CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 29, 1995
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11183
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 11184
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 11185
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 11186
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 11187
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 11187
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11189
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11190
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11192
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11192
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 11192
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 11193
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11193
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11193
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 11195
(Motion agreed to). 11196
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 11196
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 11196
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11196
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11197
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11197
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11197
Bill C-69. Motion for third reading 11199
Bill C-289. Motion for second reading 11217
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 11222
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 11223
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11224
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11238
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11241
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 11252
11183
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 29, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
residents of my riding of Leeds-Grenville have expressed
grave concern about skyrocketing health costs.
Approximately 40 people from the community of
Merrickville have signed a letter to me indicating their support
for an increased availability of generic drugs as one way of
reducing health care costs.
It has been estimated that Canadians now have 36 per cent of
their prescriptions filled with generic drugs. On average,
generic drugs are 40 to 50 per cent less expensive. This saving is
achieved without compromising the quality of health care.
The greatest concern of seniors in today's economy is that
they will not be able to afford proper health care when they get
sick.
Citizens of my riding are asking the drug manufacturers to
respond to dwindling resources in health care by putting more
prescribed drugs on the generic drug list.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when Marcel Beaudry, chairman of the
National Capital Commission, appeared before the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage, I made some exaggerated
comments about the City of Hull to make the point to Mr.
Beaudry that the NCC invariably passes over Hull in favour of
Ottawa in the choices it makes.
Taken out of context, my remarks offended the people of Hull.
I would like to apologize to them in this House. It really was not
my intention to hurt anyone.
The tendency to inflated language, which sometimes afflicts
those involved in politics, surfaced in my attempts to ensure that
Mr. Beaudry, who makes no distinction between a Liberal Party
fundraising dinner and a committee for a no vote fundraising
dinner, really understood my explanation.
To the people of Hull, I again offer my most sincere apologies.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to congratulate film makers
Alison Snowden and David Fine for winning an Oscar at the
Academy Awards on Monday night for their film ``Bob's
Birthday''. Their success demonstrates that Canadian film
projects can compete effectively in the global marketplace.
Reform members believe it is high time for the federal
government to get out of the way and allow Canadian
entrepreneurs to take their place as the producers of Canadian
film projects.
Canada has proven that we can win Oscars. Let us do it
without federal funding. Canadian taxpayers want to know why
the Liberals continue to spend dollars to make films. Our film
industry can stand on its own two feet and should be supported
by the investment from Canadian entrepreneurs, not
government subsidies.
This side of the House wants to congratulate ``Bob's
Birthday'' for proving once again that Canadian film
productions can prosper in a global marketplace.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past weekend a sea of Greek, Canadian and Quebec flags
flooded my riding of Saint-Denis as over 50,000 Canadians of
Greek origin celebrated Greek Independence Day.
It was a tremendous turnout with people from every
generation dressed in national costume in celebration of their
rich
11184
heritage. It was also a day to be proud that we live in a country
that recognizes the significant contributions that Canadians of
Greek origin have made over the years.
We live in a country that celebrates its diversity and for which
it has become the envy of the world.
[Translation]
We are all lucky to live in a country where diversity is
something to celebrate. I think I speak for all Canadians of
Greek extraction who want to continue to live and participate
fully in the development of a country like Canada, an example to
the world of generosity and open-mindedness.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Greek.]
* * *
[English]
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today in the Ottawa
Citizen a former adviser to Ed Broadbent
stated that the NDP must either be revived or declared dead. I
would like to respond by stating that it is my sad duty to declare
the NDP dead.
The New Democratic Party in the past has made valuable
contributions to Canadian political debate. However its recent
performance is showing it to be increasingly divided and
irrelevant.
The current NDP seems bereft of ideas for dealing with the
challenges of the global economy. As the article stated, it has
been a long time since a member of the NDP has had anything
innovative to say about Canada's economy. To quote: ``They
project no civic mission for the country as a whole, no
intelligent reflection on the consequences of their mumblings
and no credible grappling with contemporary issues''.
Those hoping for renewal of the NDP are going to be
disappointed. A party with no visionary candidates for its
leadership is not in a position to begin to renew itself. No ideas,
no leadership, no renewal, no party.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
greatest barriers to international development efforts comes as a
result of the devastating impact of buried land mines. I would
like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that there are
110 land mines buried in 62 countries across the world. Each
month 800 people, many of them children, die as a result of
stepping on one of these.
The problem is getting worse because the international
community can only clear about 100,000 mines in a year. In the
same time frame nearly two million more are buried.
Land mines obstruct post-war reconstruction. In Angola, 25
per cent of the food production capacity is lost because farmers
cannot get into the fields. In Mozambique, a serious drought has
been exacerbated.
Land mines do not stop for foreign aid. They do not stop for
development and they do not stop for peace. They are always at
war. I call on our government to work carefully and closely with
our international partners to find the solution to this modern day
plague.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Mohammed Abder Rahmani, the chief editor of the Algerian
daily
El Moudjahid was buried yesterday in Algiers. He is the
35th journalist to be assassinated in Algeria in the unending
struggle between Islamic and government forces.
Mr. Abder Rahmani, the dean of the country's journalists,
openly criticized the actions of armed Islamic groups.
Intimidated and fearing for their lives, over 200 journalists have
already fled the country.
These murders of people who have the courage to express
their opinions, their ideas and their values, risking their lives in
doing so, is an affront to us all. All too often, we remain silent
and unmoved in the face of obscurantism and intolerance. We
must denounce Mr. Abder Rahmani's assassination and see to it
that his killers are brought to justice.
Voltaire said: ``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it''. Freedom of expression is a
fundamental value in our society. May all Canadians-
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, recently I received numerous suggestions for getting
Canadians to buy government debt now held by foreigners.
While tax concessions or special interest rates can bring home
the bonds, Canada's vulnerability to falling and fluctuating
exchange and interest rates will not be eliminated.
First of all, the purchase of these government bonds from
foreigners will crowd out other domestic securities. Therefore,
net foreign indebtedness will not change.
Second, the existing vulnerability would exist even if
foreigners held no Canadian obligations at all. Both foreigners
and Canadians could still speculate in spot and futures markets.
11185
The simple fact is that Canada's exchange and interest rates
respond to news about the government's ability to service the
debt. The downward trend in exchange rates will end, interest
rates will stop rising and fluctuations will become less severe
only when government deficits are eliminated.
As much as we all wished it were true, financial gimmicks
cannot alter this basic truth.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it was interesting to note the governor of the Bank of Canada
said he was opposed to the Tobin tax. He did not think there was
anything wrong with the effect that money speculators were
having on national and regional economies.
I wonder whether this reflects the real position of the
government. Over the last little while I have been asking the
government to show some leadership at the G-7 in Halifax in
trying to bring about a tax that might dampen speculation and in
making some proposals for a new financial world order. It would
be a sort of second Bretton Woods that would prevent money
speculators from doing this kind of thing to our economy, to our
dollar, or to anyone else for that matter.
What is it the governor of the Bank of Canada has in common
with the money speculators? I think it is this. We could ask these
questions of both of them: Who elected them? Who elected the
governor of the Bank of Canada to make the policies he makes?
And who elected the money speculators?
It is a democratic question. Who really runs the world, the
money speculators and the banks or democratically elected
parliaments like this one here?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a new
study by two economists from the University of Calgary, soon to
be published in the
Canadian Business Economic Journal,
shows that the Province of Quebec is the biggest winner in
Canadian federalism.
The researchers compared the total amount of money that
each province paid to Ottawa in the form of taxes, etc, with the
amount of money directly transferred to each province over the
last 32 years.
Between 1961 and 1992, Quebec has gotten $168 billion more
out of the federal government than it put in in taxes and other
payments to Ottawa. The province has netted an average annual
bonus of $803 per person.
Quebecers are not gullible. And the polls prove it. The
opposition's lame arguments are not winning over flocks
because federalism is working in Canada, despite its
imperfections, and Quebec benefits from it.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of the Outaouais, in particular Hull
residents, are still reeling from the shocking statement made by
the Bloc member for Rimouski-Témiscouata yesterday.
(1410)
Her statement was as follows: ``Behind the wall, in Hull,
which is the ugliest town I have seen on the face of this earth, if
you look beyond the shadows of the buildings, all you will see
are tenements''. Obviously, the poor performance of the
sovereignist propaganda machine is slowly making this Bloc
member take leave of her senses.
Instead of continuing her bitter tirade, she decided to offer her
apologies to the people of Hull. For this, I thank her.
* * *
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in making her comments about the City of Hull, the
hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata probably got carried
away. She apologized and we thank her for that.
It is unfortunate that the radicalization of political options
compels some elected officials to make such comments or take
that kind of attitude when people-and, in this case, a whole
region-do not share their vision of the future.
Must we remind Bloc members that not only local residents
but the whole region take pride in the city of Hull.
The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata was wrong.
The region does not come under the responsibility of the
national commission on Quebec's future but under the mandate
of the National Capital Commission.
I proudly salute its chairman, Mr. Beaudry, for his
commitment to his city, his region and his country.
* * *
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
never in Quebec history have we seen Quebec members, in this
case Liberal members, reject a motion to protect Quebec's
political weight within the Canadian federation.
11186
Yes, Mr. Speaker, Liberal and Reform members joined forces
yesterday in an effort to defeat a Bloc Quebecois motion
recognizing Quebec's right to a minimum of 25 per cent of seats
in the House of Commons.
This Bloc motion would have guaranteed a quarter of the seats
to one of Canada's two founding nations and met Quebecers'
historical and legitimate demands to maintain a minimum
amount of political weight within the Canadian federation.
The attitude displayed yesterday by Liberal members is an
example of double talk in that-
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals just do not understand. Their promise to reform the big
bucks for life club, euphemistically known as the MP pension
plan, has gone by the wayside. Despite the token changes to the
plan, MPs' pensions still have unlimited protection against
inflation and will grow in value at a rate twice the legal
maximum in the private sector.
If the Deputy Prime Minister retires in three years, she will
stand to collect a cool $2.7 million until age 75. She fought to
maintain her cushy pension plan, which comes courtesy of hard
working Canadians.
Perhaps she fought so hard for her pension because she
thought she would be forced to keep her promise and resign. We
all remember when the Deputy Prime Minister said she would
quit if the GST was not scrapped by her government. Lucky for
her, she has an understanding boss who will let her keep her job,
despite the millions of Canadian taxpayers who despise both the
GST and the outrageous MP pension plan.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata
displayed her good taste in urban planning, and her appreciation
of urban beauty in particular, a science the popularity of which
would no doubt have increased dramatically following her
statement, had it not been for her apologies today, apologies that
the people of Hull graciously accept.
What the hon. member did not realize is that, in the Hull
neighbourhood she referred to, we find ``matchstick'' houses, a
style apparently unique to Canada.
Reporters must be very grateful to the hon. member who, time
after time, week after week, has managed to make the news and
shock at the same time. In a recent radio interview, the hon.
member indicated she had considered an acting career. Well, in
this case, she gave us a fine example of her talent as a comedian.
If the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata did not
already exist, she would have to be invented.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a thing or two about one of the most
important towns in Quebec: the City of Hull.
With its numerous parks, the Museum of Civilization, the
Maison du Citoyen, its golf courses and fine restaurants, Hull is
a very nice place where very nice people live. Just to show how
great a place it is, Hull even has a street named Boudria.
(1415)
I encourage Bloc members to cross the river once in a while
and visit the town where my ancestors and myself were born and
take a good look. They will see a great community to live in.
[English]
The Speaker: Before we get into question period, generally
speaking the Chair has always given a great deal of latitude in
the statements made. I would encourage all hon. members to
keep that in mind. It seems to me, as we come closer to
individual attacks, that whatever words we use, we use them
judiciously.
Also, I would like to remind you that you cannot reflect in the
statements on a vote that has been taken. I just bring that to your
attention for future reference.
_____________________________________________
11186
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question
will be directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The number of accusations is growing concerning the role
played by the Liberals in the process of privatizing Pearson
airport, including allegations that appeared recently in the
Financial Post about a possible involvement of the Prime
Minister himself. Today, an influential newspaper, the Globe
and Mail, is demanding a public and independent inquiry to get
all the facts on this murky business.
In view of the troubling allegations that question the integrity
of the Prime Minister and of his government, does the
government intend to establish a genuine commission of inquiry
into the contract for the privatization of Pearson airport,
something
11187
the official opposition has been requesting for over a year and,
in a major editorial, the Globe and Mail is asking for today?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime
Minister himself made it clear that the allegations reported in
the Financial Post were absolutely false, and there is nothing
more to be said.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it could not have been that clear since it did not
convince the Globe and Mail, which today responded with an
editorial on the subject.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether she agrees
that only a public inquiry, a genuine public inquiry, would make
it possible to clear up any doubts about the circumstances
around the contract to privatize Pearson and also about the
decision of the government and of investigator Robert Nixon to
keep under wraps, in other words, hide, an important report
drafted in November 1993 by senior officials of the Department
of Transport?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Minister of Transport gave the facts on all the events that led up
to this report. And if the Leader of the Opposition is so
interested in the opinion of the Globe and Mail, why does he not
call the referendum, as requested by this newspaper?
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we are not playing games here. The government's
ethics are involved, and this is a very fundamental issue.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: Any government should be ashamed of using
the Quebec referendum as a diversion, to prevent the truth from
coming out.
My question is straightforward, a question all Canadians and
Quebecers are asking: Why does the Prime Minister stubbornly
refuse to establish a commission of inquiry, if he or his
government have nothing to hide?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of
the Opposition has always been known as a man of honour. If he
has any accusations to make against the Prime Minister, let him
make them here in the House. And if he does not, it is dangerous
to claim that certain facts were hidden, and coming from him, it
is absolutely and totally irresponsible.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, allow me to start with a quote: ``Economic policies
must not merely attack an individual problem in isolation from
its costs in other areas. The Conservatives' single-minded fight
against inflation resulted in a deep recession, three years
without growth, declining incomes and skyrocketing
unemployment''.
(1420)
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Are we to
understand from this excerpt found in the Liberals' red book that
the Minister of Finance does not agree with the statement made
yesterday by the Bank of Canada governor, to the effect that
fighting inflation through interest rate increases is the one and
only priority of the Canadian monetary policy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt
that, when it formed the official opposition, the Liberal Party
criticized the policy of the Bank of Canada governor of the day.
The country was going through a period of high
unemployment and economic decline, so we certainly had to
comment on the monetary policy of the time. But Canada is now
first among the G-7 countries in terms of growth, and it has just
created 433,000 new jobs. Clearly, the situation is now
drastically different.
I do support the statement made yesterday by the governor of
the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance is providing the very same
answer as his Conservative predecessors, and he is
implementing exactly the same monetary policy. The minister
kept tearing up his shirts when the Conservatives applied the
medicine which he is now pouring down Canadians' throats.
Does the minister realize that, by supporting a policy which is
only geared to fight inflation, he is deliberately hurting job
creation, and, consequently, he accepts unemployment rates of
9.5 per cent in Canada and close to 12 per cent in Quebec, where
417,000 people are without work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, many new
jobs were created in Quebec, during the months of January and
February. In fact, even the Premier of that province confirmed
that job creation in Quebec was very strong, thus contradicting
the comment which the hon. member just made.
However, the issue is whether or not the Bloc Quebecois
accepts the fact that we must set objectives in the fight against
inflation. Our objectives are in the one to three per cent range. If
the hon. member is not happy with them, then let him tell us
which inflation rate he is prepared to accept.
11188
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Anne-Marie Doyle may be gone from the Somalia
inquiry but a serious unanswered question remains about how
she ended up on the panel in the first place.
The Minister of National Defence has told the House that he
personally named Ms. Doyle to the panel after reviewing the
résumés of potential commissioners. Therefore, he should have
no trouble in answering my question.
Who put Anne-Marie Doyle's name on the minister's list of
potential commissioners?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had
occasion to review the transcript of Hansard and this question
was put yesterday. I felt that I had answered it to the best of my
ability. Perhaps I was not explicit enough for the hon. member
for Calgary Southwest. I will attempt to clarify the situation so
that he is satisfied.
I said yesterday that the name of Anne-Marie Doyle had come
to my attention as someone who had served with great
distinction at the OECD. It was I who put her name forward. I
felt that she was a good choice.
Before I gave that answer, the hon. member asked if I could
assure the House that the former deputy minister, Bob Fowler,
had nothing to do with framing the terms of reference of the
inquiry and played no role whatsoever in proposing the name of
Anne-Marie Doyle as a possible panel member. I answered
those questions but perhaps not clearly enough for the hon.
member. In both cases the answer is no.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister just said that this name was brought to his
attention.
My question is, who brought this potential commissioner's
name to the your attention?
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would remind you please always
to address questions to the Chair rather than directly to one
another and your answers the same way.
(1425 )
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said
yesterday and I say again today, quoting from Hansard: ``The
name of Anne-Marie Doyle had come to my attention as
someone who had served with great distinction at the OECD''.
As ministers, we are aware of many distinguished public
servants working for the government now and also past public
servants. I thought it would be good for the composition of the
inquiry to have someone from the bench as the chair; someone
from the field of journalism who was retired but who had some
credibility as a member, and also someone who knew the
workings of the government but specifically how foreign policy
and defence policy were discharged by the government. I started
looking at those kinds of people within the public service as well
as former public servants.
I knew of Ms. Doyle's previous involvement in the Privy
Council office as someone who had that particular dossier.
When I asked for greater details about her career, it became
obvious that she was someone of outstanding reputation who
could discharge that position.
Had she continued to serve, I believe she would have
discharged her obligations fully to the best of her abilities and as
a credit to the commission.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's refusal to answer the question
undermines confidence in the inquiry.
Yesterday the minister also stated that the Judge Advocate
General helped him to draft the terms of reference of the Somali
inquiry.
As the minister knows, the Judge Advocate General works
with, and some would say for, the chief of defence staff and the
deputy minister of defence. In effect the Judge Advocate
General is part of the same military hierarchy that the inquiry is
to investigate.
How big a hand has the national defence hierarchy had in
drafting the terms of reference of the Somali inquiry? How can
Canadians be assured that this involvement has not already
prejudiced the inquiry?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Calgary Southwest displays a profound ignorance of
the National Defence Act.
First, the Judge Advocate General is appointed by the Prime
Minister of Canada. It is an order in council appointment
because that person must be independent in the advice he or she
gives to ministers. That person is the chief legal officer in the
Canadian Armed Forces.
Under the terms of the National Defence Act that person
reports on a day to day basis to the Minister of National Defence.
It was quite appropriate for me in the course of the last year to
discuss aspects of the Somalia case with the Judge Advocate
General, as his role under the National Defence Act explicitly
says that he should be the one giving legal advice to the minister.
I verified certain aspects with the Judge Advocate General
this morning because I wanted to make sure that anything I say
on the floor of the House of Commons is absolutely and totally
the truth. The government has the interests of all Canadians in
mind in getting to the bottom of the events in Somalia in 1993.
11189
The Judge Advocate General confirmed that the former
deputy minister had nothing whatsoever to do with the drafting
of the terms of reference. They were submitted to the Privy
Council office. They were reviewed by the Department of
Justice and everyone stands by them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday, in reply to a question in the House from the Leader of
the Opposition, the Minister of Transport said that his decision
to delay Air Canada's access to Hong Kong market was
connected to a similar decision involving Canadian's access to
the German market. These are two separate issues. In the case of
Hong Kong, negotiations were successful. Air Canada said it
was ready to start operations this summer and has even
negotiated landing slots.
My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In the
case of Hong Kong, could the Minister tell us what other
reasons, aside from Canadian's access to the German market,
would prevent him from letting Air Canada start its operations
on this market in the summer of 1995, since everything is in
place?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that
negotiations with the Hong Kong airport authorities were
concluded only a few days ago.
(1430)
When we decided to establish a level of 300,000 passengers
before identifying a second destination, we made sure that there
would be two locations on this planet where this rule would
come into force this year: in Germany and Hong Kong.
As I have already pointed out, for the past 14 months Air
Canada has had access to Japan, a market this airline has coveted
for a very long time. It is now able to prepare for its arrival in
Hong Kong, another very important market. For Canadian
Airlines International, which needs landing rights in Germany
and other destinations in Asia, it is also very important to be able
to plan ahead and have some certainty when agreements are
negotiated, not only with these countries but also with the
financial institutions that support these airlines.
I still say that, after all, Air Canada president Hollis Harris
said publicly that he appreciated the work done by a government
that opened these markets to Air Canada for the first time in its
history.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
would the minister not agree that it was his eagerness to
accommodate Canadian that led him to delay Air Canada's
access to the Hong Kong market, in the process delaying the
creation of 500 jobs with this airline, including a large number
of jobs at headquarters in Montreal and at the Dorval
maintenance centre?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian aviation industry would explain to my
hon. friend that the progress we have made in the last 14 or 15
months is unparalleled in Canadian aviation history.
We have been able to arrange a situation in which as of the end
of this year every allocation of an air route in this country will be
absolutely transparent. There will be conditions and criteria that
allow for Canadian Airlines International and Air Canada to
plan, to purchase aircraft, to lease aircraft, to do their marketing
in an atmosphere of certainty unheard of in the aviation industry
in Canada.
The proof of that is even before we announced the second
designation based on the 300,000 passenger level, Air Canada
had already indicated it was in the process of hiring nearly 1,000
new employees: pilots, attendants and people who work in
maintenance and on ground activities.
I understand the hon. member's distaste for the progress we
have been able to make. The airline industry in Canada is in
better shape today than it has been for the last 20 years.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, more
unanswered questions have surfaced surrounding the Pearson
airport deal. A Transport Canada report dated November 4, 1993
contradicts the Nixon report. A Deloitte & Touche report and a
Price Waterhouse report contradict the Nixon report.
Questions have been raised concerning the Prime Minister's
private meeting with Jack Matthews and Charles Bronfman, two
key players in the Pearson deal.
It is time to lift the fog over Pearson. Will the government
order an independent judicial inquiry into the cancelled airport
deal?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
spoke to the allegations very clearly in the House yesterday.
I want to challenge the hon. member, as I challenged Leader
of the Opposition. If they have allegations to make, stand like a
man and make them here in the House instead of hiding behind
some scurrilous newspaper claims that have absolutely no
foundation in fact.
11190
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
challenge the government to stand in the House and answer the
questions the Canadian people want answered.
If the government has nothing to hide, why is the Prime
Minister's former law office refusing to give Mr. Matthews
documentation of his meeting with the Prime Minister? The
only thing clear in all of this is that Canadian taxpayers are again
paying the price for political games of Tory and Liberal insiders.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again, for the sake of
integrity will she order an independent judicial inquiry? Will the
Deputy Prime Minister give this commitment now to the
Canadian people? They demand it.
(1435)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, logically speaking, if
the Prime Minister was supposedly in the pocket of these
companies involved, why had he the guts to say no to the deal?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Justice stated that, if
anti-gang legislation would give the police the tools they
needed to combat criminal gangs, he would introduce one.
Experts from the SPCUM, the Quebec police force and the
Quebec unit of the RCMP have been calling for such legislation
for a year.
Rather than simply pay lip service, as he did yesterday, how
can the Minister of Justice hide behind the current provisions of
the Criminal Code and refuse to incorporate anti-gang
provisions, as Italy, France and the United States have done?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the important thing is
to get the job done; to provide the tools to the police and the
prosecutors to detect, prosecute and punish crime.
We have had a request for an amendment to the code with
respect to gangs involved in criminal activities. As I told the
House yesterday in response to a question on the same subject, I
am looking at the question, as is the Solicitor General.
Our departments are examining amendments to the code that
might be of help. When we conclude that assessment we will
respond. In the meantime, I have invited the hon. member if he
has a proposal to put in respect of specific amendments to let me
have it. He assured me he will.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, are we to understand that the Minister of Justice is
rejecting measures that would make the work of the police easier
because he is unable to deliver the goods, as was the case in
other matters such as genital mutilation, support payments and
discrimination based on sexual orientation?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this gamesmanship is
both tedious and uncharacteristic. I wish the hon. member would
focus on the answer to the question he has put. It is a serious
matter.
The police have asked us to consider an amendment to the
code which would provide for criminalizing certain
organizations. That is not something one does with the snap of a
finger or without taking care with the language.
We also have to be concerned about motorcycle groups, for
example, that are not criminal, that are quite legitimate. We also
have to bear in mind that police already have some 800 sections
of the Criminal Code to deal with today.
We will look at the question seriously. We will do the
responsible thing. If the hon. member has a specific proposal for
language, I have already asked him to provide it to me. I will
give it due consideration.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday brought to light a covered up government
document stating cancelling the Pearson development contract
would cost the taxpayers of Canada up to $2 billion.
Another secret document provided to Robert Nixon in
October 1993 states: ``Crown rate of return considerably better
than the crown construction option and the PDC return on
investment endorsed as reasonable rate of return by both the
finance department and an independent financial consultant''.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. If all these
documents are wrong, where is the documentation showing this?
When will the minister table this documentation in the House?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the document the hon. member refers to as being
covered up is one that obviously was covered up as far as he was
concerned. He has not bothered to take a look at the documents
made public in December of last year dealing with the case
before the courts.
One thing the hon. member would want to refer to in looking
at the documents and the opinions expressed therein is that the
people who determined that Paxport was the appropriate offer to
11191
accept on the basis of the privatization plans for Pearson would
also have to take into account that only a few months after that
recommendation was made, those people were unable because
they were financially incompetent to proceed with the deal.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in response to my question yesterday the minister
suggested I talk to the ADM who was not privy to this report.
(1440)
Not only was the ADM privy to the report, he provided the
October report to Mr. Nixon. The facts do not substantiate the
remarks made by the Minister.
When will the minister stop hiding the truth in this matter and
come out with a full public inquiry? What is he-
The Speaker: Order. In question period we refer to the word
truth. I would ask the hon. member in this instance to please
rephrase his question.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it from the way it was
phrased and simply ask the minister when will the full truth be
brought out-
The Speaker: It is out of order. The hon. member for
Verchères.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
With Turkey continuing its military offensive against the
Kurds in northern Iraq, the Canadian government still has no
official policy on the matter. Moreover, as the government
embarks on negotiations with Turkey for the sale of CF-5s,
Germany is suspending delivery of military materiel destined
for Turkey.
My question is very simple: Does the government intend to
follow Germany's example and suspend all deliveries or sales of
military materiel to Turkey and to break off negotiations on the
sale of the CF-5s to Turkey?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
answered in the House a couple of times that there are no formal
negotiations going on. The Turkish government has expressed
some interest in the disposition of the CF-5s. This is not unusual
since a number of years ago it received surplus planes from us.
As a NATO ally we have to entertain at least its interest. There
are no formal negotiations going on. There is no deal pending.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has given the House every
assurance that should we at any time sell any armaments, those
sales will be under the strictest of controls.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
would agree with me that there is something questionable about
the minister's statement that negotiations are being held, but not
formally.
In view of the seriousness of the present situation, and rather
than continue waffling about how to treat the Turkish offensive
against the Kurds, will the government not acknowledge that it
should submit this delicate matter to NATO and to the UN
Security Council?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the
ongoing actions of the Turkish government with respect to the
Kurdish minority in northern Iraq, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs has addressed that in the House and has well established
Canada's position on it.
With respect to the disposition of the CF-5 fighter planes, it is
somewhat premature to discuss this because there is no deal
pending. There is no sale pending. There has been only an
indication of interest on the part of the Turkish government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, and concerns both the statements made by the hon.
member for Rimouski-Témiscouata regarding the City of Hull
and her apology in the House. Will the minister confirm in this
House that the Outaouais region is not a victim of economic
discrimination?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, while the Parti Quebecois refuses to invest in
western Quebec and only allocates 0.4 per cent of its budget to
that region, the National Capital Commission invests 30 per cent
of its resources in the Outaouais.
According to a 1993 survey conducted by the magazine
L'Actualité, Hull has the second highest standard of living in all
of Quebec and ranks first in terms of economic indicators.
People who live in Hull or have businesses there will tell you
that they are proud of their city, justifiably so. By making such a
statement, the hon. member only betrays her own lack of
knowledge of the City of Hull and her arrogance towards people
11192
who do not share her political convictions and who believe in
Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1445)
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board admitted yesterday
that public works had installed one or more surveillance
cameras in the ceiling panels at the Montreal office of the IRB.
Yesterday she said, and the minister repeated it, that it was
part of an RCMP investigation. However the RCMP denied
installing the cameras.
I have a question for the immigration minister. If the RCMP
did not authorize the camera installation, did the minister
himself or the chair of the IRB? Or, if neither one of them, who
did?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a formal complaint was
registered with the IRB. The chair of the IRB subsequently
consulted both public works security that has responsibility for
the building and the RCMP for a normal police investigation.
The monitoring device was approved.
The criminal investigation is ongoing and I think it would be
inadvisable to comment any further.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister said that the cameras were part of an
RCMP investigation. The director general of the IRB said that
the cameras were installed to investigate improper relationships
between staff and somebody interested in IRB's business.
That could mean that someone on the outside was influencing
refugee decisions or there was an attempt to restrict information
flow from the IRB.
What was the specific nature of the investigation that required
the installation of the cameras to watch someone for four
months?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. critic used to be a
police officer. I thought he would appreciate some of the finer
details involved in any criminal investigation. Suffice it to say
that a public servant is being investigated. It is not a board
member appointed by the government. It is not an RHO official.
It is not to spy on any officials in terms of how they do their
business.
Proper consultations have taken place. It is a criminal
investigation. I do not wish to second guess the professional
police authorities and will allow the investigation to continue as
it should.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for-
Mr. Young: Welcome to Hull.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Canadian Heritage.
Last week, Bloc members questioned the heritage minister
about the CBC's prospects for the next three years. In
responding to each question, the minister refused to confirm the
budgets disclosed to Mr. Manera by his deputy minister, Mr.
Rochon.
Now that the CBC has an acting president and that the
minister has had the time to make inquiries, can he confirm the
extent of the cuts that his government intends to impose on the
CBC over the next three years?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the figures are in the budget and they are
for one year. I said so before and I am pleased to repeat it. I hope
that our colleague will understand the message.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage confirm
that the extent of the cuts he intends to impose on the CBC is
such that they will again bring about the closure of regional
stations?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot, of course, confirm the impact of
figures I did not put forward.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday, in response to a question about a court
decision regarding the legality of orders in council used to
prohibit firearms, the justice minister twice stated that the
Alberta court decision was wrong. That was the Simmermon
case. Other ministers have repeatedly told the House that they
cannot comment on cases before the courts.
(1450)
Why is he commenting? Is he trying to influence the courts in
the matter?
11193
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the
judgment has been appealed. We are taking the position in the
Court of Appeal that the judgment was in error.
With great respect to the hon. member, there is nothing at all
inappropriate about the government saying that it disagrees with
the court judgment, and it is appealing it.
We will be making our arguments to the appellate court and
we are confident that those arguments will prevail.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this confirms what I am saying.
The decision is being appealed by the Alberta government,
not the federal government. It is my understanding that the
federal government has not even applied for intervener status.
Yet the minister says and continues to say: ``We will pursue the
appeal with every confidence that we shall win it''.
The Attorney General of Canada has publicly vowed to pursue
and win the appeal. How can the defendant ever get a fair trial?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to begin with, what is
at issue is the validity of an instrument created under federal
jurisdiction. I am very confident that the federal interpretation
of the law will prevail.
Second, the Alberta government, as the hon. member has just
pointed out, agrees with the position. It is taking the appeal. It
will argue the appeal and it will contend that the judgment
should not stand.
Third, there is a world of difference between commenting on
the facts of the case implicating the guilt or innocence of the
accused person, which would be improper, and commenting on
the legitimacy of a piece of legislation before the court on a
legal argument as to validity. There is a world of difference and
nothing improper at all has occurred.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
A recent Statistics Canada study indicates that women in
Cumberland county have the highest rate of hysterectomies in
the country. Because the rate is two to three times higher than
the national average, because it is a costly invasive surgery
removing the uterus, will the Minister of Health investigate to
determine if these alarming statistics are unnecessary surgery?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, phenomena such as this occur across the country.
While the issue of medical practice is largely a responsibility of
provincial governments, the federal government has taken some
initiatives in this regard.
In collaboration with provincial governments as well as
national medical groups, Health Canada has developed
guidelines for Canadian clinical practice. As well, the National
Forum on Health is taking a close look at why patterns of
medical practice differ across the country.
We are launching and have launched centres of excellence
that will be looking at the entire issue of women's health. The
government is determined to address issues of women's health
that have been ignored for a very long time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In the midst of
the Ginn Publishing controversy, the heritage minister, we will
recall, proved to be incapable of adequately looking after the
interests of Canadian publishers. One year later, the minister
does it again, announcing cuts in excess of 33 per cent to
Canadian publishing development assistance and 71 per cent to
grants for the distribution of new publications.
