
are under attack.
The fact that the UN Secretary-General would be the ultimate
authority for an air strike under these conditions was insisted
upon by Canada in view of the highly charged political
considerations which would surround such decisions. There
would be no debate within NATO before the strike was carried
out as time would be of the essence.
We agree with this procedure. We think it is appropriate that if
our troops are under attack we should be able to respond. An air
strike under these circumstances might be necessary and we are
fully in agreement with this.
The second type of air strike would be intended to remove an
obstacle to UNPROFOR's performance of its duties in
circumstances where there was no direct threat to UNPROFOR
troops. The proposed air strike would thus be less time urgent.
Under these circumstances the commander of UNPROFOR
would submit a request for such an air strike to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations who must give his
authorization as in the first case. The request would also be
discussed in the North Atlantic Council of NATO. The North
Atlantic Council must agree to support the request.
The North Atlantic Council operates by means of consensus.
Therefore no decision to launch an air strike under these
circumstances could be made unless all allies agreed to it.
Canada's position on this question is well known and would
guide our representative to the North Atlantic Council in such
debate.
We have said and we repeat that in the second case we do not
believe that an air strike would be conducive to solving current
situations. In fact we have said on numerous occasions that air
strikes should be the last resort. We believe the use of an air
strike could jeopardize the humanitarian aid process and put our
soldiers in great danger.
We want it abundantly clear that obviously this is a decision
that would have to be discussed and agreed to within NATO by
unanimous consent, including obviously the acceptance by
Canada.
267
(1105 )
We have said that the only reason we would agree to such use
of air strikes would be if our military people were telling us that
it was okay to go ahead with it. It would be done only with the
acceptance and recommendation of our military officers.
With respect to the second broad issue before us, the
implications of Bosnia for our peacekeeping policy generally, it
would seem that events in Bosnia provide a clear example of
what I have been saying about the way in which peacekeeping is
developing.
We must recognize the decisions we make regarding the
continuation of our commitment to UN operations in Bosnia
must be taken in the context of our considerations of Canada's
willingness to remain involved in the broadening range of
peacekeeping activities.
My remarks have been intended to raise several questions,
questions about the future of peacekeeping generally and
questions about the related subject of our future in Bosnia. In the
immediate terms, the government must make a decision about
the future of our commitment in Bosnia. We want to hear the
views of this House on that subject.
As for the longer term issue of Canada's peacekeeping policy
generally, we intend to consult with individual Canadians as part
of the ongoing review of our foreign and defence policies. The
parliamentary committee on foreign affairs will be asked to
make suggestions and recommendations on our foreign policies.
I understand that the minister of defence will ask the
parliamentary committee on defence and security to do a similar
study. I suspect that these two parliamentary committees will
hear witnesses, will travel throughout the country and will seek
advice and opinions from Canadians on the evolution and
revisions of our foreign policy and our defence policy.
Therefore I am sure that the parliamentary committees in the
general context of peacekeeping operations will certainly want
to pursue debate and discussion and give advice to the
government.
On the more immediate question of whether or not in March
we should stay in Bosnia or leave is one on which we would ask
parliamentarians to express their views today because this is a
decision the government will have to make in the coming weeks.
We will want to make this decision having assessed all the
aspects as I indicated in my earlier remarks. We will obviously
make a decision after having consulted with our allies. It is
important to realize that Canada is playing a very important role
through the UN and a very important role through NATO and
such a decision cannot be taken in isolation.
I am pleased to move this motion today, seconded by my
colleague, the Minister of National Defence, calling for a debate
on peacekeeping. In particular, the government seeks the view
of this House in two general areas: Canada's future in
peacekeeping and our future commitment to Bosnia.
Although we are very much interested in knowing the views
of members about Canada's future in peacekeeping, there will
be other occasions to talk about it at a later date, but it might be
the last occasion to express their views on our future
commitment to Bosnia before a decision is made by the
government. Therefore I invite members to express openly,
candidly and in a very constructive way their advice and
suggestions in this regard. We are open to advice. It is a difficult
decision and we welcome their input in this debate.
(1110)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of all the members of the Official Opposition
I would like to thank the government for deciding to hold this
debate in the House. It will I am convinced be a non-partisan
debate, enabling us to clarify our own and everyone else's
thinking, so that we can make a decision that is in accord with
our most fundamental interests.
I think debates like this one should be repeated from time to
time, when the subject lends itself to such an approach. I would
like to say that for our part we have thought very seriously about
the matter. We do not claim to have the answer, we have
approached it modestly. Our remarks today will reflect our
awareness for the hard reality, the complexity, of an issue that
demands a very difficult decision.
To the extent that we can assist the government in making a
decision that accords with our fundamental interests, we will do
it in all sincerity. We are therefore delighted to have this
opportunity to participate in the debate.
The government, we feel, would like the whole Canadian
policy on peacekeeping to be debated, not just the current
intervention in the former Yugoslavia, even though the latter is
expressly referred to in the wording.
But no one can be ignorant of the fact that it is the questions
raised by the Bosnian intervention that have led to today's
debate. In a way, it was inevitable that the concerns provoked by
such a challenging mission would result in questions about
Canada's peacekeeping role.
So there we have the framework for the rethinking process in
which we are called upon to participate: on the one hand we must
tackle a thorny question of immediate and urgent concern, and
on the other we must define attitudes for the future. Although
the two matters are connected, it does not follow that future
Canadian policy must be based solely on our experience in
Yugoslavia.
This is not Canada's first involvement in peacekeeping
operations, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has reminded us.
We pioneered this type of mission. We have acquired experience
268
and expertise in the field that are respected by the whole world.
But what is happening in Yugoslavia is without any real
precedent. The apparent futility of our efforts, the risks our
soldiers are running, the astronomical figures that have
circulated about the costs of the operation and the daunting
complexity of the political and military situation there have
shaken the support that public opinion has traditionally given
this type of commitment.
So we must take into account the difficulties faced by our
mission in Bosnia especially, at the side of the other members of
the peacekeepers. But if our decision is to be broadly and solidly
based, we cannot lose our general perspective on the
peacekeeping role Canada has assumed. This perspective is
much more extensive in time and space than the one episode in
the former Yugoslavia.
I would like here to pay heart-felt tribute to the courage and
dignity with which our soldiers are carrying out the difficult
duties entrusted to them overseas. They deserve our admiration
and our complete support. And let us spare a thought for those
who here in Canada are enduring trying times because of their
anxiety for loved ones far away.
We must bear in mind that before they started being perceived
as a thorn in the flesh of our diplomacy and our foreign
commitments, as they are today, Canada's peace missions were,
like CIDA, a great source of pride for Canadians and Quebecers.
The disinterested and humanitarian nature of our international
interventions was hailed again and again. And did not the
architect of Canada's peacekeeping role win the Nobel prize?
(1115)
Indeed, more than anyone, Lester B. Pearson symbolized this
acceptance of one's moral obligations, which is one of the duties
of a democratic country. That is an aspect we must bear in mind
when deciding, for example, whether we must stay on in
Bosnia-Hercegovina, or withdraw and then establish criteria to
govern any future participation.
Another aspect of peace missions we must not ignore is their
great diversity. What exactly do we mean when we talk about
international missions carried out by Canadian soldiers under
UN mandates? We must avoid simplifications: in fact, this
involves a whole range of varied, and indeed disparate, actions
and interventions.
For 30 years, from 1949 to 1979, Canada maintained 27
soldiers in order to monitor the ceasefire in Kashmir. Canada
committed 9,000 soldiers to go to war in Korea from 1951 to
1954; since that time it has kept only one on the spot to monitor
the armistice agreements. Canada assigned 248 soldiers to
monitor the demilitarized zone during the Vietnam war. Canada
sent an observer mission under UN auspices to monitor the
election that, on December 16, 1990, brought to power President
Aristide, who visited us yesterday. In 1991, Canada sent 55
soldiers to monitor disarmament and human rights observance
in El Salvador. In 1991-92, Canada sent 103 soldiers to help
clear mines in Cambodia. Then Canada doubled the personnel
assisting the UN to disarm factions that had been at war for
years. Most recently, Canada sent a contingent to co-ordinate
the delivery of food in Somalia, last year.
Canada has participated in 44 of the operations the United
Nations has organized since the end of World War II. It has been
said that we have played the role of boy scouts; this is a
picturesque term, but I feel that it casts a pejorative light on a
remarkable effort by Canada on the international scene, an effort
that must not be minimized.
During those 44 operations, 98 Canadian lives were lost,
including the eight deaths occurring in the former Yugoslavia.
Canada lost 25 soldiers during the 30 years it was present on
Cyprus. But the place in which Canada lost the most soldiers
was the Middle East: 46 in Lebanon, Israel, Egypt and Syria.
And what about the costs? Theoretically, our share should be
3.1 per cent of expenditures; that is a percentage based on the
GDP, population and, lastly, a complex weighting of factors.
But, in fact, there are no set standards, because mandates change
with situations and with the nature of agreements. On Cyprus,
Canada alone paid the price; in the former Yugoslavia,
theoretically-and I stress the word theoretically; we are well
aware that this is unlikely to happen in the near future-the UN
will reimburse Canada for a portion of the costs. Incidentally,
many far-fetched figures on the costs of the operation in Bosnia
have been bandied about. In particular, the figure of $1 billion
has been mentioned. I feel that that is a rather irresponsible, I
would even say a very irresponsible, way of providing
information, since the true figure is nowhere near that sum. It is
still a sizeable sum, of course, but we should be talking about
less than $200 million in additional expenditures incurred there
specifically, because the soldiers would have been paid and the
equipment used here in any case. So if we are talking about a
specific direct cost of our presence there, we should be talking
about a figure closer to $160 million.
Thus, although our commitment in the former Yugoslavia was
part of a continuing program, it very quickly gave signs of being
radically different from previous commitments. The operation
in Slovenia and Croatia really is a peacekeeping operation, since
our troops are responsible for ensuring that peace agreements
already reached are observed. But Bosnia clearly differs from
the traditional model. There, we are right in a combat zone,
stuck between belligerents. How can we ensure that peace reigns
in a land where peace does not exist and where all ceasefires
have been violated? That is where things have deteriorated; in
particular, the whole world has witnessed, through the unbear-
269
able images broadcast on television, atrocities that we thought
were no longer possible at the end of the 20th century.
The perceived justification of our mission there has been very
much influenced by the world situation.
(1120)
It is horror-stricken that we have witnessed and are still
witnessing children much like our own dying in the streets,
injured left to die in hospitals without care and without
necessities. The world had come to hope for a new order which
would not lead us to expect atrocities such as those we have seen
once again in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
The fall of the Berlin wall in November 1989 provoked a
euphoria as sudden as it was unexpected. On December 31,
1989, von Karajan went to what, for 42 years, was known as East
Berlin to conduct Beethoven's Ninth. It was like living in a
dream: Vaclav Havel had just crowned the velvet revolution in
Prague, ``solidarnosc'' was on its way to power in Warsaw and
Hungary was once again free. The Warsaw pact had just
crumbled like a pack of cards, after more than 40 years of
dullness and dictatorship. All this happened at the end of 1989;
it happened, and this cannot be over-emphasized, without
bloodshed, without a single gun being fired.
As everyone else, I felt I was a witness to historic events, I felt
a certain amount of pride at seeing some ideals such as liberty
and democracy make giant leaps. Eighteen months later, Boris
Yelstin was waving a three coloured Russian flag on top of a
tank. The USSR had just collapsed.
As soon as the cold war ended, we started thinking about
creating new institutions to take over, to mark out what was soon
called the new world order. In particular, all the European
countries, the United States and Canada formed the Conference
on Security and Co-operation in Europe designed, in the words
of the then Secretary of State James Baker, as a new forum to
ensure peace and dialogue from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
What remains today of this burning hope for a new world? Of
course, the Czech republic, Poland and Hungary seem on the
right track. However, Russia seems to be failing. Then on our
TV screens, we witnessed the tragic war in the former
Yugoslavia, which has been going on for the last two years.
In this new world order, one expected international law to be
enforced. The relations between states would not be governed
exclusively by the mere balance of power. The strong would no
longer be able to bring the weak to their knees. The new order
became reality once, in the winter of 1991, when Kuwait was
defended against Iraqi invasion. Cynics have said there was
something underground in Kuwait that seemed to be as valuable
as the people living on the surface, and perhaps more valuable.
In Bosnia-Hercegovina there are three communities: the
Muslims, the Serbs and the Croats. The first are the descendants
of Slavs who converted to Islam after the Ottoman conquest,
some 500 years ago. So these are three very ancient
communities, with equally deep roots in the same soil.
Demographically the Muslims are the largest segment of the
population with 1.9 million inhabitants or 44 per cent, followed
by the Serbs at 31 per cent and the Croats at 17 per cent. But
unlike the other two groups-and this is no small detail-the
Muslims cannot count on a sizeable community of fellows in a
neighbouring republic.
After Slovenia and Croatia became independent, neither the
Muslims nor the Croats in Bosnia wanted to stay in a reduced
Yugoslavia where Serb predominance would be still greater.
They called for the independence of Bosnia-Hercegovina in late
February 1992. The Bosnian Serbs refused to be part of this new
state.
If the Serbs had been content to fortify their position and mark
out a territory for themselves where they formed a majority, we
would have seen a political impasse that would probably have
led to long and laborious negotiations. But unfortunately that
was not what happened. The Bosnian Serbs were quickly able,
with the assistance of the Yugoslav army, a relatively
well-equipped force dominated by Serbs, to take control of 70
per cent of the territory in Bosnia-Hercegovina, including
territories where they were only a tiny minority, to expel the
non-Serbs systematically, especially the Muslims, and even to
execute a certain number of them.
We can all recall the internment-camp stories that held the
headlines in the summer of 1992. A number of these camps still
exist today. Moreover, cultural and religious symbols have been
systematically blown up, including 16th century mosques that
were part of the world's shared heritage, and houses often
burned to the ground.
(1125)
In reaction, and this is the spiral, the same treatment has been
inflicted by the Muslims on the Serbs and the Croats and by the
Croats on the Serbs, obviously on a smaller scale.
A journalist from the Paris daily Le Monde, Yves Heller,
summed up the situation nicely on October 1 last, and I quote:
``The Muslims, who are the victims of an ``ethnic cleansing'' of
unspeakable savagery, have lost very large territories in western
Bosnia which the Serbs have conquered with extreme
brutality-''
We know today that ``cleansing'' was discussed in the
corridors of power in Belgrade, capital of Serbia, at the end of
the eighties.
270
Judging by the history of the last century, each of the three
communities nurtures historic grievances against the two
others. It is not for us to allocate blame. But there is no denying
that in 1992 and 1993 a concerted strategy was methodically
implemented which reminds us in many ways-I say this with
great sadness because, like the majority of people in the west, I
thought we would never again witness such barbarity-which
reminds us of what other peoples, including the Serbs
themselves, suffered at the hands of Hitler's troops.
And all this occurred in a region only a few hours away from
Venice by car.
We must remember this today and remember also that this is
the judgment of the whole international community. The
Europeans recognized Bosnia-Hercegovina's independence on
April 6, 1992; the United States followed suit the day after and
Bosnia was admitted to the United Nations on May 22, 1992.
The majority in a legitimate country was attacked by a national
minority receiving substantial help from a neighbouring
country. This majority should have enjoyed the protection of the
United Nations charter, but such was not the case.
The recognized representatives of Bosnia have asked
repeatedly for international help, but to no avail. What is the
difference between Iraq annexing Kuwait and the Bosnian Serbs
annexing a substantial portion of a recognized country?
The United Nations did not vigorously come to Bosnia's aid,
but it did name the aggressor. On May 30, 1992, the Security
Council imposed a commercial, oil and air embargo on Serbia
and Montenegro. On October 9, the Security Council excluded
Serbian aircraft from Bosnia's air space, and on December 1, the
Human Rights Commission in Geneva used for the first time the
term ``genocide'' and condemned the policy of ethnic cleansing
applied by the Serbian leaders in Bosnia and Croatia. That is as
clear as one can get.
It would not be fair to say that the United Nations have been
totally indifferent. They have managed to take control of the
airport at Sarajevo in order to use it for transporting
humanitarian aid. The 30,000 or so peacekeepers have deployed
throughout Bosnia manage, despite being harassed by the
different factions, in transporting part of the aid destined for
Muslim or Croat towns besieged by the Serbs and in some cases
by the Muslims, thereby affording them a partial but
indispensable relief. And six Muslim enclaves are under the
protection of the United Nations. Thus, in Srebrenica, 150
Canadian peacekeepers stand between the 45,000 people who
are crammed into the town and the hostile Serbian environment.
But the United Nations protection forces have spoken out.
They say they are incapable of carrying out the missions they are
assigned for lack of sufficient means. On the other hand,
negotiations between the warring factions are bogged down;
peace seems more remote than ever. Therefore, should we stay?
[English]
The easy thing would be to throw our hands up, pack up our
bags and leave but this is not the way Canada earned its well
deserved reputation abroad as a steady peacemaker willing to
walk the extra mile in the name of peace.
Admittedly we are testing uncharted waters but we are in a
new world. We rejoiced at the end of the cold war. The world is
now in a state of flux and it would be unseemly of us to give up at
this juncture.
France in Bosnia has shouldered a heavier burden than
Canada and has paid the price with 18 dead men and 269
wounded. France seems willing to stay. It is going too far to say
that there is no peacemaking whatsoever in Bosnia. There are six
protected Muslim enclaves surrounded by Serbs with nothing
standing between them and the Serbs but peacemakers. The
peace is kept even if it is a peculiar kind of peace.
(1130 )
There have been 150 Canadians who have preserved 45,000
Muslims in Srebrenica from the ghastly treatment meted out to
so many Muslims.
Now what will happen? This is the question we have to ask.
What would happen if all peacekeepers left Bosnia? We should
never forget to answer this question. First, the enclaves would
be submerged in a very short time with the exception probably of
Sarajevo. Second, the Serbs would be targeting more strategic
towns and villages in the hope of breaking the backbone of the
Bosnia resistance. Third, the Croats in central Bosnia would
have to run for their lives. In short it would be all out war and all
out ethnic cleansing.
The men in the peacekeepers act also as our eyes and our ears
on the field. They justify and complete the other measures which
have been carried out by the international community. Suppose
they all leave at the end of their present mandate which expires
at the end of March. We would have to suspend the arms
embargo against Bosnia. Not doing so would be cold blooded
cruelty. However, then how could we justify keeping operation
Deny Flight which forbids Bosnian skies to the Serb air force?
It would really be all out war with the very real possibility of
sucking in, in a much deeper fashion, allies from both camps
such as Russia and Turkey who are already in the backstage.
Then the Balkans would then really live up to their history.
In fact all these measures have been enacted to scale down the
level of Serb aggression. As far as they go they are intended to
protect the Bosnian Muslims. To turn our back on one of these
measures, namely the UN forces on the ground, is to begin the
unravelling of the whole patchwork. It is not an idea that is well
thought out.
271
However, can things continue as they are now? Can we
tolerate the harassment and the kidnapping of peacekeepers?
No, we should not. We should give them clear engagement rules
and not timid ones. We should give them the military means to
do their job. If the United Nations wants to play a meaningful
role in that part of the world then it must get its act together.
The biggest morale booster for the UN forces would be the
knowledge that they are not bogged down in some indefinite
stalemate. There must be movement at the negotiating table.
This is not for us but really for the parties involved to decide.
[Translation]
The truth is that the Prime Minister was imprudent, to say the
least, when, as he was leaving Brussels at the beginning of the
month, he mentioned the possibility of a unilateral withdrawal
of Canada's peace mission to Bosnia. Whatever we decide, we
must act in concert with our allies. Canada must not breach the
solidarity pact that it has wisely, generously and courageously
built over the years with our partners and friends of the North
Atlantic council.
Second, to let down a civilian population whose survival,
until now, has been secured largely through our presence and our
aid, and to let it fend for itself in utter deprivation and
insecurity, would go against our interpretation of our
humanitarian obligations.
Third, we ourselves could not tolerate the sight of the
massacres that would almost certainly befall the Bosnian
people, as our retreat would likely start a chain reaction. Public
opinion among our allies and friends would draw serious
conclusions from such a decision. After setting an example of
commitment and compassion, we would then set an example of
disengagement and indifference. It is to be feared that others
would follow in our footsteps in this second option as they did in
the first one.
Finally, the maintenance of the peacekeeping forces in the
former Yugoslavia affords us our only guarantee that the
conflict will be contained inside the territory where it is already
raging. If the peacekeeping forces were withdrawn, the
hostilities could then spread unabated to Macedonia and Greece
and eventually ignite the Balkan powder keg. But if we decide to
stay, we must take steps to see to the safety of our troops, which
means increasing our defence and intervention capabilities.
(1135)
The peacekeepers must stay, as must Canada, even more so, if
we wish to see the Bosnian conflict end around the negotiation
table rather than on the battlefield, with violence and massacres.
It is up to us really to decide if this tragedy will be resolved
through force or through reason.
It is imperative then for the future that we set the guidelines
that will dictate our actions. Once in position, it is usually too
late to consider a withdrawal. Those guidelines must be defined
with the help of military, diplomatic and other experts. I hope
the government in its upcoming white paper on defence will set
forth an analytical plan that we can study thoroughly. But for the
moment, the main thing to do is to keep in mind that we must
continue, insofar as our capabilities allow it, to fulfil our fair
share of the obligations that result from our allegiance to the
values of democracy, peace and justice, values which, given
their universality, deserve our efforts to further them abroad.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to advise you that in this debate Reform speakers will be
dividing their time into 10 minutes segments, allowing five
minutes for questions and comments.
To begin I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating
the Speaker on his election, you on your appointment as Deputy
Speaker and assure both of you of my full co-operation in this
House in the days to come.
In this my maiden speech I want to speak briefly of my
constituency, Saanich-Gulf Islands, in beautiful British
Columbia. Our southern border takes in a substantial portion
Victoria, the garden city of Canada. Moving northward up the
Saanich peninsula we encounter a delightful mix of farms and
seaside towns and villages; urban convenience in an idyllic rural
environment.
Finally, it includes the southern Gulf Islands often referred to
as the jewels in the crown of Canada's west coast. Here one will
find some of the best fishing and sailing in the world.
In August this year the eyes of the world will be focused on
the 15th Commonwealth Games activities, many of which will
take place within our boundaries.
During the election the returning officer informed me that in
respect to population, Saanich-Gulf Islands is the second
largest constituency in British Columbia and the 10th largest in
Canada. During the interval between the 1988 and the 1993
elections the number of eligible voters grew from 77,000 to over
93,000 representing 125,000 constituents. In fact, I believe I am
now the proud representative of a goodly number of Canadians
who were previously resident in the constituencies of many of
the other members of this House.
Perhaps because of the variety of their origins I have found
my constituents to be intelligent, well-informed and patriotic
Canadians, very much representative of our whole country. I
thank them for entrusting their representation to me and pledge
my best efforts in fulfilling that very serious obligation.
Moving to this debate on Bosnia, I want to acknowledge the
Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, both of whom made members of their departments
available to brief us on the situation in and around Bosnia. I
272
thank them for responding so quickly and co-operatively to our
request.
Furthermore we agree with the government's stated position
on air strikes. In our view, as soon as an air strike takes place the
peacekeepers and helmets of the UN take on the same colour as
the helmet of the pilot who delivered the ordinance. They will be
deemed to have taken sides, to have become antagonists and
thus appropriate targets. Air strikes should only be authorized if
UN forces are under or in direct danger of attack.
Our thanks also go to Major General Lewis MacKenzie,
former Canadian commander in the area who took time to come
and give us his firsthand impressions and viewpoint of the
situation in Bosnia.
At the start I want to recognize the excellence of the Canadian
forces personnel we have committed in the former Yugoslavia.
These troops are well trained, well disciplined, well motivated
and well able to carry out any reasonable task assigned to them.
They have earned and deserve our respect and admiration.
(1140 )
They have also earned and deserve our informed
consideration for their future involvement in the convoluted
situation to which they are presently committed. In Bosnia we
face deeply held differences between Serbs, Croats and Muslims
who, although they enjoy a common ethnicity, are now radically
and violently divided, in fact opposed. Make no mistake, none
of the belligerents have clean hands; all have been involved in
atrocities against the others.
Canada has a proud tradition of involvement in peacekeeping
operations. It has cost more than 140 lives and many more
injuries over the years but in the main I believe most Canadians
have supported this commitment. However, the feedback I am
now receiving from my constituents reveals their concern with
the present Canadian involvement in Bosnia. They worry that
Canadian lives are being put at risk in what they perceive to be a
questionable cause. They wonder, if the people of Bosnia show
no inclination to put aside their differences and find a peaceful
resolution of their problems, is Canada helping to end or merely
perpetuating this unhappy situation?
Canadians were committed to Bosnia to provide humanitarian
aid, and despite the difficulties, dangers and frustrations
encountered, by and large they have succeeded in their mission.
But let it be well understood, this is not a peacekeeping mission,
because there is no peace to keep. Rather our forces are
observing and operating in and around a civil war, in the full
sense of the word.
Canada presently has more armed forces deployed in theatres
of operations than at any time since the Korean war. We are
stretching our resources, particularly the infantry, to the limit,
to the extent that should another incident such as Oka arise, it
could very well be beyond the capacity of our armed forces to
adequately respond.
However, the size of the Canadian forces and the tasks
assigned them should await the outcome of the forthcoming
defence review. On this point, Reformers commend the
government on its decision to conduct this study. It is long
overdue.
But a decision on Canadian involvement in the former
Yugoslavia cannot await finalization of the defence review. The
end of our present commitment in Bosnia is rapidly approaching
and we must soon take a stand. It seems to me that Canada has
only two options: first, to stay and prepare for a long-lasting
involvement in the region; or second, to take the initiative by
demanding that the belligerents commit to achievable,
measurable and enforceable progress toward a peaceful
resolution.
In this second instance Canada would further state that failing
such commitment Canadian forces will be withdrawn from the
theatre.
If our studies and briefings have done nothing else they have
clearly shown us there are no easy solutions. By staying
involved we are alleviating the suffering of tens of thousands of
civilians. At the same time, inescapably, we are supplying the
fighting forces and enabling or even assisting them to continue
the war. Our presence is diminishing the fighting, but children
are still being maimed and killed, women raped, and the general
population indiscriminately bombarded. So increased hatred is
continually being bred.
Conversely a withdrawal by the UN would unleash the
opposing forces, prompting the likelihood of an increase in
hostilities and, in some instances, a blood bath. Furthermore, it
would enhance the danger that this war could extend beyond its
present boundaries. We are damned if we do and damned if we
don't. Which way do we go?
It strikes me, and I admit that my background as a fighter pilot
may be influencing my reasoning, that some action is better than
none. While we do not know what the outcome will be, it may be
time for Canada to be hard-nosed, saying to the belligerents: ``If
you are not willing to make some concessions and compromises
toward a peaceful resolution of the war, we are going to
withdraw and leave you to it.''
If such a declaration were delivered it would be stronger if it
came in the name of all UN forces in the theatre. However,
considering Canada's reputation as a peacekeeper, a threat of
unilateral Canadian withdrawal would unquestionably draw
world attention and hopefully impact strongly on Serb, Croat
and Muslim leaders.
273
(1145 )
If this were to be our decision, it must be made absolutely
clear that Canada is not withdrawing because the going is rough.
Canadians have demonstrated their mettle in two world wars,
the Korean war and many peacekeeping actions over the years.
They have demonstrated it in Bosnia. Our forces have clearly
indicated their willingness to remain involved. Continuing
along our present path seems to give little hope of a peaceful
settlement. Rather it gives every indication of a commitment to
remain and observe the civil war for many years to come.
The belligerents met in Geneva to talk on January 18 and 19,
but proceedings collapsed. More talks are scheduled in Geneva
on February 10. I submit that it is time for Canada to take the
lead by hosting a conference here in Ottawa in early February,
before that Geneva meeting, to include all countries with forces
currently committed in the former Yugoslavia. At this
conference, Canada should urge that the UN issue a clear and
unequivocal ultimatum to the belligerents. Either accept moves
to achieve and enforceable peaceful solution or accept the
withdrawal of UN forces.
Should the conference not agree, Canada should state that
unless definite progress toward peace happens in Bosnia prior to
then, it is our intention to withdraw our troops in April when our
current commitment is completed.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, I would just
like to understand the comments made by my colleague from
Saanich-Gulf Islands, particularly when he says that the
people involved in this conflict share the same ethnicity, while
we know they have followed quite different historical paths over
the last 500 years. It is precisely the federal state imposed upon
them at some point which has collapsed in the new international
context. Their situation has been widely aknowledged by the
United Nations which recognized Bosnia's independence; and
the search for some form of agreement is at the heart of the peace
efforts. Withdrawal at this juncture in the crisis would quite
simply result in the virtual elimination of the Bosnians. I cannot
understand the member's reasoning. I wish he would try to
explain it to me.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, if we go back far enough in the
origins of the area, we find that all the residents are basically
Slavs. Over the years, they have been affected by outside
influences which have caused them to go in different directions
to different religions. When I referred to their common
ethnicity, I meant going back a long way. Obviously there are
substantial and very violent differences between them at the
moment. The fact that Bosnia was recognized has been
considered by some to have been a mistake, that in fact the
outcome which has happened was inevitable.
It is my understanding the Muslims are acquiring quite a
heavy weapon stock so we are soon likely to see an increase in
armed activity on their side. While the disparity of the
surrounding nations unquestionably bears on the numbers of
Serbs around, I think within Bosnia itself the Muslims will be
able to make a rather good account of themselves should it come
to that. I hope very much that it does not.
Unless the world, and Canada in particular, takes a stance
which involves the requirement for these people to
accommodate, to concede, to compromise in the Canadian
tradition, that nothing will happen and we will see the thing go
on forever.
(1150 )
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to question the member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands with respect to the position that he has
taken.
I returned a few days ago from Croatia myself. I met not only
with UN commanders there but also with our Canadian troops
both in sector south and elsewhere. Our troops are profoundly
opposed to the suggestion that Canada would simply give notice
that we would pull out after the mandate expires at the end of
March.
It is their position that this would result in an incredible
increase in the level of bloodshed and violence and that the very
important humanitarian work they are doing in helping to bring
in and escort NGOs and bringing in food and medicine would be
profoundly jeopardized. Many innocent people would die and
would starve.
In view of the concerns of our people and NGOs on the ground
and the United Nations about this proposal, what exactly is the
member suggesting in terms of compromises and concessions?
He said that all parties should make compromises and
concessions.
The Bosnian Serbs and Radovan Karadzic have been very
clear. They control 70 per cent of the territory of
Bosnia-Hercegovina. They are about a third of the population.
What concessions are they prepared to make now?
If Canada simply gives notice that we are going to pull out and
other United Nations troops pull out as well then not only will
they consolidate their position but quite clearly it seems to me
that the risk of widespread bloodshed, destruction and
starvation is far greater.
My second brief question is this. What about Croatia? What is
the hon. member suggesting with respect to the role of the UN in
Croatia?
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, I said during my remarks there are
no easy solutions to the dilemma that we are in. I recognize what
274
the member says and I believe that he is correct that we are in
danger if we extract our forces of allowing the fighting there to
intensify.
However, if we stay involved we are also staying to observe
constant carnage, killing, maiming and bombardment. I do not
think there is any completely satisfactory solution to the
dilemma. That is why I propose that perhaps firm action would
make the difference.
With regard to the percentage, as I mentioned a few moments
ago, the Muslims in Bosnia and Croatia comprise over 40 per
cent of the population. It is my understanding that they are
getting weapons both from the Serbs and the Croats and are in a
position to at least defend themselves.
With regard to the second question on our troops in Croatia,
there is sufficient interplay between the peoples in the region
that demands should be made to everybody in the region and our
threats should be to everyone in the region: ``If you do not
somehow influence a peaceful resolution of this situation we are
going to withdraw our forces''.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this
opportunity to give my maiden speech. I never thought I would
be doing it on such an important subject as this one which
certainly affects us now and for a long time in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you and all other
members. I want to particularly thank the people of my
constituency of central Alberta. Certainly I will claim to have
the most beautiful constituency with the greatest people who we
possibly could have.
I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and his ministers for
making this day possible. This is an example of the sort of open
Parliament that Canadians want. We have to go further with
more free votes and constituent assemblies and as the hon.
minister mentioned with tours around the country to find out
what Canadians really think on such important matters.
Peacekeeping is a very difficult subject along with what we
should do and the decision we should make today. In getting this
information there are a number of points that we have to
consider. Certainly we have to realize that past wars and the
history of places like Bosnia make it an ignition point and one
that certainly could explode into a much more serious situation
as has been described.
(1155 )
I think we also have to recognize that there is really no will to
settle this conflict and there will not be a will in many of the
situations our peacekeepers get into. I think the escalation point
we should look at is of course the great power of the Muslim
world and what it could put behind a conflict like this.
We should also look at Russia and its changing political
scene, almost as we sit here. Certainly its defence of the Slavic
races is a consideration. There is Greece and Macedonia. There
is France and its position in the EC. There is Italy, Germany and
Albania and their interests in this area as well. All of the recent
history we must consider in making our decision on Bosnia.
Something we must also consider is the presence and
importance of television in any decision we make. Around every
corner is CNN, BBC and of course Newsworld. They show the
atrocities and the terrible parts of all of these conflicts right on
the screen in your home. We cannot underestimate the power of
this sort of influence.
We must realize of course that we have no good guys or bad
guys. We do not have anybody wearing a white hat or a black hat
which is what we North Americans would like to see. There are
atrocities occurring on all sides and we must be aware of that.
We must also be aware that the killing will not stop. It will not
stop whether we stay or whether we leave. This is going on. We
must recognize the humanitarian successes that have been
taking place and we certainly must commend our forces for what
they have been doing.
There are a lot of choices but what really should Canada do
about peacekeeping? I have tried to put myself in the position of
my constituents. I have tried to think about the people of the
province of Alberta where we have a great many people in the
military. I have tried to think of myself as a Canadian as to what
I should really say.
Initially I thought we should just pull the troops out and let the
Serbs and Bosnians fight it out themselves. It is a civil war and
we should not be part of it. I must admit, however, upon getting
into further detail that there is a lot more to it than just that.
There is the humanitarian aspect of it, the war crimes and the
innocent civilians. Every time we turn on the television we hear
about these things. We have to think about that in any decision
that we make.
We of course must realize the risk that we are putting our
troops under. As things escalate, as there are threats of an
increased escalation this spring, how many troops are we
prepared as Canadians to bring home in body bags? We have to
ask that question and we have to take this as a very serious part
of our decision.
We have to look at ourselves as leaders in the area of
peacekeeping. Certainly a pull out would be an abrogation of
some of those responsibilities. We have to ask what that does to
us as Canadians and how we feel because of that. The cost of
275
course has been mentioned and our debt and deficit are part of
any decision when we come to spending money.
The decision then is not easy. We have all these factors to
consider. I tried to see if there was anything positive to this
whole situation. Can peacekeeping have a positive part to it?
The conclusion I came to was a feeling of nationalism that is
part of peacekeeping. What makes Canadians feel good? Next
month we are going to look at our athletes at the Olympics and
we are going to feel good. When we hear that national anthem
play we are going to feel good because they have just done
something that made them stand out in the world.
We are going to make Canadians feel good today because this
is good government. This is an opportunity for all sides, it does
not matter what one's politics are, to really have a say. Thus we
will feel good.
What about peacekeeping and making us feel good? We
certainly have a reputation. All across the world we know that
Canadians are the best trained, have the best political
background and the best psychology, if you want, of taking care
of peace in this world. We already have that and that is
something we should build on and should be part of our national
pride.
(1200 )
We of course should emphasize a leadership role. We do not
have to take a second seat to anybody when it comes to
peacekeeping and the settling of world disputes.
In terms of training, we should build on this. We should
provide training for sale. What better thing could we do with the
bases we are thinking of closing down than turn them into
international academies for the training of peacekeepers?
Let us go further than just peacekeeping. Let us talk about the
settling of all kinds of disputes. Let us talk about supervising
elections and a better understanding of the cultural elements that
are behind peacekeeping efforts. Let us provide conflict
management, human rights monitoring, civil administration and
emergency measures. One cannot help but think that that could
be useful internally as well if we had something like an
earthquake such as that which we have just witnessed in Los
Angeles.
In conclusion, I think we should always maintain our role in
peacekeeping and build on it. We should become world leaders.
That is really where it is at. The building of that nationalism
within us, that pride of being Canadian, I believe will even go so
far as to make Quebecers feel that they want to stay a part of
Canada.
We can do so much with this whole peacekeeping situation. If
we in this 35th Parliament succeed in building this national
pride then I think we have gone a long way in succeeding in why
many of us are here.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, in
congratulating the hon. member for Red Deer for his candid
analysis I would like to ask him if it would be fair to conclude
that he favours Canadian troops remaining in Bosnia? If that is
so, does his view represent the position of his party or is the
position of his party the one articulated earlier by the member
for Saanich-Gulf Islands?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I think the wonderful
part of this day is that we can express our points of view taking
into consideration all of our constituents and all of our fellow
MPs.
I would say that withdrawal is something that is done when
the safety of our forces cannot be guaranteed. That position is
one that would be decided by the people in the field. I think the
counterbalances, the humanitarian efforts that we are providing,
offset whether we should leave or not.
Initially, I said that we had to get out. It is a civil war and we
should be out of there the sooner the better. However, for the
reasons I have given I would now say I have modified that
position to say that it is only a last ditch thing to pull out. I think
it is good that within our caucus we have this range. Through the
rest of the day we will hear that range being developed. The
main thing this leads to is that we must develop an overall policy
for Canada both short term and of course very long term. The
minister alluded to that earlier. I believe that is really what we
are trying to accomplish today.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Red Deer for his
comments.
I would like to ask the member for his views with respect to
the concern that has been raised about the tremendous gap
between a series of resolutions by the United Nations on the one
hand and the reality on the ground on the other, particularly in
Bosnia. We heard about children in Mostar who were recently
slaughtered in the snow. We heard about children in Sarajevo
just a few days similarly out sledding and playing. These six
children were brutally murdered. It does not take a great deal of
courage to lob artillery from 30 kilometres away.
I want to ask the member for Red Deer what his position is
with respect to the plea by a number of respected United Nations
commanding officers. God knows there have been a whole series
of them that have made those pleas, most recently General
Francis Briquemont who replaced General Morillon in Bosnia.
He said: ``There's a fantastic gap between the resolutions of the
Security Council, the will to execute those resolutions and the
means available to commanders''.
(1205)
When we have a situation in which the Bosnian Serb leader,
Radovan Karadzic has said, and this was just last week:
``Sarajevans will not be counting the dead. They will be
counting the living''.
276
Does the member for Red Deer have any position with respect
to the suggestion that has been made that we strengthen the
mandate of the United Nations? Certainly a plea that I heard
from a number of the soldiers on the ground in Croatia is that we
strengthen the mandate of the United Nations to ensure that they
have the ability not only to protect the safe havens, which are far
from safe now, but end the artillery bombing which is taking
place as well.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with an
awful of what has been said. Of course one of the matters that
has made this problem so difficult is that the United Nations
does not seem to have shouldered the leadership role the way
they should have.
We went through probably seven or eight briefings in
preparation for today. One of the things we heard over and over
again, particularly from the military, was the great difficulty in
not having someone really in charge. Other difficulties were
having different troops, different training.
I suppose that is where my international academy for
peacekeepers comes in. With the United Nations having input in
that, it might help solve some of those problems and at least the
troops would be trained the same. If we could get the leadership
the same, it would make the United Nations stronger.
In defence of the United Nations, it has had great difficulty
getting people to participate, getting other countries to provide
troops and so on. It is a two-way street and we must solve that
problem.
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to be able to participate in the debate today on the
motion on Canada's peacekeeping role.
[Translation]
First I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition
for his sensible speech-
[English]
-and the two members of the Reform Party to my right, the
member for Saanich-Gulf Islands and the member for Red
Deer for their most informed speeches.
The debate we will hear today and tomorrow, first on
peacekeeping and then on cruise, is a debate that will allow
individual members to express his or her own views. There is no
whip on this side. We are on record as being supportive of
peacekeeping. That is in our red book and I would be very
surprised if any of the Liberal members would disagree with our
continuation in peacekeeping.
However with respect to the specific mission that we are
talking about today in the former republics of Yugoslavia or
tomorrow, which is the deployment of further testing of cruise
missiles under the Test and Evaluation Agreement members, on
both sides of the House, and certainly in our party, are free to
express their views and the government will take those views
into account.
It is only appropriate that I join with the other members
opposite in beginning my remarks by paying tribute to the men
and women of the Canadian forces who, as we speak are working
to bring some peace to the world's trouble spots. I know that
members share my admiration and appreciation for the very
difficult job they are doing, whether they are in Srebrenica in the
Balkans, in the Far East, on the African continent, or off the
southwest coast of Haiti. On behalf of all Canadians, merci
beaucoup, thank you very much.
[Translation]
Today, Parliament has an opportunity to consider the
activities of our peacekeepers, the various aspects of Canada's
contribution to peacekeeping and the future direction of our
commitment in this respect.
Canadians are justly proud of this country's exceptional
contribution to UN peacekeeping efforts. For 47 years, Canada
has made a generous and sustained contribution to peacekeeping
missions. The total number of Canadians who have served as
peacekeepers over the years is now over 100,000.
Canada's high level of participation is particularly impressive
when we consider that our country has only one-half of 1 per
cent of the world's population.
(1210)
No other country has a peacekeeping record that compares
with Canada's. No other country knows the military operations
aspect of peacekeeping as well as we do, and no other country
has our expertise. This may explain why Canada is the only
country in the world to have erected a national monument to
peacekeeping.
Some say that Canada invented the peacekeeping concept.
Most observers agree it was the UN emergency force, designed
by former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in 1956, which
demonstrated the value and potential of an international UN
force.
During the sixties and in fact until the eighties, Canada
increased its efforts and enhanced its reputation in the
peacekeeping area. We were one of the few countries that were
accepted as a neutral force to separate two belligerent parties.
The international community has repeatedly called on Canada to
take part in missions of many kinds throughout the world.
[English]
It was back in 1949 that Canada's first peacekeepers were
deployed. They went to Kashmir with what was soon to become
known as the United Nations Military Observer Group in India
and Pakistan under the acronym UNMOGIP.
277
Regrettably it was during the first mission that Canada
suffered its first peacekeeping casualty. Since that time almost
100 Canadians have lost their lives while on peacekeeping duty.
Peacekeeping has never been without risks. The Minister of
Foreign Affairs talked about it today. Members on the other side
have talked about it. It has always been dangerous but our forces
are keenly aware of the danger when they enlist to serve their
country overseas.
Canada has a long association as well with the United Nations
Truce Supervision Organization, UNTSO. This mission, which
is the UN's oldest, monitors ceasefire agreements in the Middle
East and today 13 Canadian-UN military observers are with
UNTSO, a commitment we began in 1954.
Canadians have served over the years in Indochina, Lebanon,
Congo, West New Guinea, Yemen, the Middle East, Cyprus,
Afghanistan, Namibia, Angola, Cambodia and Central America.
That is a pretty impressive record for a country with a
population of only 27 million.
[Translation]
In recent years, a new chapter was started in the history of UN
peacekeeping operations. At the end of the eighties, when the
confrontation between east and west ceased to exist, the UN was
able to start operating more or less as its founders had planned in
1945.
Since 1988, the UN has created more peacekeeping missions
than it did during the four previous decades.
[English]
I have already mentioned our contribution to UNMOGIP in
Kashmir and UNTSO in the Middle East. As well Canada
provides a total of 10 staff and military police to the United
Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus; over 200 personnel
assigned to a supply, transport and communications duties with
the United Nations disengagement observer force on the Golan
Heights between Israel and Syria. We will be hearing more of
them as the weeks unfold in the quest to finally solve the Middle
East dilemma. Twenty-seven Canadian forces personnel are in
various staff, air traffic control and administrative support
positions in Egypt at the headquarters for the multinational
force, a non-UN mission which adheres to the 1979 Camp David
accord. We have five military observers to the United Nations in
the Iraq-Kuwait observation mission.
We have two officers including the force commander for the
United Nations mission in Rwanda. We have 30 military
observers, officers and staff to the United Nations mission for
the referendum in the West Sahara known by its French acronym
as MINURSO.
Turning to Haiti, Canada remains prepared to provide
approximately 110 military personnel to the United Nations
mission there. The majority of these Canadians will participate
in construction of engineering projects among other tasks.
[Translation]
Canada also continues to be a participant in the UN
observation mission in El Salvador, which supervised a
ceasefire, disarmament and the human rights situation in that
country.
(1215)
We shall continue to support the UN operation in Somalia
through the presence of a small number of staff officers. At one
time there were more than 1,000 Canadians in Somalia as part of
the UN multinational force responsible for the security of
humanitarian aid operations.
[English]
I should say that despite some unfortunate incidents which are
now being adjudicated, our people in Somalia made a real
difference in bringing order to the country and in helping to
rebuild the infrastructure of this very poor nation.
[Translation]
Finally, Canada is a participant in the UN mission in
Mozambique which has a mandate to supervise the ceasefire and
the elections in that country.
[English]
The United Nations Command Military Armistice
Commission in Korea has also seen the participation of
Canadians. This is the agreement which supervises the
implementation of the 1953 armistice accord.
We have also been involved in the United Nations special
commission charged with the inspection and destruction of
Iraq's ballistic missiles as well as its chemical, nuclear and
biological facilities.
We have men and women on the ships enforcing the embargo
against Serbia in Montenegro as well as on our ships off the
coast of Haiti. Finally, there are Canadian forces personnel
working to locate and diffuse land mines in Cambodia with the
United Nations development programs mine technical advisory
group.
I mention all of these because even though we are focusing
today on the current conflict, which is a very nasty one, we
should not forget the hundreds of other Canadians serving with
the United Nations forces around the world in the engagements I
have mentioned.
Let us take a look at the Balkans. This is a tragedy that has
unfolded for the last 15 years since the death of former president
Marshal Tito. While I am sure the members of the government in
no way supported the kind of government that Mr. Tito gave to
Yugoslavia, one thing that he did leave behind was a will and a
determination to unite many disparate factions, religious and
ethnic, into one nation.
278
There is a lesson in Yugoslavia. It is that multi-ethnic,
multi-religious, multi-racial states can only be kept together in
today's world by a codification of individual rights and by their
protection with strong national institutions. Those national
institutions and that constitutional protection has eroded in
Yugoslavia and it has forced the rest of the world through the
United Nations to try to salvage some dignity, some peace and
some sense of humanitarian obligation to the people living in the
former republics of Yugoslavia.
[Translation]
As the conflict in the Balkans escalated, the UN gradually
extended its mandate beyond the borders of Croatia. For
instance, the mission was asked to open the airport in Sarajevo.
I must say a few words about the President of France, François
Mitterrand, who showed great courage when he visited Sarajevo
two years ago.
[English]
The president of France demonstrated great courage in
drawing the world's attention to the conflict in Yugoslavia. I
would also join with my colleague, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, in congratulating the people and government of France
together with the British government for having supplied along
with Canada the largest contingents of forces in Yugoslavia.
Today we have about 2,000 personnel in Bosnia and Croatia
and that is one of the focuses, perhaps the principal focus for this
particular debate. We care about them. These are our people.
They are doing our bidding.
Canadians have played their part in two world wars and the
Korean war. I do not think we want to be part of any other larger
wars in the latter part of the century or as we go into the 21st
century. It is the lessons that have been learned from our actions
in those wars that lead Canadians to use their military expertise,
their technical know-how and their understanding of conflicts
to try to help the United Nations in bringing peace to some of the
hot spots that we see today.
(1220 )
Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of visiting our troops very
briefly for a few days in December of last year. I was first in
Croatia then in Sarajevo and Visoko and then with our ship
HMCS Iroquois in the Adriatic which is enforcing the sanctions
with other members of NATO and the United Nations.
I was struck by the uniformity of purpose and the unity with
which our men and women view our role in Croatia and Bosnia. I
did not hear from them one word about whether or not they had
any doubts about the utility of being in that very difficult spot.
At night when we slept in the camp at Visoko and shots rang out
and as we travelled to Sarajevo with shots all around us in our
convoy, not one of those people exhibited any fear of the danger.
I can say that I had some fears. However, these men and
women live with this every single day. They are prepared to
follow the instructions of the Canadian people as expressed in
Parliament and by the government. If we want them to come
home then they will come home. If we want them to stay then
they will stay. There is, however, no dissension on the part of our
troops.
In fact, the deputy UN commander, General John MacInnis, is
a Canadian and he has made some very courageous statements.
There was one in the newspapers the other week about
Srebrenica: ``It is not for the Serbs or any of these factions to
dictate what battalions or groups of soldiers can relieve others.
We are not here to be dictated to by these factions. We will
determine whether or not there will be Ukrainians or whether
there will be Dutch or whether there will be Nordics or
Malaysians that will replace our troops''.
General MacInnis has the full support of the people under his
command and I salute him and the work that he is doing. There is
also the work of Colonel David Moore. Many in this House have
heard him speak on radio and television. This is the gentleman in
charge of our forces in Visoko, right in the centre of Bosnia. This
is the gentleman who has to worry day and night about the safety
of his people but more about the safety of the people in the
surrounding areas.
Who can forget those graphic portrayals of our good work and
our duty in keeping those hospitals open in Fojnica and
Dakovica? When the civilians had to leave for fear of retaliation
and death it was Canadian troops that kept those hospitals alive,
whether it was washing laundry or whether it was bringing food.
This was the real humanitarian side of the peacekeeping that our
forces are doing in Bosnia.
I find it a little odd. I do not want to be critical of the news
media or of Canadians in general or some commentators but it
seems that a lot of people have only just become aware of the
heightened danger that our troops face on a daily basis when the
New York Times says there was danger. Maybe that says
something about Canadians when we have to look at the New
York Times to say whether or not something is dangerous. We
have all known on this side that it has been dangerous. Our
troops have known it is dangerous.
We cannot be intimidated by some of the actions that are
going on on the ground every single day. There were two
incidents last Sunday which we made public.
The troops there are working hard. They are devoted and they
will continue to be there and work as hard as they can as long as
we want them there. Therefore the views that are expressed
today should not be taken lightly. I am not suggesting that
279
members will take it lightly because it is very important that we
underscore our commitment for them and the aims of the United
Nations and peacekeeping in general.
In Canada this support for peacekeeping I believe is still
there. We have heard about opinion polls that say Canadians
want our people to withdraw. After hearing some of the
comments from the other side and hopefully some from this side
today, I think they will realize there is more to it than simple
withdrawal and some of those concerns have already been
expressed.
(1225)
It is up to us as elected representatives to make the hard
decisions about what Canada, and by extension our Canadian
forces, should do. Peacekeeping continues to dominate our
operational activities and this poses special challenges for the
Canadian forces who must balance their peacekeeping
commitments with their other national and international
commitments.
Achieving this balance is not going to be easy. Our current
peacekeeping and related missions are considerable in terms of
both the sheer geographic reach of the Canadian forces and the
different types of operation and commitment involved.
At the same time as the complexity and the cost of
peacekeeping missions increase, here at home we are faced with
the hard realities of declining budgets and reductions in the
regular force. I made statements on that earlier and members
will be hearing more about that as the weeks go on.
Let us face the truth. The more we cut back in our defence
budget the more we restrict our ability to perform these essential
peacekeeping tasks along with our other military obligations.
If Canadians wish to continue to be leaders in the field of
peacekeeping and continue to make this important contribution
to stability in troubled regions then Canadian forces must be
adequately trained and appropriately equipped. In other words,
they must be combat capable forces.
Finally, Canadians must accept the risk involved in sending
our troops abroad to areas of recent or ongoing conflict.
We have seen where UN peacekeeping has been. While we
cannot predict where it will go in the future it seems likely there
will be a continuing need for UN involvement in the world's hot
spots at least for the next few years. This will pose many
challenges for us on the government side and for all Canadians. I
invite members to think very carefully before they advocate a
hasty withdrawal from the former Yugoslavia and perhaps
reflect upon the continuation of our peacekeeping in general.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, we are very
happy to take part in this debate on Bosnia, but the minister of
defence will agree that the financial aspects will be dealt with in
a few weeks, maybe as early as next week, when the budget
comes down. For the time being we have to limit ourselves to
our commitment to peace in the world, and especially in Bosnia.
Does the minister not think that considering a unilateral
withdrawal of our troops, like the Prime Minister did, when
those same troops under the United Nations mandate were
responsible for disarming the Bosnian people, is rather
unrealistic? Can we honestly say, after having disarmed the
Bosnians, that we are seriously considering a unilateral
withdrawal?
I understand how difficult the situation is and how difficult it
is to find a solution. Nevertheless, we already acted in a certain
way, particularly toward the Bosnian people, and the minister
will admit that it is rather difficult, indeed impossible, to
withdraw now and leave the Bosnian people at the mercy of the
Serbs.
