CONTENTS
Monday, December 4, 1995
Bill C-234. Motion for second reading 17111
(The sitting of the House was suspendedat 11.44 a.m.) 17115
The House resumed at 11.58 a.m. 17115
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 17124
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 17133
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 17134
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 17135
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17136
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17136
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17137
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17137
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17138
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17138
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17138
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17138
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17138
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17138
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17138
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17139
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17139
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17140
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17140
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17140
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17140
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17141
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17141
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 17142
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 17142
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17144
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17144
Consideration resumed of motion 17146
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 17153
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 17155
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17163
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 17163
(Bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 17176
Consideration resumed of motion 17177
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 17179
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17186
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17195
17111
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, December 4, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): moved that Bill C-234,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (facsimile advertising), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-234, which I am presenting today, is
aimed at preventing the transmission by facsimile of unsolicited
advertising for the sale of goods or services to an individual or a
company.
The concern I will be addressing applies also to electronic
facsimile, electronic mail and even to Internet.
With your permission, I would like to make two points. First,
this House already knows, but to let the public watching us know,
this bill is not a votable item. At the outside, we will have finished
talking about it within an hour, and there will be no legislative
follow-up to my remarks.
However, and this is my second point, the issue I am raising is
very real and therefore should be given legislative attention in the
near future. In this sense, our debate this morning will get people
thinking and ultimately, perhaps, as I would hope, lead to the
House adopting in due course legislation that meets the need.
What need? As you know, before I became a member of this
House, I had another job. I was in business and I had a fax machine.
In the morning, I would collect the faxes that had arrived during the
night. There were those that had come from Europe, because of the
time difference, with their day starting earlier than mine. There
were, however, others that had been sent locally and had nothing to
do with my company's business interests. I was getting what is
commonly known as electronic junk mail.
If it were only occasionally, we could ignore it; if there was only
a little bit of it, we could forget about it. But it is a regular
happening, and the number of pages printed-at my expense or at
the expense of the businesses receiving them, because it is their
paper they are printed on-is far from few.
We have to understand the forces at play. The fax machine is an
inexpensive way to reach anywhere in the world very quickly.
When it is used for telemarketing or advertising, anyone anywhere
can flood us with advertising we do not need and more often than
we want it.
This sort of thing cannot be left strictly to chance. In the area of
telephony, as you will recall, overzealous telemarketing has been
regulated by the CRTC. Now, companies wishing to call numbers
in series must follow the regulations it has established. The
situation is not the same with regard to facsimiles.
(1110)
Faxes have environmental and other disadvantages. A lot of
paper is used needlessly, but environmental damage is not the only
problem. There are also commercial disadvantages: while your fax
machine is receiving unsolicited messages about things in which
you are not interested and using up reams of paper in the process,
your real clients are unable to communicate with you. You yourself
cannot use your own fax machine to communicate with your
business interests. There is a conflict between your interests and
those of the companies that want to market their products without
necessarily asking for your permission beforehand.
Allow me to quote from an Industry Canada document called
Privacy and the Canadian Information Highway, which deals with
the intrusion of the information highway on privacy: ``Citizens
may also want to be protected from unwanted communications as a
result of purchasing goods on the electronic highway''. I am not
talking only about faxes, but also about electronic mail and
transmission through the information highway.
The document goes on to say: ``Disturbances or intrusions by
telemarketers or targeted advertising mail is a privacy nuisance that
concerns many Canadians. There is already `junk' fax, with
solicitations over our fax machines for everything from coffee
service to holiday trips''. Should controls target marketing schemes
that result from separate or related purchases, for instance, junk
E-mail that follows a purchase of a Caribbean holiday with offers
for a next trip?
17112
If so, how? What rules should govern the collection and use
of information about what people buy or other personal
information transactions? How should these rules be balanced with
the opportunity to be made aware of goods or services that people
might want and need? The problem is not only the amount of time
and paper used by your fax machine in receiving messages from
outside parties, but also the fact that some businesses may use
your or your company's own consumption profile to transmit
targeted, unsolicited ads using your own resources, and may even
paralyse your own operations in the process.
There is another aspect: fraudulent advertising. A recent
investigation by the Montreal Urban Community Police
Department on the First Nations Investors Group uncovered an
almost $500,000 rip-off of some 20 residents of the Montreal
region. According to police, the suspects recruited their investors
mainly through electronic advertising, in particular by sending
faxes directly to management consulting firms. Swindlers sent
their targets faxes painting an enticing picture of the investment
opportunities.
The advertising, in the name of Venture and Financing
International Corporation, claimed to offer loans at attractive rates
for financing residential or commercial buildings, or 1 per cent less
than the rate in effect. Without going into details, this business
fraudulently collected $500,000 by using the fax numbers of a
highly targeted clientele.
(1115)
Other uses however may be more desirable, for example,
receiving your daily newspaper by fax. It is now possible for a
publisher to send his readers, his subscribers, a daily newspaper
either by the information highway-on the Internet-or by straight
facsimile.
In fact, we know of a publisher who has 300 subscribers at $250
each a year. Mind you, this is very clever; there are no printing fees
and no distribution fees, since the printing takes place at the
receiving end, on the fax, photocopier or printer of the recipient.
[English]
I recall something that happened in Calgary. A computer
specialty outlet refers to fax ads that zip through its machines as
annoying junk that usually goes into the garbage. In its experience
at least 10 sheets a day of irrelevant news has to be sorted. That is a
problem. These things have to be sorted. They cannot just be
looked on as junk. It must be sorted because in between these junk
mail items could be real messages for business purposes.
From this same source cited by the Calgary Herald, some
companies go nuts about fax firms, complaining advertisements
invade their fax machines, tie up their lines and use their paper.
Furthermore, a spokesman from AGT says the Alberta phone
company has no control over what travels across the lines and bears
no responsibility for its customers. In this dimension there is a
problem in Calgary, but it is not the only place.
In a law firm in Toronto a late night junk fax once consumed 99
pages of a lawyer's fax paper before the machine ran out. There is
an added concern here. If the machine does run out of paper, not
only is the paper spoiled but the machine is incapable of receiving
additional faxes that could be most important for operations. The
machine had been paralyzed by an outside party the company had
no business with. The law firm complained that there was no way
of contacting anybody to complain.
Some advertisements arrive daily just in case they were missed
the previous day and become a major headache for any business. To
add to the frustration, even if the offenders can be identified there
is no way the offenders can be asked to stop.
There may be some hope somehow, somewhere. The CRTC is
apparently under way to get authority to restrict junk faxes this fall.
We are at the end of this fall and I do not know where it is at this
point. A new national telecommunications act will come into
effect. The CRTC unfortunately is still in a state of considering
ways to exercise that control. It is not a matter of controlling and
regulations; it is a matter of having the technological means to do
it.
[Translation]
Bell Canada, which has also received floods of complaints,
asked the CRTC to be allowed to disconnect those who make an
abusive use of junk faxing. Bell defines this kind of junk faxes as
``unsolicited material promoting the sale of goods or services
where there is no business relation between the person sending the
material and the one receiving it and where this has been going on
for over six months''.
(1120)
Bell Canada's proposal is to suspend service for five days to
anyone sending junk facsimiles to the same telephone number
more than twice in the same month. After suspending service for
these reasons three times, the company would consider terminating
service permanently.
As you can see, there is a problem. And this problem does not
affect just one municipality here and there. It is from coast to coast.
Telephone companies are aware of the problem, but they do not
have the necessary means of coercion to act on it. The CRTC is
reviewing the issue, but does not see how it could be resolved
through technology alone.
17113
So I hope that my remarks will have alerted the House to the
problem, to how extensive it is and to the need to take action, not
in three, four or five years, but as soon as possible. That is my
wish.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-234, an act to amend the Criminal Code,
facsimile advertising. The purpose of the bill is to make it a
Criminal Code offence to send unrequested advertisements by
facsimile transmission.
The hon. member opposite clearly believes that unsolicited
advertisements received by fax can be a nuisance for many people,
organizations and businesses, particularly when the advertisements
are long, numerous or repetitive. They use up expensive thermal
paper and clog up the fax machine which is then not able to send
the important messages that need to be sent and so on.
I am sure every member of the House can relate to this and
would join in agreement with that problem. However, while
unsolicited facsimile material can be a real nuisance, sending it is
in my opinion not conduct that should be sanctioned by criminal
law.
Bill C-234 proposes to make sending these faxes a criminal act. I
cannot agree that making the abuse of a fax machine a criminal
offence is an appropriate response. The purpose of criminal law is
to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.
It has long been recognized that criminal law plays an important
role in protecting our social values, but there are other ways of
protecting these values.
The abuse of a fax machine and a facsimile transmission is a
problem that would be better dealt with using less intrusive, less
coercive means and more positive approaches. Although I agree
this kind of abuse is a nuisance I cannot get myself to agree this
conduct is to be treated with the heavy hand of criminal law.
The past few years have seen a growing concern in the legal
community and in society generally with the overcriminalization of
our society and of our laws. It may be useful to go back to
established principles that may prove to be relevant to the issue at
hand. These principles could guide our nation in making a
determination as to what ought to be made criminal and what ought
to be regulated using less stringent means.
A 1982 report entitled ``The Criminal Law in Canadian Society''
outlined the policy of the Government of Canada with respect to
the appropriate scope and basic principles of the criminal law. A
clear statement is included in the report:
The criminal law ought to be reserved for reacting to conduct that is truly
harmful-Criminal law should only be used when the harm caused or
threatened is serious, and when the other, less coercive or intrusive means do not
work or are inappropriate.
With that view, with those lenses and regarding those words of
advice and direction, does the act of sending unrequested
advertisements by facsimile transmission seriously harm people or
organizations? We will all agree it is an annoyance, but is it
harmful to the point of requiring this be made criminal with all the
attendant consequences like criminal records, problems getting
into education and problems obtaining employment? Certainly not
in my view. It may be a nuisance or an inconvenience, but I doubt
there is ever any serious harm done. Does the act of sending
unrequested advertisements by fax so seriously contravene our
fundamental values as to be harmful to society? Of course not.
(1125)
Therefore it seems clear this conduct does not fall within the
proper scope of criminal law. If the criminal justice system is to
remain an effective mechanism for the protection of social values it
is important that it not be overburdened. We all understand that our
court system is overburdened today. Caution is therefore
appropriate in creating new criminal offences. That caution makes
me conclude that it would be inappropriate for the House to use
such a blunt instrument as criminal law.
I raise another concern with the bill. It proposes to make the
sending of unrequested advertisements by fax a punishable offence.
Any person found guilty of committing this offence would be liable
to a fine not exceeding $200. At first glance this small fine does not
seem to constitute excessive interference with individual liberty
and freedom.
However, we must remember, especially in the House and
especially today with what we know to be true in the country, that
subsection 787(2) of the Criminal Code provides that if one fails to
pay a fine the court may order the defendant to be imprisoned for a
period of up to six months. In effect, this offence is potentially
punishable by up to six months imprisonment. This would be
unjustifiable state interference with individual liberty. I seriously
doubt that making it a criminal offence to send these faxes is truly
necessary to achieve justice and to protect Canadian society.
I must also express my concern with respect to the current
wording of the bill. It does not clearly define the limits of the
offence. For example, the bill would prohibit the sending of
unrequested facsimile communication advertising for sale any
goods or service. Unrequested by whom? Do the words
``advertising for sale'' make it a crime to try to sell something? Is it
all right to try to rent something or whatever else? These words
remain entirely open to interpretation. It is also unclear who
exactly is responsible, the employer, the employee or both.
I repeat my concern. The fundamental principles of individual
rights and freedoms demand that criminal offences be very clearly
defined. The bill is open to a range of interpretations and yet
proposes to create a new criminal offence. Criminal law cannot
operate in such an arbitrary manner. The bill as it stands is not
17114
clearly drafted and would make punishable many actions and
situations not criminal in nature.
I express my sympathy again with the sentiments of the bill.
Most of us have experienced firsthand that receiving unsolicited
commercial facsimile transmissions can be a nuisance. However,
as I have explained today, the bill raises several fundamental
concerns. I am convinced it is inappropriate to create a new
Criminal Code offence prohibiting the sending of unrequested
advertisements by facsimile transmission to individuals or
companies.
Criminal law is not the appropriate instrument to deal with this
nuisance. Criminal law must only be used when it is clearly
necessary to achieve justice and to protect the full interests of
society. It may be possible to identify more appropriate and less
intrusive means of dealing with this problem, which I might be able
to support, but I cannot support the creation of a Criminal Code
offence for the purpose stated in this private member's bill.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member. She touched on some very important concerns raised
by the bill. I agree that the inconvenience caused by this kind of
advertising is significant and will become more significant.
However, I question whether the Criminal Code is the appropriate
instrument to deal with this nuisance. Basically that is what it is, a
costly nuisance. Ought we as legislators to be creating a criminal
offence out of what basically is a nuisance? I do not think we
should be.
(1130)
If this matter is going to be dealt with, it ought to be dealt with
under the Communications Act. That is the proper area where we
should be looking at restricting this kind of advertising, if that is
the wish of Canadians.
For the information of those who are watching this debate I
would like to read exactly what the bill states. It is very clearly
covered in clause 1:
Every one who sends to a person or organization through a telephone
network an unrequested facsimile communication advertising for sale any
goods or service is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and
is liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars.
We saw what happened when the government attempted to
curtail the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products. From my
understanding that was turned back because it violated freedom of
speech and so on. Would this fall into that category as well? It may
or may not, but it is certainly a question that would have to be
addressed.
How would this affect advertising? Would this apply to the
Internet as well where there is no costly intervention? As the hon.
member who is sponsoring the bill pointed out, reams and reams of
paper are consumed by those who are not interested in this kind of
advertising. What about the Internet? It seems that it may in many
ways be replacing the fax machine. Would this apply to the
Internet? According to my understanding of what I just read in the
bill it would.
We have to ask whether businesses are willing and prepared to
create a negative attitude toward their product by antagonizing
those very people they are contacting by advertising their goods
and services. Are they willing to do that? In other words, are the
pressures of the free market system not adequate to keep this thing
from getting too far out of hand, the whole idea of seeing reams and
reams of advertising they want nothing to do with on the fax
machine in the morning?
Eventually there is going to be a backlash to this if it gets beyond
a certain point. The advertisers will see that it is harming their
product and the image and the profile of their company. Ought we
not leave this kind of matter in the hands of the consumers who,
when they are fed up with this kind of thing, will surely let the
sponsors of the advertising know where they stand on it?
What about the benefit? Surely there has to be some benefit
derived from this kind of advertising, otherwise they would not be
doing it. Should we deny the people who are receiving some benefit
from this advertising by introducing this legislation?
I do not have much more to say about the bill. The hon. member
from the government side covered it very adequately. I can
dispense with my concern about it falling into the area of the
Criminal Code. The bill should come under the Communications
Act.
We should let the market forces deal with this kind of issue. If
we as legislators are to look at this kind of practice, it should not be
criminalized. Simply sending advertising over the telephone lines
should not be a criminal offence. If it is to be prohibited at all, it
ought to be done under the Communications Act.
(1135 )
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not expect to rise to speak to the motion but I think
the member for Portneuf is to be congratulated in the sense that he
has certainly isolated a problem of the modern age.
I have encountered that problem in a way everyone in the House
of Commons has experienced it which is directly related to the
business we do. In my constituency office there have been
occasions where my fax machine has been jammed for an hour or
so receiving about 30 pages of talking points on some piece of
government legislation. The irony is I would have already heard
that information from caucus debates but occasionally, staff
members in the ministries get a little carried away and send us
more fax material than what we really want. I see some members
are very
17115
sympathetic to this point and I am sure members of the opposition
have the same problem.
I quite agree with the earlier speakers that this is not something
which is best addressed by amendments to the Criminal Code.
When we do get into the business of in any way limiting freedom of
expression, freedom of publication and freedom of speech by the
use of the force of law, we run all kinds of dangers with respect to a
fundamental liberty.
In the case of the use of facsimile machines for sending junk
mail, as the member for Portneuf said, who defines whether it is
junk mail or something else? He did not attempt to cover the
question of facsimile transmissions received that contain
pornographic material or deliberate untruths. If we attempt to
regulate this it is very like pornographic material. There is a
blurred line that we can never be sure of where we invade into the
area of genuine freedom of expression.
Similarly I reject the suggestion of the member for Portneuf that
the CRTC should get into this field and come up with some kind of
regulation that could be imposed on the distributors of this type of
junk mail by facsimile machine. The reason is similar to that of
putting it in law as a Criminal Code offence. We run great perils as
a society when we give arm's length bodies control over how we
express ourselves.
The CRTC after all is an unelected body. It is a body that is at
arm's length from government. It is a body that is at arm's length
from the people. It is very dangerous to give it any more power
than it has already. I have to say I am not a great fan of the CRTC. I
feel in many respects it is out of touch with the communication
needs of the country. It indeed needs to be reviewed.
For myself, the solution to the problem is to come from the
marketplace. The solution is essentially technological. We will see
some bright inventor or perhaps some industrial giant develop a
code system. An individual's fax machine will have a secret code
which, when it is contacted by an external fax machine, will not
permit reception unless the code is given by the sending fax
machine. I am fairly confident this is on the horizon.
I have some interest in the whole question of communications
intelligence. I can say with some authority that a great deal of
research has been done in Canada, the United States and Britain in
the communications security establishments which exist in those
countries on the whole question of the security of facsimile
transmissions and all kinds of electronic transmissions. The
possibility of having a password or code on a receiving machine is
very much within the realm of an immediate possibility.
(1140 )
The idea is very similar to call display on a telephone which is a
relatively recent innovation of the telephone companies. Call
display can be bought from Bell Canada, as can the option of not
having call display. With that option, a person's identity is kept
secret and nothing appears on the call display when phoning
another person. That same technique could be used on a facsimile
machine. A secret numerical code could prevent a facsimile
machine from receiving a transmission.
This will all come from market forces which, as the member for
Crowfoot suggested, are to be key in this. It was mentioned that we
are now in the era where copies of newspapers will be delivered
electronically to fax machines. It will be perfectly useless if a
newspaper is going to be in competition with every other
newspaper for a fax machine. The only way the delivery of
newspapers by fax will work is if the newspaper can respond to a
secret password on a fax machine.
In the end it will be market forces. It will be technology that will
solve this problem. I congratulate the member for Portneuf for
bringing the matter forward because this is the place where the
issues of the day must be debated. We must show that we are au
courant with the issues of the day and bring some the solutions to
some of the problems which confront us from time to time.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Since no other member
wishes to speak on the issue and since the motion is not a votable
item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the item is dropped from the Order
Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 96.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find a disposition
to suspend the sitting until noon, when Government Orders would
proceed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the wish of the House to
suspend the sitting until 12 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.44 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 11.58 a.m.
17115
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.) moved:
That this House take note and welcome the recent Dayton peace agreement and
the international community's continued efforts to bring enduring peace and
security to the Balkans, and Canadian support of these efforts by participation in a
multinational military implementation force (IFOR) under NATO command.
17116
He said: Mr. Speaker, the announcement on November 21 that
the leaders of Bosnia, Hercegovina, Serbia and Croatia had reached
a formal agreement on peace has provided a glimmer of hope not
seen in the Balkans for a long time.
After four years of bitter fighting, internecine strife and
degradation, we have seen the parties come together to try to effect
a peace settlement. It is now time for all of them to step out of the
shadow of war. They are not there yet. A lot of work has to be done.
Although we have an agreement on paper, the challenge is to ensure
that the agreement is properly enforced.
(1200)
A NATO led peace implementation force authorized by the
United Nations will be the key to the next stage of the peace
process. Its most important job will be to ensure compliance among
the warring parties on the ground with the military aspects of the
agreement. Without this force, the agreement runs a serious risk of
collapsing.
Our task today is not to debate a possible Canadian involvement
in the Balkan peace implementation force. Our task today is to
debate the nature and the form of that commitment. Canada is by
no means legally bound to send any troops to assist NATO in a
given mission. Nothing in the NATO treaty legally binds us to such
a contribution. However, we have a moral obligation to participate
in this newly expanded NATO operation and this new operation
will demonstrate the relevance of NATO in the post cold war era.
In the white paper published last spring following the
consultations of the joint parliamentary committee on national
defence and the foreign affairs committee, we made a commitment
to continue our involvement in NATO. We believe that we have an
obligation when all of our allies in NATO are agreeing to
participate in this force to be there with them, shoulder to shoulder.
The question is to what degree. Those are the views we would like
to have from members today.
This is another example of how the government, led by the
Prime Minister, has reverted to an earlier tradition of allowing
Parliament to participate in the whole decision making process on
how troops are deployed and how our foreign policy obligations are
engaged.
We have had a number of debates in the last little while and I
believe today's debate will be most significant.
[Translation]
Over the last four years, Canada has played a significant role in
the international community's efforts to deal with the war in the
former Yugoslavia. These efforts have been carried out primarily
through the United Nations and NATO.
Canadian military personnel have helped prevent the conflict
from spreading to other parts of the region and from becoming
even more brutal. They have also helped save countless lives by
assisting in the delivery of humanitarian relief supplies and by
preventing more massive assaults on civilian populations.
As always, our personnel have served with courage, dedication
and professionalism.
[English]
Canada has a dedicated, professional and devoted armed forces.
All Canadians know that and respect and appreciate them.
With the peace process now moving into a new phase, we believe
that Canada should be there. The Canadian forces, contrary to the
remarks of some of our critics, are ready to serve in that
implementation force.
I need hardly remind members of the expertise and the
experience of Canada worldwide in peacekeeping missions since
1947. We have an impressive record by anyone's standards.
Today I have two particular functions in the debate. The first is
to briefly remind members of the great contribution Canada has
made to peace operations in Yugoslavia in the last few years. That
is what leads us to continue the march toward peace by becoming
involved in the implementation force.
Second, I believe I am obliged to provide members with some
information on the proposed implementation force.
[Translation]
Canada has taken a leading role in efforts to bring about a
peaceful end to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and to provide
relief to its victims.
In September 1991, Canada led the call for the UN Security
Council to deal with these issues.
Canada also responded favourably to UN requests for Canadian
Forces personnel to be deployed as part of a peace operation in the
region.
Our military contribution was a mix of many elements of our
land, sea and air combat capability.
(1205)
On land, our contribution came to include a battalion group in
Croatia, a battalion group in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a logistics
battalion on the Dalmatian Coast in Croatia, as well as military
observers and personnel for various headquarters positions.
[English]
Canada has contributed to NATO operations in the air, on the
ground and on the sea in the no-fly area over Bosnia-Hercegovina.
17117
Our ships have been off the Adriatic coast. Canadians have been in
the various headquarters of the United Nations and have been
involved with some NATO forces that have been deployed.
The mandate has evolved over the last four year. I will leave it to
some of my colleagues to fill in the details of the great contribution
that Canada has made in trying to stabilize the situation in Bosnia.
Canadian troops opened up the Sarajevo airport in 1992.
Canadian troops were among the first to participate in the
protection of humanitarian convoys in the fall of 1992. Canadians
were the first to deploy in the former Yugoslavian republic of
Macedonia in what has been the only example of a successful
preventive deployment by the UN. Canadians were there when they
were asked to become involved.
Who could forget what Canadians did in the spring of 1993?
Troops were sent to the tiny enclave of Srebrenica which was
besieged by Bosnian Serb artillery and troops. They held out for
months and months. They were followed by our Dutch friends in
NATO before that terrible event occurred this summer which
precipitated the outcry of people in the world and the international
community that forced a change of tactics, a change of strategy, to
become more robust in dealing with the flagrant disregard for
international order. It spawned a very important initiative by the
British Prime Minister in July in London and subsequently led to
the American organized peace effort which has resulted in the
peace implementation of today.
The United States has to be congratulated for the role it has taken
in bringing the parties together, in overcoming so many differences
and in getting us to the point where we can at last see a long term
peace which is not too far ahead of us, provided we do the right
things.
Canada has been in a number of operations. I will continue to
refresh the memory of members. The Canadian Hercules aircraft
were the lifeline into Sarajevo, Operation Air Bridge. I was in the
cockpit of one of those planes when suddenly enemy radar fixed on
us. As a civilian I was really scared that day, but the Canadian
pilots in that plane said: ``Don't worry, they are just testing our
mettle. They won't dare shoot us down''.
Every day for months Canadian air crews participated in
bringing in needed supplies. It was the only flight into Sarajevo. It
was ships of the Royal Canadian Navy that enforced the embargo,
enforced the sanctions off the Adriatic coast. I had the opportunity
to be on HMCS Iroquois, one of our destroyers in that area, to see
the kind of work they did in successfully capping the flow of arms
and other strategic goods into that country.
Finally, Canada also has been involved in reconnaissance work
with Aurora patrol aircraft. Canadian crews have been on the
NATO AWACS providing information and Canadians have been
involved in Operation Deny Flight.
Canadians have been there. They know the terrain. They know
the circumstances. They know the people. They know the culture.
That is why it is logical for Canadians to be part of the international
effort led by NATO to try to bring some order to this very difficult
situation, to enforce a peace, to make sure that peace plan is
implemented properly.
That agreement is very impressive. It has three elements to it
which cover constitutional, territorial and military issues.
[Translation]
Constitutionally, Bosnia will remain a single state, whose
boundaries will be those already recognized by the international
community. It will be made up of two entities: the Muslim-Croat
federation and the Bosnian Serb republic.
(1210)
It will be a loosely structured union, whose presidency will
alternate. The central government will be responsible for foreign
policy, trade, customs, monetary policy and so on. The agreement
is generally in keeping with the land division agreed to by the
parties, that is to say 51/49 per cent in favour of the federation.
As far as Sarajevo is concerned, Bosnian Serbs are to transfer to
the Bosnian government the suburbs currently under their control
north and west of the city, thereby joining the city to the area
controlled by the federation. A corridor 8 to 15 kilometres wide
will link the safe area of Gorazde and Sarajevo.
[English]
On the military side, all foreign forces except UN troops are to
withdraw within 30 days of the formal signing of the agreement,
which will be in Paris later this month. This is a provision
requested by the Bosnian government and it does include Croatian
government forces. The agreement also calls for the withdrawal of
all heavy weapons to barracks behind a four-kilometre zone of
separation within 120 days.
Although the Bosnian-Serb leadership was not involved directly
in the Serb negotiations, it was reported that the terms of agreement
had been accepted. We see some nuances to that acceptance now
playing out, but a deal is a deal and this deal will be enforced by the
NATO led troops that will be sent.
This is an historic agreement, but future conflict cannot be ruled
out. Let us not fool Canadians. This is a dangerous place. There are
ambiguities in the peace accord and old antagonisms will not
disappear overnight.
We believe that the NATO led peace implementation force is
critical to the peace process. I would like to share with my
colleagues a few details about the force.
17118
NATO has already agreed and started to deploy the advance
parties to its force, with the agreement of all parties concerned.
By deploying these troops now, NATO will be in a position to start
deploying its main forces very soon after the UN security council
passes a resolution authorizing NATO to proceed with the
implementation of the military aspects of the peace plan. I should
state, to clear up any ambiguity which may arise in press reports,
that there are 11 Canadians among the advance troops. These
Canadians are among the hundreds which are seconded to NATO
and, therefore, are obliged to be part of NATO operations.
There will be some Canadians on the ground, if not at this
moment then very shortly, but within the context of the NATO
commitment which is ongoing and to which we are a signatory
under the NATO treaty. I emphasize that it is not the
implementation force contribution that we are debating today.
The plans for the force have been debated. They have been
provisionally approved by the North Atlantic Council and they will
be given final approval after the security council resolution has
been passed. This plan calls for 60,000 people to be part of the
forces. It will be divided into three main divisions: the British,
French and American command areas.
It is very crucial that we understand the objectives of the force.
They are to ensure compliance with the military aspects of the
peace agreement. In particular, the withdrawal of forces to the
respective territories is set out in the agreement and the
establishment of agreed lines of separation of those forces.
[Translation]
Second, UN forces currently deployed must be withdrawn.
Third, other non-military tasks arising from the peace accord must
be carried out. The UN, the European Union and the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe will join in carrying out
civilians tasks.
[English]
This is an operation that will conduct its duties under chapter VII
of the UN charter, which allows for the use of all necessary means
to fulfil the mission, in other words, robust rules of engagement. I
assure the House that the Canadian government will have the final
say on all rules of engagement being used by Canadian forces.
Canada has contributed a lot in the last seven days to the
development of these rules of engagement. In particular, I pay
tribute to our military staff, led by the Chief of Defence Staff John
de Chastelain, who last week with his NATO colleagues in Brussels
hammered out the rules of conduct and the rules of engagement
which reflect Canada's concerns.
(1215 )
I do not have to paint a graphic picture here. We have had
considerable experience in difficult situations in the last few years.
We have learned about the application of force, when it should be
used, to whom and in what circumstances. I am pleased to say that
those experiences were taken into account in the development of
the rules of engagement for this protective force.
About 40,000 of the 60,000 troops will be provided by the
United States, Great Britain and France. The Russians are also
making a significant contribution. It is not just all the major
powers. Middle powers like Canada will also be playing a role.
Every one of our allies, except Iceland, which has no armed forces,
will be participating.
Among the non-NATO nations, as I have indicated, Russia will
be there. A Russian brigade will operate in the American sector
under a Russian commander, who will report directly to the
supreme allied commander of Europe, General Joulwan, an
American, rather than through the NATO chain of command.
Russia has also offered an engineering and mine clearing brigade,
which will operate outside the NATO led implementation force.
Who could have imagined about six or seven years ago, certainly
not ten years ago, that we would have Russian troops deployed in
Europe serving in the cause of peace under an American
commander? The world is certainly moving in the right direction.
Our friends in Russia should be congratulated for putting aside any
concerns they have and being committed to peace and involved in
such a way in this effort.
[Translation]
I would add that the implementation force will serve to test
NATO's ability to head new types of missions requiring
co-operation between its own forces and other forces, such as
Russian and eastern and central European forces, that are not under
it. This co-operation will be an invaluable first step in establishing
an effective European security system for the post cold war era.
Like all peacekeeping operations, this one contains an element
of risk, which will depend on the parties' desire to comply with the
peace accord. The rigours of winter and the poor state of the roads
in the region represent other dangers.
[English]
I know the critics will ask what this will cost. It will not be
cheap. It will cost $10 billion Canadian for this entire operation to
be put in place. Funding arrangements have yet to be settled, but it
seems likely that participants will cover their own deployment and
maintenance costs. Common funding will be reserved for common
facilities such as the force headquarters, which will amount to
about $200 million American.
Canada will be required to cover its share of the common
funding cost even where it is not to participate in the force. At a
17119
minimum, this will come to about $20 million. The cost of
participation will depend on the nature and size of the forces. That
is why we are anxious to hear about the feelings of members of
Parliament who are in touch with their constituents and know the
degree to which they want Canada involved in this operation.
We are currently considering options that would cost in the range
of $20 million to $50 million. However, do not believe anyone who
says this is a done deal. The fact is that we want to get the feeling
from Parliament before cabinet decides on Wednesday as to the
actual number of people we will deploy in this particular force.
At the moment the plan calls for the replacement of the NATO
implementation force with non-NATO forces after 12 months.
[Translation]
A senior officer will be appointed to co-ordinate the civilian
aspects of the peace plan, which will include economic recovery,
humanitarian assistance, refugees, elections, human rights, arms
control and disarmament.
If asked to, force commanders may assist the United Nations and
humanitarian organizations in such activities as maintaining public
order, clearing mines and transporting rations. However, their
prime responsibility will be the military aspects of the accord.
[English]
In the very limited time available, I have tried to provide the
House some information on the force as it is presently being
constituted. We obviously look forward to the views of individual
members of the House before we make the decision.
(1220)
From a philosophical point of view, the government thinks
Canadians understand that our interests and values as a nation
depend on world stability, on a stable international order. That is
why we have made such a firm commitment over the years to
promote international peace and security. The foreign policy and
defence reviews conducted in 1994 confirm this commitment. This
commitment is shared by all parties in the House. Indeed all parties
were generally in agreement with the direction of Canadian foreign
and defence policies in those two reviews in 1994.
[Translation]
We cannot shut our eyes to parts of the world where instability
and conflict have taken root. Even if we are not directly affected by
events taking place far from us, we will, over the longer term, feel
less safe if we ignore them. This is a lesson history has shown us a
number of times this century.
Hence Canada's passionate defence of multilateral institutions,
such as the UN, and its active participation in peacekeeping
operations. We know the importance of working with our allies
and with countries sharing our ideas to promote international peace
and stability, in Europe or other areas of the world.
[English]
We have a well deserved reputation for being there when it
counts. Just look at our peacekeeping record. If Canada is to
continue to play an effective role on the world stage, it is critical
that we maintain that reputation, which means contributing to
international efforts aimed at enhancing global security.
I believe the conflict in the Balkans represents the gravest threat
to international security in that area since the second world war. We
have spoken of the dangers of this conflict being allowed to engulf
Europe. Without the United Nations presence in Bosnia and Croatia
and in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, it is not
inconceivable that hundreds of thousands of more people would
have died, that atrocities would have been committed in a greater
number than those already committed, that Europe would have
been inflamed from the Aegean to the Alps. That would be a
precursor to a large European war, a war that would inevitably have
dragged in other nations around the world for their own interests.
As we are at the dawning of the 21st century, no civilized nation
can allow that kind of conflict to continue in one of the most
civilized parts of the world. It is bitter irony that 50 years after the
conclusion of the second world war the Canadian Parliament is
having yet another debate, as it did 60 some years ago, about
participating in a major European operation.
We have been there while the war in effect has raged all around
us. Now we have a peace accord, which has its weaknesses, but it is
the only peace accord we have. We have to make it work.
It is fine for us as Canadians to pound our chests and yell from
the hilltops about world peace, world stability and world security,
but unless we are prepared to do something about it as Canadians
and put our money where our mouth is, to commit our own
resources and commit our own people, then I think our cries ring
somewhat hollow. As a founding member of NATO and a major
contributor to the alliance over the years, Canada is expected to
participate in this historic mission.
I note our friends in the Reform Party are saying we should not
go. They are somewhat reticent about this involvement. This party
supported our continuation in the NATO alliance. When we make a
deal with people, when we have a friendly alliance, we do not walk
out on them when times get tough. We do not renege on our
commitments. I do not believe Canadians want the government to
renege on our commitments, to turn our back on 50 years of
co-operation, 50 years of success in building an organization that
contributed over that period to peace and stability in Europe.
17120
(1225 )
Any contribution Canada will make will be modest. I have talked
about a price tag of maybe $20 million, $50 million or $60 million,
depending on how we decide on the actual figures for deployment.
We believe Canadians are prepared to pay that price. We will be
involved in the British sector with Pakistan. I believe Holland is in
there. The Czech republic will be there. In fact the British
government has asked Canada to provide the headquarters.
What better compliment for Canadian involvement than that one
of our major allies, who will be providing the overwhelming
number of troops in that sector, has such respect for the Canadian
men and women in our armed forces that they want Canadians to
head up the brigade headquarters. That is a great compliment and it
is something the government will certainly consider. I would like to
hear the views of the members in the House about that
involvement.
We have options of supplying an infantry battalion. We have
options for a signal squadron. We have options for artillery. All
those kinds of deployments can be made. We want to hear the
views of the members of the House to see if we are in accord, as we
think we are, with the views of Canadians and we are willing to
make this commitment.
At a time when the public, the media and others are closely
examining the Canadian military, we must recall that it is an
indispensable national institution. It is a reflection of this country.
[Translation]
It is a reflection of Canadian culture and its tradition of two
official languages.
[English]
The military is also an instrument through which the country can
achieve its objectives both at home and abroad. We saw that this
weekend when we saw the crew of HMCS Calgary come to the aid
of a distressed ship off our Atlantic coast and the heroics of a
member of the helicopter crew. I hate to inform my friends in the
House that it was a Sea King helicopter. They actually do work.
That master corporal went back time and time again on the end of a
rope in storming seas to a listing ship with desperate people. He
pulled them up one by one and took them to a waiting ship. Those
are the heroics of the men and women who serve in Canada's armed
forces.
We heard about that this weekend because it is a significant
contribution, but every day men and women of the armed forces
serve proudly both in Canada and outside Canada. What do we
hear? We hear the negative complaints. We hear the petty criticism
of administrative lapses, which occur in any large organization. We
hear talk about terrible morale. I would say the morale of all
Canadians has been affected in the last few years, because we are
having to deal with a difficult financial situation, a difficult global
competitive situation, getting our own house in order, and we are
also having to deal with a national unity issue that once again is
preoccupying us.
Canadians are somewhat introspective. They are perhaps not
having morale problems but are somewhat concerned. That also
goes in the armed forces. Any organization that has had a salary
freeze for the last couple of years, whose catch-up to the normal
public service increment was also caught in that freeze and is
something we are trying to deal with, obviously will be affected.
Perhaps more than anything else that contributes to any morale
problems we have in the armed forces is the incessant criticism day
in and day out by armchair critics, many of them in the House of
Commons and most of them in the Reform Party, who are attacking
the men and women in the armed forces and the job they do. That is
unconscionable.
We have one of the best armed forces in the world. We have men
and women who put their lives on the line. They will put their lives
on the line for anybody. They do not care whether those people
hold separatist beliefs or whether those people hold Neanderthal
philosophical beliefs like those of the Reform Party. They will put
their lives on the line for a free and democratic society. That is
what we have in the Canadian Armed Forces. Those men and
women, I assure the House, will be ready, willing and able to serve
in this force.
(1230)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
defence minister ended with a flight of oratory which, in my
opinion, hardly befits this morning's debate. This is the third time
that this House holds a debate on the participation of Canadian
troops in Bosnia, under the aegis of the UN.
As you know, in February 1994, the defence minister said that he
had a duty to provide as much information as possible to MPs and
to Canadians on Canada's participation in peacekeeping missions,
and to truly inform people of all the related implications.
As in the two previous debates, the Bloc cannot oppose Canada's
participation in peacekeeping missions. As the defence minister
emphatically pointed out, Quebecers and Canadians who are
members of Canadian armed forces have frequently been honoured
for their role in peacekeeping missions. I think everyone agrees
here that they do their job to the best of their knowledge, and that
they do their utmost to ensure the success of these missions.
However, there are certain expectations. The defence minister
said earlier that it is important, in this debate, that the public's
opinion, as well as that of the military, be heard through members
of this House. It seems clear to me that, during such a debate,
17121
certain rules should be clarified. Throughout my presentation, I
will refer to comments made by the minister.