How can the minister justify such extensive cuts, which will
hurt publishers, after his gross mishandling of the Ginn
Publishing issue?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us not get ahead of ourselves here. We are
in the process of reviewing programs, to see how they can be
amalgamated to increase efficiency, and the stakeholders will be
consulted in the process.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister claim to protect publishers when he is chopping
programs specifically designed to offset losses resulting from
the elimination of the postal rate on books and the introduction
of the GST, two measures that are still in effect?
(1455)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these measures were taken by the previous
government. What I am saying is that we are looking at ways to
replace these various programs with new and more efficient
programs.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, given the Somali incident, the Petawawa videos and the
low morale in the armed forces and the fact that the members of
our armed forces are being forced to do more with less, what
does
11194
the Minister of Defence intend to do about the ten armed forces
suicides at Valcartier? What is he doing to get to the heart of this
distressing situation?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the
matter of suicides in the armed forces was raised some months
ago, I looked into the matter and discussed it with the chief of
defence staff. We have found that the rate of suicides is lower in
the armed forces than it is for the population as a whole.
There has been some concern recently about a number of
suicides, specifically with troops coming back from Bosnia and
Croatia. I have asked for more information on it to see whether
or not there is a disturbing trend.
Any suicide, any death is tragic. The hon. member talks about
morale and leadership in the armed forces. As a former
distinguished general officer in the armed forces, I would hope
he would discuss with his colleagues ways in which they can
help to assist with morale and leadership in the armed forces, not
by the comments in their questions.
The morale and leadership in the armed forces are a hell of a
lot better than they are in the Reform Party.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would be more than delighted to help him or the
troops directly in any way I can.
In the meantime my question through you, Mr. Speaker, to the
minister is: What are you doing specifically?
The Speaker: I am sure the member would want to rephrase
his question.
[Translation]
Mr. Ringma: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary. Canadian soldiers and their families know that
death is an occupational hazard. It is expected in the course of
duty, but when it takes the form of ten suicides, some sort of
explanation is necessary.
What steps will the minister take to reassure the families of
the other soldiers that he has the situation in hand and will
initiate a plan of action to resolve the problems in the armed
forces?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the suicide rate is lower in the armed forces than it is in the
general population.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, world leaders are beginning to meet in Berlin. I
believe the Minister of the Environment will be travelling next
week to Berlin to participate in talks aimed at stabilizing levels
of greenhouse gases now threatening the earth's climate.
Most of the world's largest per capita emitters of greenhouse
gases including Canada have filed shameful reports indicating
that they will not meet the commitments they agreed to at the
Rio Climate Summit in 1992.
Given that it is clear the world is facing an issue with uniquely
large and irreversible consequences and the delegates in Berlin
cannot afford to waste the opportunity to begin turning the ship
around, why is it that Canada's wimpy actions on climate change
are not as forceful as our resolve to preserve the fish stocks off
the Atlantic coast?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I thank the hon.
member for the question. It happens to be one of the few
opposition questions on an issue which actually threatens the
planet far more greatly than any threat for even the fish stocks.
(1500 )
In fact, the death of the cod stock is partly as a result of the
global warming effect which has seen the level of the planet's
temperature increase by three degrees since the beginning of
time. We expect another three degree increase in the next 50
years.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: Members across the way may not be interested,
but the member is right. We need a stronger position and we
need a stronger international position.
We are hoping that with the forward thinking proposal we are
bringing forward on technology twinning we will be able to
achieve the dual goals of helping developing countries meet
their global warming reductions utilizing Canadian technology,
but above all making sure that we meet our goals not only for
stabilization but also for the reduction of this deadly problem.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: This concludes question period, but I would
like to mention this afternoon that Jean-Claude Devost, table
officer and deputy principal clerk at the journals branch, will be
leaving this week to take his well earned retirement.
[English]
Jean-Claude is at our table right now. Jean-Claude, will you
please stand for a moment while I read this to the House.
11195
Jean-Claude retires this week after 28 years of loyal and
devoted service to the House of Commons. He began his career
working for the caucus of the Social Credit Party under Réal
Caouette, and went on to work in various capacities in the
House. He became a table officer in 1991.
[Translation]
I know, my colleagues, that you would like to join with me in
recognizing Jean-Claude's long and successful career. I want to
wish you, Jean-Claude, and your wife, Suzanne, good health
and much happiness in the years to come.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
point of order relates to question period. During question period
the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke referred to a
document relative to the Pearson development issue. I wonder
whether with the consent of the House we could ask the member
to table the document in the House of Commons.
The Speaker: Colleagues, it is somewhat unusual to have a
paper tabled by a private member. However, with unanimous
consent this House can make any decision it likes. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier today
in a statement to the House I inadvertently and mistakenly
mentioned that there were 110 land mines buried in 62 countries
across the world. In fact, there are not 110 and there are not
110,000. There are 110 million. I want to make it perfectly clear
to the House the magnitude of this terrible plague.
The Speaker: I am sure the record will be corrected.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct a
mistake which I made in response to a question put on March 23
by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.
The hon. member asked me about the registration of firearms.
In response, I referred to Statistics Canada numbers. I said that
in Saskatchewan the fatality rate from firearms is 50 per cent
higher than the national average and the suicide rate from
firearms is twice the national average. I was wrong.
The statistics are, when correctly stated, that the firearms
suicide rate is one-third higher than the national average in
Saskatchewan. It is the rate of death from accidents with
firearms that is twice the national average. Overall, firearms
fatalities in Saskatchewan are 25 per cent higher than the
national average. I shall furnish the hon. member with a copy of
these statistics which bear out those numbers.
_____________________________________________
11195
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
31 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 70th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order
92. This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, immediately following the
completion of Private Members' Business on Wednesday, March 29, 1995, the
House shall continue to sit for not more than three hours for the purpose of
considering a motion ``That this House, in light of the UN Security Council
consideration of renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia,
take note of the rotation of Canadian forces serving with UNPROFOR in
Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia''.
[
Translation]
That the first three speakers during debate thereon shall not speak for more
than twenty minutes and no speaker thereafter shall speak for more than ten
minutes;
That, during debate thereon, the Chair shall not accept any dilatory motions
or quorum calls; and
That, at the end of three hours' consideration of the said motion, or when no
further Members wish to speak, whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn
the House until the next sitting day.
11196
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Does the House give unanimous consent to introduce
this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to).
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present
two petitions on behalf of constituents. The first is on behalf of
63 constituents of Fredericton-York-Sunbury who request
Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to offer protection to
grandparents in the case of a divorce action.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): The
second petition, Mr. Speaker, requests that changes be made to
the charter of rights to enable residents to be notified when
repeat sex offenders are released into our communities in order
to protect the safety of children. This petition was signed by 500
constituents.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing 36, I wish to present a petition signed by a
number of petitioners from the national capital region.
They would like to draw to the attention of the House that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families who make the choice to provide
care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the
chronically ill, or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
(1510 )
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
hold over 6,000 signatures from the residents of Windsor and
Essex county asking Parliament to repeal the Supreme Court of
Canada's decision to include extreme drunkenness or incapacity
as a defence to indictable offences.
These petitions, launched by the Victims for Justice Coalition
of Windsor-Essex County, further request that Parliament
recognize that society is obligated to punish those who of their
own free will render themselves intoxicated and harm others.
I want to commend the coalition for its efforts in this regard. I
am pleased to present these petitions. I am also pleased that this
government has responded to the concerns of all Canadians on
this issue with the introduction of Bill C-72, which is moving
swiftly through the House.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present 667 signatures
from Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, Ajax, Pickering and Whitby.
These petitioners call upon the CRTC to review the entire
matter in which the cable TV companies introduced the new
specialty channel service.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present four different petitions signed by
constituents of Capilano-Howe Sound.
The first group of petitioners request that this House oppose
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of
the rights and freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the
phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second group of petitions signed by constituents of
mine call upon Parliament to oppose the passage of section
718.2 of Bill C-41.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third group of petitions signed by constituents of
Capilano-Howe Sound request that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and that it
implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal government
spending in the future. It is my pleasure to support this request.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fourth group of petitions signed by residents of
Bowen Island in my constituency call upon Parliament to amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three sets of petitions to present today on behalf of the
constituents of Simcoe Centre.
11197
The first group of petitioners request that the Government of
Canada not amend the human rights act to include the phrase
sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion
could lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and
societal privileges as married couples.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition involves section 718.2 of Bill C-41. The
petitioners are concerned that naming some groups in
legislation will exclude other groups from protection and that
sentencing based on the concept of hatred is very subjective and
will undermine our justice system.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third and final petition from my riding contains 474 signatures.
It was collected by small businessmen from my riding including
Mr. Garry Valley, Mr. John Ough, Mr. Barry Bertram, Dr. Devon
Smith, Mr. Bryan Greig, Mrs. Jean Baker Pearce, and Mr. Paul
Jamieson.
The petitioners request that with Canadians already
overburdened with taxation due to high government spending,
Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing
taxes.
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am
presenting a petition signed by petitioners in the
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville area.
These petitioners call on Parliament to reduce the deficit by
cutting wastage and reduce the overall expenses in every
government department by at least 5 per cent.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately
200 people. They are concerned about the morale in the
Canadian forces.
The decision to disband the Canadian airborne regiment
brought the forces under intense media and public scrutiny.
They would like a thorough and fully disclosed investigation.
They feel that this would result in the public being better
informed about the Canadian military's condition and
contribution to our country's internal and external stature and
well-being.
They petition Parliament to initiate at the earliest time a wide
ranging public inquiry into the problems facing the Canadian
forces today.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to
present to this House petitions signed by 100 Canadians living in
North York, Scarborough, Richmond Hill, in the metro Toronto
area.
These petitioners ask the House to recognize and condemn the
Turkish genocide of the Armenians. This year they will be
commemorating the 80th anniversary of the genocide and they
ask this House for similar recognition as was done by the Israel,
Russia, France and Uruguay parliaments. As well, the
parliaments of Quebec and Ontario recognize this crime against
humanity.
(1515 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise again to present another petition in this course of action I
have undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the
early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to them
serving the full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens, their families and the families of the
victims of crime.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions I would like to present today.
The first petition is signed by 788 people and deals with the
subject of young offenders. Canadian citizens from coast to
coast are calling for changes to the Young Offenders Act. They
want an act that is serious enough to deter young people from
committing crimes and tough enough to provide real justice.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament undertake a
complete and thorough review of existing legislation to address
their concerns.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by 88 people from my riding. The
petitioners believe they are already overburdened with taxation
due to high government spending.
Therefore they request Parliament reduce government
spending instead of raising taxes. I endorse that petition.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am delighted to present four petitions on
behalf of 1,880 constituents of Vegreville constituency.
In all four petitions, it is recognized that public safety is the
number one priority of the criminal justice system. It is also
11198
recognized that the existing controls on law-abiding,
responsible gun owners are more than enough.
The petitioners request that Parliament support laws which
will severely punish all violent criminals that use weapons in the
commission of a crime, support new Criminal Code firearms
control provisions which recognize and protect the rights of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and
request that Parliament support legislation that will repeal and
modify existing gun control laws which do not improve public
safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to
be overly complex so as to be ineffective and/or unenforceable.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36 I would like to present a
petition from the residents of my constituency of Athabasca,
mainly from the Westlock area.
The petition requests that Parliament support laws that
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of a crime; support new Criminal Code firearms
control provisions which recognize and protect the right of
law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms; and support
legislation which will repeal or modify existing gun control
laws which have not improved public safety or have proven not
to be cost effective or have proven to be so overly complex as to
be ineffective or unenforceable.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present
a petition on behalf of Mrs. Dorothy Polhill of Mississauga
West.
In it the petitioners call on Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion
of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present three groups of
petitions.
The first group deals with euthanasia and is signed by 151
people in my riding. The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure
the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that
Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or
allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or any activity designed
to terminate human life.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the second
group of petitions deal with the release of repeat sex offenders.
The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation
that would enable residents to be notified when repeat sex
offenders are released into the community.
This legislation would make the safety of our children a
priority.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the third
and final group of petitions is signed by 209 people from my
riding and other parts of New Brunswick.
The petitioners pray and request Parliament not to amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the Criminal Code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation. I concur with all of these
petitions.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today from
constituents in B.C.'s lower mainland and the riding of New
Westminster-Burnaby.
(1520 )
In both petitions, the petitioners make it known that they are
overburdened with taxation due to high government spending.
Therefore they pray and request that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement
a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present to the House today.
The first one asks that the government not amend the human
rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is from a group of people from across British
Columbia who request that Parliament support laws which will
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of crime.
They support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions
which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to
own and use recreational firearms and support legislation which
would repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have
not improved public safety.
11199
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition contains 753 names to add to the tens of
thousands of names I have tabled over the last few weeks.
It asks Parliament to reduce government spending, not to
increase taxes, and to implement a taxpayer protection act in
order to ensure that future tax increases will not afflict the
Canadian public.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have one
petition to present today and it says in part that the Minister of
Transport has directed the Canadian coast guard to proceed with
detailed plans for a program of unmanning all west coast light
stations. The savings to the coast guard will be insignificant and
the impact on the users of these services will be considerable
due to the loss of local weather services, assistance in search and
rescue and the manned presence on this remote rugged coastline.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament
to revoke this directive immediately and request a complete and
thorough public inquiry in the province of B.C. into the need for
the manned light stations on the west coast.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to
stand.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a
point of order pursuant to Standing Order 39.
I placed a question on the Order Paper on October 4, 1994.
That was 179 days ago. I am seeking information on financial
assistance provided to each federal riding in Atlantic Canada by
ACOA.
It is my understanding that the government tries to answer all
Order Paper questions within the 45-day period. However 179
days is an unacceptable length of time to respond to my
question. It indicates either an inability or an unwillingness to
answer.
Would the hon. member please advise me when I will receive
an answer to the question I asked over five months ago?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I know the question concerns the
total amount of financial assistance provided by ACOA for each
federal riding from November 4, 1993 to date.
I know the Minister of Supply and Services has been working
diligently on preparing an answer to the hon. member's
question. I understand that if the answer is not yet ready it is
close to being ready and that I will be in a position to answer the
hon. member soon.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion for the production of
papers stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
11199
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (for Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons, Lib.) moved that Bill C-69, an act to
provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries
commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, be
read the third time and passed.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I
rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-69, an act to provide
for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and
the readjustment of electoral boundaries.
(1525 )
I greet this bill from a different perspective than has been
presented to the House before. I would like to speak specifically
to clause 30(a) which directly impacts on my riding of Western
Arctic.
Once this legislation is enacted, four more communities will
be added to my riding. The population of my riding will increase
by over 1,700 people. The land mass will be increased by
approximately 200,000 square kilometres. The increase in land
to the Western Arctic is larger than many of the ridings in
Canada. This makes my riding the second largest in terms of
land mass.
It is a riding with very few roads. As a matter of fact, 90 per
cent of my riding is not accessible by road. In the summer people
can commute by boat along the Mackenzie River, but in the long
winter the only forms of travel are by plane or on a sometimes
rather treacherous winter road in very inclement conditions.
11200
I am not here today to speak on the enormity of my riding and
the difficulty in travelling from one area to another. Those
concerns go without saying. It is what people would call part of
the turf.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the
four communities of Sachs Harbour, Holman Island, Paulatuk
and Tuktoyaktuk into my riding and to encourage greater
participation by aboriginal people, women and youth in the
electoral process in both the north and in Ottawa.
The four communities which will be entering Western Arctic
are Inuvialuit communities. They are represented by the premier
of the Northwest Territories in the legislature. The riding is
named Nunakput. It is with great enthusiasm that I will be
working closer with her to best represent these areas. All four of
these communities are on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, the third
great ocean in Canada.
These communities are currently within Nunatsiaq. Once the
redistricting is done they will be within Western Arctic riding.
However, they have been well served by my colleague, the
member for Nunatsiaq, who has served the communities since
1988 when he was first elected to Parliament.
The population of these four communities is composed
largely of Inuvialuit people. Inuvialuit are western Inuit. They
are distinct from the Inuit of the eastern Arctic. The Inuvialuit
are descendants of the Karngmalit or Mackenzie Inuit who lived
in a rich hunting territory containing woods, barrens and seas.
This area contains much of the original Thule culture with its
emphasis on the beluga as the main source of food, bone, fuel
and hide.
Young people make up at least one-third of the population in
all of these communities. They are a very young, growing set of
communities. The cost of living in these communities, as with
all northern communities, is very high. The living cost
differential between Edmonton, Alberta in the south and these
communities is between 185 and 190. This means that an item of
food which costs $1 in Edmonton will cost between $1.85 and
$1.90 in these communities.
Although there are many similarities between the four
Inuvialuit communities, each has its own distinctive history.
One of these communities, Sachs Harbour or Ikaahuk, is located
on the most westerly island of the Canadian Arctic archipelago,
Banks Island. Archaeologists have found Thule house ruins in
several places on Banks Island, indicating that Inuit lived on
those islands for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Sachs Harbour was named after the ship Mary Sachs of the
Canadian Arctic expedition in 1913. Permanent occupation did
not begin until 1929 when three Delta Inuit families sailed in
their schooners to Sachs Harbour. The major attraction of the
island was white fox. For more than 50 years the island has been
considered one of the best trapping areas in the entire North
American Arctic. The Banks Island people were particularly
well off and well educated during the Delta fur trade boom of the
thirties. The first Inuk doctor was a member of the well known
Banks Island Carpenter family. Education has remained a
powerful source in Sachs Harbour.
(1530)
According to the 1991 census, with a population of 85 people
over the age of 15, 30 had a university education or
non-university education with a diploma. The people of Sachs
Harbour have remained very self-sufficient in comparison to
many Arctic communities. They have continued to trap.
Outfitting for big game hunts for polar bear and musk ox also
takes place. Sachs Harbour has an 88 per cent participation rate
in the labour force and has the largest average income of the four
communities which in 1991 was $25,000 plus.
Holman Island, another community to be added to my riding,
is situated on the Diamond Jenness Peninsula on the western
side of Victoria Island. Victoria Island was the ancestral
homeland of the Copper Inuit. During the winter they hunted on
Banks Island and in the summer travelled to the centre of
Victoria Island to hunt caribou. The people of Holman were
taught print making by Reverend Henri Tardi, who came from
Viviers, France to the settlement as an Oblate missionary in
1939.
In 1961 the Holman Inuit Cooperative was formed to retail the
output and print making is now a major source of the
community's income. Among the Holman artists the late Helen
Kalvak is the most well known. Holman has a participation rate
in the labour force of only 59 per cent.
Paulatuk is another community. This is interesting for all
Canadians. Canadians seldom ask questions about the north.
This is a great opportunity to let them know the constituency in
which we exercise a democratic franchise is one that includes
these wonderful communities. Paulatuk, the other community to
be added to my riding after the redistricting, is located between
the seashore and an inland lake on the Arctic coast. The name
Paulatuk derives from the Inuktitut term for soot of coal. Coal is
found in the vicinity and was used by the Inuvialuit inhabitants
for heating.
The original inhabitants of the Paulatuk area suffered greatly
from the effects of many of the outside influences brought in by
some of the outside whalers. However, the early and extensive
contact the people had with many of the European cultures
meant they were more independent of trader and missionary
influence than Inuit to the east. Many could do business in
English and read and write their own language in Roman script.
Paulatuk is known for its carvers. The largest segment of the
population in Paulatuk is between zero and fourteen years of
age. There is a 14 per cent rate of participation in the labour
11201
force. Of those who are in the labour force 30 per cent are
unemployed. The average income in Paulatuk is about $17,000.
The fourth community is Tuktoyaktuk. It is the final
community which will be added to my riding. Tuktoyaktuk
means resembling a caribou. Legend has it that when caribou
were plentiful a woman looked on them as they waded into the
water and the caribou were petrified. Reefs resembling caribou
have been seen at low tide.
Tuktoyaktuk was traditionally the home of the whale hunting
Mackenzie Inuit. This community is the largest of the four
communities and the most ethnically diverse, although the
Inuvialuit make up almost 90 per cent of the population.
Tuktoyaktuk is now the sea edge base for oil and gas
exploration in in the Beaufort Sea. I have many fond memories
of Tuktoyaktuk. As a young teacher in the early seventies I
spend three years teaching there. Over half of the population, 15
years and over, have not completed secondary education.
These communities are diverse. The land around those
communities is awesome, serene and wonderful. The sea life,
the animal life and the marine make-up and the ecosystem of
that area are a tourist's dream. It is actually an eco-tourist
dream. It is something that people from all around the world pay
a lot of money to see. It is worth every penny.
(1535)
In winter and late fall we can see the aureole borealis that
everyone talks about. In the summer we can stand in some of the
communities and see beluga whales from houses facing the
Arctic Ocean. It really is quite a sight to behold. In winter the
land is covered with snow and people go out throughout that
season to enjoy the community.
The member of Parliament who represents the area, the hon.
member for Nunatsiaq, has been very honoured and very
gracious in representing the area. I look forward to having these
additional communities added to the western Arctic riding once
the whole issue of redistribution and readjustment has been
completed.
Historically the electoral boundaries were drawn without any
consideration of how they would impact on the aboriginal
communities in the area. The western Arctic was no different.
The Inuvialuit who lived in the most northwestern area of
Canada were split between two federal electoral districts. In
1984 the Inuvialuit became the first aboriginal group north of
the 60th parallel to sign a comprehensive land claim agreement.
However, the Inuvialuit who reside in the six coastal
communities remain split in two different federal electoral
districts. After recently having celebrated the 10th anniversary
of the signing of the historic final agreement and the passage of
Bill C-69, the Inuvialuit will finally all be included in the same
electoral district.
There is a very interesting point in the documents put forward
about the impediments to electoral participation. They noted the
Inuit did not receive the right to vote until 1950. No ballot boxes
were placed in Inuit hamlets until 1962. That was unfortunate. It
is unthinkable in this day in age that any citizen of this country
would not be able to exercise the right to vote in a democracy
such as we have, in future elections. However, that was the case.
These communities will provide a positive contribution to the
already diverse riding of the western Arctic. Now the Inuvialuit
people from Inuvik and Aklavik will be together with the other
four Inuvialuit communities of Sachs Harbour, Paulatuk,
Holman Island and Tuktoyaktuk. They will be together in one
federal riding of the western Arctic.
In years past we had the Lortie commission look at a number
of issues regarding electoral reform. One I was much seized
with, along with some of my colleagues, was in the names of
Senator Len Marchand, former member of Parliament Gene
Rheaume, and someone who is very capable and who has helped
us, Mr. Marc LeClair, who worked with the aboriginal Liberal
commission in looking at the impediments that faced aboriginal
people systemically and structurally in terms of the districts and
the distribution of seats in the House, and in looking at some of
the historical impediments. It made for a very interesting
exercise.
We undertook a subcommittee for the royal commission and
were successful in meeting a number of groups across the
country that spoke to the issues. It was quite extensive.
In the world wars aboriginal people were able to fight for their
country. They loved this country and wanted to contribute. They
made a great sacrifice. Upon their return to this country they did
not have the right to vote until the 1960s. They could lay their
life down for their country, they could honour their country, but
they were not given the opportunity as other Canadians to
exercise their democratic right to vote.
(1540)
That was a great inequity. These were some of the things we
dealt with. It should be of interest to some of the people in the
House that there have been 13 self-identifying aboriginal
people elected to the House of Commons, including myself, the
member for Nunatsiaq and the member for Churchill.
These 13 out of over 11,000 members have been elected since
Confederation. Ten of the aboriginal people were elected this
century. Only three have been elected in districts where
aboriginal people do not constitute a majority.
11202
Six have come from my part of the territory where aboriginal
people are a majority, in the Northwest Territories. The
selection came from Churchill with an aboriginal population of
42 per cent.
It is astounding to think only 11 out of 11,000 people have
been aboriginal. This is the home of the first peoples along with
all other Canadians.
It is an esteemed privilege as a member of Parliament to be
able to speak on behalf of the people who put us here, to come
forward with a conglomeration of their views, with their
convictions, their passion, their vision, their beliefs about this
country.
Only 13 people of aboriginal descent have been able to do that
since Confederation. One of those people was Louis Riel and
that is a whole other story. We will not get into that. It is quite an
interesting set of circumstances to think about.
My reason for standing is to address Bill C-69 and encourage
more aboriginal people, more women and more youth to get
actively involved in the electoral process.
Aboriginal people make up to 16 of the 24 seats in the
Northwest Territory legislature. Unfortunately the
representation of people in the House of Commons is not nearly
anywhere as representative. There are only three members,
ironically. They are all in the Liberal Party.
That does not stop the other parties from including aboriginal
people. Look at the membership of the opposition. It has huge
aboriginal populations in the north of its province. In James Bay
there are some of the most outstanding aboriginal leaders in the
name of Billy Diamond, Matthew Coon-Come, Ted Moses and
Chief Violet Pachanos.
A lot of aboriginal people in that area could stand with any
other member of Parliament from that province and be proud. In
other areas, northern B.C., we have predominant members from
the Liberal Party as well as from the Reform Party. We have
many New Democrats. We could easily elect in those areas, in
the upper places where we have the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en
and where we could have aboriginal people represent not just
themselves and their people but non-aboriginal people.
There cannot be a false assumption that because one is of this
race or this background one cannot represent fairly other people
from other races as well. The doors are open. The opportunities
are there.
I encourage the participation of youth, women, people from
ethnic minorities, the disabled. There is in this House of
democracy, in this community of communities, in this home for
true democratic practices and vision a home and a seat for
everyone who wants to put their name forward who is capable of
being able to come here and speak on behalf of the people who
elect them.
Women who make up 52 per cent of the population are not
representative in either the territorial legislature or the House of
Commons. In the Northwest Territories there are only three
female members of the legislature, one of whom is the premier.
What a premier, what an outstanding member of the government
we have in the name of the premier of the Northwest Territories.
(1545 )
We in the Northwest Territories are proud of the premier when
she goes around the world, when she goes to parliament or
wherever she represents us. There is no gender barrier to the
competence of an individual who thinks well, who speaks well,
who presents her views and who has a passion to represent
people.
There are only 53 women members of Parliament or 18 per
cent of the MPs in Ottawa. The way to ensure greater
representation of women and aboriginal people is to become
involved in the process. I urge all aboriginal people, in
particular the people of the four new communities that will be
added to the western riding, to get involved in the political
process to ensure that there are good people who will bring the
issues that concern them to Ottawa or to Yellowknife, whatever
level of government they want representation at.
The youth are an integral part of any political process. Youth
have the energy and the enthusiasm to bring victory to any
individual seeking office including one of their own. We can
look at the list of young people elected to the House of
Commons over the years. I believe Father Sean O'Sullivan was
elected when he was 21 years of age. My baby is 21 years old,
the youngest child in my family. It is wonderful someone like
that could be elected to the House of Commons.
Richard Cashin was elected when he was 21 years old; the
hon. member for Sherbrooke when he was 24 years old; Lorne
Nystrom when he was 22 years old; the Hon. Perrin Beatty when
he was 22 years old; the hon. member for York North when he
was 28 years old; and the Prime Minister when he was 29 years
old. They were all young people. They are people who have
contributed. They have given the best years of their lives to this
honourable process. It is quite possible. Young people out there
who are listening should know that this can belong to them, that
a seat in the House of Commons can be theirs.
We are here but for a short time. It can be for years or it can be
for a lifetime but we are not here forever. Young people, women,
disabled people, visible minorities and other capable and
competent people have to be encouraged to get involved and
participate. The north with its young population has an
abundance of vital energy. I encourage Canadian youth to
organize and participate in the electoral process to ensure that
their concerns are heard.
11203
Over the last while we have heard many concerns about
post-secondary education, employment, and programs and
services for young people. We have heard the concerns of
disabled people. One way of advancing views is by
participating, by being here. There is something to be said about
being here; about having a voice, a true voice; and about
standing in the highest court in the land to represent people. That
is one way to advance views.
It is my hope that Bill C-69 will encourage more people to
become involved in the electoral process and that in the future,
when electoral maps are being drawn, greater care will be given
to ensure that aboriginal communities like the Inuvialuit do not
have to wait 10 years to be joined together in one federal
electoral district.
I should like to take the time remaining to discuss the main
components of Bill C-69 which will impact Canadians living
south of 60. First, Bill C-69 eliminates unnecessary decennial
redistributions in provinces where there has not been a
significant population shift which leads to unacceptable
deviations from the provincial quotient.
The committee's bill provides that boundary commissions
will no longer be established in provinces where as a result of
the decennial census the number of seats to which the province
is entitled remains the same and where none of the ridings vary
by more than 25 per cent from the provincial quotient. This will
eliminate unnecessary redistributions and result in savings to
the taxpayers.
(1550 )
Bill C-69 also provides for quinquennial readjustments in
addition to the current decennial redistribution. Quinquennial
redistributions would take place in provinces where following a
quinquennial census more than 10 per cent of the constituencies
varied by more than 25 per cent from the provincial quotient.
It would not affect the total number of seats, in layman's
terms, in the House or the number of seats allotted to the
provinces. It would only allow for the boundaries of ridings
within the provinces to be redrawn. By allowing for the riding
boundaries within a province to be redrawn more than every
decade, the effects of major population shifts in certain
provinces would be minimized.
The appointment of boundaries commissions will be more
transparent. The chair of each commission will continue to be
appointed by the chief justice of the province. In appointing the
two other commissioners, the Speaker will have to publicize
openings, solicit applications for positions, and consult widely
before making appointments.
Another change is that the Speaker's appointments can be
reviewed and voted down by the House. The new requirements
of public notice, solicitation of applications and consultations
will make for a more open and transparent process.
The boundary adjustment process will be a more open and
transparent process. Bill C-69 requires that at the beginning of
the readjustment process commissions publish a notice of
population figures and of their work plans and invite
submissions from the public. I am certain it will encourage more
public participation in the readjustment process.
Bill C-69 will ensure more informed public debate. The
committee's bill requires commissions to prepare three
alternate maps instead of only one, as is the current process,
showing how riding boundaries could be divided within the
province. Although commissions would still indicate their
preference, they would have to justify their preferred option.
The two additional maps would assist members of the public
who wish to make submissions. I believe these new
requirements will favour more informed public debate and
encourage more public participation in the process.
Bill C-69 provides for the possibility of a second set of public
hearings to be held where necessary. When in response to public
comments a commission makes changes to the proposed
boundaries of a riding that would affect 25 per cent of that
riding's population, Bill C-69 provides that a second set of
public hearings would have to be held. The change recognizes
and reflects the importance of public participation in the
process. After all, people are what the electoral process is all
about.
Bill C-69 sets out the circumstances in which the boundary
commission's current discretion to create exceptional ridings is
to be exercised and requires the commission to justify the
decision in its reports. This is very critical. Recognizing there
may be some need for ridings to vary from the 25 per cent
provincial quotient, the committee maintained the boundaries
commission authority to create exceptional ridings. The country
is diverse. There are exceptional circumstances such as the
massive land track in my area that we have to cover; it is huge. It
is a very cumbersome exercise for an elected member to traverse
the huge land mass, for instance.
However, the committee's bill limits the exercise of that
discretion to extraordinary circumstances where the population
is more than 25 per cent under the provincial quotient and where
the riding is isolated or not readily accessible from the rest of
the province. In addition the bill requires the commission to
indicate the reasons for this determination in its report. I believe
it will favour a responsible and consistent exercise of the
discretion.
The bill eliminates the current requirement that the
commission's proposals be tabled in the House.
(1555 )
Considering that MPs should participate in public hearings
like all other Canadians, the bill does away with added scrutiny
by a parliamentary committee of the boundaries commission
11204
proposals. In any event we have seen that the interventions of
MPs did not have much of an impact on the commission's final
reports. MPs will have the same rights as any other citizen to
make representation in the course of public consultation.
This is consistent with the intent of conferring the boundaries
readjustment process on independent commissions rather than
Parliament and ensures that the boundaries readjustment
process remains non-partisan and independent.
Bill C-69 sets out detailed criteria for commissions to
consider in drawing constituency boundaries. The committee's
bill establishes clear guidelines for commissions in terms of the
criteria to be taken into account in drawing constituency
boundaries including the community of interest, manageable
geographic size and probability of future population growth.
Hence the boundaries and finally the boundary commission.
The new boundaries would come into force in less time than
under the current act. Under Bill C-69 it is estimated that the
boundaries readjustment process will take a total of two and a
half years, which is three months shorter than under the current
process.
I hope aboriginal people would take advantage of the
commission's requirements as would all other people. It is noted
that the whole electoral exercise is quite costly. The
administration of an election involves 450,000 people and costs
approximately $100 million. It is no small or pretty penny to get
members of Parliament elected. It is a major undertaking and it
should be noted that very few aboriginal people participate in
the process.