Mr. Collenette: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.
member answered his own question. He underlined a very
important point, and I hope other members will also give me
their opinion on that point.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, as I said a few minutes ago, when I went to Croatia, I
met our troops in the southern part of the country where
problems abound. The commanding officer over there, Colonel
Marc Lessard, gave me a briefing on the situation. Once again I
would like to pay tribute to the courage of the soldiers working
in that region and in the other parts of Croatia and Bosnia.
Colonel Lessard mentioned some problems which I hope the
minister will look at closely in order to find a solution. We
talked about three main problems: first, the insufficient number
of soldiers at BATCAN I. According to Colonel Lessard, they
need more people, 49 additional peacekeepers for example, to
increase our infantry sections from 9 to 10 persons. Second, they
need mechanics, cooks and other people if they are to do their
work properly. Third, there seems to be a problem with the
vehicle pool and with supplies.
(1230)
Having given the minister the details I ask him to promise he
will seriously consider Colonel Lessard's requests concerning
the resources our military in Croatia need to accomplish their
important task.
[English]
Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member
functioning as a go between with our members on the ground in
280
Croatia and the command here, but these are comments that not
only I have heard but have been expressed throughout the
command structure in the armed forces and we are trying to deal
with them.
The problem is that some of these supply routes are very
difficult especially in winter conditions not unlike some of the
conditions we see outside the Parliament Buildings. They do
not, however, have snowploughs, salt trucks and sand trucks
which makes it very dangerous. In fact two of our members from
le 2e Régiment de Valcartier died a few weeks ago just before
Christmas because of traffic accidents.
There is no question that better equipment and better
provisions will obviously help our troops. I think the comments
the hon. member is making are in a sense a wish list of
improvements that any commander on the ground would like to
see. I do not think it is any evidence of a lack of being properly
prepared to take on the very onerous duties that they are
undertaking.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the minister might comment on just the priority that
the defence department itself feels should be assigned to
international peacekeeping. As we look at the military we really
see that it is being asked to perform four functions on about $12
billion: the protection of Canadian sovereignty; the
participation in European security through NATO; international
peacekeeping; and of course the backing up of the civil authority
in cases like Oka.
I wonder if the minister could comment on just where he sees
international peacekeeping and peace enforcement in that list of
priorities. It looks like we are asking the military to do a lot of
things.
Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for
Calgary Southwest and leader of the Reform Party raised his
question. As was mentioned by my colleague, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, earlier in the debate, there will be defence and
foreign policy reviews. These long range questions should
really be addressed within that context. I hope that today's
specific debates, because of the urgency of the peacekeeping
and because of our urgency in dealing with the question of cruise
missile tests, do not undermine those particular reviews that will
take the balance of the year to complete.
The questions that he posed are very valid. Hopefully the
committee will give us in government ideas on where we should
be emphasizing our money and personnel in the years to come.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour and a privilege for me to speak on this matter which I
consider to be of great importance, as no doubt do all of my
colleagues in this House.
Representatives of the various political parties have thus far
expressed at times similar, at times opposing, views. Technical
explanations have also been provided about different things,
whether it be with respect to monetary issues, to equipment or to
adjustments in the strength of our troops abroad.
(1235)
It is my fervent wish to help this House come to an
enlightened decision on international policy as regards UN
missions.
In an effort to understand this contentious mission, I, like
each one of you I trust, reviewed the history of the former
Yugoslavia which, over the months and years, has splintered
into several independent nations, namely Slovenia, Croatia,
Bosnia-Hercegovina and Macedonia, as mentioned several
times by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of
National Defence.
How did a federation that had survived for more than 40 years
come to this end? National division was undoubtedly
emphasized by political ideals, territory and culture. What
explanation can there be, however, for the slaughter involving
more often than not innocent civilians? The answer is not simple
as each warring faction believes it has the legitimate right to
reclaim land which it feels is rightfully its own.
The warring factions believe so strongly in their legitimate
right to act that they sometimes feel the UN has no right to
intervene or, at the very least, they occasionally challenge the
UN's presence by refusing to cease hostilities.
The nations of the world have seen on television and read in
the press the number of casualties and rapes, to the point where
no one can remain indifferent to this situation. And therein lies
the problem. What steps should the United Nations and, by the
same token Canada, take in their quest for a better, more humane
world in order to put an end to this shameful situation?
Following World War II, the United Nations were established
as an organization founded on the principles of international
peacekeeping and security. This organization is taking
collective, effective steps to prevent threats to peace and to
counter any act of aggression through peaceful means, in
accordance with the principles of international law and justice.
The United Nations supports the forging of friendly relations
based on respect for the principle of equal rights among peoples
and their right to self-determination.
Canada must continue in its traditional role of peacekeeper.
Canada's role is to maintain peace, not enforce it, as this would
be a major shift away from Canada's historic role.
The peacekeepers should remain in Bosnia in order to
continue protecting humanitarian relief convoys and we should
recognize, despite media reports, the excellent work they are
doing in helping to save Bosnian lives. We must also
acknowledge the contributions of our soldiers.
281
Our troops have re-opened two hospitals and kept them
running. They have installed pumps to provide safe drinking
water for residents. And, of course, they have escorted many
convoys bringing relief, food and clothing to the besieged,
helpless population.
However, while the presence of UN forces has helped to avert
total disaster, there is no question that a great deal more needs to
be done. The safety of the peacekeepers must be enhanced.
Negotiations must continue and at an accelerated pace
because the Canadian public is beginning to get upset about the
cost of peacekeeping operations and the majority of our
constituents are growing tired of seeing our peacekeepers trying
to keep the peace where there is no peace to keep. Some feel that
we should impose peace. However, most are of the opinion that
governments lack the political will to authorize a military strike
and that because of this, our peacekeepers should withdraw and
leave these peoples to decide their own fate. And this is
precisely what the United Nations and Canada must not do.
(1240)
My colleague from Rosemont mentioned earlier that the
United Nations had effectively disarmed the Bosnians, but it had
also been agreed that the peacekeepers would stay on to protect
them. That is one more reason for not withdrawing our
peacekeeping forces.
The loss of confidence by the Canadian people certainly
reflects the mood, the public opinion in other UN nations. That
is why, given Canada's leadership in peacekeeping, if we
withdrew our forces, that could trigger a similar move on the
part of other UN nations, which would be unfair and fatal for the
civilian populations concerned.
However, it would appear that recently peacekeeping has
taken precedence at times over the real interests of the Canadian
people, with Canada allocating military resources to several
peacekeeping operations without seeing the need to get a clear
and firm mandate. With regard to this peacekeeping race,
Canada has also reduced its defence expenditures envelope,
forcing our troops to play this role while providing them with
less and jeopardizing their security.
Canada will have to look over its latest missions and learn
from them. The United Nations will have to reconsider the
peacekeeping process, as telling figures clearly show that the
situation has changed considerably and that UN interventions
are not conducted in the same spirit or under the same
circumstances as they used to be. UN statistics show that over a
40-year period from 1948 to 1988, there were 754 casualties
among UN peacekeepers, as compared to 197 killed in Somalia
and Bosnia in 1993 alone. This huge difference clearly
demonstrates that unfortunately the peacekeeping scene has
changed radically and that a clear and unequivocal stand will
have to be taken before any new operation can go ahead. As a
matter of fact, nearly all press statements by generals from the
United Nations protection force, UNPROFOR, conveyed
frustration and a sense of helplessness in the face of explosive
situations they could do nothing about.
I would like, at this point, to try to outline on what basis the
decision should be made in Canada to participate in UN
missions or not.
It is clear that Canada can no longer afford to participate in all
missions.
The Canadian government will have to think twice before
taking action. This action will have to meet universal criteria
such as humanitarian, political and unfortunately economic
considerations. Having assessed these, it will then have to set a
deadline by which the goals specified in the assessments have to
be reached always keeping in mind financial implications.
As with all Canadian activities, it will be necessary to give up
the myth of a rich and prosperous Canada and face reality.
Our troops are proud to take part in these missions but we
must clarify what the framework should be and what equipment
is required and appropriate. Can we still afford this? Does the
public still support such endeavours?
I think that within the context of joint action within the United
Nations as well as NATO, a system should be established by
which each participating nation would contribute in a specific
area.
Joint action should be discussed in the UN, where a decision
on the mandate of the peacekeepers from the United Nations
protection force in Bosnia must be made by the end of April.
This mission should never be viewed as a total failure,
because the situation in Croatia has indeed been stabilized and,
furthermore, the escalation of the conflict in Macedonia and
Kosovo has effectively been halted.
(1245)
In conclusion, the withdrawal of the peacekeepers from
Bosnia is not a desirable option in the present context, as the
consequences would be disastrous for the civilian population
and for the Bosnians, who have been almost completely
disarmed by the UN forces protecting them.
Obviously, a military strike would make the peacekeepers'
job less frustrating but perhaps more dangerous. As I was saying
earlier, we must press for further negotiations in the hope that an
agreement can be reached before the end of the mandate next
April and even consider tightening the embargo against the
Bosnian Serbs.
282
On the other hand, it would be unthinkable to try to clarify
Canada's future role without undertaking a global review of our
national defence policy.
I take this opportunity to point out to the hon. minister of
defence that our defence policy must be reviewed as soon as
possible, that patience is running out among Canadians
concerned about military spending and soldiers who need
specific mandates in order to do a good job.
In closing, I want to tell all Canadian peacekeepers how much
we respect and admire the work they do in a difficult and often
hostile environment.
I especially want to salute the officers and troops from
Valcartier, who account for over 80 per cent of the peacekeeping
force in Bosnia. I am personally concerned as that base is
located partly in my riding of Charlesbourg and partly in that of
my colleague from Portneuf.
Through their commitment and their work, those soldiers
have helped preserve Canada's tradition of excellence in
peacekeeping.
As I said before, they can count on all the understanding and
support that my party and myself can offer them.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I request the unanimous consent of the House to
continue sitting between one and two p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Hon. members heard the
request. Is there unanimous consent?
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, if there is unanimous consent the government side is
quite happy to sit through lunch.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now go on to the
period of questions and comments following the intervention of
the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
There not being any we will resume debate with the hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on
your appointment as a deputy speaker since this is the first
opportunity I have had to do so.
I would also like to thank and congratulate the right hon.
Prime Minister for allowing the House to have this debate on
peacekeeping and defence issues so early in the 35th Parliament.
We see a big difference between the 34th Parliament and the
35th Parliament. We had requested many such debates in the
34th Parliament and such debates never happened.
I hope all members of all parties will take to heart the words of
the right hon. Prime Minister when he said: ``We want to hear
your individual views''. I know someone from the New
Democratic Party just arrived from that region. It would be very
important to hear what he has to say. This is an opportunity to
put on our creative hats, not to have to worry about party
discipline, and to express what we know from our constituents
and what we know from our experience.
I also take this opportunity to congratulate the constituents of
Parkdale-High Park, especially the Canadians of Croatian,
Serbian and Muslim descent. I must say that in my 10 years of
representing the area and having so many Canadians of those
backgrounds in my riding we have never had any conflicts, any
squabbles, any fights, et cetera. The Canadians of Muslim,
Serbian, Croatian descent are showing that these three peoples
can live together in peace and harmony. I congratulate them
through this forum and all Canadians across this land who are
showing the example that we want peace and not the kind of
thing that is ongoing in Bosnia.
(1250)
The Leader of the Official Opposition rightly took us through
the happenings at the end of the cold war and immediately after
the cold war, how Solidarnosc started the movement and then
the Baltic states and other countries. However the world has
become a more not a less complicated place since the end of the
cold war.
As the minister mentioned in his statement the key body in the
international system, the United Nations, is straining to keep up
with the increasing demands being placed on it. Canada is
working to alleviate the pressure on the UN. Our approach is a
broad scope. It ranges from strengthening and reforming the UN
system itself, including providing staff to key areas such as the
peacekeeping unit, to promoting the concept of co-operative
security in which strengthened regional institutions and
arrangements can play a larger role in contributing to
international peace and security, thus relieving some of the
burden placed on the UN system.
In this brief intervention I would like to focus on the efforts of
Canada to encourage and position regional organizations to play
a more active role in support of the UN. If we put the emphasis
on regional institutions getting into potential conflict areas this
will alleviate the pressures of the UN and then it can do a more
effective job in crises such as the one in the former Yugoslavia.
In January 1992 the UN Secretary General launched his
agenda for peace. As the minister mentioned in this document
the Secretary General spoke about conflict prevention and
preventive diplomacy. In this regard he highlighted the
increasingly important role that regional organizations could
take to
283
prevent and resolve crises so that they need not come to the
attention of the UN every time.
As the House knows Canada strongly supports the agenda for
peace and is working to implement many of the Secretary
General's recommendations. I was pleased that our
parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs and
International Trade in the 34th Parliament submitted its
recommendations and views on the agenda for peace. I was
pleased that our Senate committee on foreign affairs also
responded to the agenda for peace.
We have taken to heart the Secretary General's challenge to
regional organizations to pull their weight more effectively on
the global scene. Let me be more specific. I would like to speak
about three key areas in which Canadians can show leadership,
Europe, Asia Pacific and Latin America, as well as say a brief
word about the new initiatives in the Commonwealth and the
Francophonie.
Post cold war Europe is a place of both enormous
opportunities and challenges. As mentioned by the minister,
Canada is placing considerable emphasis on strenghthening the
ability of our key pan-European and transatlantic security
forum, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe,
to prevent and resolve conflicts.
Thanks largely to Canada's efforts over the past few years the
CSCE has the most extensive framework for conflict
management of any regional organization. We are now working
to fine tune these mechanisms and to enhance the CSCE's ability
to take action to prevent conflict. The key to conflict prevention
is to deal with the root causes of tension and conflict, many of
which are to be found in the areas of human rights, especially
minority rights. For that reason Canada is strongly supporting
CSCE instruments such as the CSCE High Commissioner on
National Minorities, whose task is to serve as an early warning
mechanism by providing a Canadian expert to the high
commissioner's investigative team in Slovakia and Hungary.
The CSCE also has conflict management missions in places
such as Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Moldova, Skopje and
Tajikistan. Canada has participated actively in these missions.
We have headed the mission to Moldova and have personnel in
the former Yugoslavia as well as on shorter term missions to the
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Nagorno-Karabakh and
Bosnia-Hercegovina. These missions undertake fact finding
and conciliation, investigate human rights problems, and
generally assist these countries in making the transition to
democracy.
(1255)
Canada is continuing to refine the framework for CSCE
peacekeeping, a Canadian initiative. This mechanism adopted at
the 1992 Helsinki summit makes the CSCE the only regional
organization with the ability to mandate a peaceful operation. It
permits the CSCE to call upon the UN's expertise and assistance
as well as that of other regional organizations, notably NATO.
While this mechanism has not yet been used it is in place should
CSCE states ever need to call upon it. Let us hope it does not, but
if it does the mechanism is in place.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated to his colleagues at
the December meeting of CSCE foreign ministers in Rome,
Canada will promote innovative approaches to conflict
management in the CSCE region. He underlined this
government's commitment to the CSCE and Canada's readiness
to play a leadership role within the organization. He also
committed Canada to working on a comprehensive assessment
of the CSCE's conflict management efforts to date and to make
specific practical recommendations that will help the CSCE deal
more effectively with future challenges.
This organization has its failures too. I have to be very honest
in the House. Again this is my own personal opinion. I attended
some of the CSCE meetings and the process is decision by
consensus. Members know what it is like in their own caucuses,
how difficult it is to come to a consensus sometimes.
While the politicians and the diplomats are working on
wording that is acceptable to everyone, we see reports such as
we saw on the CTV last night where six youngsters were killed
last weekend, where a young lad was getting shrapnel pulled out
of his side, and where a child was walking with only one leg. We
heard the report about shell-shocked children, the
psychological effects of just being injured or witnessing what is
happening there. It talked about the Sarajevo syndrome.
Children need tranquillizers to sleep. The same report talked
about the high suicide rate and passive suicide. People actually
walk into the streets to get killed. They cannot take what is going
on in the region any more so they walk out hoping that a bullet
will kill them and end it all.
While the death toll reaches hundreds of thousands and with
all that is happening daily, CSCE argues about wording
acceptable to all member countries. Although I am placing a lot
of emphasis on CSCE, having attended its important conference
in Madrid 12 years ago I do have my criticism of it. I appeal to
the international community to make the CSCE, with the help of
Canada, more effective.
As the House is aware Canada joined the Organization of
American States or OAS in 1990. I stood in the House on the
other side to criticize the government not for joining the OAS
but for how it got Canada to join. Canada joined the OAS
without any consultation with the Canadian people, without any
debate in the House as we are having now, and without even
asking the standing committee on foreign affairs to look into the
implications of joining OAS. We were very critical not of the
284
OAS membership but how the former Prime Minister made the
decision without any consultation or debate.
Since joining, Canada has made one of its priorities
enhancing the role of the OAS in promoting regional security
and stability. In its short time as an OAS member Canada has
succeeded in putting these issues firmly on the OAS agenda.
(1300)
The OAS now has a permanent committee on hemispheric
security. Canada is focusing the committee's work on security
questions such as conflict prevention and management,
confidence building measures, CBMs, conventional arms and
transfers in non-proliferation. Canada is also stressing the
importance of strengthening co-operation between the OAS and
the UN in conflict prevention and management.
In March a Canadian promoted OAS meeting on confidence
building measures will take place in Argentina. As a former
principal of Argentina Public School in my riding of
Parkdale-High Park and as a current member of the
Argentine-Canadian Friendship Institute, I am pleased this
meeting will be taking place in that part of the world. The reason
I was principal of Argentina Public School was because we were
twinned with Canada's school in Buenos Aires.
When we are talking about peace I think we should begin with
the children, with the future citizens of this planet, because our
attitudes are difficult to change. When we started with children
being twinned with other countries it is amazing how children as
young as age five were learning about the language, the culture
and the peoples of a country as far away as Argentina.
Unfortunately because of the Falkland war the Toronto Board
of Education decided to remove the name and it is back to
Garden Avenue. What a sad commentary, blaming the children
for the Falkland war. One recommendation I would toss out so
that all members could take it to their constituents is for them to
be on the lookout. Maybe there is a school in a riding that can be
twinned with a school in a faraway country. We will all be richer
for it.
This June at the OAS general assembly Canada will be
bringing forward new proposals to strengthen the OAS role in
dealing with regional security challenges.
A word on our efforts within the Commonwealth and the
Francophonie organizations which bridge traditional
north-south and east-west divisions in the world. Neither of
these organizations have well developed approaches to conflict
management. For this reason Canada submitted proposals for
the development of conflict management mechanisms at both
the Commonwealth and Francophonie summits this past
summer. These ideas are very new to both organizations. Canada
will continue to work to make these proposals a reality.
I have outlined a wide range of initiatives which Canada is
undertaking within regional organizations. I do not have time to
go into the ASEAN group and other regional organizations that
could help address conflicts arising in that part of the world.
The House should have noticed common themes in what I
have said so far. First, support for the UN; second, emphasis on
conflict prevention; and, third, development of mechanisms
which can be in place and be called on by states to assist in
resolving problems before they erupt into conflict and before
they require the already overtaxed resources of the United
Nations.
As the minister stated this government is committed to
supporting the United Nations. This government is also
committed to positioning regional organizations to play a more
active and effective role in complementing the important global
efforts of the United Nations in promoting co-operative security
and in building international peace and stability.
I call upon the international community with which I quite
often have the pleasure of meeting through the diplomatic corps
in Ottawa to do everything in its power to strengthen the various
regional organizations and to make them more effective in
coping with future emergencies, thus alleviating the pressures
on the United Nations and making it more effective in
guaranteeing international peace and security.
If we do not follow this course then Lieutenant Colonel Ian
Malcolm who served with the Canadian forces for 23 years and
was involved in peacekeeping in Egypt, Iraq and Namibia may
be correct in a recent document wherein he asks: ``Does the blue
helmet fit?''
(1305)
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I would
also like to commend the government for this initiative, this
emergency debate which it has called non-partisan. Since this
morning, we have seen how much all members on both sides of
the House have made it a duty to speak in a completely
non-partisan way.
I think that this government initiative, which is definitely a
credit to it, should be repeated on many other occasions, in
keeping with what I think is the desire of all members,
especially those like me who are not designated critics or do not
have specific duties, be they on the government side or not. This
is an opportunity for us to express our views and at the same
time to show that different points of view can still lead to
consensus, especially as far as major issues such as the ones we
are studying today are concerned.
I listened with admiration to the speech of the previous
speaker who spoke in his own name and said that he wanted his
government to go ahead and maintain troops to keep peace in the
world. He spoke eloquently about children. I believe that aspect
285
cannot be over-emphasized; children are often victims of these
wars which benefit only arms dealers or crackpot idealists or
people who will use any means to reach their ends.
However, I would like to have some clarification on air raids,
which are at the heart of the debate on Bosnia. When we go on
peace missions, do we also have to have air raids or should it be
the other way around: if we are attacked from the air, should we
respond to these attacks after receiving an order from the
commander in chief? Consultation can take about an hour. I
would like the previous speaker to tell me more about what he
thinks of these air raids.
[English]
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments and compliments and for supporting today's process.
If the hon. member does not see enough of such debates I hope
he will remind us that it is time for another. In debates like this
we see the best of every member of Parliament, all 295.
Actually the hon. member's comments and questions coincide
with a poll that was reported in the Ottawa Citizen today. The
poll suggests that an overwhelming majority of Canadians
favour the idea of UN peacekeeping in general, but six in 10
respondents said that Canada's mission in Bosnia is too risky
and should be ended in April. I quote from the poll: ``More and
more Canadians are saying it is too damned expensive and it is
so dangerous, why not have some other countries take on the
job?''
The poll also suggests that when the heat is high in Bosnia,
meaning the military heat, attitudes toward peacekeeping are
cool in Canada but if the shooting stops then Canadians want
their soldiers to be there to administer humanitarian aid.
I think when we send our troops there the one thing our
mandate should guarantee is the safety of our Canadian forces. It
is all right for countries to negotiate air strikes but how can air
strikes be negotiated and mandated if the Canadian
peacekeepers are in that region? That is where we will not get
the support of Canadians if things like that happen.
If one of our soldiers has to come back you know how, I do not
think we will get much support from Canadians in future
peacekeeping. Yet our troops have the highest reputation in the
world.
(1310 )
I had the good fortune of being in Cyprus and was talking to
our Canadians forces. I talked with the British commander who
begged Canada to please not pull the Canadian forces out
because they are such an excellent example for the other
countries that have peacekeeping forces.
We had an example in the Bosnia-Hercegovina area when it
was time to remove the Canadian soldiers and replace them by
soldiers from another country. The Serbs said no. They said they
would accept the Canadians but not the troops of another
country. The Canadian forces have this ability. They are
respected by the Muslims, they are respected by the Croats and
they are respected by the Serbs. That is why we can play such an
important role. However, if we start dropping bombs on them,
our taxpayers will give us the message to bring our troops home.
First, before we make any such move I think we have to ensure
the safety of our troops over there.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was right
when he said that our taxpayers are concerned. There is even
mention, in the poll referred to, of a will to withdraw from
peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. I wonder if this is not a
golden opportunity to analyse our need for military equipment.
As members of the Opposition, we supported the government
when it decided to cancel the helicopter contract, but now we
know that 800 extremely sophisticated tanks are presently being
built in Ontario. We also have various military equipment, such
as our F-18 airplanes, for which it costs $1 million just to train
the pilot.
Should we not rethink the role of our armed forces in order to
reduce all this equipment, to specialize our troops further in
those peacekeeping missions, and therefore to reduce
expenditures and activities in other military sectors where this
material is rarely used, or should we consider leaving some
special role to other members of NATO, since Canada has
already participated in all the peacekeeping missions since the
Second World War? Is that not something to consider?
The total budget could be reduced by eliminating some
equipment which may not be necessary, but the money saved
would enable us to carry on with our peacekeeping missions
without overburdening our taxpayers once again. I would like to
hear the hon. member's point of view.
[English]
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, when the cold war ended everyone was
hoping that there would be peace dividends; money that would
be saved on defence would be put toward economic renewal,
stimulus, reducing poverty on this planet, et cetera. That is why
this government is recommending a review of our foreign affairs
and defence policy.
As the Prime Minister mentioned and offered, both standing
committees will be going to the people of Canada to review our
286
existing policy. I hope the hon. member will make his
interventions on behalf of his constituents again at that time.
I would also recommend to the member that tomorrow there
will be another debate. It will be on whether or not we should
continue with the cruise missile testing. That would be another
excellent forum for the hon. member to raise this.
That is why I think we have come to the stage in the
development of our country and the development of our foreign
policy to take an in depth look and review by consulting
Canadians.
(1315 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, it is
both an honour and a privilege to rise today and to acknowledge
your election as Speaker of the House. I am sure that it will
always be an encouragement to you to know that your peers gave
you a mandate to provide both guidance and prudence to this
House as we work through the days and decisions which lie
ahead of us.
I also salute each of my colleagues, the men and women
elected to this 35th Parliament. I am like them. I have been
elected to serve my constituents of Calgary Southeast in this
House of the people and trust that our collective wisdom will
serve them well.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Québec-Est said that he was the last one
from his caucus to rise and address this House. I feel the same
way. This has enabled me to gain experience and I must say that
today's debate is extremely important and requires that each of
us gives it the necessary attention.
[English]
I want that thought to be known to my constituents of Calgary
Southeast. I am sure that everyone within my riding will have an
opinion on the war in Bosnia. Their concern will come from a
desire to see lasting peace and greater tolerance and charity for
others. I believe they collectively reflect the views of most
Canadians.
We talk of Bosnia in an abstract sense but to bring it closer to
my home, the fighting encompasses an area of 178,000 square
kilometres. This area is like a block of land that extends from
just north of Edmonton to just south of Calgary. There are more
displaced people in this area of fighting than the entire
populations of Edmonton and Calgary combined, more than 1.6
million people. Such a staggering figure should make it
abundantly clear that we cannot sit idly by in a state of
indecision as the fighting continues, as more families are torn
asunder, as more children are killed and orphaned, as more
people come to believe and accept hatred and intolerance as a
way of life.
My own concern arises from an intensely personal
perspective. That is what I am bringing here today, because I am
of Croatian heritage. My mother was born in a small village just
outside of Zagreb. I have several family members still living
there. They are quite elderly and they have no desire to leave
their homes. They are quite typical of those who remain there.
Of the men and women there, the women and children have all
been evacuated. The men, the husbands and fathers, are the ones
who are caught up in the machinery of war. Life in that village is
not like what you or I could ever imagine.
It is difficult to believe that members of my family who live
within hearing distance of those bombs dropping-and that is
about 10 kilometres-can say: ``The war is not too near and life
is managed as best we can''.
I mentioned earlier that we see ourselves as a nation seeking
peaceful solutions and demonstrating tolerance and charity to
others. I believe we are now struggling with how these inherent
characteristics of our nationhood will help us to develop our
response to a particularly brutal and unforgiving war. Having
said that, as I thought about what I would say here as I stood
before you today, there were three questions that kept coming to
my mind which I believe have to be answered in any response
that we offer.
First of all, are the people in this war dedicated to destroying
each other? Second, will an intervention bring any lasting
peace? The third question I asked: are we prepared as a country
to watch Canadian soldiers die in this war without apparent end?
In response to the first question: are the people involved in
this war dedicated to destroying each other? It appears that the
answer is yes. While diplomatic efforts to end the war go on
fruitlessly, the killing continues unabated. Life has been
reduced to a primitive state with no electricity and no running
water. People who were neighbours and friends became bitter
enemies overnight. Serbs are killing Bosnian Muslims and
Croats. Croats are killing Muslims and sometimes Serbs.
Muslims are killing their attackers. I cannot imagine how
anyone living in the midst of this carnage can remain objective.
(1320 )
Second, will an intervention bring any lasting peace? There is
a fundamental tension to the focus of our debate because of our
legal and moral obligations toward intervention in the region.
Are we going to intervene? Also, what costs are we willing to
accept if we do intervene without making a simultaneous effort
to bring the conflict to an end? Do we want to see Canadian
soldiers die as they bring humanitarian aid to the region?
Canada as a signatory of the United Nations universal
declaration of human rights has always taken a leading role in
international responsibilities. Canadians are deservedly very
proud of this. We fulfil our international obligations in many
important ways.
287
I will mention just a few. We dispatch experienced and highly
competent troops to the theatres of combat. In these theatres we
care for the sick, wounded and hungry. We also provide here in
our Canadian communities a safe haven to many of these
peoples displaced by the fighting.
In answer to the question of intervention, I do not believe that
anything we do as humanitarians will make the difference.
This is the last question. Are we prepared as a country to
watch Canadian soldiers die in this war without apparent end?
Our troops have been called peacekeepers and peacemakers.
What an irony when there is no peace to keep or make. I
recognize that our soldiers are providing necessary aid to
hundreds of thousands of civilians, but they are also giving that
same aid to the warring factions. In doing so, they are indirectly
feeding the war. Our humanitarian role has been reduced to a
bottomless intravenous bag sustaining a killing machine. Are
we doing more harm than if we were not there at all?
It is absolutely unacceptable to me to see the loss of one
Canadian soldier in this war. It is not that we are scared or
uncommitted or that we do not care, but losing Canadian lives in
a situation where no one can win is a position I cannot sanction.
I believe that the actions our government now takes can
provide Canada with a masterful role as a moral leader and a
defender of world peace.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I sincerely believe that our initiative will
enable the Government of Canada to play a leading role and also
to be a leader in the protection of world peace.
[English]
This requires a plan for peace that demands an international
political will to end the war. We expect a diplomatic
intervention and nothing less than an ultimatum to all of the
aggressors to negotiate peace.
The events as they have unfolded in Bosnia focused our hearts
and minds on one inescapable conclusion. I am of the opinion
that we cannot stay there as conditions now exist. We have an
opportunity to show leadership as we state our expectation for
peace to be made. If it is not met then we must leave.
(1325)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, it is with interest and emotion that I listened to what the
hon. member had to say. I say emotion because I myself
participated in a UN operation during four years, in the Congo,
from 1961 to 1965, and I was lucky enough to get out of there in
one piece.
I appreciate the concern shown by the hon. member who is
wondering if our soldiers should risk their lives or not. From this
issue arises another rather technical question for which I have no
answer and on which I was hoping this debate might shed some
light. Should we or should we not ask the UN to give our soldiers
broader powers to defend themselves when they are attacked,
should we or should we not give them the right to retaliate and
even patrol certain areas, at the risk of alienating the people and
leading them to misinterpret our role, since retaliation would of
course be seen as an act of aggression?
If we decide to give our soldiers broader powers to defend
themselves, we are putting their lives in danger since retaliation
does involve some risks. But then, if we decide not to give them
more leeway, we are also putting them at risk, since they will be
left defenceless during an attack.
[English]
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the question that was asked. I would like to say just a couple of
things. I am like him. I am not a technocrat. The question he
asked was one he stated would be very difficult to answer.
I have to say how difficult it was given my background to
write this speech. I came to this issue with my heart and my
mind. The questions as I framed them were the ones that I felt
comfortable I could provide a response to. I do believe that it is
up to our diplomatic community to make a decision regarding
the nature of the questions as you asked them.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
have a comment more than a question to make to the hon.
member.
She indicated we cannot stay there and that we must make
peace and get out. In order for us to accomplish peace we have to
invest more time in understanding the region and its peoples.
I attended the briefing yesterday and heard from our military
people that they too are sometimes very confused as to who is
doing what. There are conflicting stories continuously coming
from the media. I am not sure what station it was but I followed a
program on TV last night emphasizing how these people are
being persecuted and that cleansing is taking place. I am very
confused about who to believe, what to believe, what paper to
read and so on.
There is no question that we all want peace, however, the
member for Kamloops made a statement earlier that it is country
against country and nation against nation and region against
region and the Greeks against the Macedonians. I would like to
make the point that when we get information it is a matter of
presenting the facts as they are.
288
What if we keep on referring to certain resolutions the United
Nations has made in the past? It recognizes FYROM or the
former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia. We should keep on
referring to it as such as the name was approved by the United
Nations and agreed upon by both parties. All we are doing here
is adding fuel to the fire.
I read a sports column the other day about breaking down the
groups in the various European soccer competitions that are to
take place next year. The newspaper stated that Greece will be in
this section and Macedonia will be in another section. I think we
have to help ourselves by presenting the facts as they are unless
they are consistently presented as FYROM or the former
Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia.
(1330 )
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I feel honoured to rise and speak on this subject today
for a number of reasons.
First, I think the fact that the Prime Minister has seen fit to
encourage a debate of this nature so early in the 35th Parliament
is I believe a tribute to our peacekeepers and the kind of
operations that Canada has become expert in over a number of
years.
Second, I would like to point out what a-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret the intervention
to the parliamentary secretary. I would ask for his indulgence
and possibly that of the House. It has been my error or omission
following the request from the Reform Party which had
indicated earlier in this debate that it was splitting its questions
into 10 and 5.
I hope that with your consent I might recognize the member
for Nanaimo-Cowichan. I would ask the parliamentary
secretary to please help me.
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, seeing as how I forgot to
congratulate you on your appointment, I think I should pay you
back by allowing the Reform Party to speak on this subject.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the parliamentary
secretary.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I did
not jump up when you called the hon. member for
Bonavista-Trinity-Conception out of turn because I have
such esteem for the gentleman, having known him over so many
years. I was quite attentive to what it was he was going to say
and would have held my peace.
I will be very brief about the customary niceties of this
maiden speech in order to save time for debate material on this
subject of peacekeeping.
[Translation]
First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold for being elected Speaker of
this House and yourself for your appointment as acting speaker.
As far as I was concerned, it was a small victory for democracy
which we try to improve little by little.
[English]
I would also like to thank my wife, Paula, for 40 years of
unflagging support for me and in particular for the last two years
of support.
It is customary here to describe one's constituency. Let us just
say that if one was to embellish all of the descriptions of
constituencies heard so far in the House then that would describe
Nanaimo-Cowichan. It cuts a swath of beauty from the tranquil
Gulf Islands right across Vancouver Island to the wild and
rugged west coast.
To my constituents in Nanaimo-Cowichan, I thank them for
the honour of representing them in Ottawa. I will try to help you
understand what is happening in Ottawa if I understand it
myself. However, I will certainly represent your interests in
Ottawa and not Ottawa's interests to you.
This brings us to the issue of the day which is peacekeeping
and more particularly the situation in the former Yugoslavia.
What do my constituents think? I believe that the people of
Nanaimo-Cowichan, in common with many other Canadians,
think as follows. We are proud of the record of Canadian
peacekeepers. We are very proud of the troops who are there
doing that job at the moment, the Royal 22e Régiment de
Valcartier.
However, Canada seems to be stumbling at the moment
because of a lack of international leadership and political will.
(1335 )
We also appear to be short of armed forces personnel to
properly meet all current obligations. Therefore, the
government's proposed review of foreign affairs and defence
policies is timely and welcomed. We must determine if our
peacekeeping activities are in accordance with these policies or
should these policies be changed.
My constituents see in the Bosnian situation the enmity of
hundreds of years of religious and ethnic differences. There
appears to be no way to end this hatred. At the same time,
Canadians recognize that enmity of this sort is not confined to
the Balkans. It is a world-wide problem which leads to atrocities
and wars. The world community therefore must find better ways
of dealing with it. The United Nations, NATO and the European
Community are not perceived as being effective in dealing with
the problem.
In response to the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs' statement
this morning that he had been talking to his colleagues in France
and Britain, it would be helpful to this House for us to know in
289
what detail. I am really curious to know what France and Britain
are doing and what are their thoughts. What are the thoughts of
all of the European Community vis-a-vis this terrible situation
in the old Yugoslavia?
My constituents have images of Canadian soldiers trying hard
to help and sometimes being humiliated in the process. This is
very much resented, to the point where some say: ``Let us get our
personnel out of there''. Balancing this is the view that our
troops do prevent many atrocities in their own sector and enable
humanitarian aid to be given. Some therefore say that we must
stay for humanitarian reasons alone. These views of my
constituents seem to be in consonance with the views of other
Canadians.
There are factors other than my constituents' views to be
considered with regard to Bosnia. With regard to Bosnia, as
opposed to Croatia where at least there is a peace accord to keep,
take this into consideration. Without a change of attitude on the
part of the combatants, there appears to be no solution. If the
status quo is maintained peacekeepers could be there
indefinitely.
The next point is that the withdrawal of peacekeepers leads to
the spectre of genocide and more atrocities. Complete
withdrawal leads to the spectre of war as some of the
surrounding countries such as Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary,
Romania, Greece, Turkey and the former Russian states move in
to help their particular friends.
Against this background we must identify our role as
parliamentarians. First, we must listen to our constituents.
Second, we must with haste, re-examine our foreign affairs and
defence policies which the government has stated it will do.
Third, we must keep the Canadian public informed. Fourth, as
parliamentarians, we must show leadership in finding a
solution.
It seems to me that leadership is the key if there is any
solution to be found. We in this Chamber must take the lead and
we as a country must take the lead.
(1340 )
Therefore if the status quo is unacceptable, we must change it.
The protagonists in Bosnia must be forced to the negotiating
table and kept there until they come up with a peace plan that
others can supervise. Canada alone cannot make this happen, but
surely the world community can.
Therefore it seems to me that Canada must use its credibility
and its stature as a peacekeeper to provide the necessary
leadership. We must first talk with the United States, Britain and
France and then with NATO, the NATO associates which are
coming on line, and the United Nations. We must insist that
collectively we come up with a plan that will force the creation
of a peace plan by the combatants. If we cannot achieve this,
Canada should then think of withdrawing.
I will conclude by underlining the earlier words of my
colleague, the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, that
more peace talks are scheduled in Geneva on February 10.
Canada must take the lead by hosting a conference here in
Ottawa before that date. Participants should include all
countries with forces now in the former Yugoslavia. This
conference which we propose must of itself or through the
United Nations issue a clear ultimatum to the belligerents that
either they come up with an enforceable peace plan or they
accept the withdrawal of UN forces. If the conference cannot
agree to this and show concrete progress toward peace in
Bosnia, Canada should announce its intention to withdraw at the
end of its current commitment in April.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, it is the
first time I have stood up since the election and I want to
congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair. Having
known you for a long time I know you will do your very best in
looking after the interests of members of this place from all
political persuasions, including the independents I might add.
The member opposite just gave a very good overview of his
views about Canada's role vis-à-vis peacekeeping and the
former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia, the sovereign state of
Bosnia.
I too have many constituents who share a view on this, coming
from the riding of Dartmouth which has a very large number of
individuals who are employed by the Department of National
Defence. We have Shearwater there. Many individuals who
work in the Canadian navy reside in my area. I can certainly say
that the issue of Canada's role as a peacekeeper is first and
foremost in their minds.
I have a brother who has just come back from perhaps a less
strenuous tour of duty, but nevertheless one which was fraught
with some danger. He was in Cambodia as a member of the UN
force that was there during the Cambodian elections.
In commenting on the remarks of my hon. colleague, it is
fairly clear that the Canadian public is very supportive of
Canada's historic and leading role as the world's peacekeeper.
Even in times of great fiscal difficulty when we are trying to
figure out how we are going to pay for the essential services
Canadians have come to expect, the Canadian public generally
is extremely supportive of the efforts the men and women in
uniform from the Canadian Armed Forces have played abroad.
However the Bosnian situation is quite different from what we
have been used to in the past. Out of all of the peacekeeping
missions we have been on, this is one where no one could
question whether or not there was a peace to keep. Clearly there
is no peace to keep. Of the warring factions, the most aggressive
faction which did not accept the referendum on Bosnia, the
Serbian faction, has clearly indicated through its actions over
the last year that as much as it may like to pay lip service to the
fact that the United Nations may be trying to do something to
290
bring about peace it has shown time and time again that it is not
prepared to deal with the forces there in a fair manner.
The people in my area have been seized with this issue just as
they have in the hon. member's riding. The people in my area as
much as they want to see Canada continue to play its role feel
very strongly that the lack of substance and the lack of
follow-up in many of the threats that were made in resolutions
by the United Nations have clearly put our peacekeepers at a
disadvantage. Every time that the United Nations gets up and
tells one or all of the warring sides to: ``Do this or else'', the or
else has never come.
(1345 )
I would just conclude my very brief comments on the hon.
member's remarks by indicating that the people in Dartmouth as
well are very concerned. They support the proud tradition of
Canadian peacekeeping but in this particular instance they are
asking the Government of Canada to take a lead role to ensure
that there is a peace made before our people are asked to keep a
peace that simply does not exist.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member is
obviously in accord with my remarks, as apparently are our
constituents, there really is no reply to be made.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have two minutes
remaining on questions and comments. Hopefully we can share
that two minutes evenly between the question and the answer.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I will try to be brief.
I want to express my concern about the position that has been
taken by Reform Party members, including the member for
Calgary Southeast, who said: ``I do not believe anything we do
as Canadian soldiers will make a difference''. We are making a
difference in a very important way in that area in getting
humanitarian aid through and certainly in helping to save lives.
My question is very straight forward. Instead of Canadian
troops and the United Nations deciding to leave that troubled
area of Bosnia and Croatia because of the failure to date of peace
plans primarily because of Bosnian-Serb intransigence, would
he and his colleagues be prepared to consider another
alternative? That alternative is that the United Nations finally
get serious and give the troops on the ground the power they
need and have been asking for through their commanding
officers to enforce a peace and to stop the cycle of bloodshed and
destruction.
Would he agree to a change in the rules of engagement of the
United Nations and finally strengthening that position so that no
longer will we have the cycle of bloodshed and destruction that
we see at the very least in the six protected areas of Bosnia?
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway.
I would agree to a discussion at least in the United Nations
with respect to our troops and a revision of the rules to ensure
that they are properly protective of our troops.
The thing that I believe the hon. member is missing is that for
us to enforce a peace in Bosnia when there is no peace agreement
there has the implication of bringing in tens of thousands of
troops to have this happen. This is the point that I and some
others have been making. We must first bring the warring
factions in Bosnia-not in the other part of Croatia, but in
Bosnia-to the table and insist that they come up with a plan.
There has to be a plan before they can so-call, keep the peace.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, my preliminary remarks stand.
I want to congratulate you and say that I am delighted to stand
and speak on this subject. It is a tribute to our men and women in
uniform involved in peacekeeping operations, indeed to the
Canadian military and to the institution of this House where
members are allowed to speak without fear of being castigated
by their whips and party officials.
With this kind of debate and the number of speakers we have
heard this morning I have found the level of the debate to be very
enlightening, non-partisan and what the Canadian public is
looking forward to seeing, not just in the early days of this
Parliament but as the 35th Parliament of Canada continues to
operate.
I have had to change what initially was my approach because
of the time. I will try to finish by two o'clock when Question
Period starts although I may have to spill over.
What I want to do very briefly is look at why Canada has
become so expert in peacekeeping. Why has it become the
acceptable operation? We can look at some of the things that
have changed that. Perhaps we can look at the future of these
kinds of peacekeeping operations and then suggest some ground
rules that may need to be looked at because we are now involved
in a different kind of operation.
(1350)
If we go back to the early beginnings of peacekeeping, I guess
it really started during the cold war when most UN operations
were paralysed except for peacekeeping in areas of the world
that were either of little importance to the superpowers or the
area of operation could be dangerous to the superpowers'
interest.
291
I believe our first substantive peacekeeping operation took
place in response to a United Nations request for officer
observers in Kashmir that is strategically located between India
and Pakistan. Canada agreed after some negotiation to send four
officer observers from the army in 1949. The following year this
was increased to eight officer observers and in fact was changed
from the militia to the regular army. It is my understanding that
this was the beginnings of peacekeeping.
That was in the late 1940s and we are still involved. We are
still engaged in that operation. Shortly after, our participation in
the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization, UNTSO,
took place in the Middle East. We are still there.
In 1954 Canada became involved in the International Control
Commission in Indo-China. Although we were there for a
different reason we are still there.
In 1956 Canada's military peacekeeping operation increased
tremendously and dramatically when the Suez crisis erupted.
The involvement of a Canadian who was then the external affairs
minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, is well known. We
stayed there until our peacekeepers were kicked out by Mr.
Nasser in 1967.
Our government contributed a battalion to Cyprus in 1964. It
was supposed to last for six months. It has lasted for 30 years. As
the hon. Minister of National Defence mentioned we still have
peacekeepers in Cyprus. It is not the battalion that we had
before, but we still have 10 members of the Canadian forces in
Cyprus.
What am I saying? I am saying that in our involvement in
peacekeeping operations, 44 since the first one, we have
regrettably lost, not including Korea, 98 young Canadians of the
100,000 young men and women in uniform. That is our
peacekeeping record. If we examine the operations we have to
ask how Canada established this reputation. Was it because our
population was benign? Was it because of the nature of our
military forces? Was it because we had an extraordinary interest
in world events? Was it because we were a middle power?
I do not think there is a simple answer but we need to look at
some of the operations individually. We were involved in
Cyprus because we were a NATO power interposed between two
NATO countries. We were involved, I would suggest, in the
International Control Commission in the mid-1950s because we
were a western democracy.
We were involved in the Middle East operations, I suppose
primarily because in both world wars we established a kind of
professionalism and a general purpose force that was
deployable, had good logistics, a good reputation and the ability
to do it. As each of these 44 operations continued the success of
one fuelled the other. Whenever a troubled part of the world lent
itself to peacekeeping who was going to be called? Canada.
While the operations that took place until a few years ago
were not standard in the sense of being the same in each
operation, they were more or less, with the possible exception of
the Belgian Congo to which reference has already been made
and Korea, peacekeeping operations in the sense that they were
policing. They became acceptable to Canadians because we as a
military force and as a country made a change. We made a
difference. We helped to keep the world a better place in which
to live. Our military people became expert in it and it became
acceptable, with minor exception, to all political parties.
(1355)
A few years ago at the end of the cold war, the demise of the
Berlin wall and the invasion of a foreign country attempting to
take over the sovereignty of another country-and I refer now to
the gulf war-the ground rules changed. After some discussion
in the House and with some division of Canadian opinion we in
Canada became involved in the gulf war.
After the gulf war I would suggest the situation changed. To
begin with, the definition of peacekeeping did not stop at
policing. It involved-and I am using simple
terms-peacemaking which involved enforcement. It involved
humanitarian aid which called up support in the feeding of
people and the protection of lives. It involved other kinds of
operations like for example in Cambodia with helping to run the
country until a government was put in place.
Other things happened as well. The power of the United
Nations changed in what was referred to as a new world order. It
is what many of us in the House today have made oblique
reference to as perhaps a world disorder.
Has that made a difference to the intensity and the number of
operations in which we are going to be involved? I suggest it
has. It is my thesis that we will see more requirements for
peacekeeping in its general sense. We will see more in the
intensity and more in the requirements to get other countries
including Canada involved in the sovereign affairs of other
countries.
I say that because in the 179 countries in the world today there
are 4,000 languages. Some 60 of these countries have
populations of one million or less and 40 of them have
populations of less than 200,000. More important, and I think
this is germane to the argument, less than 10 per cent of these
countries have a homogeneous ethnic population and less than 5
per cent have an ethnic group that accounts for more than 75 per
cent of the population. What we are seeing is an explosion of
nations downward, to the point where they are really comprising
the smallest ethnic and religious groups.
292
If we add to that the low levels of tolerance that seem to be
dominant in the world today, poorer tolerance for religious,
social and ethnic differences, we are going to see more
requirements for peacekeepers.
What should our response be in Canada? Our response has to
be relative to what it is we can do. What can we do? I want to
suggest at the outset to the House and to anybody listening to
this presentation that whether we stay, participate, do not
participate or withdraw, it will never be related to the will of the
Canadian forces in the sense that they will do the job they have
been asked to do.
Our history recalls Canadian participation in an operation that
heretofore had been impossible to achieve. I refer members of
the House to Vimy Ridge. As a Newfoundlander I recall the
heroic action of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment in 1916
when practically every member of that battalion was wiped out
in a few hours. Let us make no mistake about it. It will not be a
withdrawal because we do not want to stay.
However we have to look at some of the ground rules. Has the
United Nations changed in its ability to control what is
happening in the leadership of these operations, in the command
and control of these operations? Have the mandates been clear? I
recall a speech many of us would recall made in the Congress by
General MacArthur when he returned from Korea. I remember
his last resounding message was: ``Of the corps, of the corps, of
the corps''.
I remember a presentation when I was a young officer being
made by perhaps the father of peacekeeping, General E. L. M.
Burns who commanded the Middle East involvement in our first
real sizeable contribution to peacekeeping. If he had a refrain it
was: where is the mandate, where is the mandate, where is the
mandate? Without a mandate we can do nothing. Without an
effective United Nations what we do may not be the right thing.
It may not be done properly. It may not be timely. Where we go
depends on the support we have, not just in Canada but in the
world at large.
In my concluding remarks I would say that before we become
involved as a country in peacekeeping operations we must check
to see what is our mandate. What is the ability of the United
Nations to command and control these particular operations?
We can look at our requirements because of the kind of country
we are. Because of our makeup it is in our interests to be
involved in any activity that makes the world a more stable place
to live.
It is also incumbent upon us to ensure that the things we do
will not jeopardize the resources of our country, to say not the
least of putting our young men and women in uniform in harm's
way more so than we should be expected to do as a sovereign
country.
The Speaker: It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to statements by
members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
292
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, over the
past few weeks I have received a number of calls and letters of
support of the extension of the home buyers plan which is due to
expire on March 2 of this year.
In a recent letter on this subject a local real estate company
referred to a survey by the Canadian Real Estate Association.
This survey found that 86 per cent of first-time home buyers
said the plan was instrumental in their decision to buy a home.
Furthermore, 80 per cent of respondents said it was imperative
to repay their first RSP loans and 41 per cent said they would
repay it faster than the program required. According to the letter
the CMHC found that a full 26 per cent of 1992 housing sales
involved the use of this plan.
I am in full support of the home buyers plan and urge the
finance minister not only to extend the program but to make
appropriate changes to the law so that this type of plan is a
permanent option to home buyers.
At this time of fiscal restraint we should be looking at exactly
this sort of initiative, one that does not cost the government or
the taxpayers any money.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I attended last Sunday the convention of the Quebec
Sepharad Community. I noted that this community is very active
not only within the Quebec Jewish Community as a whole but
also in Quebec society itself.
The Sepharad people are an example of community
involvement for all Quebecers. Besides their strong solidarity as
a group, they make ceaseless efforts to play a role in today's
Quebec.
The exchanges and debates which took place during this
convention allowed for a better knowledge, thus a better
understanding of the various political tendencies in Quebec.
Such opportunities can only enrich democracy. I would like to
thank and congratulate the Quebec Sepharad Community for
holding such events.
293
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on
January 25, to recognize the anniversary of the birth of the great
Scottish poet, Robert Burns, who was born on this day in 1759.
Scottish people around the world rise today to toast his
immortal memory. He was but a poor and lowly farmer but
recognition of his greatness is seen in the words of the song
written in his honour more than 100 years after his death:
Let kings and courtiers rise and fall, this world has many more,
But brightly shines above them all the star of Robbie Burns.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, occupational training is one of the best means to reduce
unemployment, to retrain older workers and even to eliminate
poverty. By refusing to allow its French minority to fully
participate in the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, the
Ontario government is denying them access to that training.
Because of that, thousands of Franco-Ontarians are deprived of
training.
(1405)
When renegotiating the federal-provincial agreement on
education next March, the federal government should take into
account the serious deficiencies of the Ontario Training and
Adjustment Board and their impact on the assimilation of
francophones and require the Ontario government to create a
manpower training and adjustment board effectively serving all
Canadians living in Ontario.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, RRSPs provide
self-financed pensions for Canadians who do not benefit from
government or company sponsored plans.
I would like to quote a Nepean resident, Mr. Denis Deschenes,
who states:
I am 42 years old and I do not enjoy the benefits of a registered pension plan
sponsored by an employer. My future retirement income depends solely on my
contributions to a personal and spousal RRSP; thereby ensuring that my wife
and I will not have to rely on government during retirement years.
That our government would now consider altering this to generate more
revenue today is disastrous and self-defeating.
I recognize that our country is facing difficult financial times. But, I resent
having penalties imposed on my hard work and financial planning. The RRSP is
the only pension vehicle my wife and I have.
If the government wishes to restrict those of us who depend solely on an RRSP
as a source of future income, then I strongly suggest that it apply this restriction
fairly to all.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I think I have my
remarks timed a little more precisely today so that I can take this
opportunity to wish you well in your serious and important
duties in this Chamber after your election. I trust that you and
the others appointed to help you will have enough judgment,
patience, sensitivity and good humour to put up with 200
fledgling MPs. We will do our best.
I want to talk briefly on a topic of importance to all
Canadians: sustainable development. In our government's red
book ``Creating Opportunity'', sustainable development
involves the integration of economic and environmental goals.
The previous Conservative government acted as if
environmental concerns and job creation were diametrically
opposed concepts. I disagree completely. It is my belief that
there are many economic benefits, particularly future benefits,
from tying job creation and technological innovation to
environmental protection and concerns. In fact all our decisions
in the House should recognize-
The Speaker: The hon. member in using such flattering
words used up a little bit of his time, but we will catch him next
time down the road.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, after the contract
for the construction of military helicopters was cancelled, the
Bloc Quebecois repeatedly insisted that the money saved be
reinvested in the development of a high-speed train in the
Quebec-Windsor corridor.