On November 23, the Prime Minister said, after meeting with
Mr. Boutros-Ghali, that Canada had a duty to participate in the
peacekeeping effort, following the Dayton agreement, adding that
such participation, including the number of troops to be sent, would
have to be determined. This morning, I expected the defence
minister to provide more details on what the government and his
department have planned.
I was briefed by National Defence officials, whom I want to
thank, and was told that there were a number of scenarios which
cost anywhere from $2 million to some $70 or $75 million, and
which require the participation of 50 to 3,000 troops in the
international NATO-led implementation force. This morning, I
thought the minister would suggest a specific scenario which, in his
opinion, reflects what the public is prepared to support as regards
such missions, and what our forces can do.
The minister said that we must fulfil certain commitments made
to NATO. Indeed, whenever NATO participates in missions, its
members must provide 1,000 troops. Is that a minimum or a
maximum? Do we send 1,000 combat troops, or can we send
military personnel for various tasks? The minister should have
been a little more specific since, in a debate such as this one, he not
only informs members of this House, but also the public at large.
(1235)
I did not hear anything in his speech to indicate the direction we
might take. Later on in the debate, I will suggest a few avenues to
the minister which may be of help to him.
A little later on in his speech, the Minister of National Defence
quite justifiably listed all of Canada's military contributions from
the onset of the conflict during the summer of 1991, throughout
1992, the opening of the Sarajevo airport, Canadian forces'
participation with NATO aircraft, all of the Hercules transport
flights, participation in the Adriatric embargo, and so on.
Justifiably, because Canada has indeed made an extraordinary
contribution to this conflict, and has always been equal to the task
in traditional peacekeeping missions, that is surveillance of
humanitarian convoys, population assistance, food shipments, food
convoys, communications, etc. For anything connected to
traditional peacekeeping, as the minister has said, Canadian
expertise is recognized throughout the world. There is no problem
in this regard; our military does an outstanding job and everybody
acknowledges it, including the people of Canada and Quebec.
However, I see this type of mission as a radical turnaround. We
will now be there under chapter VII of the UN Charter rather than
chapter VI; this allows far more latitude for interventions, military
or otherwise. According to U.S. Secretary of Defence William
Perry, when the NATO contingent is in place in Bosnia, if we run
into any difficulties in implementing certain provisions of the
Dayton peace accord, we will just implement them through force,
and if attacked we will respond in kind.
Now this has absolutely no connection with the peacekeeping
missions in which Canada has been involved in the past. This is a
totally new ball game. The Bloc Quebecois and the people of
Quebec and of Canada have concerns about the change in the
nature of our mission.
In the same vein, I would like to add that perhaps the
comparisons were unwise. Unfortunately, the minister has looked
at the attractive aspects of peacekeeping missions. He has listed the
Canadian army's and Canada's accomplishments with respect to
certain peacekeeping missions, focussing on results that are
sometimes not readily measured. There are, however, some things
that have to be looked at when playing under different rules. When
the minister referred just now to Canadian participation in the
discussions on the rules of engagement under chapter VII, I would
have liked to hear him clarify exactly what those rules of
engagement are, if Canada does commit under NATO auspices to
taking part in this new peacekeeping mission to implement the
Dayton accord.
Referring to the logistics of ``peacekeeping missions'', or the
linguistic interpretation of the term ``peacekeeping mission'' , it
struck me that the mission now being organized under NATO is
being termed-please pardon my use of the English term-a peace
enforcement mission.
Going back in time a bit, I have the unfortunate recollection that
the Americans' mission to Somalia was also labelled ``peace
enforcement''. We cannot ignore the fact that this additional
connotation of ``peace enforcement'' on top of the traditional
``peacekeeping mission'' bears some similarity to what happened
in Somalia. Far be it from me to go back over the unfortunate
events involving the Canadians, the Belgians and even the
Americans, but as soon as things started to heat up, the U.S. pulled
out and left Canada, Belgium and other countries holding the bag,
which led to major problems, unfortunately.
(1240)
I think it is important, and this is also the position of the Bloc
Quebecois, to make the change in mandate very clear. The last time
NATO organized a mission under the auspices of the UN dates back
to the war in Cyprus.
You may think my analogies are a bit far fetched but the fact is
that nothing in the Canadian military's experience in peacekeeping
missions has prepared us for the kind of participation to which we
17122
are committing ourselves or was ever approved or accepted by the
people of Quebec and Canada.
I think it is important to say this and to be prepared to consider
all eventualities. In any case, the Dayton agreement divides certain
territories-Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia-and was signed by
representatives from Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia.
One of the problems in Bosnia around Sarajevo is that the
so-called chiefs of Pale, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, the
military chief, did not sign this agreement. Only yesterday we saw
on the news that Mr. Mladic, the military chief heads a group that is
opposed to the Dayton agreement. These are people who for at least
two years thumbed their noses at the UN's resolutions, brought
their heavy weapons near the perimeter of Sarajevo and then
withdrew them after a number of air strikes, playing cat and mouse
with the UN. And now an agreement has been signed, these people
are still there on the outskirts of Sarajevo. In fact, the self-styled
Bosnian Serb Republic headed by Mr. Karadzic has so far been
very inconsistent in its acceptance and has always been rather hard
to pin down.
Another argument which casts some doubt on the security of the
mission and I believe amplifies certain problems is the fact that the
UN set up a war crimes tribunal. Recently, eleven judges from six
different countries took part in the proceedings and convictedMr. Mladic and Mr. Karadzic of war crimes.
According to international opinion, to various experts in
diplomacy or international law or crimes against humanity, peace
will not have a chance until these people have been convicted.
As far as I know, those people who were at the root of the
conflict in Bosnia never accepted the Dayton agreement and are
already preparing to sabotage the process. I do not think it will be
very pleasant or even easy to impose anything at all, because I do
not see this as a peacekeeping mission but more as a mission to
impose peace.
I think that in this House, parliamentarians have a duty to make
it clear to the public and other parliamentarians that this means a
change in what has built the extraordinary reputation of Canadian
peacekeepers. It will be a different application.
Previously, a change of this kind unfortunately produced the
kind of incidents we saw in Somalia, and I think it is too bad this
had to happen.
(1245)
My second point is the economic side. I think we all agree, and
perhaps this is less true of members of the third party, that Canada
has a duty to take part in these peacekeeping missions, to deal with
the conflicts that arise in various countries throughout the world.
I think it is important to tell the House and the public what all
this costs. The public realizes that when the government says: ``We
have soldiers, they need practice, we have equipment we use'', all
that costs money. However, in the past three years, in 1993, 1994
and 1995 which is now drawing to a close, we were $517 million
over budget in Bosnia, which includes humanitarian aid and
military spending as well.
This morning, the minister mentioned that costs might vary from
$30 million to $50 million, depending on what the government
decided. I found this hard to believe, because at the height of
Canada's participation we had around 2,100 soldiers with the
peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Croatia and we were over
budget. In other words, it cost more than would normally have been
expected, about $170 million per year more over a period of three
years, which adds to up $517 million.
And now the government wants to either maintain or reduce
Canada's participation, at a cost of say 30, 50 or 70 million, and if
they send up to 3,000 soldiers, we are talking about $75 million.
When at the height of Canada's participation, it cost us an
additional $170 million for 2,100 soldiers, then how can it possibly
cost $75 million for 3,000 soldiers? I find it hard to follow the
calculations of the Minister of National Defence, and I think some
clarification is in order. In fact, it should even be incumbent on the
government to provide this clarification. It must be more precise.
When we decide to do these missions, guided by our suggestions
or those of the Reform Party, and the government says that we will
meet our commitment to NATO and provide, say 1,000 soldiers, it
must give an exact calculation of the excess costs. I am not talking
about costs pertaining to soldiers in the regular forces who are
already getting their salary. Not those costs. But we must clearly
stipulate the excess costs that can be expected. What is also needed
is a clear indication of the duration of the mandate and the rules of
engagement over which, as the minister said earlier, Canada would
have the last say, but I would have appreciated some further
indication from the minister.
As far as Canadian aid is concerned, I would like to refer to a
statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs who said that
Canadian aid might not necessarily be military. We have seen no
indication of this option in the approach taken by the Minister of
National Defence. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that we
could, for instance, take part in certain humanitarian missions
through funding or by receiving immigrants. We know that since
the beginning of this conflict in 1991, nearly 250,000 people have
died in Bosnia and nearly 800,000 are trying to leave to get away
from their wartime experiences and tragedies in their own families,
with many killed or wounded. And there are also quite a few people
who were maimed as a result of bombings, mines or sniper fire.
17123
(1250)
Bosnia greatly needs all kinds of help, but we in the Bloc wonder
if our armed forces' ceaseless efforts are still needed. I can tell you
that about two weeks ago at CFB Valcartier in my riding, the
soldiers coming back from peacekeeping missions in Croatia
looked a little tired. Some of them are on their fifth mission, others
on their fourth or third, and I can tell you that a number of them
have suffered from psychological problems, from family problems,
from all kinds of problems.
Once again, we are being asked for a little more because, as the
defence minister said earlier, Canada has been continuously
involved since 1992. We must keep in mind that this is a European
conflict and that the international community could never accuse
Canada of not participating, sometimes beyond its capabilities in
terms of human and financial resources, and of not doing more than
its fair share.
We in the Bloc are not calling for a definitive pullout. Not at all.
What I insist on, however, is that the government should think very
seriously about all the implications and disclose them without any
restrictions to Canadians and to Parliament.
I would like to get back to the statement made last week by the
defence minister, that Canada would send troops unless the
Americans got involved. Last night, I heard some Americans
arguing that Congress had not yet concluded an agreement to send
20,000 to 25,000 American troops. As far as I and my Bloc
colleagues know and understand, if the American effort is not
approved by Congress, I seriously wonder how the famous Dayton
agreement can be fulfilled.
It is a little akin to debating whether Canada should participate
without clearly defining what kind of support we will provide.
Should we send a fighter squadron, as suggested by the hon.
member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, an engineering battalion to
repair roads, or a communications platoon? None of these options
was suggested by the minister. I think it would have been an
excellent opportunity to tell the people: ``Yes, Canada participates
in peacekeeping missions in line with its means and human
resources''.
As I pointed out earlier, I think that our soldiers are exhausted
from all their missions, even if the white paper and the special
standing committee's report call for increasing the number of land
forces members. This has not been done yet. Recruitment is under
way, but these people are not ready to participate. I think we should
go in a different direction or limit ourselves to the 1,000 troops
required under the terms of our agreement with NATO, and perhaps
participate as observers or communications people, for example.
Before we make this decision, however, I have trouble
understanding how the Prime Minister could tell Mr. Boutros-Ghali
beforehand that we would send troops, that there was no problem.
(1255)
Then we will figure out how much that will cost and what kind of
assistance will be provided. And how long will we stay there? Well
Mr. Boutros-Ghali indicated that commitments could be for six
months, twelve months or three years, depending on how long the
conflict lasts. That is another question mark for the public as well
as for the military personnel involved and members of Parliament.
How long will the Canadian contribution in Bosnia be for? If the
government decides on a twelve month commitment, as requested
by NATO members, but the conflict has not been resolved after
twelve months, will we do as usual? Two days before renewing the
agreement, we will hold a short debate and say: ``Let us extend for
another six months or twelve months. We will figure out how much
all this costs after''.
I am far from being certain that this is what the public expects. I
think it is high time that the government, and DND in particular,
should be more specific. We Bloc members agree with a Canadian
and Quebec contribution to peace missions intended to protect
values and traditions, but these contributions must be defined. In
addition, our troops need a mandate clearly stating what they are
expected to do and for how long, and the public should know how
much it costs to uphold the principles and values Canadians believe
in.
To conclude, regarding the geopolitical context and the Dayton
agreement that was signed, we should be reminded of what Justice
Deschênes, from the international court dealing with war crimes,
whom I quoted, said; let us not forget that Mladic and Karadzic
were declared war criminals. I do not think that Canada did
anything about it or very little.
Are we going to pacify the region forcibly and then negotiate
with these criminals? That is assuming that all the Bosnian families
who were the victims of the atrocities inflicted by these individuals
will just forgive them and forget all that happened. That a bit much
to ask.
I can recall a member of the Croatian army who was also found
guilty of war crimes and who was recently promoted in the army.
Again, I doubt that the population, on either the Serb or the
Bosnian side, could put up with that. Consequently, peace will
continue to be threatened. The international community and NATO
should ensure that the sentences given out in these cases are carried
out. Otherwise, several observers, and I agree with them, feel that
peace will remain precarious as long as justice does not prevail.
17124
In conclusion, before making a decision, the government should
clearly explain all the political, financial and human implications
relating to the rules of engagement mentioned, but not specified,
by the minister. I think the time has come to discuss these rules
openly before a decision is made.
Therefore, the Bloc recommends that the government set a
specific duration for such missions. If, as a NATO member, we are
asked to stay for 12 months, then we commit ourselves for 12
months and, in doing so, we avoid problems such as the recent
hostage-taking incidents in Visoko, Tuzla and Gorazde. As some
will remember, this was the Cobra mission. Since that mission is
now completed, we are somewhat ahead in terms of training some
troops that will be sent to Bosnia. I think that if we decide to go
there, we should, and the minister talked about facilitating the
withdrawal of peacekeepers, provide for the withdrawal of these
troops at the end of their stay.
(1300)
We should at least plan the withdrawal of our troops, so that it is
not improvised, as was the case last spring or during the winter,
with the hostages.
Finally, I would suggest, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, that
Canadian troops be more specialized in what I call the traditional
type of involvement in peacekeeping missions, which include
activities such as monitoring, as well as communications and
humanitarian operations. If we decide to participate in such
missions, we should concentrate on such activities, given, as I
mentioned, our limited human resources. We should also avoid
breaking the Canadian tradition of excellent and extraordinary
participation in peacekeeping missions. I do hope that Canada will
never become an expert in peace enforcement missions.
Finally, it is always very satisfying to actively protect the values
and principles that Quebecers and Canadians hold dear. But let us
not forget that we must help our own population, and co-operate
with it, if we hope to continue to help populations in distress
abroad.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate,
today our deliberations are guided by Standing Order 43, whereby
members now will be entitled to 20-minute interventions with 10
minutes for questions or comments.
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are there
questions and comments on the hon. member's presentation?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If we refer to Standing Order
43 we would find that in this case the minister under whom the
motion stands today and the next speaker have unlimited time and
are not subject to question or comment.
As I understand, there are no questions or comments to the last
speaker. To each speaker here forward there will be a 10-minute
question or comment period available to all members.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that points out
something very obvious. This is supposed to be a debate. We are
supposed to be able to ask questions. We are supposed to be able to
ask the minister questions. Obviously the orders are set in such a
way that we will not be able to do that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Far be it from me to engage
in any debate but these rules were made by the membership. If
members wish to change the rules or ask for unanimous consent to
ask questions, those opportunities are always available every day in
the House of Commons in this 35th Parliament and all previous
Parliaments and hopefully in future ones.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I apologize. No
decision has been made but we will send troops. Parliament is here
to inform Canadians, to talk about the issues, to have answers to the
questions. What I hope to do today is talk about the process we are
undergoing right now, the criteria the House should follow and
some of the pitfalls we possibly can go into.
It is not for me to say anything about our peacekeepers. We have
done a lot of backslapping here. We agree our peacekeepers are the
best. We are proud of them and we would say nothing negative
about our peacekeepers or our Canadian forces when they get over
there to do a job. We are proud of them and we should say that loud
and clear because we mean it.
(1305)
We have gone through the process of take note debates before. I
believe this is a democratic fraud, an illusion of consultation, a red
book promise. We know many of the decisions have already been
made. We know the leaks to the media have not been accidental.
We know we will not get to vote on the issue. We know in the
following weeks we will hear that there was a full, democratic
debate in the House and that the full democratic debate was the
basis on which the decision was made.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have
announced a number of things regarding this issue. This is not
peacekeeping; this is peace enforcement. We are using combat
troops, not with the UN but with NATO. This is not part of the
NATO mandate. This is not a NATO member that we are going to
the defence of. This is quite different than the mandate for NATO.
Let us not let the spin doctors turn this into a NATO, non-NATO,
not participating with our partners debate. This debate is to get
information for the Canadian people so they know what we are
getting involved with.
17125
When Mr. Mulroney decided we should go to the gulf war,
everyone was absolutely abhorred the decision had been made
without consulting the Canadian people. But how an election
changes things.
A week ago Friday we sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking
for three things. We wanted the proposal. What is the proposal so
that we can discuss it? We want a full briefing, a full debate in the
House and a free vote, three relatively straightforward requests. We
did not even get the courtesy of an answer to the letter. We have had
answers in the House that there will be a full debate; we would have
all the details, maybe even a vote. We have gone through it. What a
laugh the briefings were. I will get to that in a few minutes.
What is wrong is there is no true debate, no details for the
proposal and we did not hear any this morning from the minister.
There has been no adequate briefing, no chance to consult with
Canadians. I was with 800 Canadians in one place on Saturday
night. It would have been great to consult them on some of these
issues.
There is no vote, let alone a free vote. It is not open, transparent
and honest. The decisions have already been made. We can listen to
the media talking about the decisions yesterday.
The government believes the opposition is basically an
inconvenience, keep us in the dark. Obviously the backbenchers
will go along with what they are told and with the speeches written
for them. The spin doctors will say we are not supporting NATO,
but this is not a NATO mandate. Let us get that right off the table
now. Let us not make this a partisan political thing. Let us make it
what is good for Canada. That is what this should be all about. That
is why we need the information to debate and discuss. This whole
sham we are going through is wrong and the minister knows it. He
knows the information is not on the table for us to see.
What sort of things should we have discussed? We should have
looked at some criteria. What kind of criteria? The last two
speakers talked about the cost. This is not hard, cold and heartless;
it is reality. Canadians are losing their health care. They are having
difficulty educating their children and they have other problems,
and we hear in our briefings that the cost may be between $2
million and $70 million. That is an accurate estimate. Now we hear
in the House that it may be $50 million or $60 million. We already
have made an investment of $600 million and ten lives in this area
of the world. Let us talk reality here. Let us talk about what this
means.
(1310 )
Let us look at some of the estimating that has been done. We
estimated $22,000 for 1995-96 in foreign affairs for the Haiti
mission. We now have requested another $67 million. Twenty-two
thousand dollars for the Haiti mission in the estimates. Everybody
must have known that was wrong. Let us get some estimates. Let
us talk about the cost. It is a real issue.
What about the length of the mission? NATO says 12 months and
we are out of there. The Prime Minister said last week that 12
months is not very long, maybe we will need three years. Maybe
we will need 30 years as we did in Cyprus. How long will we stay if
NATO leaves?
We also need to look at the record of 12 months in any place. Let
us talk about Cyprus-30 years. Let us talk about Somalia. How
successful were we in 12 months there? Let us talk about Haiti. We
now have Mr. Aristide talking about taking another three years as
dictator. Let us talk about the deterioration in Haiti which is
ongoing. Let us talk about the duration of this mission and what we
hope to accomplish.
Let us talk about the command. We have a hint that the minister
knows quite a bit about it. I hope he does. In our briefing we were
told that when NATO leaves it will be turned over to a group. Will
we be part of the group? These are the questions Canadians want
answered.
What about the mandate? What is the job we are to do?
Obviously if the minister does not know we will tell him today. We
will shoot to kill. We will be mean junkyard dogs. That is what the
U.S. defence minister said. What does that mean for our troops?
Can we really fight force with force? Is that how we get peace? Has
it worked throughout history? Let us look at that.
Let us talk about the escalation of the threat to world peace. Let
us talk about Germany, Russia, the Turks and the U.S., their
involvement over many years. This civil war started in 350 B.C.
We must look at history if we want to understand it.
What about our commitment to allies? We talked about that.
This is not a defence mission. This is not the protection of an ally.
This is something totally different.
There are many criteria which need to be discussed and we must
get honest and non-partisan answers to these questions.
What about the threats? Let us look at Sarajevo. They will take a
city with 120,000 Serbs in it and say ``get out''. What does that
say? How will we handle that in a peace sense?
Let us ask questions about elections. There are thousands of
refugees. There is a scorched earth policy and houses are being
destroyed. There is no infrastructure and they are to hold elections
within one year? How will they have a democratic election? What
role will our NATO troops play in the elections? We need the
answers to those questions and the Canadian people are asking the
minister for those answers.
What about the refugees? How will we get them food, shelter
and infrastructure, the basics of life? How will we handle the
emotions? They have seen their children, grandparents and other
17126
relatives killed. They have seen their daughters raped. How will
the NATO troops handle those emotions?
What about the stability between the Croats and the Muslims?
What about the potential for a Croat-Serbian war? We need
answers. We need to ask those questions in a non-partisan manner.
What about the American policy of rearming the Muslims? How
do we rearm one faction while ignoring the other two factions?
How will that help to create peace? How will arming that faction
give more stability? Those are the questions we have to ask.
What about the war criminals, a gigantic moral dilemma? What
will our NATO troops do when a little kid tugs on their tunics and
says: ``That guy over there killed my parents and raped my sister.
What are you going to do about it?'' We need to talk about what we
are to do about it. We need to tell our troops what they are to do
about it. We need to know what that means. How do we deal with
those human rights areas?
(1315)
Will the combatants simply wait for the year and then hope they
all leave? What is the real commitment of the Americans? If I were
an American looking at this, I would say that I know my troops are
targets. An American GI is worth a lot more than anybody else.
That is the big power. They have an X on them the minute they go
somewhere.
Let us look at the background. Let us look at what Vietnam did to
the U.S. psyche. Let us look at Beirut, Lebanon, as soon as the
suicide bombers came. Let us look at Somalia when a dead marine
is dragged through the streets and it shows up on the front page of
every American newspaper, what impact that had on the American
psyche again. What about Haiti?
The minister must tell us what happens if the Americans decide
to leave. It is a lot different when we are on the ground and starting
to go through this kind of thing. Will Canada stay if the Americans
leave? Is this possible? How will this work? We need answers to
these questions and we will not get them in the House because the
minister will not respond.
The question for us is whether Bosnia is worth dying for. That is
what the Americans are asking. Would the minister send his son or
daughter into this conflict? Does it pass the mother test? We have
to ask those questions. We should be talking about those in the
House.
In conclusion, the government has refused to provide detailed
briefings. The government has chosen to rule by decree. We cannot
in this party honestly support or reject this process. How can we
support or reject when we do not have the adequate information or
opportunity to get answers for these issues? If this were an honest
approach and we got honest answers, we could give an honest
answer back. If we talk about it from a strictly military sense, the
next speaker on our behalf will talk about why militarily we are not
equipped to say yes.
I am talking about the big Canadian picture. The method was
wrong. The decision is totally the government's. I never want to
hear the minister pontificate again that we discussed it, had a
democratic free debate in the House and are part of the decision.
We are not part of the decision. The decision is the government's.
They had better remember that. The government will be
responsible. It cannot hide behind this parliamentary phony sham
we are going through today and have gone through before.
The government actions are the same old-style politics. Liberal,
Tory, same old story: Ottawa knows best; we do not need to inform
or ask the people, we will just set it up in Parliament so that it looks
like it is democratic.
The government can send our troops, and I hope the minister is
right. I hope there will not be a disaster. I hope not one Canadian
will be killed. I hope the NATO mission is a big success and Bosnia
has permanent peace. But how much better would we feel in the
House if we had been part of and heard the answers and looked at
the commitment, looked at all this in a non-partisan way where we
had an open discussion, where we had the House full of members.
The reason it is not full of members is they know this is a sham.
I hope the war criminals are brought in. I hope for Canadians that
nothing goes wrong with this mission. This is a government
decision. The decision has been made and the government must
live with that decision.
(1320 )
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his presentation. I am left in
some doubt as to what he was proposing in particular.
First I want to clarify the record. The hon. member said they do
not have enough information in the third party. If my understanding
is correct-and I am not sure if the hon. member was there-there
was a briefing on Thursday. I do not know how long it went on, but
I understood from at least two members of the third party that they
were happy with the briefing.
At the briefing it was presented what Canada's role might be.
They were given 15 options of some of the things we may be able
to do, what the command and control arrangements were. I would
have thought there was enough information there to provide the
basis, with further learning and research, to come to the House in a
debate with at least four days' warning to provide some useful
input.
I am not really sure where third party members are coming from.
I am very serious about this. For the last week they have been
complaining that morale is not good enough to participate. I can
only assume they received irate telephone calls from members of
17127
the Canadians forces, because that does not now seem to be part of
their presentation. I am not really sure where they are on that issue.
On the issue that they are not being included, we have had
countless debates in the House, and he knows that no decision has
yet been made on the troops that will be committed. I do not know
if he expects that the third party and the opposition can go over to
Brussels and meet. In our system of democratic government it is
the ministers of the crown, the Minister of National Defence and
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who go and meet with their
counterparts in the NATO countries and the partnership for peace
countries. There is no built-in system, other than corresponding
with the minister. Have they ever heard of letters? Have they ever
heard of meetings in the minister's office?
We have today this special presentation, a debate. As
parliamentary secretary-and I am sure I am speaking for my
colleague, the Minister of National Defence and Veterans
Affairs-I want to hear from the member and from other members
who speak from the third party, the opposition party and our own
party. We have this debate today to find out what the opposition
parties want to do. Give us some proposals. Help us. That is why
we are having the debate, not to hear the sort of rhetoric we hear:
we are not really sure what we should do, sitting on the fence,
maybe we should and maybe we should not.
This is a golden opportunity. It is the first time in 45 years NATO
will do a peacekeeping job all on its own, with the approval of the
security council, with the possibility of participation of partnership
for peace countries, with the involvement of Russia, our old cold
war ally, under a system that should cause so much excitement and
so much possibility for fertile imaginations and learned debate.
I am very disappointed at what the hon. member had to say.
What would he like to do?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I guess the member
obviously did not listen to the Bloc member either. The Bloc
member said the same thing: we do not have the details.
The briefing was a laugh: it might cost between $2 million and
$70 million; we do not now what the mandate will be; we do not
know who will run the show after NATO leaves.
We need to know the cost, the exact budget. We need to know the
mission. What is the mission all about? We need to know who will
be in command. We need to have something to debate. We have not
been given any information. The briefing is a laugh.
We know the government has made up its mind, just as in the
past. It has the information, which is why we ask for it. Check out
the letter to the Prime Minister to see what we asked for. Two
weeks ago we outlined exactly what we want. We want a free vote
in the House. We do not want a bunch of parrots. We want a free
vote where people can consult with their constituents and come
here and say exactly what they think, based on the facts, not based
on a bunch of stuff that spin doctors turn out. I am sick and tired of
the spin doctors. I am sick and tired of how the government tries to
turn it and put the responsibility on the third party.
(1325 )
Mr. Collenette: What do you think? What do you want?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): You know what we want. We have said
we want the criteria, the details.
Mr. Vanclief: We want the same.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): I do not really think I can add any more
to what the members do not understand.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to
invoke Standing Order 43(2) so that Liberal members from here on
in will be sharing 20-minute speeches, 10 and 10.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
heard reference to the initiatives put forward by the Mulroney
government when it sent troops to the Middle East a few years ago.
I wonder whether in fact he preferred that approach to the approach
being taken by our side whereby we are involving all sides of the
House before any action actually occurs.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, what difference is there
whether the decision is made in a caucus room or a cabinet room
and then put out that way or whether we come here with the
decision already made and for show only listen to the opposition
members saying whatever they have to say, which is not important
anyway, and the government members saying what in fact the
government wants them to say? The government will pick on
something like NATO: ``They do not want to be part of NATO'', or
``They are not for our troops''.
We are proud of our troops. They have done a great job. But let
us not keep asking them to do the impossible. Do not tell me that
another member will disagree with that, because another member
in our party will look at it from the defence standpoint, as the
defence minister should. I said I was looking at it from the big
picture. I said we should look at it from the NATO involvement, the
countries, the history, the mandate, the criteria and so on. Our other
member will look at it simply by asking whether we can continue to
ask the military to do the impossible. That will be the question he
will deal with.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken said he
was looking at it from the bigger picture. When he sat down after
17128
his second last comment he said he had nothing further to add. I
might say that he had nothing to add in his entire speech.
If the member is looking at the broader picture, if he is looking at
the history of it, heaven help history students. We know what has
happened in world history when people have failed to come
together and unite for a common, humanitarian, good cause. We
have had world wars started from this very part of the world. Are
we to stand by and let them go to it again? Are we to put the world
at risk and all those young people in the free world today coming
up in the future in the armed forces? He wants to know what the
cost of this will be. What is the cost of it if we do not do it? That is
the question that has to be asked.
When we are debating these things on the floor of the House of
Commons, let us look at the broader picture. I welcome the
invitation to look at the broader picture. But if we are to look at the
broader picture we have to understand what has happened along the
road in history itself.
When we were over there as a defence review committee we met
with a Croatian mayor, a Bosnian mayor and a Serbian mayor. Each
of them had a solution and everything was different. Today, the
peaceful world, the world that wants peace among humanity, will
have to go in there and lay the groundwork. We talk about starting
governments up. Of course we have to start putting governments in
place. Nobody will walk away from something when things are
going well. However, it takes courage and determination on the
part of united countries and the United Nations to move in and do
things when the going gets tough. It is the same thing as debates in
the House of Commons. We do not sit in our seats and listen when
the going gets tough. We get up and add our points.
(1330 )
I want to look at the broader picture. I compliment the
government, I compliment NATO and I compliment the UN for
showing the guts and the courage they have. In doing so they are
supporting every young person in this world who may end up in a
broader conflict. Yes, let us look at the broad picture. Let us look at
the cost of this war. Also, let us consider the cost of not doing
anything at all.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member
for saying it a different way. We need to debate this in the House.
We need to look at all the issues. But we are not doing that. That is
the problem.
The real issue is about talking to the people. I have talked to the
Croatian communities. I have been invited to the Serbian
communities. I have talked to them. I know what the people are
saying. They are saying: ``Give us the facts before you write the
blank cheque''. That is the point: ``Give us the facts before you
write the cheque''.
Would the member who just spoke send his grandson or
granddaughter to this conflict knowing what he knows today? That
is the question.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, where some of my colleagues
have criticized and given the member for Red Deer a hard time, I
would like to compliment him. I see a change in attitude in the
Reform Party. In the past it criticized our peacekeeping forces and
was afraid to involve them in peacekeeping situations. At least
today we are hearing from the Reform Party that we have the best
peacekeepers in the world. I am very pleased that members of the
Reform Party have evolved to the stage where they now see the
importance of peacekeepers in the world.
My hon. colleague, the Minister of National Defence, has
outlined the options of our participation in the international force
which is being assembled to bring peace and stability to Bosnia. It
is those options I hope we will debate today.
I would like to take us through a foreign affairs perspective. I
would like to give a little broader analysis of the question before
the House which underscores the importance of Canadian
participation in this effort from a foreign policy perspective.
The suffering of thousands of innocent persons in the former
Yugoslavia has deeply affected us all. Persons have been driven
from their homes, subjected to ethnocultural cleansing and too
frequently killed. These developments deeply offend Canadians'
humanitarian values and sense of justice.
Who can forget the tragedy of Sarajevo and the suffering of the
people in that city, under siege for over three full years, one of the
longest sieges in European history? Against this backdrop of
conflict and human suffering, Canada and the international
community were asked by the United Nations to provide
peacekeepers.
As a country committed to multilateral peacekeeping and the
effectiveness of the UN, Canada responded. Canada responded to
these challenges positively and at some cost. In each of these areas
of challenge we have taken a stand in defence of Canadian values
and as leaders on the world stage.
As we review what we have done in the past and consider what
we will do in the future, it is important to place these challenges in
a broader context. As the tragic story of the former Yugoslavia
clearly demonstrates, international security is indivisible from
human security.
To restore peace to Bosnia we must also restore the human
conditions that support peace, conditions which will allow families
to reunite, schools and hospitals to reopen and communities to
rebuild. Peace and stability are in many respects preconditions to a
degree of human security that will allow the people of Bosnia to
17129
learn the lessons of peace, the lessons of trust, tolerance and
co-operation. Without peace and stability we risk teaching an entire
generation of Bosnians the lessons of war, the lessons of mistrust,
hatred and violence.
From the very beginning of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia,
Canada recognized the importance of early action on behalf of the
international community to prevent the spread of violence. It was
Canada which led the call in 1991 for the UN Security Council to
address the crisis in the former Yugoslavia.
(1335)
As we heard from our Minister of National Defence this
morning, Canada was among the first to send peacekeepers to the
former Yugoslavia, undertaking some of the most difficult
assignments. In June 1992 it was Canadian troops that were
deployed to Sarajevo to reopen and secure the airport so that the
airlift of relief supplies could begin.
Canadian troops were in Srebrenica in eastern
Bosnia-Hercegovina to establish the UN presence in that besieged
city. Until the drawdown of UN forces this fall, Canada was the
fifth largest contributor to UN peace forces in the former
Yugoslavia.
As well, since the autumn of 1991, Canada has contributed well
over $63 million in humanitarian assistance for the victims of the
conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Canadian money has been used
to purchase and deliver food, medical supplies and clothing, to
provide shelter, to assist refugees and displaced persons and to
support victims of sexual violence.
In 1992 Canada also introduced special measures to help citizens
of the former Yugoslavia join their relatives in Canada. Over 7,000
persons have been landed in Canada under these special measures.
In addition, over 11,000 refugees have been admitted to Canada
from the former Yugoslavia through government assisted and
privately sponsored programs.
Outraged at reports of horrendous crimes against humanity
committed during the conflict, Canada led efforts to investigate and
prosecute those responsible. A Canadian judge was one of 11
elected by the UN General Assembly to the International War
Crimes Tribunal. The critic for the Reform Party did not make note
of that.
Today, with the initialling of the Dayton agreement on a general
framework for peace in Bosnia-Hercegovina, the parties to the
conflict have committed themselves to sign later this month in
Paris, an agreement that would ensure that Croatia, the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Bosnia and
Hercegovina respect each other's sovereign equality. The
agreement guarantees that Bosnia and Hercegovina will remain a
single state within its internationally recognized borders.
The Dayton peace agreement touches on issues such as the new
constitution of Bosnia and Hercegovina, territorial divisions,
human rights and policy and military forces. Among the key points
agreed:
Bosnia and Hercegovina will be composed of two entities,
known as the Federation of Bosnia and Hercegovina and the Serb
Republic. These will be joined in a loose union with a central
government.
Bosnia-wide elections, assisted and supervised by the
Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, OSCE, will
take place within nine months of entry into force of the agreement.
Sarajevo will be a single city.
Parties will begin negotiations on confidence building measures,
or CSBMs and on a sub-regional arms control arrangement under
the auspices of OSCE.
Refugees and displaced persons will have the right to return to
their homes of origin or receive compensation.
Admittedly the Dayton agreement is fragile. We know that, but
that is all we have at present. Questions remain. Serious difficulties
must still be worked out and much could go wrong. Yet this
agreement represents a major commitment to peace by the parties
to the conflict. It is the best chance at peace we have had since that
conflict began. The Dayton peace agreement presents us with an
opportunity to end the suffering in the former Yugoslavia. This is
an opportunity we must seize now.
The formation of the implementation force for Bosnia will be
authorized by the United Nations Security Council. It will be
placed under NATO command and tasked to separate the warring
forces and implement the military aspects of the Dayton peace
agreement over a 12-month period. That is why it is wrong to
compare this to Cyprus, where we had peacekeeping forces for
almost 30 years. This is an essential part of the peace agreement.
Without it, parties to the agreement believe there can be no peace.
The parties to the Dayton peace agreement are not alone in
recognizing the importance of seizing this opportunity to bring
peace and stability to the former Yugoslavia. The response of the
international community to the call for an implementation force
has been rapid. In addition to our partners within NATO's military
structure, 19 non-NATO countries have indicated their willingness
to participate in IFOR.
(1340 )
It is important to recognize that a Canadian contribution to IFOR
represents but one dimension of a comprehensive approach to bring
a lasting peace to the former Yugoslavia.
17130
Canada will also remain engaged in humanitarian and refugee
issues. We will remain politically involved, counselling diplomacy
and negotiation in addressing problems as opposed to a resort to
arms only. We will engage ourselves fully in the multinational
effort on economic restructuring and social rehabilitation in the
former Yugoslavia.
In this regard I would suggest that Canada's focus should be on
social rehabilitation and the development of democratic and just
societies. This focus would include the promotion of human rights
and ethnocultural tolerance in the states of the former Yugoslavia
and continued support for the work of the International War Crimes
Tribunal.
Canada should engage itself in the promotion of free elections in
co-operation with OSCE. We should support the creation of
national human rights institutions and work to promote free media.
Some are even accusing the international media that fuelled this
conflict in the first place.
Canada's commitment to the building of civic societies should
also entail a concentration of assistance on community based
projects and on the rehabilitation of social infrastructure in the
former Yugoslavia. Canadian projects should be initiated in
communities where inter-ethnic co-operation is beginning to
emerge.
With regard to economic rehabilitation, Canada's contribution to
a multilateral effort should be significant but not disproportionate
to the contributions of European allies and the U.S.A. We could
consider some debt relief within the framework of multilateral
agreements reached at the Paris Club, if countries were to meet the
eligibility requirements of such relief.
All these activities will ensure a comprehensive Canadian
approach to the post conflict situation in the former Yugoslavia.
Integral to this is a continued Canadian effort in the field of
security. The peace in Bosnia-Hercegovina remains dangerously
fragile. The stability that can be provided by an international
implementation force is essential.
In participating in the implementation force, IFOR, Canada can
make a unique contribution. There is no more experienced or well
trained peacekeeping force in the world than ours. To participate in
IFOR means to accept our responsibility to continue addressing a
conflict we have been concerned with from its very inception. To
do less would mean walking away from a conflict that has
challenged key Canadian values and interests before it is
effectively resolved.
It would be wrong for us to walk away from a job only
three-quarters done, ignoring the hard fought investment of
Canadians made over the last four years. We must continue our
efforts to bring peace and stability to the former Yugoslavia. This
requires solid Canadian participation in the military force to
guarantee the implementation of the peace agreement.
It is an essential element in a comprehensive Canadian approach
to peace in the former Yugoslavia. It is our best hope to ensure that
the dreams and talents of the entire generation of Bosnians are not
lost to war.
On a personal note, I have many constituents from the former
Yugoslavia, from the different ethnocultural backgrounds. Every
one of them is urging us to continue the Canadian participation and
assistance. That is their wish as Canadians. I welcome concrete
suggestions rather than hon. members taking their 20 minutes-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I understand a large
number of members from all parties want to participate in this
important debate. If in fact members will be splitting their times,
10 minutes is not as long as members are customarily used to. I
would just caution the House so that we might get as many
members as possible to participate in the debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rather
agree with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that there are
two reasons why we cannot easily pull out of these peacekeeping
missions.