This is particularly the case with senior positions such as
returning officers who are responsible for administering the
electoral machinery within the person's electoral district and for
subdividing the district into polling divisions. Research was
unable to identify any past or present returning officer of
aboriginal descent.
The lack of experience is no viable or legitimate excuse.
Elections Canada has noted in the impediment to electoral
participation that 253 of the 295 returning officers appointed for
the 34th general election had no previous experience managing
elections. In a sense I am pleading for participation on the part
of the government, individuals and communities to organize and
get involved in the public process.
The commission is required to publish its plans and hear
submissions from the public. This is one way to get involved in
the electoral process but, more important, to ensure that
electoral boundaries are drawn with more respect to the ties of
neighbouring communities. It is my hope that in future
aboriginal people will be able to elect members of Parliament
from their areas where aboriginal people are the majority.
I congratulate the committee for the hard work it has done in
reviewing the current process and in proposing improvements.
It could not have been simple.
I also hope that aboriginal people, women and any other
group, in particular the youth who are not adequately
represented in the House of Commons, will take part in the
public consultations on electoral boundaries to ensure that the
boundaries are fair and respect the binding ties of neighbouring
communities, in particular aboriginal communities but in fact
all communities across the country.
(1600)
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
process the final stage of which is being undertaken today
started yesterday, more than a year after the introduction in this
House of Bill C-18, which suspended the electoral
redistribution process then under way and provided for a 24
month waiting period before starting a new debate on
redistribution.
Unfortunately, the Reform Party then opposed Bill C-18 and
the 24 month delay initially provided under this bill. However,
the House of Commons passed the bill suspending the whole
electoral redistribution process for 24 months.
Later, in considering Bill C-18, the Senate did exactly what
the Reform Party wanted to do in this House. It moved an
amendment to Bill C-18 providing that a new bill had to be
tabled by June 1995; otherwise, the old law would apply again,
reviving the commissions suspended under Bill C-18.
When the bill came back from the Senate, the government
should have stood up and affirmed the will of the people
represented by the hon. members in this place by approving the
bill as presented and with the relevant amendments adopted in
this House.
Yet, the government then chose to go along with a Senate
amendment that put us in a tight squeeze by reducing the amount
of time available to do our work. It was, in my opinion, an
unacceptable concession, which the Reform Party managed to
secure through the Senate.
Following final passage and Royal Assent of Bill C-18, the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was given
the mandate to draft a bill to be submitted to the House. We
worked on this for a very long time. I attended all the sessions,
including those in the summer of 1994, in July 1994, in which
we heard a great many witnesses, including political party
representatives, hon. members of this House who came to
testify, university experts and others. While working on this
bill, we enjoyed the continuous collaboration of the Chief
Electoral Officer and his staff.
11205
Although we spent a lot of time on this bill, we have precious
little to show for it. Of course, the bill before us, Bill C-69,
contains a few sweeteners. These sweeteners are improvements
compared with the present situation.
For instance, the provincial commissions will now be able to
hold hearings before proceeding with their task, which is clearly
an improvement on the current situation. The commissions will
have to produce three maps for the regions they cover, three
electoral redistribution proposals. If there is sufficient popular
demand, the commissions will have to hold new hearings.
Granted, the process was improved in this regard.
The bill also sets out the factors to be considered by the
commissions in establishing electoral ridings.
(1605)
These considerations or factors are described in subparagraph
19(2)(b), which states that, in determining reasonable electoral
district boundaries, the provincial commission shall consider
the following: first, the community of interest; second, a
manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated,
rural or northern regions of the province; third, the probability
that there will be a substantial increase in the population of
electoral districts in the next five years. And finally, the
commission shall recommend changes to existing electoral
district boundaries only where the above-mentioned factors are
sufficiently significant to warrant such a recommendation.
It is all fine and well to make a policy statement like that,
making community of interest a guiding principle for every
commission. However, we inevitably come across another
provision, which sets the maximum variance from the
provincial electoral quota at 25 per cent. For example, if, in
Quebec, the provincial quota was 100,000 voters or a population
of 100,000, the commission would be entitled to make electoral
districts with up to 125,000 voters but no less than 75,000 or
equivalent population.
The commission may observe a community of interest, but
note that the number of voters is not significant enough. Let us
not take an hypothetical case, but a real one. At present, the
population of the electoral district of
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is 43 per cent below the
provincial quota of 50,000 or 51,000, but encompasses a huge
area. This district is at risk; it may actually be eliminated. While
this bill allows the commissions not to apply this 25 per cent rule
rigidly, the considerations are so restrictive that I wonder if they
will ever be able to do so.
The only time a provincial commission can depart from this
rule is when, as mentioned in paragraph 19(3), an electoral
riding or district is geographically isolated from the rest of the
province or is not easily accessible. Who will define
``geographically isolated''? The commissions, to start with, and
of course the courts. No definition was provided. I consider the
Magdalen Islands geographically isolated. No one will deny
that. Will the population factor apply? I suggest that the
commissions consider this factor. Magdalen Islanders had their
own electoral district up until 1968. Under Quebec law, they are
guaranteed their own district. It is not that the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is not doing a good job at
representing the district, but I think it would be highly desirable
to have a member of Parliament just for the Magdalen Islands.
Magdalen Islanders will argue that they are geographically
isolated, and I think that they can qualify under that factor. Then
it will be a matter of satisfying the provincial commissions that
the population of the islands does not vary too greatly to justify
the creation of a separate district. But I can see a downside to
this. While the new electoral district of Magdalen Islands gains
a member of Parliament, the district of Bonaventure shrinks in
terms of voters ratio. What will happen to the Gaspesian
Peninsula then?
(1610)
What becomes of the ridings of Gaspé, Matapédia-Matane,
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and
Rimouski-Témiscouata? What do we do? There is a problem in
the Gaspé peninsula. Does clause 19(3) allow us to deal with it
globally? I am not sure. We need more information. This is a
region with a dwindling population where MPs, whatever their
political allegiance, have a large area to cover. They must cope
with problems that do not exist, or that take a very different
form, elsewhere in the province or in the country. The Gaspé
peninsula is the first thing that concerns me.
Maybe clause 19(3) will apply to the riding of Manicouagan,
which is indeed geographically isolated and particularly
inaccessible, as my hon. friend from Manicouagan argued so
convincingly before the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs and again here in the House at the report stage, if
memory serves.
Maybe it will also apply to the northern regions of Quebec and
Ontario. Last Monday, the ridings of Cochrane-Superior and
Nickel Belt in northern Ontario were mentioned.
They cover a vast area and their population, with certain
exceptions, is generally on the decline. Will the division be
made strictly on the basis of the numbers? Will a greater
deviation be allowed?
Clause 19(3) is much too restrictive, in my opinion, for us to
give it our approval.
We had suggested maintaining, in the bill before us, criteria
now being used by the provincial commissions when deciding
whether to waive the rules. What are these criteria?
At the present time, a provincial commission may waive the
25 per cent criterion in any case where any special community or
diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the
11206
province appears to the commission to render such waiving
necessary or desirable. In other words, the provincial
commissions now have a much broader criterion when looking
at particular cases.
I think that a region like the Gaspé or the Magdalen Islands,
even the Lower St. Lawrence, would have benefited much more
under this criterion than under the extremely restrictive wording
being proposed to replace it. This may not be as bad as the initial
suggestion to include a schedule of the ridings in the act and
freeze them, thus giving a form of statism to the act and to the
list of ridings and making it extremely difficult to work with.
Consequently, the official opposition considers clause 19 to
be a major obstacle and cannot support the bill.
Clause 16 is also questionable and even unacceptable, given
what it says and what it does not say.
Following the representations made last summer to the
Standing Committee on the Procedure and House Affairs-by
the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, by the
president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and,
previously, on June 21, by Senator Jean-Claude Rivest of the
Stadacona senatorial designation-we understood that the
government would be receptive to the traditional request made
by Quebecers and their government for guaranteed minimum
representation in the House of Commons, as is the case for some
Atlantic provinces.
As you know, representation for the Atlantic provinces is
guaranteed by the senatorial clause, which dates back to 1915
and which we do not question.
(1615)
The senatorial clause allows a population of 120,000 people
in Prince Edward Island to be represented by four members in
this House. Indeed, that clause provides that a province cannot
be represented by fewer members in the House of Commons
than senators in the Senate. Since four Senate seats are
guaranteed to Prince Edward Island in the senatorial clause, that
province can also be represented by four members in this House.
The same rule applies for New Brunswick, which is guaranteed
ten seats in the Senate, under the Canadian Constitution.
Although the number of residents in that province does not
justify such representation, New Brunswick gets ten seats and
we accept that. The terms of union between Newfoundland and
the Canadian federation, ratified in 1949, also contained
provisions guaranteeing adequate representation of the province
of Newfoundland, both in the House of Commons and in the
Senate. In fact, Newfoundland was guaranteed six seats in the
Canadian Senate.
So if we agree with the senatorial clause that provides
guarantees for Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland, why are we up against a wall when we talk about
the same guarantees for the Province of Quebec, when we talk
about a minimum level of representation for Quebec?
Quebec, which as a people and as a nation, is one of the two
founding peoples of this country. We are told this time and time
again. We learned this from our history teachers. It is part of our
collective conscience as Quebecers that in 1867, Quebecers
were one of the two founding peoples. I may recall that on June
30, 1867, the day before the coming into force of the British
North America Act, 1867, Quebec, then known as Lower
Canada, was entitled to 65 seats out of a total of 130 in the
Parliament of the Province of Canada, that is, 50 per cent.
This was agreed to by the members who were elected to
represent us at the time-there was no referendum to ask what
the people of Quebec thought and certainly not the women of
Quebec, since they did not even have the right to vote at the time
and the Fathers of the Confederation were all males-but there
were no constitutional provisions that provided for minimum
representation for Quebec. The only guarantee Quebec obtained
was those 65 seats, but 65 out of how many?
On July 1, 1867, it was 65 seats out of 181. Later, when
Canada's territory was expanded with the addition of new
provinces including Manitoba, Prince Edward Island,
Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and finally
Newfoundland, Quebec's share of representation in the House of
Commons dropped steadily, stabilizing during the past 20 or 30
years at a level slightly over one-quarter. Obviously, the Fathers
of Confederation made a mistake by not including a minimum
representation clause for Quebec, which at the time should have
been 50 per cent.
We can hardly rewrite history and today insist on 50 per cent.
People will say: Who do you think you are? We are not in a
country that allows such deviations from the norm. Be that as it
may, we are not asking for the representation that we had in
1867, in other words, 50 per cent. We asked for a minimum
guarantee of 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons.
In the next general election, should Quebec participate-my
good friend from Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will
agree it is pretty doubtful that we will be able to-when the
thirty-sixth Parliament is elected, Quebec, for the first time in
its history, will fall below this critical mass of 25 per cent, since
it will have only 75 seats out of 301.
(1620)
Hence our proposal, which was akin to the Liberal 1992
proposal. I read on Monday of the pleasure of the hon. member
for Papineau-Saint-Michel and Minister of Foreign Affairs at
being able to guarantee Quebec minimum representation of 25
per cent, saying that this represented a significant gain for
11207
Quebec. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel
described the guarantee of 25 per cent for Quebec as an
incredible step forward.
Well, as regards our motion which was voted on yesterday,
once again none of the Liberal members in this House in 1992,
who are still here today, voted in favour. Why did the members
change their minds in the space of three years? Why deny
Quebec something so minor? I would like, in passing, to
recognize the very open-minded approach to the matter taken by
the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, who voted with the
official opposition to guarantee Quebec minimum
representation of 25 per cent, as did the hon. member for
Beauce, as if this were perfectly natural.
It was perfectly natural, since the vast majority of members
from Quebec present in this House yesterday voted in favour of
this minimum guarantee of 25 per cent. We can therefore say
that there is very broad consensus in Quebec, which goes beyond
party lines, that Quebec should enjoy a minimum guarantee of
25 per cent. When the Progressive Conservative Party, the
official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway and the independent member for Beauce
all support the motion to include guaranteed representation of
25 per cent in Bill C-69, it is obvious that there is broad support
in Quebec on this point. I need not add that Senator Rivest had
given his support for this provision. Even the support of the
governments of Quebec, which had called for the inclusion of
this provision in the legislation, did not fail. As far as I know, as
well, the present government never shied away from what had
been agreed in the past.
It is strange to see the government back away from something
it supported in September 1992-the vote was on September 10,
1992-without much justification. Two days ago, on Monday, I
listened to the arguments which the hon. member for Kingston
and the Islands and the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge
River put forward, arguments which were not convincing. I do
admit, however, that under normal circumstances, these two
people are extremely convincing, but, for people to be able to
convince others, they themselves must be convinced.
It goes without saying that, when people rise to make
representations that they are forced to make-because any old
reason to vote against the amendment will do-they obviously
cannot be convincing. The unconvinced cannot be convincing.
This was the impression that I got the other day from the hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands, the impression that he did
not believe in the things that he was saying and that he was using
the pretext of constitutional technicalities as a reason for
refusing to support a motion which had already been allowed by
the Chair and declared admissible following a procedural
debate. It is a little odd that the debate swung in this direction.
(1625)
You will understand therefore, that, at the end of the day, this
bill will be incomplete, as I said earlier, because of its stand on
the issue of allowable deviations from the boundary rules in
special ridings and because of its failure to take a stand on the
issue of one of the country's founding peoples. Was this an
intentional omission on the part of the government?
We might have asked ourselves this question when debate
began on the bill. But, after the vote yesterday on the official
opposition's motion guaranteeing Quebec 25 per cent of the
seats in the House, it was quite clear that the government had not
simply overlooked this detail, but that it was omitted by design.
The government does not want to guarantee Quebec fair
representation in this House and does not want to accept as a
criterion the fact that the nation of francophones in Quebec is a
founding people, the cradle of francophones in America. The
day we took such a decision was a very sad day indeed.
Would Canadians have been unhappy to see the government
finally recognize Quebec's distinct society status, founding
people status, status as a nation which built this country? I think
not. Yet, yesterday, all it would have taken to recognize this was
a majority vote in this House. But it was denied us. It was the
most modest demand formulated in the last 50 years.
Without going back to prehistory, we can go back several
decades: in the 1930s, there was the Rowell-Sirois commission
in Quebec; in the 1950s, the Tremblay commission also studied
constitutional issues; the Laurendeau-Dunton commission
reviewed what was happening in this country in terms of the
Constitution.
I invite our friends from the Reform Party, who think that
Canadian history started with their election, to read about the
events of that period. It would be a good idea to return to the
source to understand that Canadian history started, we are not
sure exactly when, with the first people to land on our shores,
probably the Vikings who landed somewhere near
Newfoundland at the beginning of the millennium. Then there
was the arrival of Jacques Cartier in Gaspé in 1534, the founding
of Quebec City by Samuel de Champlain in 1608, the founding
of Trois-Rivières and Montreal in the following decades. And
finally, the establishment of the first government in New
France, as Canada was then called.
In the beginning, we had a government of companies. As you
probably remember, the King of France entrusted private
companies like the Company of One Hundred Associates and the
Dutch West India Company with the administration of the
territory. The King of England, for his part, gave the Hudson's
Bay Company the English part of the territory that later became
British North America. Territories throughout the continent
were administered by private companies.
11208
Our first institutions, not democratic but public, were granted
in 1663 by the King of France through the establishment of the
Sovereign Council of New France. These institutions reflected
the values of the time: a governor, an intendant, the Bishop of
Quebec City and those co-opted by them for a total of seven
people, near the end of colonial times, but without any
democratic guarantees.
We, francophones, had a hard time achieving our democratic
rights on the American continent. Our motherland never gave
them to us.
(1630)
They tried to exercise in New France the same absolute
domination as in Old France. Gradually, we stopped being
French while, of course, maintaining good relations with what
was then our mother or home country and became a more and
more distinct nation.
At first, we called ourselves Canadiens or, as we used say,
``Canayens''. So, on one side, there was us Canadiens and, on
the other, the English who occupied part of the land.
From 1663 to 1759, we operated with these institutions. Then,
in 1759, the battle that took place on the Plains of Abraham was
a victory for some, but for us it was a defeat. It brought about
constitutional changes, again, military government in 1759, a
royal proclamation in 1763 which ceded the colony of New
France to England in exchange for Guadeloupe and Martinique.
It is clear that errors of judgment were made somewhere along
the way because, while anglophones had won here, in America,
when, on the Old Continent, the British won the war against the
French and the Treaty of Paris was signed, they got New France,
but France kept Guadeloupe and Martinique.
Those are great travel destinations, but in terms of the relative
value of the two, I think it was a sucker deal at the time.
Still no democratic institutions. In 1774, the Quebec Act that
was handed to us-because we got whatever was left
over-nonetheless restored civil law in Quebec, which allowed
us to have a legislative council, but not an elected one. They
were afraid to give francophones, so peace-loving, democratic
institutions in which Quebecers could be represented by the
people of their choice. Instead, we were given a legislative
council appointed by the governor.
But the Quebecers, Canadiens of those days had certainly
demonstrated great pacifism and great open-mindedness
because there were 63,000 francophones in Quebec at the time
of the conquest and only 3,000 to 4,000 survivors of Wolfe's
regiment. With that kind of power relationship, had we been
even slightly vindictive, the slightest bit vindictive, we would
not have had to go into overtime to decide the fate of these 3,000
or so people. We went along with a de facto situation and, guided
by the elites who governed us in those days, whether we liked it
or not-we will not rewrite history-we tolerated this situation.
Finally, in 1791, the Constitutional Act gave us for the very
first time the right to have elected representatives and the first
House of Assembly in Quebec. Naturally, we did not take any
chances. It is like in a car: there is an accelerator, but there is
also a brake pedal. The Westminster government allowed us to
have a house of assembly made up of elected members, but it
also maintained a legislative council, which was appointed by
the governor and which could oppose the decisions of the
assembly.
In 1791, we gained control over some institutions. The
situation evolved rather rapidly and the country was divided into
two parts: Upper Canada and Lower Canada. The assembly
elected in Lower Canada had no extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Consequently, it could not legislate for Upper Canada, nor could
Upper Canada legislate for Lower Canada. We then move on to
the 1830s with the Patriotes' rebellion and the infamous Durham
report, which recommended unifying the two Canadas to finally
assimilate and anglicize the French-speaking nation in
America, something which was not to happen.
(1635)
For eight years, while English was the only official language
in the house of assembly of the Parliament of the Province of
Canada, French Canadians fought, in their own language, to
have French recognized as an official language. Thanks to their
tenacity, justice was finally done in 1848, when they obtained
the right to use French, which also became the language used in
the legislation. I will end with 1867 and the emergence of new
institutions.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, why I simply cannot agree
when I hear simplistic comments such as those made by the
Reform Party, to the effect that Canada started to exist in
October 1993. Canada has existed for a long time. As a member
of one of the founding nations which forged Canada's
Constitution, I respectfully submit that, given our long common
history, this critical mass of 25 per cent is the breath of life
which Quebec needs if it remains, but I hope it will not, part of
the Canadian federation.
In any case, it is better to be safe than sorry; it is better to
buckle up, even if you do not wish to have an accident. It is from
that perspective that I wanted to discuss the 25 per cent rule.
This rule is so fundamental that, even though Bill C-69 includes
some improvements, the fact that Quebec is not guaranteed a
minimum of 25 per cent of the total representation in the House
of Commons is reason enough, in fact the only reason, for the
Bloc not to support this bill at third reading. Consequently, we
will oppose this legislation.
11209
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we are now debating Bill C-69 for the last time in
the House. The bill is consequential of Bill C-18 from some
time ago and the perceived need to redraw the act which allowed
the commissions to redistribute the ridings in various provinces.
The bill is a result of the Liberal fiasco of interrupting the
boundary redistribution with Bill C-18. The fiasco was started
because Liberal members did not like the new maps produced by
the commissions. Making a show out of calling for a
fundamental review of the redistribution process, the
government ordered new boundary maps drawn under new rules,
costing Canadian taxpayers more than $5 million in wasted
commission reports.
Although there have been some minor improvements to the
process of selecting boundary commissioners and publicizing
the process, no substantial change to the composition of the
boundary readjustment commissions, no substantial change to
their powers and no substantial change to the method of drawing
boundaries are proposed by Bill C-69. All the changes made to
the redistribution act could have been made without throwing
out the maps produced at great cost.
This whole exercise was a crass political manoeuvre on the
part of the Liberals hoping to have boundary lines redrawn
closer to their liking. There was no requirement for the
redistribution process to be suspended and for the expensive
work to be thrown out in order to examine the process.
Notwithstanding the minor technical improvements made to
the act, the bill should be defeated by the House for two major
reasons. Bill C-69 fails to address the problem of a rapidly
growing House of Commons and it lays suspect the concept of
equality of vote as a guiding principle in the redistribution
process. The bill does not move the House of Commons any
closer to respecting the mandate of representation by
population, the cornerstone principle for a lower House in a
bicameral system.
What is interesting about these two failures is that the Liberal
members of the procedure and House affairs committee were
initially in favour of tighter variances and a capped or reduced
number of seats in the House of Commons. Capping or reducing
the number was a major part of the mandate the House gave to
the procedure and House affairs committee.
(1640)
Witnesses were brought in from all over the country to discuss
this issue with us. Many of the Liberals on the committee agreed
that the restrictions on the size of the House were a good idea.
Allow me to give members a few examples. Going back to our
procedure and House affairs committee meetings of last
summer, on July 7 the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, a
very active member during this entire process, said: ``I have
always been in favour of the view that the House should be
taking control of its numbers. We ought to, by formula or in
another way, be capping the size of the House of Commons. I am
in favour of capping, whether it is 250, 300 or something over
300. It is not a big problem''.
It seems pretty clear the member for Scarborough-Rouge
River was in favour of dealing with the issue of the growth of the
House. He was not alone on the Liberal side of the table. At the
same meeting the member for Ontario said: ``I too support any
initiative that might have the effect of limiting or capping the
number of seats''.
The member for Vancouver Quadra, very experienced in
matters of riding redistribution and constitutional
considerations, added: ``I have no problem at all with capping''.
He was clear we had to recognize some of the difficulties in
doing it.
The Reform members on the committee were able to
satisfactorily answer those concerns. The pattern of support for
the idea of a smaller or capped House continued into the fall. In
our meeting on October 20 the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River again indicated his support for the
concept: ``I oppose further growth in the House without any
restrictions. I tend to be in favour of a capping arrangement at
some point and I very much want to see that issue addressed''.
It is very strange the member has spoken in favour of and has
supported the bill at all stages even though that issue is not
addressed at all.
The chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee,
the member for Kingston and the Islands, wanted to shirk all
responsibility for capping the House and leave the problem to a
future Parliament.
The Liberal dominated 51st report from the committee says:
``Many members of the committee reluctantly came to the
conclusion that a cap or reduction in the size of the House of
Commons is not feasible at this time''.
I got a very different impression from many of the Liberal
members during the committee hearings. Reformers
demonstrated that a House based on 265 members plus a few
more to account for senatorial limitations is workable. We
included this in our minority opinion, an opinion the Liberal
brass ordered defeated.
On October 20 the member for Vancouver Quadra added: ``I
think many of us would like a more compact House. This House
certainly architecturally has been stretched to the breaking
point''.
This is all very interesting but when faced with a vote on the
issue in that very meeting, all Liberal members voted against a
reduced House or a House frozen at 295 members. They all
11210
voted for a House that grows to 301, the status quo formula for
continued growth.
Their personal support for capping the House continued. As
late as November 1 the member for Scarborough-Rouge River
said in committee: ``We should be addressing the size of the
House in our report. I do not think as a committee we have nailed
that one down yet''. He added at a later meeting of the
committee on November 22: ``It would be naive to leave this
issue without discussing the size of the House''.
It was at this point that the chair, speaking for the government,
indicated that it would be better to leave the problem of a
growing House to some future Parliament. This comment
seemed to concern the Liberal members who thought that
capping or reducing was a good idea.
The member for Mississauga West who also participated in
our deliberations wondered why the next Parliament should be
asked to investigate the problem: ``Is there any good reason why
we cannot do it?''
The answer to that is a very loud and resounding no, there is
no good reason the bill could not have contained provisions to
cap or reduce the size of the House of Commons, other than a
lack of political will on the part of the government to deal with a
controversial issue that would be acceding to the wishes of
Canadians.
(1645 )
Her comments that day were reinforced by her colleague from
Vancouver Quadra when he agreed with her that the work on the
problem of size should start now. All of these comments are in
the committee transcripts.
There was a very real level of non-partisan agreement that
capping and reducing the House was in order. The Liberal
members of the committee wanted it and the Reform members
of the committee wanted it. My friend from Mississauga West
was absolutely right when she said: ``I think the Canadian public
wants us to limit the size of the House''. It seems that the only
people who do not want it are those in the government inner
circle who really call the shots.
It is always interesting to hear what any given government
member thinks about a particular issue and then compare their
response after a caucus meeting or after the whip has had a
chance to talk to them. Time after time we see them
mysteriously changing their minds about what is in the public
interest.
I noted with interest that the hon. member for Bellechasse was
surprised that the Liberals had changed their minds. I do not
understand that. Liberals have been changing their minds ever
since this country was established in 1867. There is nothing they
stand for and there is everything they stand for; it is whatever is
convenient at the time.
It is time that the House and the government acted on
principle, on what is right and on what is in the best interests of
the Canadian public. It should consult with the Canadian public
rather than flim-flamming around from one position to another,
depending on the whims of the inner circle of the Liberal Party.
There seemed to be a pretty clear consensus among Liberals
that capping and reducing the size of the House was a good idea.
Why then was the issue suddenly and strangely dropped from the
committee report, the bill which the government introduced,
and all subsequent comments from those Liberal members?
Suddenly, it was not an issue any more.
The answer is quite clear. They were whipped into line by the
party brass. The red book promises of giving ordinary members
of Parliament more autonomy and control over committee and
House business is demonstrably dead. It is one more example
that the red book promises of open government and restoring
integrity were nothing more than tricks designed to win support
from a public weary of unethical politicians. How else can the
Liberals explain the practice of standing firm on an opinion one
day and then voting it down on the next?
It was the same with the back to work legislation which the
House dealt with last week. Many government members spoke
in favour of designing legislation that would prevent costly
strikes which damage the economy. Then they voted against the
bill introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge which would
have done just that. Then within 24 hours the same members
stood in support of the bill legislating an end to the crippling rail
strike. It just does not make sense. It is pure partisan politics at
its worst.
It is exactly the kind of top-down decision making Canadians
from coast to coast are sick of. It is the Charlottetown accord
approach to making decisions. They are trying to impose their
will on Canadians. The Liberals are demonstrating that they
hold a very low opinion of the thoughts of their own
backbenchers. They expect them to act like trained seals, to
always toe the party line and to vote when and how they are told
to.
We saw exactly the same thing when we were discussing the
allowable variance from the provincial population quotient,
which is also a part of Bill C-69. Several government members
expressed support for the idea of making constituencies, as
close as possible, equal in population.
The member for Mississauga West went so far as to vote in
favour of a Reform suggestion to move to a 15 per cent variance
in population quotient. In our committee meeting on October 20
she admitted: ``I voted with you on that, if you recall, and got
into big trouble''. Big trouble for expressing her own opinion in
a committee meeting of this House. The member admitted that
11211
she was censured for voting contrary to party wisdom. That is
not open government; it is authoritarian top-down government.
I know the Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra will agree
with me when I say that the monarch in Parliament is sovereign
and MPs share in that sovereignty. Members of Parliament
should not merely be puppets to their party brass. It is bad
policy, it is bad for Parliament, and it is bad for Canada.
Canadians elect MPs to represent their interests in
Parliament. It is a shame that the government would not allow
its members to exercise that responsibility. The support was
there to create a redistribution bill that would meet the needs and
wants of the majority of Canadians, but the government brass
whipped its members into line to enforce its own agenda.
(1650 )
The Parliament of Canada should not be run in an
authoritarian top-down decision making process. Every vote
and every committee should not be considered a matter of
confidence. Every member should not be forced by the inner
circle to toe the line. That kind of practice reduces the House of
Commons to nothing more than a grand rubber stamp for what
the cabinet has already decided behind closed doors.
I doubt the government had an open caucus debate on these
issues before it determined to add seats to the House of
Commons and allow the vast population variance differences
that are included in Bill C-69. I doubt very much there was a
very open debate in the Liberal caucus about this issue. I suspect
the decision was made and members of the Liberal caucus were
told that they would support Bill C-69. They were probably
given four or five talking points to back them up as they were
sent out to sell the government agenda.
There was a rare opportunity here to make a positive change to
our redistribution system. The government did not allow its
members to make those changes in the area of a capped or
reduced House to protect the equality of Canadian votes with a
tighter variance.
I want to briefly reflect on some of the observations made by
the hon. member for Bellechasse. He took it upon himself to
give Reformers a lesson in Canadian history. I want to assure the
hon. member that Reformers are very aware of the history of our
country. We are very proud of our past. We are very proud of all
of those from the past who contributed to this country to make it
the great country it is.
I would like to remind the hon. member for Bellechasse and
others who might share his concern about our understanding of
Canadian history there are reasons that people came to this
country. They came particularly to my part of the country, the
west, and I believe they came to the province of Quebec, Ontario
and Atlantic Canada because they wanted to get away from some
things in their country of origin. They wanted to escape
repressive regimes. They wanted to escape governments that
imposed undemocratic principles upon them.
I am a bit concerned about the Bloc members' position on Bill
C-69. They want to impose a principle that in my opinion and
the opinion of my Reform colleagues is undemocratic. That is,
we would put on the floor of the House of Commons 25 per cent
of the seats for one province in this country, regardless of
changes in population.
That is why a lot of people left their country, to escape those
types of oppressive laws and come to a place where the
democratic principles of representation by population were
adhered to. I believe that is the principle the people of Quebec
adhere to as well. I also believe that is one of the reasons many
people in the province of Quebec voted against the
Charlottetown accord.
Canadians, both within and outside of Quebec, find it
abhorrent that we would call for special status for anyone in this
country. It is not a principle that was accepted in the
Charlottetown accord. It was repugnant back then and it is
repugnant to Canadians today.
We have to ask: Why would they want special status? Why
would they want to be guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats of the
House of Commons whether their population justified it or not?
I think of two or three arguments that might be put forward.
One argument might be that somehow their representatives are
not as good as the representatives from other parts of the country
and they need that floor and need that protection. I do not accept
that argument. Quebecers can send qualified and able members
to this House who can represent them adequately, just like we
can in the rest of the country. I challenge that argument.
Another argument might be that they are superior to other
Canadians and deserve to have 25 per cent of the seats in this
House. I reject that argument as well. It is a false argument. We
need to look upon each other as equals in this country, equal
citizens with equal responsibilities, equal privileges and a law
that affects us all in the same manner.
There is one other argument that might be put forth. They
might say that they are one of two founding races and somehow
that bestows some special privilege upon us. All of us know that
the native people were here before those of English or French
origin.
This past weekend I was at a breakfast where a Metis leader
spoke to us. He brought the point home to us again that in most
of this country Canadians do not view Canada as being the home
of two founding nations. In particular, if they are one of the first
people or of Metis origin, they very much doubt that concept.
11212
(1655 )
I want to close by saying I appreciate the opportunity to make
my final remarks on Bill C-69. For all of the reasons I have put
forward in my speech at third reading, I urge the House not to
pass Bill C-69. We are not getting the job done. If we are not
prepared to face the issue square on and if we keep wanting to
put off the tough decisions into the future, those decisions will
become even tougher to make.
If we let this House expand to 320 members, some 20 more
people will have a vested interest in maintaining their seats in
this House of Commons and not seeing the size of this House
reduced. It is going to have a negative snowball effect which is
not good for the country. Unfortunately there are too many
politicians in this place who have a vested interest and are not
able to put the well-being of the country ahead of their own
self-interests.
I urge all members of this House to do the right thing, the
thing even Liberals argued for in committee, to cap the size of
the House, to respect representation by population, and to vote
against Bill C-69.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to very briefly run over the very positive aspects
of the bill before the House today. I am afraid the opposition
members, as is their wont, have dwelt on the negative aspects.
We have heard the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster complain about two aspects he feels
were not there. We have to deal with what is there. We have a
good bill here and the hon. member should have acknowledged
that and indicated supported for it in his speech.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Bellechasse had several complaints
about things that were not in the bill, but what is in the bill is
clearly quite acceptable to everyone, and he should support the
bill for that reason.
[English]
The bill provides a new, and I suggest better, appointment
process for commissions and for the commissioners. It puts a
limit on the need to appoint commissions in provinces where
there have not been significant population shifts. That is a major
change. It will save money. We have another major money
saving device in this bill. Redistributions will cost less as a
result of this bill.
We have established quinquennial review, that is
quinquennial redistributions in provinces where there have been
significant population shifts within the province. Therefore we
will avoid massive changes every 10 years.
