TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thursday, April 21, 1994
Bill S-2. Motion for second reading 3312
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 3319
Bill C-8. Report stage 3319
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 3319
(Motion No. 1 negatived.) 3321
Motion for concurrence 3321
Motion for third reading 3321
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 3321
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 3323
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.37 a.m.) 3323
The House resumed at 2 p.m. 3324
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 3325
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3327
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3328
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3328
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3328
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3328
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3329
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3329
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3330
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3330
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3331
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3335
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3335
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3335
Bill C-6. Report stage 3336
Motion for concurrence 3336
Motion for third reading 3336
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 3340
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.34 p.m.) 3340
The House resumed at 4.30 p.m. 3340
Bill C-218. Motion for second reading 3340
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 3343
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.30 p.m.) 3348
The House resumed at 6.03 p.m. 3348
SPECIAL DEBATE
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 3376
3311
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 21, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday the Reform Party presented a motion to
amend the Official Languages Act. As you know, I did not share
the views expressed by Reform Party members, individually and
collectively, as they spoke in this debate. Nor do I agree with the
proposal of the Reform Party to split our official languages, in
other words, that French should be the only official language in
Quebec and English the only official language outside Quebec.
You can imagine I felt under attack, and as a member of the
francophone minority outside Quebec, I found the Reform
Party's comments insulting. Because of them, I felt as though I
were becoming less and less a Canadian.
I intend to pursue the debate on official languages and stand
up for the rights of French Canadians throughout Canada and for
the rights of anglophones throughout Canada, whether we are
talking about English- speaking minorities in Quebec or
French-speaking minorities outside Quebec.
However, considering the great respect I have for this House,
if I happened to offend this House-and I do mean this
House-by my use of rather emotional terms, I withdraw
anything I said that may have offended. However, with respect
to minority languages, whether we are talking about French or
English, I repeat that I will continue my efforts to defend these
minorities.
The Speaker: I accept comments of the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester.
Yesterday, I told the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster that if he withdrew that would be the
end of it. So I will consider the hon. member's comments-
[English]
-as having concluded this point of order. There was a
withdrawal of the statement categorically and the Chair accepts
this withdrawal.
We will now go on to a point of order by the member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder when we might hear an apology from the
Prime Minister, who last night criticized those on social
assistance as doing nothing but sitting at home.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member realizes fully that
would not be a point of order. Perhaps he would take another
avenue to put his views forward.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, while I accept the heartfelt
apology on behalf of members on this side of the House offended
by the hon. member from Carleton-Gloucester, I wish to put on
record that the Reform Party in no way opposes bilingualism in
the federal service.
The Speaker: From time to time in the course of debate we
are emotional and aggressive. It is to be taken for granted in the
House of Commons. The matter of the point of order which was
raised is closed. I would like to leave that where it is.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1010)
[Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to three petitions, namely
petitions Nos. 351-123, 351-131 and 351-134.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Madam Speaker,
there have been discussions and there is agreement that the
3312
House shall not sit on Friday, May 13, 1994 provided that it shall
be deemed to have met and adjourned on that day for the purpose
of Standing Order 28(2).
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Madam Speaker, question No. 9 will be
answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 9-Mr. Simmons:
Has any action been taken by the Department of Environment to address the
concerns raised by the Auditor General in his 1992 Report to Parliament that ``the
capability to respond effectively to a marine spill of any significant magnitude
does not presently exist anywhere in Canada'', even though ``each year, Canada
can expect at least one major spill, and a catastrophic spill can be expected once
every 15 years'', and, if so, (a) what was such action (b) are any specific
environmental protection measures being developed to deal with potential spills
of hazardous materials in relation to the Hibernia project?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): (a) The activities being undertaken to
address the concerns raised are primarily the responsibility of
the Minister of Transport. The Canadian Coast Guard has taken
a number of steps in co-operation with the Department of
Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
during the last three years to improve Canada's marine spill
response capability.
Strategy: On June 26, 1991, the federal government
announced a $100 million green plan marine environmental
emergencies response strategy to implement the most urgent and
high priority recommendations put forward by the public review
panel on tanker safety and marine spills response capabilities.
Prevention measures: All foreign flag tankers are now
inspected on their first visit each year to a Canadian port.
Inspections of all foreign vessels entering Canada (including
100 per cent of foreign flag tankers) have increased from 9.2 per
cent in 1989 to 38 per cent in 1992.
Preparedness measures: The Coast Guard has spent over $15
million since 1990 to acquire additional pollution
countermeasures equipment.
Policy: The amendments to the Canada Shipping Act (Bill
C-121) received royal assent June 23, 1993 and provide for
tougher sentences for pollution offences, new shipping safety
regulations and implementation of international conventions
including OPRC 90 and salvage convention.