(1345)
Strictly on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, I do not
believe we can ignore such suffering. However, we must also
recognize that, in an open world, there is such interdependence that
we have to realize that any conflict anywhere on this planet will
affect us sooner or later.
Having said that, I must state that, in my opinion, the problem
lies in the type of mission in which Canada will be participating.
The bottom line is that Canadians would like to know, as would
Quebecers, what the exact nature of Canada's involvement over
there will be.
What I would like to ask the secretary of state is the following:
How can there be assurances that Canada will have some input,
significant input, into the decision on what type of contribution it
will make in the former Yugoslavia?
[English]
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention.
There will be a series of implementation conferences,
co-ordination conferences, et cetera. That is why this debate is so
crucial. Before ministers go to these conferences, they want input
from parliamentarians sitting in this House.
Let me make it very clear. Before it even goes to that level, it
must go to cabinet. Before going through cabinet, cabinet wants
our ideas. While we are debating here, the Department of Foreign
Affairs and the Department of National Defence are holding expert
consultations.
This process is ongoing. The process of consulting Canadians
never happened under previous governments. It is happening now.
17131
Again I urge members, if they have constructive ideas they should
go to the cabinet table and to the international discussions we will
be having. This is where we will show the world another example
of how Canadians can work through consultations, how we can
work putting partisan politics aside.
When we are representing Canada abroad, be it in peacekeeping,
be it in any forum, that is when partisan politics are put aside. We
are representing Canada, united, undivided, strong. That is when
the peacekeepers really have high morale and that is why I am so
pleased that the Reform Party has changed its attitude toward our
peacekeepers abroad.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind myself that I am speaking on a motion by the
Minister of National Defence:
That this House take note and welcome the recent Dayton peace agreement
and the international community's continued efforts to bring enduring peace
and security to the Balkans, and Canadian support of these efforts by
participation in a multinational military implementation force under NATO
command.
In the next 10 minutes or so I plan to talk about the new ground
we are breaking, what are the trends, talk about what I see the
missions are and give some possible areas of the difficulties that I
foresee. Maybe from that one could draw some ideas about some of
the things that Canadians could do with the considerable
experience they have had in peacekeeping.
I want to start by going back to 1947. It depends on how one
reads history, as the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke
mentioned. If members look at history they have to look at the
trends. If they look at the trend beginning in 1947 and the 40 years
until 1987, there were really 13 peacekeeping missions.
From 1987 until this year there have been double that or 26. If
members look at 13 in 40 years and 26 in 5 years, there are twice as
many in one-fifth the time. Therefore there is a factor of 10.
Whether that factor of 10 will continue to rise, I am not sure. It is
an indicator that what we are doing now we are likely to have to do
again some time in the not too distant future.
This is peacekeeping operation No. 40 in the world. I believe it is
the most challenging one and that it will allow us to break new
ground.
(1350)
There is another aspect of this which, if it does not bother me, it
guides me in my personal belief of what should be happening.
There are 184 countries in the world. Some are very large. We are
the second largest of the countries. Some are very small. Of the 184
countries, what is important to remember with respect to ethnicity,
cultural differences and various other differences is that only 10
per cent of those countries have any kind of homogeneity in their
population. Of those countries the 10 per cent has an ethnic
grouping of about 75 per cent.
What we are seeing here may not be the end of our involvement
in historical patterns. For that reason it is important for us to debate
this issue. What we decide today will be debated in cabinet and will
eventually become the Canadian decision. It will set ground rules
for future involvement in what will inevitably be the result of these
kinds of actions downstream, hopefully not too soon, but in all
likelihood before this Parliament ends.
When considering the 44 months of difficulty which has existed
in Bosnia, it is uplifting to talk about a chance to change the horror
of war to the prospect of peace. A quarter of a million people have
been killed. In the city of Sarajevo 10,500 people were killed.
There are up to a million refugees. It is a very sad situation. They
have a decimated landscape of shattered buildings, roofless homes,
deserted towns and countless graves scattered in the hillsides,
bearing the names of young men and women who were born after
1970.
The special joint committee of which I was privileged to be a
member saw all of this. There is a battered, bombed out mental
institution in Bacovici being run by Canadian soldiers and the
wretched inhabitants of this institution depend on Canadians for
their very existence.
In a civil war such as the one we have witnessed in Bosnia there
are no winners nor are there likely to be winners. The only
likelihood of a winner is the prospect of peace. Peace can be the
only victor in this lexicon of issues.
The peace implementation plan, although it is not perfect, offers
hope that some things will be no more. There will be no more days
of dodging bullets and nights of artillery barrages. There will be no
more winters of freshly dug cold and sinister graves. There will be
no more years of isolation from the outside world.
There are 10 highlights to the Bosnia peace accord that were
mentioned by the Minister of National Defence this morning. First,
Bosnia remains a single state within a present border. There will be
a Bosnian-Croat federation with 51 per cent of the territory and a
Bosnian-Serb republic with 49 per cent.
Second, there will be a rotating presidency, beginning with a
Bosnian-Muslim, a two-house Parliament and a constitutional
court. The central government will have responsibility for foreign
policy, foreign trade, monetary policy, citizenship, immigration
and other collective issues.
The capital, Sarajevo, is united and under Muslim-Croat control.
This may prove to be difficult in the future honing and improving
of these negotiations.
International supervised elections should take place next year, or
in the foreseeable future.
17132
Almost a million refugees will be able to return home and
people may move freely.
The control of Brcko, a Serb held town, will be decided by an
arbitration panel made up of Muslims, Serbs and Europeans.
It is important to the issue that there will be a corridor of
between three to five miles in northeast Bosnia linking the Serb
held smaller territory to the east to the central northern part by a
corridor called the Posavina corridor. That is still the subject of
some intense negotiation.
(1355)
The Muslim held town of Gorazde will be linked to the
federation by a land corridor. The Serbs retain Srebrenica and
Zepa, Muslim enclaves they overran last summer. Last but not
least, the NATO implementation force will be participating in the
near future. In fact it has already started.
What are the NATO objectives? There are two, primary and
secondary. The primary objective, as I see it, which I will put
slightly differently but with the same thrust as the Minister of
National Defence, is to oversee the withdrawal of warring factions
from a buffer zone about five kilometres or two and a half miles
wide created in most places along the current ceasefire lines. After
a certain period of time, maybe 30 or 45 days, this zone will be
widened to five miles or more, except in Gorazde, Sarajevo and
Brcko which, as I mentioned earlier, will have special boundaries.
The secondary mission is removing land mines and also
quasi-military roles such as providing security for relief agencies,
delivering food and other necessities of life and ensuring passage
for the thousands of refugees that I mentioned.
To try and prevent small conflicts from growing there will be an
agreement that several commissions could be created to discuss
this.
I have given the background of what I believe is the setting for
Canada's participation. We are breaking new ground. This is the
first time that NATO has had a pure peacekeeping role. It is not
only NATO. We are involved with the partnership for peace, our
future allies, and Russia has a role to play with a command and
control system that has been set up for the very first time.
Quite frankly, as a parliamentarian and a member of the
government, there are risks involved. There have been risks in
every peacekeeping operation. However, I quote the hon. member
who stood up a few moments ago and said: ``The risk of not
participating either monetary wise or the risk of lives or wounded
may be much greater than not participating''.
From the various debates we have had in the last two years, from
the special joint committee on defence, the white paper discussion
and the present discussion on reserves, it is very clear to me that
Canadians are prepared to and want to take this risk and participate
in this operation.
It is the role we have to play. I really implore the opposition
members, after their political rhetoric, to give the government
some indication of what they believe the Canadian people would
like us to do so that we can be guided in the cabinet discussions and
downstream decisions.
[Translation]
The Speaker: My dear colleague, we shall proceed to the period
set aside for questions and comments immediately after oral
question period.
[English]
As it is now two o'clock, we will begin Statements by Members.
The hon. parliamentary secretary will have the floor when we come
back.
_____________________________________________
17132
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to recognize and commend the Minister of Finance for his
announcement in September that Canadians were able to purchase
Canada savings bonds for registered retirement savings plans,
RRSPs, this year.
In my riding, when I held prebudget consultation meetings last
year, many of my constituents recommended the creation of a debt
bond similar to victory bonds as a way to ensure that more of our
national debt was held by Canadians, lessening our dependence on
the international money markets and money speculators.
The Essex Canadian Auto Workers political action committee
met with me this summer to advocate that Canadians be able to use
Canada savings bonds as RRSPs. I thank the members of the CAW
for their continued interest in Canada's fiscal health.
The changes made this year show that the government and the
Minister of Finance listen to Canadians and are willing to act on
Canadian suggestions for better handling the nation's finances.
I encourage all Canadians to participate in prebudget
consultations. Their suggestions will be heard. I also thank
Canadians who took advantage of the new option and purchased
their RRSPs through Canada savings bonds this fall.
17133
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday
Bloc members questioned the Minister of Indian Affairs on the
paternalistic and disdainful attitude and intentions toward
aboriginal people shown in a memorandum written by his assistant
deputy minister.
In his reply, the minister launched into a full scale attack on
sovereignists and on the government of all of the people of Quebec.
While refusing to be answerable for the inappropriate
suggestions of his assistant deputy minister about buying off the
aboriginal people, the minister launched into an attack on Quebec
which was remarkable for its exaggerations and inaccuracies. He
even said that I had been kidnapped by the Mohawks. What a
pitiful performance, and what disdain for the democratic system,
coming from a minister of the crown.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the
Liberal government came to power in 1993 it promised things
would be different. Yet the more things change the more they stay
the same.
Look at the Prime Minister's Quebec package. In the referendum
aftermath Canadians in every region of the country looked to
Ottawa for a vision. The best our Prime Minister could offer was
``Charlottetown lite'', reheated Tory policies that had already failed
inside and outside Quebec. Not only did the Prime Minister have to
borrow the Tories' vision, he has also resorted to their bag of dirty
tricks by invoking closure on his Quebec veto bill.
That's right, the government is going to shove its unity package
down Canadians' throats whether they like it or not, limiting debate
on a package that will not fly in any region of the country. The
Tories were never so bold or undemocratic.
This may unite Canadians yet in their conviction to reject the old
Canada and begin building the new: no more Liberal, no more
Tory; in '97 Reform's the story.
* * *
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week
is National Safe Driving Week sponsored by the Canada Safety
Council.
To mark the 40th anniversary of this campaign which is designed
to promote safe driving on Canada's roads, Transport Canada
would like to take this opportunity to remind Canadians that road
safety is everyone's responsibility.
The theme of the campaign this year is the hidden face of
impaired driving. Impaired driving is still a serious issue. Recent
statistics suggest that over 40 per cent of drivers killed in car
accidents had been drinking.
Transport Canada has also been working hard to reduce death
and injury on our roads through initiatives such as the national
occupant restraint program and the introduction of mandatory
safety equipment for vehicles.
All Canadians can play a role in promoting safe driving, which
begins with safe driving practices. Drivers must take extra care to
use safety equipment such as airbags and seatbelts properly.
Exercising common sense when driving a vehicle, observing speed
limits and respecting the rules will make our roads safe for
everyone.
National Safe Driving Week is an important campaign and I urge
hon. members to endorse its goals.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today as we debate sending troops to Bosnia we must
remember the accomplishments achieved over the past half century
by Canadian UN forces.
We must embrace the vision of global peace and unity so
recently articulated in Ottawa by UN Secretary-General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali. Canadians must set the example as ambassadors of
peace. To waver at such a historical moment in the history of these
warring countries would be paramount to turning a blind eye to a
starving child. Bosnia is starving for peace.
As members of a united nation, all Canadians must accept the
challenge to make a lasting peace for all Bosnians.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the early 1600s Canada has grown
geographically and maturely as a nation of which we are very
proud.
We as the Liberal Party sat recently in opposition. We looked
across the floor of the House of Commons and watched the present
leader of the separatist party and Marcel Masse as Minister of
National Defence and Roch Lasalle sitting in the cabinet benches of
the Government of Canada wielding all their power and political
philosophy at the utmost. Today they are campaigning to separate
Quebec from Canada. They are misrepresenting the facts of life to
the wonderful people of the province of Quebec.
17134
Today we think about statesmen such as Baldwin, Lafontaine,
Georges Etienne Cartier, Ernest Lapointe, Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Louis St. Laurent, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the current Prime
Minister who have and who are laying the foundation for a great
future of a Canada that will always include Quebec. Unlike the
leader of the separatist party in the House who changes political
parties like he changes clothes, the Prime Minister and the Liberal
Party-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister, who announced that the federal government would
withdraw from manpower training, did not keep his promise.
(1405)
By tabling a proposal that offers even less than the proposal
made to the government of Quebec in June 1994 and dismissed out
of hand by Daniel Johnson, Ottawa has again shown its inability to
acknowledge the consensus in Quebec on the need for transferring
the authority and resources for manpower training to that province.
From now on, the minister will be able to impose national
standards if the provinces want federal funding, and if they do not
accept Ottawa's standards, the minister will be able to go over the
heads of the provinces and offer these programs directly to the
unemployed.
It is now obvious why the minister waited until after the
referendum to table his reforms.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Arise,
young people of Canada. You have nothing to lose but poverty. This
generation is ruining you. It leaves you with horrendous mortgages.
You have heard of the visible mortgage.
The federal and provincial debt is about $800 billion and grows
at well over $100 million a day. When you are raising your family
almost certainly about one-half of every dollar you pay in taxes
will go to pay interest on the mortgage this generation leaves you.
Sadly this is only half the story.
There is another little known and largely invisible mortgage.
Actuaries estimate the cost of benefits promised to pensioners
through the CPP, OAS and medicare programs will double from
about $50 billion to $100 billion per year. Your income taxes will
be 50 per cent higher just to cover these costs.
Young Canadians, arise and join the-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Saskatchewan is the best place in the world to live
according to Martha Justus, an economist with Informetrica. She
used the same United Nations human development index that
ranked Canada number one among the countries of the world.
When this index was applied to the provinces, Saskatchewan
came out on top. The UN ranking is an attempt to define quality of
life by combining life expectancy, educational attainment and
gross domestic product adjusted for cost of living.
The findings of Informetrica were no surprise to those of us from
Saskatchewan. Our community oriented history and culture have
produced some of the best social legislation. For example, the
recent initiatives by our provincial NDP government gives many
part time workers access to benefits usually enjoyed only by full
time employees. This further enhances our quality of life.
Yes, Saskatchewan is number one.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian infrastructure program is still in full swing in
Peterborough where it represents more than $35 million and 68
construction projects in every village, township and city, both
school boards, Fleming College and Trent University.
One feature of the program has been the way it has released
monies, private and public, being held in reserve for future
projects. The release of these funds now has resulted in useful
projects and has created much needed jobs. Money has been spent
at the grassroots of the economy.
I strongly urge the government to build on its experience with
the current infrastructure program and launch another. Perhaps the
new one could be redesigned to deliberately tap more private sector
funds. Perhaps its could include regional variants to accommodate
special local needs. Perhaps priority could be given to particular
types of infrastructure.
Let us consult with the municipalities and launch a new
invigorated infrastructure program.
17135
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, six years ago this week the promising lives of 14 bright,
talented young women were lost in a senseless act of violence at
l'École Polytechnique in Montreal.
Canadian women everywhere remain haunted by this tragedy.
On Wednesday, Canada's national day of remembrance and action
on violence against women, the tragedy of December 6 should
stand as a symbol of the safe, just and peaceful society we must
strive to create.
We must remember there is much strength to be gained from this
awful sacrifice. Through dedication and effort and regardless of
regional, linguistic, racial or partisan divisions, the memory of
these women should inspire us to rebuild a nation founded on the
principles of equality and respect where women shall no longer be
victims.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Friday the
Minister of Human Resources Development tabled his
unemployment insurance reforms. The minister told whoever
wanted to listen that the purpose of his reforms was to adjust to the
new demands of Canadian society and that it would be easier for
the unemployed to re-enter the labour market.
However, now that the reforms have been tabled, it is clear that
the impact will be far worse than we expected. The federal
government hopes to reduce its deficit at the expense of women and
young people.
Furthermore, in order to ensure that wealth is redistributed,
Ottawa has decided to reduce the premiums of those who are well
off by one billion dollars and, to make up for this reduction,
increase the premiums of low-income workers by $900 million. Is
that what the federal government calls justice and social equity?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I stand today to pay tribute to the late Robertson Davies,
one of Canada's most treasured writers.
Bridging Canada's two solitudes, a headline in the Quebec media
reads:
[Translation]
``With Robertson Davies, Canadian literature has lost one of its
titans''.
[English]
This sentiment accurately describes Robertson Davies' status: a
monument to Canadian literature.
Robertson Davies was to me a person of another world. I knew
him by reputation only. When I first heard him on the radio I was
impressed that he appeared as interested in hearing the opinions of
others as in expressing his own. Acknowledged the world over as a
great man of letters, Robertson Davies was also a man of the
people.
Canada and the world are much the better for his presence and
for being the beneficiaries of a great literary legacy on his passing.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Toronto Dominion Bank and the Bank of Montreal announced
substantial increases in 1995 profits last week. Their profits rose 17
per cent and 19.5 per cent respectively over last year.
While these figures may earn the industry the respect of its
shareholders, they are also drawing criticism from small and
medium size business owners. We have all heard their frustration at
the banking industry's reluctance to lend to the small business
sector. We know it plays a critical role in our economy. That is why
we are working hard to foster a new environment of opportunity for
it.
We cannot do it alone. It is our view that the banks have a special
obligation to assist small businesses in obtaining financing. Let us
hope their increased profits motivate them to fulfil that important
obligation.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians mourn the passing of master writer, scholar, leading
playwright and critic Robertson Davies who was instrumental in
establishing Canadian literature at home and abroad.
His writings and teachings, particularly as Master of Massey
College, had a profound impact on Canadian writers. A finalist for
the Booker Prize in 1986 and recipient of the Nobel Prize for
Literature in 1992, Robertson Davies was a recipient of the
Governor General's Literary Award in 1972 and the Molson Prize
in 1988.
17136
[Translation]
His works contain a world of the imagination that mingles
passion, magic, fate, lust and humour. His astonishing erudition
made him an outstanding ambassador of Canadian letters.
[English]
A modest man with a gentle wit, when asked for a
self-description he proclaimed: ``I may not be the world's foremost
swan, but I am not a duck''. He leaves us, nevertheless, with a
remarkable swan like legacy. He will continue to be an icon for
future generations.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the fascinating art of quilt
making.
Quilt making and the preservation of quilts are an integral part of
our history. The art of quilt making reflects Canada's rural
beginnings, and its continued popularity is living proof of the
vitality and the art of this form.
Today quilt shows are just as popular as they were generations
ago. Currently I am seeking Parliament's approval to proclaim the
fourth week of every May as national quilters week. Such a
proclamation will give these committed and tireless artisans the
recognition they deserve.
(1415 )
I ask all members of Parliament to lend their support to this
worthwhile effort.
The Speaker: I would say that that request was just a stitch in
time.
_____________________________________________
17136
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday,
the Minister of Human Resources Development finally unveiled
his unemployment insurance reform, which will make it
increasingly difficult for the unemployed to access the system. The
reform provides that eligibility levels will be considerably higher
and that those frequently out of work will be penalized, so that the
first victims of these cuts will be young people, women and
seasonal workers. The federal government is cutting $2 billion
from the program.
Will the minister finally acknowledge that he waited so long to
table his reform in order to avoid having Quebecers know before
the referendum that they would get hit with two thirds of the UI
cuts, that is, about $640 million?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not
have his facts straight.
The reality is that Quebec is affected no differently than the other
provinces. The full mature year after the transition takes place, the
next impact on the province of Quebec would be 7 per cent of
benefits because a large proportion of the money we are saving is
being reinvested to ensure that people in Quebec can go back to
work.
That is what I do not think the hon. member fully understands.
The whole purpose of the reform is to give people the opportunity,
the resources and the support to be re-employed. It is about jobs. It
is about work. It is about employment and the way in which
governments can work together to develop partnerships to help
people attain those very important objectives.
That is what it is all about and that is where the money is going.
It is going to shift us from a program that previously provided a
simple income benefit program. However because it is no longer
relevant to the much tougher world of work we live in, we are now
giving people a better ability to meet the kinds of demands and to
do what they really want to do, which is to get a job.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister cannot deny the terrible effect the cuts in his reform will
have on young people, women and seasonal workers, especially.
Everyone is affected, but they are more so.
The minister cannot deny it, and I would ask him this: Since the
federal government is using the surplus in the unemployment
insurance fund to reduce its enormous debt, are we to understand
from the $2 billion cuts announced Friday that, rather than
improving its own finances through better management, Ottawa is
trying to reduce the deficit on the backs of the unemployed?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me again point out some
relevant facts. It is quite clear the hon. member has not looked at
the report. He does not know what we are proposing.
There will be a substantial extension of coverage under the new
proposal for part time workers or people who have multiple jobs.
Half a million Canadians will be included in the program where
before they received absolutely no coverage at all. A quarter of a
million seasonal workers will be able to receive extended benefits
beyond what they receive at the present time. There will be the
17137
opportunity for more people to improve their earnings because we
are basing it upon a much more realistic test, the test of hours.
To get to the question raised by the hon. member and not the
prologue where his facts were wrong, the reality is that the money
we are using is first to go into a reserve to stabilize premiums
against a further recession. In that way we can ensure that future
workers will not be hurt the way workers were in the past recession
and we can ensure there is an infusion of money at that point in
time. We are reducing the costs for both employees and employers
as a result of this measure to stimulate job creation. We are
ploughing back $800 million of employment benefits to help
people get back to work.
(1420)
This goes back to the very heart, the goal of what we want to do,
which is to ensure that Canadians will have the opportunity to get a
good job.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
minister talks of getting Canadians back to work, we cannot forget
that, for more than two years, the government in power has done
absolutely nothing to get Canadians back to work, except to cut
among the poor and the unemployed. This is what has happened.
The minister cannot deny this. Given that the level of
employment in Canada has hardly budged and the enormous cuts
he is making to unemployment insurance, will he admit, therefore,
that, far from giving Canadians the dignity of work as he calls it, he
is hitting them, pushing them towards welfare and condemning
them to poverty? Because that is his plan.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the poor member really has
got himself wound up into the wildest coil of exaggeration I have
seen in a long time.
As the member well knows and as he obviously should know, the
reality is that since this government has come to power we have
created close to 500,000 permanent jobs. The unemployment rate
has gone down from over 11 per cent to 9.4 per cent. In Quebec
alone, 119,000 new jobs have been created.
As we all know, one of the most important elements of this
program is that in addition to helping people adjust to the labour
market, buying the opportunity to get the kind of skills they need,
they will also be able to generate between 100,000 and 150,000
new incremental jobs, of which 40,000 would be in the province of
Quebec. It is worth fighting for 40,000 jobs, which is what we are
doing. I wish the hon. member would join in that fight.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Thanks to the cuts resulting from the February 1994 budget and the
present reform, the minister will enjoy a $5 billion surplus by the
end of 1996 after requiring workers and employers to pay $6 billion
back into the recession fund. This is a very substantial grab. Yet,
this surplus will not be set aside but will go into the federal
government's current revenue to reduce its deficit by $5 billion.
Are we to understand from its UI reform that the government
intends to reduce its deficit not by improving management of
government operations but by reducing UI benefits by another $2
billion?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the present time the
unemployment insurance account is still in a deficit. That deficit
was allowed to rise to $6 billion in the last recession because there
was no reserve placed against it.
What is even worse is that at the same time the previous
government jacked up the premium rates from about $2.05 to
almost $3, a 50 per cent increase in premium rates at a time when
the economy was going into recession. All that did was make the
recession all that much worse.
We should learn from those lessons. We should not put Canadian
workers in a position where all of a sudden money is drawn out of
the economy when in fact money should be going back into the
economy. One of the basic principles of this national program is to
be counter-cyclical, to reinvest when times are bad and to put a
surplus aside for protection when times are good.
(1425 )
We are learning that lesson. We are setting up a reserve fund so
we can stabilize the premiums. In that way when there are
problems in the economy we will not have to jack up premiums, we
will not have to deficit finance, but we can make sure that we put
the money back in the economy to keep jobs for Canadian workers.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given the
size of current surpluses and the maintenance of high premiums,
workers will never be able to benefit from this surplus, which will
only be used to reduce the deficit.
Since UI premiums and benefits are part of the government's
revenue and expenditures, does the minister recognize that his
so-called recession reserve is nothing but an accounting fiction and
that this UI fund surplus will be used strictly to reduce the federal
17138
deficit, as specified on page 11 of the government's own annual
financial report?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from time to time I have heard
the hon. member for Mercier talk about the responsibility of
members of Parliament to listen to the grassroots, to listen to
people in their own regions.
I would like to quote a very important statement: ``In order for
unemployment insurance to fully play its role of automatic
stabilizer, we feel that it would be advisable to set contribution
rates in such a manner as to allow a surplus to accumulate during
periods of expansion, thus avoiding the necessity to increase
contributions during periods of recession''. Was this le Conseil du
patronat? No it was the CSN and the CEQ, the two major unions of
Quebec which have advocated exactly what we are doing.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
changes to unemployment insurance that the Minister of Human
Resources Development announced on Friday will not create a
single sustainable job.
The new 7 per cent payroll tax is a full time tax on part time
workers and amounts to a massive tax grab. Since tabling his bill
the minister and his officials have failed to inform Canadians
exactly how much more money the government is getting from this
tax grab.
Why will the minister not tell Canadians exactly how much
money he is pulling out of the pockets of part time workers?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, frankly the hon. member from
Calgary just does not get it.
The member just does not understand the whole point of the
reform which is to make sure that for the first time part time
workers would get the security protection of the unemployment
insurance fund. That is the whole point of the reform. If those
workers make less than $2,000 they get the premiums refunded.
She still goes not get it.
What has happened is there has been an artificial glass ceiling.
Employers have set 15 hours where nobody has the opportunity to
get access to maternity benefits, to get job security, to get
retraining. As a result they have been sent home. What we are
doing is we are opening up the door of opportunity and security for
part time workers in Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: More, more.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me continue.
The new tax will hurt 2.5 million part time workers and their
employers. The minister wants us to believe that this tax is revenue
neutral. The fact is that the students and working moms targeted by
the tax will be forced to pay for months, 910 hours to be exact
which accumulates to months, before they can collect and few ever
will. This is not a revenue neutral tax. This is a cash windfall of
$1.2 billion at the expense of part time workers.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the hon.
member's question, but I suppose I can make up one for the hon.
member and then answer it. Seeing she seems to make up most of
the facts she uses, I might as well make up the questions that she
wants answered.
(1430 )
Let us deal with the part time worker issue, one of the strongest
cases that was made to us during the public hearings. I heard the
hon. member's leader last week saying that we have to listen to the
people. We did. They said that at this time, when there are
increasingly more jobs of a part time nature or of a multiple job
nature, we have to give people coverage. They did not have
coverage. Under the old weekly basis, after 15 hours people were
sent home; they were told not to work any more. The whole labour
market was distorted as a result, and those people had no security.
We have opened up eligibility for over half a million Canadians.
If that person, a student, male, female, or whatever the case may
be-
An hon. member: A Reformer?
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): We may have to look
at the charter of rights for that.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
habit forming when we have to respond to the question mark. This
is about killing part time jobs.
There is very little evidence that the part timer tax will benefit
anyone except the federal coffers. Many businesses are opposed to
this scheme. Ultimately, the increased cost to business will kill off
the creation of part time jobs and generate huge tax revenues. In
fact we expect this tax will generate over $1 billion.
How can the minister justify this $1 billion tax grab at the
expense of part time workers?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should
know, the cost reductions we have built into the program amount to
$1.3 billion for small business employees and employers. That has
a very strong job stimulating effect.
17139
Second, we have also built in a rebate for small business. If
there is an increase in premiums they will receive a 50 per cent
rebate. Obviously the hon. member did not know that either.
Third, to repeat, if a worker, up to $2,000 of income, does not
want to claim their eligibility, they have a right to a full $2,000
refund on their taxes.
It seems very clear. Now that we have a question from the hon.
member, we understand that the question is not based upon
anything she has read in our report.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
In June 1994, the federal government offered to transfer budgets
for several manpower training programs to the Government of
Quebec. Daniel Johnson rejected the proposal out of hand, calling
it a bargain basement agreement. Ottawa is now offering to give
assistance the unemployed directly.
Will the minister admit that his reform proposal does not even go
as far as the offer made in June 1994, in that the plan is no longer to
transfer budgets to the Government of Quebec but to send cheques
to the unemployed directly? Does he recognize that the federal
government is not, in fact, withdrawing from the area of
manpower?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would have expected that
surely by this time the hon. member would have caught on that in
fact we are going much further than the previous offer.
The Prime Minister over a week ago said that we are
withdrawing from the area of education and training. In fact we
have introduced in the legislation that there would be no direct
involvement in terms of a voucher unless there was provincial
consent.
Furthermore, we have clearly put on the table the entire global
amount of expenditures we make, which in the province of Quebec
right now is about $500 million or $600 million, plus the savings
that will be generated, which will be another $240 million, to
determine how we could work out a partnership with them. If they
have delivery mechanisms that suit the criteria for the clients we
must serve, we are quite prepared to use those delivery
mechanisms. We can sit down to work out how we can eliminate
duplication and overlap in these areas. We can work out common
employment plans at the community level. We can discuss how we
can share resources.
This is a real attempt to find a new partnership for employment
with every province and help people get back to work.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what Quebec wants is for the federal government to
withdraw from this area where it has proven totally ineffective over
the past 15 years.
Does the minister realize that by sending cheques directly to the
unemployed, his department is preventing Quebec from putting in
place a real manpower policy, just to give the federal government
visibility with the unemployed?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1941 the provinces,
including the province of Quebec, gave to the federal government
the responsibility for the unemployment insurance program. It is
part of the Constitution. In case the hon. member has not read the
Constitution lately, it is in the Constitution. For all those who pay
into the system, we are the trustee to ensure they receive proper
benefits.
We are making sure that those who have the right they establish
with their payment of premiums have the right to receive the
benefits. We do not care who delivers them; we simply want to
ensure, as a result of our trusteeship, that they receive those
benefits. That is part of the Canadian Constitution.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development announced that his
five-cent reduction in UI premiums on $100 of insurable earnings
would create 24,000 full time jobs in Canada. More money in
Canadians' pockets equals more jobs. It is as simple as that.
We have to wonder why then the Minister of Human Resources
Development is taking a seven per cent tax bite out of the pay
cheques of part time workers in this country.
If a token UI premium reduction creates 25,000 full time jobs,
how many jobs will be lost when the government takes $1.2 billion
out of the pockets of part time workers?
17140
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem with that
question is that the hon. member has been listening to her colleague
from Calgary and they both have it wrong.
We have said very clearly that part time workers will now be
covered by the UI system, and if they want to have a rebate on their
premiums they will receive a rebate. Should I repeat that again?
Should I underline it? Should I get a red pencil so they can
understand it properly? Up to $2,000 there is a full rebate of all
those premiums.
On the other hand, those who want to come into the system and
become eligible will pay the proper premiums so they can receive
the protection of maternity benefits, sickness benefits, they are
protected against being out of work and have programs to get back
to work, all the protection they do not have now.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking math, and I suspect it was not a prerequisite when the
Minister of Human Resources Development got his job.
My strength is not math either, but I can figure out this much
mathematically. According to his own department, a $900 million
reduction in UI premiums creates 25,000 full jobs. That is one job
for every $36,000 in reductions. Using those same figures, the
minister's $1.2 billion tax grab would kill close to 34,000 jobs in
this country.
Will the minister confirm that this tax grab on part time workers
is a job killer? And if he does not agree with our figures, maybe he
could provide the House with his department's own research in this
area.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon.
member read the guide that was tabled at the same time, because
that is where the full information would be disclosed.
The reality is that when someone receives coverage under the
insurance program they pay a premium. That is what an insurance
policy is all about: they pay a premium and get a benefit. Now we
are saying that part time workers who were denied any coverage
and not included in the program will be able to get the coverage. If
they do not receive eligibility they get a rebate. That seems to be
simple mathematics. They receive a rebate. That is the point of the
program.
What I think the hon. member is clearly missing is that as this
workplace goes through very substantial changes, part time
workers and many workers who now have two or three jobs do not
have sufficient hours or income to get coverage. As a result, it
creates insecurity, which creates problems in the labour market. We
are trying to restore security for over half a million workers.
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. After tabling a UI reform package that is really an
extensive cutback program, the Minister of Human Resources
Development is about to table an old age pension reform that goes
along the same lines.
Will the minister admit that, after his all-out attack against
unemployed Canadians, he is about to do the same thing to seniors?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have neither attacked
Canadian workers nor do we intend to attack Canadian seniors.
What we are doing as a government is ensuring that this country
is able to govern itself effectively. For workers, that means getting
back to jobs. For seniors and people over the age of 65, that means
making sure they have good security in their old age. That is the
intention of this government.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): As a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that not only
is the federal government set to cut old age pensions but that it will
encourage, I repeat encourage, seniors to work part time upon
retiring?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only person who is guilty
of inciting is the hon. member, who is making those kinds of false
statements in the House and trying to raise fears that people should
not have.
He has been told many times in the House, by the Prime Minister
and others, that we would not be touching seniors' existing
pensions. What we are looking at is the need to make a major
reform in the Canada pension plan and other forums to make sure it
is a sustainable program, that it provides security not just for this
generation of seniors but for the next generation of seniors.
The basic purpose of government is to look ahead to the future.
Unfortunately, this member only seems to be able to look to the
past.
17141
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was going to ask a general question about job losses, but
I am upset about the logical inconsistency of the minister. He
should have been coached by somebody who understands this.
On the one side, the minister claims that reduction in
legislatively mandated premiums on unemployment insurance
creates jobs. Then the minister turns around and says now we will
legislate increased premiums for part time workers. He claims that
one will gain jobs and the other one does not lose jobs. Could he
clear up this inconsistency for me?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, because we are offering a
rebate to employers who pay the premiums.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is clearly on some of those who get rebates, not the
others. It is inconsistent.
Last month Canada lost 64,000 full time jobs. There are reports
of a coming recession with threats of still further job losses. The
red book reference to jobs, jobs, jobs appears to have been about
job losses, not jobs gained.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Since he proudly
claimed credit for jobs created in previous months, will he now
take responsibility for these job losses and tell us how he plans for
Canadians to get back to work?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the obvious instalments
in the job program is what we did in this program, which was to
take a program that had ballooned to double its size over a decade
and provide a way of refining that program and reducing many of
its costs so that it can be a sustainable program.
Second, we are substantially streamlining the program so that
business can save about $150 million on administration costs,
which they can convert back into the job areas.
Third, the program generates $800 million of new employment
benefits, which create a number of jobs for Canadians, especially
those who have been long term unemployed.
Fourth, we have a major investment of $300 million to help
develop in high unemployment areas specific investment funds and
initiatives to help create jobs in those areas.
(1445)
This is a major instalment of the job creation of this program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Probably in the hope of saving enough money to buy submarines
that we do not need, the government is contemplating the purchase
of about 20 American built Sea Hawk helicopters. However, this
type of helicopter is known for experiencing problems at sea. This
is not very reassuring, considering that these helicopters will fly
over the sea 80 per cent of the time.
Will the minister confirm that he intends to spend close to one
billion dollars to buy inadequate helicopters on sale?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
answer is short and clear.
Even if he will not confirm it, how can the minister justify his
intention to award, once again without tenders, a contract worth
close to one billion dollars to buy helicopters from an American
company, thus depriving, as we already mentioned, the Canadian
aircraft industry, which is primarily located in Quebec, of any
economic spinoffs?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member's statement is totally wrong.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 1 last year I asked the Minister of Justice what action he
was taking to protect women from violence.
Today I ask the Minister of Justice what legislative measures he
has taken in the past year to implement the government's plan to
deal with the issue of violence against women?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I must acknowledge the deep
commitment and the enormous contribution of the hon. member in
this area.
17142
Although a great deal remains to be done, those things that have
been achieved over the last year in dealing with men's violence
against women have been brought about largely because of the
contribution of my colleague and other members of the Liberal
caucus.
Over the last year a number of steps have been taken to which I
can refer in response to her question. On February 15 of this year,
Bill C-42 became effective. Among other things, it provided in
peace bonds that application can be made by someone other than
the woman affected. An application might be brought by a police
officer. The penalties were increased, the terms were made firmer.
I can refer as well to Bill C-41, the sentencing bill given royal
assent in mid-July. Among other things, as a result of the initiative
of the hon. member for Mississauga South, domestic violence was
made an aggravating factor. As a result of the work by the hon.
member for Brant, restitution was provided for victims of domestic
violence.
A great deal remains to be done. I am proud to say we have
already taken steps this year that will make a difference.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have no
details about the Canadian role in the upcoming NATO deployment
or the size of the contingent or much else. The defence minister
says the cabinet will decide tomorrow.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Will the minister table this proposal in
full detail and allow Parliament to have-
The Speaker: Members will recognize that the Chair must wait
and listen to what the question is going to be, rather than just the
preamble. This question, in my view, is out of order.
If the hon. minister would like to address it, I will permit him to,
but in my view it is out of order. We will go on to the second
question.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I apologize for
that. I did check with the Clerk to try and look at the rules.
We have talked about many human rights abuses in all parts of
the world. We have talked about the genocide that has occurred in
places, particularly the former Yugoslavia.
(1450 )
I would like to know what the government has in mind for all of
our forces any place in the world to handle how they are going to
deal with the issue of genocide.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again this does
touch to some degree the debate that is before the House.
The troops of the Canadian forces proved what the appropriate
actions are when faced with the genocide in the former Yugoslavia.
Were it not for the presence of our forces and the UN in general
many more thousands of lives would have been lost.
The Canadian Armed Forces need no lessons from the hon.
member across the way with respect to dealing with difficult
situations. In any combat or any engagement the forces are
committed to they will operate to the best of their abilities. They
will use the Canadian standards of fairness and tolerance in the
application of their duties including the application of force.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
We just learned that the Minister of Industry is about to award a
$100,000 contract, to write his speeches and advise him on the
development of the information highway, to the company that
lobbies him on behalf of businesses having an interest in the
information highway, including Astral, Unitel, Western
International Communications and many others.
By letting lobbyists representing these companies write his
speeches and dictate to him his policies on the information
highway, how can the minister claim to protect the interest of
Canadians in that regard?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first I remind the hon. member that it was not that long ago that we
brought forward the toughest, most extensive lobbyist registration
legislation in the western world and he did not support it.