We put a new clause with new directions to commissions
instructing them on how to do the redistribution within the
boundaries they decide on. We have suggested new ways of
doing it that in my view are more restrictive than the rules that
were there before. We directed them more pointedly to deal with
items such as community municipal boundaries and boundaries
of existing electoral districts. I think it is a significant
improvement. All the members of the committee agreed it was
an improvement when we made those changes.
There are limits which I suggest are much tighter on the right
of commissions to deviate beyond the 25 per cent limit on the
provincial quotients. Now they cannot create a riding that is
bigger than the limits, which they could do before. Those are
prohibited. They can only create one that is smaller than the 25
per cent deviation. That is circumscribed very tightly because it
must be geographically isolated from the province or very
remote. Without quoting the exact words, it is significantly
different from what it was before. Again, the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster who harps on this point has fewer
grounds to complain than he had in the previous bill. He should
be supporting this bill.
The publication of plans is different. There will be three of
them. There will be an opportunity to comment before the maps
are published for the first time. The member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster says that the maps presently drawn
by the boundaries commissions are thrown out the window. That
is not true. They could be used as one of the three maps by the
new commissions. There is no reason in the world why those
could not be used as one of the three options put forward by the
commissions when they publish maps.
Members will have an opportunity to comment with members
of the public in advance of publication, after publication and
after significant changes in the maps.
This is an improved process. It is more open. We have rid
ourselves of the parliamentary review. We have made the
process more open, more accountable to public pressure, and
more accessible to the general public in that sense.
(1700)
We have abolished the very expensive publication process for
the maps. We have made them available to people who want
them, not to publish them in newspapers at great public expense.
It is saving literally millions of dollars.
The commissions will give reasons for their decisions, which
was not the case before. This will help explain to the public why
the commissions have drawn boundaries in the locations they
have. The period for implementation of redistribution has been
shortened under the bill so that it will happen in a faster time
frame than was the case before.
11213
Those nine or ten very positive improvements to the
legislation are encompassed in the bill. All I hear in lengthy
speeches from the opposition are complaints. There has not been
mention of any of the very positive aspects. I invite hon.
members to look at the brighter side and not dwell on the things
that are not there.
I should like to turn to a couple of things that are not in it and
say something about them. I will deal first with the complaints
of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister and then I
will turn to the hon. member for Bellechasse.
The member complained repeatedly that members of the
House were not free to express their views in the committee. We
obviously had a very free expression of views. He has quoted
extensively from speeches of members, particularly members
on this side. I can understand why he would want to quote them.
In his remarks he said how they shared a view one day and
changed their minds another.
Part of the advantage of committee work is that we get to hear
witnesses and study various options. The members of the
committee looked at the things we could do. He may have
forgotten that we spent three days in July last year, and he was
there, hearing witnesses. We worked quite hard with long
sessions lasting all day.
Having heard the evidence of witnesses we had discussions.
They influenced us in various ways. Some of us were swayed by
some witnesses and felt that maybe we should do this one day
and then, having read other material and reflected on it, we
changed our minds. That was true of many members of the
committee.
Had I been expressing views in the committee as the chairman
of the committee, I am sure he would have been quoting me as
having said one thing one day and maybe something else the
next. My views changed too as I read up on the subject and was
persuaded by various witnesses, by discussions with my
colleagues on the committee and by material I read on a subject
such as the royal commission report on electoral reform and
party financing.
Having seen all that material, having formed our views and
having reflected on the matter, many members changed their
minds. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster
attributed all kinds of reasons to this that are not really accurate
in every case at all and certainly not generally fair to hon.
members who made up their minds. He should not indulge in
such speculation on the reasons people make up their minds the
way they do.
Naturally there are discussions in caucus. Naturally there is a
consensus building on issues like this one. On the bill itself there
was a significant change that he pressed for. That was the
elimination of scheduled ridings and a change to put the power
back in commissions to make the decisions that could have been
made in the House because of various complaints from
members. That was the response to complaints that he raised.
The members on our side looked at it and decided there was a
better way. I think the bill reflects that. I heard no criticism of
that aspect of the bill from the hon. member in his speech.
The committee looked at the evidence, weighed the evidence
and came to conclusions. We did not all come to the same
conclusions. That is quite obvious from the speeches this
afternoon. However, we came to conclusions on a bill that has
very positive aspects that will have a significant impact on the
way we do redistributions in the country and a very positive
influence in that regard.
The redistribution done under the bill will be good. It will be
better than what we had before, in part because the process is
more open, in part because the commissioners will be more
responsive to the wishes of the members of the House as they are
chosen essentially by the members of the House, and because
the opportunity for public input is very significantly enhanced
under the bill.
In reflecting on whether or not to support the bill I invite
members to consider those items, to look at the positive side and
ignore the very negative side.
Another complaint the member made dealt with the size of the
House. Frankly that is not a matter for a redistribution bill. It is a
matter for changes in the Constitution of the country. The
committee was very reluctant to get into constitutional change.
The number of seats assigned to the provinces under the
Constitution is set out in the Constitution Act. It is a matter of
constitutional amendment to change it.
(1705)
The hon. member wanted either to cap or decrease the size of
the House. Most members on our side have considered the
matter. There was some initial attractiveness to the idea. Last
summer there was a lot of media attention focused on the size of
the House and whether or not we really needed a House of this
size. They reflected and decided that with 295 members for a
country the geographic size of Canada we were not significantly
over-represented in the House.
Our population is growing. Most of us in Ontario represent
about 100,000 people. That is a significant number. We cannot
get to meet them all in our term of office; it is virtually
impossible to do so.
I am sure the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister
knows from his own experience, having been in the House now
for a year and a half, how difficult it must be for him to meet his
electors. Members of Parliament do not have all the time in the
world to be out in their constituencies. When we go to our
constituencies it is difficult to go door to door when we are
trying to do our work as representatives, meet groups and people
in our offices who ask to see us, not just to see the people who
11214
perhaps would be interested to meet us but do not have the
opportunity.
Mr. Bélair: Telephones help.
Mr. Milliken: As the member for Cochrane-Superior says:
``Telephones help''. He has a particular problem given the
geographic size of his riding. The country is enormous.
Members of Parliament have a particularly difficult role to play,
a multifaceted role that involves more than sitting in Ottawa and
doing the work demanded of them in this place.
I will continue with the subject of the Constitution.
[Translation]
I would like to comment on what the hon. member for
Bellechasse said in his speech today and also on what he said
Monday in connection with his motion in amendment to this
bill.
It is clear that what he wanted to change was really a section
of the Canadian Constitution, not a section of this bill. He
argued that he wanted a change that would give the Province of
Quebec a minimum level of representation or at least 25 per cent
of the members. This kind of change would require an
amendment to the Constitution Act. Two sections are affected by
this proposal, one of which is section 52 of the Constitution Act,
1867, and I would like to read it to the hon. member, although I
am sure he has already read it: ``The Number of Members of the
House of Commons may be from Time to Time increased by the
Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate
Representation of the Provinces prescribed by this Act is not
thereby disturbed''.
A change of the kind he proposed would clearly change the
ratios established by the current legislation with respect to
representation of the provinces. This means that to make the
proposed change, we would have to amend the Constitution.
The other section that is crucial to this matter is section 42(1)
of the Constitution Act, 1982, which reads as follows: ``An
amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the
following matters may be made only in accordance with
paragraph 38(1)(a)''. One such matter is ``the principle of
proportional representation of the provinces in the House of
Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada''.
So we cannot make changes except ``in accordance'' with
section 38. Section 38(1) provides for ``resolutions of the Senate
and the House of Commons; and resolutions of the legislative
assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in
the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at
least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces''.
(1710)
So, it would be very difficult to make such a change in the
Constitution. We tried to during the debate and the referendum
on the Charlottetown accord, but the Canadian people did not
want it. I am surprised today that the hon. member for
Bellechasse and his party supported such a change to Canada's
constitution, after opposing the Charlottetown accord.
The accord would have guaranteed Quebec 25 per cent of the
seats in the House of Commons, but they opposed it. What
happened? Why are they supporting this amendment to the
Constitution in the House today? This is nothing more than a
game for them. They are not sincere in proposing such a motion
in this House. Oh yes, indeed. And look who proposed the
motion: a party that has decided it will not be here after the
referendum.
If this party wins the referendum, Quebec will separate from
Canada. If it loses, its leader has promised he will resign, and all
his members will do the same. How can they propose a change
like this to guarantee Quebec a minimum number of seats here in
the House, when they do not plan to stay? What is the problem
here? I do not understand the position of the Bloc Quebecois on
this matter. I would also suggest that the remarks of the hon.
member for Bellechasse are just another attempt to confuse the
issue and give a boost to the separatists' campaign to help them
catch up.
Clearly they have problems, and some other issue must be
found for Quebec electors, an issue of no importance to anyone.
[English]
Everybody in Canada would be happy to ensure adequate
representation for every part of the country, but the hon. member
for Bellechasse in his speech criticized the fact that Prince
Edward Island had a guarantee of four seats. He used that as an
argument to suggest that somehow other provinces should also
have guarantees.
If we all had guarantees of a minimum percentage we would
never make any changes in the representation. Everybody in the
House including the hon. member for Bellechasse supported the
notion of representation by population in the discussions in the
committee. Clause 19 of the bill provides for effective
representation based on population. It is the guiding principle
for redistribution and was supported by all members. He
supports that principle and he knows it.
By his amendment he is trying to raise a red herring that has
nothing to do with the bill. It is really an amendment to the
Constitution of Canada that he would like to get and that frankly
he opposes in relation to certain other provinces that are very
small.
I share his views. I do not think anybody should have a
minimum number of seats in the House. We should be dealing
11215
with fairness and representation and trying to get the very best
maps we can so that members have an area they can represent
that is manageable and that allows them to do a good job in the
House for all the country. That is our aim.
With great respect I invite hon. members opposite to rethink
their negative thoughts on the bill, look at the good side of it and
support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kingston
and the Islands has made a few errors. At one point, I almost
thought I was hearing Flora MacDonald. Now really, we do
understand that the riding may remain the same, but we do at
least expect the incumbents to change. Indeed, Mrs. MacDonald
did once hold the seat; now it is the hon. member and, one day,
there will be somebody new there. If voters do not ensure this
happens, nature surely will, as it will for me one day too.
(1715)
Something remains to be clarified and corrected. The hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands said that the amendment
proposed by the official opposition on the issue of minimum
guaranteed representation for Quebec would change the
Constitution of Canada in an unorthodox way, that we cannot
proceed in this fashion and that we should use the 7-50 rule,
which is 7 provinces representing 50 per cent of the population
of Canada, plus the two federal Houses. This is the way he
suggests we do it, even though we clearly indicated that under
the circumstances this is not the way to go.
The amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois would have
changed the text of subclause 16(2) of the bill to the
following-I am sure that the hon. member for Kingston and the
Islands will be listening to this: ``On receipt by the Chief
Electoral Officer of a return referred to in subsection (1) in
respect of a decennial census, the Chief Electoral Officer shall
calculate the number of members of the House of Commons to
be assigned to each of the provinces, subject and according to
the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the
rules provided therein''. And our amendment would add that:
``and, notwithstanding the foregoing, when by application of
this subsection the number of members to be assigned to the
Province of Quebec is less than 25 per cent of the total number of
members in the House of Commons, the Chief Electoral Officer
shall assign at least 25 per cent of the total number of members
to the Province of Quebec''. That is the amendment which would
have guaranteed us 25 per cent of all seats.
Our amendment refers directly to a constitutional
amendment; by our wording we are modifying section 51. Did
we have the right to propose this amendment from a
constitutional point of view? The question has been raised
before the courts. I will provide my hon. colleague from
Kingston and the Islands with a copy of the decision in Campbell
vs. Attorney General of Canada, reported in 1985-49BLR, 4th
edition, page 321. Five judges of the British Columbia Court of
Appeal ruled that under section 44 of the Constitution Act,
1982, the federal Parliament had the authority to make laws, and
that it could make laws with respect to the criterion of
proportional representation, bearing in mind that proportional
representation must be interpreted in the Canadian sense of the
term, not in a rigid, mathematical sense, but in the context of
Canadian history. This was the ruling of the honourable judges
of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Campbell.
The legislative authority on which the official opposition's
amendment is based is section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
I would remind members that section 44 does not specify
exactly how we in the federal Parliament are to use our authority
to amend the Constitution of Canada within our areas of
jurisdiction. Are we to change its wording directly or by
reference? We are making a reference to the wording. As the
Constitution does not specify a method, either, in my opinion, is
acceptable.
In concluding, I would like to ask the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands a question of principle. Setting aside
the constitutional arguments that could occupy us for hours, why
does the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands not wish to
see the people of Quebec, as one of the founding races of this
country in 1867, retain this critical mass of 25 per cent of the
number of members, which gives it the power to influence
certain decisions?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the position of the
hon. member concerning section 44 of the Constitution is
wrong. It is obvious that the operative words in this case are
``principle of representation by population'' and I do not need to
quote the section again in this House; the words are quite clear.
We can change certain things concerning representation in this
House but not the principle of representation by population for
the provinces. That can be changed only if census figures
warrant it under the regulations if it is in section 51 of the
Constitution.
(1720)
[English]
I am a firm believer in the concept of the two founding races. I
believe fully that the partnership that created our country and
has caused it to prosper and develop is a fundamental part of our
Constitution. I have absolutely no reluctance in recognizing that
principle.
I do not share the hon. member's view that the only way to do
it is to accord a guaranteed minimum number of seats to one of
the provinces. I do not like the minimum guarantees that we
have for seats in the House. There may be other ways to do it,
11216
perhaps by a minimum number of seats in the Senate or by some
other method.
I firmly believe that the House should be elected on the basis
of representation by population. I have always been a believer in
that principle. I stick by it.
There are conflicts of principles now and again in the way we
do things. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster in
his speech referred to the principle of representation by
population. I am a firm believer in it and so is the hon. member
in his heart of hearts. I know he does not like the minimums that
are already there. I do not either. I would prefer to see those
changed.
I recognize there are certain political realities in Canada by
which we have to abide. I am not anxious to engage in changes to
those realities without an overall view of how the Constitution
could be changed in various ways.
The Charlottetown accord was an attempt to do that. The hon.
member opposed it. I supported it with some reluctance. I did
not like parts of it. However in it was the 25 per cent minimum. I
supported Charlottetown. I am prepared to support
Charlottetown again if I have to. I would prefer not to. I would
prefer a better deal. I think we can get a better deal some day.
We are not into Constitution making now. Canadians are fed
up with Constitution making. In my view we ought not to be
engaging in it here in a roundabout way, as the hon. member
suggests, and which I suggest is illegal.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member for Kingston and the
Islands respond to the hon. member for Bellechasse he was
arguing for and against himself. He reiterated what I said in my
speech.
He alluded a bit to some constitutional changes that would be
necessary if we were to reduce the number of members in the
House. We discussed this in committee. As the member for
Calgary West very adequately explained to the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands, any constitutional changes would be
minimal and could be done within the confines of the House.
They do not require the very complicated and difficult amending
formula to authorize the changes. It would be necessary to deal
with the grandfather clause which prohibits an equitable
reduction in the size of the House.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre, who had some input at
committee in the bill, used California as an example of a
jurisdiction in the United States with a population equal to the
population of our entire country which at the federal level only
has, if I remember correctly, 56 federal members to represent
nearly 30 million people.
His argument that we need 294 MPs at the federal level to
adequately administer this country does not hold water. Both our
system and our capabilities are equal or perhaps superior to
those of the politicians in the state of California.
I have a concern the hon. member did not address and to which
I would like him to respond. We have thrown away $5 million.
We are going to draw new maps after the bill is passed. Given the
population shift in the province of Ontario, I am quite sure that
the results may be very similar to the results we saw when the
maps came out in the former process. In those maps northern
Ontario lost one seat. Perhaps now with the population changes
it will lose two seats and the hon. member for
Cochrane-Superior will have a larger riding and another
member will not have a riding at all.
How is the hon. member's government going to respond when
the maps come out again? The results could be even less
favourable to his members than they were this past time. Will
they again demand changes? Is the government going to again
delay the process and bring in new legislation to try to get the
maps drawn the way those members want them?
(1725 )
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some
pretty far-reaching assertions in the course of his remarks. I
want to go back to the California example he cited, although he
did not specifically ask me a question on it.
He suggested that because in California members of the house
of representatives represent huge numbers of people that we
should do the same. I do not agree that the American experience
is one that we necessarily need to follow. We have never done so
in the past on major political matters. I do not know why we
would today.
The hon. member, in reflecting on this issue, would agree with
me that the American political experience has not been all roses
either. He points to the parts of it he likes and says this is what
we should do. However he ignores the disadvantages that their
system affords, which are significant.
Canadians do not expect their members of Parliament to
represent huge numbers of people. They feel they are well
represented now with a House of reasonable size. Based on
population we have always had a fairly large House compared to
the United States and I am sure we are going to continue to have
for the foreseeable future.
The second part of his question was about the proposals we
have here and if the commissions are coming up with new maps
are we going to throw those out a second time. I do not think so. I
have no reason to believe that would be the case.
However, the member should bear in mind that in dealing with
these maps the government is not throwing them out. The
commissions will be free to use them as one of the three they put
forward for public consideration should they decide to do so.
They do not have to redraw every line on every map. This may be
one of the three sets they have to do but I remind the hon.
11217
member that they do now have to produce three. So these maps
in fact could be quite helpful.
The census figures that were set out on a geographic basis for
the entire country will be available to the new commissions as
were to the old. All that work will not be duplicated.
For the hon. member to suggest that we have trashed
everything by this bill and wasted $7 million is not accurate. We
will have good use for some of things that have happened.
Certainly some of the money that was spent on advertising will
not be spent a second time. We are not going to trash everything
and waste all the money. We are moving to save money with the
new redistribution. There will be some loss from the expenses
already incurred.
However, had the hon. member been vigorous in supporting
our first bill instead of supporting the senators who held it up
and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, we would be away
ahead of the game. If those commissions had cancelled as soon
as the bill was introduced we would have saved several million
dollars. It was wasted because the hon. member and the Senate
got into bed together and blocked the passage of the bill and cost
us a lot of money as has-
The Deputy Speaker: There are two minutes to go. I do not
believe the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata wishes to
begin her speech. I wonder if we might call it 5.30 by agreement.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
11217
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved that Bill C-289,
an act to provide for evaluations of statutory programs, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak to this private
member's bill. Unfortunately, it has been designated a
non-votable bill and will not be referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts.
However, there is a tide in the affairs of men which when
taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Shakespeare said this 400
years ago. There is a tide today that is causing government to
re-examine its profligate ways and return to the sanity of fiscal
responsibility, hence ensuring the prosperity of Canadians in
future generations.
Canadian taxpayers have seen their taxes rise dramatically
over the last 15 to 20 years in the name of reining in the budget
deficit. Yet that deficit is no closer to being tamed than in the
years before. We have had a continuous stream of finance
ministers stand in the House and proclaim that the battle will be
won through the increased taxes that they have introduced.
These have been empty promises. We have listened to finance
ministers tell us that spending is being constrained in the name
of deficit reduction. Every year when we add it all up, the
spending has gone up.
What is the problem? When more and more taxes only contain
the unsustainable deficit, the problem is being perceived as
insurmountable. Perhaps the real reason lies in the way we spend
taxpayers' money and the needs we as a government have
perceived as needs to be addressed.
Over the years governments past and present have created
programs to address virtually every perceivable need for
Canadians from health to unemployment, grain transportation,
disaster relief, alleviating aboriginal problems, educating our
young, combating poverty, heritage, industrial development and
international marketing. The list is endless.
Some of these programs are highly visible. They serve
Canadians every day. Some are out of sight of the Canadian
taxpayer and yet we hope are performing some valuable service.
Some are out of date and out of touch. Some are just plain
obsolete. Some continue because no one has bothered to shut
them down. They are forgotten, expensive and ongoing. Are
they Beneficial? No.
In this day and age when we are trying to justify every dollar
spent, we should take the time to evaluate on a program by
program basis what we are actually doing and why.
The President of the Treasury Board has announced that
45,000 civil servants are going to lose their jobs. Is that because
we have suddenly found out their work was irrelevant? I doubt
it.
Somehow the Treasury Board is telling us that government
can do the job required with 45,000 fewer civil servants. We do
not have these answers, only questions and concerns. What does
it mean for those Canadians who depend on a certain program?
Will it still be there for them tomorrow?
What about the career of a civil servant which has suddenly
been shattered? What does the future hold for him? Why did we
find out now that we can dispense with 45,000 civil servants? It
did not appear apparent to us last year or the year before that we
could dispense with these civil servants, 30,000 of them, 20,000
of them or 10,000 of them. Why now?
11218
Over the last 10 to 15 years the private sector has realized
technology has changed the world, that profit margins are
slimmer. Efficiency must be improved to maintain profitability.
Innovation is the only way to success.
By recognizing these signs and acting on them, Canadian
industry leads the world today in rising productivity growth. To
them we owe a great debt of gratitude. If they had been as
laggardly and as slothful as the Government of Canada, the
country would have had a financial crisis long ago.
The private sector is constantly reviewing what it does, how
well it does it, how it can improve efficiency and how it can
innovate. Is the government exempt from these issues? The
answer is no. It does not have the political will to address them.
My private members' bill is a serious attempt to redress that
problem. I have focused on statutory spending in my private
members' bill, spending that accounts for $112 billion this
fiscal year. It is included in the estimates for information only.
Members of Parliament cannot debate it. They cannot vote on
it. They cannot reduce it. They cannot eliminate it. Like old man
river, it keeps rolling on every day. I want to take stock of that
$112 billion of spending.
Like the private sector, I want it done rationally, completely,
objectively and most of all on a cyclical basis of seven to ten
years.
(1735 )
I am proposing in my private member's bill that all statutory
spending, no matter how great or small, how meaningful or
meaningless, be evaluated every decade using four fundamental
principles. Is the program still relevant? Is the program
effective in addressing the needs that have been identified? Is
the program being delivered efficiently? Is there a better way to
achieve the same results? Those are four fundamental criteria on
which to evaluate every statutory program that has been
authorized by the Government of Canada over the years.
Let us look at these points again. Is the program relevant? We
all know we live in a changing society. Statistics Canada is
continually measuring these changes in our society, the size of
urban poor, child poverty, wealth, the size of our houses, the
products we buy, the appliances we own, our level of education.
The index of Statistics Canada is an inch thick. Who says a
program designed 20 or 30 years ago is meeting the challenges
of today unless we ask what is the challenge we are trying to
meet today?
Therefore I want the question asked whether the program is
still relevant. That will cause the senior bureaucrats and the
political masters to define clearly and specifically what the need
is in today's terms, not last year's terms or last decade's terms.
What are they trying to accomplish today? It is simple enough.
The private sector does it all the time. It boggles my mind that
this is an innovative idea for the Government of Canada.
The second principle of evaluation is whether the program is
effective in addressing the identified need. That again seems a
fairly simple question to which we would want to know the
answer. Surely if we have identified a need through the
discussion on relevancy it behoves us to know we are addressing
that need effectively, not just 60 per cent of the need being
addressed and 40 per cent being ignored or whatever percentage
we want to choose.
On the other side of the coin, why would we want to address a
need with 20 per cent overlap beyond that? We would be wasting
taxpayers' money because we did not examine our programs to
determine if they are effective. Worst of all, what would we say
if we were to find that a program is addressing issues largely
irrelevant to the fundamental focus of the programs, spending
money with abandon while the need identified remains
unaddressed?
Surely it is our job as parliamentarians to be asking these
questions to ensure on behalf of taxpayers that we have the
answers.
The third principle of my bill requires that we ask how
efficiently we are delivering these programs. Is our service up to
par or do we have to wait months for a disability pension from
CPP, for example? I found out through my work on the public
accounts committee that the Canada pension plan only answers
four out of every 11 telephone calls. I found out that the
Department of National Defence built a warehouse in Halifax to
house inventory. However, after the building was largely
complete it looked at the inventory it wanted to put into the
building and realized it was largely obsolete and was not being
used.
Therefore, when we ask whether the program is being
delivered efficiently, I hope in most cases the answer is yes. We
want to know every situation when the answer is no.
(1740 )
The final principle of the bill asks the simple yet fundamental
question is there a better way? Too often we get caught up in
repetition instead of innovation. As needs change we have new
tools and new technology to identify needs. As we improve our
efficiency we should always ask whether there is a better way.
Preventive maintenance goes a long way to reduce
renovation. A stitch in time saves nine. Program evaluation, as
proposed in my private member's bill, is an ongoing process that
will provide value to the Canadian taxpayer. It is not politically
driven. It is open and transparent.
11219
My bill will require each program evaluation be laid before
the House and referred to a standing committee for its input, for
public discussion, hearings and for recommendations. It would
be a public process.
We have program reviews going on today with the Minister of
Human Resources Development. These reviews are taking place
behind the scenes. They are being presented, according to the
Auditor General, without pooled information. In his last report
he mentioned we would require more information. It would be a
public process and the government would be required to respond
the committee's report within 150 days.
Another major point is we must have faith in the quality of the
evaluations. For that reason my bill causes evaluations on
programs that spend more than $250 million annually to be
reviewed by the Auditor General, and his report on the
evaluation to be laid before the House also.
Program evaluation is an idea whose time has come. The
Auditor General has been critical of the progress of
development of program evaluation in his 1993 report. Program
evaluation has been introduced in other western democracies
with significant success and savings to the taxpayer. It can, will
and must do the same here.
As parliamentarians who are wrestling with a serious budget
deficit and an accumulated debt almost out of control, we owe it
to the taxpayers to adopt program evaluation. As members of
Parliament responsible for the public purse, program evaluation
is without doubt the best tool that has come along to assist us in
our work in decades.
The Auditor General said: ``The story of program evaluation
in the Government of Canada is one of high expectations and
great potential that have only been partly fulfilled''. That quote
is from the 1993 Auditor General's report, paragraph 844.
Let us not have heads of gold and feet of clay. Let program
evaluation achieve its full potential in playing its very real and
substantial role in managing government programs.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address the House on Bill C-289, a private member's
bill.
The bill provides for the regular evaluation of continuing
government programs funded by statutory appropriations by a
program evaluation process set by the President of the Treasury
Board. Responsible ministers would be required to table in the
House the results of these evaluations.
[Translation]
The bill also requires the Auditor General of Canada to review
and report to the House of Commons on major evaluations.
[English]
During this period of concern for the deficit and the level of
the national debt, it is very important all parliamentarians and
all Canadians know which government programs are working;
which government programs are working well and which ones
are not working well. We also want to know how we can improve
them so they are affordable and that they meet the objectives
established for them.
Program evaluation is a good tool for reviewing programs. It
allows for the questioning on a periodic basis of the rationale for
each government program. It involves the systematic gathering
of verifiable information on a program. This information would
include demonstrable evidence of its results and cost
effectiveness. This process would provide more and better
information for decision making.
(1745)
The government has already demonstrated its commitment to
the need for regular program evaluations. Many of our public
documents place an important focus on evaluation. For
example, ``Creating Opportunities'', the red book, outlines the
importance of evaluation information and the 1994 budget
called for major reviews of federal programs.
[Translation]
These important reviews of federal programs had two
objectives: first, to identify the programs and services that the
government will continue to provide if there are enough
resources and, second, to ensure that these programs are
delivered in the most efficient way possible. We can already see
the results of these reviews.
[English]
In addition, in May 1994 the Treasury Board approved a new
review policy. The intent was to strengthen the ongoing review
capabilities of departments and the government in general.
More and improved review and evaluation findings are to be
made publicly available.
Bill C-289 recommends evaluations be made of statutory
programs on a cyclical basis. This a worthy approach. We need
to ask how practical it is. There are only so many resources that
can be devoted to program evaluation. We must use those
resources carefully.
While major statutory programs are important, sometimes it
is much more cost effective to evaluate issues which impact on
more than one program and possibly on more than one
department. Evaluations involving many departments are often
more strategic and more likely to be useful.
11220
The government needs to retain flexibility in this regard.
Cyclical evaluations of singular statutory programs may not
always provide the wider information base needed for a
significant government decision. There is nothing wrong with
supporting cyclical evaluation. One needs to think whether this
approach is the best one in all cases.
Ultimately we want to ensure review of activities undertaken
by government departments and central agencies are better
linked to government priorities rather than some predetermined
schedule.
[Translation]
The needs and aspirations of the population change rapidly.
Unforeseen problems may arise. Decision makers and managers
must adapt quickly to any change in conditions.
[English]
A long term fixed evaluation schedule is not always
appropriate. Programs should be evaluated based on an analysis
of risk, their importance to Canadians and, as the information is
needed, for decision making. To have an evaluation for the sake
of an evaluation is not cost effective or wise.
Evaluations are not the only source of information
parliamentarians and Canadians can use to evaluate whether
government programs and services are affordable and effective.
There are many different activities in government which help us
to learn how well programs are serving Canadians and also to
identify successful practices that can lead to service and quality
improvements when needed.
Earlier this week the President of the Treasury Board released
details of the renewed expenditure management system of the
Government of Canada. The new system is intended to support
the objective of making the best use of tax dollars to deliver
quality services to Canadians. The renewed expenditure
management system introduced the concept of departmental
outlooks. These outlooks on program priorities and
expenditures will be provided to the various standing
committees of the House.
[Translation]
These documents will give parliamentary committees better
quality information that will enable them to evaluate future
priorities and trends in departmental and program spending and
to comment on them.
[English]
The public service is currently working to establish service
standards for its programs. The role of service standards is to
provide answers to questions such as how long will it take to
provide a service? How often will it be provided? What can
people do if they are not satisfied? Providing service standards
that pose these types of questions invite public feedback. This
feedback from the clients of government is an important
element in the government's attempt to provide quality services
that are affordable, efficient, effective and responsive to the
needs of Canadians.
(1750 )
Internal audit is another important tool available to provide
information on the success of programs and activities. Internal
audits are designed to help managers achieve their business
objectives by identifying weaknesses or opportunities to
improve the overall economy, efficiency and effectiveness of
program management practices.
[Translation]
It is also important to note that the information on program
performance must be available on an ongoing basis. Managers,
members of Parliament and senators along with the Canadian
people would not be very happy to learn long after the fact that
the programs have not produced the expected results.
[English]
There must be useful performance measures that provide
answers on an ongoing basis. The Auditor General has for
several years encouraged the government to improve the quality
of the information in this area. Program managers must be
encouraged to demonstrate on a timely basis the results being
achieved by their programs.
Most of the mechanisms for providing information on
program performance, what I have discussed already, have a
permanent place in the management framework of government
and are already used to assess statutory programs.
[Translation]
I have tried to demonstrate that, even if evaluation is an
important management tool, it is not the only one. No single tool
such as evaluation can meet all information needs that
determine program effectiveness. Each review tool and each
information tool must be used at the appropriate time and for the
appropriate purposes.
[English]
I have tried to demonstrate the most important aspects of what
is happening in government in terms of relating information to
parliamentarians. The House recently passed a private
member's bill that changed the Auditor General's act to allow
him to report more frequently to the House. This change will
provide us again with more timely information on government
activities and I am sure it will provide the Auditor General with
more work.
How much more work can we be asking the Auditor General
to do before we start to reduce his effectiveness? That is one of
the problems we would encounter.
11221
[Translation]
The bill before the House is the result of an admirable effort
by an hon. member to ensure that we all have access to good
quality information on program performance. I suppose that we
can never have enough information. We must, however,
consider the costs.
[English]
As the bottom line there are many good sources of
information available to us on a routine basis. We must ensure
we are making full use of these resources. If we need further
information there are many options open to us. Should we be
enshrining a new review process into legislation without fully
considering the options and costs involved? I think not.
I am prepared to look at the positive options of the proposed
legislation. If they can be incorporated into some of the
mechanisms we have in place it will be done.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take
this opportunity to commend my colleague, the hon. member for
St. Albert, for taking the initiative of tabling Bill C-289.
Incidentally, the hon. member sits on the public accounts
committee that I chair and I share and certainly understand his
interest in ensuring that an act is passed to provide for the
evaluation of statutory programs.
The need for statutory program evaluation has clearly been
established both in the public and the private sectors, especially
at a time when costs are tightly controlled and we have to make
the most of our scarce resources. The only thing standing in the
way of this bill being passed and applied to major programs is an
obtuse government unable to keep up with the times.
The public accounts committee has already devoted several
meetings to program evaluation. The Auditor General of
Canada, for his part, devoted chapters 8, 9 and 10 of his 1993
report to program evaluation, and made the following comment
again in 1993, and I quote: ``Our audit found that the story of
program evaluation in the Government of Canada is one of high
expectations and great potential that have been only partly
fulfilled. Cabinet has been paying sustained attention to
program evaluation data over the last ten years''.