In 1991, the Ontario-Quebec Rapid Train Task Force
recognized the significance of that project and its economic
impact. The task force held extensive consultations during
which the public pointed out the need to make the cities along
that corridor more efficient if they are to succeed in a
competitive market.
The project would create 120,000 direct jobs, plus hundreds
of highly specialized and permanent jobs resulting from
technology transfers and industrial agreements.
294
Despite all these benefits, the Prime Minister told the press
that the introduction of a high-speed train was not a priority.
We are concerned about the lack of interest shown by the
government in an innovative project that would create jobs,
promote the use of leading-edge technologies and stimulate
research and development in Canada and Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker,
today while reading the
Globe and Mail I was struck most
forcibly by the headline: ``Planned hangover merits sick pay''.
In Ontario it was recently ruled that it is acceptable, or at least
tolerable, for someone to receive benefits from intentionally
getting drunk.
An employee of the Metro Housing Authority decided on a
Friday that he would require a sick day on Monday because of
the anticipated effects of excessive alcohol consumption over
the weekend.
I rise before this House because I am sure this case was not an
isolated incident. How often does this type of abuse occur? How
long must hard working Canadians endure the fiscal
reverberations of social irresponsibility and whimsical
behaviour?
(1410)
On behalf of outraged Canadians, this abuse must not be
tolerated at any level. Honest and hard working individuals
should not be the victims of other self-indulgent behaviour.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, in the
previous Parliament the issue of regional rates of pay within the
federal public service was the subject of two private members'
motions that I placed before the House. Indeed the existence and
unfairness of regional rates of pays was the primary cause of the
national ships crews strike in 1989. It continues to be an irritant
within the federal public service.
Thousands of federal employees who work in Atlantic Canada
doing the same jobs as their counterparts in central and western
Canada get paid less, and in some cases up to 30 per cent less,
simply because of the region in which they have chosen to live.
Last Thursday in the House the President of the Treasury
Board stated:
One of the programs this government is most committed to is the matter of
pay equity.
This is a pay equity issue. I urge the President of the Treasury
Board to take immediate steps to eliminate this abhorrent,
discriminatory practice of regional rates of pay.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, the following poem
was read by Corporal Stewart Lowe on New Years Day in my
riding. It was written by his friend, Corporal Ron Hefferman, in
honour of their chums who were killed in the former Yugoslavia.
Today it seems appropriate to share it with all members of this
House:
Remember me
We bid farewell to family and friends
In hopes that someday we can live as brothers.
I pray for the day that wars will end
And my fate will be spared to others,
It was the war to end all wars,
That was what they said,
But after seventy six long years,
Canada still counts her dead.
I was a true Canadian, I wish you could see,
All I ask is-Remember Me.
In war I fought and died, I thought that it would cease;
Now under the blue beret I die for world peace like
Michael, Ralph, John Zerpapolski
Plus the thousands of soldiers before
On November 11 I died for Peace not war.
I was a true Canadian, I wish you could see-All I ask
is
Remember Me.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to urge all members of the House of
Commons and indeed all Canadians to recognize and lend their
support to National Burn Awareness Week from February 6 to
February 12.
Burn injuries are a leading cause of accidental deaths in
Canada with children, the elderly and disabled Canadians being
at highest risk. Most burn injuries and deaths can be prevented
by increased public awareness and education.
Burn prevention through education means greater use of
smoke detectors, increased home escape planning and teaching
children not to hide from fire. Prevention through education will
result in many lives being saved and great reductions in
suffering.
295
Finally I wish to thank the members of the Shrine of North
America as well as the Canadian Fire Association for their hard
work and dedication to supporting and promoting National Burn
Awareness Week.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank you, on behalf of all Canadians
and Quebecers, for having welcomed President Aristide in this
House.
There are many long-standing ties between our two
communities and it is only natural that many Haitians chose to
live with us.
I am sure I speak for all Canadians and Quebecers when I
express the hope that human rights and democracy will be
restored in Haiti as soon as possible and that President Aristide
will go back to govern that country as its sole democratically
legitimate leader.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, in keeping
with the new Reform tradition of constructive comments in the
House, I would like to compliment the Liberal government for
scheduling today's debate where members are free to express
their own opinions and hopefully the opinions of their
constituents.
I am optimistic this may set a precedent of the government
listening to the people of Canada before bringing forward
government action in future crafting of legislation. Because
noisy, attention seeking, special interest groups frequently
appear to set government agenda, it would be most helpful if the
government continues this policy of listening to members of the
House and ordinary citizens of Canada.
Reform MPs will be watching closely to see what action the
government takes with respect to Canada's peacekeeping role,
the future direction in Canadian peacekeeping policy and
operations, and whether that action parallels the overriding
consensus of members of the House today.
* * *
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston): Mr. Speaker,
hockey fans across Canada were disappointed when the NHL
Board of Governors effectively prevented Toronto Maple Leaf
star, Glenn Anderson, from playing for Canada's Olympic
hockey team next month. A motion by Maple Leaf President
Cliff Fletcher at the Board of Governors meeting which would
have allowed Anderson to play for Canada was not even
considered.
(1415)
The NHL has come up with some rather lame excuses
considering the fact that the NHL has allowed its players to play
in the Olympics in the past.
It is not right that NHL team owners, a majority of whom are
American, should dictate who should play on our Olympic
hockey team. Canada should be permitted to showcase its best
athletes on the world stage. To their credit, Mr. Anderson and the
NHL Players Association are not prepared to let the matter die.
It is time for Canadian hockey fans to tell the NHL what they
think about keeping Anderson off our Olympic team.
I call on the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport
to meet with NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman at the earliest
possible opportunity, with a view to allowing Mr. Anderson to
play on our Olympic team.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to commend the work of the Ontario Coalition of
Senior Citizens Organizations.
The coalition of 56 organizations across Ontario with 460,000
members has succeeded in compiling a brief with
recommendations which was distributed to all federal Members
of Parliament. The brief is very well written and their concerns
are succinctly articulated. I know this will contribute greatly to
the ongoing discussion concerning our aging population.
I wish the coalition well in its endeavours and I present this
brief.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, the aerial
spray program to control the spruce budworm has been actively
ongoing in New Brunswick for more than 30 years. This
program has been successful in minimizing the damage in tree
mortality caused by the spruce budworm and has been
instrumental in ensuring the long-term viability and vigour of
the New Brunswick forest industry.
The future health of New Brunswick's forest resource and its
forest industry depends upon adequate protection against the
spruce budworm. If the registration of fenitrothion were to be
cancelled, our New Brunswick forests would be at serious risk if
296
we are forced to rely on B.t. alone. At present we have only one
proven reliable tool and that is fenitrothion. B.t. is still in its
experimental stage from an operational point of view.
The forestry in New Brunswick is the most important industry
we have.
_____________________________________________
296
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday in Saint-Eustache something very serious
happened, something that should disturb any responsible
government. More than 1,000 people deliberately and openly
defied the law.
The Prime Minister knows perfectly well why otherwise
honest citizens went to this extreme. These people are angry
about the continuing failure of the federal government and the
RCMP to stop cigarette smuggling. And now, this movement
may spread to the Sherbrooke area tomorrow. In other words, the
government is facing an organized movement of civil
disobedience.
My question: Has the Prime Minister forgotten that his first
duty is to enforce the rule of law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have asked the RCMP to enforce the law and the necessary
action will be taken. Charges will be laid against those who
disobey the law.
Meanwhile, I have had a chance to discuss with several
provincial premiers, including the Premier of Quebec, the
Premier of Ontario, and the Premiers of New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the possibility of taking a
common stand and dealing with a situation that I deplore as
much as the Leader of the Opposition does. We hope to have an
agreement within the next few days. If not, we will act
unilaterally, and I hope we can count on the support of the
Opposition.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, this is an attempt to hide behind a smoke screen of
possible discussions and hypothetical agreements with the
provinces, but meanwhile, the government has the authority and
the responsibility to take the necessary action.
I will ask the Prime Minister a very simple question which
everyone in this country would like to ask. Since the identity and
actions of the smugglers have been public knowledge for a long
time, why do the federal government and the RCMP not take
immediate action to make them stop?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
am informed that the police have made a number of arrests in the
past few weeks. If any members of this House have the names of
some of the smugglers, I hope they will act as responsible
citizens and advise the police so that they can take the necessary
action. If the hon. member knows any smugglers, it is his duty to
give their names to the police.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I imagine the Prime Minister has a tv monitor in his
office. If he looks at the monitor, he will see who is responsible.
Earlier, he passed the buck to the provincial governments and
now he is passing the buck to the members of the opposition. He
is the leader of the government, he is Prime Minister and he
should do something about this.
I would like to ask how he can expect people to trust him to
enforce the law, when an average citizen in Jonquière, after
selling illegal cigarettes for an hour, is arrested while
professional smugglers have been able to conduct their
activities on a regular basis without any interference at all. The
question is this; is there a double standard in the justice system
in this country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is no.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The
professional cigarette smugglers who have been active for many
months are doing great harm to convenience store owners and to
the public treasury. The government's inaction is only
worsening the situation, and the demonstration in
Saint-Eustache is damning proof.
My question is as follows. The Solicitor General told us
yesterday that he had not intervened directly before to collect
sufficient evidence. Therefore I ask him today whether he has
evidence not only for Saint-Eustache but also for Akwesasne,
Kahnawake and Kanesatake?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
evidence is a matter for the RCMP to decide; it is not for the
Solicitor General to make such operational decisions. But I wish
to inform the House that over the past year, the RCMP arrested
3,500 people and also seized tens of millions of dollars of
contraband tobacco, and the RCMP will continue to enforce the
law throughout our country.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): All well and
good, Mr. Speaker. I now ask the Solicitor General whether the
RCMP has given him evidence that smugglers have been acting
for months in full view and with the full knowledge of everyone
in Akwesasne, Kahnawake and Kanesatake? If he has such
evidence, why does he not act?
297
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
yes, so far the RCMP has given priority to fighting the big
criminal rings that smuggle tobacco. As I just said, it is up to the
RCMP to give the Crown prosecutor evidence and if the
evidence is suitable, the people involved will be charged.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question today for the Minister of Natural Resources,
whom I would like to congratulate on her appointment. And I do
not have to raise my voice to make my point.
The Minister of Finance and others have implied that the
government has a revenue problem rather than a spending
problem. These insinuations have led to concerns especially in
Alberta that the government is considering the institution of a
carbon tax to be paid by the producers and users of fossil fuels.
As the Minister of Natural Resources and as the member for
Edmonton Northwest, will the minister make strong
representations to the finance minister pointing out the
discriminatory aspects of such a tax and its potentially negative
impacts on development and jobs in the petroleum sector?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, let me say first of all to the hon. member, I thank you
for your kind words of congratulations.
In relation to his specific question let me say that I believe it
to be purely speculative. As the hon. member is aware the
Minister of Finance has embarked on an unprecedented
consultative process. He is in Toronto today. He will be in
Calgary on the weekend. I know that you and members of your
caucus have been invited to participate in that process.
(1425 )
I look forward to having you and others make their views
known in relation to the carbon tax on Saturday.
The Speaker: I know the minister meant to address herself to
the Chair throughout.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
did the same thing with my first questions.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Natural
Resources. The same speculations about the government having
a revenue problem rather than a spending problem have also led
to another concern. That is that the government is considering
repealing the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act which
permits income taxes paid by investor owned utilities to be
rebated to their customers so that they are put on the same
footing as the customers of government owned utilities that pay
no such taxes.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources, the hon. member for
Edmonton Northwest, make strong representations to the
finance minister concerning the discriminatory aspects of any
such repeal and the negative consequences of such an action,
particularly on energy users, in her home province?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, let me assure the hon. member from Calgary that I
know this is a very important issue.
I have received representations as recently as yesterday in
relation to this particular tax measure. I have already raised it
with my colleagues in the Department of Finance. I know my
comments will be taken into account as part of the ongoing
consultative process.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have one further supplementary for the minister. This is a
terrible question for a new minister.
If the federal budget, notwithstanding the minister's strong
representations, were to contain a carbon tax or the repeal of the
Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, would the minister be
willing to resign?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, let me say that I view the hon. member's question as
purely hypothetical.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the hon. Minister of Defense quickly rose to answer a question I
had asked the Prime Minister.
He said and I quote: ``I should say that la Sûreté du Québec is
wondering why a national defence beacon went off in that area
when it obviously appears there is no plane missing. That is a
question that is under investigation by la Sûreté du Québec.''
My question is for the minister of defence: why did he state in
this House that the matter was under investigation by the Sûreté
du Québec when on CBC news at noon an official spokesperson
for the Sûreté du Québec formally denied that such was the case?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, to
confirm the answer I gave yesterday, a search and rescue
helicopter landed near Oka-Kanesatake in response to a distress
call from an emergency beacon.
298
A small group assembled near the helicopter and one
individual approached the crew to inform them that the
helicopter was being shot at. Those comments were informative
and not threatening.
[English]
After that, our forces, having determined that there did not
appear to be a plane downed in the area, decided to leave. They
did not want to provoke any further incidents given the
sensitivity of the region.
With respect to la Sûreté du Québec the information I had
when I came into the House yesterday was that la Sûreté du
Québec as well as my own officials were investigating this
matter. Since the hon. member has spoken, I certainly will go
back and find out the state of the investigation if there is one
being done by la Sûreté du Québec. Certainly my officials are
looking into the matter.
If I have further information, I will bring it to the attention of
the House.
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. I would like
him to tell us why his government, himself included, is trying to
conceal the seriousness of what happened in Kanesatake.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): We are not
trying to conceal anything, Mr. Speaker. A call was received
and, as usual in such a situation, the Canadian forces sent a
helicopter to see whether or not a plane had crashed in this part
of the Canadian territory. They found no sign of an accident and
returned to their base. They performed their duty and nothing
more.
It was their duty to be there. If some were unhappy about
seeing a Canadian forces helicopter on the reserve, they must
realize that the whole of the Canadian territory comes under the
jurisdiction of the Canadian forces, whether it be Oka or
somewhere else in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade. It concerns
the upcoming bilateral trade negotiations with the United States.
There appears to be a major disagreement as to which set of
trade rules, GATT or NAFTA, will take precedence. The
minister has assured Canadians that his legal advisers are
confident that GATT rules will supersede those of NAFTA.
Can the minister produce for this House and especially for
thousands of Canadian agriculture producers a copy of this legal
opinion?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to send the hon. member that
opinion.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to thank the minister for that co-operation.
My supplemental question is that it is unlikely this situation
will be resolved in court but rather through a political
negotiation. Can the minister give his assurance that Canadian
durum wheat producers will not be abandoned in these
negotiations?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Our intention, Mr. Speaker, throughout our discussions with the
United States which have been conducted in part by my
colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has been to protect the
interests of Canadian grain farmers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, some
people from Kanesatake said they threatened a Canadian army
helicopter and scared off the soldiers, thus aborting a rescue
mission, and the Prime Minister says nothing happened.
Could the Prime Minister tell me whether he thinks it is
normal that the Canadian army is unable to carry out rescue
missions safely, no matter where they happen to be on Canadian
soil?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said that when there is a distress call anywhere in Canada and the
army has to respond with a rescue operation, it is doing its duty.
That is exactly what the army did yesterday. It was doing its
duty, as it always does, under all circumstances and in all parts
of Canada, including all Indian reserves in this country.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, as my
supplementary, aside from the fact there was no trace of bullets
on the helicopter, does the Prime Minister not feel that shooting
at an army helicopter to the extent that members of the military
felt their lives were in danger constitutes a serious incident that
infringes on Canada's sovereignty on its own territory?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there can be no infringement of Canada's sovereignty when
Canadians are on Canadian soil. There is no evidence whatsoev-
299
er that shots were fired. The army did its duty. I say it did the
right thing. It had the right to go there and if another distress call
is received under similar circumstances, it will go back. No one
will be able to stop the army from doing its job, as prescribed
under Canadian law.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
As the Prime Minister has acknowledged, Canadians are
demanding that integrity be restored to governments. In the
Speech from the Throne the government took a step in that
direction by promising to appoint an ethics counsellor.
In light of the issue raised in this place yesterday regarding an
hon. member, does the Prime Minister agree that it is even more
urgent that an ethics counsellor be appointed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is part of the government program. One will be appointed when
the legislation is passed, if legislation is needed to achieve that
goal.
(1435 )
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Will the
Prime Minister please share with the House the steps he is taking
to ensure that that ethics counsellor will be free to act on his or
her own judgment and authority, independent of political
manipulation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): When
somebody is sworn in to do his job in this government, he does
his job. That is it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, as
regards the Kanesatake incident, the Prime Minister says all
those involved did what they had to do and the minister of
defence says they left without following up on the situation. The
nature of the distress signal that caused the incidents of last
Friday at Kanesatake remains a mystery.
My question is for the minister of defence. Can he tell the
House if he received any further information on the nature and
origin of that signal?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
believe I answered that question a little earlier. We are looking
into the matter to find out with this DND frequency why there
was this signal at the reserve at the time. As soon as I have
information, I will make it available.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, my
second question is this: was the minister informed of the fact
that the signal could have come from a large building located on
Kanesatake territory?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
think the hon. gentleman and his colleagues are trying to
inflame what appears to have been a routine operation. We want
to find out why that particular signal went off in that particular
area, but other than that I do not think we should read too much
more into it.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister responsible for industry, science
and technology.
Is it his department's intention to work with the provinces to
develop a Canadian information highway? Premier McKenna is
committed to developing in New Brunswick an electronic
information highway. I believe there is a similar need for a
Canadian information highway for all of Canada.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): I would like to
thank the hon. member for the question. He will know that the
Speech from the Throne contained a reference to developing a
Canadian strategy for an information highway. We think this is a
very important initiative, to begin to provide a mechanism for
the exchange of information of a technical and scientific as well
as consumer-based interest across the country in a speedy way.
There is interest at the government level and in the provinces.
I have spoken with Premier McKenna about it. He has taken
initiatives in the past week to appoint a minister of state
responsible for this. There has also been a great deal of interest
and initiative taken in the private sector.
[Translation]
Just yesterday they announced a project for the implementation
of an information highway in the Chicoutimi region.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): My question is for the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Auditor General reports the minister and his wife flew to
Boston and New Orleans aboard a government-owned
Challenger. The Auditor General says the cost of this trip was
300
$172,920 versus $5,356 had the minister and his wife travelled
by commercial airline.
My question to the minister is this: is it departmental policy
that the minister use taxpayer-owned aircraft at vast expense
when commercial flights are available?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, I was asked to give a conference at Harvard University
on public service renewal on very short notice. I had events that
were already prepared on Monday morning in my county. The
only way to get there for 4.30 in the afternoon to give the speech
was, in fact, to take the plane. I had to come back in the evening
because there was a cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning.
I think in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the expenditure was
fully justified.
(1440 )
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary question. Can we take from the minister's
answer that he is promising business as usual or is he saying he
will spend taxpayers' dollars with a little more restraint?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, all I can promise is that in the future I will use
taxpayers' money in order to be as efficient as possible in
exactly the way it was demonstrated by that trip.
* * *
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
On my recent trip to the Canadian north I witnessed the
deplorable living conditions of the Inuit. In particular, the
misery of the inhabitants of Davis Inlet in Labrador has been
highlighted in recent months following the disclosure of the
very high rate of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse among the
young people in that community and the failure of the treatment
administered.
Does the government intend to put an end to the disgraceful
and inhumane treatment meted out to the inhabitants of Davis
Inlet by moving the village, for example, and are these priority
concerns for the minister?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean for his question and his concern.
It is a high priority. Two weeks ago we had officials with my
personal staff and Justice in. We will be going back probably
with an acceptable package in the early part of March which will
probably involve health and justice.
I assure you it is my priority to get this done this month. I
agree that we cannot have this happen in our country. These are
our people and we cannot leave them out there.
The Speaker: I know it is a small thing but would hon.
members always please address questions and answers to the
Chair.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the minister that I am the hon. member for Saint-Jean,
not Lac-Saint-Jean. It is very important; it is my other
colleague here.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bachand: I would like to ask the minister if his
government is prepared to exert its influence with the Liberal
Government of Newfoundland in order that positive steps might
be taken to improve the living conditions of the inhabitants of
Davis Inlet and in particular to help the desperate young people
in that community.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I met with the Premier of
Newfoundland and with the Attorney General.
In the last week the Attorney General of Newfoundland has
had two two-hour discussions with my executive assistant.
There is a misconception that Newfoundland does not want to
take care of the problem. I assure you that they do. They are as
concerned as we are and we are working together to solve this as
best we can. Ultimately it will be well into the next century
before the problems of Davis Inlet are solved.
We will work together to the best of our ability to solve the
problems.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister.
The Kemano completion project in British Columbia has
raised considerable concern.
During the election campaign in a letter to the Cheslatta Band
of Burns Lake the Prime Minister made a commitment that if
301
elected his government would participate in the ongoing B.C.
Utilities Commission hearings. He would make available all
information in federal possession relevant to the hearings, and
furthermore the government would remove the gag order on
current and former employees with information pertinent to the
proceedings. Alcan itself has requested federal participation in
the hearings.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to live up to his election
commitment today?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I congratulate him
on his new responsibilities as a member of the Reform Party
opposite.
The hon. member will note that a clear and consistent pattern
has emerged and it is that this new government strives mightily
always to ensure that the commitments and declarations of the
Prime Minister of Canada are lived up to.
This matter is being considered Thursday by cabinet. We hope
to be able to apprise the House of the results of our deliberations
shortly thereafter.
(1445 )
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the minister for his answer.
In the same letter the Prime Minister also made a commitment
``to undertake an immediate study of all available options to
ensure the maintenance of sustainable fisheries and a
sustainable regional economy in the Nechako region and the
well being of aboriginal peoples who are affected by the
completion of the Kemano project''.
It is now three months since the election. When is the Prime
Minister going to live up to his commitment for this immediate
study?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will know that the settlement
agreement was signed in 1987 and that the current circumstance
with respect to the terms and conditions attached to the Kemano
completion project were negotiated by a previous
administration.
It is reasonable that a new government on assuming office
would want to review fully this very complex matter involving
hundreds of millions of dollars worth of expenditure-$600
million on phase II, over $1 billion on phase I-and would want
to fully undertake all of its responsibilities to explore this matter
before proceeding.
I have thrown as broad a hint as I can without risking cabinet
solidarity. Members will find that the government always
strives mightily and consistently to ensure that the
commitments given are kept in as full and as complete a manner
as possible. Cabinet is now seized with this question.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resource Development.
In the Auditor General's report released last week it was
revealed that there were many problems with respect to the
telephone service in the income security programs branch. The
report criticized the service saying that more calls were
abandoned than answered.
People are having difficulty getting through on the telephone
lines and are consistently getting a busy signal. This creates a
real problem for seniors who are often in urgent need of
information regarding their old age and Canada pension
benefits.
I would like to ask the minister how he plans to solve this
problem in order that Canadians can receive the service they
deserve.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for Scarborough Centre for having become a persistent advocate
on this very important issue.
It is important to point out to members of the House,
particularly those who are on the constant refrain of how to cut
back government expenditures, but in this particular case the
increase of calls on old age pension and security questions
increased by 60 per cent over the last six or seven years. We now
receive over 11 million calls a year.
At the same time a restraint program cut back personnel by 20
per cent. As a result many senior citizens have not been able to
receive the service they require and deserve.
Saying that, we have now taken steps to try to correct the
situation. We will be taking on board a special program, a
system of telephone banks with about 200 personnel that will
have immediate access through a computer to all of the phone
systems of our department throughout Canada. We will be
spending about $3 million to upgrade that equipment. That will
be the first phase in an attempt to modernize the system. We
believe it will provide immediate, and we hope, efficient service
within a matter of four or five weeks.
302
I hope that the hon. member can wait until that system comes
into place because it is a clear indication that we are going to
target existing resources of the department to provide direct
service to Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, a few
days ago, a young girl, Sarah Dutil, was killed in Verdun. The
suspected murderer is an individual who was released on
November 15, 1993, after his trial for murder was cancelled. He
was freed directly as a consequence of the appointment, on June
23, 1993, of Henry Steinberg, the Superior Court judge in charge
of the case, to the Quebec Appeal Court.
The then Prime Minister acted without any regard for Judge
Steinberg's previous commitments. Such action is totally
unacceptable and is bound to discredit the administration of
justice and the whole judicial process.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Does he agree with
the recommendation made by the Quebec Bar Association
suggesting that it become mandatory to consult with the chief
justice of a court before appointing one of his judges to another
position?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, may I first express the sense
of horror and sadness that all members of this Chamber must
feel at the tragic death of Sarah Dutil. Our hearts go out to
members of her family.
There are two aspects I would offer to the hon. member in
response to the important question she has raised. First, my
understanding of the traditional practice is that whenever a trial
court judge is to be elevated to the appellate level, inquiries are
made by the minister of the chief justice of the relevant court to
be sure that the appointment will not interfere with the
completion of any proceeding or trial that is under way. That is
certainly the practice I intend to follow as long as I have any
involvement with the appointment process. As to what happened
in June of last year with respect to the appointment in question, I
have no personal knowledge.
There is a second aspect as well. The Department of Justice
will soon be introducing an omnibus amendment to the Criminal
Code and among other things it will propose a change to section
669.2 of the code, the effect of which will be to ensure that a
criminal jury trial can proceed notwithstanding the
disqualification of the presiding trial judge for any reason and
the substitution of another judge so that such a circumstance
may never happen again.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, in view
of the fact that such transfers in the midst of proceedings are an
untimely and unacceptable intervention on the part of the
government in the administration of justice, is any action being
considered right now? I listened carefully to the minister who
said that he would eventually introduce a bill. But I want to
know this very minute what he intends to do.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I can only provide my
assurance to the hon. member that in any case from the present
time forward which involves the appointment of a judge sitting
at the trial level to another level of the courts I shall inquire
before any such appointment to ensure that it does not interfere
with the fair and safe completion of any proceeding before that
trial judge.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence and was inspired by a
concerned citizen, Mr. John MacIntosh of Dundas, Ontario.
Will the minister inform this House what action if any has
been taken against the members of his department staff who
failed to provide Parliament with the actual cost of transporting
cabinet ministers and others in Canada as disclosed by the report
of the Auditor General.
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
have answered this publicly before. There is a discrepancy
between the officials in my department and the Auditor General
on the accounting principles involved. It is something on which
I have asked for further clarification.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary question. Could the minister tell us to what
extent the civil servants of his department will be held
accountable for their actions in the future?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think that is a question that should be addressed to me. That
is a question for government, and I do not know who could
answer that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval-Est): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
303
The Minister of Foreign Affairs announced yesterday after
meeting with the elected President of Haiti, Mr. Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, that the federal government is committed to supporting
a total embargo against Haiti and its military regime.
The present military and oil embargo against Haiti which is
viewed as inadequate by President Aristide will be extended to
include all areas, with the exception of international aid, of
course.
My question is as follows: what concrete steps does the
government intend to take in co-operation with Haiti's allies to
ensure that the international community, including Haiti's
neighbours, comply with the embargo, and to strengthen the
commercial blockade, thus helping to bring about the return of
the duly elected president, Mr. Aristide?
(1455)
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question is very relevant. Clearly,
given the present situation where Haiti basically has four friends
working within the United Nations to advance the cause of
democracy in this country, we lack support.
One of our goals is to extend Haiti's circle of friends to
include a certain number of countries, specifically neighbouring
Caribbean nations which could, working together with Haiti's
four traditional friends, help to enforce a comprehensive and
truly effective blockade.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval-Est): Does the Canadian
government intend, as it has repeatedly said, to help train
Haitian police forces whose mandate it would be to restore the
country's democratic institutions? Did the minister make any
formal commitments in this respect in the course of his talks
with Mr. Aristide?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister discussed this matter when he met
with the Secretary General of the United Nations in Paris. We
feel it would be a good idea to organize under the auspices of the
United Nations this kind of training program for police officers
from countries under military dictatorship.
This proposal which was put forward by Canada could apply
first to Haiti, and could later be extended to several other
countries under military rule where a counterbalance such as a
police force could be useful in terms of instituting and
maintaining democracy. Consequently, during the course of our
discussions with President Aristide yesterday, we obtained his
support for such an initiative.
Obviously we cannot take this kind of initiative without the
approval of the Haitian government. And we have obtained it.
We will be appointing a representative who, along with
President Aristide's representative, will review the terms and
conditions of this kind of police officer training program.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Justice.
I noted in the House last week there is a torrent of inquiries
regarding the new regulations for firearms acquisition
certificates. There is mass confusion and frustration among
firearms owners, RCMP and firearm safety instructors. As
recently as last Thursday my assistant was getting two totally
different answers to basic questions from the RCMP and safety
instructors.
Is the minister aware of the problem and if so, what is his
department doing about it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon.
member, I should first say that the introduction on January 1 of
the safety courses for firearm owners is simply another
important step that has been taken to ensure safety in the use of
firearms in Canada, and we are happy that it is now in place in
six provinces with the balance to follow on April 1.
So far as the circumstances surrounding the courses at present
are concerned I am reluctant to agree with the description given
by the hon. member. I do agree that in some provinces efforts are
still under way to design and deliver the training courses. In
most provinces master teachers have already been trained and
are preparing to deliver the courses.
I expect that within a month or two the transition period,
which will naturally involve some element of adjustment, will
be over, these courses will be in place and the safety of
Canadians that much more assured.
* * *
(1500 )
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of
Finance in the absence of the minister.
The Bank of Canada rate is at a 30-year low of 3.94 per cent
and expected to fall five bases points again today. Yet five year
mortgage rates are still at 7.25 per cent. The spread is greater
than 3 per cent.
304
In 1963 the Bank of Canada rate was 4.0 per cent and five year
mortgages were 6.25 per cent, representing a spread of 2 per
cent.
What measures will the Government of Canada take to ensure
that Canadian banks reduce this spread and lower mortgage rates
proportionately to the bank rate?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for
Cumberland-Colchester for that very good question on the cost
of a five-year mortgage.
As the member pointed out, the prime rate is at 5.5 per cent,
which is the lowest rate since in 1956. Today the basic bank rate
fell not five but six points. One year mortgage rates are at their
lowest since their inception in 1980, but the five year rate still
remains high. We in the government are watching this very
closely and we are sure that Canadian financial institutions
would like to see it drop more quickly also.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The minister will know that the red book promises on jobs
have received four pretty major setbacks over the last couple of
months: the signing of the NAFTA, the increases to the UI
premiums, the replacement of John Crow by Gordon Thiessen
and the chopping of $300 million from the training fund.
I wonder if the minister could explain why he has lost every
one of these battles in cabinet and whether he could indicate
what we could do in this House to assist him in making sure that
job creation becomes the number one priority of his
government.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, not only has the hon. member
not been able to read the red book accurately, but he clearly has
not been able to read the record of the government accurately.
We have had a great string of successes. We have introduced
the infrastructure program which has been universally
applauded across the country as a major job stimulant. We have
frozen the UI premium rate for a period of two years to provide a
real incentive to small business to create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I know time is of the essence so I do not want to
hold the members of this House up for the whole afternoon as I
recite the great record of the past three months. However, I will
say to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing that
Parliament will have an opportunity to make its greatest
contribution-and I know the hon. member has been a valued
member in this area-by looking seriously at the structure of our
social employment training programs across Canada to give a
real incentive to millions of Canadians to find a job and give real
dignity to their lives.
I look forward to the participation of that member so we can
all enjoy, as parliamentarians, a record of accomplishment.
[Translation]
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): I am directing my
question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
The minister responsible for the infrastructure program
recognized before this House last week that the program was
vulnerable to political influences, with regard to the Congress
Center program in particular.
I have since come across a secret memo to the Prime Minister
stating-and this is the clerk of the Privy Council writing to the
Prime Minister-that his Minister of Human Resources
Development and his Minister of Public Works have requested
more direct control over the infrastructure program, and this, a
mere ten days into this government's term of office.
[English]
The same secret memo written to the Prime Minister goes on
to say-
The Speaker: Order. Could the member please put a very
brief question.
Mr. Charest: My question for the Prime Minister, Mr.
Speaker, in relation to this secret memo written to him, is
whether or not he has clarified the mandates of the ministers of
human resources and public works as they attempted a power
grab in their own regions in relation to all federal undertakings
as written in this secret memo?
(1505)
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
every member of the cabinet can take part in this program and,
of course, regional interests are discussed in cabinet, especially
considering that both ministers referred to are in charge of
government agencies through which money is distributed
because this the only way the government can implement this
program quickly and effectively. So, it is ACOA and-
305
[English]
-the western diversification organization which are actually
responsible for the delivery of the programs and both ministers
are in charge, one on the Atlantic coast and the other one in
western Canada.
_____________________________________________
305
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence and Veterans Affairs has the floor for six
minutes.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I had finished my presentation. In the interests of
brevity I did finish so we have about five minutes for questions
and comments.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
indicated that he foresees the role of our peacekeeping forces
continuing and perhaps increasing in the future, and that it is
most important a mandate or a mission statement be developed.
In this way we can determine what is the role we are to play.
Can the parliamentary secretary advise what the government
is doing to develop the role and to ensure that the United Nations
knows exactly what Canada thinks. What is his opinion
concerning Canada's peacekeeping forces that are now around
the world and does he think they will be in more demand over the
next few years?
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that
question.
I want to correct the hon. member. I am sure it is a
misunderstanding. He is not trying to put words in my mouth.
My thesis was that peacekeeping operations generally would
likely increase because of the trend in the other 180 countries of
the world with the smaller populations and the
non-homogeneous ethnic, religious and racial groups.
My thesis was that the need for peacekeeping operations in
general would likely intensify, would increase. I also pointed
out in my thesis so would the intensity of peacekeeping
operations, so would the nature of peacekeeping operations and
so would the complexity of peacekeeping operations in the
general sense of peacekeeping.
What is the government doing to help the situation along? I
would remind the hon. member that, for example, in Bosnia
alone, I cannot recall the number of UN resolutions. I know
there are 743, 770, 776 and 800 and something. They are the
ones with which I am familiar. I am sure there are others. We
would like to, as much as possible try to get our mandate in a
shorter period of time and in a less complex manner. Second, we
would strive to have, perhaps through debate in the House of
Commons, which we all agree is a novel but very useful
exercise, to make our wishes and desires of what it is we want
our peacekeeper forces to do, to make our wishes known to the
United Nations, perhaps more in advance than we have had in
the past.
(1510 )
With respect to the United Nations, the government is
working on areas through our staff at the United Nations, our
ambassador, and through those who are on the international staff
to try to improve that part of the United Nations which oversees
peacekeeping operations.
There are areas such as, for example, around the clock
command and control capability; staffing with perhaps a more
experienced and a larger number of military personnel. In this
way the kind of command and control operation that takes place
in NORAD or in NATO headquarters where instantaneous
responses can be given and political input can be received,
analyzed and weighed with respect to decisions, would take
place in a much more clear-I hesitate to use the word
efficient-and more effective manner than happens now.
I can assure the hon. member that those of us who are involved
in these kinds of activities on this side of the House are imbued
with their importance and wish to make our mandate more clear.
It would make the selection of what we participate in more
effective to have a better response to what it is we believe the
Canadian people want and would support in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank and to congratulate my hon. colleague for his speech. I
would like to ask him a question. For one thing, he made a
number of very positive remarks in his speech on the value of
Canadian intervention abroad, but could he tell us what his
position is exactly with regard to a Canadian presence in
Bosnia-Hercegovina?
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I was being specific in what I was
hoping would be accepted by the House and by those who were
listening as I am sure the hon. member was as to the litmus test
to apply to the operation and to what our future direction would
be.
306
I would remind the hon. member that those of us in the House
who are going to be involved in looking at this in future
operations, particularly those members of the cabinet who sit
here along with the Prime Minister, will be listening to the
response of all hon. members to get their input before any final
decision is made in the House.
As a parliamentary secretary it is incumbent on me to pay
attention to those presentations being made which allow the
government to make a measured choice. Decisions are to be
made on the facts and representations such as the one in which it
was made clear by the hon. member from Esquimalt-Juan de
Fuca that he was making a presentation representing the feelings
of his constituents.
As this debate is expected to continue certainly well into the
hours of the evening, I can assure the hon. member that I and
other members of the government will be paying very close
attention to what it is the members have to say so that when
decisions are made this will be taken into consideration.
It is important for the hon. member to take into consideration
what I as a member of the House of Commons and as a member
of the governing party put forward with the experience,
whatever it is, that I have had on a litmus test or an overlay that
could be put on this operation and others to see what decisions
would be made with respect to future operations.
If I could be permitted, there is one area that I did not cover.
Very briefly, I refer the hon. member to a presentation that was
made in December 1992. In addition to all the other measures to
which I made reference and it has been mentioned in the House
today, I think it is important for hon. members to consider that a
timeframe is very important as well.
(1515)
We look at all these considerations and I believe it is
incumbent on any input to the United Nations to include a
timeframe by which we will go back and review: (a) if the
situation has changed; (b) if the measures that we have asked for
have been met; and (c) if our mandate is as clear and indeed is as
we believed it to be. I believe that is important in considering
future directions that will be taken by Parliament, not
necessarily just by the government but by Parliament, in
responding to what I believe is going to be if not more Bosnias,
certainly more Croatias and more of the kind of the 16
peacekeeping operations in which we are now involved and will
likely be asked to be involved in, in the future.
The Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the member for
Bourassa I might indicate to members of the House that if they
want to split their time they can get more speakers on instead of
at three o'clock in the morning or whenever it is going to be. I
believe one of the parties has already indicated it wants its
speakers to speak for 10 minutes with a five minute question
period. That is of course a matter for the parties to decide.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the
House.
It is with a certain emotion, some apprehension and a lot of
hope that I rise in this debate. I represent the riding of Bourassa,
which includes the municipality of Montreal North with a
population of about 85,000, with 70 per cent francophones and
30 per cent allophones from around the world, mainly Italians
and Haitians, but also people from the former Yugoslavia.
It is a riding inhabited by people of modest means. My riding
was badly hurt by the recession but contains very dynamic
community organizations, popular groups and economic agents.
These people are very interested in international problems,
especially what is happening in the former Yugoslavia.
People are asking my staff and myself to take action. We must
stop the massacre of innocent people, including women, seniors,
young people and children, as we saw last weekend when six
children were killed by mortar shells in Sarajevo.
Mr. Speaker, I come from Chile but I have been living in
Montreal for 20 years. In Chile, Latin America and especially
Central America we have experienced war and conflict. In
Chile, we lived through a 17-year dictatorship that forced me to
leave a country that I love dearly. There human rights violations
were systematic and flagrant. I am also the first Quebecer of
Chilean origin in the history of this country to be elected to the
House of Commons.
I am therefore very concerned by the conflict and the
barbarous acts committed in the former Yougoslavia that we see
every day in dramatic detail on television.
(1520)
Mr. Speaker, even before immigrating to Canada with my
family, I had heard about Canada's role in peacekeeping and its
commitment to promote peace and security throughout the
world. At that time, we wanted Canada to become a member of
the Organization of American States, a decision that was
unfortunately too long in coming.
I listened with great interest this morning to the very relevant
comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs about the role played by the Organization of
American States and Canada's involvement in this regard. I
encourage Canada to play a more active role within the OAS.
As far as Latin America is concerned, I am happy to see that
Canada has been participating in the United Nations observer
mission in Salvador since September 1991. Two members of the
Canadian forces are currently monitoring the implementation of
the agreements reached between the Government of Salvador
and the Farabundo Marti Front for national liberation on human
rights, the cessation of hostilities and disarmament.
307
The mandate of this mission expires on May 31, 1994. I
personally hope that Canada will extend its participation. It is
because of the problems that persist in Salvador that I asked the
Canadian government not to execute the expulsion order against
some 30 Salvadorans living in Quebec who were denied refugee
status. Unfortunately, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration has not yet replied. Canada should also send
observers to the election that will be held in Salvador on March
20.
In Haiti, 11 Canadian military officers were part of the United
Nations observer group for the verification of elections in Haiti,
which was established in November 1990 for a four-month
mandate.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we greeted in this House the
democratically elected and legitimate president of Haiti, Father
Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The UN and the OAS are currently
trying to arrange for his return to Haiti. Resolution 875 of the
United Nations Security Council calls for the application of
appropriate sanctions against the military in power.
I hope that Canada will continue to contribute to the
international naval force patrolling the waters around Haiti and
to the immediate restoration of democracy in that country. It is
also the hope of the large Haitian community living in my riding
of Bourassa in Montreal North.
President Aristide was democratically elected on December
16, 1990, with 67 per cent of the popular vote. He thus
represents the will of the Haitian people.
(1525)
It is therefore time to step up and intensify the pressure on the
military regime of General Raoul Cédras. The UN and the OAS
must implement a full and complete economic boycott of Haiti,
which must cover everything except humanitarian, medical and
food aid, of course.
I hope that the government will be consistent with its
statements and act on this issue. Personally, I intend to watch it
very closely.
Canada's role in conflicts in the world brings us to basic
issues involving the great values of solidarity and justice on
which we have wanted to base our society. From these great
values, our predecessors in this House developed a code of
conduct written into laws defining our duties to assist people in
danger and our moral obligations to those who are in extreme
distress.
We have wanted to extend these duties and moral obligations
not only to our fellow citizens who are affected but also to the
people of the rest of the world who are in conflicts which
endanger their lives, by giving them significant aid which very
often means the difference between life and death for them.
These great values have guided our action abroad and earned
Canada its international reputation and credibility as a defender
of peace.
However, on his latest trip to Europe, the Prime Minister
seemed to want to call into question this great tradition and the
underlying values along with it by saying that Canada was a
little tired of playing the international boy scout.
This is a strange position, claiming to be part of the great
Liberal tradition which developed these policies of international
aid and backing off when the going gets rough. However, you
know your true friends in tough times and not when things are
easy.
Despite what the Prime Minister seems to be saying, I believe
that Canada must maintain its presence in areas of conflict
where this presence is deemed essential to the safety of the
civilian population involved. If today we deny this duty to
assist, we would not only break with some of our social values,
but even worse, we would limit our aid to people who are in
danger in Canada.
Of course, there is no question here of putting our soldiers in
dangerous situations. If their security must be strengthened by
giving them the means to defend themselves and carry out their
mission effectively, let us do it, but let us not withdraw them for
all that.
For the sake of human rights, the lives of thousands of
innocent people and the traditional commitment to UN
peacekeeping missions, from which Canada derives much of its
international credibility, Canada must continue to shoulder its
responsibilities. Canada must do so by promoting a negotiated
solution to conflicts, by working with its UN partners to ensure a
more effective role for peacekeepers, by maintaining and even
increasing its humanitarian aid to the civilians concerned, and
by providing adequate assistance to the thousands of refugees
who flee this terrible fratricide.
(1530)
Mr. Speaker, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and the
ethnic clashes in Bosnia and in Croatia have led to the
displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. Civilian and
ethnic minorities have been the victims of mistreatment, rapes
and murders.
According to figures published in November 1993, more than
4.2 million people from Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina have
been forced to leave their homes or are caught in the battles.
More than 800,000 people have taken refuge in other countries.
308
The UNHCR was given the mandate of helping the people
displaced within the former Yugoslavia, as well as those
so-called ``vulnerable'' persons who are mostly in
Bosnia-Hercegovina.
I want to pay tribute to the UNHCR, which does an excellent
job in the distribution of humanitarian aid, in spite of the
extremely difficult situation which prevails in that region.
Besides distributing food, medication and clothes, in some
regions the High Commissioner's office looks after restoring
water and hydro supplies, building houses and granting
monetary aid to families who accept refugees.
It is sometimes very difficult if not impossible to provide
humanitarian aid in some regions of Bosnia. Convoys are often
delayed, stopped and even raided. The city of Sarajevo is
supplied through land convoys and also through the most
important airlift operation in history.
The personnel working for humanitarian organizations is
sometimes harassed or assaulted and often requires the
protection provided by peacekeepers.
The international community is making great efforts to absorb
the more than 800,000 people affected by the conflict in the
former Yugoslavia.
Germany alone has accepted more than 340,000 refugees;
Hungary, 128,000; Sweden, 92,000; Switzerland, 72,000;
Austria, 90,000. As for Canada, it has only accepted some
10,000 refugees.
Nationals from the former Yugoslavia can enter Canada as
refugees or through the family reunification program, following
special measures implemented in 1992.
I believe that the Canadian government should continue to
implement its host program for refugees and immigrants from
the former Yugoslavia.
The quota for 1994 should be increased considerably.
Moreover, families and groups should get organized to accept
these refugees and provide support for them.
(1535)
I have personally met several refugees from the former
Yugoslavia. They are all very active and sometimes highly
qualified people who make a great contribution to Quebec and to
Canadian society.
In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome them
to Quebec and to Canada and to express my sympathy and my
solidarity to them all.
Canada provides about $50 million in humanitarian
assistance to the former Yugoslavia. Between April and
December 1993, Canada gave out $1.5 million to UNICEF,
which spent a quarter of that amount on rape victims. For which
I want to say to them: Well done.
But we have to do more. We have to support UNICEF
initiatives to treat the traumatized children and women who are
the real victims of this war. This should always be a priority for
Canada.
I listened very closely when the leader of the Official
Opposition and member for Lac-Saint-Jean delivered an
excellent speech this morning.
I wholeheartedly agree with him on this issue. I want to
describe the main points on which we should focus.
First, I am strongly against the unilateral withdrawal of
Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia, as was recently suggested by
the Prime Minister.
Second, I believe that the presence of Canadian soldiers in
Bosnia is needed to stop this conflict from further deteriorating
and from extending to other regions of the former Yugoslavia.
Third, the presence of our soldiers is also needed to maintain
military support for the people and humanitarian assistance for
civilians.
Fourth, we have to stop the fighting from escalating.
Finally, the presence of peacekeepers in Bosnia could and
should facilitate the diplomatic negotiation process. I hope that
the warring factions will reach a negotiated agreement as soon
as possible.
Just like its Western allies, Canada made its first mistake in
Bosnia when it did not intervene sooner and allowed the evil that
has been gnawing at this poor country to develop just as it had
before in Spain and in Germany. Let us not make a second
mistake which could be fateful.
Withdrawing our peacekeepers from Bosnia would in fact
result in a massive slaughter for a population which is looking to
us and to the international community for protection.
Let us avoid irreparable damage. Let us renew the mandate of
our Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia.
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to thank the hon. member
for Bourassa. We now have a question and comment period. Of
course, with hundreds of members wishing to speak in this
debate, you do not need to feel compelled to ask questions or
309
make comments. Is there anyone who wants to ask a question?
As you can imagine, I try generally to recognize hon. members
from other parties who want to ask questions, if there are any.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): I
appreciate the opportunity to raise a question here. As this is the
question and comment period I do have a couple of comments
that are probably more relevant than my question. Given the fact
that the minister is here I would very much like to direct a
comment to him. I do not necessarily expect a reply at the
moment from the hon. member who has spoken or the minister.
The Deputy Speaker: If I could just interrupt the member. I
think he knows that is out of order so he has to put his question or
his comment. Why does he not just make a comment?
Mr. Taylor: I will make the comment and as I indicated I am
very happy to be able to do so while the minister is present.
(1540 )
Essentially the issue of peacekeeping is one that is important
to all members of the House as we recognized in the debate
today so far. I have heard in the debate a desire of members of
this House to support the peacekeeping troops and the
peacekeeping efforts for the most part, but mostly there is
support for the young men and women who are skilled, talented,
courageous and sometimes confused in their efforts. They are
often asked to do jobs that are difficult and dangerous and we
have seen that on television and we have heard about it in the
debate today.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, and for the benefit of the minister
they are often called upon to react to situations they have never
before encountered. They are often asked to react very quickly.
The defence department, this government and members of this
Parliament recognize that we have to stand behind these troops
in the circumstances in which they find themselves.
Today a young man lies confused, frustrated and angry in an
Ottawa hospital. His parents, residents of the Flying Dust Band
in my constituency in northwest Saskatchewan wonder what has
happened to their son. He is a very decent young man and eager
to serve his people. He is a role model for the youth in his
community. Master Corporal Clayton Matchee went to Somalia
with Canadians forces to serve a peacekeeping role. His physical
and mental injuries are not the result of a military engagement,
but rather the result of a hanging in a Canadian compound.
Military officials say he hung himself in an effort to take his own
life.
Despite inconsistencies in the evidence, despite expressed
concern with his commanding officer, despite his inability to
speak on his own behalf, Master Corporal Clayton Matchee is
facing charges of second degree murder and torture in the death
of a Somali man.
Canada's peacekeepers are asked to do many jobs on a daily
basis and some of their work is simply expected to be done.
When we as parliamentarians talk about our role in
peacekeeping we have to realize that we ourselves are not out
there on the front line. We can think we know what it is like out
there but we really do not know. We have to, like a good hockey
coach, encourage our team to go out there and do the best that
they can.
Therefore, in the course of the debate today I want to call on
the Minister of National Defence to drop the charges against
Master Corporal Clayton Matchee. The circumstances
surrounding his case are confusing. It will take more than a
military court to determine the events which led to the deaths in
Somalia, the actions of some members of the Canadian airborne,
the hanging of Master Corporal Matchee, the subsequent
charges and the charges brought against his commanding
officer.
In conclusion let me say that the circumstances need to be
examined and I have no doubt that eventually the truth will come
out, but I would very much like the minister to take steps to drop
those charges in the interests of the family of Master Corporal
Matchee and in the interests of all peacekeepers. This will show
that we will support our troops regardless of the circumstances
into which they are put.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It seems to me that those comments are
not addressed to the member for Bourassa, but if he wishes to
respond-
Mr. Nunez: I would like to join the hon. member in thanking
and congratulating Canadian soldiers, most of whom come from
Quebec, who are serving their country in Bosnia and the other
parts of the former Yugoslavia.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): I have been listening to
the debate since this morning and I want to congratulate my
learned colleague for bringing up a different aspect of this issue.
My colleague talked about humanitarian aid. He pointed out the
310
relationship that exists between Canada's role as a peacekeeper
throughout the world and the need to provide humanitarian
support to certain areas. He also talked about participating in the
organization or the supervision of elections throughout the
world.
I think he was the first one in the House today to underline the
importance of these two aspects.
I would like to ask my colleague to elaborate further since it is
an issue of great concern to most Quebecers and Canadians.
(1545)
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, briefly, I think Canada's role at the
international level is also to promote democracy and the
democratic process all over the world. Recently, I was a member
of Canada's official delegation that was sent to Russia to
supervise the December 12 elections. Our role in these
elections, which also included a referendum, was greatly
appreciated by the people. I think we should accentuate
Canada's role not only in the promotion of peace in the world,
but also in the development of democracy.
[English]
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador): Mr. Speaker, may I
first of all congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair
and the Speaker on his election. Indeed, I congratulate all those
who occupy the Chair.
May I say at the beginning something about this particular
debate. I have been here for 21 years and I believe that the debate
today is the best debate I have heard in the Chamber. It is frank,
well informed, useful, constructive and in advance of a decision.
I congratulate the government for bringing forward the debate
and I congratulate all members for the way they have
participated in the debate.
I would like to make the following points on this issue. First,
it seems to me that peacekeeping is one of the primary matters
that has defined us as Canadians. We look for definitions of
ourselves and it seems to me that peacekeeping is one of those
things that has defined us. It has told the world the kind of
people we are, the kind of things we believe in and the kind of
role we want to play as citizens in the world.
I do not want to go over again the ground that has already been
covered very adequately about Canada's role in peacekeeping
over the years. We have acquitted ourselves well and suffice to
say we do now have a reputation in the world, a reputation that is
honourable, that is justified, that is very real and that I believe
should be maintained.
We now have peacekeeping operations all over the world. It is
something that Canada has done well, continues to do and
something I believe Canada should commit itself to in the future
as one of the priorities of defence policy. There are many aims
and objectives of defence policy but among those out of country
objectives I believe that peacekeeping should be at the top of the
list.
However, we need to understand we can only do so much. Our
resources are limited and we will have to justify according to set
criteria our involvement in peacekeeping operations in the
future. I believe it is understood that we are already stretched to
the limit and that we cannot take up any more.
The other point I want to make about peacekeeping is that it
provides an opportunity for the Canadian forces. It may be one
of those few out of country opportunities provided for the
Canadian forces at the present time. It gives our soldiers, airmen
and naval personnel an opportunity to practise the kind of
training that they have had and the kind of professionalism that
they exemplify so well.
These peacekeeping opportunities provide us with an
opportunity to show what we are trained for and to show
leadership. We now have about 2,000 of our personnel in the
former Yugoslavia. Our mission in Bosnia is not traditional
peacekeeping. We are there not only to keep warring factions
apart but to deliver humanitarian aid.
Many people have been upset by the situations that Canadians
have found themselves in recently, particularly where they have
been harassed and even abused in the course of their duties. I
was privileged to spend several days at Valcartier last spring
with the Vandoos before they went to the former Yugoslavia. I
can tell the House that our troops receive up to date, thorough
and excellent training before they go abroad. They are very well
equipped to make decisions. They found themselves in some
very difficult situations and they have handled themselves with
honour and distinction.