Second, I would indicate to him that in the matter he has raised,
the issue of conflict of interest was raised with the ethics
counsellor. He reviewed the arrangements the firm in question had
put in place with a view to applying the same principles which
apply within the legal profession, as approved by the Canadian Bar
Association.
The ethics counsellor indicated that in his view there is no
conflict of interest that would arise if the contract in question were
to be awarded.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister, who is the one
in charge of preserving the integrity of this government.
17143
Does the Prime Minister not find it unacceptable that the
industry minister should be the spokesperson of companies having
an interest in the information highway, and what should we think
of an ethics counsellor who sees nothing wrong with that?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not sure whether the member had trouble understanding the
answer, but what he needs to understand is that questions of
conflict are ones which are taken extremely seriously.
The moment such a conflict was raised by a competitive firm for
a contract which was being offered in response to a request for
proposals, that matter was investigated thoroughly. The
undertakings given and the oaths given were judged by the ethics
counsellor to be sufficient to give us the confidence that no conflict
would prejudice the work that was being done.
I want the hon. member to understand that the issue of integrity
and conflict are very important. If he has any basis on which to
suggest that we should not accept the oath or the systems that are in
place, then let him come forward with specifics as to what his
problem is in particular.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Prairie farmers are outraged at the recent revelation that
Canadian Wheat Board commissioners were given severance
packages of up to $290,000. In November 1994 I submitted an
access to information request for all available information on
pension plans and wages for Canadian Wheat Board
commissioners. Agriculture Canada replied ``no such documents
exist'' regarding my request.
(1455)
In August I challenged that reply but got no response. Why was
the minister hiding this information?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will check the paper trail to
which the hon. gentleman refers and I will ensure that all requests
for information are properly responded to.
However, the hon. member should know that the severance
arrangements to which he has referred in his question with respect
to the Canadian Wheat Board were developed about 15 years ago
with the concurrence of the Privy Council at that time. When those
severance arrangements were developed, none of the current
commissioners was in office.
This year, in consultation with the Privy Council Office, I have
made arrangements to modernize those severance arrangements, to
bring them into line with other requirements.
The hon. gentleman can point no finger of blame at the current
commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board because they were
not in office at the time when the severance arrangements were put
in place.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last time I asked for information in the House, the
RCMP were accused of using improper procedures. I wonder
which cowboy in the agriculture ministry threw the lariat the wrong
way. It was the Liberal government who 15 years ago allowed these
excessive perks and privileges to infiltrate the Canadian Wheat
Board.
Why does the minister not make these perks and privileges
retroactively disappear, like the government did with the Pearson
airport deal?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the arrangements under which the
current commissioners came into office were legally in effect at the
time when their services were engaged by the Government of
Canada.
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member,
has been listening to Canadians' suggestions for the 1996 budget.
When will the minister appear before the committee to provide
us with his views on the deficit problem and other economic
issues? What message will he bring?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
announce that the Minister of Finance will appear before the
Standing Committee on Finance the afternoon of Wednesday,
December 6.
In his appearance last year the minister requested the help of the
committee in suggesting appropriate actions to hit the 1995 deficit
target. This year, however, we are firmly on track for our target.
Last year the minister laid out the principles of deficit reduction
and this year he will confirm his commitment to those principles.
The committee will be asked to focus on reflecting the priorities of
Canadians as the 1996 budget is prepared.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Human
Resource Development.
17144
In 1990, 87 per cent of unemployed Canadians were eligible
for unemployment insurance. Two years ago the Liberals drove
it down to 50 per cent. The CLC predicts that the latest
announcement means that two-thirds of out of work Canadians
will no longer be eligible for unemployment insurance, around the
same level that exists in Mississippi.
How can the minister claim that this will benefit working
Canadians? Surely they are trying to balance the deficit on the
backs of out of work Canadians.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the one thing I sincerely wish
the president of the CLC for Christmas is a pocket calculator so he
can get his figures right.
Quite clearly the economist who made those statements is a
prime candidate for the remedial training programs that we are
prepared to offer under the new employment package. He simply
does not know what he is talking about.
* * *
(1500)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister or to the
parliamentary secretary.
Last Monday night, a Radio-Canada documentary on the
television program Enjeux showed us the terrible fate met by infant
girls in government operated nurseries in China. One million girl
babies are literally left to die of neglect in institutions.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate to us whether the Prime
Minister intends to voice his condemnation of these unacceptable
acts instead of settling for addressing human rights behind closed
doors, thus condoning this shameful practice?
[English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the human rights situation in China has always
been a priority with the Canadian government. As a matter fact
recently at the APEC summit meeting our Prime Minister had the
opportunity to have bilateral talks with the president of the Chinese
government, Mr. Jiang. He raised the human rights issue with him.
We raise those issues not only in the bilateral forum but also in the
multilateral forum, such as the UN High Commission on Human
Rights.
We want to assure every member of the House that the Canadian
government has put human rights on an equal priority with trade.
We will continue to press those issues with the Chinese
government.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party and every member of this House
would like to congratulate the performance of the captain and crew
of the HMCS
Calgary and the captain and crew of the Sea King
helicopter in the rescue operation this past weekend.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hart: I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence:
When can Canadians expect to hear about the bidding process to
commence on the new shipborne helicopters?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed
heartening to have the hon. member at last congratulate the armed
forces on one of its particular exploits. It was of heroic proportions
and all Canadians should be proud of those members of the crew of
HMCS Calgary.
With respect to the question of maritime helicopters, this is a
matter, as I have said publicly before, that will be decided before
the end of the fiscal year.
_____________________________________________
17144
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
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 six petitions.
* * *
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance
with Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to present, in the two
official languages, the report of the auditor of the Canadian
Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board.
This report deals with the financial year ending March 31, 1995.
The report stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
17145
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions today. I wish to present a petition which has been
circulating all across Canada. This particular petition has been
signed by a number of Canadians from Fenelon Falls, Ontario.
The petitioners 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.
The petitioners also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates
against families who make the choice to provide care in the home
to preschool children, the chronically ill, the disabled 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 or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The second petition
has to do with fetal alcohol syndrome. The petitioners would like to
draw to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic
beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability.
Specifically fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth
defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol
consumption during pregnancy.
(1505 )
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risk associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition was submitted to me by Mrs. Betty Pellier. It has to
do with section 43 of the Criminal Code.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House
that section 43 of the Criminal Code allows school teachers,
parents and those standing in the place of the parent to use
reasonable force for the correction of pupils or children under their
care, and that the reasonable force has been interpreted by the
courts to include spanking, slapping, strapping, kicking, et cetera.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to end
legal approval of this harmful and discriminatory practice by
repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present on behalf of
people in the riding of Provencher.
The first petition concerns abortion. It was signed by a number
of constituents from Niverville and Morris. These constituents
respectfully pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition I have is with respect to assisted suicide and euthanasia. It
has been signed by constituents from Rosenfeld, Rosenort,
Niverville and St-Malo.
They too respectfully pray that Parliament ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make
no change in the law which would sanction or allow in any way the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a petition collected during the recent tour of the
mining photography exhibit
Les galeries de mines. The petitioners
wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Canadian
and Quebec mining industry is the main employer in over 150
communities, a significant contributor to the gross national product
and to Canadian exports, and a cornerstone of the Canadian
economy. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon the House to
take the necessary steps to support our mining industry.
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I have two petitions primarily from the riding of
Windsor West.
The first petition refers to the steps the petitioners wish to be
taken with respect to the apprehension, investigation, punishment
and release of dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition relates to the issue of doctor assisted
suicides.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, a number of petitioners from my riding have
asked me to present their petition. It draws the attention of the
House to the following. The majority of Canadians respect the
17146
sanctity of human life and human life at the pre-born stage is not
protected in Canadian society. The petitioners pray that Parliament
act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed
by born human beings to unborn human beings.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 192 and 205.
[Text]
Question No. 192-Mr. Hanger:
Through which mechanism and in pursuance of which specific powers, either
statutory or regulatory, is the federal government able to determine, for the
benefit of the provinces, who among all individuals receiving welfare in Canada
are sponsored immigrants?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)
uses memoranda of understanding (MOU) to facilitate the
exchange of information on sponsored immigrants with provinces,
and where applicable with municipalities, for the purpose of
administering social assistance programs and for the department's
own sponsorship initiatives. Privacy is a concern and the MOUs
must respect federal and provincial privacy legislation. At this time
CIC has MOUs with the municipalities of metropolitan Toronto,
Peel, Windsor, London, York, and the Ontario ministries of
community and social services and health. Negotiations are under
way to sign MOUs with other provinces and municipalities that
require them. In Ontario some municipalities require their own
MOU because the provincial data base does not hold all municipal
data.
The MOUs allow CIC to confirm with welfare authorities that an
applicant is a sponsored immigrant and how long the sponsorship is
for. They also allow welfare authorities to advise CIC when a
sponsor has defaulted on his or her sponsorship agreement and to
confirm that the sponsor has paid back the provincial funds paid
out to the sponsored immigrant.
Question No. 205-Mr. Gilmour:
What was the total dollar amount, direct and indirect, and source of
government funding per annum from 1990 to the present, including the
1995-96 estimates, to the Valhalla Society?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed
as follows. In so far as the Department of the Environment is
concerned,
1994-95, $58,325, environmental partners funds;
1995-96, $21,045, environmental partners funds.
In so far as Human Resources Development Canada is
concerned,
1990-91, $1,671, Canadian jobs strategy summer employment placement;
1993-94, $2,624, Canadian strategy workplace based training placement.
The following departments and agencies have reported no
information:
Canadian International Development Agency,
Department of Canadian Heritage,
National Capital Commission and
Natural Resources Canada.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The questions as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary have been answered.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if Question No. 144 could be made an order for return, that return
would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No.
144 be deemed to have been made an order for return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 144-Mr. Stinson:
For each of the fiscal years 1992-93 and 1993-94, which groups received the
ten largest amounts in federal grants for multiculturalism, and what were the
amounts?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
17146
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1510)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
17147
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just
before question period, the parliamentary secretary to the defence
minister had just completed his speech. I noted that, as in the
speech of the Minister of Defence, the government is not providing
any details about Canada's intervention in the upcoming peace
mission in Bosnia.
From the speeches we have heard in here since this morning, it is
clear the Reform Party, which is to some extent in favour of
participating in this mission, as well as the Bloc Quebecois, want to
know what the government proposes to do.
We asked this morning for details on how aid will be provided,
the size of the contingent, the costs, the length of time involved and
Canada's commitments in once again being part of this mission.
We had a fine description of Canada's entire participation and how
proud everyone is of it, but now we would like the parliamentary
secretary to tell us what the direct implications are, as they have yet
to be revealed.
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member gave
me an opportunity to comment on some of the things he said.
I really have a problem with this. The opposition parties say
there must be a debate in order for them to have input and say what
it is they believe the government should be doing. I have heard
three speakers and they have sat on the fence saying: ``I wish the
government would tell us what it is going to do''.
In my presentation I went through the roles and missions of the
NATO force and what it is supposed to be doing, as did the
minister. I listed the participating countries. I mentioned precisely
some of the things we may be doing. Last week opposition
members had a briefing for over an hour and received a 19-page
document with maps, options, command and controls and rules of
engagement.
I have some idea of what I would like to do, but I am not
permitted to do it. We have to wait for a debate and we want to wait
for a debate. The opposition parties are cajoling us. Now that we
are having a debate they are criticizing us because we have not told
them what it is the government wants to do. If they want us to do
that, I imagine the government could accommodate them. We have
a lot of good decision makers here, so we could decide.
I thought the purpose of the debate was to allow the opposition
parties to have input with respect to roughly how much money they
thought would be reasonable and what roles we should continue in
peacekeeping. Should they be military roles or would they like the
preponderance to be in the human rights area? Should they be
quasi-military or quasi-civilian roles? Would they prefer us to put
all our eggs in the special commission basket? That is what I want
to hear from them. If they want us to tell them, we can do that.
Which is it? Do they want to participate or do they not?
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time for comments and questions has
now expired. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Verchères.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity today to speak in this debate on Canada's
participation in the NATO forces as part of the Dayton peace plan.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, on November 21 the three main
belligerents agreed to end a conflict that has been raging for more
than three years in the former Yugoslavia. The agreement which,
for the time being, exists only on paper, was signed in Dayton,
Ohio under the auspices of the Americans.
As part of this peace plan, a peace implementation force is to be
deployed in the former Yugoslavia, mainly in Bosnia. The
implementation force will consist of nearly 60,000 soldiers. This
military force will be under NATO command. Most members of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with the exception of Canada,
Denmark and Iceland which has no armed forces, have agreed to
send troops for the military operation that is included in the Dayton
agreements. In fact, Canada has yet formally to advise its allies
whether it intends to participate in these operations and if so, what
its contribution will be.
That is why we are having a debate today in this House. The
Liberal government claims it wishes to consult Parliament before
making a decision on Canada's participation in this operation.
(1515)
In the past few weeks it has been clear the Liberal government
does not play by the rules. In fact, we have a distinct impression of
déjà vu.
The government has already made up its mind. This was obvious
from a report in The Citizen on Friday, December 1, quoting
National Defence spokesman Stéphane Corbin that no decision had
been made on the Canadian contribution. However, Canada's
commitment is clear.
The Prime Minister already made it perfectly clear that Canada
would send troops. On November 23, the Prime Minister stated that
certain number of soldiers would be involved, but the extent of our
contribution would depend on what we could do and what we
would be asked to do. In this statement the leader of the
government showed how little respect he has for this House, whose
prerogatives he should be the first to defend, but he seems quite
incapable of doing so.
This becomes even more obvious when we realize that the Prime
Minister already agreed with UN Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali on the duration of Canada's participation in this
NATO mission. According to their understanding any country that
would take part in the implementation force would be committed
until
17148
peace had been restored in the former Yugoslavia, whether it took
six months or three years.
Making such a commitment without consulting Parliament,
despite the changeable situation and the possible consequences, is
very alarming for the future and shows a flagrant lack of
consideration for the role of Parliament.
Despite condemning this kind of behaviour, the official
opposition has a duty to fulfil its role in this House and to act in line
with its principles and ideals. Not only because of our
responsibility to our fellow citizens, but also because of our
responsibility to the international community.
For these reasons and despite the partisan politics that can divide
us in this House, the Bloc Quebecois supports the government's
commitment to send troops to the former Yugoslavia so that the
Dayton peace agreement can be implemented.
Despite its flaws, this agreement may be our last chance to end
the conflict that has been raging for years in that region of the
Balkans. Even if Canada's participation appears to lack public
support and involves risks for our soldiers, we must not remain
insensitive to what is occurring outside our borders.
For several years now, Bosnia-Hercegovina has been ravaged by
a war to which we too often remain indifferent, because television
too often shows us only nameless faces that resemble millions of
others. Yet, each of the people living in the region torn apart by this
deadly conflict enjoyed an apparently normal life before all this
started. Men, women and children have seen their lives turned
upside down by this protracted, seemingly endless conflict. We
have a moral obligation to them, because our responsibility is not
restricted to the national territory of Quebec and Canada.
For most of their histories, Quebec and Canada have been spared
from violent conflicts. Although we have long enjoyed a very
enviable standard of living, we should not forget that others outside
our borders are suffering and need our help. Given its status as an
affluent nation, Canada has a responsibility to help those who are
the innocent victims of war.
In response to our Reform colleagues, I must point out that we
should stop looking at outside conflicts or problems as having
nothing to do with our domestic problems. In this world of
increasing globalization and integration, it must be understood that
international problems are also our domestic problems, and that
our domestic problems are also international problems.
International developments have a direct impact on Canada and
Quebec. When dealing, for example, with population movements,
missed business opportunities, etc., it must be understood that
developments abroad have an impact on our domestic policies.
Our goal is not to interfere in another country's internal affairs.
We will not be deciding for them what is good or bad.
(1520)
Our responsibility is limited to preventing those who did not ask
for this conflict in the first place from suffering and being killed.
So far, this responsibility has been carried out through the
UNPROFOR, as part of a peacekeeping operation. However,
measures taken to date were unsuccessful in putting an end to the
conflict and its disastrous consequences.
Two weeks ago, the three main belligerents unexpectedly agreed
to stop fighting. But for the peace plan to work, they need our help.
The help they need from us does, however, involve risks much
higher than those faced by Canadian troops who took part in
UNPROFOR peacekeeping operations in the past three and a half
years, no matter what our defence minister says; he who would
have us believe that the type of military intervention contemplated
is no riskier than the peacekeeping mission started in 1991.
In fact, the risks associated with the military operation arising
from the Dayton agreements are higher because the nature of the
operation to be carried out by NATO is completely different from
the one carried out by the UNPROFOR. The operations lead by the
UN in the former Yugoslavia since 1991 were conducted under
Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which allows only for the pacific
settlement of disputes between parties concerned.
Article 33 is quite clear on this matter. It reads as follows: ``1.
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security,
shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to
regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their
own choice''.
Then: ``2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary,
call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means''. This is
what articles 33.1 and 33.2 say.
But what we are debating today is not a simple peacekeeping
operation, in which acts of aggression, while always possible, are
unlikely. We are talking about a major military operation designed
to force peace on belligerents. To implement the Dayton
agreements, our troops will be mobilized in accordance with
Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Under the provisions of this chapter, armed forces under UN
command, or the delegated command of NATO in this case, are
allowed to use all necessary means to restore peace and fulfil their
mission. This kind of mission exposes our troops to much higher
risks, as they are more likely to see fire. Of course, they will be
able to retaliate, but they would definitely be exposed to much
more brutal attacks.
17149
It is the first time that such an operation is led by NATO since
the Korean war, more than 40 years ago. Therefore, we must
ensure that our participation is not tainted by an aggression that
could jeopardize Canada's credibility regarding peacekeeping
operations. The government must inform Quebecers and
Canadians of the possible consequences of such a mission. We
have the right to know what dangers may lie ahead for our troops.
For that reason, the Canadian government must immediately tell
us what its policy will be in the months to come regarding that
issue. Unlike what occurred when our troops were sent to the
former Yugoslavia as part of UNPROFOR, the Bloc Quebecois
feels that, this time, Ottawa must takes its place and stop being
meek. As you know, throughout our participation in UNPROFOR,
the number of Canadian troops remained around 2,000, one of the
largest contingents after those of France and the United Kingdom.
Yet, the federal government was not able to ensure Canada's
active involvement in the political decision making process to
manage the conflict. In spite of its strong participation in
UNPROFOR, our country was not included in the international
contact group set up in April 1994 to find a solution to the conflict
in the former Yugoslavia. That group included the United States,
France, the United Kingdom and Germany. Given its implication,
Canada fully deserved to be a member of that group.
Considering the large number of Canadian troops in the former
Yugoslavia, we expected the federal government to take initiatives
and propose solutions as to how to solve the conflict and end it.
However, as we know, no such initiatives were taken.
(1525)
Once it was decided to send humanitarian assistance and troops
to maintain peace in the former Yugoslavia, Canadian diplomacy
was content to let things happen. For these reasons, although we
support Canada's participation to help implement the Dayton peace
plan, we must be careful and avoid repeating past mistakes.
Therefore, we must immediately take a close look at all the
issues relating to Canada's participation in the peace process in the
former Yugoslavia. First, it is obvious to the Bloc Quebecois that
Canada's participation in this NATO mission ought not to exceed
the size of its UNPROFOR contingent, about 2,000 at its highest
point.
Canada must make its intention of continuing to be actively
involved in the peace process clear to the various stakeholders. I
would like to take this opportunity to point out the regretfully low
contribution of our European allies, with the exception of France,
Great Britain and Germany, to this military force to be set up as
part of the Dayton agreements. As for our own participation, it
ought to be substantial enough to enable our diplomacy to play an
active role in coming months.
The Bloc, however, has difficulty seeing how Canada could send
any more soldiers to Bosnia-Hercegovina. Over the past three
years, Canada has spent $517 million on its UNPROFOR
participation and on humanitarian aid for the former Yugoslavia,
that comes out to nearly $172 million a year. According to the
Minister of Defence, the annual cost of sending between 50 and
3,500 Canadian soldiers to Bosnia-Hercegovina, however, would
range between $2 million and $75 million.
In the same breath, the Minister of Defence admits that the cost
of taking part in a NATO mission is twice as high as for an
equivalent UN mission. The Bloc's extreme scepticism about the
Minister of Defence's figures is therefore understandable. That is
why I am demanding, on behalf of Quebec's and Canada's
taxpayers, that the federal government provide a clear figure for the
expenses that would be incurred in sending troops to
Bosnia-Hercegovina, and do so even before they leave this country.
Moreover, Ottawa must also provide Canadians and Quebecers
with answers on the composition of the Canadian intervention. The
public wants to know, not only how many troops will be going, but
whether these will be only combat troops or troops involved in
logistics and support.
There is no doubt in the minds of the Bloc members that, judging
from our past experience in peacekeeping operations, Canada
ought to assume tasks more closely related to surveillance and
communications, both being areas in which we have recognized
expertise. In other words, only a small proportion of our troops
should consist of combat troops.
The public also has the right to know how long our troops will be
in Bosnia-Hercegovina. According to the Department of National
Defence, allied chiefs of staff have agreed on rules for troop
deployment for a period of 12 months. What if the government
wants to extend the mandate of our troops? Will Parliament be
asked to do so two days before their mandate expires, as was the
case last April, when it was asked to renew the mandate of our
peacekeepers with UNPROFOR? And will the Canadian
government once again have made up its mind, as it did today,
before the matter is tabled in Parliament? Will it show the same
lack of consideration for the people of Quebec and Canada?
Will Canada have a political say in how our soldiers are used?
This matter is an important one for the Bloc Quebecois. We realize
that Canada has a moral obligation to participate in the
implementation of the Dayton agreements. However, this
obligation should not obscure the fact that we also have a
responsibility to the public and to the soldiers who will be deployed
over there. The Bloc Quebecois feels that the Canadian government
should at all
17150
times have the right to withdraw its troops from this mission.
Ottawa should provide assurances to that end as well as a plan for
emergency withdrawal.
According to the latest news, France, Belgium and Canada
wanted a say in operations in case of incidents on the ground, but
the United States objected.
(1530)
It seems the matter has been resolved, but no one knows what
transpired. The Canadian government must answer these questions
before sending a single soldier to Bosnia.
Today, the public does not know how many of our soldiers will
be sent over there, what role they will play or to which international
division they will belong. Although these questions are important
and deserve clear answers, the public is even more concerned about
the risks to which our soldiers will be exposed.
There are also a number of other aspects involved in the
implementation of the Dayton peace agreements, and I am
referring to the judgment of war criminals. As far as the Bloc
Quebecois is concerned, the war crimes tribunal set up by the
United Nations must pursue its mission fully and independently.
According to my party, we cannot condone amnesty for those who
are accused of war crimes, including Bosnian Serb leader Radovan
Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic.
The Dayton agreements indicate that these two individuals are to
be excluded from political life, and rumour has it that these
``warlords'' may benefit from some kind of amnesty. Can the
Government of Canada tell us whether it intends to insist that our
allies and the international community respect the mandate of the
international criminal court? We consider it would be unacceptable
otherwise.
If the Dayton accords can be implemented without too much
problem, we will be morally obliged to help the people of the
former Yugoslavia rebuild their country. We will have to see what
we can do, from an economic point of view. So the federal
government should take a clear stand immediately on the role it
intends to play at the meeting of the World Bank in Brussels to
come up with funds for Bosnia-Hercegovina. Similarly, we might
ask ourselves whether Canada will help in the expunging of
Bosnia-Hercegovina's foreign debt, given the lamentable state of
its own public finances. These are the questions that warrant our
attention, and the position of the Canadian government should be
clarified as quickly as possible.
In closing, you will permit me to once again express my regret at
the fact that the federal government had decided, even before
holding this debate, that it would send Canadian troops to former
Yugoslavia. In so doing, as it did with the renewal of Canada's
participation in UNPROFOR in May, the government is
demonstrating a lack of respect for Canadians.
We would like the government to again consult this House
within a year on whether we should pursue our involvement, and
we would hope that it would not do so within a couple of hours of
renewing the mandate.
Finally, I would like to point out that, in view of the change in
our soldiers' mandate in Bosnia-Hercegovina, it would appear vital
the government keep open the option of withdrawing our troops at
any time. If the NATO mission passes without incident, so much
the better. However, should the situation worsen, the government
should keep all its options open including that of bringing our
troops home.
This last eventuality should not be taken lightly, because again
last Saturday, General Ratko Mladic, the leader of the Bosnian
Serbs, said that the Dayton accords on Sarajevo should be
renegotiated and that the Serbs would never agree to being
governed by what they call the ``butchers''. A short while ago, the
American general, John Shalikashvili, said the following on the
NATO mission in Bosnia-Hercegovina as well:
[English]
``The mission will be tough, there is no doubt about it, and we
have to be prepared for casualties''.
[Translation]
The federal government will soon be sending our troops to
Bosnia-Hercegovina as part of a mission to impose peace, which
will be neither fun nor entertaining. The federal government must
therefore be fully aware and act accordingly, because the lives of
our soldiers are at stake. Ottawa must also get busy about other
aspects of this mission, including proceedings against those guilty
of war crimes.
The government may rest assured that the Bloc will be watching
carefully and will follow the situation closely to ensure that the
interests of our soldiers and, of course, of the people of Bosnia are
looked after.
(1535 )
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for a presentation that
certainly relates to the debate. I want to make a couple of
comments with respect to the more pointed nature of my feelings
on what he had to say.
I certainly do understand his concern as a member of the
opposition about the possibility of changing the structure, the
participation, the withdrawal, or the future of any NATO force and
the Canadian participation without a debate in the House. I would
at the same time quickly remind him that his leader was a member
of the government who not more than four years ago participated in
committing a very large Canadian force to the Persian Gulf without
17151
as much as one word of debate in the House. I will tell him that if
that has to happen, I would ask him to be considerate because it is
not without precedent.
The previous government, of which his leader was a cabinet
minister, used the phrase that it was not expeditious and propitious
to do that. It is not always propitious and expeditious, so I would
ask him to have understanding for these kinds of things.
I was expecting to hear from the parties opposite some comment
on the size and structure of the force. I will give the hon. member
credit, he talked about the possibility of surveillance and
communications troops. But he did not give any indication of the
scope of money he or his party were prepared to support.
The opposition parties, both the main opposition and the third
party, have been mouthing off to the press. They have been going
through a great litany and lexicon of rhetoric about not having a
debate. Now that the time has arrived, lo and behold, they do not
want to tell us what is on their minds. I have not heard a member of
the opposition, with the exception of the possibility of surveillance
and communications troops, say anything about what they would
like to have in the way of whether it should be military,
quasi-military, should we be a member of the commission, what
kinds of rules of engagement we should have, what kind of a force
we should have that is tailored to this kind of a mission, what kinds
of conditions we should have in place to withdraw.
The conditions are right for the members of the opposition to
stand up and put their money where their mouths are and tell us
what they want to do. Do not be afraid. We will consider it. We may
not do it to the letter of the law, but give us some range. What do
they have in mind? What are we good at doing? Should we
continue doing what we were doing before or should we do
something differently? What other areas of expertise would they
like us to use? Mr. Speaker, ask them to tell us what they would like
to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I ask the parliamentary secretary, to
read the remarks I made a few minutes ago, when they are available
tomorrow.
The parliamentary secretary claims that we made no suggestions
to the government. He really should read what I said, because we
made many suggestions to the government, and it ought to consider
them. None of the speeches by members on the government side
this morning ever mentioned the number of troops it intends to
send to Bosnia or the length of time they would have to stay there.
None of the speeches made from the government mentioned the
type of troops to be sent there. Should they be combat troops,
communications troops, engineering troops, medical support
troops?
The government has been absolutely silent on this issue since it
called this debate. Today, we are asked to debate this issue. We
readily admit that it is up to the government to make decisions on
foreign policy, but we do not recognize in this debate the
commitment made by this government to consult Parliament on
foreign policy issues, since they are always hurried consultations.
When Parliament is consulted, it is always in a hurry. On the one
hand, members of Parliament cannot prepare adequately and, on
the other, they know that the government has already made up its
mind and decided what to do even before they were consulted. This
whole consultation process in the House is nothing but a sham.
(1540)
When the parliamentary secretary claims that we do not
recognize this role of the government, mentioning that the present
Leader of the Opposition was a member of the previous
government, I simply remind him, because he seems not to have
noticed yet, that the Leader of the Opposition resigned from the
Conservative government and is now the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am absolutely astounded at the hon. member's suggestions. I know
my colleagues in the Reform Party, who have been weak kneed
today, agree with me at least in respect of the hon. member who
just spoke, who has made these outrageous suggestions that
somehow the government is at fault for not explaining its policies.
I sat here this morning and heard the Minister of National
Defence make the most lucid remarks explaining the government's
position and saying what he felt the government's obligation was.
He laid it out for all members of the House to hear. The hon.
parliamentary secretary made a speech that was a model of clarity
and brilliance. Yet the opposition has sought to obfuscate on this
matter.
The hon. member who just spoke will not tell us his party's
views. As we said, the whole purpose of the debate is to hear the
views of all hon. members so the government can reach a decision
based on the views of members of the House.
[Translation]
The hon. member who just spoke did not explain the official
opposition's views. I am surprised that he did not clearly explain
them when he answered the question put to him by my colleague,
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
Instead, he attacked the hon. member who asked the question. I
cannot understand this.
[English]
He said that the hon. member did not know what he was talking
about, that the government was not coming clean with the House
and the government had an obligation to lead and decide and make
all the decisions. Yes, it does, and the government will make the
decision on Wednesday. The Minister of National Defence
indicated that ever so clearly in his remarks this morning.
Obviously it has gone right over the heads of hon. members
opposite.
17152
Mr. Bergeron: May I answer?
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member will get a chance to respond. I
am looking forward to his response, but I would like him to answer
some questions. Will he tell us how much money he thinks we
should spend on this mission, how long we should stay, how many
troops we should commit? Tell us the answers to those questions.
The government will listen to the hon. member and make a
decision accordingly.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to see our government
colleagues claim that they want a non-partisan debate while they
turn it into a truly partisan debate through their speeches, questions
and comments following our speeches.
In my speech, I clearly indicated how many troops-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bergeron: If you listened, you might understand my
answer. Pay attention to what I am telling you.
How many troops should we send? I mentioned that. How long
should they stay? I mentioned that. How much should it cost? I
mentioned that too.
I do not know if the member for Kingston and the Islands was
peacefully resting on his desk during my speech, but, obviously, he
did not listen to anything I said.
An hon. member: This is not the first time, it is always like that.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just
arrived. Certainly it is a great way to start off one's debate on this
very important matter.
I heard people across the way saying that the government should
make a decision on this thing. I suppose if the government had
made a decision on it, then we would have been doing the wrong
thing and should have had the debate in the first place. As I
understood, this was the object of the exercise, to have a debate. At
the end of the day, with the feelings of the House of Commons
made known, the government will make a decision as to our
participation in the former Yugoslavia.
It is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate today because I
am one of the people who believe that Parliament should take part
in these debates and decisions that are being made in this type of
operation to send our troops to foreign countries. This is something
we have said in this place for the seven years I have been here, that
these debates should take place. By and large that is what happened
since our party came into power in 1993.
(1545)
I have no doubt, and I do not think many have, in what should
happen to our role in the peace process in the former Yugoslavia.
Peace in the region has been a long time coming, but it has finally
arrived. I am glad to say that with the participation of the
implementation force with Canada peace will be maintained.
Some hon. members from across the floor, as well as some other
Canadians, have questioned the role we have played in the former
Yugoslavia to date and have even questioned if we should be there
at all.
As I have said before, I believe we were needed then and, more
important, we are needed now more than ever. The conflict that
ended with the agreement reached in Dayton, Ohio contained many
atrocities the global community should never have witnessed and
hopefully will never witness again.
To ensure this Canada must continue its tradition of
peacekeeping and participate in the implementation force. We must
help maintain the fragile peace that has been maintained.
International involvement is a benefit to everyone. The world is
a complex community. States are interrelated in many ways,
economically, politically and socially.
Conflict breeds conflict and we must do all we can to prevent
conflicts from occurring and end the ones that already exist. Better
relations among nations carry a benefit shared by all. Peace
operations are a major part of this philosophy.
All of us know Canada has a long distinguished tradition of
peacekeeping. We all like to trot out the name of the hon. Lester B.
Pearson. He was the man who invented it.
Our forces are not strangers to international missions, and we all
speak about that. We are all so proud of that. Only a select few such
as Canada have taken a lead in peacekeeping. Since 1947 more than
100,000 Canadians have served abroad in over 30 peacekeeping
and related operations.
This is unmatched by our allies. We have recently paid homage
to the 103 Canadian soldiers who gave their lives in these missions.
Unfortunately I doubt they will be the last, but this is a risk we must
take.
We are acting for a greater goal. International peace and security
do not come without a price. The end of the cold war was
celebrated by many, but little did we realize that such a vacuum
would bring about so many regional conflicts. The importance of
joint intervention has increased tremendously over the last number
of years.
17153
As a result international organizations, primarily United
Nations, have become more involved in interest state disputes,
having to toil with human rights and humanitarian issues on a far
greater scale than ever before.
The potential for peace is there and Canada must do its part to
achieve it. Without international co-operation how can we expect
world peace to become a reality? We are not magicians and we
cannot pull a white dove out of a black hat. We, as a member of the
industrialized world, must accept reality and participate in the fight
for peace. Canada long ago accepted this fact.
Not only are we members of numerous international
organizations, we have continually participated in every United
Nations peacekeeping operation. It is our duty to continue to play
our role in this way.
As everyone knows, the nature of peacekeeping missions has
changed dramatically since they were first established. From
unarmed observers of peace agreements in the early years of
peacekeeping, they have since taken on stronger roles of armed
enforcers of peace agreements. It was a slow transition until
recently. Since the end of the cold war international missions have
been given much tougher mandates. In some cases, such as Bosnia,
they were not wanted, they were not respect and they were even
used as human shields.
(1550)
Yes, much has change since 1947. Generally we speak of
peacekeeping in general terms, but peacekeeping has not always
been peacekeeping in the true sense of the word. Missions have
been used to contain the conflict and maintain the surrounding
peace, to actually make peace or to enforce the peace once it had
been reached.
The signing of the peace agreement with the formal peace accord
to be signed on December 14 has stopped the fighting and the
conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Peace has been made. Canadian
personnel were there and will be there to assist humanitarian
operations.
We were not there to keep the peace earlier because there was no
peace. Now that peace has been reached as part of IFOR, we will be
there to keep the peace, hence that is where peacekeeping comes
from.
Although the mission will be a NATO led enforcement mission
and not a peacekeeping mission in the traditional sense, to me it is
still very much a peacekeeping mission. There will be peace to be
kept.
Already we have heard some members focus on the specific role
our men and women should play in IFOR. Before I add my views
on these matters I will talk about the process of determining our
role. Let us have no doubt that the Canadian government will have
the final say on all rules of engagement used by Canadian forces.
To me there is little question that we should participate in IFOR,
but how many, for how long and in what capacity is up for debate.
The Minister of National Defence has consulted our allies on what
is still needed for this force. What other countries have already
committed will also determine what we will say.
There are many ways we can participate and contribute to the
implementation force. There is a multitude of military tasks within
the mission, all of which I will not dwell on given the amount of
time I have, but I would like to mention a few.
Recently we heard the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands
suggest we send an air squadron rather than land forces. All of the
air power required is needed from other countries. We have always
had troops on the ground to cover the front line. Our troops should
be there. Our troops have much to offer in enforcing the ceasefire,
enforcing the demilitarization zones to defend persons, property or
areas designated as protected, and so on.
Do not get me wrong, that should not end our contribution.
Besides having our infantry we should contribute in areas of
logistical, medical and air support.
The parameters of the implementation force appear to be quite
broad and they are not just to keep the peace but in co-operation
with civilian assistance to help rebuild the region. War has
devastating effects on people, their communities and countries.
The former Yugoslavia has much to rebuild. The capital city,
Sarajevo, where just 10 short years ago the Olympic Games were
held, is in ruin. Canada should participate in the non-military
operations as well. Getting the region rebuilt quickly will diffuse
many grudges held and allow countries to withdraw their forces
sooner rather than later.
We all know Canada is proud of its troops, for they are among
the best in the world. We should give them a symbol of that
admiration. To my colleagues on all sides of the House I say yes to
the implementation force, yes to sending our troops and yes to
giving them the recognition they need when it is over.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate the member for Hillsborough for his speech
describing what the Canadian Armed Forces have done over the
years. It is true their peacekeeping activity has been quite
extraordinary. However, Canadians, people in my riding who
elected me and who expect me to ask the appropriate questions here
in this House when it is necessary, are wondering what to think
now.
(1555)
They wonder if Canada can still afford the operations it is
conducting all over the world, at a time when we are cutting
welfare benefits, at a time when we are asking a bigger sacrifice
from all Canadians and all Quebecers. That is the question we
should ask ourselves.
17154
Can we still afford such measures? If our means are limited,
why not be content with limited involvement, instead of always
claiming that we are out to save the world?
Mr. Young: Take limited action, like the separatists.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): This has nothing to do with separatism.
The minister is just babbling away.
Why seek to do great things, at a great cost, when we know very
well that we cannot afford them? Let us be modest. That is what
Canadians and Quebecers will ask: that we be modest in the
decisions we make now.
Yes, we must go, to honour our commitments to NATO. But let
us participate according to our means. This really has to be said.
[English]
Mr. Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
lecture. It is tough when money is not available to do certain things
but if we do not work to maintain peace in the world we will not
have the luxury of social programs or anything else.
Conflict has the ability to spread throughout the world. That is
why we are in the NATO alliance. That is why we are members of
the United Nations. That is why we have participated actively over
the last 50 years to ensure the world is a better place. Even with all
the problems, Canada has played its role and should continue to
pay its role. I do not believe peace has a price.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with is an escalation of the
traditional peacekeeping, as the hon. member has pointed out, in
which Canada has proudly participated since the Suez crisis of
1956.
This is a new level of readiness, a combat situation. NATO is
clearly asking Canada for combat troops. The U.S. has said NATO
wants land forces and the U.S. president has said it is willing to
accept casualties in this higher level of participation.
The hon. member spoke about Canada always being there,
always able to be there. In the 1960s we had a force of some
120,000. In just a few short years we will be down to a force of
some 60,000 but the commitments have increased over time.