(1755)
But this interest was given little more than lip service, really.
The sixth report of the public accounts committee, tabled on
November 21, reiterated the relevance of program evaluation.
The auditor general indicated that most of the programs that
were evaluated were not high expenditure programs.
In 1991-92, the evaluation of programs with budgets over $1
billion, that is to say 16 programs totalling $124.5 billion,
showed that only two of these had undergone a comprehensive
evaluation; the rest were only partially covered, if at all. In
1991-1992, twenty-four per cent of government's program
expenditures were evaluated. That same year, 480 of the
completed evaluations covered programs with expenditures of
$250 million or less, as compared to 18 in the over $250 million
category.
There is therefore a need to eliminate this kind of
laissez-faire in government with respect to evaluating mostly
low expenditure programs. That is why I agree with paragraph
8(2) of Bill C-289, which states that the Auditor General of
Canada may review any program evaluation and submit a report
on it to the House of Commons in the case of a program
evaluation covering a statutory program with expenditures of
$250 million or more each year.
I also support this bill because it is directly based on the main
recommendations of the sixth report of the public accounts
committee, which I signed last November.
This legislation would establish an objective decision making
process regarding the continuation or the elimination of
government programs, and it would help reduce the arbitrary
and political nature of the decisions made. Having better
documented and more objective decisions would give more
weight to the role of managers and members of Parliament. An
improved program evaluation process would result in a more
efficient control of costs, given that the current deficit exceeds
$37 billion for that the accumulated debt is close to $550 billion.
As the hon. member St. Albert pointed out, program
evaluation is a modern day management tool. In this era of
electronic highway and state of the art technology, why would
the government keep ignoring the value of cost benefit analysis
and objective criteria on which to base its decisions, and instead
follow trends, rely on a gut feeling, or base these decisions on
political or partisan considerations?
Program evaluation is definitely a protection against dramatic
cost increases which become unmanageable over time. I should
add that this explosion of costs which eventually become
uncontrollable accurately reflects the Liberal Party saga of the
last 25 years.
Bill C-289 is a rare attempt by this Parliament to get us out of
the vicious circle of expenditures, debts and subsidies to friends
of the party, in which the Liberals put this country two decades
ago.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the regular evaluation
of government programs by a program evaluation process set by
Treasury Board on a prescribed cycle. The President of the
Treasury Board would determine the cycle for evaluating
statutory programs. We could not agree more.
New programs would also be covered by this process within
six months after the coming into force of an act authorizing a
statutory program, the President of the Treasury Board shall, by
order, prescribe the fiscal year as an initial evaluation year for
the statutory program and prescribe the evaluation cycle for the
statutory program. This whole process would tend to reduce the
11222
risk of arbitrary decisions, and we therefore support section 3 of
the bill.
In concluding, I have two suggestions for the hon. member for
St. Albert: first, in subsection 7(4), the hon. member suggests
150 days for completing the evaluation of a statutory program
after the end of the evaluation year. I think 90 days would be
more reasonable. This means that tabling in the House would
come after 120 days, instead of 180 as the hon. member initially
suggested.
Second, considering the strategic role played by the auditor
general in program evaluation, I would suggest to the hon.
member that the program evaluation report and the auditor
general's report connected with the former be referred to the
Public Accounts Committee instead of a committee designated
by the House as provided under section 9.
(1800)
I endorse Bill C-289, and I urge the House to support this bill,
so that the government will stop this debt spiral caused by
unnecessary spending and programs that have outlived their
usefulness.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this very
thoughtful and very important legislation. As my colleague, the
member for St. Albert, stated in his remarks, the objective of
Bill C-289 is to hold statutory spending to the same standards of
accountability that Parliament currently applies to discretionary
expenditures. That is a very noble and worthwhile cause to put
forward in this assembly.
While time is limited, there are two points I want to make in
these remarks. First, as statutory programs come to represent an
ever-increasing amount or share of total government
expenditures, the inability of Parliament to evaluate these
programs effectively and objectively is making it more and
more difficult for members of Parliament to hold governments
accountable. For this reason there is a need to have a bill such as
Bill C-289.
The second point is that the intense fiscal pressures brought
about by decades of government over-spending not only make
enhanced review and evaluation of statutory expenditures
desirable, but certainly very essential at this point.
On the first point, I would like to remind the members of the
House how our system of government is supposed to work.
Under the Constitution as members of Parliament we have been
granted three very important powers. First, we must decide how
much government will be permitted to spend. Second, we must
decide how the government will spend it. Third, we have an
obligation to hold the government accountable for those
expenditures.
The objective of the legislation is to bolster and to enhance
the third of these three parliamentary powers that are given to us
as members of Parliament. Specifically, it asks that statutory
programs be subject to the same periodic program evaluations
that are presently applied to non-statutory programs.
These program evaluations seek to answer four very
fundamental questions. First, is the program relevant? Second,
is the program effective in meeting its objectives? Third, is the
program being delivered effectively and efficiently? Fourth, can
the purpose of the program be fulfilled through a variety of
different means?
At present no such reviews are conducted for statutory items.
When weighing the merits of extending program evaluations to
cover this area, we must consider the following: This year, fiscal
year 1995-96, the Government of Canada will spend some $164
billion dollars. Of this only $48 billion will be subject to
parliamentary review. That means that some 71 per cent, or the
remaining $116 billion of our tax dollars will be spent
automatically without any attempt to evaluate those programs
success. That is just not accountability. That has to change. That
is the main purpose of Bill C-289.
Given the size of these annual expenditures, it seem rather
ludicrous that members of the House would not be provided with
the information to determine whether such programs are
effective in meeting their objectives. It is hard to believe that
members would have no way of determining whether there is a
better way to do things. Yet that is the current state of affairs.
Members do not have the information they need to evaluate the
effectiveness of statutory programs.
(1805)
This brings me to my second point. The federal government is
presently facing what amounts to a fiscal crisis. It finds itself
under immense pressure to reduce government expenditures.
Even after making significant cuts to discretionary expenditures
in its last budget, it will still have a deficit of $25 billion in the
year 1997.
Simple arithmetic tells us that if the government has any hope
of achieving a balanced budget then the lion's share of the cuts
will have to be made in the area of statutory expenditures.
Discretionary programs have already been cut or pared to the
bone. The only sizeable pool of money left is in the area of
statutory programs and programs such as old age assistance.
That is why Bill C-289, which would subject the statutory
programs to periodic review and evaluation, is so critical. In the
coming years, members of Parliament will be called on to make
more difficult and tough decisions than previous Parliaments
have had to make. We will have no choice but to reduce or even
11223
eliminate benefits which millions of Canadians consider to be
virtual birthrights.
If we as parliamentarians are to fulfil that task in a responsible
manner then we will need the information to make intelligent
decisions. At present this information does not exist. Bill C-289
seeks to fill this information gap.
In conclusion, Bill C-289 is valuable legislation which would
address two fundamental concerns. First, by improving the
scrutiny of statutory expenditures, it would begin to put control
of the government purse back in the hands of Parliament.
Second, the information obtained from these evaluations and
reviews would provide members with the information they need
to make intelligent spending decisions. At a time when every
government program is being evaluated, when the most sacred
of government cows is being reconsidered and when every
dollar is now subject to careful scrutiny by the budget cutters,
legislation like Bill C-289 is not merely desirable but is most
essential.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am rising, along with the previous speaker from Lethbridge, to
support Bill C-289. In doing so, I want to thank the hon. member
for St. Albert for having brought the bill to the House. It is one of
a series of bills he has brought forward to improve the financial
accountability of Parliament.
[Translation]
I would also like to thank the hon. member for La Prairie for
his support. He gives his party the kind of financial perspective
we need in this House. As chairman of the Public Accounts
Committee, he helps the cause of public finances in Canada.
[English]
In addressing the bill I would really like to ask a question. Do
we do anything here other than provide the veneer of democratic
decision making to what goes on in the massive leviathan we
call the Government of Canada?
Historically our system did not begin in Parliament. It began
with the crown. The crown would periodically call together
Parliament in order to get Parliament's input into important
decisions. The crown would do that because it needed tax dollars
and felt that a process of consultation with both the Lords and
the Commons would aid in getting their consent to raise tax
dollars in the general governance of the country.
(1810 )
As British history unfolded, Parliament asserted more and
more its rights, not only to give its approval and its input, but to
control the entire process: to control the agenda, to select
ministers, to ultimately provide responsible government and
democratic control over the affairs of the crown.
The funny thing about this is that as time went on the process
almost reversed itself. Gradually Parliament pushed the crown
out as the governing force in British democratic countries. As
soon as that happened, the government increasingly became a
force very much independent of Parliament, until it is as we have
it today, where estimates are presented in the hundreds of
billions of dollars, approved by Parliament without serious
scrutiny, almost on a ritualistic basis. We saw that here last
week.
Auditors General have pointed out on many occasions, and in
many different ways, that Parliament has lost control of the
estimate process. The question will increasingly arise,
particularly as we go through this period of governments cutting
spending, cutting favours and the goodies which they give to the
population, as to why people believe that this process protects
their interests, protects their tax dollars and protects their
financial interests.
We are talking about the estimates and a bill to expand the
scrutiny of Parliament beyond the estimates. Previous to getting
involved in politics I spent some time as a student and as a
professional studying the history of federal government
spending.
One of the things that really strikes us when we look at what
has occurred since the second world war is the relative decline in
non-statutory spending as a proportion of the total and the
increase in statutory programs as the significant element in
federal government spending. Thirty years ago about one-third
of all spending was of a statutory nature. Today it is well over
two-thirds, as previous speakers have pointed out. That is not
simply due to the increase in our debt and the statutory interest
payments, it is also due to the focus which we increasingly have
on a small number of statutory programs, mainly in the area of
social spending.
It is unbelievable to realize that this portion of spending is not
at all controlled by the estimate process. It is only mentioned in
the estimates. Information is provided, but it is not controlled at
all. In fact, there is no formal review mechanism for Parliament
on this 70 per cent of spending.
The parliamentary secretary commented, as he has before, on
the question of the cost effectiveness of these cost control
measures. I find it distressing that the question of cost
effectiveness only seems to come up on cost control measures
and never on the actual spending programs in the first place.
The hon. member for St. Albert gave us the example of the
problem with the disability aspects of the Canada pension plan,
which is a statutory program. I know in my own riding that we
have recently dealt with cases where there are serious problems
in program administration and in the attendant conduct and
administration of the program. However, because it is a statuto-
11224
ry program there is no regular review conducted through the
parliamentary process.
The parliamentary secretary also mentioned the resources
that it might tie up to review these programs. One fact that needs
to be mentioned is that we are talking about a large number of
dollars but a small number of programs. There are 11 major
statutory programs. There are payments under the Farm Income
Protection Act. There are payments under the International
Financial Organizations Act.
(1815)
There is the public debt charge program. There is the fiscal
transfer program to the provinces. There are military pensions in
the Department of National Defence; payments to the provinces
for health and medical care; payments to the provinces for CAP,
the Canada assistance plan; the old age security program; grants
to municipalities and other authorities under the real property
program of the Department of Public Works; post-secondary
education payments; and payments to railway companies by the
National Transportation Agency under the Western Grain
Transportation Act.
These 11 programs account for 97 per cent of all statutory
spending. In effect they account for over two-thirds of all
federal government spending. They are the 11 programs for
which the bill suggests there should be a mechanism to review
on an ongoing basis.
It is a new way. It is a suggestion to deal with what are some
fairly obvious difficulties. I hope no one in his right mind, even
in the government, would hold up the way we have conducted
the public finances of the country in the last generation as a
proper way to do business.
We know from our background, wherever we came from, that
we cannot run the Government of Canada as a committee of 295
people. We know generally what happens when committees try
to run anything, but especially a committee of 295 people.
The bill suggests that Parliament use its authority, rather then
just have vague political debates and vague political reviews, to
set up a formal mechanism that properly evaluates the
non-political aspects of major spending and that Parliament be
provided with a formal way of reviewing the technical aspects.
The inevitable political debates will accompany that.
I cannot see how that will use a lot of resources. I cannot see
how it can possibly be ineffective in some kind of cost way. It
would seem to me it is just a logical development now that the
major programs occupy such a large percentage of our spending.
I know the hon. member for St. Albert is aware that adopting a
bill such as this one would plug a very small hole in our boat. We
have lots of holes. It is safe to say that we are not only taking in a
lot of water. Our boat has been sitting at the bottom of the ocean
for some time.
Maybe a bill like this one and thinking a little more
constructively and innovatively in this direction would help us
eventually construct the giant crane we will need to pull the
financial boat up from the bottom of the ocean and get it back to
the surface where it needs to be.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
should like to participate in the debate from the perspective of a
member of the House who is here to represent the constituents of
Calgary Southeast.
I know why I came to Parliament. I came here to look for
accountability. I came here to look for responsibility. I came
here to make a difference. Those elements of my life are
extremely important to me.
As I listened to my colleagues tonight I was absolutely
astounded and amazed to realize how very little a part I can play
in actually touching the heartbeat of government when I will not
be able to make a difference in 71 per cent of its program
spending.
This was a tremendous surprise to me and I guess I would have
to say a major disappointment. In everything I do as I represent
constituents of Calgary Southeast I look at the questions that
were asked by my colleague from St. Albert. Is what I am doing
relevant? That would apply to anything I would be reviewing
here. Certainly when I look at applications that come from the
human resources department for grants and applications to help
employment opportunities, I always ask a question of the
submission: Is it relevant?
(1820)
What kind of effect will that relevance have not only on the
constituents I represent but on all Canadians? I get all kinds of
letters as do all members from constituents who are extremely
frustrated with the spending practices not only of the
government but governments of the past. If it does not pass the
test of relevancy then I have to ask the question: Why not? What
can we do to make it better? What can we do to fix it?
When looking at effectiveness and meeting its objectives I
have to ask: Are the objectives even established? I cannot say
the number of times I have looked at projects or proposals and
there has been no long range planning.
The minister of defence has been challenged many times in
the last month on looking at meeting objectives and having
objectives for spending. They have been missing. I was
absolutely amazed and appalled that although short term goals
were
11225
laid out in the budget that were to be met, the long range goal
must have been missing. All kinds of changes to the budget
came after the fact.
The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage has been challenged a
number of times on changes made to budget statements and to
program estimates. If we are not effective in establishing
objectives, how can we possibly hope to meet them if they are
missing from the documentation?
I came here to vote on absolutely everything. On any piece of
legislation that came before the House I wanted to give
expression to what I felt was important. It disturbs me when 71
per cent of the decisions we make in the House of Commons are
non-votable items. Canadians must be absolutely appalled to be
hearing that tonight. I certainly am stunned to hear of that kind
of spending without any accountability to anybody.
Where is the openness? Where is the effectiveness of the
money I am giving to the government through my tax dollars?
Where is the accountability?
Another question I often put when I receive requests for
assistance is: Is the delivery efficient? If it is not, how can we
continue to go through the process over and over again of giving
money to the same kinds of programs without even looking at
the efficiencies?
Once again we come back to objectives. Are their objectives
in place? Are those objectives being met? In the corporate sector
everybody always evaluates what they do. Business would not
survive if it did not have that part of the expenditure process at
the end of every year where an evaluation based on delivery is
actually done.
My husband works in the corporate sector. Believe me, he is
accountable to his managers and they in turn are accountable to
their superiors to look at efficient and effective delivery of
product. If that does not happen, they are out of business.
Then we come to the final question: Is there a better way? My
colleagues from St. Albert in all good faith brought forward a
non-votable bill. This is the place for rational and reasoned
debate. This is where we should be able to talk about the issues
of the day, to have a broad discussion with everyone
participating.
What do we have? We have a handful of people standing in the
House tonight talking about a major concern for Canadians:
accountability in terms of how we spend money. It is
disappointing to hear that we are doing well enough and that we
can defend the status quo because we truly are into new times
that demand a different point of view, a different way of doing
business. If we undertake to look at it honestly and directly from
a different point of view, we will be able to hold government
accountable. We as parliamentarians will be able to stand in
front of our constituents and say that we made a difference in the
35th Parliament.
(1825)
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further members rising
to debate the bill and it not being designated as a votable item,
the time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the bill is dropped from the Order
Paper.
[Translation]
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now
proceed to a special debate.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.) moved:
That this House, in light of the UN Security Council consideration of renewed
mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia, take note of the rotation of
Canadian forces serving with UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening
to have a debate before the government decides on yet another
difficult position for Canada in terms of the deployment of its
troops in the former Yugoslavia.
[Translation]
I would like to begin by drawing to the attention of the House
the efforts of the international community to reach a diplomatic
settlement of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. The world
community has made significant efforts to resolve the conflict
in the Balkans and has used various means to do so, including
crisis diplomacy, the imposition of sanctions, the establishment
of prohibited air zones and, of course, the deployment of
UNPROFOR.
[English]
Currently UNPROFOR is made up of 38 national contingents
or specialized units, totalling about 39,000 military personnel.
There are about 5,300 civilians also assigned to the particular
force, making it the largest peacekeeping mission ever put
together by the United Nations. Eleven NATO countries are
providing about 44 per cent of the total personnel and Canada is
foremost among those countries.
UNPROFOR was created in February 1992 specifically to
monitor the ceasefire between the Croatian and Krajina-Serb
forces, to supervise this demilitarized UN protected area, and to
try to bring some kind of semblance of normal life back to the
people in the region.
As the situation deteriorated to the south in
Bosnia-Hercegovina in September 1992, UNPROFOR's
mandate was expanded to provide security for humanitarian
relief efforts in the region. As we know, an UNPROFOR element
was deployed to the
11226
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to help deter possible
aggression.
In the brief time I have this evening I want to talk about the
situation in Croatia because it is becoming much more relevant
to Canada and the Canadian position in the former Yugoslavia.
The conflict between Croatia and the Krajina-Serbs, as I said,
has been at an impasse since 1992. At the root of the impasse is
Croatia's determination to regain sovereignty over about 30 per
cent of the territory held by the Krajina-Serbs who are reticent
to disarm in the process.
Talks have been held under the auspices of the international
conference on the former Yugoslavia in November 1993. A
three-part strategy was set out to help resolve the problem.
[Translation]
First, a ceasefire had to be established, then discussions held
on economic issues and, finally, agreement reached on a form of
political reconciliation. This strategy permitted some progress.
In December 1993, the Croatian government and
representatives of the Serbs in the area reached an agreement on
setting up a series of ceasefires. At the end of March 1994, a
general ceasefire agreement had been signed between the
Croatian government and the Krajina-Serb authorities.
UNPROFOR succeeded in making sure the agreement held, one
of its various achievements in Croatia.
(1830)
At the same time, this agreement caused considerable concern
among the Croatian population. These people were afraid they
would be victims of a situation like that persisting in Cyprus and
were concerned that the country would be permanently divided
by UNPROFOR.
[English]
Nonetheless, the general ceasefire did raise expectations that
an economic agreement and ultimately a political settlement
were within reach. Efforts to reach a lasting settlement in
Croatia were dealt a shocking blow on January 12, 1995 when
the Croatian president, Dr. Franjo Tudjman, informed the UN
secretary-general that his government would not renew the
mandate of UNPROFOR in Croatia beyond March 31.
President Tudjman said that Croatia's experience over the
past two years had led him to conclude: ``Although UNPROFOR
has played an important role in stopping violence and major
conflicts in Croatia, it is an indisputable fact that the present
character of the UNPROFOR mission does not provide
conditions necessary for establishing lasting peace and order in
the republic of Croatia''.
[Translation]
Before looking at the events in Croatia and at the United
Nations following the dramatic statement by Mr. Tudjman, I
would like to consider the diplomatic situation in
Bosnia-Hercegovina. The efforts that went into resolving the
conflict there paralleled the war itself.
At the start of 1994, Muslims and Croatians in Bosnia reached
an agreement resulting in a ceasefire and constituting a major
step in establishing a federation encompassing the two groups.
[English]
This ceasefire continues to hold. It is monitored by
UNPROFOR. In central Bosnia, CANBAT 2 has tasks related to
monitoring this ceasefire. Of course we have our troops also in
the Krajina region, CANBAT 1. We also have a group largely in
the service area located in Split.
This three-part conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina has been
stabilized to some degree. The international community has
turned its attention to finding a solution to the conflict between
the Bosnian muslims and the Bosnian Serbs.
As we know, to inject more life into this the contact group was
established with Great Britain, France, the European Union, the
United States and the Russian federation in April 1994. This
group has worked particularly diligently in trying to get a
solution.
Its first proposition was to redraw the map in a post-conflict
Bosnia whereby the Bosnian muslims and Croats would receive
about 51 per cent of the territory and the Bosnian Serbs about 49
per cent. The parties were also offered a number of incentives
and disincentives to encourage their acceptance of the new plan.
Like previous international offers, the plan was rejected in a
Bosnian-Serb referendum by more than 90 per cent of the
voters. Despite these setbacks, the contact group and the
warring parties have continued.
There was another development recently, before the year end.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met with officials in both
Sarajevo and Pale and succeeded in negotiating an agreement
for a countrywide ceasefire in Bosnia-Hercegovina and the
opening of negotiations for an end to hostilities by January 1,
1995.
On December 31, 1994 the Government of
Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Bosnian Serbs signed a cessation
of hostilities agreement to take effect along the lines of
confrontation for a four month period ending in April 1995.
This agreement is being supervised and monitored by
UNPROFOR, including our troops. The agreement calls for a
separation of the forces, full freedom of movement, the opening
of the Sarajevo airport, restoration of utilities, exchanges of
prisoners of war and the withdrawal of all foreign troops.
11227
Throughout the first two months of 1995 the agreement held
with only minor violations. By late February violations had
increased and most observers do not expect a ceasefire to last
beyond the next few weeks. We hope that common ground may
be found between the parties whereby an agreement may be
extended. One can only hope that these negotiations begin very
quickly.
On the current diplomatic situation on the UN mandate, it is
useful to set the tone. This is the backdrop by which we will
perhaps redeploy our troops starting next week.
(1835 )
President Tudjman, after considerable pressure, very
courageously decided to re-evaluate his original thinking. He
agreed to a continuation of an albeit smaller UN reformulated
presence, a different kind of mandate. It is more along the
traditional peacekeeping lines that Canada participated in
during our years in Cyprus whereby we work the line between
two hostile factions.
President Tudjman envisages a new independent force to be
established. This new mission should help to implement the
ceasefire agreement and it should assist in the implementation
of the economic agreement, the one I mentioned earlier. It
should also put in place elements of the existing UN
peacekeeping plan for Croatia. That continues to be accepted by
both parties, including the maintenance of UN presence on
international borders as well as confidence building and
humanitarian measures such as assistance to refugees and
displaced persons, protection of ethnic minorities, mine
clearance, convoy assistance and the like.
As the current UNPROFOR mandate expires in two days, the
UN must reach some kind of agreement on the renewal of its
presence. The United Nations is now working very closely with
all the parties involved to reach a workable agreement on this
continued UN presence. Canada has been a party to many of
these discussions.
The UN secretary-general has proposed three distinct
missions in the region to meet the unique circumstances in
Croatia, Bosnia and the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.
Canada's position is that we say to Canadians we know their
feelings of pride in Canada in trying to assist in this very
difficult situation in the heart of Europe. Canadians have been
quite happy to do their part with their continued presence in both
Croatia and Bosnia. We also understand that Canadians are
becoming a little bit concerned that this deployment not be open
ended and that we not continue ad infinitum.
I think we were in Cyprus for about 29 years. We do not plan
to be in Bosnia and Croatia for 29 years. We on the government's
part are obviously re-evaluating our commitment to the region.
We do not want to walk out on our allies, on the UN. We have all
been in this together. We believe there can be a negotiated
settlement.
From a Canadian point of view, we hope that we can start to
reduce our presence in the region somewhat but at the same time
try to continue the good work we have been involved in. In other
words, we believe that perhaps with a reformulated mandate in
Croatia and a heightened Canadian presence there, we may be
able to more effectively contribute in that area. That would be
for the UN to decide whether or not it wants us to continue in
both theatres, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia, or whether or
not it wants us to concentrate our efforts in Croatia.
These are the questions with which we are grappling at this
time. Canada certainly is willing to continue to do its part in the
region. We feel it is incumbent upon the government to listen to
the views of members of Parliament.
As I said, two battalions of the Royal 22nd Regiment are
ready to deploy. We have about 2,100 people in
Bosnia-Hercegovina and in Croatia. We have another 400 to 500
in the area generally, the UN observers, the people with
Operation Sharp Guard on our ships, and the people who have
been involved in the airlift operation of supplies to Sarajevo. We
have quite a commitment in the region.
Before I conclude, I want to underscore Canada's willingness
to be flexible in helping the UN address the concerns. I also want
to underscore the fact that Canada's commitment in this
particular operation cannot last indefinitely.
(1840 )
We believe Canadians want us to review our participation.
They welcome the views of parliamentarians to see whether we
should continue with this particular rotation for another six
months and perhaps talk about scaling down in the fall after we
have further discussions. Perhaps the Croatian force itself, the
idea of it, will become a bit more mature and well defined.
Perhaps the best posture for us to take is to continue with this
rotation. As I said in the House the other day, we do have
flexibility. We could decide not to rotate. We could keep some of
our troops there for a number of weeks while alternate
arrangements are made. Obviously, getting so close to the wire
with a number of scenarios unfolding, especially with the new
force in Croatia, we feel that may be very difficult to do from the
point of view of the UN. We do not want to let the UN down.
However, we do believe we are coming very close to the point
when Canada has to make some significant changes in its
commitment in the region. We welcome any ideas the UN may
have for continued Canadian presence which will demonstrate
to Canadians that we are just not there indefinitely performing
the same valuable functions, but that we are making progress
11228
toward a peaceful settlement and that Canadian participation is
helping to move in that direction.
I will be very interested to hear the views of members
opposite. Unfortunately I will not be able to stay for the entire
debate. My parliamentary secretary is here, as well as the
Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
who will be taking notes and taking part in the debate.
I want to assure hon. members that once we have the views of
the members this evening, they certainly will be taken into
account. The government will address the views expressed in
the debate tomorrow morning. We will have something more to
say on the matter of the deployment at some point tomorrow.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I think that we can all congratulate ourselves for
the fine job our Canadian soldiers did in Bosnia and Croatia.
Having said this, I do not think we can be so proud of what the
Canadian government did and above all of what it failed to do
during these peacekeeping missions, since the situation is far
from rosy in Bosnia and Croatia as the UN's mandate expires
and as we draw near to the end of a very important ceasefire in
Bosnia.
On the diplomatic level, the situation is at a standstill, the
stalemate remains to be broken and the efforts of the contact
group have been relatively unfruitful. Therefore, compared with
last year, it is a dead-end situation which has dragged on. There
is not even a hope on the horizon of resolving it peacefully.
On the military level, the situation is hardly any better, it is
even worse than it has ever been and, recently, the situation
rapidly deteriorated once again. We know that over the past four
days or so, there have been no fewer than a dozen confrontations
in Bosnia, mostly orchestrated by the Bosnian government. It is
attacking strategic positions in the hopes of gaining more
leverage in negotiations, and of course the Serbs are retaliating.
There have been 12 to 14 battles over the past four days.
The Serbs, quite recently by the way, have opened up artillery
fire on four positions in protected areas, in contravention of all
of the existing agreements. Last Sunday, Bosnian Serbs called
for a general mobilization, which will certainly not relieve any
tension in the area. At the same time, the new general of
UNPROFOR, Rupert Smith, who is from Britain, threatened air
strikes against Serb positions if they shell neutral zones. The
Serbs issued a reply, of course: they would consider all
peacekeepers stationed there as enemies if NATO were to attack
their positions.
(1845)
We know that the Serbs are serious when they make threats of
this kind, since they took and held hostages, around fifty
Canadian peacekeepers, the last time we used air strikes.
In reality, we are faced with, on the one hand, the Serbs, who
have decided to wage a war of attrition, mostly against
peacekeeping missions. The Serbs know that we are there
temporarily, that it is costing us, that public support for a
peacekeeping presence in the former Yugoslavia may wane, that
one day we will have to leave, and that, from that moment on,
they will have the Bosnians' blood. They, who have been
fighting for centuries, know that they have all the time in the
world and that it is essentially only a matter of time.
So they say let the hands of time keep on turning, in the end, it
is the Serbs who will prevail. After spending so much money,
unfortunately also after wasting so many human lives, the Allied
Forces of the UN will have to withdraw, probably in
humiliation, and leave the area for the Serbs' taking. Their
calculation is quite obvious. They do not negotiate or they
negotiate only when threatened by an immediate air strike. As
soon as the heat is off, before the coalition can regroup, they
return to their former positions, they violate ceasefires, they
attack protected zones. It is an never-ending cat and mouse
game.
As for the Croats, now that the mandate is about to expire,
they have all kinds of demands: that the mandate be redefined;
that units be split up-apparently, the UN is about to agree to
this demand-so that, instead of a single UN force, there would
be three contingents, one in Macedonia, one in Bosnia and one in
Croatia, under a diversified command which could be a UN
general co-ordinating operations. But they also have demands
regarding the contingents. Although we are currently unable to
carry out the missions entrusted to us, although there are not
enough troops to do all the tasks that are assigned, they want to
reduce contingents from 12,000 to 5,000 troops. We are
negotiating with people who need our presence to keep the
peace, who need enough people to achieve the desired results.
All this after nearly two years of presence if not more and for
us, Canadians, $314 million in expenditures, 10 soldiers killed
during operations, not to mention those who have recently
committed suicide-we do not know too much about this, but we
can assume that some suicides are linked to the operations
conducted over there or feared by those who do not want to go.
This is the context in which the government is inviting the
opposition parties to participate in a debate, but a debate on
what? The motion calls for the House to take note of the April
rotation of Canadian forces. What does that mean? Does it mean
that it has already been decided that there will be a rotation?
Will the government claim today that no decision had been made
11229
yet? Does this mean that tomorrow night, the government could
move to replace 1,600 troops, two 800 member contingents, and
deal with aircraft, logistics, transportation, options? Are they
trying to tell us that no decision has been made yet?
The very wording of the motion shows that I am right. They
are laughing at Parliament today. They are laughing at us.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: A debate on what? What kind of debate is
this? How can we seriously debate this issue, when the
government has not even taken stock of the situation over there,
when there is no assessment, no information? All that we know,
we have learned from reading the papers. The government never
provided us with any significant, specific and clear information
on anything that went on over there. It never told us how the
operations were evaluated, or what it was prognosticating. We
were never told whether our troops were there for the duration or
only a certain length of time, and in which case, how long that
would be. We know nothing. We are kept in the dark.
We are expected do drink in the words of the Minister of
National Defence and take leaps of faith, sign blank cheques and
continue to send troops who operate in total frustration over
there, not knowing what their mandate is, not being authorized
by military authorities to conduct the operations that need to be
conducted. They are helpless witnesses to revolting situations:
children being tortured and killed, people being blown to pieces,
civilians becoming live targets for blind fire from the hills. We
are despatching our troops under very poor conditions. Are they
there for the duration and under what conditions?
(1850)
I think that the position the government finds itself today is
such that it does not have much of a choice. The only argument it
has left is to say: ``We do not have any choice; we have to
maintain our presence over there''. The worst of it is that they
are right: we do not have a choice.
We do not have a choice because, by its failure to act, its
negligence and its superficial commitments, the government has
put itself in such a position that we do not have any choice any
more. A government or state that bases its policies on arguments
like: ``We do not have a choice'' is in big trouble.
I think that this is the kind of action that has to be decided as a
matter of choice, deliberately, for humanitarian reasons, on
compassionate grounds, as a show of solidarity. In this case, the
decision is based on an absence of policy. This government does
not have a policy.
I dare anyone to get a serious response from government to
the questions: what is Canada's policy regarding peacekeeping
missions, what are the guiding principles, on what basis are
decisions made regarding these operations? These questions
will remain unanswered because they do not know.
We know for a fact that the government, through its members
on the foreign affairs committee which reviewed Canada's
foreign policy, agreed with the opposition that some criteria and
standards were now required, and that we could no longer make
individual commitments on a case-by-case basis in operations
such as this one, where people die and where incredible amounts
of money are spent in vain, without making a difference. The
fact is that we did not make any progress whatsoever since last
year. On the contrary, the issue is becoming more and more
insoluble and it is increasingly obvious that we have reached a
deadlock.
We wanted to get information from the government. We
wanted the government to table these documents and set up a
House committee, but all we got was an advance notice of a few
hours yesterday. Indeed, yesterday afternoon we suddenly
received notice of a debate on Bosnia and Croatia. Earlier today,
we managed to get a one-hour briefing from defence officials
who were very co-operative in answering our questions.
However, we did not get the necessary files, the basic
information required.