(1550)
We are doing an important job in Bosnia. It is true there is still
a great deal of horror being experienced in that country but
people are alive now because we are there. People are fed
because we are in Bosnia. There is no holocaust, there is no
genocide because we are in Bosnia. The point I am making is
that things would be a great deal worse if we were not there.
My position is that we should stay in Bosnia as long as we are
providing a useful role. I believe we are at the present time. I
would counsel against unilateral withdrawal. We are there as
members of the United Nations. We must not forget we are there
as members of NATO. NATO has a role in Bosnia. In addition to
our role in UN peacekeeping operations over the years we have
been a valued and esteemed member of NATO. It is important to
311
send the right signals about the strength of the trans-Atlantic
alliance as this stage of the game.
There were arguments made this morning that perhaps a threat
of withdrawal would be useful. It could also be argued that it
would be counterproductive because it would send a signal to
those factions in Bosnia that they did not have to negotiate, that
they did not have to be serious at the negotiating table and that
they could carry on as they have been doing. It seems to me that
the threat of withdrawal sends the wrong signal.
I believe Canada should stay with the mission at the present
time and that we should withdraw only in consultation with our
colleagues, the other members of the UN. What must be
rectified is the gap that exists between UN decision making and
implementation of those decisions. That gap has been identified
not only by our own personnel such as General MacKenzie, but
most recently by the Belgian general as well.
We should put our efforts into rectifying the weaknesses that
exist in UN decision-making and implementation. We have to
strengthen the UN for Bosnia and all the other Bosnias that are
going to happen. It is true-perhaps we have not made this point
clearly enough today-that the cold war is over. However, many
would argue there is not more but less stability as a result of that.
There is still instability in the world. There is still a threat to
world peace. As long as that exists the chances are that we are
going to have to contribute more in time and effort to situations
like Bosnia.
It is important we strengthen institutions such as the UN in its
decision making and implementation process. We should also
ensure that the burden is shared fairly. We have every right to
expect that. Canada has given perhaps more than its share,
certainly more than other countries. We should expect the
burden to be shared fairly.
I would like to conclude by saying my last words to Canadian
soldiers and to quote the Canadian soldier who appeared in one
of the most recent television clips having come back after his
convoy was harassed and shot at by those he was really put there
to help. He said: ``This is what I have been trained for. This is
what I have been trained to do. It is an opportunity for me. This
is the job we are here to do and it is the job we want to do''. I
think he speaks for Canadian personnel in their determination to
do the best job they can. It is up to us as parliamentarians to give
them the proper back-up to do the job.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to what the hon. member had to say. I thought
it was very well put. Today we are having this very special
debate. It is focused on Bosnia and the problems associated with
it.
(1555)
I would like to make a comment and ask the hon. member a
question. It seems to me this lends urgency to the matter of a
defence review. I know this is to be a public review but would it
not be much better to move toward an armed force which is
much more citizen based and in which there are many more
opportunities not only for full-time very professional service
but also for a variety of part-time service commitments and the
strengthening of the cadet corps? I think that would focus on the
various types of peacekeeping and peacemaking we have at the
present time much better.
I also hope that the public review recommends better use of
our bases so they can be training bases for international
missions and things of that type.
The other review which is in the offing, I think next year or the
year after, is a full-scale formal review of the United Nations.
We heard a good deal from the hon. member just now about the
way the United Nations has been operating in Bosnia.
For myself, and I say this as a great supporter of the United
Nations, it seems that in the area, for example, of science and
education the United Nations has become unnecessarily
cumbersome and fat. It is extremely important that Canada play
a key role in the revitalization of the United Nations.
Would the hon. member care to comment on those two
reviews, the defence review and the review of the United
Nations.
Mr. Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already indicated
my concurrence with the point he is putting forward about the
UN. The problems we have in Bosnia are not with the troops or
with the military personnel but are with the political will and the
political structures that give form and structure to the way in
which they are operating. That is where reform is needed. If we
do not reform those institutions we are going to be worse off in
future than we have been in the past.
The UN is really the only institution that can adequately deal
with this situation. Perhaps CSCE or NATO as supplementary
agencies can have a role but unless the UN is strong and has the
political will and the structures, I do not think we will be able to
deal with these things adequately in future.
On the reserves I support the total force concept. There are
reserves overseas now in peacekeeping operations. We depend
on them heavily. We will I believe and I hope depend on them
even more heavily in future. It is clearly the way to go. I was in
the forces myself in the reserves in an institution that no longer
exists, the University Naval Training Division. It was an
excellent way for young people to get a start in life, to earn some
money, to get an education and for me to become a Canadian. It
is something that we have to strengthen.
312
We have seen some creative thinking already on the future use
of bases, for example, St. Margarets in New Brunswick where
private enterprise has bought a whole base and is now using it as
a housing unit. That is a very creative use of the former armed
forces base. Also there are educational initiatives taking place
particularly in the province of Nova Scotia which use existing
facilities for the training of young people. There are creative
ways that we can make use of armed forces bases as well. I
totally support what he says.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his intervention
and for his support for a continuing role for Canadian forces in
the former Yugoslavia.
I want to ask the member a specific question with respect to
some of the concerns that have been raised about the nature of
the mandate and the rules of engagement. The member is well
aware as an experienced member in this area of the concerns
raised by General Briquemont, General Cot, and others in this
regard.
Does the hon. member support a strengthening of the mandate
to ensure that when we talk about safe havens and in particular
the six safe havens that were identified by the United Nations in
resolution 836 in June last year which are clearly not safe when
innocent children are slaughtered in cold blood in the snow as
they play on their sleds. Does the hon. member agree with the
need for a strengthening of the ability of the forces on the ground
to respond to that kind of very serious attack?
Mr. Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely agree with
that. That is part of the point I have been trying to make. The
weakness is not on the ground but with the structures under
which that personnel operates. We have to strengthen the
mandate there. We also have to provide adequate personnel to
carry out the mandate.
(1600)
At the present time it seems to me that we do not have enough
resources in the former Yugoslavia to do the job. In addition to
what is there now perhaps we need more forces to carry out the
mandate, but obviously the mandate has to be strengthened.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Mr. Speaker, I compliment those who have stood in their places
today to express their views on this very important topic.
Someone asked how we gained a reputation as peacekeepers. I
would suggest it did not just start in recent times. I would go
back to World War I where 66,000 young Canadians lost their
lives. I would go back to the League of Nations where the first
big challenge came to the league 12 years after it was founded in
about 1931 when Japan entered Manchuria. There was no
muscle in the league. No one wanted to take a stand. They had
problems back home that were more pressing and Asia was too
far away. The league failed in that one.
In 1935 the league failed again when the Italians took over
Abyssinia. There were too many problems. France did not want
to disrupt its relationships with Germany. What happened was
that we simply drifted into two world wars because there was no
one who was ready to take a firm stand united together. If there
is anything the United Nations stands for today it is the element
of unity, of bringing countries of the world together to take an
international stand against aggressors.
My feeling is that in no way can we allow an aggressor to get
away with anything. The War Crimes Commission is on the
ground in Yugoslavia now. That should be followed up with
charges against those who commit war crimes, those who have
committed war crimes against children, women and the elderly,
those who have destroyed property and everything under the sun
in the horrible situation in the former Yugoslavia. The court
system is not good enough for them. They must be brought to
justice. If that is not done it is a weakness within the UN itself,
but I would suggest the world community would demand that it
be done.
The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson is another reason why
Canada has peacekeeping in operation today in a very successful
way. He started that in 1956 in Egypt and the Middle East.
Canadians really made their mark there. We were active in many
peacekeeping operations. Of course the first big test for the
United Nations was the Korean war itself. Over 1,500 young
Canadians gave up their lives on that occasion.
The question today in my mind is not whether we can afford
peacekeeping. The question is whether we can afford to be
without it. My answer is no. We cannot afford to be without it.
We cannot afford to sit back or to have other countries sit back.
Other countries have a firm responsibility in this regard along
with us. They must play a role. They must pull their weight.
If we do not take a stand against all these little aggressors
around the world then we are going to have a major conflict. We
are going to have other young people from this nation, the cream
of the crop, in another world war. Heaven knows what that will
be like. We cannot have this situation coming about. We must
handle bonfires wherever they occur in the world.
I would like to say a word about what happens at home.
Military people are looked upon as soldiers. What about their
spouses back home? What about their families back home when
the other spouse is sent off to peacekeeping duties for six
months at a time as they are today? What help do they have?
What about the mother with three or four small children? What
help does she receive?
There is help in the community. There is an organization
called the rear party. It maintains communications with the
families. There is always someone there to help them. They give
them information about what is going on in the United Nations
313
site where their spouses are, where their fathers or mothers are
or whatever the case may be. Spousal groups are included in the
rear party organization back home on the base. Spouses meet
with the rear party. Spouses write messages and news items.
They send tapes to their loved ones. No one is left alone.
(1605)
A resource centre was set up in Petawawa. I live three miles
from the base gate at Petawawa, Ontario. I used to teach school
there. I was there for five and one-half years before going into
politics. I have learned the operations of the military
community, how it operates first hand. I have the greatest
admiration for those people.
The family resource centre provides advice and assistance to
the rear party group. They work with agencies in the community.
I must say of my own area in Renfrew County, in the Petawawa
area, we have three Petawawas: the village, the township and the
base. Then Pembroke is 10 or 12 miles away. Deep River and
Chalk River are to the north. There are other communities
around Renfrew County. They too support the base in spirit on
Remembrance Day and in many ways as family units. They mix
together and the rapport is tremendous.
Social workers are on the base to help these families when the
soldiers are away on duty. There is a senior officer in each group
who will have information on the families before they leave.
They know the soldiers' spouses. They know about the soldiers'
families. They mail videotapes back and forth. There are padres
and doctors in the field and at home as well.
There is an overall unity plan working in a major role for
military families. A well organized system is in place. We ask
what about the expenses? These expenses are paid for. I want the
taxpayers of Canada to know they are paid for by non-public
funds. They are paid for by raffles. They are paid for by profits
from messes, canteens and so on. This says a lot for the
dedication and the care of the Canadian soldier community.
The work with agencies in the community is very important.
At Christmastime they send letters back and forth. Before they
leave they even make sure that their wills are intact so that if any
accident does happen their families do not have to go through
the whole legal rigmarole of putting things in place; they are
already there.
The dedication and the ability to cope on the part of our
Canadian forces are real examples of citizenship. Canadian
soldiers will do the job they are called upon to do, as the hon.
parliamentary secretary said this afternoon. Soldiers are
prepared to do the job. We have some soldiers in the House today
who are members of Parliament. I am glad they are here to give
their first-hand experiences.
The mandate in the United Nations must be clear. There must
be an element of co-operation among all parties. If not, our
troops are indeed in danger. There must be a responsibility in the
parties to respect international decisions. Should we arm the
troops? People say: ``Why not give them arms so they can go in
and fight?'' If we do that we are taking sides in the conflict and
destroying the very basis of the UN in the first place.
I received a telephone call from one of my constituents today
who wanted to see our soldiers armed. That is something which
will have to be debated in the House and something the UN will
have to take a closer look at in terms of how well they are armed
to protect themselves. All parties must agree with the mandate
and live up to it.
I am glad the War Crimes Commission is on the scene in
Yugoslavia today to pin down people who are disobeying
international law, those people who are committing war crimes.
After this is over they should be brought to the International
Court, formally charged, tried, and sentenced accordingly. We
cannot allow this to go on.
(1610)
Canadian soldiers, as I said, will do their job. Should they be
in Yugoslavia? If we as one of the United Nations do not supply
soldiers to look after the humanitarian side of operations in
Yugoslavia to try to bring parties together and save the peace, we
are not really living up to the international spirit that is the very
basis of the United Nations itself.
Again I ask the question: can we afford to be there? In today's
world, with trouble spots all over the world, I do not think we as
Canadians can back away from it. We were one of the founders
of the United Nations, one of the key players at its founding.
Yes, the United Nations needs upgrading. It needs improvement
to meet the situations and the challenges of the future. They are
going to be many.
In order to do so we must work together with the international
community. The UN must be strengthened and improved to
enable it to meet those very situations. We cannot allow young
children and women to suffer. If the United Nations were to pull
out of Yugoslavia today there would be more rapes, more child
abuse and more killings of children, women and elderly people.
There would be no law at all.
We as human beings living on the face of this earth together
today could not allow that to go on. We would have it on our
consciences. Just remember, it was a small skirmish in Europe
that set off the trigger for World War I. It was the depression
years of the thirties that continued to set the stage for World War
II. Again nobody stood up. Nobody wanted to be counted. They
had too many problems at home.
Today we have a lot of problems at home. We have to look
after them, try to solve them as well. We must also realize that
the world today is like a little pea in a pod. It is small.
Everything that happens around this world affects every other
nation in the world. We cannot allow these bonfires to burn
314
without putting water on them, without cooling them and
keeping peace in various parts of the world. We can bet it will be
an ongoing battle. We have trouble spots today all over the
world. The United Nations will have to face up to that or we will
face a worse war in the future that maybe mankind itself will
never survive.
Can we afford to be in the United Nations as peacekeepers? I
do not think any sane nation on the face of the earth today has
any other answer but yes, we have to be there. It is not a dollar
value. It is a human value and it is the future of the world.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with a great deal of interest as I have for many years to my
colleague from Renfrew. He has been an ardent and very
convincing supporter of giving the Canadian military
establishment the tools to do the job we have asked of it over the
years. I cannot think of a more articulate proponent for the men
and women who have chosen to serve our country through the
Canadian Armed Forces than the member who just spoke.
I want to ask him a very specific set of questions. Even after
one term, compared to my hon. colleague I am still a rookie
when it comes to matters such as this one. One thing that deeply
concerns me with the situation in Bosnia is the impotence or the
seeming impotence of the United Nations in using its collective
voice to try to force the aggressors in Bosnia to stop, cease and
desist and to find some diplomatic, non-military,
non-aggressive means to try to bring the situation to a head, to
find a resolution.
It has been going on for far too long. We have had far too many
children killed. We have had far too many people dislocated. We
have heard of far too many rapes and acts of brutality, the likes
of which we had not heard since the second world war. Time and
time again the United Nations, that great and venerable
institution, has passed resolutions but it seems to have forgotten
to put some teeth into the resolutions. It seems not to have found
the ways to enforce the resolutions so that the atrocities we have
heard all too much about would have ceased. Indeed I want to
quote what the outgoing UNPROFOR commander, Belgian
Lieutenant General Francis Briquemont, said. This was in the
Globe and Mail of January 24: ``There is a fantastic crisis now
because the politicians are writing and voting I do not know how
many resolutions, but we have no means to execute them''.
(1615)
The question I ask of my colleague is: what is it that he
believes Canada can do? What leading role can we take to ensure
when the United Nations chooses to pass resolutions and actions
in cases like this that in actual fact they are adhered to and there
are teeth behind the resolutions? What role can Canada play to
strengthen those resolutions?
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, first, Canada is loved and
respected around the world. There is a great difference between
being loved and being respected. We happen to have both those
good qualities in the eyes of other countries.
The best work Canada can do today is to bring nations
together in a diplomatic manner and have them sit down to
decide on these measures, just as the Prime Minister did when he
attended the NATO conference in Brussels recently.
We have to protect our own soldiers. We are not going to have
them in situations where they are fired upon or bombed. They
must be looked after. We cannot have the people over there using
them as targets either.
Another thing I want to say to the hon. member, and I thank
him for his kind comments at the beginning, is that it is very
important that the United Nations itself be strengthened. If
anything is going to come out of the situation in the former
Yugoslavia it is going to be that the United Nations itself must
be strengthened. It must be updated and brought into the 21st
century. As I said in my speech, there will be many issues to face
throughout the 21st century and we cannot do it with a
century-old logic.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, since I
share the views expressed by the hon. member for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, I will not ask a question but I
would like to make a comment. As I try to figure out why the
people of Canada and Quebec have such mixed feelings about
peacekeeping missions, I can see two ways to explain this. First,
it seems to me that we still have a hard time seeing ourselves as
citizens of the world. I think that when a larger and larger
number of Canadians and Quebecers start to see themselves as
such, they will see more clearly the need for our involvement.
The second point is that, as I see it, the peace missions in
which Canada has taken part may have been too heavily focused
on peacekeeping or pacification, giving a somewhat lower
profile to the humanitarian aspect. The hon. member for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke mentioned it but I would like
to emphasize this point by pointing out that there are over 250
non-governmental organizations in Canada looking to provide
humanitarian assistance around the world. I think that, when
peacekeepers are sent on a mission, it is to keep the peace of
course but also and perhaps more importantly to allow these
organizations through which hundreds of Canadians want to
provide humanitarian relief to reach the people who need it.
315
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you
on your appointment.
There have been discussions among the parties and I think you
will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
[English]
That on Tuesday, January 25 and Wednesday, January 26 the ordinary hour of
daily adjournment be deferred until 10 p.m. and that during the time of such
extended sitting, no dilatory motion or quorum call shall be accepted by the
Chair.
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands reflects accurately
what has been agreed upon and it is with pleasure that the
Official Opposition gives consent.
(1620)
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to verify
something. Considering what the Prime Minister said, I presume
that if there are still members willing to participate in the debate
at 10 p.m., we will be able to continue the debate. On that basis I
will support the proposal.
The Deputy Speaker: I ask myself the same question. Could
the parliamentary secretary clarify the issue?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, we can certainly have discussions
around 10 p.m. to continue the debate if this is necessary. But it
is the intention of all the House leaders to end the debate at 10
p.m. if that is possible. The House leaders hope that with two
very long sittings today and tomorrow, and maybe next week,
the debates should end at a reasonable time for all members, and
this is what we are trying to do this afternoon.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. I believe the hon.
member for Saanich-Gulf Islands wants to take the floor. I
think the leader of the Reform Party has a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to begin by congratulating you on your attainment of
your office. In the past you have had struggles with party
discipline and it must give you some satisfaction to-
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, I have been reminded that I
forgot to ask if there was unanimous consent to the motion that
was put by the parliamentary secretary. I take it that that is not a
problem and nobody is going to object. Then there is unanimous
consent and everybody is happy.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I did just want to congratulate
you on your attainment of your position. As I said, you have had
your own struggles with party discipline in the past and it must
give you satisfaction to preside over not just a Parliament but a
session where party discipline is more relaxed.
I would also like to congratulate other members who have
spoken today for the scope of their presentations and for the
sincerity of their presentations. I personally found it both
helpful and impressive.
That said, like all other members I have a deep interest in this
issue from the standpoint of international security as well as
from a humanitarian standpoint.
Members of Parliament from Calgary have a special interest
in this issue because up to 1,600 personnel from the Currie base
in Calgary are scheduled to go to Croatia and Bosnia in the next
couple of months. I do think it is important that we are able to
communicate to them and their families the reasons they are
going, the job they are expected to do and the resources that will
be made available to them.
Reform members have not approached this debate with any
preconceived notions or positions. We hope to make a
contribution however by identifying key questions to be
resolved, commenting on those questions from a variety of
perspectives and then trying to synthesize the responses of
various members to those questions into guidelines which may
be useful to the government.
What then are the main questions to which the government
requires answers? We think there are three of them. The first is a
broad question of foreign policy: Should Canada as a country
continue to play a major role in international peacekeeping and
enforcement? The second is a broad question of defence policy:
What should be the role of Canada's armed forces as we
approach the 21st century and how does that relate to
international peacekeeping and enforcement? The third is a
more particular question forced upon us by the urgency and the
tragedy of events in the former Yugoslavia: Should Canada
continue to play a role in the current United Nations
peacekeeping operations in that part of the world? Obviously the
third question would be easier to answer if there were clear
answers to the first two.
(1625)
Should Canada as a country continue to play a major role in
international peacekeeping and enforcement? There are strong
arguments in favour. Number one, we live in an unsafe world
and there is an obvious need for international peacekeeping and
humanitarian intervention. Number two, Canada has
internationally recognized experience and expertise in this field
of endeavour. The member for Red Deer has proposed that
Canada should specialize in providing training in peacekeeping
and
316
perhaps even export that to the world. Number three, Canada
enjoys a greater degree of acceptance as a peacekeeper than
many other nations, including the United States.
Those are all strong arguments but there are cautionary notes
to be sounded as well. Number one, not every conflict situation
is amenable to resolution by international peacekeeping forces.
We will need to learn to distinguish between those that are and
those that are not. Number two, Canada has limited resources
and we cannot take on any and every request for peacekeeping
activity that comes along. Number three, we need to give more
attention as a number of members have said to the adequacy of
the organizational structure under which peacekeeping
operations are undertaken.
Obviously, the United Nations is needed to provide the legal
and political framework for peacekeeping activities. But is the
United Nations capable of providing the field command and
logistic support required, or should that come from somewhere
else, from a revamped NATO perhaps, or directly from a
consortium of those countries that actually supply troops to
these operations?
So let us look at the question: Should Canada as a country
continue to play a major role in international peacekeeping and
enforcement? The answer I hear suggested by the comments that
have been made thus far today is, yes, but a qualified yes with
much more attention being given in advance to how the
peacekeeping effort is to be organized, its potential costs and the
prospects of making a meaningful contribution.
Let me turn to the second question: What should be the role of
Canada's armed forces as we approach the 21st century and how
does that relate to international peacekeeping and enforcement?
While this is not the subject of this debate as we were reminded
by the minister of defence, it is the question which must be
answered by the government's review of defence policy as
promised in the speech from the throne.
At present the Canadian military is being told in a very loose
and undefined way that it has at least four tasks to perform with
$12 billion. It is to protect Canadian sovereignty, including our
long sea coast in the context of continental defence. It is to
participate in European security through the NATO
arrangements. It is to provide support to the civil authorities at
home in special cases such as Oka and it is to participate in
multiple international peacekeeping and humanitarian
operations under the auspices of the United Nations.
It is clear that this Parliament and this government must give
the Canadian military a clearer statement of its mission for the
1990s and the 21st century than it has had heretofore. These four
functions in our judgment need to be ranked in some order of
priority with resources to match the priority assigned. If that
were done, as the hon. member for Charlesbourg said earlier
today, we would then have a clearer idea of what kind of
commitment Canada could then make at any given time to an
international peacekeeping possibility in different situations.
The third question I have posed is: Should Canada continue to
play a role in the current United Nations peacekeeping
operations in the former Yugoslavia? This has probably been the
focus of almost 50 to 60 per cent of what has been said here
today.
(1630 )
Those who advocate withdrawal seem to do so for several
reasons. They argue that the political situation in the Balkans is
insoluble other than by massive military intervention or
dictatorial means which Canada cannot support. Others argue
that the cumulative costs which have never been fully presented
to the Canadian people are too high. They argue that if the
Canadian people themselves were to be fully consulted on the
question of making a commitment to stay versus preparing to
withdraw, then a majority of their constituents might say
prepare to withdraw.
Those who advocate a continuing role do so on the following
grounds.
First, the conflict in the Balkans has erupted into broader
international conflicts in the past and could do so again if not
contained.
Second, any weakening of Canada's resolve in Croatia or
Bosnia will weaken the resolve of other peacekeeping partners
and further encourage the belligerents. I think this was the
argument made by the member for Labrador.
Third, I think this is the most powerful argument that has been
made for a continuing role. Humanitarian concern for the
suffering of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them
women and children, demands an international response and a
Canadian response no matter how effective or ineffective that
response may appear to be. This position was eloquently argued
at the very beginning of this debate by the leader of the
opposition.
As I sat here listening to these various arguments I have tried
to put ourselves a little bit in the government's shoes and tried to
ascertain whether there is any reasonable middle ground
between a commitment to stay and preparing to withdraw. If
there is it would appear to me to be this.
First, Canada should insist on a better command and support
structure for the peacekeeping initiative in the former
Yugoslavia as a condition for remaining. This is something to be
negotiated with the United Nations and not with the belligerents.
Second, Canada should define, perhaps at the conference that
several members have mentioned, certain modest expectations
for its continued participation in the former Yugoslavia such as
317
the securing of some sort of enforceable agreement in Bosnia
however frail by the end of the year.
Third, Canada should consider withdrawal only as a measure
of last resort if these first objectives could not be obtained. It is
my hope that these modest observations may be of some help to
the government in framing a general policy on Canada's future
peacekeeping role and in arriving at a particular policy with
respect to our continued involvement in the former Yugoslavia.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, my
question is twofold but I will be brief in order to enable the hon.
member for Calgary Southwest and leader of the Reform Party
to provide an answer.
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. member said that we
should establish criteria to decide when Canada should
participate in international missions. Would the hon. member
specify which criteria he would like to use in the present case?
Also, at the end of his speech, the hon. member suggested-at
least it is my understand, but I would like some
clarification-that Canadian troops could stay there under
certain conditions. If these conditions, and I believe there are
three, are fulfilled, does the hon. member for Calgary Southwest
suggest that Canadian troops should stay in the former
Yugoslavia?
[English]
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to both of
these questions is the same. I was attempting to suggest whether
we could define certain criteria that would govern whether
Canada participated or not in a peacekeeping operation and if it
did decide to do that, whether to remain. In the minister's
statement this morning one will notice that he listed the four or
five guidelines that we have used in the past and I think a number
of those are adequate.
(1635)
The one that I would suggest refining is perhaps Canada
insisting more than we have in the past of an adequate command
structure and logistical support structure for any peacekeeping
operations that we get into. I do believe a number of our own
military people have suggested that if there is a weak link then
the UN is good at getting a legal mandate to get in there but it is
not so good at managing the on the spot command of logistics. I
think maybe strengthening that one criterion would be a step in
the right direction.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the thoughts of the leader of the Reform Party.
I would like to ask him if he could elaborate on his statement
that we ought to distinguish between a conflict that is resolvable
as compared to one that is not.
I think we have seen recently in our world some very ancient
feuds such as the one between the Israelis and the PLO and
indeed in northern Ireland which I remember hearing about from
my grandmother. We have seen progress in some areas that
perhaps people felt were unresolvable.
I ask the leader of the Reform Party if he could elaborate as to
how he would make that very complex determination. I wonder
if he could also address this fact. In his speaking to the
humanitarian role we are playing there, that itself would seem to
suggest that it is very difficult to determine when a conflict is
resolvable and that we may well have a role to play as Canadians
with our expertise in what superficially could appear to be
thoroughly hopeless.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
I did not mean to imply that the criteria should be whether the
conflict is resolvable or unresolvable. If I did this then I was not
communicating. I think the dilemma was pointed out with just
having that as the criterion.
I was suggesting that perhaps we could set some modest
expectations in situations that we get into. It is not that we are
going to resolve some ancient conflict that has been going on for
hundreds of years but even in the case of Bosnia would it be
unrealistic to set the expectation? At least we would get some
kind of shaky agreement like the one in Croatia which is hardly a
peace agreement but it is better than what there is in Bosnia. If
that was the expectation then at least a goal would be set. If one
can get it then one can say that is grounds for continuing to
proceed.
I am talking about extremely modest expectations but
something that one can work toward as a criterion.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to follow up on the last question that was
asked.
We have heard a number of different perspectives from
Reform Party members of Parliament who have spoken. I think
that is a healthy thing.
However, I must say it has left me a little confused as to what
the position is of the Reform Party or indeed if there is a position
of the party as such. I want to ask the leader of the Reform Party
to clarify the position.
We heard from the member for Calgary Southeast who said
that in her opinion Canadian troops should pull out. The
mandate expires on March 31 and Canadian troops should pull
out because we are not able to fulfil a humanitarian role is what
she said.
I want to ask the leader of the Reform Party very specifically
if he agrees with the position taken by his colleague from
Calgary Southeast. This position was taken as well as I under-
318
stand it with certain moderation by his colleague from
Saanich-Gulf Islands. Does he rather agree with the position
taken by his colleague from Red Deer who suggested for the
reasons that some of us have enunciated that there is a very
important humanitarian role for the United Nations to play and
that Canada should-
The Deputy Speaker: Very briefly, please. The leader of the
Reform Party.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, that is a complex question.
First, the Reform Party is not taking a position on this
particular issue. We have encouraged our members to speak
their own views and the views of their constituents.
I would suggest to the hon. member though that the positions
that have been expressed by these various members are
reconcilable. I think there is a desire to participate in this
peacekeeping role subject to certain conditions and I think the
debate among us is on what those conditions should be.
Some would say that those conditions cannot be made and
therefore we should withdraw. Others would go along with
imposing other conditions. I think the debate among us is not
whether to withdraw or not to withdraw, but whether to stay or
withdraw in accordance with certain conditions.
(1640)
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, on this seventh day that the 35th Parliament has been
sitting, I want to join my colleagues in congratulating you on
your election. You and your colleagues have really helped me
and others to become oriented with the procedures of this
Chamber.
I also want to thank many others who have made a tremendous
contribution in allowing me to be here in this House. I could not
be here without the unfailing support and love of my parents, my
wife Melanie, our four children, Joshua, Tyrel, Stephanie and
Danille, and many other dear friends who I want to salute here
today.
I want to thank the people of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre for the
honour of representing them here in Ottawa. As many have
mentioned before me, today's politicians are not always viewed
with the greatest amount of respect. My goal here in this 35th
Parliament is to do my part to put back the honour in the term
honourable member.
I represent the riding that has often been called the heartland
of Saskatchewan. Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is surrounded by
nine other federal ridings. It is truly prairie country with
agriculture being the primary industry. The Trans-Canada and
the Yellowhead highways run directly through our riding and
carry thousands of tourists both east and west across this
beautiful part of our country every year.
The population is divided equally between the city of Moose
Jaw and surrounding small towns of about 70 small towns and
villages. It has been my privilege to visit every one of these
towns over the last few months and to listen to the concerns and
the ideas of rank and file Canadians of every political stripe.
As mentioned by other hon. members before me, we also had
some famous people who came to this place before me. The
great John Diefenbaker represented part of my riding during his
years as Prime Minister. We are also home to the world famous
Snowbirds at the Canadian Forces Base 15 Wing in Moose Jaw.
Yes, we are indeed proud Canadians in the heartland of
Saskatchewan.
I am here today also to speak on a subject that is of great
concern to me. It is a subject that I feel very close to in many
ways. Early this century my grandparents emigrated from
Croatia to this great country of ours. They came here, like
millions of others, to escape political persecution and
oppression. They felt locked into a political system that gave
them no alternative but to leave.
I too have felt that same urgent desire for political change, but
here in Canada, unlike my grandparents in Croatia, I do not need
to run away. I am very thankful that I can stay here and become
part of the vast political change that is sweeping this nation.
As I mentioned before, I feel very close to the subject matter
here today. Like my friend, the hon. member for Cambridge, my
family's roots are deep in the war torn region that we know as the
former Yugoslavia.
The history of this area is long and troubled. If one looks back
on the last 100 years one sees that each generation carries the
same hatred and mistrust of the one before it. That in itself is
reason enough to convince me that our involvement in the area
represents an almost impossible challenge. There are no good
guys or bad guys in this war. Each side is responsible to some
degree for the problems that we see daily. That has always been
the case.
The small town where I live has, over the past 90 years, had
the distinction of being the new home for a great many
immigrants from the former Yugoslavia. In Canada, Kenaston
has the highest number of former Yugoslavian residents per
capita living outside of their homeland.
In the last few months I have had the opportunity to be
directly involved with three gentlemen and their families who
have emigrated from the former Yugoslavia to Canada. I have
come to know these men and their families personally. Their
backgrounds as well as their ideas are varied. One gentleman is a
Croat, one is a Muslim Croat and the other is a Serbian Croat.
319
I would now like to give a few short quotes from these three
gentlemen who have witnessed first hand the torture and the
horror of their homeland.
(1645 )
One gentleman told me: ``You must run from building to
building like a mouse. What is needed are peacemakers, not
peacekeepers, but perhaps it is too late. From my Croatian
viewpoint the United Nations was required more when the war
was first started. They are now not needed. The war would not be
any different with or without them''.
I quote the second gentleman who said: ``Permanent
humanitarian aid can only be achieved with the settlement of the
war. A new approach must be found by the United Nations. The
UN soldiers are put in a situation of humiliation. They are not
serving in the capacity of peacekeeping. Bosnians have lost
hope that the United Nations can help the problem. The United
Nations should intervene in a new way''.
The third gentleman told me: ``The United Nations
humanitarian assistance provides some relief, when you can get
it. For example, my parents from May 1992 to their escape in
August 1993 received only one package of United Nations
supplies containing one kilo of flour and one bar of soap. The
battle line is within 5 kilometres of my home. I live through
constant days of fighting and you can hear bombing and gunfire
followed by a few days of limited gunfire. Families would move
in fear of an imminent outbreak''.
Even among these three people we see varied opinions as to
the success of the humanitarian aid we are trying to place in
Bosnia. What appears common to me in their comments
however is that there will be no short-term fix to the problem. It
is likely to be a situation where a United Nations peacekeeping
operation will have to be considered for a very long time. Before
that can happen, I believe, along with these people, that peace
must be made.
The United Nations forces are now between a rock and a hard
place. There is no consensus among the warring parties
themselves as to the United Nations involvement in Bosnia. The
humanitarian aid I think is appreciated. The military element I
think is despised. The warmongers would like them to leave; the
victims need them to stay.
I see the only option that is left to us as part of the United
Nations force is to withdraw temporarily and re-evaluate the
situation. Threats and ultimatums to stop the fighting have not
worked to this point. I believe that we must take a firmer stand. I
say this with mixed emotions. It is hard for me to stand here and
propose withdrawal knowing full well that one of my relatives
might die for lack of food or medical aid. Yet I know that in my
heart we cannot continue for much longer under the present
circumstances.
Canadian lives have been and will continue to be lost for a
mission that I now believe can achieve no satisfactory
conclusion. We must be prepared to give our United Nations
force a new mandate.
In conclusion I urge the government to continue to study the
history, the people and the present situation of this area and
make its decision based on the best interests of Canadians and of
all those involved.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the
House and I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you
for your encouragement during my campaign. Without your
encouragement I would not be here today, Sir.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the people
of Richmond, my riding, who have looked beyond my ethnicity
and have elected me as their member of Parliament. In
Richmond not only do we talk about multiculturalism, we also
practise multiculturalism.
The Deputy Speaker: I hate to interrupt you, especially after
what you have been saying, but I think yours is more a speech
than a comment on the speech that was just made. Am I not
correct?
Mr. Chan: Actually I will be following up with my questions,
Mr. Speaker.
I can identify with the hon. member about his background. I
too came to Canada in search of freedom and democracy.
I feel that what is happening in the former Yugoslavia is not
only a problem of military action.
(1650 )
As the hon. member has said, it is because of the hatred
between the different ethnic groups there. Even though they
have been living together for hundreds of years the hatred still
exists.
It is important for us to preach to the people in that region
about how Canadians can live together peacefully. It is because
we have the idea of multiculturalism, that we respect each other
regardless of our racial backgrounds.
The question I would like to ask the hon. member is: While the
Reform Party members are visiting that troubled region, would
they please take the opportunity to preach to the people in that
region about how beautiful and wonderful multiculturalism is
and let them understand the very important parts our various
cultures play in Canada.
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my address,
certainly that is one of the problems. This conflict is not
something new. It has been going on for many years, in fact, for
more than one century. That has always been the problem. From
320
time to time there will be an outbreak of violence such as we are
seeing right now.
The key situation here as I mentioned is that first we have to
stop the fighting somehow, either through ultimatums or other
means. Then once the fighting is stopped, we can go in and we
can start to work on the real humanitarian aid and get all three
sides talking to each other.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the remarks by the member for Moose
Jaw-Lake Centre. I appreciate the fact that his ancestry is
Croatian.
Having been to Croatia and Bosnia several times and having
helped organized the first group of members of Parliament who
supervised the first free election both in Bosnia and in Croatia,
what I am hearing from them is that even though the UN troops,
both as peacekeepers in Croatia and as suppliers of humanitarian
aid in Bosnia, even though the UN troops in many instances have
been ``ineffectual'', they are a thin line which has prevented a
total holocaust. To remove that thin line would mean the death
of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.
Are we really prepared and is the hon. member suggesting we
should remove that thin line? Are we prepared to live with the
consequences and the thought that we might have been
responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people?
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member poses a very good
question. It is a valid argument and certainly one we must not
overlook, the humanitarian side of things.
The people I talk to, those most directly involved, are telling
me there is very little trust on either side. They are telling me
that whether we were there as a peacekeeping force or a
humanitarian force, it really would make very little difference
whether we were there or not as far as what the consequences of
the war would actually be.
I have based my thinking on that type of common sense
approach, common person approach to it.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to participate in this important debate concerning
Canada's role in peacekeeping with specific reference to our
role in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia.
I have a personal interest in what has been taking place in
Croatia and Bosnia because that is where I am from. I was born
in Croatia. My roots are there. I have family and friends there.
The situation in my old homeland has caused me great anxiety
and it has been disheartening to say the least.
In 1992 when the United Nations Security Council announced
that it was sending peacekeepers to Croatia and later to Bosnia
and Hercegovina, I was confident that a resolution to the
conflict was within reach. I was optimistic that with
peacekeepers, there would be peace. Unfortunately I was
mistaken.
(1655)
On February 21, 1992 Canada announced that it would
commit up to 1,200 personnel to serve with the United Nations
protection force in Croatia. Two months later 30 RCMP officers
made the trip to Croatia to assist as police monitors. Our
contingent became part of a 13,000, 31-country mission, which
was the largest UN peacekeeping operation since the Congo in
1960.
UNPROFOR's operational mandate currently extends to the
five republics of the former Yugoslavia. Those include Croatia,
Bosnia and Hercegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. It
also has a liaison presence in the sixth republic of Slovenia. In
Croatia, UNPROFOR was deployed to areas where it was felt
that its presence could help to ensure a lasting ceasefire.
Those areas were designated as United Nations protected
areas. In the UNPA zones in Croatia, Serbs constituted the
majority or a substantial minority of the population and ethnic
tensions had resulted in armed conflict.
The UN's original mandate for Croatia was outlined in UN
resolution 743 and had several objectives: to ensure the
withdrawal of the Yugoslav National Army from all parts of
Croatia; to ensure that all UN protected areas were demilitarized
through the withdrawal or break up of all armed forces in them;
to see that all persons residing in those areas were protected
from fear and armed attack; to control access to those areas and
to ensure that they remained demilitarized; to monitor the
operations of local police and to help ensure non-discrimination
and protection of human rights; to support the work of UN
humanitarian agencies; and to facilitate the return, in conditions
of safety and security, of civilian displaced persons to their
homes in the UN protected areas.
I can say with confidence that in Croatia the UN has been
unable to fulfil much of the mandate which I have just described.
While it is true that the Yugoslav National Army no longer has
a visible presence in Croatia and that UN peacekeepers have
been largely successful in their support of humanitarian
assistance missions, both in Croatia and Bosnia, UNPROFOR
has been unable to ensure the demilitarization of the protected
areas and it has had little success in helping displaced civilians
return to their homes.
Some have been extremely critical of the UN's inability to
fulfil its mandate, not just in Croatia and Bosnia and
Hercegovina, but in other parts of the world. In a recent article
by Robin Harris, political advisor to former British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher, Mr. Harris accuses UNPROFOR of
presiding over ``constant ethnic cleansing by Serbs who are
driving
321
Croatian citizens from their homes in occupied Croatian
territory''.
He writes that during a recent trip to Croatia he also witnessed
the daily shelling of the Croatian towns of Gospic, Karlovac,
Zadar and Osijek by Serbs, all from within so-called United
Nations protected areas.
The criticism has also unexpectedly come from all sides in the
conflict. Last January the entire mission was placed in jeopardy
when Croatian President Franjo Tudjman stated that he did not
want to grant UNPROFOR an extension of its mandate because
it had failed to achieve its original objective. In particular
President Tudjman was reacting to the failure of the UN to
demilitarize those forces in UN protected areas.
(1700)
Even the United Nations itself has admitted that in Croatia
UNPROFOR has been unable to establish conditions of peace
and security that would have permitted the voluntary return of
refugees and displaced persons to their homes in the protected
areas. The UN has admitted that despite the best efforts of its
civilian police they have been unable to prevent discrimination
and abuse of human rights in the protected zones in the first year
of their mandate. The UN has also expressed frustration over its
inability to compel the warring parties into accepting negotiated
agreements.
The situation in Bosnia is somewhat different from that in
Croatia. For starters, the mandate of peacekeepers in Bosnia was
strictly to assist in the delivery of humanitarian aid to the
victims of the war. That has not been an easy job. Quite often the
delivery of aid has been dangerous and difficult. Aid convoys
have been detained at various checkpoints for hours and days on
end while the war victims wait.
While aid is getting through to some of those in need, it is
getting there with great risk to those who are delivering it. The
war is fiercely continuing in Bosnia. Sniper fire and shelling
continue to be daily occurrences. While the UN refers to safe
areas in parts of Bosnia, fighting continues in and around those
areas.
In fact it is in one of those so-called safe areas that Canadian
peacekeepers have been surrounded. They are unable to leave
until replacement troops arrive. However replacement troops
have not been permitted to enter the town of Srebrenica to
relieve our troops. While an agreement to allow our
peacekeepers to leave appeared to have been reached in
principle several weeks ago, Canadians are still waiting for their
replacements.
In conclusion, this peacekeeping mission has had some
unforgettable successes. In July 1992 Canadian soldiers
liberated the Sarajevo airport and enabled airlifts of
humanitarian assistance to commence in a region that had been
without food and other necessities for far too long.
On another occasion just before Christmas it was Canadian
peacekeepers who came to the rescue of Bosnian psychiatric
patients abandoned by hospital staff. We all remember the
television images of those helpless people in a field outside the
hospital, some without clothes, all unable to care for
themselves. Had it not been for our peacekeepers those people
may not be alive today.
Those are but two of the highlights in a war that has been
raging for over three years. However noble and brave those acts
were, we must accept that tensions are rising. It appears as
though all sides are getting frustrated with what they see as the
status quo. They are beginning to take their frustrations out on
our peacekeepers.
This past weekend we learned of two incidents in which the
lives of our Canadian soldiers were placed in jeopardy. One of
those incidents took place in a so-called protected area in
Croatia, and the other in a peacekeeper's camp in Visoko,
outside Sarajevo. These events follow several others which have
taken place over the past two months.
I am sure that members of the House recall that Canadian
peacekeepers were held at gun point and endured a mock
execution in Bosnia at the hands of Serb soldiers not long ago.
We also recall that they were detained by Croation soldiers in
Gospic at approximately the same time. It has only been a few
weeks since Canadian peacekeepers were caught in the middle
of a shootout between Bosnian Muslim and Croat warriors.
(1705 )
Canadians are extremely sensitive people. We are propelled
by a desire to help people in need. That is why we cannot bear to
witness the daily suffering and tragedy in Bosnia and Croatia.
That is why we sent Canadian peacekeepers to those two
countries. We felt that we could help put an end to the suffering
of the innocent victims of war. However we must decide whether
our desire to help the people of Bosnia and Croatia is more
important to us than placing the lives of Canadian soldiers in
jeopardy.
The decision to remove Canadian peacekeepers from Bosnia
and Croatia is a difficult one. The situation in Croatia while
serious is not nearly as volatile as that in Bosnia and
Hercegovina. There is a role for the UN to play there. Efforts
demand to be redefined.
While I am concerned that the departure of our peacekeepers
from Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina may result in increased
hostilities in the region and place the lives of my friends and
relatives and jeopardy, I can no longer support any initiative in
which Canadian soldiers are often used as human shields
separating warring factions.
There are also fiscal implications. As everyone is well aware
our country's pockets are not overflowing with money. We have
a serious debt and deficit problem that needs to be addressed.
We must assess whether we can actually afford, not just the
missions in Bosnia and Croatia which last year alone cost us
322
approximately $120 million and where we have more than 2,000
peacekeepers but other missions around the world where we
have additional Canadian peacekeepers.
I am of the opinion that we must review and redefine
peacekeeping altogether before we agree to participate in future
peacekeeping missions. This review of peacekeeping operations
should take place at the international level within the context of
the United Nations. Perhaps at the same time we could come up
with some suggestions on how to make all UN operations more
effective. However that is a debate that can be reserved for
another day.
I submit that we should no longer risk the safety of Canadian
troops. Nor should we continue to place a financial burden on
Canadian taxpayers by footing what is amounting to be a rather
expensive venture.
Members will by now know that this is not a decision I have
reached lightly. I urge my colleagues to give this their utmost
consideration so that we may find the best possible solution for
Canadians first and foremost.
The Deputy Speaker: Particularly after a speech like that one
members do not have to put questions to the member; they can
just make comments during the remaining time.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member. I understand he is the first person
born in Croatia to be a member of the Canadian Parliament. I
sincerely congratulate him on that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. de Jong: When we look at the history of the Croatian
people I suspect we will find that the first ones were some of the
earlier explorers of the St. Lawrence and other parts of this
continent. The Croatian people have historically been known to
be a great seafaring people. Descendants of the Croatian people
can be found throughout the world. They have that in my
common with my people from Holland. Holland was also a great
seafaring nation and continues to be.
I am somewhat dismayed, however, at the suggestion and the
conclusion of the hon. member. Understanding the frustrations
that we all feel and that Canadians feel when we read about
Canadian troops being mishandled and their lives being
threatened while attempting to deliver humanitarian aid, the
initial reaction is to get the heck out of there. We are trying to do
good yet our lives are being threatened and we are being
humiliated. In the end sober second thought has to decide what
course we are going to take.
(1710)
I hope before the government decides to act that it uses the
intelligence network I am sure is operating in
Bosnia-Hercegovina. As I understand it, it takes all the existing
information and intelligence available to come to a basic
conclusion or understanding.
If we remove Canadian troops and UN troops what will the
results be? Will the result be a further and greater holocaust?
What if our intelligence indicates that it will be? Even though
that thin and inadequate UN line keeps some semblance of order
and in its own way prevents a total holocaust from occurring,
surely we have no other choice but to stay in there.
Can the hon. member tell us if he has any other information on
which to base his opinion?
Mr. Peric: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows at the
present time our role is not acceptable over there. It is a very
weak role. Only under different conditions would I support UN
troops in the former Yugoslavia. Otherwise I am in full support
of pulling them out and bringing our Canadian soldiers back
home.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to say a few words today on this very important and
historic debate. I think we owe a great credit to our Prime
Minister for showing leadership in reforming the House. Not
only are we dealing with an historic tragedy in Europe. I think
we are dealing with some history in this very Parliament. I
appreciate the chance to participate in this new openness.
As I prepared for this brief intervention I attempted to boil
down the situation as much as I could. I doubt that very many of
us are experts in international affairs, but nonetheless we have a
responsibility to our fellow citizens to make intelligent and well
considered decisions.
It is a particular privilege for me to say a few words because
the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson was the former member for
Algoma. By the end of today all members will know that Mr.
Pearson was instrumental in the very formation of peacekeeping
missions by the UN. He won the Noble prize in 1957 for his
leadership in the Suez Canal crisis. That kind of leadership
exhibited by Canada and Mr. Pearson then requires that we show
leadership at this time. Canada's stature in the world as a
peacemaker goes unquestioned.
This crisis I believe provides us with an opportunity. The
tragedy that is occurring in the former Yugoslavia can at the
same time, like Suez, be an opportunity for us to find new
solutions. We certainly do not want to see this kind of thing
happening over and over around the world. We cannot
co-ordinate conflict but we can certainly co-ordinate and plan
our response to conflict.
The situation in the world is such that the nature of conflict is
changing. Unfortunately we are seeing much more ethnic fight-
323
ing and religious fighting. Because of the nature of the general
change in conflict it requires we change our approach to solving
these kinds of problems. I would not dare presume to speak for
Mr. Pearson, but I would suggest that if he were here he would
say we have to reinvent our approach to peacekeeping given the
situation we face.
I would recommend to my colleagues a report published in
February 1993 by the other place. It was a report of the standing
Senate committee on foreign affairs entitled ``Meeting New
Challenges: Canada's response to a new generation of
peacekeeping''. It is excellent reading and contains some very
forward thinking ideas. I make a suggestion to the House. We
recognize that in April there is a decision point for our country
in terms of whether we stay or not stay. The rotation involved in
Srebenica is really not directly involved in our decision with
respect to April.
(1715)
We also have a decision to make or delay until November. Our
commitment in the former Yugoslavia is in six-month
increments. This is the negotiated arrangement that all member
nations have with the UN.
I suggest that because the government has made a
commitment to review our foreign affairs policies and our
defence policies, which will likely come to a conclusion by this
fall, and because we want to involve Canadians in those
consultations, as we are doing with the budget and the efforts by
the finance minister to involve Canadians, I believe we will see
public consultations.
We need to have a partial moratorium on Canada's
involvement in the former Yugoslavia. I am not suggesting a
withdrawal from the region. I am only suggesting that a decision
be made by our minister to withdraw our troops from Bosnia to
Croatia from this spring until this fall.
Our commitment to the NATO forces there is in six-month
increments. I believe we need to give Canadians a little bit of
breathing room when it comes to our involvement not only in
Bosnia but in peacekeeping in general.
It is my recommendation to the House that even though there
are four options, one being to withdraw entirely from the region,
another to simply withdraw from Bosnia but stay in Croatia, we
could keep the status quo stable at our base in Bosnia and in
Croatia, or we could augment our forces.
I believe that only the second and third are options for us right
now and that the second is the one we should opt for which is to
withdraw our troops into Croatia.
The review we will be holding in Canada over this next six to
eight months is very important for the long term. I would not
want to see our troops in a situation that could blow up when we
do not have a thoughtfully considered place in the peacekeeping
or peacemaking efforts of the world. When you consider that we
are the third largest contingent over there, I really have to
question how much say we have in what is going on.
I recognize that there is a serious humanitarian element to this
if we remove troops from Bosnia. There is a lot of important
work that needs to be done in Croatia in support of the
humanitarian effort and there are other nations that need to take
their turn at this very important task.
By withdrawing our troops from Bosnia and moving them to
Croatia we can send a subtle but important message to our allies
and to the UN that our own role as a peacekeeping nation is
under review. It recognizes there is very little effort being made
by the protagonists to come to a peaceful compromise. Canada
can show its leadership by sending a strong message that we are
looking seriously at our role as peacemakers in this world.
We want to give Canadians through this next six to eight
months an honest opportunity to see how our troops are
deployed, how we commit our Canadian tax dollars to
peacemaking around the world because Canada has never
shirked its responsibility. However, maybe it is time for others
to come forward. We are all grateful to our troops for their
efforts in all peacekeeping theatres, especially in the former
Yugoslavia, but we do not want to see them in a situation that
may blow up and soon be out of control.
(1720)
I remind the House that we had great leadership with Mr.
Pearson back in the late fifties. If Canada wishes to maintain
that role-and I am sure our new Minister of Foreign Affairs is
up to the task as is our entire government-it does not mean that
we have to endanger our troops in a very volatile situation while
we review our place as peacekeepers in the world.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Madam Speaker, I really
enjoyed what the member had to say. I wonder if any member of
the Reform Party has any comments on it.
An hon. member: Where are they? They are not here.
An hon. member: Was that a question or a comment?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is a comment. Are
there any further questions or comments? Resuming debate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Madam
Speaker, since this is the first time I rise in the House as the
member for Laval Centre, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate you on your election to the Chair. I would also like
to emphasize the efficiency, professionalism and exceptional
work being done by the entire staff of the House of Commons.
324
I would also like to extend sincere greetings to my
constituents in Laval Centre. On October 25 they proved that
they understood the importance of respecting the individual by
electing me as their representative.
I will now focus on the subject of my speech. For several
hours, members of this House have applied the profound values
of our North American society to an issue that is both painful
and necessary: should we review the usefulness of the presence
of Canadian peacekeepers in the world's hot spots, in light of
past experience and of the new geopolitical context that has
arisen as a result of recent disruptions, especially in Eastern
Europe?
The answer, of course, is yes. From personal experience, we
all learned long ago that situations and contexts constantly
change and what yesterday seemed obvious is far less clear
today. The Bosnian conflict is a case in point. We must not be
afraid of analysing reality, even if we see some elements we did
not even know existed. It is our duty as a responsible society.
The reality we are analysing today has two sides. I call them
the reality of the heart and the reality of the mind. I do not know
which takes precedence over the other, but I hope that the
decisions we will be asked to make are made in light of values
that are fundamental to Canadian and Quebec society, in other
words, our democratic values, our collective responsabilities
and respect for the individual.
Ever since the news brutally reminded us of the existence of
the former Yugoslavia, there is a memory that often comes back
to haunt me.
(1725)
It was in the early sixties, at the end of January, and yes, I was
on a ski slope. It was snowing. A friend introduced the man she
was going to marry. He was a Yugoslav, but over the past few
years, Stéphane has become a Croat, first and foremost. He
predicted what is happening now in that part of the world when
he said thirty years ago: ``When Tito disappears, this artificial
country will be a bloody battlefield.'' He was right, of course,
and it did not take long for his apocalyptic vision to become a
reality.