I quote from the defence minister's white paper of a few months
ago: ``Canada cannot and need not participate in every multilateral
operation. Our resources are finite and we may not agree with the
purpose or the organization of a given mission''.
How many Canadian soldiers have to be sacrificed so that the
Canadian government can continue on this course?
Mr. Proud: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Canadian government
does not want to sacrifice any Canadian soldiers. As I said, over a
period of years our forces have become smaller but we have
participated and I believe we have to participate.
We have talked many times about the situation in the former
Yugoslavia. Last year and the year before we were told we could
not do what we will be able to do this time. If our soldiers find
themselves in troublesome situations they can use force to get out
of them.
That is what we are saying. I am not suggesting for a minute we
want to sacrifice our soldiers. I believe this will be as safe a
mission as it can be. There is a chance of soldiers being injured in
any mission. That is life. Every man and woman who joins the
Canadian forces or any other force knows that.
We are not doing this to put Canadian soldiers at risk. We are
doing it to maintain the peace accord which has been signed and to
stop these terrible atrocities from continuing. I believe that Canada
and all Canadians will be proud to participate in such a force.
(1600)
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to rise this
afternoon.
Peacekeeping missions took a new turn in the 1990s. In order to
meet the new challenges of global security in the next century, we
need a United Nations Organization and other international
organizations that are able to play a more efficient role in conflict
resolution.
The extent and complexity of contemporary peacekeeping
missions call for the UN to ask regional organizations to play a
greater role in conflict resolution.
The role of NATO in this effort is an excellent example of the
co-operation that is possible between international organizations.
The UN is the ideal tool for giving legitimacy to an international
peace mission and NATO is the organization best equipped for
carrying out a mission in Europe, especially one that could call for
the use of force. But the UN still needs to be changed.
Created in the 1940s, the organization must get the tools
necessary for facing the challenges of global security in this
century and those to come. The UN record since the end of the cold
war is quite impressive for the most part. Missions in El Salvador,
Cambodia, Mozambique and Haiti have produced sound results.
But failures in Africa and the former Yugoslavia have raised some
doubts.
Unfortunately, many member states put all the problems of the
world on the UN's shoulders, which is very unfair. Member states
must stop criticizing and start doing their bit. Canada is well aware
of the UN's problems, but our government is determined to find
solutions.
17155
Given our experience and expertise in all aspects of
peacekeeping and the new ideas we propose, we are in a unique
position to help the UN. Canada helps to improve UN
peacekeeping missions in different ways, such as offering
expertise at UN headquarters in New York and establishing the
Lester B. Pearson training centre for peacekeeping at Cornwallis,
Nova Scotia.
As Canadians, we can offer pragmatic and feasible ideas to
prepare the UN for the future. Last September, for example,
Canada submitted to the General Assembly the results of a study to
improve the UN's capacity to respond in times of crisis. Events in
Rwanda showed that simple measures can settle a crisis before it is
completely out of control.
[English]
The Canadian study recommends concrete changes at all levels
of the UN system to ensure that such measures can be implemented
quickly and effectively. These changes would be cost effective and
their implementation would not require any reform to the present
UN charter.
The studies clear recommendation is its proposal to create a
multi-national, multi-disciplinary headquarters planning cell,
comprised of military and civilian personnel from member states.
This planning cell, which would operate under the authority of the
security council and the strategic direction of the
Secretary-General, would fill an enormous vacuum in the UN
system.
It would be responsible for planning and preparing for rapid
deployment of a multi-functional standby force of up to 5,000
military and civilian personnel. This force would be deployed for a
brief period either to meet an immediate crisis or to anticipate the
arrival of follow-on forces or a more traditional peacekeeping
operation.
(1605)
For this vanguard concept to work, this rapid reaction force, the
UN standby arrangement system would need to be enhanced so that
all the essential components of the force, either military or civilian,
could be identified well in advance.
The authority to deploy personnel would still require a UN
resolution as well as the consent of each participating government.
So far the response to our study from other member states has been
encouraging. We look forward to building on this initiative in the
months ahead.
In conclusion, while the international environment is becoming
even more complex, it is no surprise that peacekeeping has
followed suit. As new security threats continue to emerge, Canada
and other members of the international community must not let up
their efforts to discover new and innovative approaches to
peacekeeping.
Whatever the challenges are, Canada's commitment to this
useful conflict resolution tool should remain steadfast.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has been saying today that this
debate is a lot of smoke and mirrors because we will not have the
opportunity to vote on this issue.
The argument that we are putting forward is that the government
has already made a decision and has committed to sending troops.
I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on the most
recent Canadian Press report from just a few minutes ago. It states:
``A NATO official has said that Canada has committed a
headquarters brigade and a battalion to IFOR''. This would mean a
participation in the neighbourhood of anywhere between 1,200 and
1,500 people. What does the member have to say?
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite
for his question. What he just said, however, is not quite true.
Absolutely nothing has been decided. Members of the third party
have not yet revealed any of their views concerning the force to be
deployed in the former Yugoslavia.
I have been here for nearly an hour, but I have still not heard any
real suggestions from the third party. I will remain in the House a
little longer to see if they offer any positive suggestions.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the speech by the hon. member opposite, I would like to share some
of my thoughts about what is going on.
The government is asking us to agree to send troops under NATO
command, but it is being vague about it. This is what makes it
difficult. It is difficult for us to take a position, because we do not
know how much that will cost, how long the mission will last and
what responsibilities will be given to our troops.
It is therefore very difficult for the opposition to decide. We, in
the Bloc, are in agreement with that. We agree but, as I said earlier,
restraint has to be used, and my hon. colleague just said something
similar. So we agree on this. However, we will not know, before
this debate comes to an end, how much all this will cost. In other
words, the government is asking us to give it a blank cheque. I
would like the hon. member's reaction to that.
(1610)
Mr. Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Shefford for his question. We are here to listen to what the official
opposition has to say.
Let me repeat what I told the member of the third party. I did not
hear any suggestion from that party as to the size and the duration
of our involvement. I will stay in the House for a while, and I look
17156
forward to hearing members in the official opposition at least tell
us what they think about that.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to get a very clear and definitive answer to the question that my
colleague just asked the hon. member. Has Canada already
committed troops to this UN initiative? Yes or no.
Mr. Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that there has been a
commitment from Canada to participate. There has been no clear
commitment on the number of forces and other things to be
committed.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to participate in the debate
today on an issue of national importance, the NATO mandate to
commit a peace implementation force to Bosnia.
The Reform Party supports international peacekeeping
commitments and takes pride in the work that our armed forces
have done worldwide. They have a reputation of being the best
peacekeepers in the world and this reputation is well deserved.
From Korea, Cambodia, the Golan Heights, Bosnia, Somalia and
Rwanda Canadians have been there and have done the job asked of
them with honour, dignity and determination. They have performed
above and even beyond the call of duty.
Nothing serves to show the dedication and bravery of our troops
better than the rescue mission of a Romanian freighter sinking in a
storm off the Atlantic coast this past weekend. A master corporal
with the support of his colleagues rescued the crew in a 30-year-old
helicopter despite the odds and the shortcomings of this antiquated
vehicle. This helicopter lacks sufficient range, forcing the frigate to
close in tightly to the distressed ship and the master corporal and
his colleagues are true Canadian heroes.
Since the end of the cold war peacekeeping has changed
dramatically. We have left the era of classic peacekeeping to a new
era of active peace enforcing. In response to this change the Liberal
government has increased Canada's peacekeeping commitments.
However, the Liberals have done this without a coherent policy.
They have increased our commitment while decreasing
significantly the resources they are willing to allocate to the
Department of National Defence and military personnel.
This must be considered before we can determine what kind of
force Canada is able to contribute to IFOR. We must also have a
clear set of conditions before we commit our armed forces to a task
such as this.
Reform Party members have developed such a clear set of
conditions that we would like followed before committing our
troops on peacekeeping and peace enforcing missions. The Reform
Party's conditions are: one, all peacekeeping missions must be
approved in advance by Parliament, including a proposed budget;
two, the belligerents must signify their genuine willingness to
settle their conflict peacefully; three, the mandate, duration and
rules of engagement must be specified and adequate command and
control must be in place, sufficient resources must be available to
do the job; four, Canada must be included in any diplomatic
negotiations; five, rules governing troop rotation must be
established and adhered to.
As it stands right now the Liberal government has not been
forthcoming with information to determine whether these
conditions are being met.
(1615 )
Today we are debating the issue of contributing to the NATO
peace enforcing mission in Bosnia. However, this is only a take
note debate. Parliament will make no decisions here today. The
government has already made the decision.
The United States has made it known that Canada is contributing
between 1,200 and 1,500 troops. Twenty-two Canadians were sent
to Bosnia on Saturday with other NATO forces to begin the
preparations for the main NATO force. The Canadian people had no
voice in this decision.
Canadians will not know whether the belligerents are genuine
about peace until they sign a formal agreement scheduled for
December 14. This is not a done deal. The leader of the Bosnian
Serbs has already served notice that he is not happy with the accord
and he has warned of bloodshed over Sarajevo.
While supporting all peace efforts in Bosnia, I have a number of
military concerns this government must take into consideration
before sending our troops to Bosnia. Before we make a
commitment to IFOR we must first assess whether our land forces
have the personnel, the equipment, and the resources necessary to
contribute to the IFOR mission; second, whether our land forces
are facing a morale problem; and third, whether questions on
leadership raised by the Somalia inquiry should be addressed prior
to a deployment of this nature.
For the past 25 years the Canadian Armed Forces have been
abused politically and financially by governments to the point
where our forces are in disarray. They are quickly becoming
ineffective in taking on missions asked of them by the government.
This is not an indictment of our military personnel who shoulder
the burden of these commitments, but it is a condemnation of
successive governments that have failed to provide effective
leadership and resources to the Department of National Defence.
Our armed forces are at the edge not of technology or effectiveness,
but at the edge of survival as a fighting force.
17157
The 1995 budget of the Liberal government has cut the defence
budget to the point of calling into question whether our land forces
are capable of sustaining any combat role. To the Minister of
Finance I say that there is a point at which armed forces must be
funded to remain viable. We have hit that point. Yet the
Department of National Defence is bracing itself for more cuts
at a time when our government finally is calling on them to do
a job they should have been equipped to do in the first place.
No other country has neglected its armed forces as much as
Canada. In the early 1960s our armed forces totalled over 120,000.
Today the Liberal government is reducing that number to some
60,000. Yet the demand on our armed forces has remained the
same. And the demand on our military personnel will only increase
as the new world order unfolds.
Our whole army is approximately 23,000 people, which is
smaller than the metropolitan Toronto police force. In fact we
could take the whole army and march it into B.C. Place Stadium to
watch a football game and there would still be room for thousands
of additional spectators.
In addition, our armed forces have been almost demilitarized.
The government has trained and equipped our land forces for
classical peacekeeping based on lightly armed troops. Leaders are
being taught the wrong lessons, which could result in a disaster
when faced with a serious combat situation. This is at a time when
classical peacekeeping is required less and less.
Peacekeeping missions are now peace enforcing missions,
requiring the skills and equipment our government has neglected.
The Liberals have based their security policy on peacekeeping
alone, at the expense of our combat readiness and conventional
capabilities.
Being trained and equipped to act as a peacekeeping force is a far
cry from stepping into a conventional combat role. This is what the
Liberals are asking of our land forces today. Due to the Liberal
government's procrastination, our 30-year old armoured personnel
carriers will not be replaced until 1997. The land forces lack
critical support infrastructure such as logistics and medical.
(1620 )
I would like to quote from a recent study by the Conference of
Defence Associations. They state:
-the Armed Forces are in fact a facade, or a three-dimensional chess board, in
which many pieces are missing from the main board, and almost none exist at all
on the lower supporting boards.
If the Liberals send our land forces on this IFOR combat mission
to Bosnia, we may be asking our land forces to pay the price for the
lack of government leadership they have had. No wonder morale in
the Canadian Armed Forces is at its all time low. The Minister of
National Defence in his rhetoric blames the low morale on the
Reform Party. However, the attack on our armed forces by the
Liberal government is responsible for the low morale. This in turn
has its own cost on operational ability in our land forces. For the
past three years they have been forced to rotate 3,000 personnel on
UN missions every six months. To many, this may not sound like
very much. Many states can field such a force without difficulty.
But because of the size of our modest land forces, successive
rotations of 3,000 troops is a significant burden.
In fact it is a burden that normal training, which is imperative
before any mission, has ground to a halt. Our land forces have been
forced to scramble to be able to put together the personnel and the
units to fulfil the commitments the government has obliged them to
do.
Sadly, the Minister of National Defence blames again, of course,
the Reform Party, the only party that is looking out for the interests
of our troops, for the problems of his own making. The minister is
responsible for the morale problems and should not pass the buck
in this cowardly manner.
The morale problem is well documented. For example, an
August 1995 chaplains' report states that we are seriously taxing
the morale necessary to remain a competent force. It states that
rapid successions of deployments requiring the members to
continually be away from their families must be balanced with
adequate time at home. Stress levels are at all time high, resulting
in breakdown of the family and other serious problems.
I am gravely concerned that the government will commit a
significant number of our land forces personnel to Bosnia without
taking the morale issue of the rotation of our troops into
consideration. We cannot rely on land forces reserves to take up the
slack. We need them to help the regulars maintain operational
strength during their UN tours. While this was occurring, the
Minister of National Defence announced the number of militia
reserves was being cut by some 6,000.
The rapid succession of deployments is not the only factor that is
reducing morale and operational effectiveness. The Somalia
inquiry has raised a number of questions regarding the leadership
of our forces as well. The leadership problems have been
documented extensively by senior officers in the Canadian forces.
For example, one report last March states that there is a grave lack
of confidence in the senior defence hierarchy among the rank and
file. The report states that there is a widespread belief in the
Canadian Armed Forces that political agendas and careerism have
replaced leadership in the defence hierarchy. The report discusses
the perception among soldiers that the loyalty and focus of senior
officers is directed upwards, and not downwards to the rank and
file. It criticizes how leaders appear hypersensitive to human rights
and political correctness at the expense of building the warrior
ethic in soldiers. The report states that soldiers perceive that their
interests
17158
and welfare are being sacrificed so that senior leaders can be
successful in delivering the same bang for the buck.
It is ill advised for the government to consider sending combat
troops to Bosnia, given the seriousness of this problem and the fact
that the Somalia inquiry investigating the chain of command will
not issue a report and recommendations until June 1996.
The government should seriously consider the current state of
land forces before committing them to this combat mission. I stress
this is not the classical peacekeeping to which Canadians have
become accustomed, nor are our land forces trained and equipped.
Our whole land force has spent the last three years training for
peacekeeping deployments. They lack the equipment and the
resources. Morale is low and there are questions about leadership
that must be addressed. This is not the time to send them on a
mission for which they are ill prepared.
(1625)
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that
the third party had a golden opportunity to really put its policies
forward and boost the morale of our forces at all three service
levels, really make an input, really make a significant contribution
nationally and internationally, and what do they do? They talk
about Somalia. They talk about all other issues except the motion
that is on the table. The official opposition at least gave us some
figures. They said our commitment should be up to 2,000 troops, et
cetera. I wish they would have gone on more specifically, what
kind and so on. But the third party has not given the government
one constructive suggestion.
On one hand, they complain that the government has already
made up its mind. It has not. Cabinet is not meeting until
Wednesday. They read something in the newspapers. It is like the
budget: someone reads something in the newspapers and they call
it a budget leak. That is what they are comparing this to. Forget
about what is in the newspapers. Give the government constructive
suggestions and concrete ideas. This is their golden opportunity,
and they are blowing it.
They praise our peacekeepers and then in all their debates what
do they do? They bring the morale right down as low as they can
get it. If I were out there fighting, I certainly would not listen to
what they were saying. That really would depress me.
I have always respected the hon. member for having good ideas.
I am wondering if in the time left he would share them with us.
What is it he would like cabinet to consider? What are the options?
Do we participate at all? If so, how many troops? Two thousand
troops? What kind? Should we forget about that altogether and go
on the human rights side on other issues?
Let us hear it. This is their golden opportunity and they are
blowing it.
Mr. Hart: Thank you very much for that disjointed odd
question.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Babblelogue.
Mr. Hart: Babblelogue, yes, that is a good comment.
The opposition parties have a deep concern for what the
government will do. It is very clear, and let us not pull any punches
on this. What NATO has been asking for and what the U.S. has been
asking for are combat troops to participate in IFOR.
This is not the same kind of mission Canada has participated in
before, in peacekeeping missions. Let us look at the problems. The
cornerstone of a peacekeeping mission depends on the fact that our
troops are trained in compromise and negotiation, two cornerstones
of peacekeeping operations. Canadians have done that job very
well, but now we are moving to a new level. We are moving to the
level of combat troops, peace enforcement. Get it out of your head
that this is the same somehow as a peacekeeper, because it is not.
There are no blue helmets any more. We are talking about a
demilitarized zone that has been partitioned through the country of
Bosnia. That partition is going through towns, cities, villages,
farmlands, and there will be some action there. There will be some
firing. Anybody on that side of the House who says there will not
be is not being honest with the Canadian public. There will be. The
U.S. President has stated that there will be and casualties are
expected.
(1630)
Canadians have to look at what we have been doing in
peacekeeping operations since 1956, since the Suez crisis. We have
let the equipment and the numbers of our Canadian Armed Forces
decline.
I served in the Canadian Armed Forces twice in my adult time. I
know the results of what a Liberal government can do to the
Canadian Armed Forces when it is in charge. I have lived through
it. I am surprised by the hon. parliamentary secretary's attitude. He
knows that the hands of a Liberal government ran our equipment
and our armed forces into severe decline. We do not have the
equipment to get involved in this peace enforcement mission.
There are also serious problems in the land forces command which
simply have to be addressed.
Members opposite continually blame the Reform Party for the
terrible morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. Members of the
Reform Party support the armed forces and many in this caucus
17159
have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. No, we are not to
blame for the morale problem. It is the decline in numbers, the
decline in support. On the other side of the coin there is the
increase in demands being placed on our military while the
resources are shrinking.
The white paper says very clearly that Canada does not have
finite resources. We have to pick and choose which missions to
participate in. Canadians have participated honourably and
valiantly for three and a half years in the former Yugoslavia. No,
we are not turning our backs. But for God's sake, we will not send
our troops ill equipped and with a serious morale problem into a
combat situation. It is a recipe for disaster and this government will
pay the price for it if it decides to take that decision.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, do I understand from the hon. member that the druthers of
the third party is not to send any troops to participate in this
operation?
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear in my comments.
I am saying if it is the intention of the government to send combat
troops, and the indication is that NATO is asking for combat ground
force troops according to information made available to me as a
parliamentarian, received through Access to Information and
conversations with senior officers.
Many frustrated people in Canada are banging down my door
saying to do something about this. I do not think I can make it
much more clear to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I am
representing the constituents of my riding and other people across
the country who have phoned my office saying: ``Do not send
combat troops''. Can I make it any more plain?
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is banging on the
member's door. The member spoke of the HMCS Calgary and the
brave actions of an outfit that he claims has difficulty with morale.
Has he considered the awards that have been made, and I hope he
attended some of the presentations by the Right Hon. Roméo
LeBlanc at Rideau Hall, for some outstanding acts of heroism? Has
he considered this action of an outfit that is plagued by bad morale?
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary is
pointing out and I have acknowledged in the House today the
courageous activities of the crew of the HMCS Calgary and the
courageous activities of those people on the Sea King helicopter
who literally plucked survivors out of a very dangerous situation.
We are not talking about the activities of our naval forces; we are
talking about land force command. We are talking about soldiers on
the ground with boots and rifles and they do not have the
equipment. I say again that if the government is talking about those
types of troops, absolutely no.
(1635)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to our Standing
Orders, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at
the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Social Programs.
[English]
Mr. Janko
Peric
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the
motion concerning Canada's participation in the peace
implementation force to be deployed within Bosnia-Hercegovina.
The Dayton peace agreement has given the world a great deal of
hope; hope that the situation in the former Yugoslavia will once and
for all improve, and hope that innocent people will no longer have
to suffer the violence of war.
Having come from that region of the world, this peace agreement
touches me more personally than it does most other Canadians. I
would like nothing more than to see a lasting peace which would
ensure safety and security for all people in the former Yugoslavia.
I have had the honour to debate the issue of Canadian
involvement in the former Yugoslavia many times in the House.
Each time I have stated very clearly that I support Canadian
involvement as long as the lives of our men and women are not
placed in danger.
There were many times when I felt that Canadian peacekeepers
were not being given adequate tools to do the job which they had
been sent to do or adequate tools to protect themselves. When I
speak of adequate tools I am not only referring to weapons, I am
also referring to the mandate of UNPROFOR which often tied their
hands. In spite of these obstacles, Canadian peacekeepers managed
to make a valuable contribution to the fragile peace in Croatia and
to perform a valuable humanitarian role in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Although not always evident, Canadian peacekeepers are well
respected in the region. They have established a rapport with locals
in the areas to which they were assigned. That is fundamental to the
success of any peace mission.
The mission in which Canada is now being asked to participate is
different from that of UNPROFOR. The peace implementation
force will consist of approximately 60,000 military personnel. It
will be responsible for overseeing the military aspects of the peace
agreement recently reached in Dayton, Ohio. The force will be
organized into three divisions: one American, one British and one
French. Britain, France and the United States are collectively
contributing the bulk of the forces necessary for this mission. They
will send a combined total of 49,500 troops.
17160
NATO will assume command of the mission once IFOR is
deployed. However, it will operate under the authority of the
United Nations Security Council resolution which permits the use
of all necessary means to fulfil the mission.
(1640 )
Given that the formal peace agreement will not be signed until
December 14 of this year in Paris, it is unlikely that any
deployment of forces would take place prior to that date.
IFOR will not be a peacekeeping mission but rather a NATO led
enforcement mission. Where UNPROFOR was mandated only to
monitor the implementation of United Nations resolutions and to
provide an escort for humanitarian operations, IFOR will be there
to enforce the peace agreement.
Canadians and their allies have a great deal of work ahead of
them. They will be required to co-ordinate arrangements to ensure
freedom of movement and self-defence for IFOR troops within a
given sector. They will be required to monitor and if necessary,
enforce the withdrawal of parties to their respective territories.
They will also co-ordinate and mark boundaries and lines of
separation between parties and will establish, monitor and if
necessary man lines of separation.
In addition to those responsibilities, IFOR troops will enforce
the ceasefire provision of the peace agreement, defend persons,
properties and areas designated as protected, monitor the clearing
of minefields by parties to the agreement and provide a combat
capability to reinforce IFOR troops as required.
In addition to this already lengthy list of responsibilities, IFOR
will help to establish a joint military commission with civilians,
military and non-governmental agencies in the area and will assist
both the UNHCR and other civilian aid agencies in the conduct of
their humanitarian missions. As well, IFOR will observe, secure
and if necessary prevent interference in the movement of
populations, refugees, displaced persons and their property.
Needless to say, what I have just outlined will be a challenge for
all those participating in the IFOR mission. Canada has expertise in
all of these areas simply because of our historic role in difficult
peace missions around the globe.
As I stated earlier, our forces did an excellent job during the
UNPROFOR mission and often without necessary means. Canada
has already dedicated a great deal of time and effort to finding a
peaceful resolution to the situation in the former Yugoslavia. To
quit now when true peace is within reach would be a shame.
IFOR's mandate will give Canadian troops the tools needed to
succeed in the implementation of the Dayton peace agreement. It
will also give them the tools they need to protect themselves. To
pull out now after we have done so much already would be like
throwing in the towel in the third period of the Stanley Cup final.
We cannot let our allies down at this stage of the game. It would
be wrong to let down the hundreds of thousands of refugees and
displaced persons who are counting on our help and who have
trusted us for so long.
Not only would I encourage my government to contribute a
modest force to IFOR so that we can finish what we started back in
1991, I would also encourage it to take a stronger leadership role in
this region.
(1645 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I share the
sentiments the hon. member just gave about the refugees and how
we are going to deal with them. However, we have not talked about
what sort of a mandate we have, what sort of numbers. We have not
talked about any of the details.
We are told to come up with all of these figures, that it is the
opposition's job to come up with all of this. I thought the
government would come forward with a proposal which we would
then debate and discuss. The government does not have any ideas
and it expects us to supply them.
We have listened to a lot of things. Just about an hour ago a CP
reporter said that he had been told by a NATO official that Canada
has committed a battalion of combat troops. We heard the Prime
Minister say that Canadians could be there for up to three years.
What does he know that we do not know? Why would he say
something like that? We have heard Mr. Ouellet say that we are
committed-
The Deputy Speaker: When referring to ministers the hon.
member will please address them by their titles rather than their
names.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With all of this
being commented on by the Prime Minister, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, the defence minister and NATO officials, why do
we not have the information so we can honestly debate it?
Mr.
Peric:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of our colleagues from the
third party. We are at the doorstep of long lasting peace. I am
confident that Canada is ready to contribute whatever is necessary.
I hope that this mission lasts only for six or twelve months. I
would be very disappointed if it lasts for three years. I believe it
will not last that long.
By pulling out right now we would betray not only our allies but
the people who trusted us for so long in Bosnia-Hercegovina. We
would betray the people in that area.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): It's a different mandate.
17161
Mr.
Peric:
It might be a different mandate but I strongly believe that we are
ready for that mandate, that our soldiers are highly qualified for
that.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to commend the member for Cambridge for his remarks.
Sometimes in this place, although we are all equals, some
remarks from some members perhaps carry a little more weight.
Certainly the member for Cambridge knows of which he speaks
with his heritage and culture from that area, from the former
Yugoslavia. Also he has been extremely active in forming an
association within Parliament for the Canada-Croatia-Bosnia
society.
I commend the member for his work in this area and for his
fostering an understanding among parliamentarians like myself of
the complexities of the situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina, as well as
all of the other states in the former Yugoslavia.
I would ask for his comments about the positive aspects of the
Canadian presence in Bosnia-Hercegovina as well as in Croatia.
What has been the impact of the presence of Canadians while the
war was still going on with respect to the people of
Bosnia-Hercegovina? Can he tell me what the impact has been and
perhaps that will help explain why he is so adamant that the
presence should continue?
Mr.
Peric:
Mr. Speaker, coming from that area and knowing the mentality
over there I would like to answer my colleague as well as
colleagues of the third party that the morale of Canadian
peacekeepers is very high. They are highly respected. The morale
on the other side is very low. I am not afraid that our soldiers will
not do the proper job over there. I am very confident because all
three sides highly respect Canadian soldiers.
(1650)
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
been listening to the debate since this morning and there is an issue
that has not been mentioned a lot if at all, and that is the impunity
of those who have committed crimes against the civilian
population.
It is the same story in Rwanda where almost one million people
have been killed and the murderers are going scot-free. In Haiti, the
military regime left without being punished and we have the
feeling that the same thing will happen in the former Yugoslavia.
Could the hon. member for Cambridge tell us whether the
Canadian government is concerned about this issue, and whether it
might not foster similar civil wars in other countries?
[English]
Mr.
Peric:
Mr. Speaker, two things have to be separated, Somalia from Bosnia
and Hercegovina. There was never civil war in Bosnia and
Hercegovina or Croatia. As we know, there was occupation. There
were attacks starting with Slovenia by the former Yugoslav army. It
was the same thing with Croatia and Bosnia. The two situations
cannot be combined as one. They cannot be compared.
As far as I know from talking to Canadian soldiers in Croatia,
there were no scandals. They were doing their job, as much as they
could do. They are highly respected by all three sides. Canadians
should be proud of that. They have continued and are keeping a
long history, a tradition. We have to support them in that
endeavour.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this very
important debate today.
Canada has a long and impressive history of peacekeeping
around the world. As I am sure all members are aware,
peacekeeping as it is known today was invented by a Canadian,
former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. During the Suez crisis of
1956, Mr. Pearson proposed the formation of an emergency UN
force to supervise the cessation of hostilities.
Since 1947 Canada has participated in every United Nations
peacekeeping operation. We are one of the few countries that has
done so. We are also one of the few countries that has paid all of its
United Nations' dues, including our share of peacekeeping costs.
Canada has played a major role in the ongoing peacekeeping
efforts in the former Yugoslavia. It has been involved in four
separate but related operations in the region. It has been
participating in the Sarajevo humanitarian airlift. The navy has one
frigate operating with NATO's standing naval force Atlantic, in the
Adriatic, monitoring and enforcing sanctions.
Canada has also provided two crew members for AWACS
aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone over Bosnia. Canada has also
provided a battalion to support the United Nations operation in
Bosnia. That unit was based in Visoko, northwest of Sarajevo.
About three-quarters of that unit's personnel were withdrawn in
October of this year, with the remainder returning to Canada in late
November.
Canadian troops have played a valuable role in Bosnia. They
have delivered relief supplies, protected civilians and monitored
ceasefires.
Over the past three years we have all become far too familiar
with the scenes of violence and suffering on the nightly news
reports from Bosnia. The war in Bosnia has been extremely brutal
and vicious, despite the best efforts of the United Nations and
Canadian troops to relieve the suffering of innocent civilians.
The previous United Nations' efforts were at best a band-aid
solution. Therefore I welcome the agreement signed recently in
Dayton, Ohio, ending the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. After
17162
more than three years of fighting, 250,000 dead and the creation of
two million refugees, it is high time that the fighting end in Bosnia.
(1655)
Although I hope that the Dayton agreement will bring peace to
the region, I must admit that I share the doubts expressed by many.
We have become familiar in the past few years with the short
lifespan of Balkan truces and agreements. After several years of
fighting, it will be extremely difficult for all sides to live together.
The peace agreement is extremely complex and will be very
difficult to implement. For this reason I welcome the participation
of NATO. As I am sure members are aware, NATO is planning to
deploy 60,000 troops, including 20,000 American troops, to
enforce the agreement.
Besides the United States, 11 other NATO countries have
indicated that they will provide troops. As well, Russia and 19
other non-NATO countries have indicated that they will provide
troops. Russia and many of the non-NATO countries are former
members of the Warsaw pact and current members of the
Partnership for Peace. This will be the first co-operative operation
between NATO and the Partnership for Peace countries.
NATO has made clear that the implementation force will not be a
traditional peacekeeping mission, but rather a NATO led
enforcement mission. It will operate under chapter VII of the UN
charter, which permits the use of all necessary means to fulfil a
mission.
The implementation force will be required to monitor and
enforce the withdrawal of each side's troops to their respective
territories, establish and man lines of separation, enforce the
ceasefire provisions of the agreement, defend protected areas and
and assist United Nations and civilian aid agencies.
It is quite likely that the implementation force will be involved
in some fighting as it seeks to enforce the peace agreement. For this
reason, NATO troops will be heavily armed and authorized to use
force.
Despite their large numbers and heavy armaments, NATO troops
are likely to have casualties. The terrain will make operations
difficult. Snipers and land mines can be very difficult to deal with.
Despite all the difficulties, I am in favour of NATO participation
and Canadian participation in this operation. We have been trying
since the war began to find a solution. Canada should not abandon
Bosnia just when a real solution is becoming a possibility.
This agreement is the only means to end the war and we have a
duty to support it. Although I feel we must support the Dayton
agreement and the NATO implementation force, there are limits to
what Canada can do. We must set clear limits on what role
Canadian troops will fulfil.
I have the greatest respect for the professionalism and skill of
Canadian soldiers. However, I am very concerned about the
preparedness of the Canadian army to play a frontline role in a
peace enforcement mission. I am concerned that the Canadian
forces will not be properly equipped for the combat role they might
be required to fulfil in Bosnia.
The defence review undertaken by the joint committee on
Canada's defence policy clearly indicated the shortcomings in
equipment of the Canadian military. Although the government has
taken steps to correct many of the shortcomings, it will take time to
fully modernize Canada's equipment.
I had a long talk recently with a constituent of mine who served
in Bosnia and was gravely wounded. Although seriously wounded,
he is very proud of the Canadian military and the job it has been
doing in Bosnia. It is very satisfying to hear him talk about what he
has personally gained through his military service. He feels the
military is a great training ground for Canadian youth. He feels that
the Canadian troops are the best trained troops in the world.
Despite this, he feels that Canada should maintain its role as
peacekeepers and not become peacemakers. He is of this opinion as
he is personally aware of some of the more glaring deficiencies in
Canada's military equipment. For instance, the Cougar armed
vehicles that Canada was using in Bosnia were purchased in 1980
as training vehicles. In his opinion, they do not provide adequate
armour and the targeting system on the gun is not very effective. In
his opinion also, the flak vests do not provide adequate protection
and are inferior to modern vests.
Personally, Canada can best contribute by providing support
troops and humanitarian relief. Canada should provide the support
it is best equipped to provide and leave the provision of combat
troops to countries best equipped for that role.
In previous peacekeeping missions, such as in Namibia, Canada
provided logistics and support personnel.
(1700)
In peacekeeping operations in the Middle East Canada provided
communication troops and logistics support to United Nations
peacekeeping operations. Another option would be to provide
engineers and assistance in demining operations as Canada did in
Cambodia. Another option would be to provide medical support to
the implementation force in the form of field hospitals.
The resettlement of a large number of refugees will place an
enormous strain on United Nations humanitarian agencies. Canada
could provide support to resettlement and reconstruction efforts in
Bosnia.
17163
I emphasize that the most valuable contribution Canada could
make to the implementation force would be to provide support
troops in the areas of communication, logistics and medicine. I also
emphasize that I am in favour of supporting the implementation
force. We have a moral duty to support the peace efforts in Bosnia,
and our troops will be up to any job they may be asked to perform.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the hon. member's
comments. I appreciated the courage it took for her to make some
of those statements obviously in contrast to the stated position of
her party and the government.
Her comments are not all that far out of sync with the position of
the Reform Party which has been very outspoken, as we know,
against the commitment of Canadian combat troops when they are
obviously ill prepared, ill led and poorly equipped, as the hon.
member drew attention to.
It is not so much the troops who are the biggest problem. It is the
people across the way making the decision involving their lives. It
does not instil confidence or morale in our armed forces when the
de facto commander in chief does not even know which way to put
his helmet on.
If the hon. member feels the government is to commit combat
troops when they are not prepared to take on that role, as she said,
will she let her feelings be known to the Minister of National
Defence and speak out as Reformers have been doing against the
commitment of combat troops?
Ms. Phinney: Madam Speaker, I have no necessity to speak to
the minister because he already knows how I feel because our party
is free and open. We can say how we feel at any time.
I am sure no troops from Canada will ever be allowed to go in ill
prepared or ill led. I have stated an opinion and we may hear from
other members more familiar than I am about how much
improvement has gone on with the equipment since the committee
made those comments.
That is how I feel right now. I am quite willing to be proven
wrong. I also know the Americans will be going in with plenty of
equipment and our troops will be using their equipment if we do
not have adequate equipment ourselves.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for a good
presentation. This is the kind of debate we were hoping to get, not
just the usual political rhetoric even if it has to be within our own
party. There are some different ideas about the kind of troops, the
numbers and that kind of thing.
I want to comment on a very important statement the hon.
member made. I have to agree with her. When we were in
ex-Yugoslavia, in Croatia and particularly Bosnia, we did receive
from the troops a justified concern that equipment was not the best
for what they had to do.
In military operations one is seldom equipped 100 per cent for
what one has to do. Even then measures had been taken with
respect to the armour of the APCs and the other vehicles.
Corrections were being made. Every member in the House is aware
we have gone forward with priority, as indicated and agreed in the
special joint committee, that we would rectify the deficiencies in
APCs. That is under way.
(1705 )
Another aspect was quite glaring to us. We were concerned as a
committee with the number of rotations individual soldiers had.
The recommendation was made by the joint committee and it was
agreed, certainly by the third party if not by the official opposition,
that we would increase the army size by 3,000 troops. We
recommended 2,500 in the report but I believe it worked out to
3,000 ground troops instead of headquarters personnel. That
adjustment has been made. It should greatly improve the rotation of
combat soldiers and should also make it better for logistic soldiers.
I wanted to set the record straight on that.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, there is
no question the government has made a commitment to the UN
initiative. However, I would feel much more comfortable about the
decision if the concerns raised by my hon. colleague and by the
hon. member who has just finished speaking, the questions of
moral, leadership and, most important, equipment were put to rest.
I would feel much more comfortable with our troops going into that
situation if they were well equipped and had excellent leadership.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
I want to speak today on the participation of the Canadian Armed
Forces in the implementation force in the former Yugoslavia. I
agree with the principle but not with the way the government,
particularly the Prime Minister and the defence minister, made
commitments to our NATO allies.
First, on November 23, in a speech he gave following a meeting
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, the Prime Minister had already committed in
principle Canadian funds and human resources, without first
seeking the approval of this House.
Indeed, even before Parliament was asked to debate the issue,
the decision had already been made. As far as I know, the
17164
government should be at the service of Parliament and not the other
way around. What is the use of having a democratic institution like
Parliament where parliamentarians give advice to the government
and pass legislation, if this government ignores procedure and only
asks Parliament to rubber stamp its decisions?
Indeed, on November 23, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
``Of course, we will send some troops, but the size of our
contribution will depend on what we are able to do and what we are
asked to do''. The Prime Minister was referring to our NATO allies
and particularly to our neighbours, the Americans. Therefore, the
decision on Canada's contribution will depend on the decision of
our neighbours to the South and not on what our Parliament would
have decided first. That is how decisions are made in Canada.
While I support in principle the Canadian government's peace
plan to participate in NATO's operations in the former Yugoslavia,
I am still puzzled by the way the federal Liberals are proceeding. It
is a question of attitude.
Even President Clinton did not formally make a commitment
until the American Congress ratified the United States'
contribution to the ceasefire monitoring group. In my opinion, the
Prime Minister's statement is further proof that he attaches very
little importance to parliamentarians' opinions, since he
announced, even before today's debate, that he would send troops
to Bosnia.
Undoubtedly, the Prime Minister has a double standard. Even
last week, he proclaimed that the House was sovereign on the
matter of his famous distinct society clause and that this clause had
priority over everything else. Today, in the case of the Canadian
Armed Forces's involvement in the multinational military
implementation force under NATO command, the decision has
already been made and the only thing the House can do is ratify it.
That is what we are being asked to do today.
(1710)
I would like to raise several other points which strike me as
irreconcilable differences between what the Government is saying
publicly and what is being said here in this House.
At an information session this past Thursday, an Armed Forces
spokesperson indicated that Ottawa's contribution to date to the
United Nations Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia has been
more than half a billion dollars over three years, or approximately
$517 million, for a force ranging from 1,600 to 2,000 in size. That
half billion, or some $172 million yearly, represents the additional
cost for National Defence to commit Canadian troops to UN
peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia. In other words, this figure
represents what it cost over and above the normal costs of keeping
our troops here in Canada.