If the government is serious about this issue, it should allow a
House committee to review the situation and hear witnesses, and
it should also make these documents available. If we have to
respect parliamentary secrecy, if the members of such a
committee have to work in secrecy, they will do it. We are all
responsible people, whether we belong to the Reform Party, the
Bloc Quebecois or the Liberal Party. We could conduct an
in-depth review of the situation in Bosnia and Croatia, because
right now we do not know what is going on.
Because the government let the events dictate its policy, we
do have to remain there, since nothing was solved and the
situation is still the same. From a humanitarian point of view, we
are well aware that if, under the current conditions, UN troops
were to withdraw, including the Canadian peacekeepers, the
whole Sarajevo population could die of hunger.
All the food that enters the city is airlifted by UN forces,
along with water, gas, medication and so on. People barely
survive in extremely harsh conditions and almost unacceptable
sanitary conditions, but they do survive thanks to the
humanitarian assistance provided by peacekeeping forces in
Bosnia.
We are well aware that the UN mission in Bosnia is essentially
humanitarian in nature. It is a military one in Croatia, since
there is a buffer zone that keeps the factions apart with, in the
11230
middle, the UN forces. But in the case of Bosnia, it is far more
than that. It is humanitarian. It is a matter of helping people to
survive.
So can we just decide to withdraw? Of course not. We know
perfectly well we cannot. The government knew this. The
government thought that by starting this debate, it would
necessarily get the support of the opposition.
However, although we cannot do otherwise, we are aware that
the government has failed in several respects, in that it does not
put its cards on the table and give us a chance to make informed
decisions. In a democracy, people want to make informed
decisions. They want to know why, because they want to choose
the best option. In this case, we have no option.
From the military point of view, we know what would happen
if we left right away. We know that in Croatia, it would be a
signal for all-out war. People are just waiting for a chance to
attack each other. And of course in Bosnia, the Serbs would try,
and they would probably succeed in settling their differences
with the Bosnians, in ways we can well imagine.
(1855)
Without the presence of tv cameras and without UN forces, we
can imagine the kind of atrocities that would take place. It would
be total war, a war that would not be contained, that would
spread to the Balkan powder keg towards Greece. We know that
the Greeks sympathize with the Serbs and have done so for
centuries, and that the Serbs might depend on the support that
the Greeks might be tempted to give them. The Turks support the
Bosnians.
Finally, there are any number of reasons why we would see an
incredible explosion of hostilities with all the consequences this
might have for relations between the major powers. What would
be the position of the Soviet Union if there was an outbreak of
armed conflict of this magnitude? We can assume this would
make international tensions even worse tense. In other words,
we are trapped.
What we would like to see is for the government to commit
itself, with the help of the opposition who would be glad to
oblige, to identifying certain criteria before getting into this
kind of trap, and second, to setting conditions for the renewal of
the mandate. I think the government should set certain
conditions. It has already said that it would not agree to have the
arms embargo withdrawn. I think the government has already
adopted this as its policy, and we support that policy. I think one
of the conditions would have to be that the embargo must be
maintained, because on the American side, there is a strong
movement in favour of lifting the embargo.
Second, it must ensure that ceasefires will last. Ceasefires
tend to have a very short life expectancy in that part of the world.
There have been dozens and dozens of cease-fire violations. We
must be able to set certain conditions. The UN will have to agree
to identify more specific mandates. We must have a better idea
of what we are going to do. To what extent can we reciprocate
and in what way?
We have to know more about this, especially in connection
with air strikes. For instance, does General Smith have the
authority to carry out the threat he made recently without any
input from Canada? Can they go ahead with air strikes without
consulting the Canadian government? The answer would seem
to be yes, in certain instances. It appears that, for reasons of
defence, for example, General Smith is at liberty to launch air
strikes. This is less clear in the case of offensive action, in which
Canada apparently has some say, if only for reasons of defence,
which we understand, in order to protect the lives of the
peacekeeping force.
This means that things can escalate. We know very well how
the Serbs will react to air raids on their positions. It is the people
in the area who will pay. Who is going to be there? Our soldiers.
There is also the whole question of morale in the Canadian
armed forces as a backdrop. We will talk about this again in the
House.
It seems to me the Canadian forces are going through a crisis.
It seems to me that these peace missions have severely taxed
their ability to meet these challenges. We might be tempted to
think that, for the military, these missions are exotic tours of
duty in faraway lands. Some might think that since apparently
they do not have to engage the enemy, it is not an unpleasant
business. We realize, however, that these missions are very hard
and, perhaps, harder psychologically than traditional missions,
because there is no clear objective, because these people often
do not know why they are there and because they must remain
impassive in the face of totally incomprehensible, uncivilized
and unacceptable behaviour.
I think the Minister of National Defence should say more in
this respect to the House. I am sure he has reports on morale in
the Canadian forces, and I believe it is in the interest of all of us
in this House to be informed of the constraints and of the actions
that need to be taken in this area.
Therefore, the opposition's response, the one the government
expected, the one it forces us to give, is yes. A very conditional
yes. A yes that comes with lots of questions and doubts. Not a
very happy yes.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1900)
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at the outset I would like to advise you we will be
splitting our times-
11231
The Deputy Speaker: There seems to be confusion about
that. After the first three members, no member can speak for
more than 10 minutes and so we will not have the dividing of
time. This member has 20 minutes.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, I hate to start on a complaining
note, but I feel I must. The timing of this debate is the one I
would like to address. I would much rather have risen to my feet
to discuss our commitment to Bosnia and Croatia in December
or I suppose we could have accepted January.
To be rising two days before the commitment is to come to an
end seems to me to be very late in the game. Moreover, until
very late this afternoon there has been no consultation
whatsoever or briefings presented by the government. This
seems to be a very dramatic oversight on the part of the
government.
I think that the opposition parties, while we represent
different philosophies, are certainly also trying to represent
Canadians and present their views in this House.
It strikes me that we have two committees, the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and on
foreign affairs, both of which would be appropriate forums to
have discussed the possibilities of extension, the difficulties and
the ramifications of extending the mandate in Bosnia.
We have heard overtures that this might happen, but as yet it
has not. I think it is a dramatic oversight on the part of the
government. I request very strongly it reconsider this and in
future involve the opposition parties more deeply in this type of
negotiation.
To move into the situation, the background on Croatia is that it
is a true peacekeeping operation as the definition goes. It is
basically a separation zone which keeps antagonists apart. Once
again I would like to pay tribute to our troops not only in Croatia
but in Bosnia. They have done superb work and unquestionably
are, if not the most professional, among the most professional
who are performing the duty in the UN mandate.
Bosnia is a totally different mandate because, to use the
official term, it is humanitarian assistance. It is to try to separate
three different groups of people who are rather antagonistic
toward each other. They are again doing very good work under
extremely difficult conditions that have really constrained their
activities to a tremendous degree.
By virtue of their flexibility, their professionalism, they have
managed to create homogeneous or friendly
situations-friendly is probably going too far-but acceptable
situations in areas by interceding on a personal level with the
local leaders. By showing without any question they are totally
unbiased, that they have no favouritism, they have performed
very well.
It could be fairly safely said that Canada and perhaps one or
two other nations are the only ones that can make the claim of
being completely and totally unbiased.
The problem is there have been many violations of
agreements. We have seen rapes, we have seen murders, we have
seen atrocities that are unspeakable. These are conducted by
people who are committed to hate each other. It seems such a
shame. It is such a beautiful country and there is so much
prospect for it to prosper. Unhappily, it is caught up in what is
truly a war.
We have seen hostages taken. This comes about as a result
normally of NATO exerting influence to try to coerce or force
people to abide by agreements that they have made but choose
not to abide by.
(1905 )
Canadians I think are in a particularly vulnerable position in
this case because we are the only ones, to my knowledge, who
are actually occupying positions in Serb held territory. The other
UN forces are not so deployed.
As a result, if the UN calls on NATO air support to achieve a
change of heart on the part of Serb aggression, the Serbs will in
all likelihood do as they have done before and they will take
Canadian hostages. This has happened twice now and I think it is
pipe smoking opium if we do not think that it will happen again
if the situation arises.
UN patrols have been fired on in both Bosnia and Croatia. In
Croatia at New Year's two of our Canadian UN peacekeepers
were wounded and it was only by some extraordinary effort on
the part of one of them and good hospital facilities that resulted
in no Canadian fatalities in this instance.
There were a total of nine soldiers killed in the UN
commitment in the former Yugoslavia. I think it is likely that if
the situation continues, and it does appear to be heating up, we
could very well be in danger of having even more casualties.
We have seen the lifeline of Bosnia put in extreme danger or
even cut off completely. The Sarajevo airport was closed for an
extensive time. As recently as a couple of days ago UN
aeroplanes were being shot up as they went in and out of the
airport. This impacts of course on the ability of the UN and
UNPROFOR to perform the duties they are there for which is to
provide humanitarian assistance by delivering supplies to the
people concerned.
The problem is that there does not seem to be any particular
desire on the part of the antagonists there to abide by agreements
that they have made. We have seen aggression in the form of UN
declared safe zones which are totally ignored and in fact
attacked in dramatic fashion by the opposing forces, particularly
the Serbs in this case.
11232
It appears that the UN really is a toothless monster. It makes
agreements, gets concurrence in those and then the antagonists
decide which one they are going to adhere to. As I mentioned
before, we have seen atrocities committed and even now we are
seeing more battles between the ethnic groups in the area.
As far as any cease fire agreement, and we are now in an realm
where a cease fire was declared some time ago, there is no cease
fire because as the hon. leader of the official opposition has said,
in the past four days I believe there have been 14 different
violations recorded. As I understand from the briefing we were
given an hour ago, these are relatively major incidents that are
recorded because the sniper who shoots at an individual in
Sarajevo is not considered to be a reportable incident. I am told
that on average there are between 80 and 200 incidents reported
daily. That adds up to a pretty hot war situation.
All this came about because of mandate deficiencies. First,
we did not have agreement from all parties concerned to involve
ourselves or the UN in the area. We decided to impose ourselves
there and they said: ``You are here but we did not agree to you
being here''. There is no indication that they have changed their
mind on that at all. They will go along with things they agree
with, but the instant that it does not suit their purpose they go
back to doing what they want to do. There is without question a
lack of desire to achieve a peaceful resolution.
I must say that if there were any sort of a light at the end of the
tunnel, a view on the horizon, that there could be an
accommodation which would last it would be a very different
solution than we are facing.
We have seen that UN agreements are unenforceable. The UN
makes an agreement, people come forward and sign off on them
and then sometimes within hours or a few days the thing is
violated and it is gone.
(1910 )
It is patently obvious that despite the embargo arms are
getting through. Word has it that the Bosnians are now armed to
the extent that they feel relatively capable of operating on an
even footing against the Serb forces. There is a lot of question as
to the capability of the various forces, but it seems without any
question that there is every likelihood that there will be what is
referred to as a spring offensive. I sincerely hope this is not the
case, but certainly every indication is that the war or the fighting
in the area is becoming worse rather than tailing off.
I think there are some unique Canadian problems which
should be discussed. I will start with equipment. The
government and the chief of defence staff have said-the chief
of course is required to say that-that the equipment in fact is
functional and is adequate. I would call it obsolescent, if not
obsolete. Certainly when we were on the ground in Bosnia and in
Croatia, particularly in Croatia with the M-113 armoured
personnel carriers, there was no question in the minds of the
people who were using them that this was not a piece of kit that
they really enjoyed. They are unreliable. The tracks broke
regularly and they were not sufficiently armoured to do the job
they were intended to do.
The solution to this of course was to add additional armour to
them. The problem with adding additional armour is that it adds
to the weight. Adding to the weight means that the drive train
will be in trouble, the suspension will give up and the fuel
consumption will rise tremendously. That is not an adequate
solution.
The radios are vitally important in that situation, with
observation posts and troops deployed in various areas; to be
able to talk to the guy you want to talk to when you want to talk
to him. We heard time and again from people that their radios
were broken down. Everyone has become a fixer of
communications equipment. That is unacceptable.
The flack jackets that our personnel wear there are
cumbersome and uncomfortable. We saw in Croatia a new
design which was being tried out, but the ones which were issued
to our troops, in their opinion, are unacceptable.
We have a very poor night vision device available. That is
absolutely unacceptable again because a lot of our observation
posts are involved in night observations and if they cannot see or
use them properly this is not good.
I think the business of helmets has been discussed a couple of
times and I understand if it were not so tragic it would be
humorous. When we got the Kevlar helmets they were not blue.
We decided to paint them, so we went out and bought some
paint. The only problem was that the paint reacted with the
Kevlar and they became soft and basically useless. The other UN
forces I think who use those helmets have put canvas covers on
them. Again, I do not think we did our homework.
We also have a problem, in my estimation, with our people.
First of all, I want to pay tribute to the co-operation, the
professionalism, the dedication and the sincere interest that our
people have shown and the way they have conducted
themselves. However, I think we are rotating them through the
operational zone too often. We have people who have been there
three times. Soon if we keep up the rate we are doing, if we
renew the commitment, we will have people on their fourth tours
of operation.
Many of these people are volunteers, and I understand that.
However, I still think that from a man management point of
view, this is not the way we should go. It is fine for the troops
who are in the zone, but their families are tremendously
impacted by the fact that they are away. Dad is out of the picture
or, in some cases, mom. The children suffer, the family suffers
and therefore it has to impact to an extent on morale.
11233
There is an increase in the incidence of alcoholism in the units
that have been deployed. There have been increased disciplinary
problems. This is natural because people are under an awful lot
of tension and it will unquestionably affect them.
(1915 )
The whole thing boils down to a morale problem which I think
would be difficult to deal with at the best of times. Added on to
other problems that the Canadian force are now experiencing I
think it is somewhat devastating. Basically we are asking our
troops to be burned out. I do not think we can afford to do that.
With regard to the mandate in Bosnia and Croatia, Reform in
December last year laid down what we thought were four
reasonable conditions which Canada should demand or we
should withdraw. First, peacekeepers should be left alone. They
should not be taken hostage. They should not be interfered with.
Second, we asked that the Sarajevo airport be opened and left
open in order that humanitarian assistance could be brought in.
Third, we asked that all aid convoys be able to proceed
unimpeded. Finally, we asked that a ceasefire be in place and be
holding and be seen to be holding.
The only one of these four proposals that has been met, and
that is only recently, is the one to leave the peacekeepers alone.
The Sarajevo airport has been closed many times. Aircraft have
been shot at. Aid convoys have been held up or refused passage.
Of course it is obvious there is no ceasefire and it is not holding.
The Reform Party believes the solution to this is that Canada
should accept the situation is not now resolved, nor is it likely to
be in the near future. This is a situation where there are no white
hats. Every one of the ethnic people in that area are to some
extent responsible for atrocities: the Croats, Muslims and the
Serbs. Some may be more prone to it than others but everyone is
guilty to an extent.
As I said just a few moments ago, Canadian resources are
stretched to the limit. We should be aware of this and we have to
accept it. It can be safely said that Canada has done her share.
We have now committed our troops there for three years. We
have done exemplary work. I do not think that anyone can point
at Canada and say that we are not pulling our weight.
There are other UN forces committed there that are much less
efficient. Some of them are not doing their job at all. One
particular unit, which I will not mention by name, has brand new
armoured personnel carriers bought by the UN, purchased in
Korea, and it refuses to use them. It wants to keep the mileage
low because the UN depreciates them and it is then going to take
them home in almost brand new condition.
Other contingents will not go to the front lines. They will
support only one side or the other in the conflict. It is only
Canada and a few other nations that are truly perceived by the
antagonists to be unbiased and impartial.
The Reform Party proposes that Canada should say: ``We have
done our share. It is time to withdraw our forces from Bosnia
and Croatia''. We should say to the United Nations that we
understand that it will take them some time to find
replacements. I suggest that an initial timeframe of three
months' grace be given, after which time Canada would
withdraw from the region.
I believe this is possible in Croatia. It might be more difficult
in Bosnia. I do not think that Canada would be unreasonable if
the time has to be extended. It could be but I think it should be
extended by very short increments.
Finally, we should have learned a very dramatic lesson from
our involvement in Bosnia and Croatia. All of us have at some
time understood that we got in there with the thought that we
were going there to do good. We have done well. The problem is
that there was no agreement.
Canada should insist for instance that there be a time limit on
our involvement. There should be an insistence that the people
who are there want us there and that they want to come to a
peaceful solution, that they want to solve the thing.
The matter of rules of engagement must be very clearly
specified and they must be acceptable to Canada before we say
yes we will go in. The financial aspect should be discussed and
approved.
(1920 )
Unless we do this, Canada may once again wind up in a
commitment such as we have here where our withdrawal,
without question, will result in an accelerated conflict. I see no
way of avoiding this. By Canadians staying there we are just
extending it.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, we were 29 years in
Cyprus and we certainly cannot stand 29 years in Bosnia and
Croatia.
Therefore, the Reform Party advocates that Canada tell the
UN that we would like our commitment to come to an end. We
will give it a three-month period of grace after which time we
will effectively withdraw.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing today
the democratization of Canada's foreign policy. It began with
the review by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of
Commons with certain recommendations to the government.
The government responded and in that response it said that it
wanted to involve Parliament in future important defence and
foreign policy decisions. Therefore, I am very pleased that we
are having this debate tonight. I recommend that we have more
such debates.
11234
Two weeks ago the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared
before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade. At that point, the minister wanted to know
the positions of the official opposition and of the Reform Party. I
will come back to that.
Although I am pleased we are having the debate, I was truly
shocked and disappointed by the remarks of the Leader of the
Opposition when he opened his remarks by stating that he
cannot be proud of what Canada has done or has not done. We on
this side are very proud of what Canada has done in this conflict
and we continue to be proud and supportive of these people.
He went on to blame Canada further. He said that Canada had
not done anything. Does the Leader of the Opposition not realize
that we are one of a team and we cannot act unilaterally? I guess
the team approach to things is not in the leader's vocabulary.
Does he not realize that presently there are about 35 countries
with 43,000 troops involved here? If it was not for all the
negotiations that have been going on over all these years and all
the troops and countries participating, who knows if we would
not be in the middle of world war three today?
Yes, lives have been lost. Yes, it is expensive. However, thank
God that countries like Canada are participating because we may
have warded off another world war.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to complain that all we
were debating the rotation and that the rotation has been
decided. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to read what it is we
are debating. It states:
That this House, in light of the UN Security Council consideration of
renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia-
That is what we are debating. We are debating whether
Canada should continue to keep its forces there or not. The
rotation comes automatically. After the troops have been there
six months they are replaced. However, if after a month Canada
decides to pull out its troops, it pulls out fresh and strong troops,
not tired troops.
It is the mandate we are debating. The rotation is automatic
after six months. I was disappointed that the hon. member could
not distinguish between that.
(1925 )
He went on to say that we have no choice. I thought he was
going to say that we have no choice whether to stay or pull out.
We do have a choice. That is why we are having this debate.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the
Minister of National Defence said that before making an
important decision like this one, whether or not to renew the
mandate, Parliament would be consulted. That is what we are
doing. To stand and say that we have no choice does not help the
government. We are looking for some leadership from the
opposition to help Canadians make an important decision.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to say: ``What is
Canada's policy in peacekeeping missions?'' I suggest he read a
bit of history. By going back to when the Prime Minister of
Canada, Lester B. Pearson, recommended the peacekeeping
forces. That role continues. We are changing that role. We are
looking more at preventive measures, but the peacekeeping role
continues. That is why Canada holds such an enviable position
around the world.
The Leader of the Opposition does not seem to realize that
conflicts since the end of the cold war are much different. In
those days, one state attacked another state. Peace was made and
we sent peacekeepers to keep the peace. Now it is internal
conflicts. It is ethnocultural conflicts. It is tribal conflicts, wars,
killings and genocide within a country. That is a totally different
kind of challenge.
I was pleased that the Leader of the Opposition ended by
saying: ``Yes, we should renew the mandate''. However he puts
certain conditions on it. I guess it was a conditional yes. To be
honest his remarks did not help the government very much to
decide whether we should continue our mandate and keep our
peacekeepers there or not.
The official spokesperson for the Reform Party complained
that we had no consultations. We have had consultations through
the whole foreign policy review. The government responds. The
foreign affairs standing committee had the Minister of Foreign
Affairs before it just two weeks ago. We discussed the
Bosnia-Hercegovina conflict. The minister asked point blank
the members of the official opposition what was their position.
The answer was similar to what we got tonight.
When the minister asked the Reform Party, what the position
was, the response was that they are split 50:50 on the issue. I was
pleased that today the Reform Party made it clear that its
position is to withdraw our forces. At least we know what the
stand is, the position of the Reform Party.
To answer the Leader of the Opposition, I want to remind him
that Canada remains one of the strongest advocates of
reinforcing UN's conflict prevention and conflict resolution
capability. We have been working with like-minded countries at
the UN to bring about reforms that will provide the organization
with the political, financial and military tools it needs to fulfil
its growing responsibilities.
Canada is conducting a study on a UN rapid reaction
capability and will host an international conference on the
subject next week. We are organizing with our partners
peacekeeping semi-
11235
nars in the context of PAC, Regional Forum and the
Organization for American States.
We are also working with the Organization of African Union
to improve the capability of African countries to better
contribute to peacekeeping operations and preventive
diplomacy.
I do not want to finish my speech on Bosnia-Hercegovina
without mentioning to all members that we have gone beyond
peacekeeping. We are looking at conflict prevention. We are
looking at reforming the United Nations so that our
peacekeepers can be sent with a much clearer mandate.
(1930 )
I appeal to all members who will be taking part in the debate
tonight, to the independent members, to the members on our
government side, to the members of the Bloc Quebecois, the
members of the Reform Party, to help the government make this
important decision. Let us put our partisan politics aside. Let us
hear what our constituents are telling us. Then we can make a
very knowledgeable, intelligent and the right decision for
Canada and hopefully for bringing peace to that area.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
an honour and a privilege for me to participate in this debate
today on the participation of Canada in peacekeeping
operations, and the one under way in the former Yugoslavia in
particular.
However, before I go any further, allow me to share a few
thoughts, as the Leader of the Opposition did, on how this
emergency debate was called by the government.
First of all, what does the motion before us say? It says: ``That
this House, in the light of the UN Security Council
consideration''-which, by the way, has not been done yet-``of
renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia, take
note of the rotation of Canadian Forces serving with
UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia''.
Mr. Speaker, the deadline is March 31, two days from now.
With a deadline days away, the government decides to call an
emergency debate, with 24 hours notice, on this issue.
We do not have the slightest idea of what the terms and
conditions of this mandate will be that the UN Security Council
will review. As I said, while the current mandate regarding
Croatia is due to expire on March 31, the Security Council has
yet to make a decision on a new mandate. We do not have the
slightest idea what is involved here, if, for instance, there will be
a reduction in forces, as the Croatian government has given to
understand. We do not know whether troop rotation will take
place. We do not know. What we do know, however, is that the
necessary logistic arrangements have already been made for
Canadian troops to be rotated on Monday. That much we know.
In order to be able to prepare for this debate for which the
government gave us very little time, with only a few hours
notice, we managed to meet briefly, less than an hour actually,
just two hours ago, with officials from the departments of
National Defence and Foreign Affairs. And that was only
possible because we had requested to meet with them;
otherwise, I wonder if any information would have been made
available to us. We were fortunate to receive, minutes ago, a
number of backgrounders from DND.
How do you expect us to be able to make any significant
contribution to a fundamental debate like this one under the
circumstances?
This debate aimed at renewing-even if the motion talks of
``taking note'' of-Canada's peacekeeping mandate in the
former Yugoslavia is somewhat inconsistent with the
conclusions of the Special Standing Committee Reviewing
Canada's Defence Policy and especially the dissenting report
drafted at that time by the Bloc, which defines a number of
criteria to be met for our participation in peacekeeping
operations instead of making decisions on a piecemeal basis, as
the Leader of the Opposition said. Again, we are acting on a
case-by-case basis and that is disgraceful, given the
recommendations in the report.
This shows the arrogance of this government, which took for
granted that the opposition would give the motion its benevolent
support. Why did it take this support for granted? Because, as
the Leader of the Opposition said, we have no choice. How can
we, at this stage, withdraw from the former Yugoslavia?
(1935)
The government, riding the wave, decided to call a debate at
the last minute, just before the end of the mandate, and force
parliamentarians to settle this matter, thinking that it would
obtain the benevolent and unanimous consent of this House.
This debate is all the more surprising in that, on March 14, as
the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
rightly pointed out, the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared
before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade. As the parliamentary secretary rightly
pointed out, the minister asked Reform and Bloc representatives
to state their positions on the renewal of the mandate of
Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia.
The minister said the purpose of his initiative was to avoid
having to hold a debate in the House. We very spontaneously
stated our position to the minister, without having had time to
prepare. In spite of that co-operation, we find ourselves in a
debate on this issue. I fail to understand the logic of this
government.
11236
We of course supported the renewal of the mandate of
Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia, but with some
reservations. We have to make sure that our presence is still
required, and we must also ensure that our peacekeepers are safe
in the theatres of operations.
We also want to raise the issue of suicides. There is some
extremely disturbing information to the effect that a number of
soldiers committed suicide either after participating in
peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia, or because
they did not want to take part in these operations. This is most
disturbing. Some facts will have to be thoroughly reviewed.
Given these considerations, I am somewhat surprised to find
myself debating the presence of our troops in the former
Yugoslavia, less than two days before the expiry of the UN
forces mandate in that region, and particularly in Croatia.
In any case, the previous debates on this issue provided us
with an opportunity to express our views and to hear the views of
others.
I do not think that we should go back, today, and repeat
everything that was already said on the issue. Instead, we should
try to see why Canadian troops should withdraw from that
region, or remain there.
A primary concern, to which I briefly referred earlier, is the
danger faced by our troops stationed in the former Yugoslavia.
This issue, which was also raised in previous debates, must once
again be considered now.
Indeed, given the numerous violations of the cease-fire, our
troops, on any day, could be dealing with a bloody war, as
opposed to a conventional peacekeeping mission. Let us not
forget that ten peacekeepers lost their lives and many others
have been injured since the first Canadian peacekeepers arrived
in the former Yugoslavia.
Similarly, a truce signed by the Bosnian government with the
various warning factions in Bosnia was violated repeatedly
during the past few weeks. Furthermore, the Bosnian Serbs
recently threatened the international community with
retaliatory action against the peacekeepers if the Bosnian Serb
forces were hit by NATO air strikes.
In a way, and we see this in the media, since the beginning of
the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the situation has hardly
improved, on the contrary. Today, battles are raging throughout
the territories coveted by the various belligerents. Today, people
are suffering from a lack of food and fuel, lack of medical drugs
and health care, lack of adequate housing, peace and safety.
On the other hand, we should also consider the excellent job
being done by our troops within the UN theatres of operations.
Our troops continue to provide the peoples of the former
Yugoslavia with shelter, food, clothing, protection and moral
support. Since the fall of 1991, nearly $60 million has been
spent on the purchase and delivery of food, medicine and
clothing, on shelter for the homeless and on assistance to
refugees, displaced persons and victims of violence.
(1940)
I feel that as long as the presence of Canadian troops is
required and useful, there is no doubt that its presence must be
maintained. By sending troops to the former Yugoslavia, Canada
has made an important choice. It cannot afford to ignore a
situation where human beings are experiencing an unspeakable
tragedy. Granted, the help provided by our soldiers is not a
panacea but at least it can alleviate the suffering.
To bring back our peacekeepers in these circumstances would
not only mean abdicating our responsibilities and moral
obligations as human beings, it would also extinguish that
flicker of hope these people still have, people who for the most
part are innocent victims of man's inhumanity to man. It would
also mean leaving them to face a tragic escalation in the current
conflict. No, we cannot go backward today, we have no choice,
in the words of the Leader of the Opposition.
However, we need some answers about the safety of our
troops should the embargo be lifted and in the event of air
strikes. We need to know about the willingness of local
authorities to have our troops remain there. We need answers
about the cases of suicide in current peacekeeping operations.
We need to look deeper into this troubling situation. Of course,
we are in favour of keeping Canadian troops in the former
Yugoslavia, but, unlike last year, I do not think the government
can assume each year that it has the opposition's support.
The government must provide an assessment of the situation
and explain to us how it has changed. We have had no
assessment and no explanation of changes in the situation. We
have no idea, apart from the bits of information we gleaned this
afternoon. We have not had an opportunity to find out details of
what is happening in the field, and I think that, if we are to have a
serious debate in this House, the government must give us this
information.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate this evening. I
want to put into perspective what Canadian troops are doing.
Right now we have in the former Yugoslavia, and I refer
mostly to Croatia and Bosnia, roughly 40,000 United Nations
troops from 35 countries participating in a variety of operations.
We in Canada have the fifth largest operation and we have
deployed roughly 2,100 troops. They are engaged in four main
operations. There is the operation in Bosnia in which we have
approximately 820 troops. They are mostly engaged in relief
convoys and the protection of human beings, humanitarian
protection.
11237
In Croatia we have 770 peacekeepers; combat troops engaged
in traditional peacekeeping, looking at the ceasefire areas and
preventing skirmishes.
We have another operation in the southwest part of Croatia, on
the coast, in Primosten, just north of the larger city of Split,
where we have roughly 265 troops. They are logistics troops and
represent the logistics battalion.
We also have a separate operation, which is actually a fifth
operation. It is an air operation that has Hercules flights from
Italy to Sarajevo to keep the airport open. There have been 1,600
flights. Roughly 11,500 people have been transported to and
from the airport and 26,000 metric tonnes. That is an
achievement in my mind.
Last but not least we have in the Adriatic coast a Canadian
destroyer with 265 Canadians as part of the 15 nation, 21 ship
force enforcing the arms embargo. This operation is one of
which, despite what the opposition parties say, we are very
proud and will continue to be.
(1945 )
We have been involved in this operation, if we include its
beginning, from September 21, 1991 as we have in most UN
operations that have ever happened in the world. That we have a
reputation that is enviable is an understatement. We have heard
all of it before in the House.
The question for debate tonight is whether we continue the
mandate. Before I address the question I want to comment on
something the hon. Leader of the Opposition said and something
the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands said.
The Leader of the Opposition said that he deplored the fact
that we were speaking so late, that it essentially gave no choice
to Parliament. The hon. member for Verchères said that he
would like some comment from this side of the House on why we
are having the debate so late.
I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition was a
member of a government that deployed troops and committed
Canada to the gulf war without as much as a word of discussion
in the House of Commons. That was absolutely despicable. All
Canadians thought it was outrageous.
To have the Leader of the Opposition criticize the government
for having the fourth debate on peacekeeping in 18 months plus
other debates, one of which took place last week on defence, is
absolutely disgraceful, outrageous, misleading and intolerable.
The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands complains that
we are not having a debate on this matter. When it was put
forward at the meeting last night I understand there was some
question in the Reform Party whether it wanted to debate it.
Whether or not the Reformers are being childish because it was
at this point in time I do not know. It was not until late in the
evening that they decided they would have the debate. I do not
accept these complaints.
I want to make another point with respect to the opposition.
The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands spoke about
renewing the mandate. He did nothing but moan about the
Canadian forces and talk about morale.
If members of the opposition parties, particularly the third
party, would refrain from taking brown envelopes from
disgruntled people and using them on the government to reduce
the credibility of the very credible actions that are taking place
from day to day, I would suggest the morale of the Canadian
forces, whatever state it is in now, would be a hell of a lot better.
I do not mean for the hon. member from Saanich-Gulf
Islands to be a target; in fact we are quite good friends. He
debated and complained about the state of equipment in the
Canadian forces. We just finished a 10-month discussion on
defence where all these matters were brought out. They were
part of the white paper. They were addressed in a report to
Parliament and are being addressed in the white paper.
I know he wants to be on record as to his knowledge of
defence. He has made his point. I will make my point that we are
aware of these deficiencies and the government is addressing
them, including 3,000 more peacekeepers to make sure that the
rotation is better than it was.
The mandate is a hard judgment to make. The support for
peacekeeping in my constituency and in those parts of Canada to
which I travel, including 10 months on the standing committee's
defence policy review, was very strong. I sense that today it is
not as strong as it was six months ago. I suggest the reason for
that is the perception that we are not making any headway.
How can we expect significant progress to be made in a
country where conflict has been ongoing for almost a thousand
years? I do not pretend to understand all the politics. I doubt if
all of us in the House, if we were put together, could understand
what is happening there.
Where does that leave us? Should we not renew our mandate
as 1 of 35 countries because we feel progress has not been made
in peace?
(1950)
There is more to it than that. We are supplying humanitarian
aid. We are supplying hope to a country where hope is hard to
come by.
I remind everybody in the House, particularly the members
who were with me 10 months ago as we spent some time in
Bosnia and Croatia, of a mental institution in a town called
Bakovici where many inmates were murdered, raped, tortured
and mutilated. The remaining inmates, the poor souls, we saw
them. They were being protected by members of the Canadian
11238
forces. It would rend one's heart to see this place in operation.