Slovenia was able to resist the Yugoslav army and managed to
assert its independence at the end of 1991. Croatia, however,
quickly became the scene of a civil war that significantly altered
its borders. Without the presence of the UN peacekeepers, the
conflict would have been far worse. During the past year,
Bosnia-Hercegovina has monopolized the headlines in the
international media. An area where Croatians, Serbs and
Muslims had managed to live together in harmony, it has now
become a genuine powder keg. Powerless, we watch a tragedy
that can only compare with the vast displacement of the millions
of men, women and children who suffered as victims of the
atrocities committed during the Second World War.
When my friend Stéphane listens to the news and reads the
papers, he thinks about the victims of this conflict which seems
to go on and on. Who are they? Women and children, of course.
In Sarajevo, 10,000 people have died in 21 months. More than
1,500 were children. But the others, those who manage to
survive, what kind of reality do they face from day to day? For
them, life is synonymous with fear. Hunger, cold, sickness,
violence and death are everywhere.
In Bosnia-Hercegovina, as in any territory where armed
conflict lashes out indiscriminately, the average citizen is
separated from his environment. The population of this area is
estimated at more than four million, two-thirds of whom have
fled their homes or what is left of them in their search for elusive
safety. This exodus is the most staggering facet of the entire
conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Intimidation, torture, murder
and rape perpetrated on minorities under military occupation
have all contributed to the ``ethnic cleansing'' of zones
controlled by the warring parties.
Can we decently question the usefulness of UN contingents?
If they were not there, would food, medicine, and blankets have
any chance of reaching those protected areas that receive a
stream of destitute refugees?
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. In fact, inter-ethnic
confrontations in the former Yugoslavia have caused the exodus
of millions of people who are desperately seeking refuge. In
Bosnia-Hercegovina, out of a total population of 4.5 million,
the office of the High Commissioner for refugees calculates
more than 2.7 million persons have been displaced.
(1730)
This is roughly the population of Greater Montreal. These
people are out on the roads, sometimes in bitter cold.
At the very beginning of this conflict, displaced families
received help from relatives, friends, fellow countrymen. This
is no longer the case. The situation has deteriorated
considerably and it is hurting the majority of the people from the
former Yugoslavia. The conflict is wreaking economic havoc
throughout the area.
If any one still wondered about the importance of the UN
military presence in critical areas, let us just think back to last
fall, when the flow of relief was interrupted for nearly three
weeks following attacks on UN convoys. Barely 40 per cent of
the required supplies reached the civilians. I am convinced that
no one in this House will dare call into question the relevance of
the assistance provided to the civilian population by these men
and women who, in the name of fundamental rights and
freedoms and at the peril of their own lives, try to minimize for
these people the disastrous and inhuman effects of insane
conflicts.
325
The action of our peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia and
in Bosnia-Hercegovina in particular is an integral part of the
efforts by the High Commission for Refugees. They go hand in
hand. Without the logistical support provided by the UN forces,
especially the Canadian peacekeepers, there is no way
humanitarian assistance could get where it is supposed to. These
convoys bringing food, clothing and medical supplies to people
who are increasingly dependent on them are often delayed,
stopped or attacked. Nevertheless, the people of Canada and
Quebec have every right to wonder what our peacekeepers are
doing in the former Yugoslavia.
It should be pointed out however that the primary role of the
UN peacekeeping forces, of which Canada is a member, is to
provide assistance to populations in need, to try to reduce
tension between warring factions and provide organizations
such as the High Commission for Refugees with all the technical
assistance required. This peacekeeping force currently includes
over 2,000 Canadian soldiers, more than half of whom are
stationed in Bosnia-Hercegovina. About 80 per cent of the
Canadian contingent is made up of young men and women from
Quebec, which goes to show the generosity of our people.
Canadian peacekeepers escort humanitarian relief convoys
and secure areas under UN protection. Without their support,
this goal would be difficult and perhaps even impossible to
reach, in view of the fact that missions are often plagued with
administrative obstacles laid by the military commands,
whether Bosnian, Croat or Serb. It is obvious that without the
help of the peacekeepers, the peace mission in
Bosnia-Hercegovina would come to a standstill.
What are the cost to the people of Canada and Quebec? There
is no denying that there are economic costs associated with the
presence of Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia.
Let us not at this stage overestimate, worse, underestimate these
costs.
(1735)
Economic costs are one thing, loss of life is quite another.
Each life is important and invaluable. Two casualties among our
peacekeepers are directly linked to these hostilities. This
number is too high, but it is perhaps not too great a cost when we
think of the countless lives that have been saved thanks to the
presence of Canadian peacekeepers.
If we have succeeded in saving a single life, a single child,
then we have already accomplished a great deal. Our
peacekeepers know this and do not hesitate to say so. Quebecers
and Canadians know this as well. Can we, for economic
considerations, dismiss lightly all of the work and all of the
humanitarian relief provided by thousands of civilians and UN
peacekeepers? We have a duty to be responsible and to fully
assume our role as citizens of the world.
The process of collective reflection that we have initiated in
this House leads us to think that the debate must be
comprehensive. The presence of the peacekeepers is a tangible
symbol of the support Canada and Quebec have always extended
to oppressed nations, because here in this country, we value
people above all else.
Consequently, Canada must continue to fulfil its current
mandate. It must give its moral and political backing to the UN
peacekeeping effort. It must continue to escort humanitarian
relief convoys which serve as the daily lifeline for
approximately two million people, mainly women and children.
We must work together toward world peace through concerted
efforts to prevent conflicts from spilling over borders.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): First of all,
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to offer my congratulations to my
colleague, the member for Laval Centre, for her brilliant, clear
presentation, full of the compassion for which she is known. I
also want to congratulate you on the responsibilities entrusted to
you and to participate, perhaps modestly, in the debate which
has been going on since ten o'clock this morning by telling you
that I represent a riding in eastern Montreal where the social and
economic conditions are rather difficult.
On several occasions, I was able to discuss with my
constituents what Canada's presence abroad means. This brings
me to say that the debate we are having today as
parliamentarians should lead us to answer two main questions.
The first is what exactly does it mean in terms of resource
allocation to participate in a peacekeeping or a peacemaking
force abroad? The second basic question is what are the
underlying values? To understand the present debate, I think that
we must go back to the past. I believe that our colleague from
Laval Centre has clearly shown that we have a responsibility.
(1740)
I believe in something called international conscience. I
believe that the reason we have to debate the conflict in the
former Yugoslavia where three major communities have
difficulty living together is that some decisions were made
before. We as parliamentarians cannot ignore that the decisions
were made, first, just after the First World War and, second, just
after the Second World War.
The reason I refer to these historical facts is that I think there
is a lesson to be learned from this century: every time the
international community was tempted to withdraw from a
problem or to minimize its extent, this had the contrary effect of
prolonging the problem.
326
Remember the first time an attempt was made to lay the basis
for real international solidarity with the League of Nations.
They let Ethiopia be invaded and look at what that led to!
Remember the Munich Conference where the heads of state
let Hitler invade Poland. Look at what that led to!
My way of understanding today's debate is to say: what would
it mean for the international community if Canada withdrew, if
Canada took out its 2,000 soldiers, who represent about 8 per
cent of the international force? I think that it would send a
message of resignation, of cowardice and of lack of solidarity.
Of course, I do not contend that Canada alone bears the whole
responsibility for the forces to be used in those efforts, but I
think that Canada must take pride in an activist tradition, a
tradition of peacemaking which is very honourable. What we
must ask the international community to do is to give the
outlines for a political decision.
With the Leader of the Opposition, I had the pleasure to meet
two generals in the field who told us about the conclusions we
should draw.
We should be particularly proud of two things: first, that
international action has managed to keep the conflict within
limits, a conflict which could have been explosive and spread
beyond the borders of the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, and I
think that several members have referred to it, concerning the
humanitarian shipments, we do not claim that there have been no
mistakes, but we say that some pretty good work is going on and
that the situation would be much worse if food supplies could
not be sent through.
So I think that these two reasons alone should convince us as
parliamentarians that it is worthwhile for Canada to continue
what it is doing.
There is a third point, and I think that is where our actions will
have the greatest effect. Some people in the international
community have a great deal of experience which gives them a
lot of credibility. I am thinking of former President Jimmy
Carter and Richard Nixon and more could be named. I think that
we must tell our fellow citizens that if we want Canada to keep
up its effort and continue to allocate resources to it, we also want
a decision made and some guidelines laid out. For this, I think
that we should mandate people who know the international
community well, who have credibility in trying to bring the
parties together, because we must not be mistaken. Basically,
ultimately, our guiding purpose must be to try to lead three
communities to live together. For historical and immediate
reasons, they have difficulty doing so.
In that regard, if a vote were taken today, I would say that
Canada should maintain its participation. Thank you.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): I wish to congratulate my
colleague from Laval Centre for her excellent speech before
making a short comment.
She started out by telling us that we should look at the
situation and at the matter we are dealing with today not only
with our minds but also with our hearts. And I think that in her
speech she emphasized the need to listen to our hearts.
(1745)
I often listen to the speeches of my colleagues. We hear a lot
about strategy and international policy considerations but not
much about what Pascal called ``the reason of the heart'', as my
colleague was pointing out. She showed us that, in such a
situation, our first duty as human beings is to be present. Under
certain circumstances, on a personal level or even in
international politics, we often feel powerless, we do not know
how to react or what to do but we know instinctively that we
have to be there. It is our duty as human beings.
She also reminded us that we had an obligation to feed, clothe
and heal others. Canada and Quebec should be proud that,
throughout their history, they have been committed to these
duties that are incumbent upon us all as human beings. When we
see others suffer, our impulse is to go help them, to do our part.
As my colleague showed us, I think that we have a duty to
intervene. When we feel that we can do something, even if it is
not much, to help someone, to save lives, to alleviate pain and
suffering, I think that our duty is to intervene. I want to thank my
colleague for pointing out this whole aspect in her speech. We
can talk about strategy, statistics, costs and interventions in
Bosnia or in other similar situations, but we must remember
that, as human beings, we should also listen to our hearts.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough): Madam Speaker, I want
to join with the rest of my colleagues in congratulating you on
your appointment to the role of assistant Speaker. I know that
you look forward to this as do we in the House of a Parliament
that is different, more progressive and more open than that
which we have probably come to live with over the last number
of years.
I want to congratulate all of the people today involved in this
very important and very timely debate about our role as
peacekeepers throughout the world and what the future role of
the Canadian military should and will be.
As I rise to participate in this I say that I am a member of
Parliament who has taken great interest in the last number of
years in Canada's military and in our foreign policy. I had the
opportunity on two occasions to travel with the defence
committee. Once we went to eastern Europe as a part of our
delegation. There was that trip along with the other times I spent
as a
327
member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs.
I believe this has given me somewhat of an insight into the
problems and the questions which are facing our military and
which we must address if we are to continue to build on a foreign
policy which is coherent in the light of today's world situation.
This is consistent with our historical record as one of the
world's leading peacekeepers. As we all know, Canada has long
been a world leader in the field of peacekeeping and our
contribution has been appreciated around the world.
After World War II Canada was a major military and
industrial power and one of the leaders of the free world. We
gave our unconditional support to the United Nations from the
beginning and we were leaders in the movement to form the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the North American Air
Defence Command.
(1750 )
We were ready to participate as a full partner with the world
community in collective action. While the United Nations
involvement in Korea was not peacekeeping as such it was a
collective action to deter aggression and was a prime example of
the ability which that organization had to react around the world.
The pre-eminent Canadian contribution to peacekeeping
came at the time of the Suez crisis in 1956 when Canada, under
the Right Hon. Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent and external
affairs minister Lester B. Pearson, played a leading role in the
world community. They were instrumental in the establishment
of the UN peacekeeping force in the Middle East.
The eminent historian J. L. Granatstein says that the high
water mark of Canadian prestige in the world was reached
during the Suez crisis of 1956. As most hon. members well know
Mr. Pearson won the Nobel peace prize. At that time Canada
stood at the forefront of world security and peace efforts and we
were a very proud nation.
Our commitment to international peacekeeping has continued
and a roll call of the places Canada has served would take one
around the world. Today there are over 2,300 Canadians on duty
in places as diverse as Rwanda, Iraq and El Salvador and the
others that we are talking about today. Our peacekeeping efforts
have been a badge of honour worn proudly by the men and
women of our forces who have served this world and this
country with dignity and with purpose.
We cannot however rest on the laurels of the past. The world
today is a vastly different place than it was in the 1950s or in the
subsequent decades. All the implications of our role must be
examined. We as parliamentarians must lay out a clear and
concise plan of action for our government and for our military
which is consistent with the role as citizens in the world.
It must be said that the last two major peacekeeping
operations have been fraught with frustration. Every speech
made in this Chamber today said that. The horrible savagery
which has been talked about in Bosnia comes to us instantly
every day on television. It was mentioned here earlier today that
on the past weekend six young children out playing in the snow
were killed by shells. The daily butchery based on longstanding
ethnic hatred causes each of us to grieve when we see it in our
homes on television.
Our troops have also served in Somalia in a harsh and hostile
climate and environment for which probably they may not have
been fully prepared. The people we send on these missions of
course are soldiers. They are not social workers. Their training,
as good as it is, and it is the best there is around, does not always
equip them for the degradation and inequities they see. They are
placed in areas where the game is played by different rules
which are not consistent with the values that they know and we
know.
We must always remember when we send our young men and
women abroad that they are going in may cases into a no win
situation. It is like the tale of the three young boy scouts who
helped the lady across the street. It is an awful lot more difficult
if she does not want to go.
Sometimes our troops and others are in a situation where they
are trying to make peace between groups and peoples who really
want to continue their animosities which go back into the mists
of time. When we put our people into these situations we must
remember that frustration follows.
The world has undergone dramatic and fundamental change
over these past few years since Canada stood at the zenith of its
international prestige as a world leader in the peacekeeping
process.
The fundamental cornerstones of Canada's foreign policy
have not changed substantially over the years, however. We are
still committed to defence and collective security with our
allies. We remain committed to arms control and disarmament.
(1755 )
We are committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. We
must ask ourselves whether we are now entering a phase where
we become world police. Is this the role we are to play?
Even over such a short time span as the last five years, the face
of the world has changed dramatically. Maps five years old are
out of date. Few could have seen following the dramatic days
when the Berlin wall came down how fundamentally the world
would change in such a short time.
328
The collapse of the communist party and the dismemberment
of the Soviet Union would have been unthinkable a decade ago.
We would have thought then that if the old order in eastern
Europe were to collapse then all would be well. Peace would
break out all over the world.
We smugly watched and claimed victory at the end of the cold
war not realizing the pent up ethnic nationalistic tensions that
were just below the surface. The thin veneer of civilized
behaviour was quickly stripped away. Now we see a world
situation more fraught with danger than at most times during the
past 50 years. During the peaceful years that followed World
War II we developed the attitude that reasoned and rational
behaviour would rule the nations of the world.
What we forgot is that only 80 years have passed since the
beginning of World War I which was a horrible, wasteful war
that was finally touched off by a spark in Sarajevo, the capital of
Bosnia.
Only 55 years have passed since the beginning of World War
II which was the most destructive conflict in human history. We
may feel we are past the stage of generalized conflict but I fear
that that smugness may be false optimism. We pray that we will
never be faced with the other way but we must realize that many
of the tensions, conflicts and hatreds that led to war in the past
are still with us today.
As I mentioned earlier, almost daily on the TV and other news
media we are reminded of the mindless, terrible slaughter that
continues around the world. Our greatest challenge as people is
to prevent further conflict, to show world leadership and to
cause others to follow our example of nationhood based on
reason. This is where disputes and conflicts are settled by
dialogue and not by bullets.
There is a great challenge facing this government as we
approach the 21st century. We must assess the role of our armed
forces and we must provide them with the direction that is
necessary in a troubled world.
It must be a multilevel approach. Our military role must be
defined and priorities must be established. Canada must
continue to be the honest broker who works tirelessly on
diplomatic fronts to halt conflict around the world and to
eliminate the root causes of these conflicts.
We live in difficult times. The economy of Canada demands
that we restrain our spending but a troubled world looks to us for
leadership. As I said earlier, as the citizens of the world we must
be involved in the affairs of the world partly out of self-interest
and partly because morally we must be involved in trying to
make the world a better place.
We must however perform our duties only after the most
careful examination of all the implications that our future
involvement holds. This challenge faces us all. If we do not
create a world free of conflict then the price we pay as Canadians
may be too horrible to contemplate.
We have been a world leader in peacekeeping over the years.
That tradition is now more important than ever.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased with what I am hearing today. I think that what is being
said in this debate could contribute to enhance the perception
that the Canadian and the Quebec people have of the House of
Commons and of Canadian parliamentarians.
(1800)
I believe that something else will be achieved tonight. This
deeply thought out and dispassionate debate will reinforce for
Canadians and Quebecers the values of generosity and
compassion they hold most dear. What we are really talking
about in this debate is respect for life. Canada cannot stand still
when there is suffering, and I think that Canadians and
Quebecers had to witness with their own ears and eyes this
demonstration of human solidarity among Canadian
parliamentarians.
[English]
Mr. Proud: Madam Speaker, I would just like to thank the
hon. member for his comments. I totally believe in what he said
regarding the debate that is taking place here today in this place.
I know, as I travelled around my riding of Hillsborough, the
same as every other member did in their ridings, that people in
this country were telling us that we had better change the image
of this place now.
I just wanted to say that it is not always going to be this
congenial in here. However, when it is this way we really can
produce a good product. I am sure that out of this debate will
come a policy based on other hearings that are held throughout
the land and a military and foreign policy that once again we in
this country can be very, very proud of.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Madam Speaker, I noticed
that everybody has been congratulating you that you are now in
the chair. I would like to say that it is nice to see a woman in the
chair and I say kudos to you.
I have not been on House duty today but this is one debate I
have been watching on my TV monitor in my office all day with
a great deal of interest because the variety of the discussion and
the difference in thoughts have been very interesting to me.
All of us who have spoken on this issue today are
representative of all Canadians. We have represented all
different points of view which will certainly give our
government at lot to think about, in particular the role of our
peacekeepers in Bosnia-Hercegovina and the former
Yugoslavia and should we bring our troops home.
329
However, I believe the issue is much broader than just simply
bringing our troops home. I believe other issues are at play here.
We need to look at redefining the role of the United Nations and
we need to address Canada's foreign policy relative to our
defence policy.
Canada and its soldiers have participated in UN peacekeeping
missions in many areas around the world since shortly after
World War II. In fact, Canada was the founding member of both
the United Nations and NATO and in both cases has worked to
develop these institutions into effective bodies that could
prevent and manage crises and provide a forum where countries
could work together and collectively solve the crises.
As I stated at the outset, the issue at hand is much greater than
simply bringing our troops home. For example, what would be
the cause in effect or the risk if Canada did that? Would we be
sending the wrong message to the other world participants?
Would it cause other nations to pull out thereby abandoning the
UN role and our support of the Secretary General's agenda for
peace developed in 1992? Would it cause a spillover of
hostilities into other regions of the Balkans?
I wish I had the time to request a broad range of opinions from
my Nepean constituency. I have been fortunate because quite a
few have phoned and quite a few have written me. I would like to
quote from only four of them.
One World War II veteran said: ``There is no peace to keep.
There is no need for them to be there to defend Canada. Our
forces should be withdrawn''.
Another said: ``In the spirit of Lester Pearson's vision, the UN
should get out and return only when the combatants arrive at a
peaceful settlement amongst themselves.
(1805)
Of the opposite point of view was the comment from another
Nepean constituent who said: ``As my MP, this message is to
inform you that I strongly support Canada's contribution to the
United Nations protection forces in Bosnia. We should continue
our efforts in the international arena by trying to convince other
nations to accept their responsibilities in resolving the
unfortunate situation in Bosnia. A withdrawal at this time of our
support to the UN sends a negative message to other nations
when we should be demonstrating positive leadership at the
international level''.
A fourth is a retired colonel who wrote a paper entitled ``The
Perils of Peacekeeping''. The article suggests that a reasonably
sufficient defence establishment is an important block in
Canada's national foundation. Moreover, peacekeeping is but
one component of that block, which is what I said initially.
The key point is that Canadians need to accept that a coherent
defence policy and an effective armed forces to implement it are
essential for advancing their national interest. Needless to say,
sufficient resources have to be made available for the policy to
succeed and to protect the soldiers, sailors and aviators who
carry it out.
In a briefing available to us all yesterday by the Canadian
military and external affairs, we were advised that Canada has
2,400 troops in the former Yugoslavia. At one point during this
mission Canada was contributing 10 per cent of the troops in the
mission. He said that by April of this year it could be as low as
2.4 per cent.
The UN mission has two objectives. The first is to contain the
conflict from spreading beyond its current borders. The second
is the protection of people through humanitarian aid to the
people of Bosnia-Hercegovina. This could be through food or
through medical supplies. In this respect at least 2.5 million
civilians have been assisted directly by UN intervention.
The military advisers at yesterday's briefing believe the
merits of the UN forces in the former Yugoslavia are:
They have been able to contain the fighting. An agreement of
sorts has been reached between the Serbs and the Croats over
borders in Croatia and in Srebrenica, and the fighting has been
contained.
They also have been reasonably successful in delivering
humanitarian aid which is their prime mandate, including
medical evacuations and the protection of hospitals.
I questioned the general. I asked him if in his opinion more
civilian lives would have been lost had we not been there. He
responded that many more surely would have died, especially
the elderly and the children who cannot fend for themselves.
The military advisers went on to say that the solution to the
problem in the former Yugoslavia must come from within the
country by the heads of the warring factions, probably brought
on by international pressure. A UN military solution would
simply be too costly, both in terms of equipment and manpower.
It would require over 100,000 troops to enact a peace
enforcement mandate. There are not enough countries willing to
offer the number of troops required. While our Canadians are
adequately equipped to carry out their role as peacekeepers, they
do not have the offensive equipment necessary to carry out a
peace enforcement mandate.
In speaking with my constituency, I have not spoken to
anyone who would want to send their son or daughter into a full
conflict situation in the former Yugoslavia.
As the former Minister of External Affairs said in a recent
commentary: ``Canadians must search their hearts to see
whether they will accept the wholly different risks of
withdrawal. The cynics view is that the killing, the atrocities,
the ethnic cleansing can get no worse, but that is not so.
Vengeance killing and localized thuggery are just as likely to
soar beyond contemplation as they are to end. Canadians would
be here at home, safe, but at the cost of shattered lives, ideals
and values and bearing
330
that uneasy burden of having abandoned a vulnerable civilian
population.
Considering the unsatisfactory alternatives, Canada's best
bet,'' said the former external affairs minister, ``is the
unsatisfactory status quo''. To further quote Ms. McDougall:
``It was Canada, and we were the only country, that called for
early UN intervention in 1991, when it could have limited the
devastation that followed.
(1810)
Today, western leaders have decided that the defence of our
values is not worth the casualties that would result from the
tougher actions. Canada initiated the process that led to the war
crimes tribunal. We have a responsibility to ensure our presence,
that war crimes are prevented and that criminals if necessary are
punished''.
This brings me to the issue of the United Nations reform. I
managed to take a few weeks of holidays at the beginning of
January and took along the book ``Peacekeeper: The Road to
Sarajevo'' written by retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie.
It was a pretty heavy book to read on the beach but I managed to
get through it all.
He states that ``the international community gets a good deal
when it borrows a nation's soldiers. Peacekeepers carry out the
job they are trained to do without questioning. UN soldiers risk
their lives every day in an attempt to create conditions whereby
political discussions can take place, leading to peace in areas of
armed conflict or tension''. He was very critical of the UN's
role.
This is where I commented again at the outset. Reform of the
UN must be one of the parameters. The UN is apparently
incapable of providing adequate logistics to support the many
missions around the world. No one is on duty 24 hours a day,
seven days a week. Heaven help you if somebody in Sarajevo or
in Somalia wanted some help from the United Nations on a
weekend. There is no one there. They go home at five o'clock on
a weekday and there is no one there on the weekend.
The third point in my equation is Canada's defence policy and
how it ties in with foreign affairs. The centre of Canada's
foreign relations must be an effective United Nations. This is
still the best way to protect our nation's ties in with defence. We
spend $2.5 billion on foreign aid. Is it being well spent? Should
we be concentrating on the basic needs of third world nations?
Do we have a responsibility to spread prosperity and can this be
done without pushing our country further into debt? I think we
can with an equitable defence policy.
In summary, I applaud our peacekeepers. Their dedication and
commitment to their job is unsurpassed. To an extent, we have
let them down. Our government must move quickly to work with
the member nations of the UN to reform the institution.
The Canadian government must define our foreign policy
objectives in relation to a defence policy. Canada is in a position
to lead if we knew where we were going. Our peacekeepers are
the professionals, they deserve nothing less from us.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Madam
Speaker, I would like to join in congratulating you on your
appointment to the chair. I know that you will bring the dignity
and wisdom to the chair that you have brought to the other
deliberations of this House.
I also want to thank the Prime Minister.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the Prime Minister for giving all
members of this House a chance to discuss this very important
issue, and I hope this will create a precedent for future important
decisions. I also hope the government will take members'
recommendations seriously.
[English]
I believe the previous speaker suggested that the former
Secretary of State for External Affairs in a recent article stated
that we must accept the status quo in the former Yugoslavia.
If there has been one cry, if there has been one consensus that I
have been able to determine in the debate today it is surely that
the status quo is not acceptable. Where we differ, as members of
Parliament and even within parties, is how we respond to this
tragedy and what the most appropriate response is as Canadians
and as citizens of the world through the United Nations.
(1815)
I returned earlier this month from a visit to that troubled
region of Croatia. While there I met with a number of people. I
met with the foreign minister of Croatia, with senior members of
parliament, including the chair of the foreign affairs committee
and the human rights committee. I have met as well in my own
community with representatives of the Serbian community.
I also had the privilege of meeting with General John
MacInnis, the deputy force commander of UN forces in the
former Yugoslavia and the commander of Canadian forces. I met
with General Jack Vance, the colonel commandant of the
infantry, a very highly respected soldier who was there to
provide support to the men and women on the ground in Croatia.
I flew down to sector south on an UNPROFOR helicopter.
331
[Translation]
There I met Colonel Marc Lessard, commanding officer of
our troops in the Royal 22nd Regiment.
[English]
I received an excellent comprehensive briefing on the fine
work that is being done by our Canadian men and women in
sector south and indeed elsewhere.
I was taken to a number of observation posts, met many of the
soldiers that have been working on the ground and saw the
tremendous work and dedication that they have brought to their
commitment in that region.
I am sure all members of the House would agree with me that
we are tremendously proud of the men and women that are
serving not just Canada but that are serving the United Nations
in that troubled part of the world. These men and women often
serve at great personal risk. While two Canadians have died in
the field we know of many others who have been fired at, who
have been harassed and intimidated. Certainly this is
unacceptable and it is happening in both Croatia and Bosnia.
We take this opportunity as well to recognize that our troops
are also involved not only in Operation Harmony in Croatia but
also in Operation Cavalier a second battle group that is assigned
to UNPROFOR in Bosnia. At the present time it is the 12th
regiment, le 12e Régiment blindé du Canada.
We participated in the European Community monitor mission
which is a non-UN mission in the region. We are participating in
the naval force as well that is enforcing sanctions, Operation
Short Guard. We are involved in the NATO airborne warning and
control system.
One of our most significant and important accomplishments
is our involvement with the Hercules aircraft which are based in
Ancona, Italy. They have transported over 1,000 mercy missions
bringing in desperately needed food and medicines to the people
of Bosnia.
This is tremendously important work and I would be deeply
troubled at any suggestion that we would abandon that important
work. I would note as well that we were some of the first people
in to Sarajevo. In fact in June 1992 we opened the airport at
Sarajevo. We were involved in a preventive mission in
Macedonia and elsewhere.
In deciding on the fundamental question facing this House
and facing the government as to whether or not to renew the
United Nations mandate and to recommit our troops when that
mandate expires on March 31, I think it is very important that we
have a clear understanding of what exactly that mandate is.
In Croatia the mandate is to restore civil authority, to assist in
the return of displaced persons to their homes and to assist in the
demilitarization of the UN protected areas, the so-called
UNPAs.
Our troops on the ground are doing that and are doing good
work to the extent that they are allowed to do that. I know that
many Croatians in Canada and indeed in Croatia feel a
tremendous sense of frustration because they are living in
occupied territory. One quarter of their country Croatia has been
occupied. That is unacceptable and it is unacceptable that the
people of Croatia who have been displaced, who have been
cleansed from their homes, should not be in a position to return.
(1820 )
What are some of the concrete actions that we are taking on
the ground in sector south in Croatia? Just as one example are
the humanitarian programs that we are involved in. We are
providing security and infrastructure during body personnel or
prisoner exchange at the Miranje Crossing. We are distributing
winter clothing to children in sector south. We are assisting in
the protection of the Croatian minority in the bi-ethnic villages
of Rodalice and D. Bruska. We are assisting other UN
organizations like the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in
the form of providing fuel within programs in that area. This
mandate is tremendously important.
In Bosnia of course there is no peace to keep, but we have
three fundamental objectives. We are providing military
assistance to the UNHCR and to other accredited agencies
responsible for providing humanitarian aid and restoring
infrastructure in Bosnia-Hercegovina. We are assisting in the
evacuation of the injured, the protection and security of the
population and we are helping to maintain the status of some of
the safe havens. In particular I would note Srebrenica. We are
keeping the lifeline between Sarajevo and central Bosnia open.
In fact just this past week as an example of what we have done
in Bosnia, look at our accomplishment, at what Canadian troops
did last week. They escorted six humanitarian convoys carrying
540 tonnes of aid and 14,000 litres of fuel. They repaired an
alternate route to move refugees to a Swedish shelter without
exposing them to Bosnian-Serb fire. They acted and continue to
act as human shields in Srebrenica where, if they were not there,
45,000 Muslims risk slaughter. They have continued to protect
psychiatric hospitals in Fojnica and Dakovica. These are all
tremendously important humanitarian efforts which would be
destroyed if we were to pull out. There are many similar
examples.
Our presence in Bosnia and Croatia has made a profound
difference in humanitarian terms. The military people I spoke to
on the ground there, whether they were our own Canadian troops
or others, including the Belgians, were unanimous on the
332
tremendous importance of maintaining that presence. They
pointed out that it would be a disaster if we pulled out and that it
would result in an appalling bloodshed.
An example of the impact of our troops can, I think, be given
by looking at an area in which Canadians and indeed the UN
have been denied access. I am speaking of the area in the
northwest part of Bosnia, known as Banja Luka.
I would commend to all members of this House an incredibly
eloquent and moving letter which was sent to the editor of the
New York Times about a week ago by a Canadian diplomat, Louis
Gentile, who is on leave to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees. He is working at great personal
risk in Banja Luka. I want to just quote briefly from his letter. He
states: ``I wonder how many of your readers have seen Steven
Speilberg's ``Schindler's List'' and how many have heard of
Banja Luka-Bosnia in the heart of Europe''. I know there was a
showing just last week for parliamentarians of ``Schindler's
List''.
Banja Luka is the second largest city in Bosnia. Canadian
troops tried to get in there. They were at the border but the
Bosnian-Serbs would not let them through. The mayor of Banja
Luka took a bribe of about $49,000, but flatly refused to allow
any UN troops in.
Well what has happened in the absence of a United Nations
presence there? Massacre, rape and concentration camps;
Omarska, Manjaca, Turnpolje, tens of thousands of Muslims
and Croats who could not escape the region. They have been
stripped of all of their civil rights. They have been forced out of
their homes and dismissed from work.
The writer talks of the terror of attacks by armed men at night,
rape and murder, children unable to sleep, huddling in fear
behind boarded up doors and windows. Fifty per cent of all of
the Roman Catholic churches and diocese have been destroyed.
Two of the most magnificent mosques in all of Europe and
elsewhere have been burned down or blown up, including the
16th century Ferhad Pasha mosque.
(1825 )
That is the reality in an area in which the United Nations has
not been present. That is a reality elsewhere as well, but at least
we have been able to save some lives and bring some peace,
some food and some medication.
That is genocide. Of course there is a convention that was
signed after World War II, a convention on genocide whereby
the nations of the world committed themselves to never again
allow these atrocities that we have seen before in this century.
We saw it in Armenia in 1915. We saw it in the holocaust in
World War II and we said collectively: ``Never again''. Yet in
the very heart of Europe it is recurring. We cannot say we do not
know about it. We see the horrors every day on our television
sets. We cannot deny the reality of mass rape, of torture, of
execution, of concentration camps, of murder, of massive
refugee movements, of ethnic cleansing.
I met with a representative of UNICEF, a Canadian.
Canadians are doing such fine work in that region. This
representative had prepared two reports for UNICEF on children
and women in Bosnia-Hercegovina and children and women in
the republic of Croatia. What is happening there is a horror
story, an absolute horror story.
Other speakers have referred to the numbers from Sarajevo
and we heard about the bombing of six Bosnian children by
artillery shells. Such courage. Lobbing artillery from 30
kilometres away in the hills outside Sarajevo takes great
courage, does it not? Killing innocent children there, innocent
Croatian children in Mostar. The siege goes on.
I witnessed firsthand the horrors of this war in eastern
Croatia. I travelled to Vukovar, a city which has been destroyed,
a formerly beautiful city on the banks of the Danube reduced to
rubble, almost everything destroyed, markets, homes. I visited a
Catholic church and walked through the rubble. I saw the
photographs of children. I saw the broken down statue of the
Virgin Mary, the crosses, totally destroyed.
From there I went to a mass grave site in a little village just
outside Vukovar. In a garbage dump over 200 bodies were
buried. The United Nations War Crimes Tribunal has been trying
to investigate but the Bosnian Serbs have told them they cannot
do that. It is appalling.
The question we must address and that I will address in the
few minutes remaining is in response to these horrors, to this
human tragedy, what should Canada do and what should the
United Nations do.
Clearly the most desirable solution is a diplomatic solution.
God knows we have tried that so many times. We have gotten so
close, gotten to the point where Karadzic, on behalf of the
Bosnian Serbs has said that yes, they would accept the solution,
that it would be taken back to the Bosnian-Serb parliament.
What do they do? They say to forget it. ``We have 70 per cent of
the territory even though we are only about a third of the
population and we want to keep that territory and we will use
force if we have to''.
I am not hopeful about the possibility of a diplomatic solution
in the absence of stronger and more effective United Nations
action. We have seen the ethnic cleansing. We have heard the
many threats that have been made. There can be nothing worse
than bluffing.
In fact when Karadzic went back to his parliament in May
1993 before they voted he said that either they accept this plan or
they can expect fierce attacks by NATO forces. His information
minister said no, that they were only bluffing and that they could
continue. Too often that has been the history: to bluff.
333
Do we pull out our forces on March 31? I say no. I say that
would not only be a profoundly tragic event because it would
deny the humanitarian assistance that we are providing but as
well I say that the status quo cannot continue. I say it is time that
the United Nations listened to the voices of its commanders,
whether it be General Cot, General Morillon and so many others
who say that they have to be given the tools to do the job.
(1830)
The mandate is there on paper. The mandate and resolution
836 of the United Nations is there on paper. They can take the
action that is necessary but they do not have the resources. I
suggest it is time that we clearly understood, that we have
clearly sent a message to the Bosnian Serbs and to others
engaged in atrocities that we are serious.
I do not have the time to quote the many statements that have
been made by a series of generals but it is time that we said that
air strikes in combination with ground troops will be used if the
bloodshed, the carnage and the violence does not stop.
We cannot continue to be witnesses of this holocaust any
longer. We cannot pull out. Air strikes alone, our military people
tell us, will not achieve the objective we are seeking. If we are
serious about safe havens in Tuzla, in Sarajevo and in the other
four areas that were designated, we must get serious about
giving the United Nations troops on the ground the opportunity
and the ability to enforce those safe havens.
We must do more to assist the refugees who are fleeing from
that area. We must do more to ensure that the war criminals who
are responsible for these atrocities are brought to justice and that
the resources are made available to that tribunal.
We must ensure that the United Nations' agenda for peace
becomes a reality, preventive diplomacy, a United Nations
standing army to help to prevent the recurrence of these
atrocities in the future.
Finally in closing, I want to return to the words of this
courageous Canadian in Banja Luka who said: ``Our office has
been evacuated three times for threats to our security. We can
evacuate a few hundred members of minorities judged to be in
the worst danger but cannot protect them all. Their families have
lived here for centuries. The United Nations was unable to
deploy troops here because Bosnian-Serb authorities refused to
allow it. To those who said to themselves after seeing
``Schindler's List'', `never again', it is happening again''.
Finally he says this and I echoed his call: ``The so-called
leaders of the western world have known what is happening here
for the last year and a half. They received play by play reports.
They talk of prosecuting war criminals but do nothing to stop the
crimes. May God forgive them. May God forgive us all''.
[Translation]
The genocide must stop. Canada must continue to play its
role. The United Nations must be able to maintain their role. We
must do everything we can to stop this genocide.
[English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, I would like to
thank and congratulate the hon. member for his personal and
poignant intervention today.
Having had that personal experience it adds clearly to the
debate. I note he urges us to remain in Bosnia and in the war torn
areas. I contrast that with other personal accounts made earlier
today by members who may not have been there but who still
have families there. Those members have indicated that their
best view is that we should pull out. It is a very difficult decision
we have before us.
I would like to note that the hon. member has indicated his
recognition for the lack of clarity and strength in our current
mandate. I too am concerned about that. I am greatly concerned
that without a clear mandate we may be allowing ourselves,
whether we mean to or not, should we stay, to move from
peacekeeping to peacemaking. I would find that an unacceptable
transition.
I would like to ask the hon. member how long he would have
us stay in these troubled areas without a clear mandate, with
risking identifying ourselves as being the enemy and not the
peacekeeper.
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, it is important that we
recognize that pursuant to the existing mandate-God knows
there have been many UN resolutions-in June of last year, UN
resolution 836 mandated United Nations peacekeepers in that
area to participate in the delivery of humanitarian relief. It
authorized UNPROFOR in carrying out the mandate defined in
this resolution to take the necessary measures, including the use
of force, in reply to bombardments against the safe areas by any
of the parties or to armed incursion into them or in the event of
any deliberate obstruction in humanitarian aid to take all
necessary steps including the use of air power.
(1835)
That is the mandate which now exists. I think what we are
hearing from the generals on the ground is that the mandate has
to be strengthened to clarify the ability of the United Nations to
clearly respond. The shelling of safe havens means that, in fact,
they are not safe. How can one talk of safe havens which are
being shelled from the hills.
As General Briquemont said, there is a fantastic gap between
all of these Security Council resolutions, the will to execute
those resolutions and the means available to commanders in the
field.
334
What we have to do, in response to the hon. member's
question, is to listen to that plea and to strengthen the resources
which are available on the ground. Air power and air strikes
alone are not the answer, as we have heard very clearly from all
of those in the field.
Certainly in the absence of a very clear ability to do that the
humanitarian mission of the United Nations is jeopardized. In
the longer term, particularly in Croatia, the United Nations must
not be seen as a power which effectively freezes the status quo.
We have to be very clear that internationally recognized borders
of Croatia must be recognized and that Croatians who were
ethnically cleansed from their homes must be permitted to
return. The United Nations must be supportive of that.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): The hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway is to be commended for the quality of his
report. The hon. member went over there and met the people in
charge. I think it is very important that he should tell us what he
saw. We often read about it in the newspapers, in accounts by
officials and diplomats, but these do not have the same impact as
a report by someone who shares our values, who went over there
and observed and reflected on what he saw.
I appreciate the fact that he did this for us as well. I am also
pleased to see him expand the scope of this debate, because
since I have been following this debate, I notice there is a
possibility that we will maintain our forces in Bosnia. I think the
hon. member went a little further when he asked us to consider
the means we will give our troops and the means the United
Nations will give troops on a peacekeeping mission to Bosnia.
There is the whole dimension of reinforcing the mandate and
peacekeeping operations of the people over there.
I think that is an important dimension. It is not enough to stay.
What we do over there has to be effective and in the interests of
the people themselves, since it is for their sake that Canada and
other western countries are making an effort to maintain peace
in Bosnia.
[English]
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Madam Speaker, I rise
in the House of Commons today in thanksgiving to God for our
great country Canada. Canada, the nation, welcomed
approximately 70 years ago my Croatian grandfather Alex Skok
and my Croatian grandmother Veronica Pushkar and their
children who came to this country from Croatia in pursuit of a
better life. They settled in Stellarton, Nova Scotia.
Therefore, today I feel compelled, in memory of my Croatian
grandparents and in defence of my family still living in Croatia
and in defence of our Canadian soldiers, to enter into this
debate.
This is the most difficult foreign policy question of our time.
Since the end of World War II Canada has proudly stood as a
leader in world affairs, stepping forward whenever international
peace and security were threatened. However, the cold war has
passed and the world we face today is much more complex.
(1840 )
The anticipated peace has given way to a resurgence of
deep-rooted and often brutal ethnic conflict. The situation in the
former Yugoslavia is the most striking example of this problem.
Canada has a long and proud tradition of participating in
United Nations peacekeeping operations. It was the Right Hon.
Lester B. Pearson, truly the greatest Canadian diplomat and
foreign policy thinker, who conceived and developed the very
notion of peacekeeping. For this he was recognized with the
Nobel peace prize.
When the call came to serve in the former Yugoslavia, Canada
was among the first to step forward. However, after many
months of engagement in countless incidents and
disappointments, it is time that our nation review its
peacekeeping policy and take a leadership role.
When undertaking this endeavour to review our policy, we
must ask ourselves, what is the nature of peacekeeping when
there is no peace to keep? This pertains especially to the conflict
in Bosnia where the Muslim, Croat and Serb factions have been
unable to sign a peace accord. The United Nations therefore is
engaged in an attempt to deliver humanitarian aid when possible
and under extremely dangerous conditions.
The mission in Croatia is slightly different in so far as the
peace accord between the Croat authorities in Zagreb and the
Serbs in Belgrade has tenuously held since the early part of
1992. However, the situation is no less hazardous there either
where, for example, two Canadian peacekeepers almost lost
their lives when they were shot at by members of the Serbia
militia this past weekend.
There are many proposed options for Canadian policy. The
first is to maintain the status quo that exists today. Clearly this
option is unacceptable from the Canadian perspective for the
reasons aforementioned. Canada has done more than its fair
share and, frankly, I feel that our allies have taken us for
granted.
Canada should be proud of its peacekeeping heritage but we
cannot continue to support every mission for an indeterminate
amount of time. Cyprus is the best example of a costly Canadian
commitment that went on far too long.
A second option available to Canada is to demand that
fundamental changes occur in regard to how the United Nations
handles its peace operations. For instance, if the conflict on the
ground is such that peacekeepers are constantly attacked and
prevented from fulfilling their mandate, then the rules of
engagement need to be changed. United Nations troops need to
be able to use adequate force to repel attacks by various factions.
This is not a call for active peacemaking but it is a call for the
335
right for Canadian troops to protect their own lives in a hostile
environment.
It is time to reform and strengthen the mandate of the United
Nations and to reform the rules of engagement for our Canadian
peacekeepers.
The third option is that our future posture must be one of
selective commitment rather than blanket support for United
Nations operations. Canada has spent $490 million and
sacrificed eight lives in this mission to date. While many
countries have talked peace, few have actually stepped forward
with real commitment. How much more must Canada be asked
to do, and to what end?
NATO talks and talks of air strikes, yet when the forces on the
ground perceive the hour to be drawing near, it is our soldiers
who are attacked. The time has come to bring our soldiers home.
In Croatia our troops are merely a political trip-wire with no
real ability to effect events on the ground, or even adequately
defend themselves. It is wrong to deploy Canadian soldiers in a
zone where they are at such unquestionable risk while
possessing so little control.
In Bosnia there is truly no peace to keep and Canada should
not base its military engagements simply on moral grounds, but
on real interests. Canadians are engaged in a sporadic and often
dangerous humanitarian relief operation. Beyond this there is no
clear mandate or time frame for their operations.
(1845 )
The position our Canadian government will take on this very
important issue will undoubtedly have profound implications
for the shape of Canada's armed forces, for the practice of future
peacekeeping, and for the evolution of the United Nations and
its future mandate.
It is my position that Canada should withdraw all its military
forces from both Croatia and Bosnia. I am asking that our
Canadian military be withdrawn.
Bring our soldiers home. Make way for the families living in
the former Yugoslavia to come to Canada to seek refuge and to
live in the land of peace and freedom that we all enjoy.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, I am by no means an expert on international military
operations or international air strikes. I listened closely to the
last four or five members speak and I noted that some of them
claim different origins. I also listened carefully to the statement
by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway who went to
Bosnia to meet with those on the front line. I know that many
members such as the hon. member for Central Nova can trace
their roots to this part of the world.
Judging from what the last four or five speakers have said, I
do believe that in this part of the world, the potential for global
conflict genuinely exists. The current situation is explosive.
And I believe that Canadian troops stationed in Bosnia are
preventing the conflict from escalating further.
I also believe that, regardless of the situation described to us
today, the murders or other atrocities, the world is poised to
become a global village. The possibility of this happening is
very real. If we want to tip the scales in favour of the global
village rather than global conflict, certain countries must
assume some responsibility and get involved. Canada owes its
very sound reputation to some degree to its level of
involvement. That is why I would support a decision to have our
troops remain in Bosnia.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Would the member for Central Nova
like to make a reply to that or take it as a comment?
Ms. Skoke: I will take it as a comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Central
Nova. I get the impression from her statement that she does not
have a very high opinion of the reputation Canada has developed
in the field of peacekeeping in the last forty years, since the end
of World War II. What about the initiatives of Mr. Pearson and
the Nobel Peace Prize he received? I am wondering if her
suggestion that Canada withdraw its troops from Bosnia now-a
suggestion which may seem totally justified given the
prevailing climate of uncertainty about the mandate of our
troops there-may be somewhat premature and whether it might
lead to regrettable action which could tarnish Canada's image
abroad. Did the hon. member for Central Nova take into account
this aspect of the issue before calling for the withdrawal of
Canadian troops?
[English]
Ms. Skoke: Mr. Speaker, most certainly in preparing my
speech I have taken into consideration the various options. I
think I indicated three in my speech, one being to retain the
status quo. In so doing obviously we have to consider our
position internationally and our credibility as far as Canada is
concerned. The second option I presented was that of
modification of a commitment, and the third option would be
that of total withdrawal.
(1850)
I repeat the same question I asked in my speech. We must ask
ourselves what is the nature of peacekeeping when there is no
peace to keep. I feel that is the issue here.
336
My final position or conclusion was that whatever position
our Canadian government takes it will undoubtedly have
profound implications because this very issue is begging us to
answer many important questions. First, what will be the future
shape and determination of Canada's armed forces in their
mandate? Second, what is going to be the practice of future
peacekeeping? Third, we will have to look at the evolution of the
United Nations and its future mandate.
I reassure the hon. member that I have most certainly taken
into consideration the various options. It is a very difficult
question. Obviously we have heard controversial responses
from various members. I want to reassure that I am not taking
my position lightly, but the issue is: What is the nature of
peacekeeping when there is no peace to keep?
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I listened very
carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Central Nova and
previously to one of the member for Cambridge. I think they
made some rather good points.
Personally the three options presented seemed to be the three
options that are available. I am sure Canada alone cannot decide
on the second option. We can only decide on either the first or
the third. Either we stay and be humanitarians or we get out and
let the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims decide what kind of a
country they want to live in if they can do that.
There is certainly no peace. To pretend that we are
peacemaking is silly. To pretend that there is peacekeeping
being done in Bosnia is likewise silly.
I would like to ask a question of these people who know the
area better than I do. I have done a little Balkan folk dancing but
I have never been there. Are the historical enmities so deep that
nothing short of separation or destruction is going to solve the
problem?
Ms. Skoke: Mr. Speaker, I think I will defer to the hon.
member for Cambridge sitting next to me because of his origin.
The Deputy Speaker: You cannot do that.
Ms. Skoke: Oh, I cannot do that. He was born in Croatia. I
think I am going to be dodging and not answering the question
specifically. What we have here is a classic case of conflict
among ethnic groups. To think that peacekeeping or intervention
is going to terminate that conflict is unreasonable.
We can look at our own country and its ethnic groups, and
perhaps even at the House of Commons if I can use an example
of where there may be some threat of the Bloc Quebecois
wanting to separate from Canada. At what point in time can we
solve all the world's problems with respect to these different
factions and special interest groups? Because of that and
because an ethnic war is going on there, it is my position that we
should offer refuge to any of those who wish to leave the
country, anyone who wants to seek the freedom we offer in our
great country of Canada.
I do not feel we have a responsibility or can effectively carry
out a role to solve or resolve all the ethnic problems. We are
going to do very well to handle the situation we have in Canada.
(1855)
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Mr. Speaker,
let me congratulate you on your elevation to the position of
Deputy Speaker. It is the first time you have recognized me since
I have been in the House and you have been in the chair. We on
this side of the House are very pleased the Prime Minister saw fit
to make the appointment. We are very hopeful and wish you
good fortune in your future role. I am also thankful for your
allowing me the opportunity to make some comments with
respect to the former country of Yugoslavia.
Our involvement in Yugoslavia is on two fronts: a diplomatic
front and a military front. The ongoing diplomatic initiatives
undertaken by our minister and his parliamentary secretary who
is with us this evening are commendable. I congratulate both of
them on the very fine job they continue to do with respect to
trying to solve this almost insurmountable and horrendous
problem on the diplomatic level. The parliamentary secretary
has visited with many of the people who originated from that
country in my riding of Thunder Bay. I know their efforts both at
the United Nations and at NATO were very well appreciated, not
only by the people whom I represent but I am sure by all
Canadians throughout the country.
The second area in which we are involved in this dispute is the
military area and the participation of our military personnel who
have been sent there to try to bring some order to the chaos. It is
obvious they are there on humanitarian grounds by exclusion.
They are not there as peacemakers because there is just no peace
to make and that is really the role of our diplomats. They are not
there as peacekeepers because there is no peace to keep.
Obviously they are there on the very valid grounds of
humanitarian reasons.
The main issues when one discusses the humanitarian aspects
are those of providing the basic necessities of life such as food,
medicine and some degree of shelter to the people who are
always the innocent victims, those who are directly involved
and those who are hurt in a conflict in which they have no part.
You had an office down the hall from me, Mr. Speaker, and I
would see your children going back and forth. I am particularly
grieved when I look at the atrocities perpetrated on children in
this area and the sadness. From my perspective, whenever I see a
program in the newscast referring to this troubled area and I see
the children, my mind goes to my grandchildren as I am sure it
does for other Canadians. The situation is horrible. One wonders
337
why it cannot be resolved, but that is beyond what we can do in
the House.
When discussing why we are there, the military aspects of our
involvement, naturally we on this side of the House rely very
much on the competent minister we have in charge as Minister
of National Defence. I am glad he is in the House this evening to
listen to the debates on both sides in order to formulate some
opinion on what we should do.
I thank the minister for insisting that this is a free and open
debate for every member of Parliament to voice their own
individual concerns. I am also very pleased to compliment his
parliamentary secretary to whom we look for guidance in
military matters because of his many years in the military. In his
second career he chose to join us in the House of Commons,
bringing his wealth of military experience with him. There are
some very good resource people on whom we base our
information.
The question really comes down to why we are there. Why are
we in Somalia? Why are we in most other troubled areas in the
world?
Yesterday we welcomed in the House the President of Haiti.
He was a democratically elected president of a democratic
country. The military of that country chose that he should not be
allowed to exercise the democratic principles his country
wanted him to exercise. As a result he is a president without a
country because the military will not let him perform his duties.
(1900)
When one thinks of that aspect one says how lucky we are in
Canada. It could never happen in Canada. Because of the
military in this country and because of the democratic process
that we have, there are very distinct lines and the military
always responds to the people of Canada through the Minister of
National Defence and the cabinet.
Logically when decisions are made at this level I suspect that
with any proposed action to assist our allies or to make a
contribution to the United Nations or NATO, the Minister of
National Defence would first meet with the chief of staff to
discuss the proposed role in which our military would become
involved.
The first issue to be ascertained naturally, as I spoke earlier, is
whether it is for humanitarian grounds, peacekeeping or
peacemaking.
Once the minister sets out very clear terms on what our
objectives should be, the chief of staff I assume would then
confer with his assistants and colleagues in the department of
defence and the military on how best they could fulfil the
mandate on the order of the defence minister and the cabinet
and, through them, the people of this country.
I think the role of the military is to analyse the degree of
success of their mandate and what commitments they will have
to come back to before they accept that responsibility when they
meet with the minister and talk about the necessities of fulfilling
that mandate. What is the required manpower? What is the
required equipment? How long will it take to fulfil the
obligation and to bring whatever action there will be to a
satisfactory conclusion?
I think at that time if one could imagine what the decision
making process would be, the political arm swings in and makes
that fundamental commitment to the military personnel to say
that it will provide the manpower, the equipment and the
funding necessary to do the job.
I think at that particular period of time the role of the political
arm or the role of the politician and the cabinet and the minister,
other than being reported to on a daily basis, really turns itself
over and those in charge of the military operation take most of
the responsibility once that fundamental decision, or what I call
the first order of command, is made.
That preamble of getting into that position leads me to reflect
on why we have our military people in this troubled land today.