Keeping those figures in mind, we are now told that the present
NATO commitment ought not to cost more than an additional $75
million for a 12 month period involving some 2,000 to 3,000
Canadian soldiers-$75 million for a mission that differs greatly
from a peacekeeping mission. This is inconceivable, half as much
money, yet twice as much will be demanded of our troops.
In an article in Le Devoir on November 24, headed ``Canada to
participate in intervention force'', the Minister of Defence is
quoted as referring to far greater costs for this type of intervention,
much more than $75 million.
I will read part of this article, and I quote: ``Mr. Collenette also
said that the logistics involved in combat operations of the kind
organized by NATO are far more costly than in the case of UN
peacekeeping missions. We will have to look at the financial
aspects'', concluded the Minister of National Defence.
There is a problem here. The Minister of National Defence tells
us these combat operations may cost us a lot more than we are
being told by the military, this in addition to the opinions of certain
experts and officials who are saying that the cost of participating in
a NATO mission is usually twice that of UN peacekeeping
missions.
I am rather sceptical when people tell me it will cost only $75
million for 12 months, which is $75 million more than it normally
costs, and people should realize that. Could the Minister of
National Defence let the House know the real cost involved in these
combat operations?
In another article published in Le Devoir on August 19, 1995, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs responded to a report in Le Soleil in
which it was estimated that the cost of Ottawa's commitment
within UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia was $710 million
over three years.
I have a very simple question: Who in this House could tell us
the exact cost of such operations? Between departments there is a
difference of about $193 million. Who is right? I find it hard to
believe that the House is being asked to give its consent without
knowing the real cost of these combat operations, especially when
they are supposed to cost half as much as previous commitments to
peacekeeping operations.
Considering the current federal deficit, how can we afford to
ignore these facts? This is very disturbing. And I am sure the vast
majority of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada would like to know
the real cost of these combat operations.
The principle involved in peacekeeping operations is a noble
one, but I doubt we can afford to get involved without knowing the
17165
real cost of this gesture of human solidarity. When shown these
figures, not a single banker in Quebec or in the rest of Canada
would be willing to endorse such operations without at least
knowing what he was getting into.
(1715)
I support Canada's involvement in principle. The Bloc
Quebecois supports Canada's participation in NATO's
implementation force. I cannot, however, give this government a
blank cheque without knowing where and how this money will be
spent. It is taxpayers' money we are spending. And given the cuts
imposed by the federal government on the most vulnerable in our
society, it would be unthinkable not to know how much money will
be spent and how it will really be spent.
Finally, as far as the implementation force's mission is
concerned, no one knows, of course, how long it will last or what
the implications will be in the medium term. The Prime Minister
told the Secretary-General of the UN that participating forces
would have to stay until peace is really restored, whether it takes
six months or three years.
Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's commitment, should the
mandate extend beyond the expected 12 months, I think the
government should be required to submit its decision to the
approval of this House. I also think that the 12 month mandate
should be clearly stated and that Canada should commit no more
than 2,000 troops to the NATO forces, which is approximately the
maximum level of Canada's participation in UNPROFOR.
In conclusion, given our current financial situation, I have major
reservations about the defence department's threat assessment.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I find the
hon. member's remarks ambiguous. I would like him to clarify this
for us. His leader has always been in favour of a Canadian military
presence in Europe for humanitarian reasons, as he so eloquently
explained in our last debate on the matter. And he himself agrees in
principle with this policy for the same reasons that I and other
members of this House believe it is crucial that Canada participate
in humanitarian and large-scale efforts to restore peace in that part
of the world.
I myself support this government initiative. I think that the hon.
member also supports this government initiative. I think that his
party supports this initiative. Even so, he is looking for an excuse to
criticize the Prime Minister, to criticize the government, to find
small things to complain about here and there, claiming that our
Prime Minister is wrong when he says that our level of
participation depends on the American level of participation. This
goes without saying, but at the same time it does not mean that the
Americans are deciding for us, as the hon. member is suggesting.
What it means is that we will make our own decision based on
what our allies are doing. It is perfectly logical, rational and
appropriate.
I personally find that holding this debate in the House of
Commons gives us, Canadian parliamentarians, the chance to have
a say in this decision. This is undoubtedly a complex decision that
depends on many other factors, but that is always how it is on the
international scene, and to claim otherwise is, in my view, to distort
the debate and only to look for excuses to criticize the government.
Mr. Leroux: Madam Speaker, where we disagree with the
government is the way it is going about this. We are always told
that the House is its own master, that Parliament is a sovereign
institution. In fact, that is not the case. The Prime Minister has
already made a commitment. He now puts the issue before the
House, in order to have his decision endorsed by the different
parties, and this is what we object to.
We do agree with the decision. We know that Canada has
commitments to NATO. We know that it has always fulfilled its
commitments. We have no problems with that. What we are saying
is: fine, let us go, but according to our means.
(1720)
As you know, we may be one of the most indebted countries in
the world, per capita. Sure, we must continue to help others, but we
should also take our situation into consideration when making that
decision. The Bloc Quebecois agrees that we should send troops to
Bosnia-Hercegovina, along with our partners. However, the
government should not always surprise us at the last minute. If the
House is its own master, if it is sovereign, then it should be the one
to decide. The government should come back and tell the House
how many troops should be sent, and so on, because these are
important issues.
In my speech, I mentioned that President Clinton waited for the
approval of both Houses before taking action. That was not done
here, in spite of the Prime Minister's promise.
In conclusion, it is important to fulfil our commitments, but we
must also not lose sight of what is going on. This operation is very
different from a peacekeeping mission. Some lives may be lost.
Our troops risk their lives, but the risk could or will be greater this
time. If we send armed forces personnel over there, it does not have
to be combat troops. We could send auxiliary forces, engineers,
nurses, etc. We have all this expertise available in Canada. We
would still be taking part. But I think we must be careful. We do not
have to do more than others. We must do our share, but we do not
have to do more than others.
17166
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Very briefly, the hon.
member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the length of time.
As we all know, NATO has said this is a one-year mission, 12
months.
Has the member given any consideration to how optimistic that
timeframe is in this type of operation. One year seems very
optimistic. We are moving some 60,000 troops in there.
During the briefing we received from the government-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, I did ask the
member to be very brief.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Madam Speaker, it would be a good
thing if, following a one year commitment, the government came
back to the House and asked if we agree to extend Canada's
participation.
Again, it is important to have the figures. People must know the
cost of that participation. This is what is important.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
today debating the recent Dayton peace accord and Canada's
contribution to the peace effort in the Balkans.
For over three years, discussions have gone on between the
Bosnians, the Serbs and the Croats in the hope of reaching an
agreement on establishing a real peace process. On November 21,
an accord, albeit an imperfect one, but an accord nonetheless, was
signed by the parties.
This peace accord, signed in Dayton, Ohio, provides, among
other things, that refugees will be permitted to return home or will
be compensated, if it is impossible for them to do so. The accord
also provides for the unrestricted movement of the entire
population within Bosnian territory.
To implement the accord, the international community is being
invited to provide humanitarian aid or help in the reconstruction,
with the objective of establishing an enduring peace in the former
Yugoslavia.
Today, we are being asked to debate the form Canada's
contribution to the peace process should take. We are, however,
entitled to question the usefulness of this debate and whether the
Government of Canada has not already made all the decisions,
since, less than 48 hours after the Dayton accord was signed, the
Prime Minister of Canada was saying publicly that Canada would
send a number of soldiers, according to its capabilities and NATO's
request.
The Bloc Quebecois questions the attitude of the Prime Minister,
who is leaving no doubt that the decisions have already been made
and that the opinions of the members of this House are of little
import. His message is that Canada will send soldiers to Bosnia,
regardless of today's parliamentary debate. However, the debate is
relevant, and, in this regard the Minister of Foreign Affairs should
have informed the Prime Minister that Canada could get involved
in three ways, apart from simply sending soldiers.
(1725)
Participation in the implementation force is one kind of
intervention, of course, but taking part in the reconstruction and
welcoming refugees unable to go back home are other kinds of
assistance that Canada should consider.
I would like to elaborate on the latter, on Canada's opportunity to
help Bosnian refugees. Canada can help out in two ways. The High
Commissioner for Refugees made an appeal to welcome refugees
from the former Yugoslavia. In this regard, a few weeks ago, the
Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration reached an
agreement with NGOs and other organizations to implement an
action plan to welcome these victims of war. The Quebec
government is also involved in this special operation. The Bloc
Quebecois supports this initiative and urges the Canadian
government to pursue its efforts in this regard.
Canada could also help refugees on the field in
Bosnia-Hercegovina. The best estimates suggest that there are
more than 1.3 million displaced people in Bosnia itself and 800,000
refugees in neighbouring republics and other European countries.
Canada must facilitate the implementation of the Dayton
agreement and help those who want to return to their homes.
The time has come to recognize that Canada's previous
interventions in the former Yugoslavia have been less than
successful. So far, Canada's participation in UNPROFOR has cost
taxpayers over half a billion dollars. Despite the enormous
resources invested by Canada, the results have been on the whole
rather disappointing.
Canada has been excluded from major decisions, as
demonstrated by its April 1995 exclusion from the contact group
composed of the U.S., Russia, France, Great Britain, and Germany.
Canada has maintained a large UNPROFOR contingent, even
though our troops had little guidance and no clear, original,
well-defined policy regarding the outcome of the conflict and how
to resolve it.
The Canadian government did not show any international
leadership or take any major policy initiative that would have
allowed it to exert some influence. Before making a further
commitment to participating in the implementation of the Bosnian
peace and
17167
reconstruction plan, the official opposition believes that several
questions ought to be answered. Canadian taxpayers have a right to
know whether or not Canada will have a say in operations
involving Canadian troops.
Also, given that Bosnia is faced with severe economic problems,
we must ask ourselves if the Canadian government intends to
provide financial assistance as well or if, given our own debt
problem, we could not find a more responsible and practical form
of assistance. For instance, Canada could very well provide
technical assistance for future elections in Bosnia, given its
expertise in that area.
We also want to be apprised of the risks to our troops. We know
that the ceasefire monitoring force will consist of combat troops as
opposed to peacekeepers. This new task will therefore be
conducted under Chapter VII of the UN charter instead of Chapter
VI. And we know that Chapter VII allows the use of a broader
range of means, including the use of force, to fulfil these missions.
In other words, every means available will be used to implement
the agreement.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois has three more concerns in relation
to the timing, nature and cost of this operation. As far as duration is
concerned, the UN secretary general and the Prime Minister jointly
stated that this mandate could be for up to three years. If that were
the case, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the government seek the
House of Commons' approval of its decision to extend the mission
beyond the currently planned 12 month term.
As for the mandate of Canadian troops deployed in Bosnia, we
hope that the Canadian government has learned from its mistake
and that, this time, it will develop a clear mandate. While troops
may have to perform a variety of tasks, Canadian troops could
specialize in communications and more traditional aspects of
peacekeeping. Out of concern for Canada's image as a
peace-minded country, we Bloc members think that only a very
small percentage of the troops we assign to NATO should take part
in combat missions, and only if necessary.
(1730)
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois feels that Canada's participation
must be more or less the same as in UNPROFOR, that is about
2,000 soldiers. That seems to compare with the level of
participation of our European allies, except for France, Great
Britain and Germany. The cost of such an operation is high. The
defence department estimates that, over a 12 month period, it could
be anywhere from 2 to 75 million dollars, depending on the number
of soldiers involved. The various scenarios provide for sending
from 50 to 3,500 soldiers.
We have our doubts about these figures, considering that
Canada's participation in UNPROFOR cost about $172 million
annually. The defence department has admitted that a NATO
operation would cost about twice as much as a UN peacekeeping
mission. The Canadian government must show more rigour and
give the real costs of that operation, before getting more involved.
In short, the Bloc Quebecois is asking the Canadian government
to show greater discretion, rigour and, particularly, transparency.
There is no doubt that Canada must contribute to the peace process
in Bosnia. The way to do it must be thoroughly debated in this
House.
[English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, today we are having a very serious debate
in the House on the Dayton peace agreement. A number of nations
got together to hammer out a peace agreement for the combatants
in the former Yugoslavia. This conflict has been ongoing for a
number of years and Canada has made a tremendous contribution
during the past four years to the humanitarian needs in that area.
There has been a wide sweeping debate in the House this
afternoon and therefore I would like to read the motion before the
House:
That this House take note and welcome the recent Dayton peace agreement and
the international community's continued efforts to bring enduring peace and security
to the Balkans, and Canadian support of these efforts by participation in a
multinational military implementation force (IFOR) under NATO command.
The implementation force will not be a peacekeeping mission in
the traditional sense but rather a NATO led enforcement mission
which will operate under the authority of the United Nations
security council resolution pursuant to chapter VII of the United
Nations charter which permits the use of all necessary means to
fulfil a mission.
Since this would be an operation not in the traditional sense of
peacekeeping and because NATO and many other countries are
involved, it should not be surprising that we have been requested to
send combat troops.
Given the nature of the world today, there are many hot spots.
Some can become hotter. This is one big issue which we have
today. What will it be six months, a year or five years from now?
No one can predict. The world is a very unpredictable place in this
era of our history.
The implementation force is the only way to handle this matter.
There is a peace agreement which must be implemented. The basic
way of life must be restored to the area. The people in that region
must live without fear of what will happen to them.
This is not the time for Canada or for any other responsible
country to fold up its tents and walk away. This is a time when the
international community must come together, shoulder to shoulder,
in the best interests of mankind.
17168
(1735)
The winners of such operations are those who will suddenly find
themselves living in security and peace. The winners are the free
countries of the world accepting their responsibility in what is
otherwise a cruel world.
The winners are people like the Russians and those in the eastern
European countries who a short time ago belonged to the
communist bloc and who today are moving with their friends in the
western world to implement this peace agreement in the former
Yugoslavia.
If that is not a fantastic happening in this era of our history, I do
not know what is. Who would have thought eight or ten years ago
that we would see this happening on this date in history or that we
would see it unfold in the days ahead?
The other winners of this of course will be those still alive in that
country, the children and the women, who will finally have some
peace. They will remember as they walk through their cemeteries
young children from infants up, women, grandparents, old and
young, whose names are on that flood of tombstones in cemeteries
throughout the former Yugoslavia. It is a slaughter which neither
this country nor any other responsible country could turn a blind
eye to and walk away from. Without proper supervision it could
happen again. Graveyards will be the reminders of this horrible
period in the history of the former Yugoslavia.
The winners will be the NATO countries and the eastern bloc
countries that have bridged the gap over recent times and are now
putting their total efforts toward this humanitarian cause in a truly
wonderful display of international unity for peace.
There is monitoring to be done and there are mines to be
disassembled. If they are not, the country will live a further hell in
days ahead.
Humanitarian aid has been provided very responsibly and
generously by Canadians over the last four years. You bet our
Canadian soldiers are well trained. They can build schools,
hospitals, roads and bridges. They can do it well.
I do not appreciate the logic put forward in the House today
when members of the Reform Party say our forces are becoming
ineffective. I do not buy that for one minute. It is a terrible thing to
say about our Canadian forces whom we expect to go on missions
around the world. Are they capable of doing anything? You bet they
are capable of doing anything and they will do their work over
there along with the best in the world.
It is time Parliament and all members stood together united and
thanked those people because regardless of a few problems they
have carried the Canadian flag with dignity and with pride around
the world. We owe them a great debt.
People in the former Yugoslavia want peace and security. Sure,
some rebels are not happy and nothing will ever satisfy them,
except when they get everything their own way. Hence the reason
for the supervision and the necessity for it.
There are some in this world who lock their minds and throw
away the key and do not want anyone questioning the mean streak
they have in them. All the good things in life, the everyday
necessities of life, must be brought back into action and rebuilt.
(1740 )
Government institutions are needed in the former Yugoslavia.
Infrastructure faces a mass improvement because of the
destructiveness that has gone on there for a number of years.
Canada's participation has been a responsible one over a period of
time.
Our forces have done a great job for us in the international
community. We must look after them while they are on these
missions, and that means more than good equipment. It means a
commitment in money and a commitment in giving them the
equipment to go forward in the days ahead. We have done a lot of
that already.
However, it means another thing quite often forgotten in a debate
such as this. It means making certain their families back home are
well looked after. I talk about the story of a young person involved
in a conversation with me in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia. He
said: ``I do not mind being over here serving at all because I feel I
am doing a job that has to be done. I do not mind it as long as I
know my family is all right back home''.
We cannot keep peacekeeping alive and do things the same way
we did with the blue berets when circumstances require a different
scenario.
From an historical point of view we can ask how much money it
will cost. We can ask how many troops are needed. However, we do
not get the answers to all these solutions in the future. The danger
of doing nothing is far worse than the danger in the implementation
of this peace arrangement.
We belong to the UN as a responsible partner. We have been a
member of NATO for years. Today we hear about the Right Hon.
Lester B. Pearson who brought about the first peacekeeping
mission in Egypt. Let us remember one thing: Canada has done
more than its share in comparison with any nation in the world in
keeping up that policy.
Now as we try to take the steam out of heated debates and
difficult situations in the world it becomes very important for
Canada to be part of the solution and not part of an isolationist
attitude.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask my distinguished colleague, known for
his lifetime of study of military affairs, Canada's role in them and
the constructive contributions he has made, whether in his
discussions with the minister concerned he might find it useful to
remind people that NATO, as a regional security organization, is
subject under chapter VIII of the United Nations' charter to the
charter and specifically by reference back to articles 34 and 35 in
section 52 of the charter that the security council's role in
peacekeeping arrangements under chapter VI extends to operations
of NATO and other regional military organizations.
17169
Would it be appropriate perhaps in his discussions with the
minister to remind the minister of that fact and perhaps bring
forward any adhesion by Canada to the new Bosnian force that it
would remain subject to the United Nations' charter, subject to
international law as established under the charter whatever the
nature of the military command, whether it be direct UN command,
as in the past, or a particular general from one of the member
countries of NATO?
Mr. Hopkins: Madam Speaker, history would have taken quite a
different turn without an organization such as NATO, which came
to birth during the cold war years and served a very useful purpose
during all those years.
Today as we come into an era in world history where we have
some 80 hot spots around the world, we may well have more
Yugoslavias to look after as the years go by. I suppose it is a case of
managing them. It is very important that NATO and the UN be
partners in these conflicts. NATO is needed because of its expertise
and the UN needs NATO because it is a cohesive body of 16
countries.
(1745)
I would also point out to my hon. friend that in no way inhibits
all the other UN countries of the world from coming in to support
them and to work with them. Some 40 countries may well be
involved in this. We will find out whether Canada is directly
involved by a formal decision of cabinet. That is the way things are
done in a democratic country.
In the world today, it becomes absolutely necessary that
organizations such as NATO, organizations that used to be the
communist bloc, organizations such as the UN at large, all come
together in a co-operative spirit to manage some of those
meanspirited operations that are out there in the world and have to
be managed as the days go by.
In answering my hon. friend, I look on it that all these are
necessary. I am sure the minister is quite sure they are necessary,
but we must always look toward putting them together as a massive
international body for the good of mankind. If we do not we are
wasting our energies.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am sure that most civilized people would like to see an
end put to all of the rivalries and tribal wars, and the genocide that
accompanies them, not just in the Balkans, but everywhere in the
world. Particularly fearsome is Africa.
Because there is a time limit and this NATO effort would go
absolutely nowhere without the Americans, what will happen if the
battle moves into Macedonia and the Americans are out of there in
a year?
Mr. Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I would like to think we do
things with the best of intentions and the greatest efficiency that we
can, with the knowledge we have at hand at the moment.
We want all the answers in advance of what will happen. If
Napoleon had had all the answers he needed in advance, he would
never have gone to Waterloo. There are always questions that have
to be answered, but only time will answer them.
If we are to sit back and do nothing at this time, then we are only
adding to the problem. We know through world history that
problems become bigger and bigger and eventually everybody is
dragged into it.
As I said earlier today-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member's time
has expired.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to lend my support to the
motion we are debating today. It is the second time I have risen in
the House on this issue. Although nearly two years have passed
since that time, my position remains the same.
We must continue to lend our support to the international
community's efforts to bring enduring peace and security to the
Balkans. It was these efforts after all that brought about the Dayton
peace agreement and we must do our part to show our continued
commitment.
As the vice-president of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary
Association, I have followed NATO's involvement in the Balkan
crisis very closely. Through my participation I learned firsthand of
the important role Canada plays in NATO.
[Translation]
For 45 years now Canada has been one of the key supporters of
NATO because it was, and still is, in our national interest to do so.
NATO membership has been beneficial for Canada in a number of
ways: it has prevented world conflicts; it has helped us
economically, by enabling us to maintain reduced armed forces,
knowing that we could call for help if necessary; and, most
important of all, perhaps, it has given us a voice in one of the key
fora in the western world on issues of Euro-Atlantic and world
security.
(1750 )
[English]
The greatest value of these benefits can only be achieved if
Canada has credibility with its allies and continues to be an active
member of NATO. It is therefore essential that Canada participate
in IFOR.
17170
[Translation]
We must not turn our backs on NATO, as if it were turning into a
partner we could no longer trust to produce Euro-Atlantic and
world security arrangements. It would not be in our interests to do
so, particularly since the creation of IFOR is a key element in the
changing structures and operations of NATO.
NATO's integrated command structure has always been one of
its strong points. The Alliance is the only organization that has
created an effective military force from the contributions of its
various member states. During the cold war, however, this was a
static structure spread out as widely as possible throughout its
member states, with its eyes resolutely glued to the eastern bloc.
This is not what we need now to ensure our security or that of our
allies.
[English]
We need a NATO which is cheaper, which is flexible, which can
act in any direction from which a threat can emerge and which can
assemble forces organized, trained and tailored to a range of
possible uses from classical peacekeeping to humanitarian
intervention to collective defence.
As well, the NATO for the modern era must also be able to work
with others, be they multilateral institutions like the UN or SCE
which need organized military muscle or other countries, big and
small, which see an interest in what concerns NATO.
In January 1994 such a concept for the evolution of NATO was
endorsed by the North Atlantic Council under the concept of
combined joint task forces. However, since then, the concept has
been stalled in spite of Canada's best efforts to move it along.
Necessity being the mother of invention, the need for NATO to
get its act together to enforce the peace in Bosnia is resulting in the
alliance's first combined joint task force, the IFOR. There must be
no going back for NATO and Canada's voice will only be heard in
making these lessons stick if it is part of this latest great step
forward in the adaptation of NATO.
Now would be perhaps the worst of times to turn our back on
NATO and our allies but the value of participating in IFOR to
maintain allied solidarity is at most only half the story. For the past
three years, Canada and Canadians have seen participation in
multilateral military operations in the former Yugoslavia as being
in our national interest.
[Translation]
It was in our national interest because we consider European
security part and parcel of our own. We have trade, historical,
military and emotional ties with Europe. We have learned from
experience that European conflicts can spread to our allies, and
even to our own country. In the past, Balkan conflicts have had a
particularly strong tendency to spread with a ripple effect, as far as
Canada even.
If we wish to be able to continue to depend on the protection of
an effective system of international security for ourselves, we must
make a significant contribution to it when the system is being used
to protect others.
Many Canadians originally come from these areas and an even
larger number come from neighbouring countries whose stability is
at risk.
Canadians cannot stand aside while others suffer. Many people
in Bosnia today owe their lives to the presence of Canadians.
The signing of a peace agreement has not obscured this aspect of
our national interest, and we will not be satisfied until Bosnia and
the surrounding region once again enjoy stability, peace and
security. This will require the full implementation of the Dayton
peace agreement. This, after what has happened in the past, will
require the presence on the ground of a multinational military force
under the command of NATO.
[English]
We have struggled and bled through the worst of times in Bosnia.
What do the effort, money and lives that have been spent to date
mean if the job is not carried through to its conclusion? It is for
these reasons that I support the motion and Canadian participation
in IFOR.
My support and what I hope will be the support of this House
does not give the government, the military planners or NATO carte
blanche to send Canadian troops on the mission. Canadian
participation in IFOR should conform with the principles for
multilateral missions laid out in the 1994 white paper, including a
clear and enforceable mandate, an effective consultation process
among mission partners, a defined concept of operations and clear
rules of engagement.
(1755)
[Translation]
The Dayton agreement provides the foundation for a clear and
binding mandate. NATO's participation guarantees the presence of
a separate agency to monitor the situation. It also provides
guarantees for an effective consultation process, until now often
lacking in UN operations in Bosnia.
The membership of IFOR, which includes nearly all NATO
member countries, Russia and up to 19 other countries, should be
17171
sufficiently diverse to be acceptable to all parties. There is every
indication that principles fairly similar to ours formed the basis for
planning operations.
[English]
Clearly Canada's participation in implementing the peace plan
cannot be open ended. The seemingly never ending peacekeeping
mission in Cyprus must not be repeated. While the UN operation in
Cyprus was an example of classical peacekeeping, different from
the peace enforcement initiatives being put forward by IFOR, it is
imperative that a definitive timetable be put forward.
The UN security council has repeatedly called for the withdrawal
of all foreign troops from Cyprus, the voluntary return of refugees
to their homes, the cessation of all interference in the internal
affairs of Cyprus and respect for its sovereignty, independence,
territorial integrity and unity. Now more than 20 years later, the
situation on the ground is no different with more than 30,000
heavily armed Turkish troops continuing to illegally occupy nearly
40 per cent of the territory of Cyprus. The UN mission in Cyprus
has been hampered time and time again by the intransigence of
Turkey.
The proposal for the complete demilitarization of the Republic
of Cyprus put forward by the president of Cyprus, Mr. Glafcos
Clerides, is the concrete solution to this longstanding problem.
Similar resolutions have been supported in the United States
congress and most recently the Australian Parliament unanimously
adopted a resolution in support of the demilitarization of Cyprus.
Canada must also put forward a resolution in support of this to
indicate that the status quo is no longer acceptable and negotiated
settlements must be brought forward.
Time and time again it has been seen that only a united effort
will bring about the resolution of the most complex disputes.
Today's debate will lend Canada's voice to the united effort that is
being put forward in helping to bring peace to the Balkans.
At this point I wish to refer to the continued response of Canada
to the humanitarian issues in the former Yugoslavia. As chair of the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration I applaud the
initiatives of the government through the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration. Under the special measures program nearly
7,000 citizens of the former Yugoslavia have been landed in
Canada since 1992. As well, the joint sponsorship program has
seen more 270 persons in need of resettlement sponsored to date.
The government will continue these programs for as long as a
need for humanitarian aid continues. It is part of our commitment
to the United Nations and our responsibility to the international
community to ease the suffering of citizens in the formerYugoslavia.
[Translation]
The people of Canada will not rest until peace and security have
been restored in Bosnia. As parliamentarians we have a duty to
support them and to oblige the government to report on the
progress of this mission.
[English]
In conclusion, I believe that Canada should participate under
NATO command first because it is in our national interest to take
our three years of efforts to bring peace and succour to Bosnia to
the logical and positive conclusion and second, because it is a
demonstration of our commitment to NATO which is a vital
component of our national security.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but the hon.
member's time has expired.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my
time with the member for Athabasca.
Like my colleagues who preceded me, I am considerably
disappointed in the fact that this is just a take note debate. There is
no great honour in participating in a charade. We are here to give an
aura of respectability to decisions made by cabinet and DND
bureaucrats, life and death decisions affecting our Canadian forces.
This is a matter which should not have been about partisan
politics, a family matter if you will, where we could put our
ideological differences aside, sit down and reason together, make
the best decisions possible and vote freely without the lash of the
party whips. However, that will not happen.
(1800 )
The Prime Minister and I are about the same age. Neither of us
will ever be asked to pick up an Armalite or step into a minefield.
If, as usual, old men-and we are mostly men in this place-are to
be asked to decide to send young people to die in a foreign land,
they should be able to make informed decisions, which is a
condition this government is denying those of us on this side of the
House.
The briefing we received on November 30 was not very
informative. That is putting it rather gently. The unfortunate officer
who had to deliver it was not in a position to tell us even
approximately how large a force cabinet has decided to commit. He
did not know what sorts of troops Canada would be sending, what
their function would be, or what the long term objectives would be.
Under those circumstances, it hardly seemed worth while to ask
him how they would be equipped or where our impoverished
military would be able to scrounge effective weaponry on short
notice.
In spite of my objections to giving a blank cheque to cabinet on
this matter, I am not an isolationist. I believe that for the sake of
international political stability as well as for the sake of common
17172
humanity we must at times be our brothers' keepers. In fact for
more than a year before the UN finally stopped temporizing and
bluffing I strongly advocated tactical air strikes against the Bosnian
Serbs to protect the so-called safe havens. The tiny under armed
peacekeeping forces were incapable of serious intervention, but the
use of superior air power was something that was doable. And it did
work, albeit too late for thousands and thousands of civilians.
Now, with the hostilities more or less on hold and with most of
the exhausted combatants ready to sign a peace agreement on
December 14, I can see some merit in deploying significant well
equipped ground forces to in effect keep reminding the three
parties that the war is over. The two divisions proposed by NATO
should be adequate to do the job, although that is by no means
certain.
I believe Canada should participate in something, but what?
Canada faces a moral and practical dilemma. We must never again
send inadequately equipped troops into harm's way. Our
peacekeepers performed magnificently in Bosnia with limited
supplies and equipment, some of it obsolete. However, under the
more severe rules of engagement proposed for the NATO force,
Canadians could end up being cannon fodder. That is not an idle
fear. Aside from the fact that Canada cannot properly equip a
significant fighting force on short notice, there is no indication that
Canada will be significantly involved in the military and political
decision making process beyond helping to define the rules of
engagement.
If the mission does turn out badly, neither the Minister of
National Defence nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs can assure
Canadians that our soldiers will not be put at undue risk because of
decisions made by other nations. We are no longer a big kid on the
block, and we are unlikely to be treated like one within NATO
councils. With our deteriorating economy and feeble military
capability, we cannot expect to be taken very seriously,
notwithstanding our past contributions to UN endeavours.
NATO has indicated that this will be a quick and dirty operation
that will only last about 12 months. That sounds reassuring, but
what exactly is proposed if when the magic deadline approaches
the troops are actively engaging one or more of the belligerent
parties? If DND or the Department of Foreign Affairs have the
slightest idea, they are not telling anyone. There is no such thing as
a timetable for war. Even if DND could cobble together an
adequately equipped and militarily significant force right now, we
would not have the resources to sustain it for a prolonged and
indefinite period.
(1805)
In summary, Canada's participation in whatever cabinet is
proposing to do might save lives and help to maintain world
political stability. However, with our military gutted by this and
preceding governments, with our top heavy military bureaucracy
and our thinly stretched and overused cadre of combat troops, we
simply lack the capability to make an effective effort. In military
parlance, the tail of the Canadian forces is overdeveloped and the
teeth have been neglected. Our plethora of generals and colonels
cannot throw their desks at the Serbs.
To suggest that we can continue to be the world's 911 number is
false and misleading puffery. My advice to the government is that it
be guided by its white paper of December 1994. Sit this one out. Do
not get us in over our heads. Do not start something we cannot
finish.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first
let me say that I believe we have to be involved in the peacekeeping
effort. As the hon. member mentioned, political stability is very
important. In spite of the misgivings of the hon. member, if Canada
were not involved, seeing as it has been an architect of
peacekeeping, then there would be many other countries that would
not get involved.
The hon. member mentioned that we lack the capability of
making a credible effort in this regard. I wonder if he and his party
would like to come forward to give us numbers in terms of the
numbers of soldiers that should be sent and what kind of equipment
they should have, instead of undermining the efforts of the
government in fulfilling a very useful role, a role we have been
instrumental in pioneering.
Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, as I said, it appears the
government wants to give an aura of respectability to the decisions
it has already made.
The hon. member asked how many soldiers we would send and
how we would equip them. I would rather the hon. member tell us
how many soldiers the government has decided to send and how it
hopes to equip them when we simply do not have the equipment.
We did not even have adequate equipment for our poor little
peacekeeping forces with their light armour and obsolete personnel
carriers. How on earth will we equip a genuine fighting force?
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, if I was confused earlier this morning, I am even more
confused now.
Earlier the Reform member stated that he supported air strikes.
When our peacekeepers were in the region last year the Prime
Minister had to put a halt to it. We had ground troops in there. The
United States of America did not have ground troops and of course
the U.S. was advocating air strikes. The hon. member says we do
not want our soldiers to be injured; we do not want to bring them
back in bags. I am really confused. They are saying send in the
planes and bombard these people. Can they clarify their position?
17173
If they wanted more information, they could have come to the
briefing. They could have provided input. But they did not bother
to show up. All they do is sit there and criticize. To me this is
a blatant flip-flop: one day one way, the next day the other.
(1810)
Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, I do not believe I saw the hon.
member at the non-briefing we attended.
With respect to the question of air strikes, I would remind the
hon. member that when air strikes were first mentioned we had
almost unanimous agreement in the House on that particular
matter. This is nothing new. At that time it was clearly stated by
members from all parties that this did bring in the possibility that
our forces would suffer casualties.
Nobody over here is saying that our soldiers are not capable of
fighting and that they cannot take casualties. What we are saying is
they have nothing to fight with. The Liberals want to send them
over there to fight the Serbs with their teeth, and they cannot do it.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member just said. I
think he said the Reform Party's position was not that we not send
troops to fight. That certainly was not the position the third party
defence critic concluded. After 30 minutes I finally got it out of
him.
I want to ask the third party members if they believe we should
have Canadian forces that are not able to participate in armed
conflict. What do we have an armed forces for, to sit at home and
stick their tongues out at people?
Mr. Morrison: What I would like to know is what do we have a
Minister of National Defence for? These are the forces who have
had no decent support from the politicians and the bureaucrats
behind them. They do not have the equipment. The Liberals want to
sent them over there to take their lumps. I would suggest that some
hon. members opposite, if they are so bloody brave, should pick up
their Armalites and head for Bosnia.
Some hon. members: Right on.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to participate in the debate because I have somewhat of a
unique position in the whole issue, having a son in the Canadian
Armed Forces who could end up as part of this mission and
possibly be one of those who could come back in a body bag if this
thing turns into a disaster.
Mr. Collenette: Great optimism. A great thing to say.
Mr. Chatters: Well, the minister does not give one great cause
for optimism. I will put it that way.
Mr. Collenette: I am glad I am not your son, hearing that from
his father.
Mr. Chatters: Well, I am sure he would not choose you to be his
Minister of National Defence, as well.
Mr. Hoeppner: How many sons do you have over there? Let us
hear an answer.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): May I remind the hon.
members that comments should be addressed through the Chair.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Remind the minister
of that.
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, I looked forward to this debate
for some weeks, having heard the Prime Minister say that he
promised a full debate in the House of Commons before any
decision was made in regard to this matter. I can only say that I was
extremely disappointed to find out in the last couple of days that
the whole debate was to be a fraud, a sham, that the decisions have
already been made, not only to commit soldiers but how many
soldiers would be committed.
I suppose five years from now the auditor general will be able to
tell us what the operation cost, because the Minister of National
Defence, the finance department and the government have no idea
what will cost, or at least they are not willing to share it with us.
The government knows what the command structure will be for
the Russian forces there and who will be in charge of those forces,
but they do not know yet who will be in command of the Canadian
Armed Forces and what the command structure will be. That does
not give one great confidence. In addition, there is the unmitigated
arrogance of members across the way to taunt us on this very
serious matter, this insult to democracy we have witnessed all day.
I can say that the Reform Party has every bit as much concern as
anybody on that side of the House for the suffering and the
atrocities that are taking place in the former Yugoslavia. However,
our primary concern must be for our Canadian sons and daughters.
My concern is that the government would send my son and his
colleagues into the theatre of war without properly equipping them
and without proper command. I think that is truly atrocious.
(1815)
We have simply asked from the beginning of this whole debate
that the government and the ministers lay before Parliament a
proposal that would clearly lay out the Canadian criteria, the
mandate for the mission. We have also asked that the government
lay out the command structure and how our Canadian soldiers and
commanders would fit into that structure.
As we have heard before in previous debates on this issue, there
were great concerns that we were one of the major forces in the
peacekeeping effort in the former Yugoslavia and that we had
17174
absolutely no input into the decisions made concerning those
forces. We really do not want to be in that situation again. We want
to be able to make decisions and be part of that command structure.
We also asked that the government lay before Parliament for
debate the rules of engagement. What happens when some of these
war criminals are arrested and taken into custody? What happens
when our Canadian soldiers are face to face with those individuals
and perhaps need to shoot somebody to enforce the mandate they
have been given?
I do not think we have heard anything on any of these issues. We
have questioned the business of the length of the commitment. We
have heard 12 months and yet we hear that at the end of 12 months
this mandate is to be handed over to some fictitious organization
and that our soldiers will be withdrawn and the authority
transferred to others.
It is unbelievable that they can go into the situation that exists
there now and in 12 months they can have democratic elections and
that we can have some kind of a government structure in there to
turn this whole situation over to.
We have heard again from our members the problems our
peacekeepers have already faced in the former Yugoslavia such as
our soldiers not having enough combat helmets. They certainly do
know which way to wear them, front or back, but if they do not
have them it is difficult to put them on either way.
We have also heard about the armoured personnel carriers that
were rolling coffins our soldiers were riding around in and the
efforts to armour them to provide safe transport for our soldiers.
After that they were so heavy they did not have enough power to
get to the top of a hill. There are all kinds of horror stories, and that
was a peacekeeping role. Clearly the members opposite do not
seem to understand the difference. This is not a peacekeeping role.
This is a combat role.
I believe we have asked a lot of reasonable questions that the
government would bring forward on this debate and that we could
debate and we could have discussion. We had hoped Parliament
might have a chance to have a free vote on the issues debated and
that members could make a democratic decision on behalf of their
constituents based on that vote.
An hon. member: We make democratic decisions and you do
not agree with them anyway. You lose the vote and then you
complain.
Mr. Chatters: Yes, we know all about your democratic
decisions.
I am truly disappointed and concerned for the welfare of our
young people whom the government is now sending into a combat
situation, having a long tradition of a once very proud participation
of my family in Canada's military, having served in the second
world war and Korea and now my son in the Canadian Armed
Forces participating in the peacekeeping roles. It makes me and my
son truly embarrassed at what Liberal governments have done in
the last 30 years to the Canadian military, once one of the proudest
organizations in the world with much to be proud of.
(1820)
We have expressed great concern with the variability of the
government to put that kind of a combat battalion in the field
equipped to do the job and to rotate it on a regular basis and to
avoid the battle fatigue and the problems we faced in the
peacekeeping role in Yugoslavia.