There are many other examples.
The humanitarian aspect would be sorely missed. I fear,
because of the Canadian reputation in peacekeeping, that our
decision to exit would give a signal that perhaps would not be
conducive to world stability, particularly world stability in the
Balkans.
I agree with my hon. friend from Saanich-Gulf Islands who
says that ideally we should have a clear mandate. We should
have a clear set of operating instructions. Ideally we should have
acceptance from the countries we are participating in and a clear
set of rules of engagement. These points and principles were
included in the white paper. I fear they are not being totally
regarded in our participation in the ex-Yugoslavia.
We do not live in an ideal world. Is the contact group, the five
countries that were formed last year to negotiate a settlement,
making progress? I think it is but it is very slow. If we accept this
mandate for another six months how much longer are we
prepared to go? I cannot answer that. I would say, as the minister
of defence said, that I do not believe it is the intention of anyone
in Parliament to have a commitment in ex-Yugoslavia that
would last for 29 years.
We are a long way from 29 years. Yes, there are risks. Yes,
there are many land mines. Yes, there are snipers. Yes, there are
flareups. However the situation in ex-Yugoslavia now, despite
the 14 ceasefire violations in the recent past, I am told by the
operators is not much different from what it was three years ago.
Let us stay the course for this round. Let us help in the
humanitarian aspect. Let us contribute as much as we can to the
peace negotiation. Let us go forward with hope that we will see
an amelioration of the situation if not an end to the conflict.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is truly a
pleasure to speak this evening on peacekeeping in the former
Yugoslavia.
I emphasize a few of our concerns regarding the lateness of
the debate and how it is just two days away from the mandate
ending. I discussed this point with the minister a month ago. It
was felt that we could be part of briefings much earlier and that
then we would look at whether we needed to have this debate.
We felt that before a decision was made there could be all-party
involvement. We would agree. We would work toward that. We
would co-operate in every way possible.
This last minute type of thing certainly makes us wonder how
serious the government is and what is the real purpose of our
being here. Let us take that it is for honest reasons and that the
government really wants to hear what we have to say.
To move to the issue itself, as the foreign affairs critic for the
Reform Party I state very strongly and clearly, as did the last
speaker, that Canada should not renew its peacekeeping
commitment to Bosnia or Croatia.
Canadians have served honourably for almost three years now
but enough is enough. Canada has performed above and beyond
the call of duty in all its commitments to the UN. No country can
say that we did not try our utmost to re-establish peace and
facilitate a long term negotiated settlement to the disputes.
(1955)
The facts are sad but obvious. The warring parties have shown
no serious commitment to peace negotiations. Over the winter
many have rearmed and resupplied their soldiers so they can
start fresh fighting in the spring. The mid to long term prospects
for peace are bleak and no amount of Canadian peacekeepers can
change that fact. If we could just see light at the end of the
tunnel, possibly this speech could be quite different.
The Reform Party believes the time to leave is now. If
predictions about an increase in the level of fighting over the
late spring and summer are true, we must act quickly to pull out
our troops now. It may not be easy but now is our best chance to
get them home without incident. If we wait and things get
tougher, our troops will face an even greater unnecessary risk.
Last fall we saw how increased levels of fighting led to a
corresponding increase in hostage taking of UN soldiers. This
could happen again if we fail to act decisively now. The
conditions in Bosnia during high levels of fighting remind me of
the Eagles song ``Hotel California''. I will not sing it because it
would certainly clear the House. Basically the words are: ``You
can check out any time you like but you can never leave''.
If Parliament dithers we may find some time down the road
that we want to check out but will not be allowed to leave
without fighting our way out through militias and possibly even
through civilians. If we are to act responsibly we must leave
now.
As far as Croatia is concerned its president does not want UN
peacekeepers any more. Although he is no longer forcing the UN
out, he has demanded that it scale down its operations
dramatically. As the process is going on Canadian troops would
have a perfect opportunity to end their tour there without
disrupting the ability of the UN to fulfil its new and more modest
mandate.
Speaking in more general terms about Canada's role in
peacekeeping around the world, it is high time that Parliament
rethink how we can be most effective in our UN commitments
and set clear criteria for our participation in future missions. We
are not saying to get out of peacekeeping; we are saying to set
the criteria.
Canadians are not prepared to give up on their proud
traditions of caring and intervention for the sake of peace.
However these times cannot be seen from a purely international
perspec-
11239
tive. Our foreign commitments must be in harmony with our
domestic needs. Therefore we must be sure when we support
peacekeeping that we are operating in Canada's best interests
and within the very real financial constraint that must be the
primary concern of any good government.
We must pick our spots and we must choose wisely. Today's
debate should be a step in that direction. One thing is clear.
Canada can no longer be the 911 phone number for the world or
for the UN. As much as we want to help others, this desire is
tempered by the fact that we cannot be all things to all people.
Therefore it is better that we help effectively in a few cases
rather than spread ourselves too thin. In this way Canada can
protect its own vital interests and provide the most effective
help for the international community.
As we examine the issue of peacekeeping it is worthy of note
that since the end of the cold war the demand for peacekeepers
around the world has sky-rocketed. If the past few years have
taught us any lesson it is that instability will continue. New hot
spots will continue to crop up and Canada must be ready.
If more requests come from Africa, Southeast Asia or the
former Soviet republics, how will Canada respond? Clearly
Canada must establish criteria to test the importance of each
request for our help. While this is a sensitive issue and I do not
claim to have all the answers, I would argue the following could
be considered by Parliament when deciding whether to approve
of peacekeeping missions.
First, the conflict's impact on the state of international
stability is an obvious test of whether Canada should get
involved. If the conflict has a serious potential to escalate or
destabilize a whole region, we should consider it seriously when
making our decision.
(2000 )
Second, geographical ties are very important. For reasons of
regional stability, the world would be a better place if countries
co-operated to make sure that their own part of the world
remained stable. Where peace does break down, regional
organizations should co-operate to make things right. After all,
it will be the member nations of such regional groups that have
the greatest interest in restoring stability. For logistical reasons
as well, proximity is an important factor in determining whether
a country can respond to a crisis in a timely and effective
manner.
Third, humanitarian considerations must also be taken into
account. While Canadians want bang for the buck they also want
Canada to maintain its tradition for compassion.
Fourth, our prior commitments must be given more weight
than is the current practice when determining what else we are
going to do. We only have so many troops and a limited amount
of high quality equipment. We owe it to our troops to be fair in
our decisions where to send them and to make sure that we do
not overcommit our forces. They are the Canadian forces, not
the Canadian foreign legion.
Fifth, Canada's economic ties are an important factor in
determining how willing Canadians should be to commit their
resources.
In conclusion, the time has come for us to take a step back to
reorganize ourselves. The first thing we have to do is withdraw
from the former Yugoslavia. Canadians have been looking for a
negotiated peace there for three years but none is on the horizon.
If the UN sees value in continuing the peacekeeping mission,
then it is time for some other UN country to hold the fort that
Canada has so admirably defended for so many years. Our
troops should be congratulated and brought home to their
families.
Once we withdraw from Bosnia and Croatia and before we
send our troops on yet another indefinite mission with uncertain
dangers and at an unknown cost, let us establish a credible set of
criteria upon which we can depend to make sure that we pick our
spots wisely. Canada can still be an innovator and a leader in the
area of peacekeeping, but we have to make some difficult
choices and we have to make them now.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with a
great sense of privilege and responsibility that I rise in the
House to debate this extraordinarily important subject this
evening.
I feel particularly responsible, given the incredible role our
troops are playing in the former Yugoslavia. I sense like every
other member of Parliament the responsibility we have toward
those marvellous men and women for what they are achieving in
that difficult part of the world.
In trying to understand this matter, I have asked myself four
questions. I think we should consider them when we discuss
whether it would be appropriate to withdraw our troops at this
time or to continue the mandate until a more orderly type of
withdrawal can be achieved with either the whole of the United
Nations forces or of our own troops.
The four questions are these: Are our troops performing an
important role where they are? Is their contribution special?
What would be the consequences of their withdrawal? How are
our overall interests served by their presence there? Let me take
the time to examine those issues.
Is the role of our troops in the former Yugoslavia an important
one? To that I think every member of this House would have to
reply an unqualified yes. Looking at the area of peacekeeping,
our troops have performed an exemplary service I would say at
the core of the United Nations operation in the former
Yugoslavia. They have had a great deal of success. Of course
there have
11240
been problems, but overall we should look at the achievements
on the peacekeeping side.
Our troops are very close to Sarajevo. Our troops are in one
part of the former Yugoslavia which covers all three belligerent
areas. Our troops are the only ones covering that delicate and
sensitive area. Our troops are playing a primordial and
important role in terms of peacekeeping. They are performing a
role of humanitarian aid which was so effectively described by
the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception that I need not
repeat it. However, we must bear that in mind.
[Translation]
The second question I asked myself was is our contribution
significant? We are but one of 35 countries in the former
Yugoslavia and have contributed 2,000 soldiers to the 43,000
troops stationed there.
(2005)
The Leader of the Opposition said that he was not proud of the
contribution our troops have made. Like the parliamentary
secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I personally am
proud of our troops' accomplishments in the former Yugoslavia.
I am proud of their humanity and proud of their professionalism.
The other night I saw on television a young sergeant who had
an enormous responsibility. Day in, day out, with unparalleled
devotion, intelligence and professionalism, this peerless soldier
resolved issues and extremely difficult problems.
I am convinced that the regiments who will replace the troops
there now, such as the 22nd Royal Regiment from Quebec, will
serve in the tradition that it has maintained for the duration of its
long and glorious history.
Therefore, I reject the Leader of the Opposition's statements.
I reject the statements of the hon. member for Verchères. I
believe that this is not a partisan issue and that this debate
should rise above any inappropriate partisanship. We should be
examining these serious issues from the viewpoint of the
well-being of our troops and our country.
[English]
Let me ask the question: What would the consequences be of a
withdrawal at this time? We know this is a tense situation. We
have read what Lord Owen has said about the difficult situation
that prevails there at the moment. What would the effect be of
our withdrawing our troops at this time? What would the effect
be on the other UN troops there? Think of the demoralizing
effect that would have on them. Think of the effect on the
belligerents.
We, along with our allies, took extreme umbrage at the
suggestion by the leader of Croatia that UN troops should be
removed from Croatia. We told him that UN troops must be kept
there because it is a tinderbox which is likely to explode into
uncontrolled war if UN troops are withdrawn.
Having exercised that influence on the leader of Croatia, are
we to withdraw those troops? Are we to create the very situation
of ethnic cleansing and problems that we have seen in the past? I
ask myself what the effect of withdrawal would be. I suggest that
it would be a precipitating event in creating a crisis.
The member for Red Deer does not seem to be taking that into
account. He is suggesting that we can steal away in the night like
a Turk with bag and baggage, that no one will miss us and there
will be no consequence of that. There will be a consequence. If
we try to steal away we may create the very situation of war
which will make it impossible for us to withdraw in an orderly
way. On top of that, we will leave exposed in the former
Yugoslavia the magnificent Mounties who are serving there in a
civilian way which is truly an extraordinary example of
Canadian devotion.
Last, is it in our global and general interests to be in the
former Yugoslavia until a more orderly withdrawal may be
organized? It is true, as the member for Red Deer may say, we
have done our share. There is no one in the House who would say
that we have not done our share. I dare to say there is nobody
among our allies who would say we have not done our share. I
am sure there is no one in the civilian population of the
ex-Yugoslavia who would not say that the Canadian troops have
done their share.
The question is not that. The question is whether or not our
general interests are served by our staying there and continuing
to do our share, continuing to help the people of ex-Yugoslavia
and continuing to help the cause of peace as it is to be developed.
I would suggest that the effect on our allies would be extremely
devastating if we were to leave at this time. Our European allies
are counting on our being there.
When we consider issues of global security and foreign policy
we must never divorce one issue from another. Does anyone in
this House not doubt the fact that one of the reasons we have
been so successful in dealing with the Europeans over the issues
on the Grand Banks is precisely because we are in Yugoslavia
and because we are a force in Europe? Our European friends
cannot turn to us and say: ``We can treat you the way we want
to''.
(2010 )
We are making a contribution in Europe. We are helping the
Europeans solve their problems. We are helping solve world
peace in our own interests but in their interests as well. That
makes us a force in world affairs. It gives us a force in dealing
with them in every other sector. We must never forget that. That
11241
is what strategy is about. That is what foreign policy is about.
We cannot ignore these larger issues.
Furthermore, what about the Americans? If we withdraw on
the ground, the United States at this moment is taking the
attitude that it can stand above these frays. It can fly over at
30,000 feet and not put troops on the ground. We have a moral
superiority in dealing with our American colleagues at this time
because of the tremendous contribution our forces are making. It
establishes a credibility in dealing with the United States that we
must never forget.
We owe it to our forces on the ground. We owe it to those
magnificent troops.
Finally, we owe it to ourselves in terms of the United Nations.
The House has often spoken about the need for the United
Nations to be revitalized. This House has often spoken about the
need for a more effective United Nations if Canada's interests
and values are to be protected in the world. Those interests and
those values will be protected by our continuing to be a reliable
member of the United Nations forces and enabling the United
Nations to improve its situation.
I leave by suggesting that our interests require us to stay at
this time. Furthermore, our troops there are enforcing Canadian
values by performing a humanitarian and difficult task in
terrible circumstances with a devotion and superb
professionalism of which all of us may be very proud.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before
starting my speech, I would like to respond to my colleague
from Rosedale. According to him, the Leader of the Opposition
said that he was not proud of Canadian troops. I am sorry but the
hon. member for Rosedale is distorting the comments made by
the Leader of the Opposition.
My colleagues and I heard the speech delivered by the hon.
member for Lac-Saint-Jean. He is a responsible man. He is
more concerned about the living conditions of Canadian troops
on peacekeeping missions. He is also concerned about the
measures taken after they return home. He is concerned about
the problem of suicide among Canadian troops. I wish to set the
record straight: he is an honest and responsible man whom we
all hold in high esteem.
It is with great sadness and emotion that I will, in this debate,
try to paint a rather grim picture of the situation in the former
Yugoslavia. Zvornik, Srebrenica, Bratunac and Grobnica were
the sites of massacres in which up to 3,000 civilians were killed.
The Omarska camp was the site of mass executions and torture.
At the Celebici camp, at least 15 Serbs were beaten to death last
August. An individual called Borislav Herak killed 230
anonymous civilians. Last August, 50 Serbian women and
children were killed by two Croatian members of paramilitary
forces.
In Varjanta, more than 200 Muslims were massacred by the
Serbian police. In May and June, between 2,000 and 3,000
Muslims were murdered by Serbian irregulars in a pig farm and
factory near Brcko. Countless Muslim women were raped by
Croatians.
That is the other side of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
That is the reality sometimes obscured by the rhetoric. That is,
however, why our troops are serving with the UN.
How did it come to that? How did the situation deteriorate to
this extent, as is often the case in armed conflicts, with innocent
civilians being massacred, women raped, ethnic cleansing? I
have no desire to set myself as a strategy expert nor do I claim to
be. My main concern this evening and the most serious aspect of
this conflict, in my view, is the impact on civilians and on our
troops.
Coming back to the loss of human rights issue, here is some
background information. It should be pointed out that all
protagonists in the conflict have violated the rights of their
minorities from the beginning. I would like to read from a
document produced by the Canadian government. It reads:
(2015)
``When the federal republic crumbled, the Serbs wanted to
make sure that their people would remain together within the
same territory. That is why they tried to spread their domination
to regions where large ethnic minorities live as well as to new
States run by non-Serbs. Other groups, such as the Croatians
and the Muslims, wanted to consolidate their position in the new
States by depriving other ethnic minorities, including the Serbs,
of their rights''.
The ethnic cleansing sought by both sides led to murders,
rapes, torture and other forms of intimidation aimed at making
the members of particular ethnic groups flee their homes and
villages and take refuge in the zones claimed by other ethnic
groups. Such attempts to achieve ethnic cleansing have had
tragic consequences: over 100,000 people killed and hundreds
of thousands injured; thousands of Muslim women raped; and
three million people displaced or forced to take refuge in
neighbouring countries, without mentionning the acts of torture,
the illegal arrests and the arbitrary detentions.
Let me discuss for a moment the impact of those rapes,
particularly in the context of Muslim society. It has been
reported in the media that women who are raped by men from
other ethnic origins must often face reprisals from their own
families. Almost a whole generation of women was sacrificed.
Indeed, in addition to the physical and psychological trauma
with which these women have to deal, their whole families and
11242
social lives were shattered. The scope of this tragedy leaves us at
a loss for words.
It is to help the civilian population that the UN forces were
deployed in that region. Peace is the most precious thing for any
nation. The right to life and to one's physical integrity is the
most treasured one. The international community, through the
UN, felt an obligation to maintain peace, in spite of the
enormous financial and military costs involved. Canada made a
contribution from the very beginning and decided to pursue its
commitment, although with some reservations and doubts. We
agree and we have no choice. Indeed, the consequences of a
withdrawal of the UN forces would be tragic for the population.
The attacks would start all over again. We know that as recently
as last week, there were 14 outbreaks of armed conflict in
Bosnia.
Genocide would resume, and help would no longer reach the
various communities, with consequences one can well imagine.
However, we must also consider the impact of these operations
on each individual member of our peacekeeping forces. It seems
that in some cases, the impact is considerable. Some problems
have already been identified. There is of course the conditions in
the field which may have an impact on physical health. And
there are also conditions we could qualify as environmental, like
bombings, hostage takings, the hostility of part of the
population and armed attacks intended to threaten and humiliate
the soldiers.
What is most traumatic is being powerless to intervene
pro-actively in the face of so much horror. There is also the
daily confrontation with human misery, with the very visible
impact of war on the civilian population. There is fear and
boredom. That was also the point my leader, the leader of the
opposition was trying to make.
All these factors contribute, to a greater or lesser degree, to
the deterioration of the physical, psychological and mental
health of our peacekeepers. A number of questions come to
mind. First of all, were they given adequate preparation and
training before they left? Second, was there a proper evaluation
of the tasks they would be given so they would have a better idea
of what they could expect? When they return, do they have
access to the support and services they need to resume a
``normal'' life as members of their community? Apparently not,
since it was found that among peacekeepers and their friends,
the suicide rate was higher than average.
These are all issues that must be addressed if we want our
involvement in peacekeeping missions to be humanitarian for
those who are on the receiving end and for those who go on these
missions. I deplore the fact that this government failed to table a
statement describing the conditions under which our soldiers
have exercised their peacekeeping mandate so far. We are faced
with a fait accompli. Our answer to the government's request to
renew the peacekeeping mandate of the Canadian forces is yes,
but.
(2020)
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this has been not merely a valuable debate but an
innovatory debate in Constitutional law of Parliament terms.
It was intended by the United Stated Constitution, to which
some of the members of opposition parties referred, that
questions of peace and war and commitment of armed forces be
always submitted to Congress for decision.
We know that historically American presidents evaded that in
invoking presidential power. What is fascinating here today is
that we have come to Parliament. We are consulting Parliament
on the renewal of the mandate and we have established a
parliamentary practice that will not likely be changed in the
future.
It will now be part of our constitutional law that where there is
a commitment to be made of Canadian forces, it will be more
than a telephone call at 5 a.m. from a foreign head of
government and a Canadian Prime Minister replying yes sir,
without any thought of the roles and missions of the forces to
which he is committing Canada.
There are mistakes here and we can identify them readily if
we survey the history of peacekeeping in its classical form as
developed by our then foreign minister, Lester Pearson, for
which he won the Nobel prize for the interposition of unarmed
UN forces between armed combatants who had decided to cease
operations and were looking for a face saving way out of it.
The classic situation was in Suez in 1956. It was muddied in
the Congo in 1960-61 when the secretary-general of the United
Nations in moves that ultimately brought his own destruction
and death interjected political motives that had not been cleared
in advance. Many of us would believe they were the correct
political decisions but the political motive intervenes.
If we look at the two operations in recent years in which we
have been most involved, Croatia and Somalia, we find
operations in which the political commitment was made to
engage Canadian peacekeeping forces but without a prior
adequate definition of goals and missions.
This is the tragedy in Somalia. A classic peacekeeping
operation was converted into a mission with political objectives,
arguable and even questionable because they ignored the
existing power structure there which was necessary to the
effective operation of the UN forces.
In Croatia conflicting political agendas had been set by
European powers that were in some respects reviving their old
quarrels of pre-1914. I would not wish to censor the government
that made these decisions without prior discussion in
Parliament, without prior examination of the roles and missions
in which we are engaged, but it is clear there was a fault there.
11243
Our real issue today is that Canada entered into operations,
engaged our forces, engaged our word as a nation and we are
bound by that commitment in terms of consequences. We cannot
lightly walk away. In other words, a new political situation is
created by our act however much the present government and
opposition parties might wish to question the original political
premises on which the predecessor government engaged
Canada.
I have some suggestions to make in terms of the continued
operation of the Canadian peace forces in Croatia. It is clear if
we ought to be there it is to be in a classic peacekeeping sense.
We are not there as a chapter seven of the charter, a peacemaking
operation in which we have a defined political goal that involves
the application of military force for its achievement.
This was never our role. It is not our role today. It may well be
the objective of some of the people presently engaged in the
same operation. One of the problems here is the problem of state
succession to the former communist republic of Yugoslavia. It
was about to break up, as Turkey was in the 19th century. It
created the predecessor of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro.
It was a situation of state succession in which European powers
met together and realized that one cannot have recognition of
new states without a precise and equitable definition of
frontiers.
(2025 )
That was not done here and in a very real sense it is a mistake
to attempt it under the guise of a peacekeeping operation.
Therefore our message to the government should be that the
predecessor government engaged Canada in the operation. We
cannot in good faith walk away. We are responsible in measure
for what has happened since. We should limit our responsibility
to the UN mandate, the maintenance of a political military
situation created by the parties, agreed on by the parties as a
cease fire and no more.
If there is to be an issue of political goals to be established, we
should call for another congress of Berlin. The treaty of
Versailles to which we are signatory, our first international act,
establishes just such a machinery.
If it is to be a matter of defining frontiers, let us have a larger
European conference of which we are part. Let us get those
frontiers defined. Do not try to do this under cover of a military
peacekeeping operation. Do not charge our soldiers with the
responsibility of making political decisions. It is beyond their
special competence. It is beyond their mandate. It is manifestly
unfair to them.
I say congratulations to the government for establishing what
I hope will become a precedent that before Canadian forces are
committed we will bring the matter to Parliament. Second, we
will insist on maintaining respect for the UN charter and respect
for UN peacekeeping operations as defined in chapter six.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to start by reiterating the motion:
That this House, in light of the UN Security Council consideration of renewed
mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia, take note of the rotation of
Canadian forces serving with UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia.
We are taking note and Canadians are taking note. Canadians
are generally proud of the role of the Canadian forces in
peacekeeping. They very much respect the humanitarian role
that can be played. I do not think they are totally aware of both
sides of the equation from a military point of view.
On a very basic level if the troops are told, as they have been
recently in Valcartier, they are next in the slot, the morale of the
troops increases and they say: ``Good. We have a job to do, let us
do it''. If they have been trained for it, as most of them have,
they can do a very creditable job.
The problem is that this has gone on for too long. While there
is a momentary surge in morale, the piper must be paid after
that. If the troops get rotated with too great a frequency, we have
a problem. If the troops do not have the wherewithal in
equipment to carry things out, there is a problem. If defects are
perceived in leadership in the Department of National Defence
or within the Canadian forces, there is a problem. If the terms of
reference in the first place are inadequate, there is another
problem.
While it is good for the Canadian public to support its
peacekeepers, as I do, I nevertheless have to sound a note of
caution that all is not that well. There are many impediments,
many problems to overcome. The longer we are in this business
the more those problems are evident. I would like to agree to
some extent with my colleague from Vancouver Quadra who was
extolling the virtues of the government by saying that it was
doing the right thing by consulting Parliament. I agree, it is a
good thing to do.
(2030)
The government made a start on this a year or more ago when
this Parliament began. However, I have to question its sincerity
when looking at the events of today. Although the mandate for
our troops expires in two days' time, the government only
yesterday announced the special debate of today. That is totally
inadequate. However the intent may be correct. To put it in
general terms, as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra did, it
is a good thing to consult Parliament. I wholeheartedly agree
with that. It is a good thing to consult Parliament, but let us do it
effectively, not in a cursory way.
A good part of the reason for the Reform members' position is
that we established in discussion among ourselves what we
consider should be the conditions for sending troops on
peacekeeping operations. One was that peacekeepers should be
left alone to do their job in the Bosnia area. The second was that
the Sarajevo airport should remain open. The third was that
convoys
11244
should be able to operate unimpeded. The fourth was that there
should be a ceasefire in place and holding.
All of those conditions have been violated. Atrocities are
occurring, Canadian hostages have been taken, UN patrols have
been fired on, so-called safe areas has been fired on, landings at
Sarajevo have been stopped. We have ethnic quarrels going on
all the while. In fact, the ethnic quarrels are at the very root of
our objection to this whole situation. There will be no basis for
peace in the former Yugoslavia until the residents decide they
want peace. If it is going to be ethnic group against ethnic group,
religion against religion. It is going to go on and on.
Canadians found themselves as peacekeepers in Cyprus for 29
years with no way out of it. We finally pulled out and the
situation is no worse now than it was before. I am not trying to
simplify this situation. It is fraught with danger.
Let me speak to the other side of the coin. How much danger is
there? I ran into Major-General Lewis MacKenzie of Yugoslav
fame a week or so ago. He sent me an article which he had had
published in the New York Times. I would like to read part of
what he wrote. He was talking, by the way, in favour of the UN
leaving, certainly in Croatia. He wrote:
If President Tudjman gets his way and the UN withdraws from Croatia, war
will follow and it won't be a short, local war between Croatia and the Krajina
Serbs. The Krajina Serbs have been ``assisting'' the Bosnian Serbs in the battle
for the Bihac pocket and they have recently signed a co-operation agreement
for common defence which includes provisions for a joint defence council.
General MacKenzie's knowledge, having been on the ground
there is far superior to me.
(2035 )
He concludes in favour of keeping troops there.
Surely this is the real litmus test for the UN in the new world order. It is up to
the permanent five of the Security Council, led by the U.S.A., to make sure the
UN is not found wanting on this issue. Failure to do so will sentence the Balkans
to an even bloodier future.
This is a knowledgeable statement from a knowledgeable
person. It says to me, why should Canada interpose itself to the
degree we seem to be doing and saying we are responsible for
the whole safekeeping of that area? It is a UN responsibility. I
quite agree with General MacKenzie that pressure should be put
on the UN, led by the U.S.A., to do something about the
situation.
I would go beyond that and ask what is NATO's role in this.
NATO surely has a role to play. It must exercise its influence in
the area. Going beyond that, I would ask about the contiguous
countries, about Greece, Turkey, Albania and all those that are
affected. Where are they? They must take some responsibility in
this whole thing.
We wind up with this problem. Unless the situation can be
orchestrated by the UN, by NATO, by the countries in the area
and by the ethnic groups in that troubled area saying ``we want
peace'', Canadians cannot impose it on them.
Our military situation is well known. Our troop rotation is too
frequent; the equipment is inadequate; the troops are carrying
too big a load for the resources they are being given. We have the
Jeffries report out of Petawawa. We have the Oehring report out
of FMC saying there are problems within the Canadian forces.
These problems are of morale and leadership. We had better
straighten up that situation on our own home ground.
To conclude, if there is no chance for peace, if there is no
desire for peace by the people who are there, we cannot impose
it. It will do our country, NATO, the UN and the countries in that
area a lot of good if we are seen to be stopping now. Blow the
whistle and say: ``Whoa, let's start over. Let's see what it is we
are doing. Let's give notice now and take it from there''.
Mr. Janko
Peric
![](/web/20061117202617im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/graphics/nen179fu03.gif)
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to discuss once again the issue of Canada's role in peacekeeping operations in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina.
In preparing to speak today I reviewed my notes from two
previous speeches on the same matter. I came to the realization
that not much has changed. The United Nations is no closer
today to implementing its mandate than it was on January 25,
1994 when I first spoke in the House on the issue.
One-quarter of a million displaced persons in Croatia alone
are no closer to returning to their homes. Croatia's international
borders remain unsecured. One-third of the nation's territory is
currently occupied. I have been advised that since January 1995
the army of Yugoslavia has moved in over 900 troops, 25 tanks
and ground to ground missiles, all under the watchful eye of the
United Nations.
While all-out war did subside with the original arrival of the
United Nations protection force in 1992, little else had changed.
We must ask ourselves, is it any wonder that the Government of
Croatia wanted to terminate the United Nations mandate? We
must ask ourselves, are we accomplishing enough in Croatia to
warrant our continued presence there and our continued
expenditure of Canadian taxpayers' money?
(2040)
I am certain that most members can understand Croatia's
frustration. I am not so sure that we can answer the second of my
questions quite so easy.
11245
Last month the members of the Canada-Croatia and
Bosnia-Hercegovina parliamentary group hosted a visit by
parliamentarians from the Republic of Croatia. During that visit
it was made very clear to me and my colleagues that the Croatian
government was adamant about not renewing the UN mandate.
In fact, Mr. Ivica Racan, the leader of the opposition Social
Democratic Party of Croatia indicated to me that the one thing
all parliamentarians and citizens of Croatia were in agreement
on was that it was time for UNPROFOR to leave.
After the meetings with Mr. Racan and Drs. Domljan and
Greguric I truly believe that the Canadian peacekeepers would
be coming home. I can honestly say that I have very mixed
feelings about that. While I could understand the frustration of
the Croatian government and the Croatian people, I was worried
that an escalation in fighting might occur, thus once again
placing the safety of many innocent civilians in jeopardy.
Then on March 12 came what appeared to be good news. The
president of Croatia, Dr. Franjo Tudjman, held a joint press
conference with U.S. Vice-President Al Gore where it was
announced that Croatia would accept the further international
presence on its territory if a new UN Security Council mandate
could be agreed on and that certain conditions were met.
Those conditions included: one, control of international
borders between the Republic of Croatia and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, between the Republic of Croatia and the
Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina and at principal crossing
points not now controlled by Croatian authorities; two, control
access and communications for UNPROFOR and other
international humanitarian operations to Bosnia-Hercegovina
through territory not currently under the control of the Croatian
authorities; three, facilitate and continue implementation of a
ceasefire agreement on March 29, 1994 and an economic
agreement on December 7, 1994; four, facilitate implementation
of future agreements aimed at reintegration of Croatia and
facilitate implementation of relevant UN Security Council and
general assembly resolutions.
The Copenhagen agreement engineered by U.S.
Vice-President Al Gore which showed so much promise is today
in jeopardy. Last week UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros
Ghali forwarded the proposed new UN mandate to the
Government of Croatia. The problem is that this so-called new
mandate is little more than a rehashing of the old Vance-Owen
peace plan. This is not what the Republic of Croatia agreed to in
Copenhagen.
In a letter to UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali
dated March 27, 1995, a couple of days ago, Dr. Mate Granic,
Croatia's foreign minister stated:
I have the duty to inform you and the Members of the Security Council that the
Republic of Croatia shall not accept the new mandate of the new peacekeeping
force on its territory after the present mandate of UNPROFOR in Croatia
terminates unless the following conditions are met:
One: The name of the new operations contains the word Croatia; explicitly
confirming the fact that the new operation is to be carried in its entirety on the
sovereign territory of the Republic of Croatia; and,
Two: The mechanism of the active control of international borders of the
Republic of Croatia in the parts that are not at this moment accessible to the
Croatian authorities by the new force are negotiated in detail on the basis of
relevant Security Council resolutions and have gained prior formal approval of
the Government of Croatia; thus the mechanisms for active control of Croatia's
international borders under the new mandate must be clearly established
consistent with paragraph 12 of Resolution 820 (1993).
(2045)
The words of the Croatian foreign minister make it very clear
to me that Croatia means business. Either change the mandate to
reflect the Copenhagen agreement or get out. If somehow, and I
am hopeful, a new agreement can be reached, Canada must
decide whether it is in our best interest to keep our peacekeepers
in Croatia.
If we decide to remain in Croatia it is imperative we play a
role in negotiating a new mandate. This is one thing I have found
extremely disturbing throughout this entire mission in Croatia
and Bosnia-Hercegovina. Canada appears to have had very little
influence in the overall decision making process. We have the
fifth largest contingent of troops in Croatia and
Bosnia-Hercegovina, 2,100, yet we have been completely shut
out of the so-called contact group which has been making
decisions on strategy in the region.
Our neighbours to the south with only 890 troops and Russia
with 1,400 peacekeepers have been playing chess with our men
and women in this lengthy international conflict and we cannot
allow this to continue. The safety and integrity of our troops rest
solely on our shoulders. If we stay we must demand a more
active role in negotiations that will ultimately affect the
well-being of our peacekeepers.