Let us reflect on what has happened in this House over the past
little while. In the last government we had a Minister of National
Defence who was perhaps preoccupied with other things. We
had another Minister of National Defence toward the end of the
term. During that period of time we had the chief of staff
appointed ambassador to Washington and another chief of staff
was appointed. When we came to government what we saw there
had been a little dysfunctioning or disorientation.
What I am suggesting today is with that logical background of
events that have taken place at this time I would respectfully
request that our minister consider removing our forces from that
troubled area and reassess our position with respect to our future
role in providing military assistance to the troubled area about
which we talked today and many of the troubled areas which I
am sure will arise in the future.
I suggest we should define our role as to whether we are
peacekeepers and if we are peacekeepers let us train our military
as best we can and equip them as best we can.
I would like to close with a comment on how proud we are in
this country that our military people in the former country of
Yugoslavia are performing so admirably and that every
Canadian is very proud of the role they are playing. I hope that
our minister and our Prime Minister and all of us in this House
say that it is time for us to get out and reassess our position.
(1905 )
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to address the House
338
I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy
Speaker and to all the members of this House on their election.
As the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, I
represent the constituency with the greatest number of voters in
western Canada. Located on the west coast just southeast of the
city of Vancouver, my constituency abuts the
Canadian-American border. It contains the city of White Rock,
the south portion of the city of Surrey and the southwest corner
of the township of Langley. Although the riding is only 250,000
square kilometres, it contains a wide diversity of communities.
Part of my constituency is dedicated to agriculture. A number
of large vegetable farms are located on some of the richest
agricultural land in Canada. Dairy and poultry farms are located
in the Cloverdale and South Langley areas. My constituency
also has light industrial areas that provide a wide variety of
commercial goods. These industries as well as other small
businesses have raised a concern about Canada's national debt
and the enormous federal deficit. These business people want
their government to take control to reduce spending. They say
that if the government wants to increase economic activity then
it should work toward reducing taxes and the cost of doing
business in Canada.
However, the greatest land use in my constituency is
residential. The community of White Rock is located on the
shores of Semiahmoo Bay and is well known as a retirement
centre because of its mild climate. The area has also attracted a
large number of families and as a result there is a growing
element of the constituents who commute outside of the riding's
boundaries.
My constituency is one of the fastest growing areas of this
country, but unfortunately one of the aspects of rapid growth is
an accompanying growth in criminal activity. During the
election campaign my constituents considered this to be one of
the major problems. My constituents have made it quite clear
that they expect this government to bring greater protection to
society.
My constituents elected me on a platform of fiscal
responsibility, parliamentary accountability and criminal
justice reform. I would like to thank the voters of
Surrey-White Rock- South Langley for their confidence in
me and to assure them that I am their servant and I will do
everything in my power to accomplish these goals.
However, this evening I am here to speak on Canada's role in
Bosnia and I do so as an ordinary Canadian. Like most
Canadians, I have read, listened and watched countless stories
about the tragedy of Bosnia and Hercegovina. These stories have
evoked a wide range of emotion. I have been horrified by the
indiscriminate attacks on civilians, especially the children. I
have been disturbed by reports of the political strategy of ethnic
cleaning. I have been very proud of the role that Canadian
peacekeepers have had in Bosnia.
I have also been very irritated at the unwillingness of the
political and military leaders of the warring factions to reach a
peaceful solution. I have expressed frustration with the UN's
inability to take definitive action to resolve this issue and I was
outraged when I heard reports of Canadian peacekeepers being
subjected to mock executions.
When our troops are subjected to such treatment it is difficult
to disagree with those individuals who call for the withdrawal of
Canadian troops. At some point we may have to do so, but I
believe that despite all the adversity it is critical that Canadians
remain in Bosnia. No matter how bad the situation is now,
without Canadian peacekeepers the situation would be much
worse. Canadians are going to have to decide if they are
prepared to live with the consequences of a unilateral
withdrawal, a withdrawal that could result in a full fledged war
and the genocide of ethnic groups.
If this were to occur, could Canadians sit back and wash their
hands of the affair? Could we say that this is not our concern?
Are we prepared to accept the fact that we might have been able
to stop this, but that we got tired and frustrated?
(1910 )
I know that when we see television reports of children killed
we wonder what good United Nations peacekeepers are doing.
When we hear reports of entire families being wiped out we
wonder what peace Canadian soldiers are supposed to keep.
However, without the presence of Canadian and other United
Nations personnel, Bosnia would probably be faced with the
wholesale slaughter of children and civilians.
This is the choice that Canadians are facing. Do we withdraw
our troops and accept the prospect of full fledged war and
potential genocide or do we indefinitely commit our troops to a
peacekeeping mission where there is no peace to keep?
I do not imagine that many Canadians are prepared to commit
our troops indefinitely to an ill defined mission in a country
where political and military leaders have shown little
inclination to resolve the issue. Many of the difficulties appear
to be caused more by the United Nations mandate than by the
mission itself.
As the outgoing commander of United Nations peacekeepers
in Bosnia stated, it is fine for the politicians and diplomats to
pass these wonderful resolutions but they do not mean very
much unless they are accompanied by the willpower to carry
them out.
We have to give our peacekeepers the authority and resources
to carry out their mandate and perhaps Canada and the United
Nations need to redefine the rules of this mandate. However, is
the mission itself worthwhile?
For those who believe that Canada should withdraw its
peacekeepers I ask them whether they are prepared to abandon
the people of Bosnia to the mercies of the factional leaders. A
glance at history has shown that over the last 50 years we have
339
had too many instances of people's lives being left to the mercy
of dictators and despots.
Today, people say that if we had intervened in many of these
situations earlier, we might have saved millions of innocent
victims. When one considers the events that have already
occurred in Bosnia with the United Nations presence, imagine
what a future without the United Nations intervention would
mean for the people of Bosnia. One wonders if today's ethnic
cleansing will become tomorrow's genocide.
I do not believe that Canadians are prepared to condemn the
people of Bosnia to such a fate. Our intervention, no matter how
troublesome or frustrating, certainly is preferable to permitting
the genocide of one or more of the ethnic groups in Bosnia.
It is obvious that the only acceptable way to resolve this
conflict is through negotiation. Unfortunately, it appears that
the various factional leaders have little incentive to resolve the
issue.
Some would even suggest that the presence of the United
Nations peacekeepers has provided the leaders of the various
factions with an excuse not to come to a quick resolution. They
would suggest that all sides should experience the effects of a
full scale war so they can fully appreciate the horrors of such
warfare. This they argue would give the negotiators the
incentive to reach a peace agreement. Perhaps it would, but what
would be the cost in human lives?
Tens of thousands of Bosnians have already lost their lives in
this conflict and thousands more will likely die. However, the
toll would likely have been in the hundreds of thousands without
our involvement. Unfortunately we must wait for the various
leaders to reach a settlement on their own.
Canada and the rest of the international community must
continue to pressure the warring factions to reach an acceptable
peace. We have to impress upon these leaders that military
victories resulting in territorial gains will not be internationally
recognized. We have to impress upon them that the prize for
their aggression will be a total isolation from the world
community.
I think that Canadians recognize the fact that Canada cannot
afford to be the peacekeeper to the world. It is a credit to our
military that we are in such popular demand for the role. Our
reputation as peacekeepers is unparalleled and it is a good
reputation to have. Nevertheless Canada does not have the
money to send its troops into every dispute.
Reality dictates that we have to pick and choose our
assignments. The planned review of the Canadian Armed Forces
is a good step in determining the extent to which Canada should
be involved in these missions.
Canadians are going to have to decide just what resources we
are prepared to commit to these endeavours. It is a noble role but
such nobility does not come cheap. It is the Canadian taxpayer
who will have to decide the extent to which they are prepared to
underwrite these missions. However, this is for future roles.
(1915)
The reality of today is that rightly or wrongly Canadian troops
are in Bosnia. It is also reality that this is not a great situation to
be in. We have asked our peacekeepers to attempt to keep a
peace that does not exist. As our troops attempt to keep three
warring ethnic groups from killing each other, we have found
that we are ending up being hated by all three sides. We really
have entered into a classic no win situation.
Critics of Canada's presence in Bosnia can probably list
dozens of valid reasons why we should not be there. In return, I
can offer only one good reason why we have to remain. It is for
the simple reason that without us the situation would be a lot
worse. These people are dependent upon the UN force to keep
them alive.
It is an unfortunate reality but Canadians are showing a
greater concern for the fate of the Bosnian people than their own
leaders. This concern or compassion may force us to make an
occasional impractical decision, but it is also a virtue that makes
this country such a wonderful place to live.
Canadians have been fortunate to face precious little political
violence in their history. We do not have to worry that when our
children are outside playing in the snow some artillery shell is
going to land in their midst and kill them. Perhaps it is for this
reason that Canadians should be in Bosnia.
We need to do whatever we can to help the rest of the world
achieve peace. We must keep a window open for negotiations to
take place in the hope of a peaceful resolution. We have to show
them that we care.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I commend
the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley on her
intervention in this debate.
This is an important debate in the House of Commons. I am
pleased that we are starting off in such a fashion. It allows
members to rise without fear of retribution by party whips when
they take the personal positions they feel on this very important
issue. I commend her on her remarks. They were delivered very
well and there was a lot of substance to them.
I have a concern that I want to share with my colleague who
just made her remarks. As I said earlier, I support the
peacekeeping mandate of the Canadian forces over and over
again. Indeed I commend the men and women of the Canadian
Armed Forces for the excellent job they have done over the last
number of decades. However the reality is that in this current
situation the United Nations has found itself to be desperately
wanting in
340
being able to use resolutions from the collective body of the
United Nations in order to stop this aggression. There has been
over a dozen resolutions by the United Nations.
The member just referred to some of the atrocities that are
occurring. At the same point in time the shelling continues in
Sarajevo, no matter how many times the United Nations has
stood, spoken as a world body and said if they do not stop the
aggression, if they do not allow the humanitarian aid through, if
they continue in their aggression in the city of Sarajevo, they
will do x, y and z. They have never done anything.
It is rather telling that in the latest attack we saw in the last
few days young school children were murdered as they played
outside. It was only 200 metres from the main Sarajevo
headquarters of the United Nations military force. It is fairly
clear the individuals who shelled the area where those children
were simply did not believe the United Nations had any teeth or
desire to escalate the situation by the use of armed intervention.
Does the member believe the United Nations has in effect let
down Canadian peacekeepers and the peacekeepers from other
nations who are there by issuing these hollow threats and the
sabre rattling they have undertaken through these resolutions?
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment that I
feel perhaps the United Nations got into the Bosnia situation
prematurely. However I maintain that decision was made by the
previous government of our country and by the United Nations.
Now is not the time to resolve that issue.
(1920)
The time is now to develop a foreign policy and a defence
policy that will clearly address the role of the peacekeepers and
our position as Canadian peacekeepers within that collective
community.
The world community must take note of what is happening
and send a clear message that this kind of aggression is not
acceptable in the world and that it will not be rewarded by giving
more land and more power to them. They have to be condemned
for this kind of aggressive behaviour.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I echo the comments the
member has just made. I want her to clarify whether or not she
believes-and I am not saying whether we should have been in
there when we were through the UN-that the UN, once we were
there, acted in a responsible fashion by the passage of
resolutions on which it obviously had no intention. It obviously
had no gumption or stomach to follow through on the sanctions
or the threat of air strikes if indeed the aggressors in this
particular circumstance did not cease and desist with the type of
genocide which had been undertaken.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond by
indicating that I feel the United Nations representing the world
community must take a stronger stand in denouncing this type of
aggressive behaviour.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak
today and to congratulate you on your ascension to the position
of Deputy Speaker. I look forward to working with you. I also
thank members of the government who have given all of us the
opportunity to address this very important issue.
As this is my maiden speech I would certainly like to take the
opportunity to thank the people of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, my
riding, for giving me their confidence on October 25. I commit
to them that I will again do my very best to represent them here
in Ottawa. This subject is of great importance to the people of
my riding because of its long history in defence and
peacekeeping with Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt being there
and the Princess Patricia Rifles.
I would however like to say that because of the seriousness
and gravity of the situation we are speaking about today, I will
keep my introduction to the most beautiful riding in Canada to a
minimum and rather invite everybody to come there to see it for
themselves.
The issue at hand today is Bosnia, a very serious one, and what
should be Canada's role in this bloody civil war. I will preface
what I am about to say by mentioning that there are no white
knights and no black knights in this situation. Rather there are
many gray zones. Atrocities have been committed by all sides.
However certainly there has been a preponderance on the side of
Serbian aggression.
It is important to note that the people of the former Yugoslavia
did in fact live together quite nicely up until the beginning of
this century. After World War I and with the collapse of the
Ottoman and Hapsburg empires the Serbians, Croats and
Muslims were fused together to form what we have come to
know as Yugoslavia. There was little rancour beforehand.
However ethnic tensions mounted because one group, the
Serbians, were given preferential treatment to the expense of the
other ethnic groups there. I hope this subject I have just
mentioned is not lost on the Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
This culminated in World War II as ethnic tensions mounted
with the slaughter of over two million Croats and Serbians at
each other's hands, a number I might add that far exceeds the
number of people who were killed at the hands of the Nazis. This
deepened the hatred between the two groups, widened the rift
between them, and set the stage for the carnage we see today in
all its horror via CNN. As time goes on and the atrocities pile up
on both sides, the rift between the peoples widens and the
misunderstanding and hatred deepen. That is a profound
tragedy.
341
Now that I have presented my preface what will our role be in
this conflict? Since there is no peace in existence today, as has
been said before, there is no peace to keep in the seething
caldron of racial hatred. Is there peace to make? I think so but it
will only come through diplomatic channels and not with force.
To commit our troops with force today would in my estimation
banish them to be just another fourth force in this encounter.
(1925 )
Along this line of questioning are air strikes. Should we or
should we not employ them? If we use air strikes the impartiality
of the peacekeepers would be forever forsaken. This would set
us up for two things. First, it would set us up for full-scale
reprisals by all sides that would produce a large loss of life both
among the United Nations troops and therefore among our own.
It is interesting to note in these conflicts-and I speak from
some personal experience-that one group can go ahead and kill
its own people to make it look like another group is doing the
killing. It is the easiest way to go against the group that is
disliked intensely and against which the other is fighting.
Second, what would happen if we engaged in this
conflict-and this is very important to understand-is that it
would completely neutralized the humanitarian role the United
Nations has engaged in so far. While this role has been imperfect
it has indeed saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people
from death, rape and torture. Thus I do not think that air strikes
are an option.
Now we are left with the last option, the humanitarian effort
for which we have been given a mandate under the United
Nations. At this time I would publicly like to state that it is a role
our Canadian men and women have been doing admirably. Often
overworked, underarmed and outgunned they have carried out
their UN humanitarian role with profound bravery. I would like
to extend to them publicly my heartfelt thanks and admiration.
Should we engage in this endeavour? If we pull out it can be
fairly certain that other member states will pull out too.
Therefore no humanitarian aid effort would go through in this
conflict whatsoever. It would set the stage for mass genocide.
Hundreds of thousands of people would be killed and there
would be an escalating conflict.
It is very important to understand that this whole area is a
tinderbox. The escalating conflict would involve other countries
such as Russia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Albania, Italy and Germany. I
do not think Canadian people would tolerate it.
At this time I would like to hearken back to the holocaust
memorials we see every year and our response to them. As we
view the horrible footage of Nazi atrocities the world commits
naively to say never again. Tragically we may say this and
believe it but clearly our heads are stuck in the sand for we have
allowed the situation to continue in other countries over the
years such as Cambodia, Iraq, Burundi, Sudan and Ethiopia, to
name just a few. Bosnia represents an opportunity to say never
again and to do something about it.
The soldiers are fighting these dirty little civil wars, but the
greatest penalty to pay are the penalties that are paid by the
civilians. I can say from personal experience that the penalties
are paid by the children, the infirm and the aged. Those are the
people who are subjected to the brunt of it.
As a physician and surgeon I worked in Africa and treated
people who had suffered under a bloody civil war. I can say I
have seen the effects of gunshot wounds, people who were
chopped up with machetes, victims of torture and gang rape,
children and teenagers with their arms and legs blown off, and
the death, social destruction and dislocation that tear apart the
very fabric of a country often forever. Once we have seen it we
are compelled to do something about it. We cannot turn our
backs on it.
What I have heard is that our soldiers feel the same way. It was
perhaps best put most eloquently by a commander of our United
Nations forces who said that there was a tremendous feeling of
satisfaction when a young man or young woman came home and
was able to say: ``I helped keep this peace. I helped save lives. I
helped people in distress. I helped people who are much worse
off than I am''. It raises the morale of individuals and
collectively contributes to the well being of Canadian forces at
large.
Apart from the purely altruistic reasons of continuing these
humanitarian efforts there are some very concrete reasons why
we should get involved in this venture. By having a leadership
role in these multinational peacekeeping efforts, Canada raises
its profile, strengthens its positions and gives us leverage across
a broad range of diplomatic endeavours.
(1930 )
My philosophy is that we should get involved in these efforts
earlier. In that way we can often obviate these situations, not
always but sometimes. Bosnia is a case in point. The writing was
on the wall in 1987.
I would summarize by suggesting the following. First, we
should continue to provide humanitarian aid and not pull out of
this endeavour. Remember we are there for the innocent
civilians and not the combatants. This is another important point
to remember. Many of the fighters and their leaders would like
us to be out of this conflict so they can continue to increase the
pace of the battle, increase the brutality and the killings. If we
ask the civilians whether they want us there, they will tell us yes
they do because we are often the difference between life and
death for them.
Second, do not use air strikes unless we need to protect our
own troops.
342
Third, we need to strengthen the sanctions against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, including the freezing of state assets
and additional trade restrictions. I would go so far as to say
complete isolation of the republic, but I would also engage in
trade embargoes and sanctions against any other state that
refuses to enter into these peace talks in a legitimate and
determined fashion. Bring them to the table.
Fourth, penalize countries which break the embargo that
exists with economic and financial penalties. They are being
broken now. I suggest we get on them collectively and do
something about it.
Fifth, continue with diplomatic efforts and let us play
diplomatic hardball with these people with the aforementioned
sanctions. I would go so far as threatening them with freezing
their assets long after this resolution comes about, if they do not
come to the table now.
Sixth, I would demand immediate guarantees for the safe
movement of humanitarian aid by UN forces throughout Bosnia.
Seventh, create more safe zones where appropriate.
Eighth, continue with the war crimes tribunal under UN
auspices which would hold accountable those individuals
responsible for the atrocities that we have seen. I feel that the
credibility of international humanitarian law demands a
successful conclusion to this endeavour, for if we do not do it the
failure of this process will exist. If we do continue, it will act as
a deterrent in the future.
Finally, I would strongly suggest to the government and in
fact plead with it to continue our humanitarian involvement
under the UN auspices for the reasons that I have mentioned
before. In fact I can probably summarize by saying if you do not
do it now, you pay me now or you pay me later. That is what is
going to happen.
I would like to make a personal plea for two brief things in
which I think Canada should take a leadership role. First,
Canada should act in a leadership role in banning the
manufacture and distribution of anti-personnel devices. These
devices from Hades have but one function and that is to maim
and not kill civilians. We have seen them used with horrific
results in Cambodia and other countries. Even when these
conflicts are resolved the country is hamstrung. The people
cannot move anywhere. They cannot move any goods and
services because of these anti-personnel devices. They are truly
horrific.
My second point ties into what I said before. We need to look
in the future for potential conflicts. One I would bring to the
attention of everyone is the Republic of South Africa. It is a
tinder box and going into its elections in April is a very sensitive
time. I would suggest that the United Nations consider bringing
in an interim observation force to ensure that the elections go
ahead in a fair and unbiased fashion. If these elections are
perceived as being unfair and rigged, then it could lead to a
bloody civil war.
I believe my time is up and I thank you for you attention, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, this is what
happens when I get down on the list and it is a shorter debate
than it really should be.
I want to comment on an excellent speech by the member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. I think the personal experience that
he has brought to the debate says a lot. A lot of us can get up and
make comments about what we think is happening and how we
see resolutions. Obviously from his experience in Africa he has
seen it firsthand and knows the devastation that is certainly
being wrought as we speak in places like Bosnia.
(1935 )
He mentioned a number of very interesting alternatives. I am
one of those people who believes that Canada, wherever
possible-I underline wherever possible-should continue its
humanitarian relief efforts such as peacekeeping in Bosnia. I
also believe that there may be a problem in that the United
Nations unwittingly may have put our troops at greater risk by
having so many resolutions on which they obviously are not
going to follow through.
Since the member has come up with some very good
recommendations, does he believe that things like greater and
enforced sanctions against Serbia and some of the other
nation-states to try to bring them to the table should be a
prerequisite that is put forward by Canada? This would have to
be met by the world body before we would give them basically
carte blanche that our peacekeeping troops would continue
under their current mandate.
In short, does he think Canada can play a greater role given
that we are renowned world peacekeepers? People do want us
there. We are serving a very good humanitarian purpose. Should
we be able to lever that at the United Nations to try to force it to
take some of the actions that the hon. member has just
mentioned?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, if we
are going to make conditions upon our humanitarian aid efforts
then we had better be ready to back them up with some action.
As I said before in my speech, my personal feeling on the
matter is that if the stick we are going to use is the withdrawal of
our humanitarian aid efforts, I disagree with that. We are
obligated to continue with humanitarian aid efforts and not to do
that would only involve an ever expanding war in the area with
the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. I do not think we
should use that suggestion as a stick. Rather we should use what
leverage we have gained over the years to convince the other
343
countries involved in this endeavour to side with us in
strengthening the sanctions.
For those countries that are not involved in the endeavour, we
have trade and other agreements with them that we can use as a
stick to make them do what we say in terms of stopping illegal
export of arms, fuel and weapons to the warring side. There are
alternatives that we need to use but I do not think we should use
it as a stick in the UN.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member
for an excellent speech.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am
surprised to see two Liberal members in a row speak in response
to the speech of the member from the Reform Party, when two
members from the Bloc Quebecois had risen.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is absolutely right.
The Chair failed to recognize the member from the Bloc
Quebecois before the member from the Liberal Party. I
understand the situation clearly. So, I will give the floor very
briefly to the parliamentary secretary and then recognize the
member from the Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I draw the attention
of everyone in this House to the fact that I have asked the
parliamentary Library to do research into this whole topic.
Mr. Vincent Rigby, Political and Social Affairs Division, did
put out a paper called ``Bosnia-Hercegovina: The International
Response''. It is available in our parliamentary Library if
anyone is interested.
Mr. Rigby mentions that Bosnia has demonstrated that the
world's structures are not prepared to deal with the type of
violent, ethnic nationalism that is rapidly becoming endemic in
the post cold world war. The nation-state may no longer be the
basic unit of international politics. Conflict within states rather
than between them has become the new threat to international
security.
Because of his knowledge, I wonder if the hon. member would
comment on that. Is it a new fact that we are dealing with now?
Can we look forward to such threats in the future, internal
conflicts rather than state-to-state conflicts?
(1940 )
The Deputy Speaker: I remind the member, please try to
brief as you have someone else waiting to ask you a question as
well.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): I understand, Mr.
Speaker. I thank the member for a very intelligent question. It is
a very far-reaching one.
The world, in my estimation, is breaking up into tinier and
tinier nation-states. Areas within countries are now defining
themselves within the context of a certain ethnic group. That is
tragic because they are not practising big T tolerance. That is
what is occurring in the world today. We see it in many areas. We
see it in Afghanistan, Cambodia. We see it in Bosnia and in fact
in South Africa. It is going to happen time and time again.
One of the lessons we have to learn through this is that we are
going to be faced with these situations in the future time and
time again as areas in countries start breaking down to the
smallest sub-groups. We had better have a plan to deal with
them.
As I brought up in my speech, we have to get into these
situations early and prophylactically. The United Nations did a
very good job in Macedonia and has done a very good job in
preventing the war from escalating there.
I hope we can collectively address the particular issue that the
member mentioned because we are going to have to make a plan.
We are going to be faced with it more and more in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, thank you. I
hope that you will give me enough time to ask my question.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member's comments
concerning Canada's participation in UN peacekeeping
missions. Even though I do not have his experience, I share a lot
of his concerns regarding the safety of Canadian peacekeepers.
Canadian troops are, of course, going through a difficult time.
But their well-known professionalism enables them to
overcome these difficulties and accomplish their mission in a
very satisfactory fashion. Finally, the very positive results of
their humanitarian aid efforts and of their strategic operations to
contain the conflict within the current borders have been pointed
out on several occasions today.
I would like to remind you that 80 per cent of the members of
the 12th Armoured Regiment of Canada and the Mechanized
Batallion of the Royal 22e Régiment from Valcartier come from
Quebec, including many young people named Bergeron, Bigras,
Simard, Gagnon, Dugas and so on from the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. We can all be proud of the
excellent job done by our soldiers. In this regard, I would ask the
hon. member who spoke before me if he thinks that the
withdrawal of troops by Canada, especially if it were done
unilaterally, would bring our allies to question the firmness and
durability of our commitments?
An hon. member: That is beautiful.
344
[English]
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I
think it would tell the rest of the world that our involvement in
these conflicts, to some extent, would not be as much as we
could have done.
As I said before, if we remove ourselves from this conflict
then the other member states that are engaging in the UN
protective forces UNPROFOR are also going to move away
from it and leave the people tragically to their own devices.
The important point I would like to make, as I said before, is
that the people we are talking to tend to be the leaders of the
fighting groups and they do not necessarily represent the people
on the ground. That is a very important point to remember. The
people who are paying the price are the people on the ground, the
innocent civilians. We are not talking to them. We are talking to
the wrong people, in a sense.
(1945 )
Although the Canadian people and our armed forces have
done an admirable job, and nobody can criticize them for the
work that they did, even if they do pull out for whatever reason, I
think it will be a personal tragedy. The other nation states that do
follow us in this endeavour will also tragically pull out too.
The Deputy Speaker: I think this is the longest record we
will see in this Parliament for questions during a five minute
period. I hate to think of how much time has expired.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate you first all on your appointment as Deputy
Speaker. You are somebody who knows Parliament and its
history and who loves the institution. You will bring integrity,
good judgment and compassion to your office. I congratulate
you.
It is a matter of some sadness to me to speak on this debate. I
have had the privilege of lecturing to the University of Belgrade,
the Serbian Academy and to the University of Zagreb in earlier
happy years when that was one country. It is one ethnic
community but the cultures are widely different. Three hundred
years under the Austro-Hungarian Empire make the lovely city
of Zagreb as it was into an Austrian city with the architecture,
the gardens, the parks, whereas Belgrade looks another
direction.
The original era perhaps, the political era, was joining these
disparate communities together in 1919. It was done by
consensus. The Croat and Slovanian leaders of the period feared
rightly that without a solution of that sort they would be given
over to Italy. The whole Illyrian coast had been promised to Italy
under the secret treaties of 1915 if it deserted the German
alliance and joined the western powers as it did. So you had a
basis for a union that was consummated in one of the
Versailles-dependent treaties, the treaty of St.
Germain-en-Laye which I will have occasion to refer to in a
moment.
I do raise the issue though that here I think we have a political
problem that, reversing Clausewitz, cannot be resolved by
military means.
One of the problems here is that Bosnia-Hercegovina was not
a situation ripe for solution by classic peacekeeping methods as
devised by Lester Pearson. Peacekeeping is not mentioned as
such in the charter. It is a gloss on it. When Mr. Pearson devised
the concept it was based firmly on chapter 6 of the charter and
not on chapter 7. What has happened basically in the
Bosnia-Hercegovina situation is that we have escalated into a
peacemaking situation which invokes another section of the
charter, chapter 7, which does authorize the recourse to armed
force but which the precedents indicate clearly that unless there
is a consensus as to the political goals to be achieved by the
military intervention then the situation is doomed to failure.
I think the problem for Canada, in some respects a tragedy for
our military forces who are not responsible for that-they carry
out the orders-is that personnel developed and trained for
peacekeeping have been used for peacemaking. They neither
have the military equipment available nor the sensitive type of
political training that is required to carry out even peacemaking
missions today.
In a pathological sense I suppose Somalia is the perfect
example of how peacekeeping transforms surreptitiously into
peacemaking and fails. I echo the sentiments of the member on
the other side who raised the issue of the soldiers on court
martial for the carrying out of orders as they saw it in Somalia
when clearly the political intelligence was lacking.
We have to consider in terms of peacemaking and
peacekeeping, the two which are now joined together, the roles
and missions Canada is capable of performing. One thing that is
very clear is that it is quite impossible to be represented in too
many places at one time.
(1950 )
If we are going to be in Somalia and in Cyprus, we cannot be
in Bosnia-Hercegovina and do the job rightly. So one of the
things our committee on military affairs will have to consider is
a more prudent economy in disposition of our forces and
deciding the priority areas. This is something that in a period of
budgetary restraint has to be considered very seriously.
My main thesis though is that Bosnia-Hercegovina represents
an attempt to resolve by military means something that should
have been resolved by political means. There was a time when
Yugoslavia was breaking up. The problem of state succession in
eastern Europe should have been foreseen and provided for in
advance but was not any more than one had provided for the
succession with the collapse of the Soviet empire and the
345
movement to a more liberal Russia. It was not foreseen. It was
not provided for.
What one has had, and this explains the muddiness of the
decisions from the United Nations as carried out by the main
powers that must assume the responsibility for them, is a
division of attitude among western foreign ministries. In fact,
looking back one is reminded of divisions between western
foreign ministries at the time of the Russo-Turkish war in
1877-78, at the time of the two Balkan wars, at the time indeed
of World War I. You see the divisions between the Quai d'Orsay
and the Wilhelmstrasse of those periods replicated in a milder
form perhaps but still in the consequence it is the same in
divisions as to the policy to be applied in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
We are in the middle of that and that is a problem.
There have been criticisms made of one of the European
foreign ministries that it precipitated the problem by premature
recognition of post-succession Yugoslav states Slovenia and
Croatia. I do not accept that criticism in relation to Slovenia and
Croatia. They did have a separate historical existence as units of
the Austro-Hungarian empire. Their frontiers are reasonably
clearly defined under the doctrine of uti possidetis which is
recognized in international law.
One has many more concerns about Bosnia-Hercegovina
which did not really exist until 1878 and which always has had a
high element of artificiality about it. I think it was an error to
recognize Bosnia-Hercegovina and to admit it to the United
Nations above all without taking the trouble to define what
status it should have, what its frontiers would be, what its
relations with its neighbours should be. I think this does come
within the category of premature recognition and the political
consequences with this.
The United Nations efforts through the Vance-Owen plan,
noble but politically and may one say constitutionally and
legally very naive predictably would end in failure.
I would wonder why our government committing forces to
Bosnia-Hercegovina did not perhaps raise these issues of the
necessity of a political settlement. Is the time for diplomacy
past? Not in the least. It has not really been tried. Yugoslavia
was put together in 1919 as a consensual union of the kingdom
as it was called of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes by an
international conference of which Canada was a part. We signed
the treaty of St. Germain. It was our second international act and
we are legal party to it.
I suggested in an earlier pre-parliamentary capacity as a
private citizen, as an expert witness deposing before the United
States Congress committee on foreign affairs, the House of
Representatives, that the machinery of the treaty of St.
Germain-en-Laye be revived. It is a still extant treaty. One
needed a global view of the Balkans. One cannot isolate
Bosnia-Hercegovina from the fate of other areas, including the
former Yugoslav republic that calls itself Macedonia but
perhaps should be called the republic of Skopje.
Peace in the Balkans as a whole is dependent on rational
solutions in this area as in any other area. The failure was to
recognize that post-succession Yugoslavia required a larger
political consensus than Bosnia alone before you could safely
and decently send military forces into it.
Therefore, I would have some criticism for our own
governments in going in too enthusiastically and not asking the
questions that European foreign ministries should have asked:
Where they wanted to go and what their purpose was and which
are present certainly in other fora such as the CSCE, NATO and
the European community.
(1955 )
It is not too late for a Canadian initiative maintaining our
forces in Yugoslavia and Bosnia until the limit but saying:
``Look, a political settlement should come''. Is it ripe? There is
a time when parties to a conflict wear themselves out.
Exhaustion takes over and that is when diplomacy takes over.
There are some indications that that could be near.
In any case simply to maintain forces without pushing for a
larger political solution, without telling the European
Community countries: ``Look, you have to get your act together.
You have to give some signals of what you want to do''. We
cannot solve the Bosnia problem without solving the problem in
Skopje, without guaranteeing the security of territorial frontiers
without the Balkans. If we do not do this, we are back to 1878
and 1913-14. Santayana said that if you do not study history,
then you make all the errors again. What is emerging is a sorry
exercise in international diplomacy.
I think the big Canadian exercise is steering back to the
United Nations the necessity for a larger political consensus, a
larger conference of which if we follow the treaty of St. Germain
route, we will be a part and we can speak out on this.
I do not think we can solve Bosnia without solving the other
problems. Is it to be partitioned? If it is to be partitioned the
frontiers will have to be defined. The treaty of St. Germain
provides for the compulsory jurisdiction of the international
court in these matters. It has the advantage in frontier definition
of making an ally of time.
Peace is necessary. We have a basis for a settlement that will
be viable and it is better then than casting blame on military
forces. I think the military forces are not to blame and we have
performed well.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra on his excellent presentation. If we had heard
346
such an analysis before intervening in the former Yugoslavia,
our approach might have been better planned.
However, the same cannot be said of our Prime Minister who,
during his trip to Europe, made public comments about the
advisability of withdrawing our troops from Europe. At the local
level, in ridings like mine where some 15 young servicemen and
women are participating in the peacekeeping effort in Bosnia,
his statement made people hope for a swifter return of their sons
and daughters but fear for their safety. On the national and
international level, it prompted everyone to question the
firmness of the Canadian position.
In my opinion, that move marked a departure from the
Canadian diplomatic tradition, which helped create Canada's
image as a peacekeeping nation. That kind of gesture would also
prevent us from learning lessons from the Yugoslavian crisis in
order to better react to such conflicts in the future.
I think we should search for comprehensive solutions like
those put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I
may even suggest a few myself, such as the creation of a
multinational force that could deal with that kind of situation in
a permanent fashion with a crisis centre, thus avoiding a
piecemeal approach.
Many of the soldiers deployed overseas in these situations are
members of the reserves. The Senate committee on foreign
affairs studying the issue was wondering whether the training
given to reservists, which tends to focus on offensive actions,
qualifies them to intervene in such operations.
(2000)
It is important, perhaps strategically, for Canada to establish a
mission specialized in logistics, dealing especially with
transportation, equipment, everything that facilitates the
military operation itself. It is in fact an area where we have
acquired considerable expertise.
I also learned in today's debate that the Minister of Foreign
Affairs regularly tables clear and detailed reports on our
involvement in international missions. That seems very
appropriate to me.
Finally, as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra showed us
in his presentation, we must educate our soldiers about the
history, culture and traditions of the countries where they must
intervene. The peacekeepers deployed in Somalia, not
necessarily the Canadians, were clearly in need of such training.
It is important for our peacekeepers to know what they are
getting into.
Those were the comments I wished to make on the speech
delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I would
have liked him to elaborate a bit further on the kind of solution
that could be applied in the former Yugoslavia with its complex
ethnic mix. If possible, I would like him to tell us the kind of
solution he envisions.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, those are excellent
suggestions.
The multinational force is closer to the letter of the charter,
section 43, chapter 7. Unfortunately, this excellent suggestion is
not often followed by the United Nations.
Clearly, political training for our soldiers should be
recommended to the Minister of National Defence. It is the lack
of political sophistication that really hampered their
effectiveness. It would be an excellent suggestion to make to our
defence minister.
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, as you will
probably know, Bosnia was a beautiful part of the world, rich
with culture, endowed with natural resources, producer of
excellent wines, abundant with historical sights, the meeting
place of Christian and Muslim architecture where minarets and
church towers punctuated the skyline of cities, towns and
villages.
Today that Bosnia no longer exists. Its civilian population
lives in terror, famine and mourning.
Today in this Chamber we have been asked by the government
to think about Canada's role as a peacekeeper and in particular
about Canada's role in Bosnia. Here are my thoughts on our role
in Bosnia.
It seems to me that the Government of Canada should
continue the role of our armed forces in Bosnia while continuing
to press for a political solution in Geneva.
Why do I say that? I say it for a number of reasons. Canadian
troops in Bosnia these days are providing humanitarian relief.
They are offering the most civilized role any military force can
provide. They are ensuring survival and life protection, quite in
contrast with the conventional role played by the military
throughout centuries.
The withdrawal of our Canadian troops from Bosnia would
mean in essence abandoning the civilian population to its fate of
starvation and possibly death. Our withdrawal would mean that
other nations whose troops are part of the United Nations effort
in the former Yugoslavia may follow our example if we were to
withdraw. Women, children and the elderly would run the risk of
being wiped out or becoming another wave of refugees seeking a
homeland elsewhere. Withdrawal would mean creating a crisis
in adjacent regions. International security could be put in
serious danger in the Balkans.
(2005 )
From the relatively contained problem in Bosnia, the danger
of spreading is high with very serious security implications and
even the possibility of laying the foundations for another world
347
war conflict. The withdrawal would mean a victory for the
bullies who are pursuing the policy of ethnic cleansing, an
abhorrent, barbaric, repulsive, blood-chilling concept which
the world community must continue to reject and deplore
vigorously.
All Canadians abhor the notion of ethnic cleansing. We are
strong believers in human rights. We promote human rights at
home and abroad at every international forum. In Bosnia the
human rights of people who have lived there for centuries have
been trampled upon. The Government of Canada should not lead
Canada into a retreat but rather continue to protect innocent
people in Bosnia through the United Nations and with the help of
like-minded nations also involved there.
These are the reasons why I would sincerely hope that the
Government of Canada will continue maintaining its present
role, the fine and unique role that our troops are performing
these days in certain parts of Bosnia.
During this debate a number of arguments have been
advanced in favour of withdrawal. I will mention a few but they
are not very compelling. Some have said: ``Oh well, this is a
civil war. There is no reason for any of us to be there''. This is an
ethnic war. Bosnia as a state, as a cohesive society, hardly exists
any more.
Then there are those who have said that the situation has
reached a point where air attacks are the only answer. However,
what happens after the air strike? What does the world
community do after it has bombed? Has that been thought
through as to the consequences of such a measure which
basically would affect the civilian population? We are not
talking here of large armies concentrated in visible and easily
targeted points. We are talking about very interspersed forces
that are very difficult to focus on and reach.
There are also those who have said that this is too large a
financial burden. Well, can you imagine Canada saying to the
world community, to France, the United Kingdom, the
Scandinavians, the Netherlands and others, that we find this role
too expensive for Canada, a nation with the reputation that we
have of wealth, abundance and the capacity to be generously
available to the world community? What a sham that would be.
There are those who have said that we should withdraw our
troops from Croatia for six months. What would happen to the
Bosnian population during those six months? Has that question
been explored?
Then there are those who have said there is no peace to keep.
(2010 )
Evidently that is a point that one has to take into account
because we are not at that point yet. Therefore the answer is true.
There is no peace to keep at the present time, but there are tens of
thousands of lives that can be saved. I rest my case on those
considerations.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to commend the hon. member who just spoke for his clear and
precise position on maintaining the troops now in Bosnia. I
share his concerns when he asks if we can simply abandon a
civilian population to people who want to carry out ethnic
cleansing, as he said.
He talked about civil defence, but I would like to come back to
the last part of his speech when he spoke of the financial burden.
Yes, some people do wonder if we can still afford such a peace
force. There is that strain of opinion, that questioning. In his
argument, he did not point out that we could perhaps completely
reorganize our armed forces so that a section of them, as the
speaker before him said, would be specifically trained to keep
peace and also restore peace. For this, perhaps an exhaustive
study should be done on all the equipment we are using. Maybe
the equipment we use on such missions could be more narrowly
focused and specialized since the missions are increasingly
difficult. For example, my colleague spoke just now about
logistics; maybe we could become logistics specialists and let
other countries provide other kinds of support, such as medical
support.
For that, perhaps our government and all political parties
should sit down around a table and define the positions or needs
or specializations for these peace missions. The money saved by
specializing could enable us to continue our peace missions
without taking more from our fellow citizens. On this point, I
would like the hon. member to tell me if he could agree with that
line of thinking, and I know that he has followed peace missions
for a long time. He is not afraid to say the exact opposite of the
Prime Minister about maintaining peace missions. He definitely
thinks that cannot be questioned. But perhaps to reassure our
fellow citizens, could we consider together the possibility of
reducing some of our military expenditures through
specialization, as a way to keep our peace missions without
raising taxes? I ask his opinion on this.
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert in military
logistics and expenditures. I am only a politician. I thank the
hon. member for Richelieu for his question, but I am not in a
position to add anything to what I said before.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, since I am
addressing this House for the first time outside question period,
348
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters of my
riding of Témiscamingue for have trusted me enough to send to
Ottawa the member who will come to be known as the youngest
one elected to serve in this Parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Brien: Like several of my colleagues, I too have
members of the Canadian forces living in my riding, including
some of those presently taking in part in peacekeeping
operations in Bosnia. I have listened carefully to the hon.
member for Davenport and the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra who spoke before him. Does the member for Davenport
agree that we should be more actively involved in conflict
resolution at the political level, as his colleague from Vancouver
Quadra seemed to indicate, or does he think it would be better
for Canada not get involved at that level, but simply to maintain
peacekeeping forces in Bosnia?
(2015)
Basically, what I want to know is should we play a major role
in terms of resolving the conflict, beyond military action?
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon.
member for Témiscamingue for his question. My impression is
that Canada already plays a good role, a major role as a nation 27
million strong which is highly respected around the world. I
think that the Liberal government will do a good job
representing the aspirations and hopes for peace that all
Canadians share from coast to coast.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, the House
has been debating Canada's role in UN peacekeeping operations
for a number of hours now. Obviously, it is an important
question and there are many aspects to consider.
Of course I want to focus on the role and mission of our
peacekeeping forces, but I would also like to take a closer look
at their presence in Bosnia.
Since the mid-1950s, our peacekeepers have earned a
reputation for Canada as a very humanitarian nation. You will
recall that it was on the initiative of the former prime minister,
the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, that Canadian peacekeepers,
working under the auspices of the United Nations, undertook
their very first peacekeeping mission.
Peacekeeping has since become the cornerstone of Canadian
diplomacy. Many other countries have also patterned
themselves on us when sending peacekeepers on missions
throughout the world.
Canada's decision to make a name for itself on the world
scene as a peaceful, humanitarian country has earned it a
reputation which generally means that we are greeted as friends
when we travel abroad.
Over the years, Canada has therefore maintained a tradition
wherein it holds an altruistic view, namely a view of
peacekeepers as carriers of the humanitarian torch and
missionaries of peace. Quebecers and indeed all Canadians are
proud, and justifiably so, of having made a major contribution to
peacekeeping in the world.
I would mention that the tradition of the peacekeepers reflects
a fundamental value held by the people of Quebec and of
Canada. We are a peace-loving people, imbued with a keen
sense of tolerance and democracy. We value human life a great
deal and we are sensitive to human suffering. It is very natural
for us to want to help those in need.
I know this House would agree that the role of our
peacekeepers in maintaining peace and alleviating human
suffering has reflected the very profound, historic values of
Quebec and Canada.
The war in Bosnia has blurred the traditional role of our
peacekeepers. They cannot keep the peace when there is no
peace to keep. Whereas in the past our peacekeepers were called
upon to maintain a brokered peace, this time, they find
themselves in the midst of a conflict between factions which
seem to see no advantage in settling their dispute. So, what are
our peacekeepers doing in such a nightmare?
(2020)
[English]
This question interests me for more than one reason. Indeed,
approximately 80 per cent of all Canadian and Quebec soldiers
actually deployed in Bosnia do come from the Valcartier CFB
which is home base of the French speaking 22nd Royal
Regiment part of which is in my riding of Portneuf just west of
Quebec City.
Those almost 2,000 soldiers lived either on the base or in one
of the surrounding areas. I personally know families that have a
parent actually in Bosnia. I am therefore even more sensitive to
their anguish.
[Translation]
As I was saying, I take a particularly interest in this issue,
especially since many of these soldiers are from my riding. I
personally know families who have a relative in Bosnia, and I
truly share their fear. I also know that these families, because
they correspond with their relative, are aware of the importance
of the humanitarian aid provided by our peacekeepers in Bosnia.
It is therefore important that this House correctly define the
rationale for our involvement in Bosnia and in other
international peacekeeping operations. We must ask ourselves
the true question about our peacekeepers in Bosnia, namely:
what is their mandate? It is certainly not the traditional one of
helping to maintain peace, because the factions there are still
engaged in all-out war.
So then what is their mission? Do we expect our peacekeepers
to bring peace to the area? Mr. Speaker, even if this were what is
asked of them, how could they possibly bring a peace which the
warring factions have currently no use for?
349
Should we consider letting our troops use force to take control
of the country and to subjugate the belligerents? Should our
troops use violence for humanitarian reasons? Should they
occupy the area to impose our peace? No, because to do so would
be to forget the important lessons of history, namely that no
occupation force can be a substitute for an agreement truly
recognized by the parties involved.
[English]
Furthermore, if this government would authorize our troops
to make use of force to impose reason onto the fighting factions,
we would depart dramatically with our pacifist traditions that
honour Canada and that are so dear to the people from Quebec as
to those from all provinces I am sure.
[Translation]
What is the mandate of our troops in Bosnia? Unfortunately,
this House does not have a magic solution to solve the problem
in Bosnia and to improve the prospects of the people there.
However, this House can and must define the mandate of our
peacekeepers in Bosnia. We owe it to our troops stationed over
there, to their families waiting here, to Quebecers and
Canadians, and to the international community.
So what is the mandate of our troops in Bosnia? Mr. Speaker,
while reflecting on this issue, I came across a dilemma, like
many other members who have thought about this issue and have
expressed their views here today. Today, by acting as a buffer
between the warring factions, are the United Nations not
protecting the belligerents from the consequences of their acts?
In other words, does the peacekeepers' presence unduly and
unnecessarily prolong the agony of those people? Would it not
be better to have the peacekeepers withdraw from the area,
leaving the belligerents alone to face the atrocities and the
consequences of their acts? Would our absence perhaps more
conducive to a resolution of this conflict?
(2025)
One thing is certain: far from being observers without
influence in this military and political game of chess, UN troops
have an impact on the situation through the direct and important
role they play.
What we must do is consider whether the process of resolving
the conflict is helped by the presence of our peacekeepers. Is
their presence an asset or a liability?
I think the debate should focus on a third dimension which I
will discuss now. Consider the results obtained so far. Without
peacekeepers the conflict would very likely have spread to the
entire region of Eastern Europe, like a replay of World War I.
However, this conflict has not only been contained but has
gradually been confined to a very limited area. The presence of
the peacekeepers has given diplomacy and peace a chance to
make some progress, bit by bit.
But there is more. The presence of the peacekeepers has
afforded civilian populations real protection in a terrible war
and alleviated their suffering significantly. This was not done
without serious difficulty. Convoys of food and medicine were
held up, supplies diverted to the black market, soldiers
threatened by belligerents and some soldiers, unfortunately,
were killed. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of people
received food and medical care and managed to survive.
At this point I would like to share with you and with the
members of this House what I was told recently by the wife of
one of our soldiers who is now in Bosnia. This lady told me that
her husband had been very moved by the terrible living
conditions of the people over there. She told me how her
husband took off his socks and gave them to a child who was
walking barefoot in the snow. This was only a few days before
Christmas. The public in Quebec and Canada is also worried
about the cost of our operations in Bosnia.
I did some research. I did some simple arithmetic, and I can
assure you that the costs directly related to the presence of our
soldiers in Bosnia represent only about 25 cents per month per
person in Quebec and Canada, 25 cents, for an annual total of
$120 million. Twenty-five cents per person per month. I think
our fellow citizens can afford to contribute a quarter to help
people in need.
What is the role of our peacekeepers in a new world order?
First of all, their role will certainly not be that of a global cop.
That is out of the question, because it would be entirely
counterproductive. Obviously, their role is no longer limited to
peacekeeping in areas where the parties have decided to resolve
their differences.
We must consider a new role, a role for the twenty-first
century. As nations struggle towards democracy, this new role
would be to prevent conflicts from escalating and spreading, to
protect and help civilian populations and to provide diplomatic
efforts with a climate conducive to conflict resolution and
durable peace.
(2030)
The new role of Canada in this regard will be not only to
participate in peacekeeping, something we are already doing,
but to guarantee in the field, proactively and peacefully,
protection and assistance to civilian populations in distress,
while diplomats try to come up with a formula establishing
peaceful relations between populations at war. The new role of
Canada should not be limited to peacekeeping, it should also
focus on peacebuilding and peacemaking.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, Canada should not withdraw from
peacekeeping operations. Quebecers and Canadians of all
provinces have a long tradition of peace, and our peacekeepers
will
350
not only be perfectly able to fulfil their redefined mission for the
21st century, they will also do so knowing full well what is
expected of them.
Withdrawing from peacekeeping, withdrawing from Bosnia,
would be repudiating one of our greatest traditions. It would
also, given our reputation as a world leader in peacekeeping, set
up a chain reaction among countries participating in
peacekeeping operations with the United Nations. It would also
mean condemning tens of thousands of men, women and
children to suffering, torture, rape and death. This might also
cause the conflict to escalate and spread to neighbouring areas.
Canada has undertaken in Bosnia a difficult, but useful,
humanitarian action. People in Quebec and Canada are not the
type to quit a job they took on. On the contrary, we all strive to
finish what we start, especially when the going gets tough.
Quebecers and Canadians are not quitters.
I would like to conclude by thanking personally, and on behalf
of all my colleagues in this house I am sure, all our troops from
Quebec and Canada who, day after day, put their life on the line
while serving their fellow man, not only because this is the job
we asked them to do, but also because they are noble-hearted
men and women.
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon.
member for Portneuf on his speech. It was all the more
appreciated because the Valcartier base is in his riding. The
personal testimony of soldiers and their families contributed
very much to this debate.
I would like to ask the hon. member a question on his notion of
what he called a new peacekeeping role for Canada. He talked
about the need to protect people in distress. If I got it right, it all
boils down to intervention on humanitarian grounds.
Is that the new role he contemplates? Does he advocate
intervention on humanitarian grounds only or does he want to
take that further and include some diplomatic or negotiating
role?
(2035)
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to define
this new role for the House. However, I see humanitarian
missions covering a number of aspects. One is protecting
populations in distress. Gaining time is another consideration,
by giving the factions a number of rules to observe, which will
give diplomacy enough room, both literally and figuratively, to
proceed with negotiations that one hopes will bear fruit, and
they will, if the timing is right. So our objective should not be
only to feed, care and protect. It should also include, and we see
that today with our own peacekeepers, talking to the factions
and creating a number of mini-agreements which over time will
give our diplomats a chance to build on what has been achieved.
I hope that answers the hon. member's question.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I much
appreciated the excellent speech made by the hon. member for
Portneuf. I had the privilege of being born in his riding, and in
fact, I was born in Valcartier, so his riding is twice-blessed.
The hon. member for Rivière-du-Loup mentioned a
multilateral force formed by the UN that would ensure our
troops would be better prepared for such operations.
He also mentioned courses in history or even humanitarian
aid for our soldiers, to prepare them for missions as complex as
those in Bosnia, for instance. What are his thoughts on this
suggestion which is also supported by the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra? Is this more or less in line with what he was
trying to say?
Mr. de Savoye: I want to thank the hon. member who was
born in Portneuf for his question.
In fact, Canada is in an excellent position to play a leading
role at the United Nations in organizing a multilateral force. We
have the expertise, and we also have the recognition of the
international community. It would be not merely sensible but
also interesting and productive to go this route. I think the
twenty-first century will give us a chance to make the words
violence and war obsolete.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): I want to thank the hon.
member for Portneuf for his remarks. I would like to say a few
words about how our people would feel if Canada were to play a
greater role in peacekeeping missions and in the training of
soldiers for such missions.
For the past few years, a rather lively debate has been taking
place in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region on the
possibility of locating a firing range in the area for the training
of F-18 pilots. As you know, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
region is home to CFB Bagotville, one of the three or four major
strategic bases in Canada. By the way, this military base
operates completely in French. One of the principal arguments
advanced by those who oppose the plans for the firing range is
that we can no longer afford to have the armed forces play a
traditional role in Canada today. These people want to transform
CFB Bagotville into a training base for UN peacekeeping
missions. While their intentions may be good, there are many
problems underlying this proposal. The fact remains, however,
that the people in my region would be prepared to see Canadian
and Quebec soldiers go out on peacekeeping missions and
maybe even do a little more than that.
(2040)
People do not like to see television images of civilians
suffering, of bombings, deaths and other atrocities. When we
351
look at the situation in some parts of the world where suffering is
widespread, not just Bosnia but Somalia and elsewhere, I think
it would not take much for our people to support a more active
role by the UN in peacekeeping operations than has traditionally
been the case.
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
first of all I wish to congratulate you and all the others in the
House. That way I can simplify it. It has been mentioned many
times over and over.