To begin again, after some of our soldiers have put in four tours
of duty in the former Yugoslavia and all the problems that has
caused with the families and children of those people, there are
grave concerns as to our ability to do that and at the same time
preserve some kind of family structure for those involved.
Again, I am truly disappointed. I wish the government would be
honest and provide a chance for some democracy in this
place.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker, tonight
from all three parties in this discussion I have been hearing the
expression the former Yugoslavia. Let me clarify this. The former
Yugoslavia means a territory of newly formed countries, starting
with Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and the former
Republic of Macedonia.
It would be absurd to use the expression of Latvia as the former
Soviet Union. I would appeal to members to use proper names.
Those countries are members of the United Nations.
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, I do not believe there was a
question there.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address some of the key
concerns that-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are still on questions
and comments.
Mr. Bevilacqua: I am aware of that and you will get a
seven-minute comment from me.
This debate is about two things: the recent Dayton peace
agreement in light of the international community's continued
effort to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans, and to
consider Canadian support for peace efforts by participation in a
multinational military implementation force under NATO
command.
Like Canadians everywhere, the residents of York North want to
see this crisis resolved. They have watched civilians on both sides
of the conflict suffer unnecessarily. They have seen fellow
Canadians risk their lives participating in humanitarian missions.
They
17175
view the Dayton peace agreement as a ray of hope and they support
Canadian participation in an implementation force.
Canada has long been an active player on the world stage. In the
spring of 1945 Canada and 49 other nations gathered together to
draft and adopt the charter of the United Nations, an international
body created to prevent military conflict.
Since that day Canada has played an important and influential
role in the operation of the United Nations.
(1825)
It was, after all, our own Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson who
presented the concept of peacekeeping to the world in response to
the Suez crisis of 1956. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for
his efforts.
Canada has taken part in almost every single United Nations
peacekeeping operation since 1956 and many other missions
outside the organization. As of November 1, 1995 more than 1,600
personnel are deployed in 13 missions, making Canada the sixth
largest troop contributor.
My question is simple. Why would the Reform Party try to break
down this very important Canadian tradition of helping a country
during a very important crisis?
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, certainly you will not find me or
any of my colleagues disputing the past history of the Canadian
Armed Forces. We distinguished ourselves many times on the
battle field and would continue to do that again.
The members of the armed forces are there because they are
willing to do those things. They cannot do those things if the
government does not provide them the tools.
It is truly disgraceful what the Liberal government has done to
our Canadian Armed Forces since the end of the second world war.
Do not imply that we think any less of our armed forces or are any
less proud of our armed forces than you are.
It is time you put your money where your mouth is, put the
money up and provide the equipment-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to have to
remind the member once again to please address your comments
through the chair. We have time for a very brief comment by the
member for Scarborough Centre.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this is what true democracy is all about, to be able to
debate this important issue in the House.
I mentioned earlier about the flip-flop-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, there is a point
of order.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, to the parliamentary
secretary, because time is about to expire I would like to ask the
hon. member if he could ask for unanimous consent to extend-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, I thought you
were asking a question of the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer the hon.
member's question. There have been some consultations. I have
spoken with the Minister of National Defence. We will be more
than happy to extend the debate after the vote scheduled for
6.30 p.m.
We would be prepared to extend the debate for two hours to
9 p.m. on the understanding that during the extended hours of
debate there would be no dilatory motions, no quorum calls and no
other business called or motions put to the House except the item
under discussion.
We would be more than happy to extend for that two-hour period
if it would help the hon. member. I understand there are many hon.
members who wish to participate in the debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent to extend the debate until nine o'clock under the conditions
stipulated by the parliamentary secretary?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The remainder of the time
is to the hon. member for Scarborough Centre.
Mr. Cannis: Madam Speaker, it is wonderful and this is
democracy at its best to be able to debate this most important issue.
I mentioned flip-flopping. The reverse party-I mean the
Reform Party-is stating here that our troops are not equipped and
that they are not prepared. I do not know what impression it has. It
thinks we will send our troops over there unequipped, unprepared.
That is a false illusion. If the Reform Party thinks there is an
expenditure needed, is it supporting the minister to spend the
money? If he spends the money the Reform Party will come back
and haunt him for spending money when we should cut. What is its
position?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.30 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division at the second reading stage of Bill
C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.
* * *
The House resumed from December 1 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional
amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
17176
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 388)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-145
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest) -76
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Canuel
Cauchon
Copps
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
Dingwall
Gagliano
Graham
Guimond
Hickey
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacAulay
Maclaren
Marleau
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
D (1855)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
17177
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to an order made
earlier today, the House will now resume consideration of
government business, Motion No. 27.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the House on this
very important issue.
I would like to reiterate some of the important issues that I raised
earlier on. This debate is about two major things: first, the recent
Dayton peace agreement in light of the international community's
continued efforts to bring enduring peace and security to the
Balkans; and second, to consider Canadian support for these efforts
by participation in a multinational military implementation force
under NATO command.
The residents of York North, like Canadians everywhere, want to
see this crisis resolved. They have watched civilians on both sides
of the conflict suffer unnecessarily. They have seen fellow
Canadians risk their lives participating in humanitarian missions.
They view the Dayton peace agreement as a ray of hope. They
support Canadian participation in the implementation force.
Canada has a long tradition on the world stage in relation to
peacekeeping. We know that under the leadership of the Right Hon.
Lester B. Pearson, who presented the concept of peacekeeping to
the world in response to the 1956 Suez crisis, we are indeed world
leaders.
Canada has taken part in almost every United Nations
peacekeeping operation since 1956 and many other missions
outside the organization. As of November 1, 1995 more than 1,600
personnel are deployed in 13 missions making Canada the sixth
largest troop contributor.
Since the end of the cold war, the nature of conflict has changed.
It has become more regional and complex. The need for
peacekeeping forces is increasing rather than decreasing.
Peacekeeping forces, whose original missions were to monitor
ceasefires, are now working on the maintenance and
re-establishment of peace, delivering humanitarian aid, supervising
elections and monitoring human rights abuses.
The parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia want peace.
They have fought and suffered for several years. They are tired of
the carnage and are prepared to pursue their goals through
negotiations and political means. They have signed a complex
agreement setting out the compromises and frameworks they are
prepared to live with.
After more than four years of bitter fighting, peace may finally
be at hand in the former Yugoslavia. The people of the region have
endured terrible hardships. There could be no accurate measure of
their suffering or loss. The effects of this conflict will be seen for
years to come. Citizens will bear the emotional scars of being
witnesses to the atrocities of war, of having had loved ones die in
their arms from causes so simple and so possible to prevent:
starvation, hypothermia, dehydration.
The land is scarred from years of battle. Bombs, chemical spills,
mines and neglect have taken their toll. The infrastructure has been
eradicated. It was only recently that electricity was restored to
Sarajevo. Roads, buildings, sewer systems, the fundamentals that
we as Canadians take for granted must be rebuilt.
What is critical to any peace process involving the use of
peacekeeping troops is that the military component must be
accompanied by a strong, viable political process. In the former
Yugoslavia we now have a strong peace process. The Dayton peace
agreement points the way clearly to a new political reality designed
to end the fighting and conflict in that region.
What is required militarily is a brief period of stability to allow
the implementation of the political steps agreed upon. The
international community has laid the foundation for a strong peace
process. The Dayton peace agreement points the way clearly to a
new political reality designed to end the fighting in that region.
(1905)
The Dayton peace agreement calls for, among other things,
country-wide elections to be held within nine months. Free
elections would be a tremendous step forward in the former
Yugoslavia. A truly democratic election process that produces a
government and a leader supported and chosen by the population
would go a long way to ensuring the cohesiveness of the country.
Free elections require stability, freedom of movement and
freedom of information. We must counteract nearly four years of
war and hate. The groundwork must be laid to ensure that elections
are feasible. One way of ensuring a successful election is to provide
residents with a commitment to personal security.
Canada's efforts to re-establish peace in the former Yugoslavia
are extensive. Over the last four years Canada has played a
significant role in the international community's efforts to deal
with the war in the former Yugoslavia. These efforts have been
carried out primarily through the United Nations and NATO. Not
only have Canadian military personnel helped prevent the conflict
from spreading to other parts of the region and from becoming
more brutal, they have also saved countless lives by assisting and
delivering humanitarian relief supplies and preventing more
massive assaults on civilian populations.
17178
In September 1991, Canada led the call for the United Nations
Security Council to deal with this situation. Since then Canada has
contributed one of the largest contingents to UN forces in the
former Yugoslavia. As the mandate of the UN forces evolved over
the course of the conflict, so did the tasks performed by Canadian
troops. Their duties have ranged from traditional peacekeeping
functions such as monitoring ceasefires to more challenging roles
such as establishing humanitarian airlifts, repairing schools and
supporting hospital workers.
With the peace process now moving into a new phase, the
Canadian forces are ready if necessary to serve with an
implementation force. The peace implementation force plan calls
for roughly 60,000 personnel. This plan covers the military aspects
of the peace agreement negotiated in Dayton. It will be
implemented after a UN Security Council resolution is passed
authorizing the mission. The objectives of the implementation
force are as follows:
First, to ensure compliance with the military aspects of the peace
agreement. This would include, in particular, the withdrawal of
forces to their respective territories as set out in the agreement, and
the establishment of agreed lines of separation of those forces.
Second, to create secure conditions for the withdrawal of UN
forces currently in place.
Third, to create secure conditions for the conduct of other
non-military tasks associated with the peace agreement. The UN,
the European Union and the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe will be among the organizations carrying
out civilian duties. All our NATO allies will be participating, with
the exception of Iceland which has no armed forces. Among
non-NATO nations, 19 including Russia, have indicated a
willingness to contribute.
Finally, the plan calls for the replacement of the implementation
force with non-NATO forces after 12 months. This transfer would
occur regardless of whether the peace agreement has been fully
implemented. Citizens of the former Yugoslavia view the Dayton
peace agreement as a ray of hope. Canadian involvement in the
implementation force would allow this ray of hope to shine.
(1910)
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased the debate has been extended because if it had not
been, I would not have been able to put my views on the record.
A lot of members are very interested in what is going on in
Bosnia and Croatia and the other states of the former Yugoslavia. In
my constituency there are many individuals whose families have
served in a number of different support functions with the United
Nations since this conflict started. In the Dartmouth-Halifax area
because the east coast Canadian navy is there, there are many
individuals who have served onboard the ships which offered
logistical support in the Adriatic. Many individuals from Atlantic
Canada have served on a number of the missions in Bosnia.
The hon. member for Athabasca indicated earlier that perhaps he
was in a unique situation because his son might be one of those
called upon to serve. He may be unique in that regard, but there are
many of us, myself included, who have family members in the
Canadian Armed Forces.
My brother Paul has served in peacekeeping missions under the
UN as a blue beret in Cambodia. Cambodia was a very difficult
mission. There were no warring factions at that point in time, but it
was a highly unstable political situation. It was difficult on family
members. It was difficult on Paul's fiancée at the time, but he
served proudly wearing the blue beret of the United Nations. He
served there proudly as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.
My nephew, Neil Bernard MacKinnon, served two or three tours
of duty in Bosnia. He was a young man in his early twenties. When
he would visit, my dad, who served in the second world war, would
say: ``I think Neil Bernard has seen more slick trenches by his
stories from Bosnia than I did in the Italian campaign during the
second world war''. That young man dedicated himself and his life
to serve the Canadian Armed Forces. He served very proudly under
very difficult circumstances in Bosnia. It is unfortunate because he
lost his life in the spring of this year, not in Bosnia but here in
Canada in a training exercise in Suffield. This is currently the
subject of an inquiry.
Some of the best remembrances I and my family have of Neil
Bernard are his stories about the service he gave in Bosnia, about
the humanitarian tragedy that was unfolding in that particular state
and about the important role played by Canadian peacekeepers
serving under the UN banner in that little part of hell. That is how
he described it to me one day.
Today it is important that as parliamentarians we not debate in
isolation. I have heard a lot of isolated debate today. I have heard a
little bit too much partisanship in the debate as well. We are talking
about the soldiers, the men and women who have chosen to serve
this country, Canada, through the Canadian Armed Forces. We sent
these people over there in a time of war and conflict when there
was no peace to keep. They provided humanitarian aid. Some were
injured and some were killed. Some were scarred by what they saw,
but nevertheless they did it because they believed in the Pearson
commitment to humanitarian aid and peacekeeping through the
United Nations.
I remember in the last Parliament we had another debate on the
UN and UN resolutions with respect to the Persian Gulf crisis. I
remember quite well having to speak in that debate. It was
certainly not as focused as this debate is. The government at the
time did not want us to speak specifically about whether or not our
troops would be committed if a war did break out. It was a
17179
resolution on whether or not we supported UN resolutions. I
remember I was waiting to speak on that bill. There was a long list
at the time. It was a motion. My interest in speaking was that I
knew if a war did break out and the Canadian government
committed troops there would be men and women who lived in my
riding, some of whom lived in my neighbourhood and some of
whom had children who went to school with my children, who
would be committed.
(1915)
As members of Parliament, I wanted everybody to be quite
aware of the dangers of such a commitment of forces in the Persian
Gulf. I supported at that time the government of the day doing what
it did. I supported that Parliament and the Canadian government
had to support members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
It is a little different this time around. We are being asked to
debate the principle of whether we should continue, now that we
have the Dayton peace accord, to provide troops for a one-year
period as peace is implemented in Bosnia.
Clearly, the members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been
truly tested over the years from budget cuts and lack of equipment
they believe they need. But not once have I talked to a member of
the Canadian Armed Forces who was not prepared to go and do the
job they joined the armed forces to do. If that is in protection of the
sovereignty of our country, they are there to do it. If it is to go and
protect or preserve a peace or to try to bring about a peace in a
foreign state, they are prepared to serve.
I am rising today to say that I support the Canadian government
participating in the IFOR in Bosnia. I do not do it lightly. I do it
knowing full well, as the member for Athabasca said, that when
you get involved with an action like this there are inherent dangers.
Members of this place have to understand that when they speak in
support or not in support of motions such as this.
I also believe very strongly that we can no longer continue to ask
the members of our Canadian Armed Forces to do more with less.
During the Persian Gulf situation and since 1991 in the Bosnian
situation, there is no question that what we have done is ask our
men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces to stretch the
resources further than the resources many times could be stretched.
I am one of those who believe that if we want the Canadian
Armed Forces to continue to hold up the very credible reputation
that Canada has worldwide for its peacekeeping and peacemaking
efforts as well, then we must provide the resources to the armed
forces to make sure they are the best equipped forces in the world.
I get worried about talk of continued budgetary cutbacks. I get
worried when I know that perhaps some of the equipment our
armed forces has is not what it should be. But I get equally worried
when I hear members opposite of the third party, the Reform Party,
who want to have it both ways. This is two or three times in debate
that they have criticized the government for allowing a debate to
happen, which is outrageous, and said we cannot send troops over
because they are not properly equipped.
I do not care what the Minister of National Defence says and I
really do not care what the Minister of Finance says with respect to
having to get the deficit down when I know there are members of
the Canadian Armed Forces who do not have the resources they
require to do the job we ask of them.
I will say it in this place. I said it publicly and I will continue to
say it, even though some in my party may not like me saying it. At
least I am not hypocritical. I am consistent. I have been for the
seven years I have been here.
What I would like to find out from the members opposite, from
somebody in the Reform Party, is whether they are in favour of
sending troops over. Please say so. If it is with the condition that
there is more money allocated through the budgetary process to
provide them with better helicopters to replace the Sea Kings, I will
be the first one to jump up and say I agree with you. If it is with the
assurance that the armoured personnel vehicle program that has
been announced be accelerated, which would cost a little more
money, I will agree with them. If it is conditional on the purchase
of new submarines to retire the aging class that we have most of the
time that do not work because they are so bloody old, I will agree
with them.
I would like for them to be clear and intellectually honest in a
debate like this. The men and women of the Canadian Armed
Forces deserve better than political rhetoric on the floor of the
House of Commons when there are motions put forward debating
whether or not they participate in international obligations,
particularly when there is the threat of injury or even death.
(1920 )
I support the government's initiative, but I will also put it on the
record that I want the government to ensure that the troops we send
have the resources they need to do the job we ask of them.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate on Bosnia and
Canada's role in this important geopolitical problem.
There have been four years of brutal war. Two million people
have been displaced. Over 200,000 people have been killed. Now,
thankfully, there is the Dayton peace plan. It is a welcome
initiative. However, there is something we must understand: it is a
fragile peace plan and it is only the beginning. The international
community must realize that the Dayton peace plan gives the world
17180
an opportunity to provide long lasting peace in Bosnia; however, it
is not the end of the situation.
In the long term, history tells us that peace cannot be enforced at
the end of an assault rifle. It has to come from peace building
initiatives from people on the ground. Any time there is a civil war
that tears apart a country, as the conflict in Bosnia has done, the
seeds of ethnic discontent, hatred, and future wars will be there.
The only way to combat that is for us to contribute to peace
building initiatives for the disparate ethnic groups in that land.
Let us look at the scenario that now faces us. The 12-month
timeline that has been set up by the supreme allied command is a
fantasy. The people of that region will be there for a longer period.
We have to ensure that we will not be engaged in a Cyprus in the
middle of Europe. We have to understand that the Bosnian Serb
population is very tenuous, with Radovan Karadzic and General
Mladic saying they will make certain parts of the former
Yugoslavia bleed, namely Sarajevo. They are an element that has to
be neutralized.
The Muslim-Croat alliance that exists now is tenuous at best.
Many people tend to forget that two years ago these two groups
were fighting a bloody war within Bosnia. Much has to be done to
mend fences there. The Bosnian federation, as it now exists, with
two federations under the umbrella of one country, is also tenuous.
It will fracture. Whether it fractures into two areas or three, with a
Croat-Bosnian-Muslim and a Bosnian Serbian group or with the
Croats and Muslims divided into two groups, is yet to be seen. In
my estimation, Bosnia will fracture into at least two or three
groups. It is important for us to ensure that the fracturing is
accomplished through diplomacy and not at the end of an assault
rifle.
There is much that has to be done, and IFOR gives us the
opportunity. Troops need to be deployed, but they do not have to be
Canadian troops. I believe there is a way around this situation. The
European Union has a force of 50,000 troops that has never been
tried. That force is well armed and well equipped. The European
force can use Bosnia as a teething ground under the existing NATO
command structures. A lot could be learned from this, which could
be used in future peace building initiatives.
Canada has done its part. Our armed forces have done an
admirable job in the former Yugoslavia. Our troops need a rest.
They need to re-equip and take a bit of a break.
Bosnia will secede. As I said before, we want to ensure that it
secedes peacefully.
I believe the effective contribution Canada can make, rather than
sending over troops, is to ensure that the peace building initiatives
that take place on the ground continue. We can contribute engineers
for the rebuilding of infrastructure: hospitals, roads, bridges and
the like. We can also utilize NGOs and civilian groups to contribute
to the peace building and peace bridging that must happen with the
civilian population in that region. This is something we are good at
and something we can contribute in the peace building process in
the former Yugoslavia without contributing troops.
(1925 )
Economic prosperity in any war situation is absolutely
fundamental for the peace building process. Just because we are
enforcing a peace with an international protection force now does
not mean to say there will be peace in the future. Contributing to
the infrastructure development and developing economies so the
people in the area can stand on their own two feet is absolutely
fundamental for peace building.
One of the things we can do to neutralize Radovan Karadzic and
General Mladic is to take away their power base. The people in
Sarajevo are scared, the Bosnian Serbs in particular. If we can
contribute to making sure they will be secure in their environment,
they will not provide a fertile ground for General Mladic and Mr.
Karadzic to put a flame into the very volatile situation that is
Bosnia as we know it.
I would also suggest that we continue with the arms embargo,
and I would continue with the demilitarization process that has to
occur in the former Yugoslavia, a very difficult situation to pursue.
I would say that the involvement of the European force is
something that is long overdue, for the European community
abrogated their responsibility in the first place in the former
Yugoslavia. When they were given the mandate to try to defuse the
situation, defuse the precursors to conflict that were there, they
turned their back and stuck their head in the sand. It is high time
they contributed to this initiative, contributed to IFOR through
using the European force that is there.
Our contribution as a country to ensure that our commitment to
European security is there and ensure our allies in NATO realize we
are also committed to security in Europe can be the involvement of
our military through engineers, not combat troops, and can be the
involvement of our civilian population NGOs through peace
building initiatives on the ground. All we need to do is look at the
Middle East to show that peace building must be done along
economic lines as well.
On a broader scale, I would ask our Minister of Foreign Affairs
to work with our Minister of National Defence at developing a long
lasting, far-reaching Canadian foreign policy on how to prevent
these conflicts from occurring in the first place. That involves
identifying the precursors to conflict, listing those, and working
17181
with international organizations to ensure there will be a
predictable, identifiable and concrete response to the precursors to
conflict.
This conflict in the former Yugoslavia and many others around
the world were entirely preventable. The writing on the wall in the
former Yugoslavia was there in 1987, yet the world community
chose to ignore it. If we had addressed that conflict then, we would
not have seen the hundreds of thousands of people killed, the
millions of people displaced and the profound human tragedy that
none of us in this room can possibly comprehend.
We as a country can take a leadership role as one of the few
countries in the world that has the international suasive power in
the international community to encourage our neighbours to
develop the broad peace building, peacemaking and conflict
prevention framework that needs to be done.
Apart from using the United Nations, we can also use the
international financial institutions as cheap non-military economic
levers in conflict prevention, both as a form to dissuade potential
groups from engaging in conflict and also to encourage groups to
enter a road of peace rather than go down the road of war.
With the debate we have had today-and I thank the hon.
members in the House for extending the debate-I hope we can
make an effective contribution, not necessarily through our combat
troops but towards the peace building initiatives we in Canada are
so good at doing.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I sit in the House and listen and it reminds me of
someone trying to walk down a razor blade and they are afraid they
will slip. I think that is what is happening with the party opposite.
What does it understand by collective security? The person on the
right is going to be there when they are called upon. There is a trust.
There is a belief that one will deliver the goods. It is my belief the
third party is really off its stick in this whole debate, trying to win
friends on one side and trying to do something on the other side.
(1930)
I want to know now, does the hon. member understand what the
concept of collective security in NATO is?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, we
understand what collective security is. I made it very clear in my
speech that peace in the former Yugoslavia must involve a number
of routes. One is the use of combat troops.
As his colleague mentioned, our troops are having a difficult
time because of a lack of equipment and the fact that they have
been rotating quite frequently through the former Yugoslavia. They
are very tired and they need a break.
Be that as as it may, Canada can make an effective contribution.
One of the things I mentioned is the use of the military engineers
that we can contribute to the infrastructure development in Bosnia.
If there is no infrastructure development in Bosnia, no economy to
provide people with the means to get on their feet and provide
themselves with their basic needs, they have all the seeds, all the
groundwork for future conflicts to occur.
IFOR is just a stop gap measure. There is a pool of soldiers not
being utilized right now, a pool of soldiers in the sphere of
influence that Bosnia is in, the European Union force.
As I mentioned before, there are 50,000 troops. They are not
being used anywhere and they are well equipped. What better place
to have them teethe their techniques and drills than in the former
Yugoslavia, in Bosnia right now? They can do it under a controlled
setting under the guise and leadership of proven soldiers who are
there right now, the Americans, the French and the British. They
could learn the techniques and the tools to be an effective
peacemaking, peacebuilding and peacekeeping force.
In the future I hope the European Union force can take the
leadership role in trying to ensure that IFOR maintains its mandate
and that we can continue on toward ensuring that Bosnia has not a
short term peace but enjoys a long term peace and that it does not
descend into the caldron of brutality that it has for the last five
years.
We need to contribute to this. We can involve civilian
populations in the peacemaking process in the former Yugoslavia.
There are number of options there as I mentioned in my speech.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have engaged this member in debate in the past. He is usually
rather unequivocal with his position.
I ask him to be unequivocal. The member heard me and I
indicated my support and I could not make it any clearer. I am
concerned about whether the Canadian Armed Forces generally has
the resources given to it through the budgetary process to have the
best equipment possible to do the job we ask of it.
I ask the member opposite a question concerning himself
individually. Forget his party. He knows the comments I have made
about his party and its position. Does he support the Canadian
Armed Forces participating in IFOR? It is either yes or no.
Perhaps the member thinks this is the forum in which we debate
exactly every detail the Canadian forces are to do over there. The
member should know those details will be worked out with their
colleagues who are putting together this collective force.
17182
With or without qualifications, does he support it? Yes or no.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, if
we had more details on Canadian troop requirements in the former
Yugoslavia we would be able to make a more equivocal statement.
The contribution Canada can make toward the peace process in
Bosnia is to use perhaps our military engineers toward
infrastructure development but not use our combat troops in IFOR
at the present time.
(1935 )
I hope that is very clear: do not use our combat troops under
IFOR but contribute toward European security, contribute toward
participating with our allies in building peace within Bosnia
through non-military methods, through the use of our engineers,
through peace building initiatives, through our non-combat troops
in the military and also through non-military groups we have in
Canada, NGOs, civilian groups and the like.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to share my thoughts about Canada's peacekeeping
role in Bosnia this evening. I begin by giving a vote of thanks to our
Canadian troops.
Despite the bad press they have received because of a few bad
apples and a few incidents in the past few years with people who
are not worthy to be called Canadian soldiers, despite the miserable
state of the leadership at national defence and the wholly
inadequate response to leadership deficiencies on the part of this
government, and even though our forces have not always been
properly backed up by this government, I commend the fortitude,
the restraint and the professionalism shown by our military
personnel in the field. The quality of our peacekeeping has never
been more restrained or to be admired more than in Bosnia. We are
recognized the world over for our contributions there to date.
Canadians have an unparalleled reputation for even handedness
and compassion in other areas of the world as well. A Canadian
working for World Vision in Rwanda and Somalia who had daily
contact with our troops had nothing but praise for them. He told us
that our personnel consistently went above and beyond the call of
duty in service to other Canadians as well as to the people native to
the area. That is a typical comment.
However, there are a number of defence reports circulating that
show a serious morale problem in the forces because of the rapid
and successive deployments in Croatia and Bosnia. Some soldiers
have seen three or four tours of duty in a row and are becoming
exhausted. Still, they are professionals and I expect they will return
to the field once again without hesitation if they are asked to serve.
The question we address tonight is should they be asked in the
first place? Nowhere is it more appropriate that the questions be
asked than in the House. I remind the Canadian people that the
Prime Minister and the minister of defence have already made the
decision to send the troops, which renders the House of Commons
almost irrelevant in this debate. All we as members can do is stand
up here and voice our frustrations. It was obvious in that last
exchange between members on government side and this side when
they said ``support us, we do not know if we have the troops or the
supplies or the necessary equipment. Just support it''. It is very
frustrating.
Members of Parliament are denied any meaningful input which
is contrary to the recommendation of the special joint committee's
defence review last year which said: ``The government should not
commit our forces to service abroad without a full parliamentary
debate and accounting for that decision. It is our expectation that,
expect in extraordinary circumstances, such a debate would always
take place prior to any such deployment''.
In other words, before the decision is made we should be
debating it in advance. So much for the recommendations of that
special joint committee.
Earlier this year the House considered my private member's Bill
C-295, the peacekeeping bill, which would have placed reasonable
limits on Canada's peacekeeping role. The bill would have required
Parliament to approve participation in the mission, a mission such
as we are discussing tonight. It would have required the
government to offer the House an estimate of the mission's cost, its
duration and the role of the Canadian troops before committing to
it. These are the exact questions Canadians are asking today, and
the government is not offering adequate answers. I am not going to
sign a blank cheque or approve a blank cheque because those
questions have not been answered.
I point out a few important things, especially to the people back
home at CFB Chilliwack in my riding. The first is obvious. This is
not a UN mission. This is a NATO mission and NATO is not
intended to be a peacekeeping body. It is a joint force originally
designed and meant to defend Europe in the face of aggression. We
are a part of that. We understand that concept of collective security.
However, the quality of this mission is not a normal
peacekeeping mission. We need to know that up front. It is a NATO
led enforcement mission, not the kind that Canada usually
participates in under the authority of the United Nations. The
Minister of National Defence has already said this mission would
be a fully armed, sharp point combat role in which NATO forces
would be able to fire first and to respond to any attack with
overwhelming force. Previous American leadership has said this
force would be meaner than a junkyard dog. This is not a
peacekeeping force.
17183
(1940 )
Given also the warlike tone of some of the Bosnian leaders who
have already repudiated the Dayton treaty signed in Ohio, I think
we can expect some difficult combat action. Canadians are
understandably uncomfortable with this role when they are not
defending their own soil.
They ask questions such as are we willing to accept an escalation
of our role in Bosnia? Do we have the equipment to equip our
forces properly? Are we willing to raise the stakes even further
with the risk of having our Canadian soldiers shot or blown up by
land mines or humiliated and held hostage by people intent on
destroying the peace? I have already attended one funeral in my
riding of a Canadian soldier who served in Bosnia. I can understand
their concern about this escalation in the role.
We hear that NATO may also be involved in rearming Bosnia.
People ask if Canada should be a part of this where it takes sides
and helps to arm different factions in a war, where it helps pick the
winners and losers. In some people's minds this provokes rather
than reduces hostilities. Canada has invested too much in its
international reputation for peace to jeopardize its neutrality now
by enmeshing itself in conflicts as one of the antagonists.
We also have no idea what the goal of this mission is. We do in
broad terms but NATO says it hopes to stabilize the situation within
a year, then throw the hot potato to somebody else, an unknown,
unnamed entity with the power to keep the antagonists apart. Who
would that be? No one knows for sure but it seems to me if history
is any teacher we are likely to see NATO forces there indefinitely.
Because this upcoming year is an election year in the U.S. there
will be intense pressure for the Americans to pull up stakes and
return home after that year is up. Then someone will have to stay
behind and keep the peace. Who? I talked to a senior member of the
armed forces on the weekend back home. He said that when he
went to Cyprus 30 years ago it was supposed to be a one-year
mission. We all know what happened there. We were there for 30
years and we do not want to see that happen again.
Not only that but as part of the bigger picture Canada is also on
record saying we want to give some of our forces to a standing
permanent rapid reaction force, virtually a standing army, to the
United Nations. I realize this is a separate issue but if that were to
come about it would surrender more of our troops outside of
Canadian led combat forces.
I wonder sometimes where the leadership of our country is
taking us. I am not sure it understands that we do not have an
infinite amount of troops to give to either the UN or to NATO
while trying to keep our other jobs properly equipped and manned.
The cost of this mission? In the last three years we spent $800
million in the former Yugoslavia. In the next year we would expect
to spend another $200 million, but that is just speculation because
the government will not give us the figures. We have asked it to
give us the figures, the cost, the role and so on, but it will not give
us any of that. It is interesting that if we commit more troops to
NATO we will have fewer troops to commit to any UN led force in
years to come, and there are bound to be more demands on that as
well.
I reiterate the idea of a colleague from the Reform Party. We
could arguably and persuasively say Canada has some obligation to
serve with NATO but Canada need not take an active combat role.
We could have a support role either with the engineers, as was
mentioned earlier, with providing field services, supply services,
an intelligence network and so on. There are things we could do
outside the combat role.
To be heavily involved in combat, to be rearming some portions
of the population and not others, to be acting outside our traditional
UN mandate is a huge step when I do not see the end result the
government is trying to work toward. Without an effective national
debate we are about to launch an armed forces, exhausted and low
in morale for the reasons I mentioned earlier, into a dangerous high
risk combat mission without goals, without timetables, without
cost estimates and perhaps even without the proper equipment. Is
this wise?
It is said that discretion is the better part of valour, and our
national leaders will show their discretion in this situation by
declining combat participation in this venture.
(1945 )
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in a more cynical and uncaring age than our own, Bismark
once quipped that the Balkan conflicts were not worth the bones of
a single Prussian Grenadier.
In depositions I gave to the committee on foreign affairs of the
United States house of representatives on August 12, 1992 and
August 3, 1993-and these are entered and published in the
congressional record of those two dates-I recommended that with
the pending break-up of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which
was first put together as part of the World War I victors' peace
settlement, it would be wise to go back to the original Versailles
treaties of 1919 and specifically the treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye
which created Yugoslavia to achieve a peaceful, orderly succession
and avoid loss of life and hardship to the civilian population of the
region.
Now, three years and 250,000 civilian deaths later, we seem to be
reaching the same result as might have been obtained under the
17184
orderly international law processes envisaged by the Versailles
treaties, including resort to the compulsory jurisdiction of the
World Court afforded by the treaty in case of impasses of territorial
frontiers.
Our foreign minister and later Prime Minister, Lester Pearson,
fathered the concept of United Nations peacekeeping. We have
since come of age in our experience with UN problem solving in
the former Yugoslavia with the mission in the Bosnia-Hercegovina
region being quickly transformed from classical UN peacekeeping,
which is simply physically keeping apart warring rivals who have
already accepted a military ceasefire, and these involving chapter
VI of the charter, pacific settlement of disputes, the transformation
into the new concept of an activist peacekeeping role involving
chapter VII of the charter.
Having gone so far, Canada has become part of the continuing
post-communist succession problem in Yugoslavia and should stay
the course.
There are however steps that can be taken to offset or reduce the
dangers of our continuance in the new NATO based phase of the
operation and to ensure that decisions taken are compatible with
and protected by international law and also rational in the political
and larger geopolitical sense.
First, it should be recognized that NATO as a regional security
arrangement falling within chapter VIII of the United Nations
charter, derives its international law authority from the United
Nations charter and cannot go beyond that. Issues such as the right
of self-defence and its present day practice can be updated or
redefined in contemporary international law terms by the security
council and also the general assembly as glosses on classical
doctrine and jurisprudence as the 1992 decision of the International
Court of Justice in the Lockerbie case confirmed.
NATO itself however has no power to dispense from existing
international law norms and NATO commanders and their political
governors would act at legal peril if they did not refer back to the
security council and general assembly when new political facts
challenging the political-military settlement now reached might
emerge.
One such potential problem obviously concerns future relations
of the two main constituent parts of the new Bosnian entity: the
Croat-Muslim Bosnian Republic and the Serbian Bosnian
Republic, their relations to their adjoining mother states, Croatia
and rump Yugoslavia which is Serbia-Montenegro.
The current political military settlement has an element of
historical transition inherent in it and irredentist pressures for
ultimate junction with the adjoining mother states can be expected.
It would be an error for NATO to view such matters, if they
should arise, as purely military in character and proper for a NATO
military decision alone. Political common sense and prudence
counsel following what international law in any case enjoins,
namely referring the high political issues back to the security
council and general assembly for definitive ruling.
Likewise whatever dispositions the NATO high command might
wish to make, the military decisions of NATO are referable back to
the United Nations for their ultimate sanction and justification
under international law.
In adhering to the new NATO force for Bosnia, the Canadian
government might perhaps attach appropriate reservations
confirming the primacy, as to Canadian forces, of the United
Nations as through regional security organizations authorized
under chapter VIII of the United Nations charter.
(1950 )
This being understood, we can and should support Canada's
continued participation in the Bosnian peace process that after four
long winters seems at last to be opening up the prospect of the rule
of law and peace and elemental security for the inhabitants of that
historically troubled region.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
privilege to rise in the House this evening to debate the issue of
whether we should once again send troops into the Balkan theatre
to aid that area in implementing the peace initiative which has
recently been achieved at Dayton, Ohio.
The first question we have to ask ourselves is whether Canadian
troops should go back. Should we be sending our troops back to
this area where they have already performed with such skill, with
such professionalism and have brought such pride to Canadians by
the contribution they have made in the humanitarian rescue of
unfortunate people in that region?
Our troops have made tremendous contributions in that area.
Many members of the Reform Party have taken the position that
they have done enough. Let us cease our contribution. Let us stop
there.
As many other Canadians do, I might subscribe to that point of
view myself if things had not changed. Things have changed
enormously in the last couple of months. There has been a dramatic
change in the conditions under which that whole region is presently
evolving.
We have heard described in this House the conditions of the
Dayton, Ohio peace agreement which has been achieved. There is
no reason for me to go over the conditions and the parameters of
that agreement.
It is not a perfect agreement, but the Serbian government of Mr.
Milosevic is committed to it. There will be problems in Sarajevo.
There will be problems in other areas but the Serbian government
is committed to the agreement and various other governments in
the area are committed to it. It is clear that without some form of
active intervention from outside forces to make that peace treaty
17185
work there will be no opportunity or no possibility of peace being
established in the region.
We must ask ourselves the question, should we intervene at this
time and give peace a chance? Should we listen to what Mr. Clinton
said on television the other night when he laid out the reasons why
for the first time he is prepared to commit United States' troops to
this grand enterprise?
Should we recognize the tremendous contribution that the
United States has made and is making to this and the difference that
that will make? Should we then take these risks, for risks there will
be? There are always risks in any enterprise worth the game.
It seems to me that this is an enterprise where we can balance the
risks with the reasonable certainty of a better opportunity of
ensuring peace than we could have before, if we take, for example,
the position of the security of our troops, a matter referred to at
great length by members from the third party.
It seems to me that the security of our troops in the present
circumstances is far superior to what it was before. When we were
debating this matter before, the members of the third party were
constantly saying we should not be putting our troops in harm's
way. They have no opportunity of defending themselves. They are
in this awful position where they can be taken hostage, they cannot
defend themselves, they have been put in an impossible position.
We are going to send them back equipped. We are sending them
back with a force of the United States of America, 20,000 troops of
the most important army in the world, with the most sophisticated
weaponry in the world and with the authority to take defensive
measures if they are attacked.
In my view, they are in a far better position than they ever were
before. I am far more at ease as a parliamentarian to know that our
troops will be going in those circumstances than where they were
before.
If they were being asked to go back and produce in the
conditions they were in before I would agree that they should not
go back but these are not the same conditions. They are not so
inconsistent.
(1955 )
Look at what the local countries around are dealing with, the
determination of Croatia and Serbia. There is a contribution from
all countries in the area. We can now be assured that the risk of this
war spilling over can be eliminated.
It makes sense to send our troops back under these circumstance.
This confirms our overall policy objectives in this area and all
other areas, which is to provide effective humanitarian aid, to
assure the evolution of multilateral peacekeeping which goes
directly to fulfil the need for security and peace in the world. The
joint foreign policy review by the Senate and House of Commons
laid great emphasis on the need for Canada's participation in
multilateral peacekeeping because that is the future of the world.
That is where Canada can make a contribution and it is where its
contribution is needed.