In addition to playing a more active role in the negotiating
process, we should also be encouraging our southern neighbours
to put their money where their mouth is by increasing their
presence in the region.
Canada is a proud peacekeeping nation. Our troops have done
a good job in Croatia given what they have to work with. I
believe the Croatian government can confirm that.
However, if there is not a new mandate, if we will simply be
helping to maintain the status quo and if the lives of our
peacekeepers will be placed in greater jeopardy let us stop
wasting the hard earned money of Canadian taxpayers and bring
our troops home.
11246
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
taking part in this debate on maintaining peacekeepers in Bosnia
and Croatia more out of a sense of duty than of pleasure.
(2050)
More out of a sense of duty, because it is impossible to remain
indifferent to the drama taking place in the former Yugoslavia. It
is not for pleasure, because the government is putting us in a
very awkward situation. It is claiming to consult us, but we
know that the UN mandate ends in 24 hours.
Moreover, the government never really took steps to inform
the House of the results of earlier peacekeeping missions.
Finally, it probably made its decision to renew the mandate
several weeks ago.
They better not try to say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs
consulted us seriously on March 14, asking us our opinion on the
fly. They also better not say that our criticism of the government
is criticism of Canadian peacekeepers.
The Leader of the Opposition was very clear on this point. He
paid hommage to Canadian peacekeepers for their courage, their
devotion and their professionalism. I therefore ask the hon.
Liberal member to distinguish between criticism of the
government and criticism of the peacekeepers. In fact, there is
no criticism of the peacekeepers.
We have just reviewed Canadian foreign policy. Throughout
our meetings, the former Chair of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs, now a senator, made light of Canada's situation
describing Canada as the UN's emergency service. We have just
issued a statement of policy. In the fall, the government issued
its defence policy. Is there anything really different in the
process we are starting today? Not a thing. It is the same as
before.
At the San Francisco conference, which led to the
establishment of the UN on June 26, 1945, following the second
world War, people wanted to ensure that history would not
repeat itself. Unfortunately, we have to admit that history has
repeated itself. The UN charter introduced a new idea of
universal security, and it was a Canadian politician, Lester B.
Pearson, who, in the end, created peace missions as we know
them today.
The new face of war and the increasing number of areas of
conflict around the world require action by the international
community. Finding ways to regulate and ensure international
peace and security is one of Canada's responsibilities as well.
Canada, a country renowned the world over as a leader in
peacekeeping missions, can hardly run for cover now.
This debate also allows us to reflect on a certain number of
subjects more or less on the periphery of the issue at hand. I
would like to begin by reflecting on the role that television plays
on the international community's responsibility. As much as we
denounce the gratuitous violence typical of today's television
shows, we must recognize that the journalists covering
international issues heighten awareness in the international
community, and in Canada, of the situation reigning in countries
in conflict.
On this issue, I think that MPs cannot simply follow public
opinion. It would be too easy to conduct surveys and then to
apply the decision corresponding exactly to what Canadians and
Quebecers want to see. MPs have a role to play in shaping public
opinion and they cannot hedge on this issue indefinitely.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of renewing the
peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia and Croatia, but I am in full
agreement with the reservations which my colleagues have
already expressed. I think that we should react to this situation
in the way that we would if we were to see a person in distress.
(2055)
If I were at home in my apartment and heard gunshots in the
next apartment, I could not just shrug it off. Why should we then
close our eyes and refuse to act when it comes to the
international scene?
The role of peacekeepers is extremely important. It is
essential in Bosnia-Hercegovina. They bring food and medical
supplies, among other things, to people who are undeniably the
victims in the situation.
They also ensure that some lines of communication remain
open, without which life would become unbearable. They also
logistically support NGOs like the Red Cross and the High
Commissioner's Office for Refugees, which play a crucial role
which could not possibly be undertaken without the
peacekeepers.
Finally, regarding the need for the mission, everybody
recognizes that if we pulled out of Bosnia, we would leave
behind a void which would be filled with massive fireworks, it
would literally be hell on earth.
I said earlier that we had begun to review Canadian foreign
policy. We must realize that borders are a thing of the past.
There is no denying the interdependencies between peoples.
When someone pollutes the environment elsewhere, we in
Canada are affected. Poverty in developing countries is also our
problem because we all are responsible for what happens in the
world. We cannot remain passive when we see human rights
being violated. Population migrations always end up affecting
us.
Some 50 Bosnian refugees recently immigrated to my riding.
We cannot close our eyes and say: ``It is none of our business. If
they want to fight, let them fight among themselves''. No. We
have a moral and ethical responsibility in these matters.
11247
Humanitarian action is one of the responsibilities of the
international community. I recently attended a forum in
Sainte-Adèle, north of Montreal, in which experts tried to link
state sovereignty with the responsibility to take action against
gross violations of human rights. We are moving toward the
right to interfere, and the international community will have to
come to terms with this in the future.
Of course, we have a number of reservations about the
presence of peacekeepers over there. My colleagues talked
about the psychological trauma experienced by our soldiers
after or before they return home. I suppose that the Canadian
Forces could do a number of things, perhaps better choose the
soldiers or prepare them better. However, I do not think we can
base our refusal to get involved on this factor, as tragic as it may
be.
We often hear Canadians say that we cannot afford to
intervene. May I remind this House that Canada spends $10
billion on national defence. I think it is a false argument to say
that we cannot afford it.
The Canadian Forces should look for a new orientation. In the
report on the policy statement, we suggested that the
government review the make-up of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Since peacekeeping is really what we are best at and are
involved in on a regular basis, the whole National Defence
structure should focus on this new make-up.
Mr. Speaker, I am out of time. But I would just like to remind
the House that, if people are able to fight and kill one another, it
is because there are others out there who are manufacturing
weapons. in that regard, I want to denounce the fact that four
permanent members of the Security Council manufacture 80 per
cent of all weapons produced in the world. We will never
denounce enough this kind of hypocrisy.
I will conclude with a quote from the Leader of the Opposition
who stated on January 25, 1994: ``what matters for the moment
is to bear in mind that we must continue, insofar as our
capabilities allow it, to fulfil our fair part 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''.
(2100)
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to join in the
debate tonight on a subject of utmost concern and importance,
especially to the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore and indeed to
all Canada.
In light of the UN Security Council consideration of renewed
mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia and of the
coming rotation of Canadian forces serving with UNPROFOR in
the region, it is important that we have the debate tonight.
We live in a global village and very often the events that occur
in the international community have a direct or indirect effect on
Canada. We have seen evidence of this in the economy, in our
social policy and in issues of security. We have a responsibility
to the global village, especially when human rights are being
violated.
The importance of peacekeeping to Canadians is obvious
from the three times since January 1994 that the government has
called a special debate on Canada's role as a peacekeeper
throughout the world. In the past year we have dealt specifically
with our commitments to UN missions in Rwanda, in Haiti and
in the former Yugoslavia.
In the debates that took place members consistently referred
with pride to previous Canadian participation in UN
peacekeeping missions in Korea, Egypt, Vietnam, the Middle
East and Latin America, to name a few.
Numerous members of the Etobicoke-Lakeshore
community have been involved in peacekeeping activities
around the world since the inception of the UN peacekeeping
force. Their contribution to the security of our country and to
peace in the world is something that my constituents and I will
always be grateful for.
Described as an imaginative worker for peace, Lester B.
Pearson received the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in
bringing about the creation of the UN peacekeeping force.
Canada has a proud history of participation in peacekeeping
operations both under UN and non-UN auspices. Few if any
countries have a more impressive record of dedicated and
professional contribution to this essential activity.
Nowhere have dedication and professionalism been more
evident than with our Canadian peacekeepers currently
providing relief to the victims of the war in the former
Yugoslavia. Some 2,080 Canadian troops now monitor UN
protected areas in Croatia, provide protection for relief convoys
and refugees in Bosnia-Hercegovina, and monitor ceasefire
agreements in both countries.
Canada has supported the participation of its forces in this UN
mission to promote peaceful settlement and to provide relief to
its many victims. As one of the largest contingents to the UN
protection force Canadians have selflessly put themselves in
danger by undertaking difficult assignments. Service women
and men have participated in the European community monitor
mission and non-UN mission overseeing the ceasefire
throughout the former Yugoslavia and were instrumental in
opening Sarajevo airport for the delivery of humanitarian relief
supplies.
Canada has also provided a ship to sanction enforcement
operations in the Adriatic Sea and has deployed a naval support
ship and the Aurora maritime patrol aircraft to this effort. In
11248
addition, the NATO AWACS aircraft enforcing the no fly zone
over Bosnia includes Canadians.
One must always recognize the daily acts of courage of
individual peacekeepers. The threat of danger the Canadian
personnel might encounter during the course of a day is what
many of us here at home can only imagine. Their presence in this
war torn region presents a risk to their lives and is a constant
worry to their families at home.
(2105)
One must always ask whether we can continue to make a
difference. We know our presence in the Balkans has made a
difference to the children, the elderly, the women and all other
innocent victims of this cruel war.
Is the UN presence continuing to make a difference to the
peace process? If the answer is yes, it is our responsibility to
remain in the area. If little progress is being made toward peace,
the government must seriously consider our current
commitment.
The service of Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia and Croatia
has not been without its ordeals. In the last six months the
danger to our Canadian peacekeepers has increased daily. Many
Canadians have been shot at by snipers and non-UN soldiers.
Several of them have been seriously injured.
In November, 55 Canadian soldiers were taken hostage and
held against their will for over two weeks behind the
confrontation lines of this war torn country. The time has now
come to reconsider our commitment to the mission in Bosnia
and Croatia. That is the purpose of the debate tonight.
In light of the increase in risk to the lives of Canadians we
must come to a decision on whether to send neutrals to the UN
peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia and we must
consider our role.
We have not stopped the fighting but we have prevented the
war from spreading to other regions. We have made
accomplishments in the region and have made a difference to the
lives of many families living in the midst of a horrifying war.
Canada's involvement is said to create the breathing space
within which diplomats and political leaders can negotiate a
peaceful solution to a bloody war. New developments have
taken place since we last debated the subject in the House.
As the defence minister recently mentioned, Croatian
President Tudjman stated that he wanted all UNPROFOR to
leave Croatia. An agreement was worked out, however, and the
details of these terms and conditions are presently being
negotiated.
The dynamics are now changing and the UN forces are
undergoing a restructuring process that will affect all
participants in the UN mission. Under the new agreement
Canada's role should be to continue to help implement a
ceasefire agreement worked out with the maintenance of borders
and the maintenance of the all important humanitarian
measures.
At the moment we have about 2,100 soldiers preparing to
replace the personnel who have been in Bosnia and Croatia since
their tour of duty began six months ago. We know they will
continue the excellent work being accomplished in the region
but it is dangerous work.
We have also had excellent leadership on the issue from the
Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. I commend their efforts. A good number of my
constituents' comments on Canada's peacekeeping strength and
their determination to ensure the promotion of international
human rights and our humanitarian contribution in the Balkan
region are on the record of the ministers.
In closing, Canadians continue to see peacekeepers as an
important contribution to the maintenance of international order
and stability. The people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore will after
careful consideration continue to support the involvement of the
Canadian forces in this peacekeeping effort. After all, we are
helping to ease the suffering of millions of innocent people.
I am confident we will continue to fulfil our international
obligations through negotiations and peacekeeping to bring
about peace in the Balkan region.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of my
constituents in Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to
participate in the debate this evening.
We on this side of the House realize that the final decision is
the responsibility of the government. We appreciate that the
government gave us the opportunity to be heard tonight on this
very important issue.
The government said it would like to hear what we had to say
in order to help it make the decision whether or not we should
continue to maintain our present commitment in the former
Yugoslavia.
(2110 )
Interestingly this is a take note debate regarding the rotation
of Canadian forces. The hon. member for Red Deer earlier used
the words of an Eagles song, one of my favourite musical
groups. I am not sure which group sang this song: ``Leaving on a
Jet Plane''. In actual fact the troops' bags are packed. They are
set to go. On Monday they leave for Bosnia and Croatia in this
troop rotation.
According to my calendar today's date is March 29. The
commitment to the former Yugoslavia ends on April 1. Yet the
government wants to consult Canadians by holding an
emergency debate tonight at the 11th hour. We all know nothing
can be done to stop that rotation from taking place.
11249
Members of the Reform Party have made very clear their
position on the issue. We should announce and make very clear
that Canada intends to withdraw from the former Yugoslavia.
We should give the UN a three-month notice of that decision.
The reason we are taking this position is that we know it would
be very difficult for us to pull out immediately and leave a
vacuum until another nation is able to step in and take over
where we left off.
I feel, therefore, that we should be debating whether Canada
should commit continued peacekeepers to the former
Yugoslavia in the long run. If we do not debate the issue now,
when will the issue be debated?
Recognizing the fact that the debate should have occurred
weeks ago, I state unequivocally that we should pull out and give
the UN three months notice. Many people on the other side of
the House may be asking why we should pull out of the former
Yugoslavia. There are numbers of reasons why we should leave.
Despite our past history as peacekeepers to all the world's
troubled regions, I feel strongly that in this new world order of
regional, ethnic and tribal conflict running rampant and with
Canada's own defence resources shrinking at an alarming rate
the government must develop a commitment criterion to give us
a guide for future deployments of our peacekeeping troops.
On December 1, 1994 the Reform caucus issued a statement
which outlined the four conditions that should be met to keep
Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia. We developed
these criteria because of the numerous violations and because
Canadian troops were being held hostage.
At that time we said, first, that all UN detainees should be
released immediately; second, that the warring factions should
agree to cease all aggressive actions toward the UNPROFOR
troops; third, that the Sarajevo airport should be immediately
reopened and all humanitarian aid should be allowed to proceed
without interference by any of the warring factions; and, fourth,
that a ceasefire should be put in place and honoured by all sides.
Let us look at each one of the points individually. Even though
all UN detainees have been released there is still no guarantee
that the warring factions would not undertake such activity
again. As a matter of fact with the situation in Bosnia we are in
close contact with Serbian troops on a daily basis. It is a very
volatile situation. It is something that could possibly happen.
There have been less aggressive acts toward UNPROFOR
over the past couple of months but incidents do occur. There is
no guarantee in place by the warring factions to prevent any
future aggressive acts. All humanitarian aid is not getting
through. Anyone who says it is, is simply not stating the truth.
Two weeks ago the Montreal Gazette reported that there was a
desperate food shortage in the Bihac pocket because of the
heavy fighting between government troops and the alliance of
Bosnia Serbs, Croatian Serbs and the renegade Bosnian
Muslims. I would like to quote from the Associated Press report:
The Serbs generally refuse to give the United Nations permission to move
convoys into the region through Serb-held territory. The United Nations does not
have a mandate to use force to get its humanitarian aid through.
The UN World Food Program, based in Rome, said only 5,000 people in the
enclave get regular meals from public kitchens. Patients in hospitals eat only one
meal a day.
Only an estimated 20 per cent of the people trapped in the region have received
any donated food during the past six months, the agency said.
(2115)
The reason for the failure of the first three criteria is due to the
failure of the fourth criterion which the Reform Party laid down.
There is no ceasefire in place in Bosnia that is being honoured by
all sides. Do the warring factions even actually want peace? Are
they willing to make a lasting truce upon which a negotiated
peaceful settlement will be found?
In the case of Bosnia it appears the answer is a resounding no.
The combatants do not want peace. Short-lived truces are only
holding long enough for the combatants to reform and refit. As
we can see, the latest truce between the Bosnian government and
the rebel Serbs is crumbling. It is crumbling as we debate this
issue tonight. As UN spokesman Alexander Ivanko said
yesterday: ``It is our understanding both parties continue to opt
for a military option''.
We must consider the facts. Without a meaningful negotiation
between the combatants, peace is only wishful thinking. The
role of a peacekeeper is to keep the combatants apart while they
negotiate peace. There is no peace and there is no negotiation.
Canadian troops are more like pawns in a game of chess between
the differing parties. The threat of interference by both Serbs
and Bosnians has not been reduced.
It is dangerous to train and equip our troops for traditional
peacekeeping missions when we are putting them into a
situation which cannot succeed, where there is no peace or a will
for peace between the parties.
Many in the House will defend our humanitarian role on
grounds that the civilians would be worse off without the
peacekeepers. I can sympathize with that because I travelled
there. We should be very proud of our troops. They have done a
good job.
In the short term it may be true that the presence of UN
peacekeepers in Bosnia may have prevented widespread
starvation. However, at the same time the UN presence may
have actually perpetuated division, squalor and low-level
fighting for longer than would otherwise have been the case. We
must
11250
ask: Is the present morass a success or has the United Nations
become part of the problem despite its best intentions?
The fact remains that the UN's involvement in Bosnia is in
limbo, with the very strong possibility that Canadians will be
forced into a situation of peacemaking. If the international
community is serious about making peace, then maybe the
military role ought to be handed over to NATO with a mandate to
end the fighting through military means. Yes, I know that
solution is also problematic. It is again possible that nothing
will be solved. The warring parties will not have settled their
differences and fighting would resume once NATO withdrew.
This House must recognize that we should only be sending
troops on peacekeeping missions where the warring parties have
fought their battles and are ready to negotiate and to sit down at
the negotiating table to come to terms with a lasting peace.
What we are doing is committing our soldiers and our nation
to a moral dilemma. We must stay forever or else by leaving,
become responsible for the resumption of hostilities. Canada
cannot afford and has no moral authority to become not only the
world's policeman but a permanent benevolent occupier in
troubled areas.
(2120 )
Is this commitment going to turn into one of 29 years or more
in the former Yugoslavia as we ended up committing ourselves
to in Cyprus? Remember this is just another chapter in a
centuries old conflict that appears to be without an end.
As we debate this issue in the House tonight we can clearly see
that none of the four criteria outlined by the Reform caucus has
been met. Support for our continued presence in Bosnia is
waning at home as well.
I heard one of the members on the other side of the House ask:
What are your constituents saying? In my riding we conducted a
telephone poll and 68 per cent of the constituents told me they
would like us to leave as quickly as possible.
For just 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, I would quickly like to turn
to Croatia where President Tudjman would like to see UN
peacekeepers, at least he did say he would like them out of-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the member's time is up
unless there is unanimous consent. There are at least six other
members who were hoping to speak in this debate, as I
understand it. Is there unanimous consent to give the member
additional time beyond his 10 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Very well, the member has unanimous
consent.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the House.
President Tudjman in Croatia has had a change of heart and
said he would like to keep some peacekeepers in Croatia. The
problem is that the only peacekeepers he would like to remain
would be unarmed monitors. That is not satisfactory in this
volatile situation. We should get our troops out before any
further fighting begins. We should give the United Nations three
months warning that we are planning to do that so it can fill the
vacuum when we leave.
Finally, all Canadians can be proud of the Canadian troops
who have served their country valiantly and well in the former
Yugoslavia.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this has been a very good debate tonight. I
congratulate all those who have spoken for their candour and
openness and for putting their points forward.
We have to remind ourselves that Canada was one of the key
founders of the United Nations, one of the key partners in that
formation.
Today's problems are many and great, as has been pointed out.
However they pale significantly when one recalls the world wars
and catastrophes that have occurred over the history of mankind.
The United Nations was founded to try to prevent that from
happening again. It requires every responsible nation that
belongs to the UN to pull its weight and to work toward the aim
of peace, regardless of how frustrating and how crooked that
road may seem.
Many Canadian peacekeepers have served in the former
Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia.
Today some 2,080 are over there performing their role on behalf
of Canada and the international community.
It behoves each and every one of us in the House tonight to
thank the people who have served there in the past and in other
peacekeeping duties around the world. They have served Canada
well and will continue to do so. It also behoves us tonight to
thank the Canadian people at large for the support they have
given our Canadian soldiers as they go about doing their great
mission on behalf of international peace.
Recently we heard that the Bosnian Serbs have called for a
general mobilization. That is bad news. It almost seems as if
when summertime comes the weather is better for fighting. It is
a sad commentary on mankind.
(2125 )
Hatred is older than the hills, but it is there and it must be dealt
with. It must be dealt with by responsible nations, those that
maintain their calmness in duty and have very specific
responsible aims in place as they look to the future.
11251
This has not only been a great challenge for the United
Nations. It has created frustration for many as well. This is the
largest UN operation to date. Therefore, it undoubtedly demands
the greatest cohesion and togetherness we are going to see in a
UN operation probably since the Korean war.
We have had many fires to put out along the road of
international history over the last half century since the
founding of the United Nations, but this is not a time to let go of
the traces. It is not a time to stop pulling for peace in the world
for which we all strive.
There is a Chinese proverb which says that fury is nothing but
the energy of weakness. Nothing exemplifies this statement any
better than the ongoing circumstances in the former Yugoslavia.
There is another saying that ignorance never settles a question.
It simply keeps the argument all stirred up.
I love reading history. J. M. S. Careless wrote the book
Canada-A Story of Challenge. The 19th chapter deals with a
maturing nation. We must remember tonight that many people
came from countries across Europe in the early days to settle in
Canada. They came here to find peace, a place where they could
make a life for their families. As we stand here tonight in the
House we certainly can understand very well how many people
in disturbed parts of the world must be looking forward to the
days when they can see some peace.
Canada has worked on behalf of refugees, the children's fund,
humanitarian supplies. We have put troops into very difficult
situations. We have had an international airlift from Italy in
Sarajevo since July 1992. The Canadian forces Hercules 130
transport planes have been busy with 1,600 flights, 11,300
passengers and 26,600 tonnes of food and medical supplies into
Sarajevo. That is a small part of what our Canadian forces have
done.
Tonight it behoves all of us to take into consideration the work
that has been done to date. We must stand firm and work with our
partners in the United Nations toward the goal of the UN for
which it was founded half a century ago: to try to bring peace to
mankind and some sanity to the world.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired for the three
hours set aside for the debate.
Mr. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek
unanimous consent of the House to extend the debate for myself
and the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
(2130)
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We also have
two members who sat here all evening, participating and
listening very carefully. I am wondering whether you could seek
agreement to extend the debate to allow the remaining speakers
time but limit the debate to maybe five minutes each, which
would not go beyond 9.50 p.m. or 10 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Certain members have indicated they
wish to speak. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is not with pleasure that I join the debate. I am certain
all members present do not find much joy in debating this
subject. We have debated the topic several times. Parliament has
sat late to debate our role in the former Yugoslavia.
This time as I listened to members from all political parties I
sensed a sense of weariness with what our role has been. There is
more weariness now than I heard in previous debates.
The Reform Party is calling for our troops to be brought home.
The minister of defence made it abundantly clear in his remarks
that even if he recommits our troops it would only be for a
limited period of time.
The Leader of the Opposition talked in terms of renewing our
mandate because there is not much choice. The views expressed
by the members of the House really reflect the mood in the
country from coast to coast.
The lack of progress in ending hostilities, the ongoing
flagrant denial of basic human rights while our troops under the
UN command stand helplessly by, the incidents in which our
troops were detained and humiliated as well as our budgetary
problems have all added to the sense of weariness.
What are we doing there is the basic fundamental question
that gets asked. It is important for us and for Canadians to
realize the tremendous job Canadian troops have done. There
would have been a lot more death, destruction, carnage, rape and
denial of basic civilized human rights had there not been the
United Nations and the Canadian troops present.
It is hard to quantify that but let there be no doubt Canadian
troops have saved innocent lives. It is important that all
Canadians tip their hats to the men and women both in the
RCMP and in our military who have done a very professional
job. Canada can be proud of them.
The frustration we feel is also the frustration the Croatian
people feel. I and two other members of the House visited
Croatia in June 1994. We talked to its foreign minister as well as
members of its Parliament. Overwhelmingly they talked in
terms of ending the Vance peace agreement of 1994, the mandate
by which UNPROFOR forces are in Croatia.
The Croatians have the same fear the minister of defence
expressed, that this becomes a permanent situation. Under the
original agreement the local Serb groups were to be disarmed.
There was to be UN monitoring and taking over heavy
armaments. Non-Serbs were to be allowed back home. None of
this has happened. The concern is this present occupation of
almost
11252
one-third of Croatia by Serb forces will become a permanent
situation.
When one looks at a map for the areas controlled by the Serbs,
one sees how it prevents north-south and east-west
communications and transportation in Croatia. Croatia cannot
economically develop as long as this situation continues. There
is a tremendous sense of frustration.
When President Tudjman called for an end to the mandate, he
was not speaking for himself. It was a unanimous decision
passed by the Parliament of Croatia. Because of international
pressure the Croatian government has agreed to back down.
(2135 )
An agreement was reached with Mr. Tudjman and the Vice-
President of the United States, Al Gore, in Copenhagen. That
agreement has not been implemented in a mandate. There is no
agreement as things stand now for a new mandate. That is why
the government a bit amiss when it asks the House for advice to
renew that mandate. Right now no mandate exists.
The agreement reached in Copenhagen has not been finalized
in an agreement that would allow a new mandate to be
implemented in Croatia. In part what we are discussing here
could very well be beside the point. The Croatian government
has given until the end of May to reach this agreement. I
understand the condition will continue as it is now until the end
of May.
No agreement exists right now that would allow Canadian
troops to stay in Croatia. Hopefully something can be achieved
by the end of May. If it can be achieved, I urge the Canadian
government to allow our Canadian troops to remain there for
humanitarian purposes in the hope and prayer we all share, that
peace can be achieved in that part of the world. Our prayers are
with them.
The Deputy Speaker: I trust colleagues will agree to let the
pages leave.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can
safely say every member of the House respects and honours our
peacekeepers serving around the world. We all know the story of
Lester B. Pearson inventing the concept we now call
peacekeeping. Not all of us know Canada has participated in
every United Nations military effort since Korea.
All this brings us to the debate at hand about the future of
Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia. Since the
beginning of the conflict Canada has been an active participant
helping end conflicts there. Through our partnerships in NATO,
the organization for security and co-operation in Europe, and
the international contact group in Yugoslavia we have sought
ways to bring safety to that troubled land.
Canada has contributed almost $60 million in humanitarian
aid through various international and non-governmental
organizations. Our presence in Bosnia and Croatia has helped
save the lives of countless thousands of people. Our aid
programs have helped to alleviate the sufferings of those
trapped in these conflicts.
Many Canadians are questioning our role in the former
Yugoslavia, whether we are even needed there. I believe we are
needed there. We must stay there.
As has been said, 2,100 Canadians are serving as
peacekeepers and monitors today in the former Yugoslavia. As
part of our commitment to NATO, Canada is obligated to help
protect the western European security. In keeping that
commitment we are at the forefront of NATO expansion and we
are helping prevent the Yugoslavian crisis from spilling over
into other parts of Europe.
There is always a potential for peace. There is still a potential
for peace in the former Yugoslavia. However, for that peace to
exist there must be an end to the continual fighting among the
various factions. Our humanitarian efforts are helping people
realize they can get along in the spirit of co-operation and
mutual understanding.
Our peacekeepers are there to prevent acts that might be
destructive to any sense of understanding. After all, it was an
assassin's bullets on the streets of Sarajevo that sparked the first
world war.
(2140)
If our peacekeepers can prevent such a pivotal action from
taking place, they must remain there to make sure this peace
comes eventually. Our presence is necessary.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the House for allowing us to continue the debate
this evening.
I would like to express my profound gratitude to the Canadian
men and women who serve in our armed forces. They have
received a lot of criticism of late, much of it unjustified. They
have for many decades conducted themselves professionally,
effectively and with bravery. Lest we forget, they have done us
all proud. Some from the PPCLI come from my riding of
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, and I am deeply gratified to those
people specifically.
The views I am going to express are those of my own. They are
not held by my caucus. Although there is much on which we
agree, on the bottom line of whether we should pull out of
Bosnia and Hercegovina and Croatia we disagree. I do not think
we should and I will give the following explanation.
Let us first understand what our troops are doing there. For
over three years under UNPROFOR they have enabled the
11253
UNHCR to provide aid for those people who have nothing.
Currently over six million people receive aid that would not
have got to them had it not been for the troops of UNPROFOR
and for those people who work with the UNHCR.
They diffuse situations on a daily basis which could blow up
and cause death. They liaise between belligerents. They involve
themselves in prisoner exchanges and their mere presence has
prevented hundreds of thousands of people from being killed.
Anybody who would like to disagree, who would allow this to
occur, I would ask them to put themselves in the shoes of
someone living in Srebrenica, Gorazde or Bihac and ask what
they would like the international community to do if they were
there.
If we were to move out, our other allies would leave and we
can be certain there would be carnage, torture and mass killings
on a scale which we have not yet seen. It would be an orgy of
blood letting. We would see this courtesy of CNN.
Furthermore, we would see an expanded conflict. Not for a
minute should we delude ourselves that the Croats will not to
start to fight with the Krajina-Serbs. Let us not delude ourselves
that the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Serbs will not attack
each other. Let us not delude ourselves that the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia would not get involved with the Krajina-Serbs or
that Bosnia would not start to attack other people.
Then what will happen, because of our responsibilities under
NATO, is we would be dragged into that. We would be dragged
into an enlarged conflict which would cost us in terms of men
and women and also in terms of dollars. That is exactly what will
happen if we pull out and allow this to occur. There is no
contingency plan for a pull out right now.
Therefore I propose, with my colleagues, that we put pressure
on the belligerents to start keeping the Sarajevo airport open.
Let us ensure our peacekeepers will be there to conduct and
provide aid through the UNHCR. Let us also work with the
United States to put pressure on the EU and the OSCE to find a
regional solution to this problem because that is where it lies.
The former Yugoslavia has been called the shame of the west.
We have not done what was required through preventive
diplomacy to prevent this tragedy. It should be a lesson for those
countries that will blow up in the future.
I do not think there will be a diplomatic solution to this
problem. That is a tragedy. What will happen is the belligerents,
the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims, will fight it out and then
diplomacy will occur. There is no way they want to solve this
other than at the end of an assault rifle.
My primary concern is for the civilians who bear the brunt of
these civil conflicts time and time again. We must provide a safe
zone for those individuals and allow an area that will be
protected with force by international troops so that civilians
who choose to go there will be protected and have their basic
needs met. Tragically what is going to happen is that the
belligerents are going to fight. Rather than us actually being
those troops, we should work now to remove our troops and have
EU troops take our place.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to participate in this
important debate.
I support, as does the government, a continued role for
Canada's peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia. Canada has an
important role to play in finding solutions and in helping bring
peace to the region.
Canada has a proud and distinctive record in preserving world
peace and fostering global security. Since the creation of the
first UN emergency force in 1956 there have been 26 other UN
peacekeeping missions. In every case Canada participated in
some way. This record of excellence has been further enhanced
by our presence in the former Yugoslavia. From the beginning
Canada has participated fully in efforts to promote a peaceful
settlement to the conflict and provide relief to its victims.
In September 1991 we led the call for the UN security council
to deal with the issue. However there are those who would argue
that Canada should pull out. We do not think the problem is yet
to be resolved. Despite our presence the conflict rages on with
no end in sight.
It is true that we have not been able to secure peace in the
region. For the peacekeepers involved, for all members of
Parliament and for all Canadians, this is a grave issue of
concern. While it is frustrating to see the conflict continue, we
must remember the many positive contributions that Canada and
other countries have made to the region. These contributions, as
has been said here numerous times, are the delivery of food,
medical supplies, clothing, shelter and so on.
Make no mistake about it. For those living in some of the war
torn areas of the region, Canada's continued presence makes a
difference. We have protected the lives of innocent victims of
the conflict. We have a responsibility and a moral obligation to
continue that help.
Our efforts also continue on the diplomatic front. We continue
to consult regularly with all countries contributing troops to the
UN protection force. By extending our commitment to the UN
protection force we are by no means committing ourselves to the
status quo. The valuable work our troops continue to do in the
region cannot be seen in isolation from our efforts to find
innovative solutions for peace.
Our experience over the past few years indicates that we need
to explore more innovative options. Recent peacekeeping
missions have shown that the traditional approach no longer
applies. Clearly our long term commitment to international
peace and security must be closely tied with efforts to make
peacekeeping and, more important, peace building effective
security mechanisms.
11254
Given our longstanding commitment in international
peacekeeping, Canada has a wealth of experience to contribute
to future discussions. By renewing our commitment we are
sending a strong signal that Canada's first priority is to help find
a peaceful settlement to the dispute.
In closing, I would like to read an excerpt from a letter I
received from one of my constituents who was serving with the
UN protection force. He writes: ``Hello from southern Croatia. I
hope people back home realize how dedicated their soldiers are.
From what I have seen so far, everybody down here realizes how
professional we Canadians are''.
I would like to acknowledge the excellent work of Canada's
peacekeepers stationed in the former Yugoslavia.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I thank all House of Commons
employees who worked until close to 10 p.m.
The House now stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.49 p.m.)