I wish to take this opportunity as well to thank the voters of
my riding of Saskatoon-Dundurn for electing me to this House
of Commons. Saskatoon-Dundurn comprises a large part of the
city of Saskatoon, a city that we affectionately call the pearl of
the prairies. The electorate represents all strata of society and
are a true mosaic of cultures, creeds, nationalities and religions.
I am proud to represent them as their member of Parliament.
The question that is before us today is obviously a very
serious one. Canadian soldiers in Bosnia are in more than just a
peacekeeping role. It has been mentioned many times over that
they are in a war zone where they are neither aggressors nor
combatants. This is a very difficult and extremely dangerous
role.
A country has crumbled because of religious and ethnic
problems. The citizens of Bosnia have rejected the peaceful
methods that Canadians have embraced for years of
parliamentary debate. Instead they have embraced the gun and
the bomb as their means of communication. As well, as the
nation has crumbled the peace process sponsored by the
European communities and the United Nations seems to have
crumbled. It appears that the different leaders have lost control
over their military leaders. This is shown by the fact that every
time a truce has been drafted it is broken before the ink has dried
on the document. The leaders who appear to be intoxicated with
power show the problems of a quest for political power over the
value of human life.
However, it is not our job here today to name aggressors or to
point fingers. Our primary question is the safety of Canadian
military personnel stationed in the former Yugoslav republic
and that is the only reason that we are here. It has become clear
to many that a military solution to the situation in Bosnia is no
longer feasible. What is needed now is a political solution.
However, the quest for power and nation building seems to
destroy all hope of achieving a political settlement without the
intervention of the world community.
We have seen the world community intervene at a number of
different times. The European community peace negotiators, the
Vance-Owen peace negotiations and the current negotiations in
Geneva have all proved fruitless. Ceasefires are signed,
ceasefires are broken. Peace plans show hope only to have one
party walk away at the last moment. The situation seems bleak at
present, bleak of ever reaching a political settlement.
(2045 )
We must be careful to balance this against the needs of the
2.75 million people that the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees says depend on the humanitarian aid as their sole
source of food. This is a weighty question.
We must sit here to balance the lives of 1,800 Canadian
personnel versus an estimated three million innocent citizens.
However the problem does not stop there. It is estimated that
once a peace agreement is signed, if one is ever signed, they will
need two times the number of troops they have now in the former
Yugoslav republic to monitor the peace accord and to disarm the
belligerents.
Therefore by staying, are we just getting ourselves into a
project that will turn into another Cyprus where we were for 25
to 30 years? I think the chances of a peace agreement at this time
are slim.
I wonder if it would make any difference if today we were
speaking in the House had the situation a few weeks ago been
one of guns being shot not over our soldiers' heads but at a lower
position. If we had dead personnel would we be speaking any
different today? I suggest we would be.
I must join with the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and
say that we should withdraw for now and reassess our position.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, I have been
listening to the debate on Bosnia since 10 o'clock this morning.
I have heard words like democracy, solidarity and peace. I think
the fact that we welcomed Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide in our
gallery yesterday heightened the awareness of every member of
this House because, since this morning, the words democracy,
solidarity and peace have popped up in practically every speech.
After meeting with President Aristide, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs talked about a ``man democratically elected by
the population of Haiti''. Mr. Ouellet reiterated Canada's wish
to see democracy restored in Haiti and President Aristide
rapidly reinstated in his post. He said: ``Together we will go to
the Security Council; it is a concrete step we must take to restore
democracy.''
Democracy, solidarity and peace-words that have been
heard all day and in practically every speech made by members
of this House-must be preserved in Yugoslavia, Haiti, Bosnia
and Canada. These great democratic principles must guide
today's statements and tomorrow's actions.
(2050)
In closing, we, as members of this House, will have to take a
position as soon as possible because the people in Bosnia and
our fellow citizens in Quebec and Canada are awaiting our
decision. I am convinced that our decision will reassure Cana-
352
dians, who expect this House to make a decision based on
democracy and solidarity.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Dundurn wish to respond?
[English]
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, because that was not a question but
primarily a comment by the hon. member I have nothing further
to add.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I have a
comment and a question.
I am somewhat surprised by the remarks the hon. member has
made, especially when he talked about withdrawing from
Bosnia, while several of his colleagues have told us that
withdrawing would mean abandoning the people, who would
then starve. It would also cause a crisis in neighbouring regions,
with everything that entails. The aggressors would have won and
it would mean rape and famine for an entire population.
Am I to understand that the member who just spoke will not
support in his caucus a government position which should be
first to ensure that Canadian troops are safe and second to help
Canada live up to its reputation as a champion of peace on the
international scene?
So, the member will be against giving this House the
assurance that the Canadian peacekeepers will not be
unilaterally pulled out of the former Yugoslavia.
[English]
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, we have debated the question,
exchanged ideas and listened to all other hon. members who
have given their views with respect to these matters.
The purpose of the debate is to exchange and to formulate
ideas. Hopefully if the hon. member has further comments with
which he can convince other members on the other side of the
House as to why his position is more favourable perhaps he can
be convincing. That is the reason we are here today.
I can indicate that some of the comments, such as those made
earlier today by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre
were convincing. If the the hon. member who has just posed his
comment has further comments that may be convincing I ask
him for them.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker,
the situation of our Canadian UN troops in the former
Yugoslavia is worrisome. Mr. Boutros-Ghali said last weekend
that he was thinking of using air strikes to free a Canadian
contingent stationed in Srebrenica. Obviously, the UN troops'
mission is in jeopardy.
(2055)
Since 1947, Canada is the only country to have participated in
all UN peacekeeping missions. This participation has made
Canada's presence felt throughout the world. Our peace
missions are recognized. They contribute to Canada's
international prestige. We have become leaders in the art of
keeping peace in the world.
[English]
For that matter if we go back a few years ago, members will
recall that Mr. Lester B. Pearson was the recipient of the 1957
Nobel prize for the promotion of peace.
The first Canadian involvement in a peacekeeping contingent
goes back to 1947 in the Kashmir but it was not until 1956 at the
time of the Suez Canal crisis, at the initiative of the Canadian
government, that the peacekeeping operations began as we know
them today.
On that occasion the then minister of external affairs, Lester
B. Pearson, proposed sending troops under the United Nations
flag in order to permit the orderly retreat of belligerents from
the canal zone. Since then Canadians have never missed a single
peace mission.
In 1988, a second peace Nobel prize was awarded to the
United Nations international force. At home we pay tribute to
our troops. In the fall of 1992 during a monument unveiling
ceremony by the Governor General, Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn, the
monument was named the Reconciliation.
[Translation]
Until this latest mission in Bosnia, we had lost 80 lives. Our
soldiers have often had to live in frightful conditions, but they
have managed to carry out their mission. This time, the former
Yugoslavia is at war. Will we suffer more loss of life in a single
mission than in all the previous ones? Our men and women now
have to undergo armed attack without the ability to react. Their
families and their children are worried about them. A climate of
fear and uncertainty is setting in. They are witnesses to a war,
they are not allowed to use their weapons and they stand by
powerless as people are massacred. Can we call this a peace
mission?
Nevertheless, the UN troops' intervention in Bosnia is
important. Canada faces a dilemma. We cannot accept depriving
these people of our humanitarian aid and we cannot send our
troops on a peace mission in a country at war. We cannot keep
peace if there is no peace. We cannot restore peace against the
will of the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims. In this context,
Canada is in the best position to help set new rules for
peacekeeping. Our action to date has been preventive and it must
remain so. We are there to maintain the peace; we represent the
peacekeeping forces.
In some incidents during this war in Bosnia, tension was so
high between these peoples and the line between legitimate
defence and provocation was so thin that action taken by our
353
men and women could be interpreted as aggression by the
belligerents. It would be a pity if Canada's peacekeeping
reputation were tarnished because of a situation where the
violence and horror of war cancel out our efforts for peace. Can
we prevent the recurrence of such dramatic events? Can we
afford to continue our peace mission in the world?
All these questions remain unanswered, but we cannot
overlook the fact that peace missions cost Canadians dearly.
Nevertheless, we think they are essential. When we aim for the
essential, we eliminate the superfluous and we avoid waste. If
we want to maintain these missions, I am afraid that we will
have no choice but to exercise tight control over the expenses
incurred and future spending. That is the price we will have to
pay if we want to continue to ensure peace.
Peace missions are essential for their humanitarian work, for
the relief they provide to the most disadvantaged countries, but
also to the men and women who could not have survived the
misery created by the famine, drought, floods and devastation of
war.
(2100)
They are also essential for Canada. We have built an excellent
reputation, we are present on the international scene, we are the
number one peacekeepers in the world. This is an essential role
for Canada. Is our presence in Bosnia too costly, will it force us
to forgo other missions which could bring peace? Should we
withdraw from Bosnia?
[English]
British troops are now threatening to withdraw from the
United Nations contingent in Bosnia. Let us recall that the
United Nations has chosen to name the peacekeeping troops the
blue helmets so that the Canadians will be differentiated from
the British because of their almost identical uniforms. It is my
opinion that threats will not do anything and that we would
rather concentrate our efforts to assure that the peacekeeping
forces in Bosnia will fulfil the mandate which justifies their
very existence and that serious proposals be put forward to end
this conflict.
So far, all efforts by the west to end this conflict have failed.
The whole situation is very disturbing. What should be the role
of Canada in order for it to be the instigator of solutions for this
conflict and to prevent the resurgence of similar conflicts
elsewhere? Shall we have the means to maintain peace in
Yugoslavia after this war has ended or will our position be so
weak that for all practical purposes it will be the end of our
peace missions?
These are all questions that deserve serious thinking and
proper answers if we want to assure the success of our future
interventions.
[Translation]
Canadian experts are already present in several developing
countries as well as in Russia and Ukraine to initiate these
countries to peacekeeping operations. Following the appeal
made by Boutros Boutros-Ghali to preserve peace in a more
energetic way, it has been suggested that an international
training centre for peacekeeping be set up in Lahr, Germany. We
all know that Canada will close its base there in 1994. Would
this training centre enable us to maintain our role as
peacekeepers as well as to make good use of existing facilities?
Canada could thus continue to be a leader at the international
level. This suggestion certainly has some merit and deserves
careful consideration to determine the likely benefits of such a
centre, whose objective could be the prevention of other
conflicts.
The war in Bosnia is serious and tragic. Not only because of
the hardships and the violence which prevail in that country, but
also for the families of our soldiers who live in fear while
waiting for the return of their loved ones. Those families hope
that Canada will continue to fulfil its peacekeeping role in a
climate of peace.
[English]
One cannot maintain peace if there is no peace. Canada is a
peaceful country. This was implied and demonstrated and our
reputation is solid on that matter. We have an important role to
play on the international scene as a peacekeeping country. The
members of our peace missions know that their involvement is
crucial and very often is the last hope of populations that are
continuously living in a state of disturbance and dissension.
[Translation]
Canada can fulfil its peacekeeping obligations. Peacekeeping
means that we can act before a situation degenerates into a
conflict and that we can maintain peace after a conflict has
ended. We have a role to play both before and after a war. If we
intervene before a conflict occurs, we may be able to avoid wars
and preserve peace.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pierrefonds for
illustrating how complex the situation is and how difficult it is
to make a decision. In one hour, we will come to the end of a
debate during which members of Parliament will have provided
the government with useful information. We will have the
choice between a withdrawal of our troops, the status quo, or a
solution which seems more appropriate to me, namely to restore
the conditions for success. It is very encouraging to know that
according to the Stoltenberg-Owen plan, thus named since Mr.
Stoltenberg took over from Mr. Cyrus Vance, we could be very
close to a solution. Indeed, we could be extremely close to an
agreement and negotiations will resume on February 10. Conse-
354
quently, any decision made by the Government of Canada will
have an influence on those negotiations.
(2105)
I want to ask the hon. member for Pierrefonds if he thinks that
the Canadian government should take a stand in the next few
days, or if it would be preferable to wait until shortly before
April 1st, when our commitment will end, to announce, based on
the status of the negotiations, if it is appropriate to maintain our
presence in Bosnia, given the very significant impact of that role
for Canada's reputation as a peacekeeper, a reputation which it
has developed over the last few decades?
Mr. Patry: Mr. Speaker, to answer that question I would say
that this is a very personal issue. The Government of Canada
should immediately engage in negotiations with the concerned
parties, especially with the UN, to somehow renegotiate the
agreements ensuring its presence in the former Yugoslavia
because, for all practical purposes, Canada must remain there to
maintain peace in that area. We must not in any way avoid our
obligations at the international level. And Canada's role on the
international scene is a humanitarian role. Therefore, in my
opinion, Canada's peacekeeping role must be maintained in the
former Yugoslavia.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to see that the hon. member is clearly in favour of
maintaining peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia, so as to
avoid a slaughter of the population, especially the Bosnian
people.
However, many Canadians and Quebecers are concerned
about the cost of maintaining those peacekeepers. Earlier I
referred to a reform of our military budget.
Would the hon. member tell us which solution he advocates to
maintain our peacekeepers over there while keeping tax
increases at a minimum?
Mr. Patry: Mr. Speaker, I learned something earlier from the
member for Portneuf, who represents the same political party as
the member for Richelieu, to the effect that it would cost each
Canadian taxpayer 25 cents a day to maintain Canada's
peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia.
I think this is a very small price to pay to maintain our
humanitarian aid over there, and I would be prepared to fight in
the Liberal caucus for the monies and credits required to ensure
that peace.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make note of the fact that the Minister of National Defence is
in the House and the fact that he has spent an inordinate amount
of time considering his responsibilities in being in the House
and listening personally to this debate. I think that it says
something very positive about the direction in which the
government is going in taking the views of the members of this
House seriously when attempting to come to a broader
consideration and determination of where it wants to be going. I
thank him for being here.
I would like in my intervention to broaden the discussion just
somewhat on the basis of the order of the government's business
when it speaks of the possible future direction of Canadian
peacekeeping policy and operations. In taking a look at a future
approach, I would suggest that we have to be businesslike.
As I come from a business background that is an easy thing to
say, but there are many things to be taken positively in the
business environment. When we take a look at business and
managing affairs we take a look at the fact for example that there
must be measurements, yardsticks and goal posts that we can
measure things by. We must have a plan. We must have
objectives and goals.
(2110 )
We think often of the number of times when we have heard
jokes made and sometimes we forget about the original purpose
of when. Often we get drawn into these things as a nation when
we forget what our original purpose is. Therefore, it is important
that we take a look at the definition of what we are doing in
terms of peacekeeping.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend a briefing by the
national defence department. I apologize to the House that I did
not make accurate notes and so I do not know the time frame.
However, my understanding is that the peacekeeping forces
world-wide-not Canadian, but all of the peacekeeping
forces-in a very short period of time have expanded from
10,000 to 80,000. This is rather a boy scout, altruistic approach
on the part of the of the world community where the world
community sees a problem and jumps into it. We have in the
world a situation of increasing complexity and danger not only
for our soldiers but indeed for the soldiers of all the world.
As has been noted in many interventions, Canadians have a
very proud peacekeeping history. We have spoken about
ourselves and I believe our interventions have been accurate that
we have that history of being the originators of the idea and the
actions of peacekeeping.
In this same briefing it was noted that two very valid reasons
were because of our emphasis on multinational diplomacy and
also in support of the United Nations. I believe as members of
this House representing Canadians that Canadians too want
Canada to support the United Nations.
However, going further with the criterion as to how decisions
are made concerning whether we should be involved in a
peacekeeping effort, we take a look at the three.
355
First, there is agreement by parties to a peaceful settlement.
Coming from a constituency that happens to include the
majority of the Canadian Rockies, I come from a very beautiful
but remote area. We have all sorts of very large wildlife there
and it makes me think of walking down a path with a 22 calibre
rifle and coming across a grizzly bear in rutting season. I would
really have to think twice about what I was going to do simply
because I would be wondering what the bear was going to to.
Truly if we as a nation are going to become involved in these
situations where we have 500, 1,000 or 1,500 people and we are
up against an array of tens of thousands of combatants, is it not
somewhat like walking down a trail and coming across a grizzly
bear when I only have a 22 calibre rife in my hand?
Second, we must also know what clear mandate we have to be
there.
Third, we must have a sound financial and logical basis for
being there.
Narrowing the focus for just a second to specifically the
situation in Bosnia, I must profess that I do not necessarily
understand, and perhaps many Canadians do not understand, if
we do in fact have a sound financial and logistical basis for
being there.
If I may I would like to share a brief story about what
happened on my first day in Parliament. The member for Fraser
Valley East and I were on a tour with our wives and the four of us
ended up in the Remembrance Chapel at the base of the Peace
Tower. I recommend it to all members. It was a riveting
experience. We were there at 11 o'clock. If one has the good
fortune of being there at 11 o'clock one will be there when they
turn the pages of the books of those who paid the ultimate
sacrifice in the war. It was a very moving experience because it
gave me a real feeling of what it is to be a Canadian and what
price has been paid so that we have the freedom of speech we
have here tonight in this House of Commons.
I thank those dead people, but what about the ones who are
living? What about the ones who are currently facing danger and
threat every single second that they are in these theatres of war?
I personally cannot possibly imagine the fear that must grip an
individual in those situations. They come back but they have
emotional scars. This is a price they and their families pay when
they come back. When these brave men and women of our
Canadian forces come back their families have to deal with their
mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters or children who have been
there and have been changed because of the experience. There is
a tremendous price. There is a real cost to being involved in a
war as we are.
(2115)
Reflecting again on my experience in the Remembrance
Chapel I wondered to myself how many of these brave men and
women died as a result of quick decisions, forced decisions. As
we are going forward and want to broaden the approach by
taking a look at the future direction of peacekeeping in Canada I
ask: Can we take the time? Can we take deliberate action? Can
we set the goals for measurement? Can we plan? Can we gain an
original purpose for why we are there?
My own feeling is that we must continue in peacekeeping. Our
world needs our interventions in peacekeeping. In his
intervention the member for Red Deer, my colleague in the
Reform Party, suggested using some of the bases and some of
our expertise to export peacekeeping understanding and
peacekeeping lessons. It was an excellent suggestion but we
must measure the cost.
The Reform Party probably for the last three or four days in
the House has spoken only in terms of cost. Whenever we talk
about that we talk about dollars and cents. I would like to reflect
for a second on the emotional cost, the cost of those who will pay
the ultimate sacrifice.
With respect to Bosnia in the short term I would agree with the
other members who suggest that if we do something precipitous,
if we do something quickly, we will create danger for the people
in that theatre of war. Furthermore if we telegraph what we are
going to be doing, in other words if we are too obvious with
where we are coming from, we create self-fulfilling prophesy.
Truly we are caught in a bind.
I believe we must not do something precipitous. We must be
prepared to cut our loss but to do it intelligently and with
planning. We must resist at all cost instant solutions. Far too
often in our community we see instant solutions, the desire for
instant solutions. We must take deliberate action.
As a very proud Canadian I sometimes feel that as a nation we
end up with boy scout or altruistic actions, taking a reaction to
world events. Rather than being pulled along by the world
community into these peacekeeping situations I believe we must
become more businesslike in our decision making so that we
may manage our future direction.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): I wish
to thank the member who spoke before me; his presentation was
very clear and to the point. But I would like to add a comment.
Last November 27, in my riding, I met thirty young soldiers
returning from Bosnia who were celebrating with the families of
thirty other soldiers who had just left for Bosnia.
While talking with them, I realized something that several of
my colleagues mentioned today. It seemed like they were not
356
fully aware of the experience they had just been through.
Granted they had not been back long, but it seems to me they had
not received as thorough a training as they should have had,
given the type of work they were expected to do.
Going back to what my colleague just said, that we needed to
establish criteria, to give very clear mandates, to have a sound
financial basis and so on, I would like to know if he thought
about the training of the troops, if he thought about that aspect of
the issue?
(2120)
On that point, does he agree with the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra who talked about the need, for example, to
explain to young militiamen what is at stake politically so that
they would not only understand the tactics and get the
sophisticated training they need to face whatever danger they
will encounter, but also learn the social and political dimensions
of the type of intervention they will be asked to perform in those
countries.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Kootenay East
want to treat that as a question or as a representation? Does he
wish to reply?
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply by saying that
I do believe our soldiers must receive all the training required
without any question and at whatever cost. However I do not
know there is any possible way that people can be trained for the
emotional scars that occur in a theatre of war.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
found the remarks of the hon. member to be very informative. I
was very struck by his suggestion that we bring sound
businesses practices to what is essentially war.
Would the hon. member mind elaborating on how we put
humanitarian aid on a sound financial footing?
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the member has suggested
humanitarian problems. Obviously these things happen very
quickly.
In terms of humanitarian activity, the situation in the former
Yugoslavia is such that there are combatants creating serious
difficulties for the humanitarian aid to come through. May I
suggest there has to be a logical businesslike approach to see if
we or any other peacekeeping nation or force is actually going to
be able to accomplish the purpose.
There must be intervention in terms of the supplies and those
kinds of things but the question always must be: Can we get it
there? I believe that is measurable.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, since the
question and comment period is almost over, I will be brief.
I may not have understood exactly what the hon. member said
about the cost of humanitarian interventions. I would like him to
explain again what he thinks about the money being spent on
peacekeeping operations. Does he think that we should maintain
or even increase the amount spent in this area, even if it means
reducing other expenditures in the military? Does he consider
the money spent on humanitarian intervention a priority?
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the point the member raises is a
valid one. I hold in my hand some photocopies of an article in
the Globe and Mail on the weekend in which our Minister of
National Defence was quoted as saying that there was going to
be some pretty stiff medicine. The headline was: ``Cuts are
going to be deep''.
This is part of the measurement. This is part of the
decision-making process the Canadian people must make. Is
this something they are prepared to commit to? If so, in terms of
dollars and cents they will have to commit those dollars and
cents.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate you on your appointment to your new office and
wish you the best in your responsibilities in the chair. I would
like to express my thanks to the government for putting this
matter on the agenda so we as representatives of the Canadian
people are able to express a view prior to the decision being
made. I think that is very commendable in a new government
expressing and acting as an open government. I want to say
thanks for that in my remarks tonight as I stand before the House
of Commons.
(2125)
A variety of aspects have been enunciated and clearly defined
before this assembly. What I wanted to do tonight was to express
encouragement to those who have served in Bosnia and to
express encouragement to those who have to make the decision
on what we do as a country in the weeks and the months ahead.
Tonight we address a very special problem and have a very
special responsibility in defining our peacekeeping role in the
future and especially what our role will be in Bosnia. Our
recommendations and our subsequent actions will have a
significant impact on the former Yugoslavia and on the lives of
those who are coping in what I would call the bloodiest
European battlefield since the second world war.
Canadians from coast to coast have been made witnesses to
the tragic events that have taken place in the Balkans. Every
night on television we see the effects of the day's mortar blasts.
Every day we read articles detailing the plight of those
unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire.
357
I want to say to this assembly that the tragedy of life in Bosnia
underscores how fortunate we are as Canadians to live in this
great country of Canada. Many of us practise different religions.
We speak different languages. Close to 400,000 Canadians
speak neither French nor English, yet we live in harmony, with
tolerance and in understanding of one another.
Previous legislators have taken steps to ensure that all
Canadians enjoy the freedoms of conscience, religion, thought,
belief, opinion and expression. Our Canadian charter and our
Constitution provide a guarantee of freedom and a right to life,
liberty and the security of person for all of us in the nation.
People in the former Yugoslavia also have a just claim to these
inalienable rights. Because Canadians are a part of a peace
loving nation we have an obligation to aid or to ensure those
rights may be made possible for those people. From what I have
heard in the briefings previous to today and from what I have
heard in this assembly I believe we can do this best by keeping
our peacekeepers in the Balkans. While we cannot solve the
conflict, we can continue to deliver United Nations
humanitarian aid which to date has helped, as I have heard,
almost three million people.
By remaining in Bosnia we are acting as a conscience to those
who are committing the many atrocities. In addition to our 2,000
soldiers, seven Canadian forces members are working as war
crimes investigators. According to military officials with whom
I have talked on this matter, this unit in some cases has actually
prevented some war crimes from taking place and that is
certainly a very commendable role. These same officials also
tell me that our presence in the former Yugoslavia is preventing
the war from spreading into a wider international conflict.
Canada's role in Bosnia is essential. Our troops provide food
and medicine to hundreds of thousands of people who would
otherwise starve or die of other consequences. Canadian
peacekeepers are fulfilling what has become our country's
historic international mission for which we are well known.
They are promoting peace and security. At the same time they
are acting as an international conscience in an area of the world I
believe desperately needs that conscience.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's remarks have made me wonder
about the reasons why this question of whether or not to
withdraw from Bosnia is creating so much tension in Canada.
(2130)
I wonder if we should not also reflect on the value of
providing the people of Canada with complete and factual
information on the situation in Bosnia.
In our day-to-day dealings with people, when they talk about
the Bosnian conflict or any other international situation, they
often mention the atrocities broadcasted on the news, the
casualties, the costs involved, the money spent on that aspect of
our international involvement. They are far from having have a
comprehensive view of the impact of such activities or their
importance.
I wonder if the member who spoke before me could tell us
how he would feel about asking our soldiers and higher-ranking
officers presently serving in Bosnia to take part in some of the
public debates in Canada and tell us what they actually saw and
experienced, without any partisan bias. They could share their
thoughts on the action they saw over there and perhaps even
suggest ideas without having their loyalty questioned or risking
disciplinary action. I would like the hon. member to tell us what
he thinks of that idea.
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): The hon. member has made a
very good suggestion in terms of consulting and listening to
those people who actually have been there on the scene. I have
talked to some volunteers who have been there from a variety of
groups providing humanitarian aid outside the military. They
have seen atrocities. They have seen starvation. They have seen
the difficulties in families and the conflict within families. They
feel very sick about it but they do have a story to tell. If they
were not there many others would lose their lives because of
lack of food and medical care. Their presence even though they
are in danger is essential in that sense.
I would think that the government through the senior officers
or the leaders should bring forward those people, the common
soldiers at the ground level and certainly consult with them and
get their opinions. First, from what I have heard to this point that
would be substantial information and second, it would
encourage us in Canada to continue our presence in Bosnia.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, to rise in a
maiden speech on an issue as important as this must be
something rather providential, to participate in a debate in
which the members have been so constructive. Our colleagues in
the Liberal Party, my new friends from the Reform Party, and
my new friends from the Bloc have all contributed today not
only to a tribute to the expertise, the training of our troops in the
very special role we play on the world scene but have also
offered a series of constructive suggestions which I hope will be
duly noted and dealt with.
I was particularly impressed with my friend from the Reform
Party this morning who suggested that because of the expertise
we have developed in this country in peacekeeping that we
might be in a position to provide that training on an international
basis.
We have done that before. In the Second World War we had
the Commonwealth air training plan. We provided opportunities
for people who were close to the scene in combat to get out of
the combat zone and properly train for their role in war. I hear
358
my friend from the Bloc endorsing that tonight and it is very
refreshing. I also say that because as a former member of the
Ontario legislature for 10 years I do not think I ever had the
privilege of participating in a debate that was this constructive
and lacked the interjections which I have become used to over
the years.
(2135 )
Being a soldier, a service person, always has been dangerous.
Being in combat is highly dangerous. I wonder whether playing
this humanitarian role, which is neither peacemaking nor
peacekeeping is even more dangerous. It is more dangerous
because of the continuing barrage, the continuing intimidation,
the continuing challenge to the psyche of our service people
over there on a daily basis. It never stops. It goes on and on.
Yet with the training that these people receive and the level of
professionalism they take such pride in and we are so proud of,
they carry on through it all. Very often it is through the worst of
conditions, conditions that you and I, Mr. Speaker, could not
possibly imagine.
Reference was made to the boy scouts and the way Canada
very often participates in that altruistic mode. Having been a
boy scout for 30 years I must say that I am kind of proud that we
do that in Canada, in spite of the fact that sometimes we tend to
walk where angels fear to tread.
I join this debate in expressing great pride in those service
people and recognizing the unique role Canada plays in the
world. We are indeed the best at what we do. We should always
recognize that very special responsibility.
Canada has continually been an ardent supporter of the United
Nations. Indeed Canada pays its dues. We are there when we are
called upon. We wish that every member country would accept
that same responsibility. Perhaps as time goes on we are going to
have to face that question with the United Nations as to whether
it becomes what the late Mr. Pearson believed it could become at
its very best or leave us hanging with some other member
countries rather high and dry because others will not shoulder
their share of the responsibility.
Part of our reason for needing to stay as an agent of
humanitarian aid in Bosnia is part of our recognition of the
importance of the United Nations and our desire to keep it not
just alive, but well, thriving and growing.
This debate was precipitated by the news report of the
apprehension and detaining of 11 of our service people by what
it turns out to be a group of people who might have been less
than compos mentis at the time, to be generous. That was the bad
news that was reported to this country which really was the
trigger that got this debate going.
We should point out in fairness and in perspective that all of
the functions that go on in Bosnia are not those kinds of critical
situations. It is not news to report that there are hundreds of
tonnes of food being shipped every day into these various hot
spots. It is not news when nothing happens. It would be like
reporting that there were 5,000 safe take-offs and landings in
Canada last week. That is never reported but when there is one
aircraft accident or a nose wheel collapses, it makes the front
page. I would suggest to all of us that we have to put what we
read in the newspapers and what we see on television into that
proper perspective.
(2140)
I would like to make a personal comment on air strikes. It
seems to me that air strikes under these conditions would be a
gross admission of failure, of our inability to handle the
situation in any other way, the very last resort.
As has been pointed out there are about three million souls in
Bosnia who depend on the countries under the United Nations
that are delivering humanitarian aid daily. They have no other
means of continuing their physical existence, so we have that
responsibility.
Finally I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister of
National Defence who is here with us tonight listening to this
debate. I am not sure whether our soldiers would really
appreciate it that much but perhaps we could send them some
copies of the Hansard which contains this debate to let them
know what we think of them and how proud we are of the work
they are doing.
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Looking at the
time, we had agreed to go until 10 o'clock. My assessment is
that we are progressing very well. Certainly the level of debate
is excellent even at this time of the evening. Quite a few other
speakers would like to go on the record on this important
subject.
I wonder if I could beg the indulgence of the House to sit until
midnight on the condition that there be 10-minute speeches and
no questions and comments? Could I seek unanimous agreement
from the House on that please?
The Deputy Speaker: Could we agree that the pages could go
home?
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection from the
government side and I strongly recommend it.
The Deputy Speaker: Can we start right now or do we need to
have further questions?
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend because of the
number of speakers that if the House agrees, we should start now
with 10-minute speeches.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
359
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, I want to
also join colleagues who a few minutes ago remarked on the
very high level of debate in this place with regard to this motion.
Yes, I have been here for some time and I want to corroborate
that and say I am equally very impressed by the quality and the
contribution of members on all sides of this House. In fact, it is
very impressive to hear some of the new members of this place
who are making very thoughtful contributions to an issue that is
not an easy one.
I do not want to dwell on the history of all of this. Today, the
Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs and other members of this place have talked about how
important peacekeeping and now what we call peacemaking has
been for Canada.
It is truly a hallmark of our country. It is related directly to the
contribution of a great Canadian who was our Minister of
Foreign Affairs and went on to become a Prime Minister of this
country. It is something that to members and citizens of this
country is a matter of pride that we all share in that
accomplishment and to the fact that this role that Canada has
played has enabled our country to take an important place in
international affairs.
(2145 )
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Canada plays a very important role in several
international forums. It is something that defines us as a nation.
Canada is a member of the Commonwealth, the Francophonie,
the Organization of American States. Our membership in the
OAS is quite significant in terms of our participation in efforts
to resolve the Haitian conflict. Our involvement in all these
forums reflects our view of the world and the role we hope to
play in it.
Today's resolution is about Bosnia. I would like to briefly
state our party's position on the main issues we are facing at this
time, not only because we will have to make a decision
regarding our participation as early as March 31, but also within
the wider context proposed by the government.
[English]
Generally, there have been three issues raised with regard to
our participation in peacekeeping, now peacemaking, efforts not
only in Bosnia but around the world. The first one is the risk
factor which has become greater than we have previously known
it to be.
The second issue is whether or not we are doing our fair share.
That has been raised many times today in this House. The third
one is whether we can afford to continue to do it.
On the risk question, let me offer a quote by a prominent
Canadian, General MacKenzie, who was the first person to go
into this theatre for Canada leading our efforts there. He was
asked, before a committee, whether Canada should restrict
itself to chapter 6 traditional peacekeeping only. His answer was
quite elegant. He said: ``You could do that, sir, but as a
professional soldier I would be mightily embarrassed if you
did''.
The context of that reply is a view that I share. When we
started with peacekeeping we experienced great birth pains
through that period. We tend to forget them, but it was also a
very high risk proposal back then. However, we persisted and
Canada led the way. We forged a place for ourselves and we
developed a concept that went on to serve the world. I say that
because my sense is that today peacemaking is also
experiencing its birth pains.
Yes, the risk may be different and greater, but, as General
MacKenzie has said, if it is our commitment and our destiny to
take this on and to forge that concept, then we must accept the
fact that the risk is there and we as a country are willing to meet
it.
In fact, when we look at Bosnia it is important to appreciate
that we have accomplished a lot. Yes, I join with other members
in this place in speaking about the contribution of all the men
and women who have been active in that theatre. Some of them
have been from my home riding.
Our previous Secretary of State for External Affairs, Barbara
McDougall, wrote an article recently for the Globe and Mail on
what this contribution has been about. I take from her comments
some of the things that we should recognize and some of the
successes we have had that have been quite significant. ``The
strategic objective of preventing the spillover of hostilities into
other regions, such as Kosovo, has so far been achieved''.
Second, ``UN peacekeepers, including Canadians, have
helped hold together an uneasy truce between Serbs and Croats
in the disputed areas of Croatia''. I do not want to seem to
diminish the risk in what is happening there, but we have been
fairly successful.
Third and most important, ``lives are being saved in the
humanitarian effort''.
Here are three areas of real successes for us in this effort. I
think we need to keep a perspective these.
As we move on to this risk that is truly greater, I think we will
want to work toward continuing the efforts that others have
started.
(2150 )
There are very few countries in the world that can take credit
for developing the command, control and supply solutions to
inherent problems of operating a multinational mission in the
field such as multiple languages, cultural differences and
different command structures.
360
If there are very few countries in the world Canada is among
those few. For that reason I would like to think that we will
continue in that area.
In a document, ``Agenda for Peace'', the Secretary General
laid out the issues and proposed possible solutions.
[Translation]
The Secretary General's ``Agenda for Peace'' draws a picture
and proposes ways to intervene: preventive diplomacy,
peacemaking, peacekeeping, the establishment of conditions
favourable to a durable peace.
[English]
In the document, ``Agenda for Peace'', put forward by the
Secretary General of the United Nations, there was also some
discussion about a standby force that the United Nations could
put together. In this same document, it is not held as being one of
the solutions that they would like to contemplate.
After the experience in Bosnia, I would think that maybe we
would want to revise that position. My party believes that, if
anything, we would want to think very carefully about our
experience there and whether or not the United Nations, as it
contemplates its 50th anniversary, would want to revisit this
matter and consider it very seriously.
We also know from our experiences that what we will need is a
very strong commitment to multilateralism. The experience of
other countries in Somalia, for example, seems to indicate that
there is some way to go. I am thinking in particular of our
American friends who have had some difficulty in making and
adapting to this new context of multilateralism-and we know
that from our experiences in the gulf war-that is a reflection of
what has happened over the last few years with the decline of the
superpowers and the change in the structure around the world.
That challenge is also very relevant to peacekeeping.
We believe the United Nations should contemplate the
reforms that are going to be important in this area. In fact there
are about eight reforms. Let me first stress that these reforms
happen around the UN as a cardinal instrument in this new world
order that we hear so much about.
[Translation]
We must rationalize UN operations and rethink its role in
promoting peace and security.
Our party thinks that the United Nations must implement a
number of changes. First, create a permanent strategic
headquarters to enhance the management, planning and
operational capacity of the UN. Second, improve its preventive
diplomacy capacity and undertake an independent policy
analysis of volatile situations. Third, obtain from the member
states formal commitments to put at the disposal of the UN
troops ready to intervene if necessary, just like Canada does.
Fourth, set up a training program aimed at high-level officers
who will be commanding the troops in complex, difficult and
dangerous situations. Fifth, introduce a code of conduct and
common method of operation for all soldiers serving under the
UN flag. Sixth, rationalize UN institutions wherever possible to
streamline them and make them more efficient, more
concentrated, more responsible and more attuned to needs.
Seventh, secure a commitment from member states to pay the
full amount owing to the UN on time. And eighth, enforce more
stringently the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty and impose harsher sanctions on violators.
Mr. Speaker, I see you signalling to me that my 10 minutes are
up. Very quickly, in conclusion there was a second point I
wanted to comment on, namely whether Canada was paying its
share. Very briefly, I would just like to make the following
comment.
[English]
On the old issue of fair share, it is worth reflecting just a
second in relation to our contribution to NATO where
traditionally we have not been the highest contributor. However,
if we weigh that against our contribution to peacekeeping,
Canadians may find a perspective, as is the case on the world
scene with other countries, a pretty fair contribution by Canada
to this effort.
On the issue of affording it, we have to be very creative in how
we deal with this and be mindful of it. The 10 per cent share may
be something we would want to reflect on, but I would certainly
encourage the government, the minister and this Parliament to
support our efforts there.
I have no simple answers on whether we should continue or
not, but our party is inclined to continue our support as long as
the international community is also living up to its commitment.
We could then set reasonable objectives to be met in regard to
what our contribution is, when and how we should be there and
when we should be pulling out.
(2155)
[Translation]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence): Mr. Speaker, I
know that it is very difficult to see members in this corner. There
is not much light here.
I would like to congratulate you on your new position. I know
that you have served this House and the Canadian people well,
both on this side and on the other side. I am sure that under the
present circumstances, you will continue doing the work for
which you have already shown a great ability. An ability that
also includes the value of peacekeeping.
361
[English]
Many of my colleagues today, including the latest one who
spoke about the value of peacekeeping, have begun to reflect on
just what we should be doing in this instance and as well with
respect to peacekeeping.
I was impressed, as I am sure are many of my constituents and
constituents throughout Canada, by the recitation of the reasons
why we find ourselves today in Bosnia-Hercegovina. One of
those reasons of course is that we have established a tradition in
this country that accepts a responsibility to contribute to world
order, to the establishment of a civilized fashion of government,
of the maintenance of peace and the propagation of the concept
of law as that which should govern all countries.
One of the colleagues from the Bloc went so far as to say-I
do not quote but paraphrase because I was taken by some of the
phrases-
[Translation]
Canadians are proud of that work because, in playing that
role, Canada has been working towards freedom, towards the
achievement of democracy and towards the extending of human
rights.
[English]
These are no mean ambitions, no mean objectives and no
mean goals for the purposes of our troops both in
Bosnia-Hercegovina and elsewhere. In fact those types of goals
have made us, in many respects, a leader in establishing not only
a philosophy but a mechanism and a role for our armed forces
for the world throughout to follow.
For us it has been a pragmatic approach to the limited type of
military resources we could bring to any theatre world-wide. It
is fair to say that we are not, by any stretch of the imagination, a
threat militarily to any country in the world given the number of
troops we currently have in our defence structure. However, we
have used them intelligently. We have used them for the
maintenance of peace. We have used them to teach others how to
establish order and how to establish and maintain an approach to
conflict resolution that could lead to eventual long-term peace.
Many of my colleagues in this House today and Canadians
everywhere seem to be ambivalent simply because none of those
ideals, none of those values appear to be as clear as they have
been in the past.
My hon. colleague from Sherbrooke talked a few moments
ago about all of the valued initiatives of the last decade or so.
But they are no longer very clear in the public's mind. Why not?
Many of us have witnessed on a daily basis the kinds of
repugnant pictures that would suggest we are no longer as
successful as we have been in the past. Perhaps that is what hurts
us most.
(2200 )
One of our colleagues earlier indicated that we are revolted by
the barbarities, the atrocities, the outright horror, the
destruction of all belligerents. No one mentioned the aggressor
because one of the weaknesses in discussing peacekeeping in the
context of what used to be called Yugoslavia is that there are
many belligerents but we have named no aggressor.
Consequently when we make comparisons between the set of
circumstances in which we have engaged our military forces and
those which were engaged in the Gulf war, there is that basic
difference, that we have named no aggressor and therefore we
have let others dictate our actions on the basis of that vacuum.
Almost on a daily basis we have been reminded that all of our
good intentions, all of our resources, the risks that we ask our
young men and women to take in a theatre of war or conflict, are
producing no results. We are so stunned by that that some
members represent the public view that perhaps this is not cost
efficient.
My colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth asked a very
pertinent question and that is how to measure the cost efficiency
of a moral value, of a value that has international application
and a value which has a long-term benefit for social order.
Others have indicated that we are absorbing, as we have been
in all of our engagements, virtually all of the material costs.
Others, our allies, our friends in the UN and NATO have not
been so conscientious in following that model.
We seem to be at a loss at what to do because our troops, like
some members here-and I do not mean to make light-are
cornered, out manoeuvred, by belligerents who have no regard
for their goals and their altruistic reason for being in such a
locus. Worse, we seem to be manipulated by our own allies who
are engaged in an evolution of military tactics just as we are
witnessing an evolution of peacemaking and peacekeeping.
While it might appear that I have made a Freudian slip when I
say there is an evolution of peacekeeping and peacemaking, in
the last House we went into the discussion of peacekeeping in
the Gulf war to peacemaking. Our obligations had shifted. The
moment we make a definition that is different from the one that
had guided until that day virtually all of our interventions in the
world theatre, we assumed an entirely different set of
obligations, both material, personnel and in outcome.
We have not made a definitive explanation yet of what we
mean by peacemaking. If I listen to my constituents, I
understand that it is what most of us as Canadians would want
most desperately for the people of the Balkans today, that
someone would impose peace, would make peace, and then we
would voluntarily go in and keep it.
362
We are not a part of that evolution, not at the decision table.
Our Minister of Foreign Affairs gave a very detailed explanation
of what is going on, blow by blow, chronologically, at the
political table, with respect how our allies are dealing with the
circumstances in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Should we then be considering just simply this question of
peacekeeping, or should we be addressing peacekeeping per se?
I know you want to give me just another moment to close off,
Mr. Speaker. That is the unfortunate part of having only 10
minutes to speak. I will use the next 55 seconds to close off.
(2205 )
What we should do as a House is draw our attention to some of
the good initiatives that have been proposed by both sides of this
House. For example, I am pleased to have presented a proposal
in 1989 to convert one of our military bases into an international
peacekeeping training centre. For my colleagues on the Reform
side this would have generated some $80 million a year and
provided nations throughout the world with an opportunity to
avail themselves of the expertise, both military and
paramilitary, for application in peacetime and in conflict
resolution throughout the world.
That idea did not receive all the attention it deserved but
Canadian Forces Base Cornwallis is still being considered. Mr.
Speaker, I know that you will allow me to encourage my
colleagues on the government side to reconsider and to focus on
a re-evaluation of where we should be. We should be where our
obligations have taken us. Let us discharge those and then focus
again on how to best to utilize the materiel and expertise we
have built up.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, this
being my first speech in the House, I would like to start by
congratulating you on your appointment to the chair. I would
also like to thank my constituents of Saint-Denis for giving me
their support. I am very proud as a Canadian and Quebecer of
Greek origin-the first woman of Greek origin to be elected to
this House-to be representing them here, today.
[English]
The riding of Saint-Denis is in many ways a microcosm of
what Canada is today. With cultural communities representing
every corner of the globe, the issue of peacemaking or
peacekeeping is of great concern to my constituents and the
reason that I rise before you today.
[Translation]
I am convinced that the Canadian peacekeepers presently in
the former Republic of Yugoslavia, and especially in Bosnia,
should not be withdrawn.
[English]
Canada has a very important role to play in resolving this
conflict. To pull out now would be abandoning our
responsibility to the international community and moreover
abandoning our ideals as a nation which pioneered the concept
of peacekeeping. We have come a long way from the failure of
the League of Nations in preventing global conflict to the far
more successful formula for peacekeeping established in the
United Nations. Crises will exist but we must never give up
searching for solutions to prevent conflict.
With its long and distinguished tradition of peacekeeping,
Canada has a moral responsibility to help bring about a solution
by easing the level of tension and mistrust that has plagued the
former Yugoslavia. No enemies are irreconcilable if they can
learn to know and respect each other.
[Translation]
It is a well known fact that the United Nations peacekeeping
operations are in serious trouble in some places, the former
Yugoslavia and Somalia in particular. However, we can say that,
on the whole, peacekeeping operations have had a positive
effect. For example, while Mogadishu remains tense and
unstable, the rest of Somalia is demonstrating a tremendous
recovery capacity. Is it not marvellous to realize that, thanks to
the United Nations peacekeeping operation, Somalis are no
longer dying of starvation? And what about the remarkable
success in Cambodia? That country went through a long and
traumatic period, but can now look forward to a better future.
[English]
As I mentioned, there are several difficulties that UN
peacekeepers and especially our own troops are encountering in
the former Yugoslavia. Perseverance, not withdrawal will lead
to a positive outcome, the outcome that we have been working
toward for nearly two years.
[Translation]
Our peacekeepers are now playing an essential role,
preventing bloodbaths. There would no doubt have been many
more civilian casualties had it not been for them. To pull them
out at this time would trigger an escalation of violence.
(2210)
Besides, in assessing the value of our peacekeeping action, we
will have to be careful not to trigger hostilities which would
only get our troops bogged down in that conflict.
[English]
The action in December of the four European union states
which established diplomatic relations with the former
Yugoslav republic of Macedonia have increased the possibility
of yet another outbreak of violence in the Balkans. It is the same
premature recognition of Bosnia-Hercegovina that contributed
363
to its political disintegration and to the armed conflict that
continues to this day.
Let us be cautious in extending diplomatic relations so
quickly lest we find ourselves once again in the same difficult
position. We must avoid having to stretch our forces any further
in the former Yugoslavia.
The European union continues to lack a coherent and unified
approach to solving the conflict in the Balkans. Canada must
rise above this and it will not be done by pulling out our troops at
this very crucial time.
[Translation]
Canada is renewing its support for the UN and the CSCE. Our
country is committed to strengthening the North Atlantic
Alliance, which plays such an important part in peacekeeping
operations.
[English]
NATO was created in order to counter the very real threats
which the Soviet Union under Stalin was making against
western Europe. Since those who ignore the lessons of history
are doomed to repeat them, let us not abandon too quickly this
excellent instrument which has served us so well over more than
four decades. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO must
assume a new role in the international forum and Canada has an
integral part in helping to define what that role is.
[Translation]
NATO's primary role must remain deterrence; not aggression,
but deterrence. NATO is also indispensable in terms of
providing logistic support for peacekeeping and humanitarian
actions.
[English]
Last but not least, NATO is the only existing institution which
is capable of receiving most east European states with proper
status and a tested framework for regional collective security.
[Translation]
The real issue as far as NATO is concerned is not to decide
whether or not it is not relevant any more, a thing of the past, but
rather what shape to give it now. That is what we must examine
in the general context of peacekeeping operations.
[English]
Several important lessons can be learned from the recent past
and applied to our peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia. First,
distinguish where one can be useful and where one cannot. It is
sometimes better to limit one's intervention to the strict
minimum humanitarian intervention when one knows that the
adversaries are not amenable to any form of wisdom. In the case
of Bosnia it is our duty to protect and help the innocent victims
and minimize the bloodshed as much as possible.
Second, we must be patient. Some conflicts cannot be solved
in weeks or even years. They take decades of patient effort to
bring the opponents closer and for them to learn to respect each
other.
Third, minimize effectiveness under a clear leadership and
with precise objectives in mind. Compare the effectiveness of
the coalition forces in the Gulf war with the irresolution and
inefficiencies of the situation in Bosnia.
Fourth, play by the rules of collective security. National pride
or prejudice cannot be allowed to have priority over the
necessities of an efficient security system. The French, Germans
and British are now bitterly regretting their haste and their
differences and their botched attempts to keep peace in the
former Yugoslavia.
[Translation]
Fifth, better safe than sorry. The proliferation of nuclear
technologies and know-how must be a constant reminder of the
troubling fact that someday prevention may be the only thing
keeping us from a nuclear apocalypse happening in our own
backyard.
[English]
The world today is a very different place from five years ago.
Who would have believed in January 1989 that the Berlin wall
would come tumbling down and soon after that the Soviet
empire. Likewise that Israel would be talking peace with the
PLO or that there would be multiracial elections in South Africa.
(2215 )
As the Governor General said in the throne speech last week
our hopes for global peace have been raised and, in many places,
shattered. In some countries today democracy is under stress, its
future uncertain.
I was born in Greece, the cradle of democracy. My parents
emigrated to Canada because of its reputation as a country
where democracy is very highly respected. It is in this tradition
that Canadians today continue their unwavering commitment to
peacekeeping.
It is up to Canada to play a responsible role in seeing the
resolution of this conflict. Pulling out our Canadian troops will
not solve this conflict, but greater concessions among the
international community and organizations like the UN and
NATO will.
[Translation]
We will have to keep doing our share to ensure that, once the
conflicts have been resolved, our peacekeepers can get their due
share of the credit for restoring peace in this troubled area.
364
[English]
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for the opportunity of joining the debate on this very
important question. I appreciate the opportunity of being
involved in this debate because my involvement as a person with
both Croatia and Bosnia stretches back a few years now.
As I mentioned earlier in the House I helped to initiate the
organization of a group of members of Parliament. We acted as
observers in the first free election in Croatia. As well I helped do
the same thing when the elections in Bosnia-Hercegovina
occurred.
I remember spending election night with the Muslim party
and celebrating with them their victory and the success of the
first free election. At that time I had the hope that in Bosnia we
would find a bridge between the middle eastern and western or
European cultures. I was quite impressed by the people. I had
met the Muslim people in Bosnia and I had high hopes that such
a bridge would be built between the two different cultures and
religions.
I experienced hope as well in Croatia as they started up their
new government and in many ways I helped them. They wanted
to know how to organize a public service commission, set up a
department and what the environmental regulations were. It was
the basic things in starting a government from scratch. There
was the excitement as well of re-establishing their nation and
their nationhood.
It was a period of a lot of hope and optimism. I made some
basic understandings that even though one had many years of a
totalitarian government that tried to suppress both religion and
nationalism, I understood that one cannot suppress it. I am an
internationalist, but one cannot suppress nationalism.
The only way to do it is as we have seen in western Europe and
on the North American continent. It is the evolution of different
nations coming together and beginning to realize that they have
more in common with each other and a whole new attitude and a
whole new approach starts to develop.
However, what I saw in both Bosnia and Croatia is that all the
suppression did was to drive it underground and the moment the
suppression was released it came back up to the surface right
from where it left off. In the evolution of cultures, peoples and
religions you cannot suppress. Suppression does not work.
I was concerned at that time that with the fall of the Berlin
wall and the removal of the suppression that all sorts of groups
of people who had been suppressed were going to demand their
nationhood. I suggested at that time in a letter to the external
affairs minister in a speech I made in the House that three
principles should be observed.
First, it is the right to self-determination. The people in
Croatia through a democratic process decided to become
independent. They had that right.
(2220 )
Second, there is the principle that boundaries should exist the
way they are and that that armed force would not be tolerated by
the international community to change boundaries. The only
way boundaries could change is through negotiation and in some
instances perhaps through arbitration but only through a process
such as this should boundaries change.
Third, there is the principle of the right of minority groups.
Minority groups and people of different ethnic groups have been
shifted around in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet
Union.
How can one deal with this? One has to respect minority
groups not just by putting it in high flowing terms in the
Constitution but in having the mechanism as we have here with
the human rights commission. We need some tribunal that could
hear complaints, lay charges and levy fines and penalties if need
be. It would be able to enforce the rights of minorities in order to
ensure whether they are the minority Serbs in Croatia, the
minority Muslims in Serbia or whatever that their rights would
be respected and they would be respected as human beings.
Unfortunately this did not happen and the whole former
Yugoslavia has descended into hell.
I remember being back there in January 1992 and standing in a
little village called Vocin. They had a 16th century church that
was totally blown up. As I entered the village I thought it had
hailed all these little pebbles all over the place. Then it was
explained to me that several thousand tonnes of explosives had
been used to totally destroy this church. It was explained to me
that there were some 45 elderly people whose average age was
65 had been murdered in that village. They happened to be
Croats. One or two were older Serbians who must have tried to
protect the older Croatians.
I stood at a spot and the manacles were still there where an old
man had been shot in the back of the head. His hands had been
manacled. His body had been sawn in half and they had tried to
burn his feet. His feet had just been stubbles.
There was madness, insanity and craziness. It is as though the
hounds of hell had been let loose. It is as though we had serial
killers on the loose enjoying the killing in their torture.
That madness now goes on and on. One hears stories of
fundamentalist Islamics fighting-the Mujahedin-for the
Bosnian cause. One hears stories where some of the worst of the
secret police of Albania, Russia and the former East Germany
are fighting on the Serb side.