Finally, it corresponds to our commitment to the human rights of
the people in these areas. There can be no human rights without
peace, security and stability. Without that the talk about human
rights is empty talk. This gives us an opportunity to contribute to
the establishment of human rights in this area.
We have made these contributions before. We have not just
contributed arms forces in this area before. We have contributed
mounted police who on a day to day policing mission gave stability
and proper peace and security to small neighbourhoods to ensure
that individuals could get some opportunity for justice and fair
treatment.
Our non-governmental organizations have provided food aid,
resettled people, provided an opportunity for people to try and get
their lives back together. This can only be accomplished in an area
where peace has been established and where there is some form of
security guaranteed by troops. It is our troops that will be doing
that.
I feel we must support this initiative. We must urge the
government to be part of any comprehensive scheme in which our
NATO allies are participating and in which we can make an
important contribution. It corresponds to our interests in
establishing peace in the region. It creates credibility for the
multilateral peacekeeping process which is an important
contribution which Canada can make to the world today.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I would like to say that this initiative is in keeping
with Canadian interests and values. It is in our interest, because we
have an interest in peace and in humanitarian aid, and we can be
proud of what we have already done and what we will be doing in
this area. It is in keeping with our values, because our values are
those of a society that is fair, equitable and peaceful.
We want to contribute to a world where these values prevail in
place of those of war and aggression. It is, moreover, our duty to
take part in this initiative. Chances are good this initiative will
succeed and that we will make a significant contribution to its
success. I am very proud to speak in favour of this government
initiative.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I would like to thank the hon. member for his remarks. I know he is
very well informed. As chair of the foreign affairs committee, he is
in the loop. He knows all the inside stories.
17186
I know that he thinks that the third party is somehow not in
favour of sending troops overseas or some such thing. But if he
could just grab the nub of the argument. He says the troops will
be in much better shape this time when we send them over because
they will be so much better equipped to defend themselves in the
case of aggression. I hope that is true. I have been calling for that
since the last time I saw one of our guys chained to chain link
fence. I wanted them to be better equipped and have the ability
to defend themselves.
(2000 )
Can the member not understand that is the problem? He says,
and maybe he knows because he is part of the inside circle, that we
are going to have better equipment, a better opportunity to defend
ourselves and so on. What we are asking is that we merely be told
what we are going to do when we get there. What are we going to
send? Are we going to send 20 F-18s? Are we going to send tanks?
We do not have tanks so I guess it is not tanks. Are we going to
strap Eaton's catalogues around our guts to try to keep them from
being blown up? What are we going to do?
We are just asking for a list of what it is we are sending over
there so we know that our troops will be well looked after. That is
all we are asking. If the member knows something more than what
is in this motion and he can tell us, then maybe we would vote in
favour of it. Saying that we hope the guys get over there and tying a
Canadian flag to the end of a World War II musket in the hopes they
do not get their guts blown out is not good enough. We need some
more assurance before we start sending our guys over there.
If the government wants to assure us, just tell us what equipment
we are going to send over. It is not going to be tanks because we do
not have tanks. Is it going to be submarines?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): We don't have any of
them.
Mr. Strahl: We do not have submarines. What is it going to be?
Why is the government so assured that we are going to be able to
look after ourselves? If the government could just tell us what we
are sending. We are sending an unknown number of people over
there for an unknown duration at an unknown cost with unknown
equipment to do an uncertain role with an unknown resolution at
the end of it and we are supposed to say it sounds good to us? I
think not.
If the government could just tell us what we are doing then
maybe we could vote with it.
Mr. Graham: Madam Speaker, it is easy to have a reductio ad
absurdum on these sorts of arguments. Is the hon. member
seriously suggesting that we are going to parachute our troops in
unarmed, that we are going to drop them in with absolutely no
equipment? This is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
It reminds me of exactly what the Bloc Quebecois members were
saying this afternoon. They were saying: ``We agree we should be
participating. We accept that we have an obligation to do this. We
accept that we should be there, but we do not like the fact that the
Prime Minister has not talked to Mr. Clinton first'', or something
like that. Reasons can always be found.
What are we talking about here? We are talking about
participating in a NATO enterprise. It is going to be absolutely
secure by a great deal of superior American firepower, troops and
armour and we will be able to play an important supporting role.
I do not think it is up to us in this House to try and second guess
the generals, to second guess exactly what is going to be on the
ground. Are there going to be three tanks, two troop carriers, four
submachine guns? That is not the role of members of Parliament.
Members of Parliament know we have armed services that are
equipped to do the job they will be asked to do. We know they are
not being sent over there with a bunch of Eaton's catalogues
strapped around them. We know they are going there in an
enormous, complicated enterprise with NATO troops and with
allies who, all pulling together, will be able to achieve this
extraordinary enterprise.
To suggest that they are somehow being dropped in there without
proper equipment and preparation is irresponsible. In my view it
totally ignores what we have been able to achieve so far. It totally
ignores the quality of our armed services.
As a member of this House, I do not expect the government to
give me a shopping list of every platoon and every weapon that is
going. What I expect is a principled decision based on a common
sense approach and an understanding of the strategic and military
necessities. My understanding from listening to the Minister of
Defence this morning in opening this debate and from listening to
what the Prime Minister has said to date, is that we have that
understanding. Let us go with it. Let us not quibble and constantly
raise these quibbling concerns which are really just an excuse to try
and get out of what our duty calls us to do.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a quick rebuttal to the earlier speaker. I do not think
these are quibbling concerns. These are life and death concerns. We
have been raising questions here all day and getting absolute
nonsense for answers, when we get any answers at all.
I would like to thank hon. members of the House for agreeing to
the extension of the debate. It allows those of us who did not have
the opportunity earlier to speak on this issue this evening.
17187
(2005 )
As we debate a renewed commitment of troops to Bosnia, I find
myself with many more questions than answers. My colleagues
have already raised this concern. How can we have a meaningful
debate if the government cannot decide or will not tell us how
many troops it will send, what their job will be and under what
conditions we will bring them home? But what is new? The
government has not had any criteria for three years. Why should I
be surprised and expect it to change?
Apparently NATO is expecting at least 1,200 to 1,500 Canadian
troops. According to reports, this is more than Germany or Turkey
are each committing. The former Yugoslavia is almost on their
doorstep yet Canada is supposed to commit more human and
financial resources to this effort than they are. Why?
It is far more expensive to maintain our troops across the
Atlantic than it would be for a neighbouring NATO ally, I would
submit. Has Canada or more important, our soldiers, not already
demonstrated a commitment to the peace process in the former
Yugoslavia? Canadians spent three years and 10 lives in Bosnia.
Unlike what the earlier speaker said, I do not believe it means that
Reformers are saying we have already done enough. That is not
what we are saying. I have not heard that here at all today. It is time
some of our other NATO allies bore their share of the burden,
however. As history has shown, achieving sustainable peace in the
Balkans is critical to European security.
I commend the Canadian soldiers who already served in the
former Yugoslavia. They performed professionally and beyond any
reasonable expectation, given an unclear mandate and extremely
adverse conditions. They were sent as peacekeepers before there
was any peace to keep. They were sent into a war zone inadequately
equipped and lightly armed. They protected civilian populations in
so-called neutral zones when the parties to the conflict did not
abide by the rules.
Despite questionable command structure, poor supplies, low
morale and an indecisive government back home with no plan to
get them out when the situation took a turn for the worse, despite
all of this, they did their jobs. They delivered humanitarian
supplies and kept thousands of women, children and
non-combatants safe in the middle of a war.
The reason they were sent in the first place was not to keep the
peace, for the belligerents were still at war. It was so the
government of the day could tell the world that Canada is ready to
participate anytime, anywhere, as long as it is called a
peacekeeping mission.
There was good reason many NATO allies were not there before.
There was no peace accord. But Canada was there. Sadly, it seems
that political pride in our peacekeeping tradition takes precedence
over the safety of our troops. If someone labels it a peacekeeping
mission, they know we will come running. Our soldiers deserve
more from us than this lapdog mentality. Let us make sure we are
going back for the right reasons, for reasons that Canada defines.
We are justifiably proud of the Canadian men and women who
have served as peacekeepers over the years. When they lay their
lives on the line, they must know that political leadership has done
everything in its power to ensure they are given the best chance for
survival.
They have a right to expect some things from their government.
We have a solemn responsibility to consider their safety above all
else. If we make a political decision to participate, it is their duty to
carry it out no matter what the military assessment. They cannot
say no. They have to obey orders. Even the generals cannot object
after a political decision has been made. It is our duty to ensure we
have done everything politically possible to define the parameters
and create the conditions for a safe peacekeeping mission before
we commit Canadian lives to a war zone.
Make no mistake. Bosnia is still a war zone. Canadian blood
should not be shed because our political leadership refuses to take
reasonable precautions. Our soldiers are sworn to defend Canada,
not to defend the vanity of politicians who want to preserve a
reputation at the UN, no matter what the cost in Canadian lives.
I recognize there is a fine line here. The only way we could
completely protect our troops is by never sending them anywhere.
However, we have commitments to our NATO allies. We have
international humanitarian commitments. We must balance these
obligations against our troops' welfare. This decision is not about
protecting Canada. It is an optional engagement.
The Prime Minister has committed us to the new NATO force
before the peace accord is even signed. Will this time be different
from the last time? There is not even a pretence that the
implementation force is on a humanitarian mission. There are other
roles to fill in the former Yugoslavia. We can hold our heads high if
we engage solely in humanitarian activities, as some of my
colleagues have indicated.
(2010)
Why are we having this debate if the decision has already been
made? How can we have a meaningful debate when we are told that
we might be sending 20 troops or we might be sending 2,500? The
Department of National Defence is not sure.
Members opposite have been chastising Reformers throughout
the day for not supporting our peacekeepers. We are not talking
about supporting peacekeepers. We are being asked to buy a pig in
a poke and we are not going to buy into it.
We may be there for 12 months. Maybe it will turn into another
Cyprus. It looks like the government has written a blank cheque to
17188
NATO. This is a political decision for prestige within NATO and to
show solidarity. It is nothing more and nothing less.
What of the soldiers? Before I could advocate sending Canadian
troops back to Bosnia I would want more assurances that we have
done our job to ensure their safety. Yes, they are soldiers and they
would willingly lay down their lives in defence of Canada, but they
should not be asked to do it for a political whim.
I have a few questions which the Prime Minister and his defence
staff have not answered.
Is there a well defined Canadian mandate? NATO wants to
stabilize the situation within 12 months and then pull out. However,
the Prime Minister said that we should be prepared to stay there
longer. That is unacceptable. If we are going in, it should be for a
set period, after which we can assess the situation with a full
debate. All the facts should be revealed to the Canadian public, for
the army belongs to them, not to the current political party. It is
their sons and daughters we are talking about. If we do not have a
time frame for withdrawal, how do we know if we have achieved
our objectives? Canada must establish its own criteria for
participation, not just use NATO's.
Will the Prime Minister make a commitment to hold a
comprehensive military and political review after 10 months so our
troops will know what to expect by the end of the year? Uncertainty
will only exacerbate morale problems. Over the past three years the
government has unilaterally extended our commitment without
listening to Parliament or consulting the Canadian people. Let us
not do it again.
Can the Prime Minister assure us that our soldiers will be better
equipped than the last time they went to Bosnia? They are the best
trained troops in the world, but there is a limit to improvisation. If
we are going to send them back into a potential war zone they
deserve the best equipment we can afford. With cuts at DND and
outdated personnel carriers, is this realistic?
Can the Prime Minister assure us that Canadian soldiers will be
under Canadian command? No one seems to know the answer to
that question. We cannot afford another Gallipoli or Dieppe. It
should be a precondition for our participation.
Canadian peacekeepers are trained to clear up
misunderstandings before they escalate into open conflict. I have
grave concerns that the same cannot be said for everyone else in the
60,000 strong occupation force. If civilians are antagonized by
inexperienced peacekeepers, will this increase the risk to our
Canadian soldiers?
The parliamentary secretary asked for some recommendations. I
have one for him. He noted that assistance to refugees and
humanitarian assistance is a secondary priority. I believe it should
be Canada's top priority. I believe we should focus our
involvement on technical, logistical and human support. Yes, we
have commitments to our NATO allies, but we have an even greater
moral obligation to our troops.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
commend the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River for
beginning his remarks by stating that we have to achieve a proper
balance between the need for the security of our troops and what we
are trying to achieve. I regret that he then promptly descended into
political rhetoric which suggested that all of this was being done
for the sake of political vanity and the whims of politicians. Does
the member not agree that this is a changed situation? Will he not
admit that this is an extraordinary opportunity?
(2015 )
Three months ago in that theatre we looked at the possibility of
that war extending itself outside those borders, of hundreds of
thousands of displaced people, thousands of men, women and
children losing their lives, with a terrible winter coming on with no
prospect of success. Suddenly we have a prospect of peace, which
requires to make it work the contribution of the world community
to get in there, pull the parties apart and make it work. Surely that is
worth some risk. Surely that is worth our participating in. Why is
that a whim? Why is that some irresponsible craziness on behalf of
people to want to see that?
Is Mr. Clinton being whimsical and foolish to commit 20,000
United States troops to this enterprise? Are the British and the
French a bunch of whimsical idiots to be doing this? Why are we
suddenly portrayed as people who have just vanity instead of
people who are recognizing we have a global responsibility to
peacekeeping and humanitarian aid, which we have been doing in
this country for generations now? This is an opportunity to make an
important contribution. To be pulling up all these objections at this
time and to be accusing people of engaging troops because of some
form of whimsical vanity strikes me as not only irresponsible, it is
absolute foolishness. It is wind and wind and wind.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Madam Speaker, I
will leave it up to the audience watching at home tonight on their
televisions to decide who is full of wind and wind and wind after
that outburst by the hon. member.
I would say that it is whimsical on the part of our government.
Certainly Mr. Clinton is not. He is sending his troops over there
with the best equipment in the world. What are we sending our
troops with?
We have been raising these concerns on this side of the House for
two years. The Reform Party has raised these issues time and time
again about inadequately equipping our troops. We ask the same
questions today. The hon. member was just asked that question and
he evaded the answer again. We are asking because we are
17189
concerned about the safety of our troops, and we get absolute
nonsense. I for one am sick and tired of it.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, today
we are debating the merits of sending our troops back to Bosnia,
not for another peacekeeping mission but for what can be called a
peace enforcement mission. Should Canada send troops as part of a
NATO mission in an attempt to stabilize the area referred to as the
former Yugoslavia? That is the question.
Our first thought should be of the peacekeepers. All too often
they become faceless, nameless individuals who are sent overseas
to keep a fragile peace. Well they are not faceless and nameless
people to me. I have met several of the peacekeepers and many of
their families. I know the role of peacekeeper takes its toll on the
individuals and their families. The amount of stress is something I
can only imagine.
I admire the men and women who have represented Canada in
peacekeeping missions and sometimes in peacemaking missions.
We have some of the best peacekeepers in the world. They have
done a superb job in the face of adversity. They have been forced to
make do with less than adequate equipment. Canadian troops have
a long tradition of improvising and making do with outdated and
unsuitable equipment for the job that must be done. Our troops
carry out this tradition with a considerable and justifiable pride.
They successfully refit, modify and repair equipment others would
abandon in despair. While our personnel take pride in making do
with unsuitable equipment, it is also a source of stress and
frustration for the peacekeepers and their families. Our troops
should not be sent into tense situations like this without the best
equipment available.
Our troops are also forced to endure less than adequate
leadership at the top. The leadership crisis in DND negatively
affects troops. The Somalia affair has clearly exposed this. I do not
believe we should be deploying more troops until the leadership
crisis is sorted out.
In addition, memos from DND tell us of a morale crisis. The
memos explain that the burden of rapid and prolonged deployment
is one of the primary causes. The succession of deployment of our
military personnel has led to their exhaustion. Some soldiers have
seen three or four tours of duty in Croatia or Bosnia. This
contributes to low morale of forces and their families. Stress levels
are at an all time high, resulting in family breakdowns, alcohol
consumption, untimely depression, attempted suicide and even
suicide.
(2020)
Recommendations have been made to balance the tours with
adequate time at home. Yet the government fails to take into
account the well-being of Canadian troops when the international
peacekeeping agreements are made. The troops deserve better
treatment from this government and from the upper layers of
leadership within the forces.
It is important to ask why this is merely a take note debate. This
mission to Bosnia involves Canadian lives. Why has the
government refused to bring this issue before the House for a free
vote? I do not mean a free vote as the Prime Minister envisions a
free vote. The Prime Minister's idea of a free vote is to instruct
Liberal MPs to vote any way they wish as long as they vote exactly
the way he tells them to vote. I do not see that as a free vote, not in
my interpretation of a free vote. Why not have a free vote where
members vote according to the majority view of their constituents?
This debate is a sham, because I am sure the decision of whether
or not to deploy troops has already been made. Therefore,
expressing my misgivings or support for this venture is of little
importance to this government. In fact our comments will have
little or no impact on this mission and whether it goes ahead.
However, I hope we can influence future troop deployments for
peacekeeping or peace enforcement missions.
Regarding this mission, the timeframe for the NATO
involvement has been given as 12 months. Following the expiry of
the 12 months, NATO intends to withdraw from the area and
transfer authority to another body. There are some obvious
questions from this vague description of what might or will
happen. What happens after 12 months? If authority is to be
transferred to another body after 12 months, what body? If that
body is not capable of doing the job, are the NATO troops kept
there indefinitely?
The Prime Minister has said that if we truly want peace we
should be prepared to stay as long as necessary. Is he willing to
keep troops in Bosnia after the 12-month mandate? The answer
seems to be yes. Then for how long?
We also know very little about the mission itself. How much will
the mission cost? How many troops will be deployed? What roles
are Canadians expected to fill? We do not know the answers to
these questions because the government will not give us the
information. How are we supposed to debate this issue and vote on
this issue without all the facts?
As far as the costs are concerned, the department has stated in a
briefing that the incremental costs could be somewhere between $2
million and $75 million. That is unblievable. A normal estimate
may allow 10 per cent or 15 per cent of a range in giving the
estimate. This Liberal estimate has a range of 3,800 per cent. That
is the Liberal range. This figure, in addition to being vague, only
refers to the defence department costs. What about incremental
costs incurred by the Department of Foreign Affairs? Is there a
ceiling to the cost? If so, what is the ceiling?
17190
The fact that we know very little about the details of this
mission concerns me. Indeed, the media seem to know more than
parliamentarians, as shown by the leaked document from the U.S.
that indicates Canada's expected troop commitment lies between
1,200 and 1,500 troops. Why has the government chosen to keep
information from parliamentarians and Canadians? Again this
shows that this debate is a complete sham.
(2025)
Many of the problems I have outlined in my speech could be
alleviated if our military had a clear mandate. First we need to
define Canada's military role, and it should be up to Canadians to
decide what this role should be. After appropriate debate through
public meetings and through the media, Canadians should decide
what functions they want DND to carry out. Then the decisions on
how these functions can be performed should be made by the
appropriate people within the forces with as little political
interference as possible. If the military is splintered by playing too
many roles, this diminishes the effectiveness with which it can
accomplish its tasks.
I believe Canadians, if given all the facts, could and should make
the decision as to what the mandate of our military should be. For
example, should the military play a defensive role; that is, should it
defend Canada against invasion? Should the military play a
peacekeeping role? Should the number of military reserves be
increased? Should it include a search and rescue function? Should
it be used in situations of civil unrest-for example, native
standoffs, organized crime revolts, or unilateral declaration of
independence from one part of the country and possible disruptions
resulting from such a secession?
We know the first option is not the most practical because we do
not have the troops or the money to perform that role. Canada has
come to depend on the United States and perhaps NATO for
protection against invasion.
Whatever role Canadians decide they want our forces to play,
two things are clear: our troops deserve the best training they can
get, and our troops deserve to be the best equipped for the job they
are to do.
In conclusion, we cannot afford to make decisions affecting
Canadians' lives by the seat of our pants. I cannot support this
deployment, given all the questions, the lack of information and the
lack of answers.
The government is playing fast and loose with the facts. These
facts affect Canadian peacekeepers and their lives. Reform refuses
to-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, your time has
expired.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, peacekeeping
is one of the strongest and most enduring traditions of Canada's
foreign and defence policy. Canada is justifiably proud of its
distinctive record in preserving world peace and fostering global
security. In fact we are the only country that can claim to have
participated in almost every peacekeeping mission organized under
auspices of the United Nations.
Canada's peacekeeping commitments command the respect and
admiration of the world community, a commitment that we
parliamentarians are examining once again under the issue of a
renewed participation in the peacekeeping force in Bosnia, as we
should and as is our responsibility.
Canada has taken a leading role in the efforts to bring about a
peaceful end to the conflict in the Balkans. Canada was among the
first countries to call for a concerted international action and
Canadian forces have served with distinction since 1991. Let us not
ignore that their participation was done at considerable cost to
Canada. Indeed, 10 Canadians were killed on this assignment. Let
us examine this request for a further commitment very carefully.
Incredibly, the warring factions in Bosnia made a peace
agreement a few short weeks ago. Requests for assistance to
provide a stable forum for this peace initiative to mature and grow
have been made. Our values of peace, freedom and democracy and
our aversion to intolerance, terrorism and destruction cry out for
our participation. Canadians do not simply stand for these ideals;
they act on them and sacrifice for them.
Fifty years have elapsed since the end of the second world war,
the war to end all wars. What have we learned? I wonder.
(2030 )
Over the last four years unthinkable horrors we thought were
banished forever have been seared into our minds once again: the
degradation of skeletal prisoners caged behind barbed wire fences;
senseless murders of defenceless women and children; cowardly
killings of men and boys in mass graves; ethnic cleansing;
sickening destruction and obliteration of homes, of
neighbourhoods, of entire communities where playgrounds and
marketplaces became war zones; endless lines of refugees
stumbling in misery and despair. The picture is not pleasant.
Our veterans of two world wars fought and too many gave their
lives to guard against such atrocities. Can we now do nothing less?
The Muslims, Croats and Serbs have miraculously hammered
out a peace settlement to put down their arms, to seek out a
prosecute war criminals, to protect human rights, to build for the
future peace and democracy.
They have asked for assistance, for our confidence and support
to implement the Dayton peace agreement. Should we participate
17191
in peacekeeping forces that will facilitate their efforts? The only
conceivable response is yes.
Canada was a founding member of and a continuing major
contributor to NATO. When a situation becomes difficult
Canadians do not renege on their responsibilities. Canadians do not
turn their backs on their allies. Canadians stand up and are counted.
Canadian forces are familiar with the geographical terrain of
Bosnia. They know the people, their culture and their differences.
Canadian forces are well trained and competent. They are not only
well suited, they are ideally suited for this deployment.
It is also interesting to note that to date 19 non-NATO countries
including Russia have also indicated a willingness to participate.
These countries share our goals. We must also share their burden.
These countries realize that peace and stability in Europe are
essential for world security.
Bosnia lies nestled in the middle of a diverse European
continent, in close proximity to some of the fragile democracies of
the former iron curtain countries. Stability must come to this region
to ensure the flames of war and all the devastation they bring do not
lick beyond the Bosnian border. Let us not forget the spark from the
Balkans that ignited the first world war. Let us not forget this lesson
from history. We have seen Europe in flames. Never again.
The stability provided by the NATO presence will allow civilian
agencies from around the world to commence programs of
humanitarian relief and reconstruction, to provide food, shelter,
clothing and medicine, to reconstruct roads, schools and hospitals,
to reunite families, to heal the wounds of war, to allow the people
of Bosnia to pull themselves from the past and to build for a future
in peace.
There will be considerable cost and expenses associated with
this military exercise; this in an era of necessary fiscal restraint and
deficit reduction. Responsible Canadians are prepared to pay this
price. They are aware of the quarter of a million men, women and
children who have been shelled, shot and tortured to death and the
campaigns of rape and ethnic cleansing. They are well aware of the
price of failure of this peace accord.
Let there be no mistake, deployment of Canadian troops is not
without risk and may very well involve casualties. Every effort will
be made to minimize such risks but we must be prepared
nonetheless.
One of the most difficult decisions the government has been
called on to make is to place the volunteer men and women of our
armed forces in situations of potential danger in far off lands when
the values of our nation require it.
I urge the government to join this partnership of peace. Let us
stand and be counted in this period of crisis once again. Let us
stand for peace and freedom. Very simply, it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Speaker, given
the nature and the make-up of Canada, there are people living in
Canada who come from all over the world. Any time there is strife
somebody in Canada has ties to that locale. When there is strife and
war there are Canadians who feel it very deeply. Perhaps that is one
of the reasons why we have evolved to such an extent into a
peacekeeping nation.
(2035)
If we look at it in an historical context, over the last 50 years
peacekeeping has emerged as one of the most important activities
of the international community in promoting peace and stability.
Peacekeepers have served in regions throughout the world laying
the basis for peace and saving countless lives.
The classic peacekeeping role has been to help maintain a
ceasefire or to prevent the outbreak or spread of hostilities so
underlying disputes can be settled through negotiations. In this
sense peacekeeping has been a practical device to assist
peacemaking.
Since the end of the cold war, however, the face of peacekeeping
has undergone a remarkable transformation.
As the international environment has evolved over the last six or
seven years, so too has peacekeeping. Witness, for example, the
recent operations in Bosnia, Rwanda or Somalia. The dramatic
changes are far from over and peacekeeping must continue to adopt
to meet new challenges.
In tracking the evolution of peacekeeping over the last half
century, it is critical that members of the House understand the full
context of peacekeeping as they debate the possible deployment of
Canadian forces personnel as part of a new mission to the former
Yugoslavia.
I will briefly discuss some of the ways the international
community and in particular Canada is responding to meet the new
challenges of peacekeeping.
When international statesmen sat down to frame the charter of
the United Nations in 1945, the harsh experiences of the second
world war were still fresh in their minds. Peacekeeping began
modestly. In the late 1940s the UN began deploying unarmed but
clearly identified military personnel to observe peace agreements
in some of the world's trouble spots.
Two of these early missions, the UN truce supervision
organization in the Middle East and the UN military observer group
in India and Pakistan, continue to this day.
17192
With the Suez crisis of 1956 peacekeeping moved beyond
simple observing and took on a more ambitious role. Suez was
the most serious crisis faced by the United Nations since the
Korean war and called for an imaginative response.
Lester B. Pearson, Canada's secretary of state for external affairs
at the time, argued the UN should not only establish ceasefire
between the warring parties but it should also police it with
military personnel and make arrangements for a political
settlement.
UN members were initially unimpressed by Pearson's scheme,
but his determination and skill ultimately paid off and the United
Nations emergency force was born. For his efforts Pearson was
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957.
UNEF set the tone for most peacekeeping operations over the
next 30 years. Peacekeeping forces, made up primarily of military
personnel, supervised ceasefires, monitored troop withdrawals and
provided a buffer between opposing local forces.
Some of the key peacekeeping principles, such as the force be
lightly armed, impartial and enjoy the consent of the warring
parties, were also established in 1956.
Over the next three decades a select number of countries,
including Canada, took the lead in peacekeeping. The great powers,
because of ideological differences and colonial entanglements,
kept a low profile.
Canadian peacekeepers served in many areas throughout the
world, including the Congo, West New Guinea, Cyprus and the
Golan Heights. Since 1947 more than 100,000 Canadians have
participated in over 30 peacekeeping and related operations, a
contribution which remains unmatched. Over 100 Canadians have
lost their lives in the line of duty and many more have been
wounded.
Looking at contemporary peacekeeping with the end of the cold
war and the super power rivalry, we have seen a more active United
Nations in the peacekeeping field. Between 1947 and 1988 the UN
carried out 13 peacekeeping operations. In the last seven years
alone there have been more than twenty.
The UN has also become more interventionist. The humanitarian
impulse has on occasion challenged traditional notions of
sovereignty. As a result the UN has become more involved in
intra-state disputes and has grappled with human rights and
humanitarian issues on a far greater scale than ever before. In short,
modern peacekeeping operations demand a full range of military
capabilities on the ground, in the air and at sea. Canada's own
experience in the Balkans, Central America, the Middle East and
Asia underscores this point.
(2040)
In the former Yugoslavia Canadian ground troops have
performed a wide range of humanitarian tasks. In Cambodia we
currently have personnel on the ground serving with the
Cambodian mine action centre, responsible for mine clearance
operations.
At sea Canadian naval forces have participated in operations off
the coast of Haiti and the former Yugoslavia, enforcing economic
sanctions and arms embargoes. We have also had Canadian
personnel involved in naval peacekeeping operations in Cambodia
and Central America.
Modern operations sometimes take place in the absence of a
viable agreement and without the consent of the warring parties. In
some cases the warring parties to disputes have turned on UN
forces. The result, as we have seen in Bosnia, is that our personnel
have been exposed to considerable danger and have suffered
casualties.
These experiences have reminded the Canadian government that
fully trained soldiers are the best peacekeepers. They are equipped
with the complete range of skills and level of professionalism
needed to meet these new challenges.
At the same time, the government is aware that our personnel
require specialized training. That is why they receive instruction in
such areas as cultural sensitivity, international humanitarian law
and dispute resolution. The government intends to enhance this
type of training in the future.
In meeting the new challenges of peacekeeping, clearly
peacekeeping in the 1990s has taken on a new look. If we are to
meet the new security challenges of the next century we
desperately need the UN and other international organizations to
play a more effective role in resolving conflict.
Because of the scope and complexity of modern peacekeeping
operations, the UN has had to call on regional organizations to play
a greater role in conflict resolution. NATO's role in the proposed
peace implementation force for Bosnia is an excellent example of
how international organizations can work together.
The UN is the right instrument to confer legitimacy on an
international peace operation, while the alliance is the organization
best equipped to carry out a mission in Europe, especially one that
may have an enforcement dimension to it.
As for the UN itself, reform can no longer be put off. Created in
the 1940s, the organization must be equipped to handle the security
challenges of the 1990s and beyond. The organization's record
since the end of the cold war has been for the most part impressive.
Missions in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique and
Haiti have produced solid results.
17193
However, setbacks in Africa and the Balkans, where many new
concepts have been introduced, have raised concerns.
Unfortunately many member states criticize the UN for all the
world's current problems, which is hardly fair. Member states
must stop shifting the blame and step forward to do their part.
Canada knows the UN has its share of problems but the
government is determined to find solutions. Canada is in a unique
position to help the UN. With our extensive experience and
expertise in virtually all areas of peacekeeping, including many of
the new concepts, we have much to offer.
Canada is helping strengthen UN peacekeeping in a variety of
ways, from providing expert advice at headquarters in New York,
to establishing the Lester B. Pearson International Peacekeeping
Training Centre in Cornwallis, Nova Scotia.
In true Canadian fashion, we are putting forth practical and
achievable proposals to help prepare the UN for the future. With
the international environment becoming ever more complex, it is
no surprise that peacekeeping has followed suit.
As new security threats continue to emerge, Canada and other
members of the international community must not let up in their
efforts to discover new and innovative approaches to peacekeeping.
Whatever the challenges, Canada's commitment to this useful
conflict resolution tool should remain steadfast.
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the
debate respecting the participation of Canadian forces in the
peacekeeping mission in co-operation with other countries in the
former Yugoslavia.
(2045 )
The peace agreement signed a few weeks ago brought a sigh of
relief for all after the many years of bitter battle which had raged in
that area of the world.
Canada has a long tradition of peacekeeping. Whenever the word
peacekeeping is mentioned, Canada's name comes to the forefront.
We have had experience in this area for almost 40 years.
Monitoring peace is a noble cause. It shows a willingness for
fellow humans and governments to do something constructive to
alleviate human suffering. It will bring stability to a region that has
been torn up after many years of internal conflict and civil war. It is
the first time in a spirit of co-operation, NATO forces along with
the non-NATO forces, are participating in this peacekeeping effort.
It is not a military mission alone. It is a mission of hope for the
people of the Balkans. It is a mission of ending misery for the
people of Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. It is a mission of ending
ethnic cleansing which has cost the affected communities tens of
thousands of innocent lives.
Actions speak louder than words. It is this principle that is
guiding the government to share this collective responsibility of
keeping peace in the former Yugoslavia.
My colleagues on this side of the House have mentioned lack of
resources. That should not deter the government from taking firm
action on this matter. It is our contribution in maintaining world
peace.
I support the government's position to do its share of bringing
peace to this central European region. A time period of 12 months
for this peacekeeping initiative does not seem to be far fetched.
There is speculation it could extend to more. We cannot work on
speculation and other unreasonable suppositions.
As regard the competence and the ability of the Canadian
defence forces, they are among the best in the world. As the saying
goes, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. It will be a
test of professionalism for our fine men and women of the
Canadian forces once again under trying conditions. We cannot
leave the question of keeping world peace to the regional countries
and communities because the world has become a global
community.
Events happening in one part of the world cannot be ignored as
regional skirmishes not worthy of serious consideration by those
who are not immediately affected by them either directly or
indirectly like our country here.
World security is a collective responsibility of each and every
member of the international community. It is more so for Canada
because we are a respected and influential member of this
community. I see no reason why we should take a back seat to any
other country in bringing peace to the Balkan region by
participating in this noble cause.
Finally, this is an important initiative that I am sure will have the
support of all Canadians. We have to support this initiative without
any hesitation.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in this debate
on peacekeeping. In case you had not noticed, this is the first time I
rise in the House to speak in a debate on our armed forces. If I am
not mistaken, it is the third such debate, and this is the first time I
have decided to intervene.
I do so not as a member of the national defence committee or the
foreign afairs committee but to pass on some of the comments I
heard from some of my constituents.
First of all, I want to congratulate all those who participated in
the Dayton agreement and made it a success. I believe that all these
17194
people who came from far and near deserve to be congratulated by
the whole world.
(2050)
We also owe a vote of thanks to all the parties who signed the
agreement. They showed they were at least willing to try to restore
peace to a part of the world where it had disappeared and this only a
few years ago.
[English]
Some friends were telling me that they had met people who came
from the former Yugoslavia who had lived there prior to and during
the war period. They had lived in a country that was as normal as
one could find, perhaps not quite as wealthy as ours, but for a
country that operated under the kind of regime it did, it was
relatively prosperous. They had done rather well. They were living
as we do, perhaps not as wealthily, as I said.
Virtually overnight the peace they had known was no longer
there. The neighbours they had known as friends became their
enemies. Families were broken up in the strife. All of a sudden
people could no longer trust virtually anyone. People had reverted
to that Hobbesian state of nature where it is every person for
himself.
I suppose if it teaches us anything, it is the fragility of peace
everywhere and that we should cherish peace if we happen to enjoy
it at the present time, as we do. It has at least taught me that.
[Translation]
I also want to say that I am proud to be a Canadian and heir to the
legacy of Lester B. Pearson. As you know, I presented a motion in
this House to have a statue erected in his honour. It is just next door
to this building. It was erected a number of years ago, and I am
pleased to have been the one to suggest this. I must say that every
time, and especially recently, when I pass this statue of Mr.
Pearson, I remember his particular contribution to peacekeeping
throughout the world.
[English]
We have some colleagues who are perhaps a little more
isolationist than others in this chamber. I am not one of them. I
happen to believe that we have an important role to play in the
world. We do not live on a planet of our own. We share this planet
with everyone else. It is time we remembered it. Some members
across the way see it differently. They are indicating so by their
heckling at the present time, which is their privilege.
I do not believe we are doing our job properly as MPs if we do
not know members of Parliament from other countries, if we do not
speak with them, if we do not find out what goes on in the world.
Whether we realize it or not, whether we are by nature isolationists
or not, the planet is shrinking all the time because of
communications, because of increased trade, because of all these
reasons.
The problems of one country are the problems of the world, not
just of that country. Even if they were problems of only that
country, I still believe it would be our duty morally and otherwise
to help where we could. However, they are not only the problems of
those other countries, they are everyone's problems, particularly in
the world in which we live.
I was here when we dealt with and voted on this issue when it
involved the Gulf War. Madam Speaker, you will remember that
night. That night we all realized very suddenly how small the
planet had become once those scud missiles left Iraq and were
aimed at another country. In the space of a few minutes many
members of the House became all too familiar with every spot on
the globe where we were expecting a scud missile to land next. It
did not take us long to learn the planet was smaller and that all of us
in this world were closer to each other than we had previously
thought. It is time we all remembered this.
[Translation]
This evening some members are saying: ``We cannot vote for
this kind of initiative; we cannot speak out in favour of this kind of
initiative because we do not have enough information''.
(2055)
All of the parties were provided with material. The
parliamentary secretary tells me that documentation was offered to
all parties in this House. I trust that members of all parties have a
little idea of what is going on in the world, what has happened in
the past, what has happened in this war, and so on.
The members were indeed properly informed and I would add
that those who do not have the information perhaps chose not to
find out any more.
[English]
I would like to speak about our role as Canadians. Some people
have said we should not go there because we have been there
already. That is a rather unusual view. To me that means we have
expertise. We have experience. We have been there and we know
what we are doing.
Our military people are well trained. They are the best. Our
military people, we know from previous roles we have had in that
part of the world and elsewhere, are very qualified. They have done
tremendous work. We have the expertise and the experience and we
are highly respected. Yes, we should be there.
I have constituents who have been to the former Yugoslavia,
either in Croatia or in Bosnia. Recently there was a meeting of
young people in my riding and a young man came to address the
meeting. He is a soldier who has just returned from Bosnia. His job
was to deactivate land mines. He brought some material with him,
along with his blue cap and blue beret which he wears for more
formal occasions. He spoke about the job he did in Bosnia.
17195
It did not take long before hands rose to ask the soldier whether
he would go back. He said yes. They asked him why. He said he
thought they made a big difference and because they saved lives.
There was a time not that many months ago when Canadian
soldiers were experiencing great difficulty in that part of the world.
Canadian soldiers and soldiers from other countries were either
being held as hostages or were being otherwise threatened. That
was the time when all of us in the House should have supported
those soldiers. We should have been united.
[Translation]
And what did some of the hon. members have to say? While
some of our Canadian troops were being held hostage, they were
telling us that it was time to announce our withdrawal from
Yugoslavia.
[English]
That was not the Canadian way and we did not do it. That was
not the right way and we did not do it. As far as I am concerned we
do have a role to play and we should be contributing as Canadians.
I believe our military would support that. I believe the Canadian
population would support it. I believe it is the right thing for us to
do. Let us hope, contribute and pray that peace in the former
Yugoslavia will last for a long time.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity go by without mentioning
that the Reform Party is not isolationist.
The hon. member referred to the gulf war. The gulf war proved
how poorly equipped our Canadian forces are. That has been our
main concern in this debate all day long.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being nine o'clock,
pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.00 p.m.)