Last week I had the opportunity of having lunch with quite a
high official of the Croatian government. She was informing me
365
of a case of where a young Croat had come in and had seen the
head of his best friend impaled on a post. He went out and
committed all sorts of atrocities to this Muslim village.
The madness goes on and on. The way she described it was
that it was the devil's banquet. What can we do? Why should our
young Canadian men and women be out there at risk? There is no
economic or strategic importance to us but there is a human
moral interest to us.
At the end of the last war the world said that we would never
again tolerate this type of holocaust. This type of holocaust is
occurring today.
What I would propose is that the Canadian Armed Forces
along with that of the UN and forces from other countries would
militarily enforce a safe haven so that every man, woman and
child in the affected areas who want to escape from the madness
can go to the safe havens. We also propose to both the Croatians
and the Serbians-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but there are so many people
who want to speak and the time is up.
Mr. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent of the
House for one minute to finish my remarks.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, consider the role of the Canadian
forces in Croatia where one-third of Croatia is still occupied by
Serbian forces. We must surely keep our forces there. To take
our forces out of Croatia and Bosnia would invite a much greater
holocaust. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
(2225 )
Even though the situation in Croatia has not been resolved, at
least the fighting and the massacre has stopped. The Croats and
the Serbs are talking. They have made an agreement. They are
going to open up embassies in each other's country and
eventually through negotiation that dispute can be settled
without the slaughter of men, women and children.
Canadian men and women have saved hundreds of thousands
of lives. Surely now is not the time to stop in our worthwhile
effort.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise in the House tonight and to have you in the chair.
In spite of late hours we have certain colleagues still here with
us.
May I say that I believe it is truly appropriate that the first
special debate of this Parliament is on peacekeeping. I think it
appropriate for several reasons.
First, this Parliament with 200 new members represents
Canadians' desire for new direction at the same time that they
desire Parliament to get back to basics. Surely the search for
peace and justice is the basic role for government. Peace is a
challenging goal. Great thinkers of the past have pondered its
elusive nature. Is it the inability of individuals to resolve their
differences without violence that spills over from the home to
the streets to civil war and to international conflicts, or is the
large conflicts between nations which leave in their wake a
pattern of violence that works its way from the battlefront to the
cities and the neighbourhoods and indeed into family homes?
Second, the topic is appropriate because our Fathers of
Confederation recognized this issue when they listed peace first,
followed by order and good government, as their three main
goals for this country.
Third, the appalling situation which goes on in
Bosnia-Hercegovina causes anguish for all Canadians who
watch the human suffering on their television screens each
night.
Therefore I wish to thank the Prime Minister for announcing
reviews of foreign policy and defence and the Minister of
National Defence for giving us the opportunity to put forward
our opinions.
I have no personal connection with the military and no
personal connection with the area under debate but I do know
that currently Canadians are interested in the expenditures of
their government and are even questioning the long term value
of military expenditures. They no longer believe the Russians
are coming and if they consider the concept of being defended
they wish to be defended against threats to their security in
terms of job loss, poverty, hunger, illness and the escalation of
violence in their society.
They understand that the military and its acquisition of ever
more sophisticated equipment eats up precious resources that
could be used for building the country. For example it has been
said that health care workers and community volunteers
working to raise money for local hospitals wonder why they are
having bake sales while governments contemplate huge military
expenditures.
At the same time, Canadians recognize that the military
represents jobs to some workers, careers to some scientists,
profits to some business persons and local support to some
politicians.
In spite of the current question about the cost of our defence
establishment, I do believe that most Canadians are truly proud
of the peacekeeping function and the reputation we have for
responding to trouble spots around the world. Very few realize
that the cost of peacekeeping amounts to only about 2 per cent of
that military budget they are concerned about.
Canadians know that the end of the cold war and the
emergence of tribalism have changed the nature of conflicts that
have erupted since.
366
The realities that UN peacekeepers face today are different.
Does that mean we should abandon our traditional honourable
role? I think not. Rather I see a need to redefine and work
through the most effective way to aid the innocent victims of
violence.
(2230)
We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Work has been ongoing
by subcommittees of the House in the last Parliament and indeed
by the Canadian Senate which published a report last year
called: ``Canada's response to a new generation of
peacekeeping''. I believe this work can serve as a common sense
guide to future decisions.
It is tempting to say: ``It is hopeless. Let's pull out'' or, on the
other hand, to respond to the violence we see and say: ``Let's get
tough. Let's increase our intervention through more troops and
perhaps air strikes''. These are tempting suggestions.
If we are truly peacekeepers we will recognize that violence
begets more violence. If we are truly a peacekeeping nation we
will follow the moderate course set out by the Senate with its
step-by-step recommendations that indeed respond to most of
the concerns raised in the Chamber today.
Let us not back away from our tradition of moderation. It has
served us well. Let us not be forced to an extreme position by a
deadline. That happened much too often in the last Parliament in
my view. Let us be the leaders in this field of international
decision making.
All members of the United Nations are fumbling in their
attempts to respond to these ethnic wars. We can best serve our
brothers and sisters in this global village by having a well
thought out foreign policy which then guides our military
activity.
We are a new Parliament. Let us take the time required to
develop a cohesive plan. Let us not abandon the vulnerable in
Bosnia and let us not abandon our tradition of moderation in
international relations.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I enter this debate as the member for a riding and a
region represented by people named Côté, D'Amour, Babin,
Dumas, Gagnon, Grand'maison, Laliberté, Landry, Morel,
Pelletier and Paré in the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia.
Soldiers from the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup
and Rimouski-Témiscouata are in Bosnia on a voluntary basis,
with the Fusiliers du Saint-Laurent, of the Rivière-du-Loup
and Rimouski garrison.
The questions people ask themselves, especially the relatives
and friends of the soldiers who represent Canada in this very
complex international operation are: is the safety of our troops
ensured? Is their role well-defined? When will they come back?
In short, is it worth it?
The question regarding the safety of our troops is an obvious
one, especially since the operation in the former Yugoslavia is
totally different from the previous ones in which the Canadian
Armed Forces were involved.
Indeed, maintaining peace like we did in Cyprus and like we
are now doing in Croatia is very different from escorting
humanitarian aid convoys and protecting Muslim areas, as is the
case in Bosnia. Those are totally different operations.
Moreover, the voluntary participation of militia members
raises the issue of the role of the regular force and the militia in
the context of international operations.
In that regard, the government should take a close look at the
recommendations made in 1993 by the Standing Senate
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
(2235)
This committee recommended providing our military with the
kind of training that would prepare them for their role in
international missions, by creating reserve units for logistics,
transport and communications, that would be used for
peacekeeping operations rather than strictly war-time
operations.
The issue of the security of our troops cannot be dissociated
from the transparency and relevance of the mission with which
they are entrusted. I believe that we have here the reason for the
uncertainty among Quebecers and Canadians about the
effectiveness of our operations in Bosnia. Canadian diplomacy
which, in the past, has been instrumental in developing the
image of Canada as a peacekeeper in the international
community, would do well to learn from the past and return to a
genuine defence of the cause of peace.
I believe the mission in Bosnia should continue until
negotiations are able to reach a settlement. However, it is
important for our operations to contribute directly to resolving
the crisis and above all to avoid perpetuating the current
imbroglio.
I wish to point out that the people in my riding support the
Canadian government's involvement in international missions
if there is evidence such operations are necessary, our troops are
adequately prepared and our diplomatic efforts are effective,
because the diplomatic front is also very important.
The people in my riding, and especially the families of the
soldiers involved, hope there will be no more of the uncertainty
that arose as a result of the Prime Minister's comments that it
might be appropriate to withdraw Canadian troops, comments
he made in public on his last trip to Europe. Any statements on
the subject should not be the kind of improvised remarks that
raise doubts about the relevance of operations and their
duration.
367
In the broader perspective of the current debate on our policy
on peacekeeping operations, I would favour setting up a
multinational force, with Canada contributing more specifically
to the mission logistics, an area in which we have developed
expertise and which would give us a defensive rather than an
offensive mandate.
I believe it would also be appropriate to table regularly a clear
and detailed report on our participation in international
missions.
Finally, by giving our troops better instruction in the history,
culture and traditions of the countries where they will be sent on
peacekeeping operations, we can avoid situations of the kind we
experienced in Somalia and also in the former Yugoslavia,
where not knowing the customs of the country is a major source
of friction and undermines the effectiveness of the operations of
our troops.
I want to thank you for your attention, and I would like to take
this opportunity to commend those members of my riding who
have volunteered to help resolve a crisis situation that requires
patience, tact, a profound sense of history and, we might as well
admit it, a little luck.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
extend my very best wishes as you confront the many challenges
ahead in this 35th Parliament of Canada. I offer my personal
congratulations on your election and appointment as Deputy
Speaker.
(2240 )
I also extend my warmest appreciation to the many helpful
members and staff of the House who provided assistance to me
and my staff as we prepared to represent the constituents of my
riding of Carleton-Charlotte. I am very proud to stand here
today as their elected representative. I am humbled to have been
honoured with their trust. It is with great enthusiasm that I look
forward to working together with my colleagues in the House of
Commons as we attempt to build a better tomorrow for all
Canadians.
On behalf of the constituents of Carleton-Charlotte I wish to
recognize the many Canadian veterans for their distinguished
service. There are many veterans and active duty servicemen
and women from the Carleton-Charlotte riding who have
served our nation with pride. These men and women have been
instrumental in establishing our leadership role in United
Nations peacekeeping efforts. It would be negligent and
irresponsible for us to turn our backs quickly on these
achievements and the fact that our servicemen and women
continue to work to maintain this leadership role made possible
by our distinguished veterans.
After careful consideration of the many occasions where
Canadian servicemen and women have fulfilled their
peacekeeping obligations, I encourage my colleagues to
recognize the many international successes they have achieved.
They have successfully promoted international democracy
while being recognized around the world as partners in peace.
Canada is a peaceful nation which commonly provides
humanitarian aid. Let us not lose sight of this priority. We may
have to review our role with the United Nations. We may have to
review concerns with our Canadian defence and foreign
policies, but I hope we will continue to respond to the needs of
troubled nations for many years to come.
I respectfully request that my hon. colleagues give due
priority to the most important concern of the day, and that is the
safety and security of Canadian peacekeepers. When we are
confronted with a threat to their security we must immediately
protect Canadian servicemen and women and we must assure
their families of their safe return.
This is certainly not the first time, and I sincerely doubt it will
be the last time, there has been a threat to the security of
Canadian peacekeepers abroad. Although I would like to
encourage the House to give due consideration to the defence
and peacekeeping policies, I believe we must first protect those
who made sacrifices for us all.
Recent events in the former Yugoslavia have clearly
demonstrated the importance of ensuring the protection and
security of Canadian peacekeepers when considering future
commitments. As many nations forge ahead in search of peace
and democracy economic repression often causes hardships
which require humanitarian aid. We must address these needs of
our global neighbours with a sense of steward-like
responsibility.
As a partner in the effort to bring peace and democracy to the
citizens of Bosnia-Hercegovina we must give consideration to
this tragedy by continuing to provide humanitarian aid to those
in need, not by professing to be an expert on this international
crisis but by assuming a responsibility for our servicemen and
women and for our role on the international stage as partners in
peace.
(2245)
While protecting Canadian interests we must also consider
the interests of the citizens of the former Yugoslavia who are
without security, electricity, food and water. If there remains a
possibility of being a partner in this effort under more secure
conditions, then we must continue on.
We have the good fortune of being protected by the Canadian
Armed Forces, one of the most respected and well-known
peacekeeping forces in the world. We should recognize this
good fortune by giving proper consideration to the advice of our
military leaders. Perhaps it is time we stood behind those who
stand behind us. We should work with our military leaders to
facilitate the protection of the Canadian peacekeepers so that
368
they maintain our international responsibility and may complete
their duties as assigned to them by the United Nations.
The United Nations is an organization which contributes
greatly to the development of the global community. We must
continue to be a full partner within the organization and
continue to maintain a positive relationship with our
international neighbours.
We must also continue to fulfil our leadership role in
promoting the importance of the United Nations to the global
community. We must encourage the United Nations to fulfil its
responsibility to the international community and continue to
promote peace and democracy while delivering aid to those in
need.
We can be proud of our historic relationship with our United
Nations partners. If we intend to maintain our leadership role
with the United Nations we must continue to uphold our
peacekeeping and humanitarian responsibilities. We cannot
expect the United Nations to do its part unless we are prepared to
do ours.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you in
your appointment to such a prestigious position. At your
convenience would you please pass on my congratulations to the
Speaker on his election to his position.
It is a pleasure for me to speak to the debate on our
participation in the Bosnia-Croatia situation and pay tribute to
our fine soldiers who are serving in the UN and the role they
play.
Since 1949 our Canadian soldiers have acquitted themselves
well at each and every opportunity where they have been asked
to serve their country through the United Nations. It is my
pleasure to hear so many members speak so highly of the quality
of the Canadian soldiers who serve with valour and honour.
Tonight we discuss and give legitimacy to our soldiers being
in Bosnia-Hercegovina as part of the UN operations. Canadians
did not have the opportunity to debate their soldiers being sent
abroad potentially into harms way. For that I am pleased tonight
to see that some legitimacy is now being given to them through
the Government of Canada in this open debate.
Two or three things have been brought forward in the debate.
Most Canadians have taken great pride vicariously in the
activities of our UN operations since their inception. The
Canadians have been received warmly and fairly because of
their even-handed approach to their duties in the UN.
I have some concerns about Canadians serving in the UN and
each operation and each after action report highlights the
shortcomings of the United Nations.
(2250 )
The Security Council is quick to identify the need and
requests volunteers. The operator is the Secretary-General for
all operations of this type. When on UN operations or when
decisions have to be made backtracking through the network to
get to the Secretary-General is often necessary. It is often
arduous and tedious to get a decision on what should take place,
whether it is in the Golan Heights, the Sinai, in Katanga or
whether it is now in Yugoslavia. We have seen two generals
resign over the very same thing: the command and control of the
operation.
I would like to take a moment this evening to recommend that
our government look to this as a future opportunity for our
defence forces, whether they are sailors, soldiers or airmen that
they will know they are going in on an operation that has a task
force established at UN headquarters to plan the operation and
the logistics on a permanent basis. That type of planning would
put our soldiers at risk but would ensure that there is a chain of
command, a logistic channel and that it is in place before the
operation takes place. The present system of an ad hoc chain of
command and logistic organization is not good enough.
We have heard time and time again in the debate today
whether we should be involved in the UN operations. We can
participate fairly if the United Nations at the insistence of
Canada establishes a permanent planning or task force
headquarters as part of the Secretary-General's office.
Presently we have Major General Maurice Baril as an advisor.
That is certainly not enough liaison. Other countries have
advisors. However, if we are going to be there, there must be a
method of setting up standard operating procedures, methods of
logistic support and command and control. I think our soldiers
would feel much more comfortable. Canadians would feel much
more comfortable that we were sending our troops into an
organization that is established to handle them in an operational
theatre and could give direct and quick response to a situation in
that theatre.
We know the UN lacks the human and technical resources at
the moment. I hope our government will see fit in its future
planning to recommend the establishment of such a task force
and an operational headquarters to oversee such tasks as we have
undertaken in Bosnia, certainly the humanitarian effort and the
peacekeeping operation in Croatia.
This task force would have a permanent operational staff to
establish some form of standing operational procedures, both in
the area of communications and operating techniques or tactics.
369
Such an international agency designed by the UN and under
the control of the UN would go far to improve the facilitation
and execution of the task of our soldiers and our country in
undertaking the assignment by the UN.
I will sum up by stating how proud I am of our Canadian
troops. I am pleased to see how well they participated in the Gulf
War, our sailors, soldiers and airmen.
In the future I can see that as a major task for the Canadian
forces as we extricate ourselves from the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and possibly NORAD and focus our resources on
UN operations.
(2255)
[Translation]
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, before getting into the subject of the debate, I would
like, in this first speech in this Parliament, to thank the voters of
Saint-Henri-Westmount for their confidence.
[English]
With the enormous challenges facing Canada and the world, I
am very privileged once again to represent
Saint-Henri-Westmount in this House of Commons.
[Translation]
The question we ask ourselves today is whether Canadian
soldiers should remain in Bosnia. Ultimately, this decision must
be made by the government, after consulting our allies.
To begin, I would like to mention that many reservists from
several regiments in my riding have served in Bosnia and many
are still there. These soldiers belong to the Royal Montreal
Regiment and the Maisonneuve Regiment, among others. I wish
to point out their courage and their desire to serve the cause of
peace and I hope that they return safe and sound from their
mission.
Earlier today, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us about
some of the factors that the government will consider in making
its decision.
I believe that in the final analysis, there are good reasons for
continuing our humanitarian mission. The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees and the Red Cross have both
confirmed that aid is arriving in spite of the difficulties. People
who would have died without protection and international aid
are still alive today.
The international effort has also successfully prevented the
conflict from spilling over into the neighbouring republics of
Macedonia and Kosovo. Canada also has a long-term
commitment to peacekeeping and international institutions like
the United Nations.
We contributed, we tried to contribute to European security
when we took part in two world wars, in NATO and in the
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Since Canada's decision will probably influence other
countries, we must ask ourselves if the international community
has a role to play in Bosnia. I believe so, Mr. Speaker, for the
reasons I just mentioned.
Future peacekeeping missions will probably experience
problems similar to those in Bosnia. Since Canadians have
played a leading role in developing peacekeeping, we surely
have a role in finding solutions for these problems.
[English]
The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that one of the questions
we must address is whether the danger to our troops outweighs
the benefits of the mission. Like all Canadians and all members
of this House, I would not want our troops to be exposed to
needless risks and certainly they need to be able to defend
themselves.
There is uncertainty about the rules of engagement and
command and control. But I would like to suggest that these are
questions that should be debated in perhaps a more expert forum
than on the floor of the House, in committee. The ultimate
decision as to when the risks or the dangers outweigh the
benefits must be left to the government and the military.
Another important question we must address is whether there
is a reasonable prospect for progress in the peace process as the
minister mentioned. As I have said, one of the reasons for
remaining in Bosnia is our desire to contribute to European
security. I think Canadians would insist that there be a clear link
between our role as peacekeepers and a place at the table. In fact
Canada has had problems in getting the Europeans to the table. I
understand it has been difficult even getting information about
what is discussed at Geneva, let alone getting some input.
(2300 )
The House of Commons and the government should insist that
our military role be accompanied by a diplomatic one. The
international community has made serious mistakes in dealing
with the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. One such mistake was
the recognition of Croatia without considering the position of its
Serbian minority which made up anywhere from 12 to 20 per
cent of the population. While a ceasefire has been established in
Croatia the threat of renewed war looms large.
Bosnia also was an ethnically heterogeneous republic.
Although some Bosnians lived in ethnically distinct areas, most
did not. History and intermarriage had created an ethnic jigsaw
puzzle. The Europeans, followed by the international
community at large, also recognized Bosnian independence
without considering the objections of its Serbian minority.
Similarly, various attempts to broker peace between the parties
have
370
revealed serious shortcomings. The Vance-Owen plan was
criticized for rewarding Serbian aggression.
The Washington agreement of May of last year which
provided for so-called safe areas or enclaves was widely
criticized in the western press for accepting ethnic cleansing and
herding Muslims into small areas in which living conditions are
horrible. The Owen-Stoltenberg plan to divide Bosnia into three
ethnically pure states has also been widely criticized.
I spoke yesterday with the former Yugoslav ambassador to
Canada, Goran Kapetanovic. He is a Bosnian Muslim and today
a refugee in Canada, a fellow with the Canadian Centre for
Global Security here in Ottawa. He believes that international
forces will not accomplish much in the absence of a viable plan
or framework for peace. He believes the major drawbacks to
solutions being negotiated at Geneva are that they accept the
idea of ethnic purity and are partial solutions which do not
address the problem that I referred to earlier of Croatia. All of
the former Yugoslavia has to be dealt with in a settlement.
The former ambassador asks how at the beginning of the 21st
century the international community can accept introducing
apartheid to Europe. What precedents would we be setting for
future conflicts and for existing conflicts in eastern Europe? He
believes that as a prerequisite to peace the UN Security Council
must decide the pre-conditions of a viable peace. By way of
example he suggests the following principles: that nothing can
be achieved by violence; that refugees should be able to return to
their homes; that people should be able to move freely and meet
their family on one side or the other of borders, in essence that
minority rights should be secured.
These are principles which are upheld or which are spoken
about pretty well every day of the week in the United Nations. It
seems to make good sense to me that they form the basis of any
peace proposal.
I remarked earlier that Canadians see a clear link between
their role as peacekeepers and a place at the diplomatic table. I
urge the government to take up the challenge of assuming a
greater role in seeking a negotiated solution to the conflict. As a
successful multicultural country with a constitution that
contains elaborate guarantees for minority rights, we Canadians
have much to contribute.
The government is launching a foreign policy review. In the
context of that review I believe that the government should
convene a meeting bringing together the best minds in the
country to develop proposals to end the conflict.
The world community needs leadership. Indeed it is crying for
leadership. Let Canada provide that leadership.
(2305 )
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I represent the
constituency of Kitchener, an urban southwestern Ontario riding
that possesses, like Canada itself, a diversity of industry and
people.
Like so many constituencies in this country it has been
profoundly affected by events in Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia,
today and was affected also in the past. In the summer of 1914 a
shot was fired in Sarajevo and World War I began. Two years
later in 1916 Berlin, Ontario, which was called Canada's
German capital became Kitchener and Kitchener changed
profoundly after that date. After 1945 Kitchener riding received
thousands of immigrants and refugees from what was
Yugoslavia.
I take these examples to illustrate that nearly all Canadians
were affected by those two terrible wars and those two terrible
wars were concentrated in the area where we are looking at such
carnage today.
I think everyone in Canada took the same lesson from World
War I or World War II and that was the notion that Canada's
foreign and defence policy should have as its fundamental
principle the notion that its national interest was best served by
the construction of an international order based on law and
strong multilateral institutions.
From that commitment came Canada's major contribution to
the world after 1945. This period which is known as Canada's
golden age of diplomacy was marked by a strong Canadian
commitment to the United Nations, and a belief that the cold war
had created a special middle power role for Canada. Of course
the best example of this was the role of Lester Pearson in the
Suez crisis of 1956.
It is often said that Pearson invented peacekeeping in 1956 but
I think it is more properly said that he codified the procedures of
peacemaking. The concept was simple and has been
extraordinarily useful not simply for Canada and the United
Nations but for the interests of world security.
It was held by Pearson at that point that the UN should use the
armed forces of nations that were not major powers and those
nations should supervise peace settlements. Furthermore such
supervision should be carried out with the consent of and
through continuous negotiations with the parties in the dispute.
This was a central character of peacemaking as it was defined in
1956-1957.
In fact Pearson was disappointed with the outcome of the
negotiations in 1956 because there were limits on what Israel
371
and Egypt would accept. He had wanted more carefully defined
terms and conditions but he was unable to convince others,
including the Secretary General at the time, that these
arguments had validity.
Ten years later, however, in 1967 we saw the validity of his
arguments when the United Nations emergency force was forced
to withdraw when the agreement made among Egypt, Israel and
the United Nations did not hold.
Canadians at the time who would express great pride in our
peacemaking participation and tradition were bitterly
disappointed and many then began to speak about Canada no
longer being the helpful fixer, no longer going out and serving in
peacekeeping missions.
After the early successes, as in the Middle East, there had
been a series of failures. It was not simply the United Nations
emergency force in 1967 but also failures in Congo and to some
extent a failure in Cyprus. We hear such sentiments today in
similar circumstances and we need to remind ourselves that we
faced such challenges to our peacekeeping commitment before.
In the Saturday edition of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record
Pam Goebel, a Kitchener native and a reserve army captain who
had recently returned from Bosnia, described our work in these
terms: ``It is a waste of soldiers' lives, a waste of taxpayers'
money. Basically the soldiers feel they are keeping someone
alive today so they can be killed tomorrow''.
Captain Goebel's reaction is understandable and seems to be
shared by many other Canadians. Bosnia has been an enormous
tragedy not only for its own people but also for the United
Nations, for NATO, and for us.
(2310 )
What happened with the end of the cold war is that the original
concept of peacekeeping has been stretched far beyond its
original concept and limits. First, the number of operations is so
much larger than it was before. In fact, there has been, as we
heard earlier today, as many UN peacekeeping operations after
1989 than in the previous 43 years of the United Nations. Most
of these have been successful, a few have not.
Second, it has become clearer, as preceding members have
suggested, that the United Nations is unable to meet the
demands either physically, conceptually or financially.
Third, and I think this is Canada's major difficulty with the
new kind of peacekeeping, peacekeeping is no longer a middle
power phenomenon. It is forgotten that in 1956 the peacekeepers
who wanted to be there were the British and the French, who
after all were the invading armies. It was Pearson's job to tell the
British and the French that peacekeeping was not a job for great
powers or for super powers, it had to be a job for middle powers.
That definition held for many years. But after 1989 and the end
of the tensions of the cold war, suddenly the question has to be
asked: why are the great powers not there? Britain and France
are, but of course Russia and the United States remain outside.
All of these factors deeply influence our position in
peacekeeping operations, but I do not think they change the
basic precepts. We have participated in every peacekeeping
operation but I do not think we can do so in the future. Our
resources are limited, the missions are too many.
As we have heard earlier from several speakers, the weakness
of the existing UN structure suggests that it would be better for
Canada to concentrate on efforts at preventive diplomacy rather
than on peacekeeping itself. In the last few years I think it is fair
to say that peacekeeping has dominated too much of our foreign
policy agenda.
Our skills and knowledge in this country are not simply
military. Lester Pearson, after all, the father of peacekeeping,
was a poor soldier but an outstanding diplomat.
We should keep in mind that in Bosnia the mistakes that have
been made were not made in Sarajevo but rather in New York
and Washington and other European capitals.
Canada at one time last year accounted for approximately 10
per cent of the world's peacekeepers, even though our UN
assessment was roughly 3 per cent. The United States, whose
assessment is 25 per cent, arguably too high, had no soldiers
participating under UN command in peacekeeping operations.
We should impress upon the Americans the importance of
accepting their responsibilities. It is not enough to issue idle
threats of air strikes and pull back from the kinds of
commitments to multilateralism that we heard the United States
talking about two or three years ago. Indeed there are troubling
signs in the United States that recent international events are
leading to a resurgence of unilateralism and even isolationalism.
That would be a tragedy for the world and especially, I think, for
Canada.
What then should we consider doing about Bosnia? We should
recognize, above all, that we must do everything possible,
politically and diplomatically, to bring an end to this terrible
war. However we should not become embittered with the United
Nations or relax our involvement with it.
I would argue, as several other speakers have, that we should
in fact devote more effort to strengthening that institution. It is
not so much the United Nations that has failed but rather the
European nations who failed to take responsibility as a regional
entity with an event that has such terrible consequences in their
own back yard.
I also think that we should, as much as possible, try to make
peacekeeping less of a national affair where individual military
officers, whether Italian, Canadian or French, are identified as
national officers rather than officers serving under the UN
command. I think the previous government responded too
372
quickly to the glamour of peacekeeping and did not recognize
the dangers that are so clear today.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the
parliamentary secretary but his time is up.
(2315)
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to participate in this discussion. I
only regret that it did not take place in the last Parliament prior
to the sending of troops to the former Yugoslavia.
The Prime Minister ought to be commended for giving
members of the House the opportunity to express their opinion
individually as to Canada's role in the former Yugoslavia and in
peacekeeping missions around the world.
Parliament has been called upon today to consider the
following statement:
That this House take note of the political, humanitarian and military
dimensions of Canada's peacekeeping role, including in the former Yugoslavia,
and of possible future direction in Canadian peacekeeping policy and operations.
I have to say how impressed I have been listening to the
debate take place today, especially with the quality of speeches
from the new members of Parliament. It bodes well for the
future direction of the House and the importance of individual
members of Parliament.
I had the opportunity to visit the former Yugoslavia before the
conflict began. I cannot say how distressed I have been over the
last several years to watch the constant bombardment of
Dubrovnik and Croatia and the bombardment and the loss of life
in Sarajevo. I cannot say how distressed I am as well to read
about our Canadian troops being shot at and humiliated in
Bosnia. Parliament has to come to grips with this issue and
determine whether the risk involved and the cost of this mission
warrant our continued participation.
Canada has made a commitment to be there until April. We
ought to discharge that commitment to April and not renew our
commitment given the danger faced by our troops presently in
that region. As has been pointed out by a number of speakers,
there is no ceasefire in Bosnia. There is no peace and there is no
desire for peace. There is no peace to keep. Therefore Canada is
not discharging its traditional role of peacekeeper. It is clear that
we are discharging a humanitarian responsibility there to ensure
that much needed aid reaches distressed regions.
In Croatia, Canada is playing its traditional role in keeping
the peace in that region. I should note with interest that all
members of Parliament of Croatian origin who have spoken in
this discussion called for the withdrawal of troops from the
former Yugoslavia. I found that rather interesting. I did not
expect those individual members to be taking that position.
In any event it is clear our troops in Croatia are serving an
important function. There is no doubt our troops in Bosnia are
serving an important function, but it is also true that the nature
of the mandate is unclear. There has been a series of incidents
that would suggest our troops are not safe.
It is also clear that the cost of the mission is rather significant.
There have been estimates of upward to a billion dollars having
been spent in the last several years on this mission. The
incremental cost is close to half a billion dollars.
We have to be cognizant of the expense given the open-ended
nature of the commitment some hon. members are suggesting.
There is a clear consensus that the role of peacekeeping has
changed and there is confusion of the exact role of Canadian
troops in Bosnia.
Canadians are justifiably proud of and committed to our
tradition of peacekeeping. They are less sure about the current
efforts of our troops in Bosnia because it is not a peacekeeping
exercise. We ought to take note that a significant majority of
Canadians in a poll that was released today expressed some very
serious reservations about our continued involvement in Bosnia.
(2320)
Canada has done its part over the years as has been pointed
out. Canada has participated in every peacekeeping mission in
the last 30 years. We have certainly done our part. We have
contributed to the humanitarian cause in Bosnia and in other
parts of the former Yugoslavia.
It is clear that a diplomatic resolution to the problem is not
imminent. I do have concerns about the length of time that
Canadian troops will be called upon to ``keep the peace'' in that
particular region. It seems to me that the diplomats have failed
at the UN in trying to achieve a peace there. It was clear three
years ago there would be significant conflict.
For those reasons I believe at the conclusion of our
commitment in April we ought to bring our men and women
back home. It is not to suggest that all peacekeepers, the British,
the French and others, will withdraw. There is the assumption
that if Canadians withdraw then other peacekeepers or UN
forces will withdraw. That is certainly not clear.
We have an obligation. We have discharged that obligation
but we must recognize as well that there will continue to be
conflicts all over the world. Are we suggesting that we ought to
continue to participate in every conflict? There is so much we
can do as a nation both fiscally and in terms of other
commitments. I would call upon the government to continue our
373
obligation until April and thereafter bring our men and women
home.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, it
is a privilege to represent the people of Hamilton-Wentworth
both in the House and in this debate. I must say too, as this is my
maiden speech, that it is somewhat daunting to follow such
eloquence as we have heard here for most of the day.
I would like to convey to you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members
an anecdote that pertains to the debate we have heard in the
House. I come from the village of Lynden, a rural community of
some 500 in southern Ontario, which has always managed to
send some of its sons and daughters to the great wars of this
century.
On the wall as one enters the village church there is a roll of
honour commemorating those who died in the service of their
country. The village also has a branch of the Royal Canadian
Legion which over the years has served, especially on
November 11, to keep alive the memory of those who were
willing to defend their lives, not just for Canada but for what
Canada stands for.
Shortly before Christmas I attended a social at the legion
centred on the giving out of service pins. The event was well
attended for the branch is well supported in the community.
What was unusual however was to see someone there who was
actually on active service, to see the green uniform of today's
Canadian forces. It was a young man in his early twenties named
Chris Kivell. I talked to Chris whom I have known since he was a
little boy. He had just been accepted into the Canadian forces,
into the artillery. He was following in the footsteps of his
grandfather, Owen Kivell, who had served in the navy during the
second world war. Owen had survived the torpedoing of a ship in
the north Atlantic. Young Chris looked very fine in his new
uniform which he wore with pride.
Nevertheless I asked if he was not scared about the prospect of
being sent to a hot spot like Bosnia and he said that he was. He
had talked to other young men who had been there and who had
recited the frustrations and dangers. Then he said to me
suddenly, perhaps remembering that I was an MP: ``But, Mr.
Bryden, don't let them pull the Canadian troops out of Bosnia.
We want to be there''. I have since had time to reflect on his
comment. A whole generation separates us so I cannot be sure
that I am reading his feelings accurately. However I know my
village. I know the people in it. I know the values he grew up
with.
(2325 )
My conclusion is that Canada has a fine military tradition
both francophone and anglophone going right back to the French
and British struggles of the 18th century. In the 20th century in
the Boer War, the Great War and World War II, Canadian
soldiers both French and English speaking incurred the
admiration even of their enemies for their bravery and devotion
at Dieppe, at Normandy and during the liberation of Europe.
In the post-war years the Canadian forces became specialists
at peacekeeping. Again our Canadian soldiers garnered the
admiration of the world for their firmness, their bravery and
their non-partisan ability to keep warring parties apart. The
book perhaps has yet to be written that fully describes their
accomplishments but the world knows. Canada and
peacekeeping: that is the legacy that has been created by
Canada's soldiers over the past 40 years.
Now the world is a darker and more threatening place. The
breakup of federated nations like the former Soviet Union and
former Yugoslavia has unleashed hatreds that go back centuries.
Peacekeeping as we used to know it is all but impossible in these
terrible tribal conflicts. The hate runs deep and it has no respect
for women and children.
Our soldiers in Bosnia are there for humanitarian reasons
only. At the risk of their lives they are there to guarantee that
people be fed. The UN intervention has saved hundreds of
thousands from starvation. Canada is an essential part of that
intervention. Canadian soldiers have died in Bosnia. Others
have been injured but thousands of people, mainly women,
children and the elderly, have been saved.
I submit that the international role of Canada's military has
advanced rather than regressed, advanced at least in spirit.
Instead of fighting to win wars and instead of fighting to prevent
wars now in Bosnia we are simply fighting to save lives. Is there
a nobler purpose for a soldier? I think not.
I look across the floor in the direction of members of Bloc and
Reform. I was most impressed by the compassionate content of
their remarks during the debate. Their comments reveal that no
matter what separates us in ideology, no matter what separates
us in history going back to Lord Durham's report or to the Plains
of Abraham, we are united in our desire as Canadians. Call us
what us what you will, Saskatchewaners, BCers, Acadians or
Quebecers, we are united in our desire to rescue those in the
world who are defenceless, those who are hurt and hungry.
Let us not be deflected from doing what is right because of
opinion polls. The trouble with always doing what a majority
seems to want is that majorities can sometimes be poorly
informed. There is no regular news coverage of the Canadian
forces in Bosnia. Their story is not being told by the Canadian
media. We cannot judge the Canadian situation in Bosnia by
watching CNN or reading a newspaper. We must therefore take
guidance from the only people who really know, who are right
on the spot: our own soldiers, the Vandoos and the Princess Pats
for instance. They believe in what they are doing. We on all sides
of the House should be very proud of them.
374
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise in the House to
represent the citizens of Fredericton-York-Sunbury. It
humbles me when I consider just how many people will be
affected by the outcome of the government's decision around
this debate.
(2330 )
As this is my first opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate you on your appointment. I also wish to pay tribute
to the Hon. Milton Gregg, the last member of both my riding and
my party to be in this House. He was a representative of the
government of the day and won the Victoria Cross in the Second
World War.
I would also like to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor,
Mr. Bud Bird. Mr. Bird has long served our region with dignity
and diligence.
Finally I would like to note the recent passing of my Reform
Party opponent. Jack Lamey was a worthy representative of his
party. On behalf of all the residents of the riding I express
sympathy to his wife Addie and the family.
CFB Gagetown, the largest military training base in Canada
and by land mass the largest base in the Commonwealth, lies
within my riding. I am sure members of this House can
appreciate the significance of this debate for the people of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury in general and for the people of
CFB Gagetown in particular.
It is one thing to be concerned for family and friends serving
in dangerous circumstances halfway round the world. It is
appreciably worse when that risk is not accompanied by a clear
sense of purpose or measure of effectiveness.
Hopefully this debate will serve to clarify Canada's position
on the role of our country and others within the UN
peacekeeping forces generally and in Bosnia-Hercegovina in
particular.
I should say that we in Fredericton-York-Sunbury are
pleased with the government's decision to have this debate. I
would also like to commend the other parties and their leaders
for both their co-operation and their participation. Their early
intervention did much to establish the tone for this debate and I
am certain Canadians will find it refreshing to know that we
want to get things accomplished.
As I acknowledged earlier, constituents within my riding are
particularly interested in this debate because so many of CFB
Gagetown have, are, or probably will participate in
peacekeeping engagements.
In light of this level of concern I wanted to ensure that I did
not deal with the situation superficially. Sunday night I met with
a number of interested parties wanting to advise me of their
concerns. Participants ranged from former peacekeepers, one of
whom was stationed in Sarajevo, students from the region
attending the University of New Brunswick, and others of the
public who had called or written to express concerns.
Of particular note, we received a detailed presentation on a
situation in Bosnia from a member of the military recently
stationed in that region. I would like to thank Lieutenant
Colonel Yann Hidiroglou, the deputy commander of the United
Nations military observers, for his thoughtful and
comprehensive briefing.
It was repeated throughout the meeting that the debate
surrounding the situation in Bosnia has become too polarized.
Arguments are generally aligned at one of two ends. Canada
must be in Bosnia under any or all circumstances, or we must
remove our troops because the situation is either too dangerous,
too costly, or ineffective.
We must work together to find a more moderate middle
ground solution. There are no easy answers but in identifying
the balance we need to consider what the consequences could be
if we decided to remove our troops entirely. We are after all
citizens of the world.
We must recognize the possibility that a withdrawal might
only be temporary. Troops might have to intervene again under
conditions far worse than those that currently exist. As well, it is
clear that our troops are able to get humanitarian aid through to
those in need. The UN Commission for Refugees and the Red
Cross are both on record as having stated that the food is getting
through.
What about our international reputation? If the UN withdraws
what impact will this have on future peacekeeping operations?
Would this make it politically impossible for governments to
keep forces in foreign regions? In the same vein how do we want
to be remembered by history? We must consider what the
scenario might be if we were not involved in Bosnia.
I believe a balance must be struck in order to achieve our
desired middle ground. That balance begins with the
recommitting of our troops. We must however recommit as a
government that is willing to improve conditions for the men
and the women on the ground.
I see a number of ways we can accomplish this goal. First,
Canada as a country has great credibility as a nation of peace and
peacekeeping. I believe we should rely on our knowledge and
reputation in these areas and call upon other countries, many of
which have closer ties than we with the belligerents to launch an
appeal to warring factions and seek diplomatic solutions.
(2335 )
We must also review the criteria under which we have
committed our troops and make amendments where possible to
improve conditions, again calling upon our historical reputation
and record. People are uncertain about our role in Bosnia, our
purpose for participating and the value of the exercise. We need
375
to bring clarity to the situation and let people know everything
which can be done is actually being done.
I conclude by stating that we need to recommit our troops to
their involvement in Bosnia but not necessarily under present
conditions. We must also commit to ensuring members of the
military are properly and adequately trained, that UN field
operations are politically supported by member nations. We
must commit to provide the support needed to reduce risk.
As well both the government and the military need to
communicate their purpose and decisions clearly so that
everyone is aware of the objectives for both our troops in Bosnia
specifically and UN forces generally. We will be holding future
debates about Canada's military and peacekeeping roles. It is
my hope that the precedent has been established for these
debates.
I salute forces both now and in the past which served Canada
for what will soon be 50 years in the area of peacekeeping. I also
salute the families and friends of those involved in
peacekeeping missions. I am sure they join me in
acknowledging the excellence of our Canadian troops. Their
excellence is why Canada's role in Bosnia is so critical.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I am indeed honoured to address the
House today on behalf of the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I
think the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore will join me in this
debate and in the expression of congratulations to you, Mr.
Speaker, as well as to the Prime Minister for providing the
opportunity for debate.
Peacekeeping is an activity Canada does as a country. It is an
activity which gives us world-wide respect and makes us all
proud to be Canadians.
Canadian soldiers have been involved in every United Nations
peacekeeping operation since 1947. We have sent
approximately 90,000 men and women to war-torn countries
around the world. Peacekeeping and peacekeepers have
represented us in areas like Korea in the 1950s; Egypt, 1954; the
Congo, 1960-64; Nigeria, 1968-70; Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia
in the early 1970s; Iran in the late 1980s; and in many Latin
American countries between 1989 and 1992.
Canadian peacekeepers are currently in El Salvador, Cyprus,
the western Sahara, Angola, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, India, Korea and Cambodia. Of course they are
currently involved in the former Yugoslavia. There are some
4,700 Canadian men and women with United Nations
peacekeeping operations around the world. They comprise
approximately 10 per cent of all peacekeepers on duty.
We greatly value our peacekeepers and take pride in our
peacekeeping activities. We treat that very seriously. Obviously
we have very practical reasons for being involved. Canada can
prosper only if we are living in a stable and reliable world
environment. I think most Canadians believe that peacekeeping
is a valued activity. We had two Nobel peace prizes awarded,
one to the late Lester B. Pearson and the other to the
peacekeepers in 1988.
Given the international importance of Canada's peacekeeping
efforts I would like to briefly discuss my two main concerns:
first, the priorities in terms of financing; and second,
peacekeeping in this international context.
One of the concerns many have with peacekeeping is that
Canadian peacekeepers be properly outfitted for the dangerous
situations they often encounter.
(2340 )
This means that the equipment should be fully functional.
They should have access to proper facilities and have adequate
protection. All of this, of course, requires financial support.
The second concern I have is international commitment. If we
as Canadians decide it is a priority for us to remain involved in
peacekeeping, we must encourage collective, responsible action
through the United Nations. I hope we would encourage other
United Nations members to pay up their UN dues, to commit
troops, to provide logistical and technical support and to honour
UN resolutions.
Canadians cannot do it alone as we have seen in Bosnia where
replacement troops for Canadians are not allowed to relieve our
peacekeepers. We need a strong United Nations to which
countries pledge, not only in word but in financial support,
troops and technical terms.
Peacekeeping is one area in which we service the world. I
sincerely hope we continue to do so. However, I only want us to
continue to do so if we provide our peacekeepers with the
necessary equipment to protect themselves while performing
their duties as well as securing that stronger international
commitment.
We live in a global village. We have our responsibilities in
that global village.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
please allow me, on behalf of Winnipeg North, to echo the
sentiments of those who have risen in this House and
congratulated you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker, and
also to the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, and our
fellow members.
I would also like to seize this opportunity to thank the
constituents of Winnipeg North for their renewal of confidence
in last fall's election. It is a testament to this new Liberal
government's commitment to seek the input of its citizens on
matters of foreign policy that we begin in the early life of this
Parliament with a very public debate on peacekeeping.
376
At a time when citizens are increasingly concerned about
domestic issues, it is pertinent to ask a fundamental question
about our involvement in expensive and potentially dangerous
peacekeeping missions abroad. Why are we there? Why indeed
are we taking an interventionist approach to problems and
conflicts which ostensibly lie thousands of miles away in places
most Canadians have never even seen?
Why, with the magnitude of economic and social problems
facing all Canadians, are we giving the issue of international
peacekeeping even a cursory glance? Why, of course, is a valid
question.
I propose to offer some very compelling answers. I would
encourage fellow members on all sides of the House to share
these answers with their constituents.
First, to those who would question what benefits our
peacekeeping missions abroad hold for Canada, we must
reinforce the idea that Canada is not an island. Rather, we hold a
privileged position as a world leader in international diplomacy.
We carry the torch of Lester B. Pearson's legacy, a legacy which
poses no ultimatum but patience in the search for peace.
If we fail to settle conflicts and unrest abroad, those problems
by extension become our own. Conflicts overseas could, if left
unchecked over time, expand to engulf our own nation. Indeed,
it is in our national interest to be involved in peacekeeping
missions abroad. However, national self-interest alone
represents only one aspect of the need for our continued
involvement in peacekeeping.
(2345 )
I submit to my fellow members that there is a noble interest at
stake here. Our humanitarian mission in the former Yugoslavia
alone directly benefits 2,750,000 residents of that war torn
nation who would have no other means of survival in the face of
such appalling conditions. These invaluable relief efforts are
best pursued by a team of nations, which is why a renewal of our
participation in the United Nations forces in that part of the
world and elsewhere is essential, to my mind.
Other nations may waver, but I believe Canada should
continue to reassert its commitment to independent foreign
policy. I am confident that this government will not waver.
Allow me to call to the attention of fellow members what I
feel may be a vital omission in our peacekeeping policy. It is the
failure to communicate to citizens the many benefits of these
operations particularly at a time when domestic issues threaten
to consume us. Successful efforts seldom make headlines the
way disasters do. Perhaps that is why an Angus Reid poll
released this week indicates that six in ten Canadians support a
withdrawal of Canadian troops from Bosnia. I cannot help but
wonder whether the figure would be different if citizens were
given a different look at the humanitarian function our overseas
troops are performing.
Recently we saw on TV and in the print media the photo of an
empty wooden sled on a patch of blood-covered snow in
Sarajevo, a symbol of the horror and futility of war. We witness
by way of the media the slaughter of civilians in their homes, the
massacre of women, the senseless killing of children in the
playgrounds, the bombing of hospitals and photos of entire
village populations deprived of food and clothing. When we
witness these human indignities we agonize and our hearts are
torn. When this happens these horrors of war assume immediate
proximity.
In conclusion, peacekeeping missions are the ultimate
challenge to our nation's soul and how we respond to this
challenge will reflect our national conscience. The lives of these
people in that part of the world are in our hands.
The Deputy Speaker: There are three speakers left. They are
the members for Waterloo, Scarborough West and
Victoria-Haliburton. I wonder if they would agree to divide
their time since it is so late. Would five minutes each be all
right? You can blame the whip if you do not like the order you
have on the list. The member for Victoria-Haliburton is first.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, I will keep my comments as brief as I can.
It is with great pleasure that I rise tonight and for the first time
speak in the greatest forum of our country. I further wish to
express my thanks to the people of Victoria-Haliburton who
sent me here and instilled confidence in me to do my best.
The matter we are discussing today is one that is of concern to
all Canadians. This discussion is long overdue and I thank the
Prime Minister for this opportunity.
Peacekeeping has long been viewed as a made in Canada
concept, which is understandable since former Prime Minister
Lester Pearson developed the program and subsequently was
awarded the Nobel peace prize for his efforts. Canada has long
been a vocal and active supporter of organizations for
international stability and order and now has in the area of 2,300
troops stationed around the world in various peacekeeping
operations.
For the most part, these operations have been peaceful.
However, more and more often violent encounters are occurring
in day to day peacekeeping. The role of peacekeeping is
changing.
(2350)
In today's debate we must be careful about what is being
discussed. We can easily dismiss peacekeeping by saying that
we must get our troops out of dangerous peacekeeping areas.
However this sort of thinking is short-sighted.
We must expand our discussions and ask what we want our
peacekeepers to do. We must develop a clear and concise
mandate for our peacekeepers. Are we committing troops to a
377
peacekeeping operation because Canada has never refused to
commit troops to a UN operation, or do we commit because it is
in the best interests of Canada to have a presence in a particular
operation?
We must think of our financial situation and come to terms
with the implications of a shrinking defence budget and how it
might affect our participation in future peacekeeping
operations. Furthermore, when we do commit our troops to an
operation we must ensure they have the proper equipment and
training to address whatever situation may arise in that
operation.
Although we are somewhat isolated here from the realities of
peacekeeping, we owe it to those who are risking their lives in
frightening situations that they have the best equipment and
training available to adequately protect themselves and to
ensure the operation is carried out with success for Canada.
I did have 21 pages, but I have condensed it.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, there
are five very brief points I want to make. The motion we are
debating today asks us to take into account the political,
humanitarian and military dimensions of the possible future
direction in Canadian peacekeeping policy and operations.
The five points I wish to commend to our government and to
the minister are as follows:
First, Canada is a small country comparatively speaking, with
limited resources. As such we cannot act alone. We do know
however that there is strength in unity. We can support each
other. Therefore, we must in my view maintain our membership
in international organizations, including the United Nations and
NATO.
Second, we must work to cleanse the hypocrisy of these
organizations. What do I mean by that? Contrast the swift action
of the coalition forces in the gulf and the billions upon billions
of dollars spent in the gulf in a very short period of time with the
inaction in Yugoslavia where children are being killed daily,
with the inaction in East Timor where Roman Catholics are
being slaughtered by Muslim extremists, and the inaction in
Tibet where China is committing cultural genocide against the
people of Tibet. What about the countries in Africa where tribes
are slaughtering each other by the tens of thousands? These
organizations are doing nothing in these tragic places.
Third, we must continue to speak out forthrightly and
forcefully on behalf of human rights, dignity and the inherent
worth of all human life.
Fourth, we must lend our military expertise and reputation
where warranted. We cannot be in all places at all times.
Fifth, our military are in the business of warfare. They know
the risks. They have chosen their profession. But we cannot ask
our military to put their lives on the line unless we are prepared
to ensure they are adequately equipped, supplied and supported.
As we would not send our children into a full contact hockey
game dressed only in pyjamas, we cannot send our sons and
daughters into the world's most dangerous and volatile areas
without proper protection, training and equipment. Anything
less is irresponsible. Anything less is indefensible.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, I really
appreciate this day of having gone through the whole Chamber
and come down to the last speaker, being me. We are going to be
out of here before midnight.
I represent the federal riding of Waterloo made up of the
township of Woolwich, Waterloo and a part of Kitchener. We are
the home of Project Ploughshares at Conrad Grebel College, as
well as a Centre for Conflict Resolution. Of course we have a
very strong Mennonite base. The Mennonite community is
strongly involved in assisting people in other countries in time
of crisis.
(2355 )
When we look at our country, when we listen to speakers and
when we see the background we have in the Chamber, we are like
a little United Nations. I cannot help but reflect that we
represent very much a beacon of hope to a troubled world.
One person in my riding, a Dr. Elmasry, is a professor at the
University of Waterloo. He is an active member of a number of
human rights organizations. He wrote in his presentation, an
article that he sent to me, that the overwhelming fact that
confronts the moral fabric of the post cold war era was that the
world aggression in Bosnia-Hercegovina was a war of
genocide. The second important fact was that there was no
decisive international will to stop the genocide. The holocaust
prescription never again became meaningless. In this pathetic
moral desert the European Community and its security and
human rights concerns have become severely tarnished.
I received some quite important communications from some
grades six, seven and eight students. It is important to me in my
personal circumstances. In 1956 when Canada embarked on its
peacekeeping mission at Suez I was a nine-year old boy in
Hungary and the Hungarian revolution was going on. I do so
very well recall Hungarians felt so abandoned when the Suez
crisis took over. Somehow we felt that a right to
self-determination of the Hungarians was sacrificed on the altar
expediency on the Suez campaign.
The students who wrote to me were in a group called the
Urgent Action Team at St. Agnes Elementary School in
Waterloo. JoAnne Thorpe is their parent volunteer who works
with them. One letter was written by a student, Cheryl Feeney:
378
In Bosnia they are crushing the skulls of children and slitting the throats of the
women and shooting the men as they try to defend their family.
Celene Krieger states:
I am sure that you heard about what is happening in Bosnia, like wars, death
and many innocent people dying, being raped just because of their religion. The
most horrifying thing is that many of these people are children.
Beckey Curran states:
I believe that Canada should help in peacemaking. I know that some people say
we should take care of our own problems before we take care of others. That may
be true but we take our freedom for granted and we should realize how it would be
if our own country was not free and we were at war.
The letters go on. I guess I am touched by the serious tone of
the letters and the fact that our young people have so ingrained
in themselves that one of the great roles of Canada in this world
is peacekeeping and peacemaking.
I was speaking to Ernie Regehr about Project Ploughshares
and I asked him: ``What is your prescription to the problem?''
One of the points he made was that unless there were people in
Bosnia-Hercegovina, unless there are witnesses to human
suffering, unless there are people who are ready to assist with
the human suffering, we will never know what has gone on there.
We will never know what will continue to go on there. In some
ways the actions of the Europeans and the United Nations in
putting the arms embargo in place have left the Muslims of the
region defenceless.
As Canadians, one of the stronger proponents of the United
Nations, we must try to establish international law and to fight
against lawlessness. It is generally accepted that if there is
anything that unites us as a country this is one of the issues. We
cannot do it all. We have to work through strengthening the role
of the United Nations. We have to make the commitment that we
will stand together with the democracies of this world to make
sure that law, order and self-determination will prevail.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members will be interested to
know that the hon. member for Waterloo was the 50th speaker
we have had today in a debate that the member for Labrador said
earlier was the best debate we have heard here in 24 years.
It is my duty to say that it being almost midnight. Pursuant to
the order made earlier this day the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11.59 p.m.)