(b) The environmental protection measures to deal with
potential spills from Hibernia are regulated by the federal
government (lead is the Department of Natural Resources)
through its participation in the Canada-Newfoundland
Off-Shore Petroleum Board. The board ensures that appropriate
contingency plans are in place to respond to any hazardous
materials spills quickly and effectively.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question as
enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Harb: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3312
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (for Minister of Finance)
moved that Bill S-2, An Act to implement a convention between
Canada and the Republic of Hungary, an agreement between
Canada and the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an agreement
between Canada and the Republic of Zimbabwe, a convention
between Canada and the Argentine Republic and a protocol
between Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the
avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal
evasion with respect to income taxes and to make related
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Debate.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Madam Speaker, the purpose of Bill S-2
is to implement reciprocal tax treaties-or
conventions-between Canada and Hungary, Nigeria, Argentina
and Zimbabwe that will eliminate double taxation on income
tax. As well, this bill implements a protocol to revise the current
tax convention between Canada and the Kingdom of the
Netherlands.
(1015)
I would first like to comment on the desirability and the role
of tax treaties. A tax treaty between countries is an important
tool to provide the benefits of certainty and stability regarding
3313
tax regimes-benefits that concretely promote and facilitate
international trade and investment.
Such certainty and stability is achieved because such treaties
enshrine the basis, as well as the rate, of applicable taxes. This
means that a treaty rate of tax cannot be increased unless the
treaty itself is modified or terminated.
In fact, termination is a rare event, while revision of such
treaties is a lengthy process requiring the concurrence of both
governments. And in either case, taxpayers will normally
receive considerable advance notice of the impending changes.
Another benefit of such tax treaties is that they also reduce
annoyance in the operation of the national tax systems involved
in several ways. First, they eliminate the necessity of paying tax
on business profits in the source country if there is no permanent
establishment in that country. As well, they provide a
mechanism to settle problems encountered by taxpayers.
More importantly, tax treaties eliminate or alleviate double
taxation in instances where international transactions are
involved that may give rise to the same income being taxed by
more than one country.
Let me expand on how this works. For the purpose of
eliminating double taxation, the tax treaties establish two
categories of rules. Firstly, in the case of a number of specified
items of income, an exclusive right to tax is conferred on only
one of the contracting states. In this way, the other contracting
country accepts that it cannot tax this income, and double
taxation is thus absolutely avoided.
Secondly, for other items of income, the right to tax is not an
exclusive one. These provisions confer on the source country (or
situs) a full or limited right to tax. In turn, under the treaty, the
country of residence of the taxpayer must allow relief for the tax
paid in the other country. Ultimately, this again ensures there is
no double taxation.
I should remind this House that the treaties enacted by this bill
are the latest within a long-standing process. The major reform
of Canada's income tax legislation in 1971 required Canada to
expand its network of double taxation conventions (tax treaties)
with other countries. Since that time negotiations for the
conclusion of new treaties or the revision of existing ones have
been entered into with almost 75 countries.
In this bill, the four tax conventions under review follow the
general pattern of the conventions previously approved by
Parliament. The number of Canadian tax treaties in force now
stands at 52. I would now like to briefly highlight if I may, the
main elements of these new tax treaties covered by this bill. I
will deal with the Protocol to the Netherlands Convention at the
end of my remarks.
(1020)
These treaties provide generaly that dividends may be taxed
in the source country at a maximum rate of 15 per cent.
However, in the case of company dividends, the rate is often
reduced if the company receiving the dividends holds an equity
interest in the company paying the dividends.
Such a reduced rate has been set at 10 per cent for the
countries covered here (execpt for Nigeria, where it will be 12.5
per cent).
Regarding interest paid by a resident of one country to that of
another country, the rates set out in this bill are 10 per cent in the
case of Hungary, 12.5 per cent for Argentina and Nigeria; and 15
per cent in the case of Zimbabwe.
There are, however, a number of exceptions. Interest paid on a
bond or similar obligation of the national government, a
political subdivision or local authority will be exempt from tax
in the country in which it arises.
Also, these treaties (except that with Zimbabwe) contain a
provision that will allow interest paid on loans or credits
extended, guaranteed or insured by certain state entities (in
Canada, for example, by the Export Development
Corporation-EDC) to be taxable only in the country where the
recipient of the interest payment resides.
These treaties also address the taxation of royalty payments.
They provide for a general rate of source taxation of 10 per cent
in the case of Hungary and Zimbabwe, 12.5 per cent in the case
of Nigeria, and from 3 to 15 per cent in the case of Argentina,
depending on the nature of the royalty.
Copyright royalties are exempt under the treaty with Hungary.
There are also a number of other matters dealt with in these
tax treaties, such as capital gains. The treaty provisions dealing
with capital gains reflect the standard Canadian position
enabling the source country to tax profits from the sale of real
estate, business assets and shares in real estate companies.
Second, non-discrimination. Under the conventions,
discrimination on the basis of nationality is prohibited. This
ensures nationals of one country equal treatment with nationals
of the other country in the same circumstances. However, this
does not prevent a country from providing fiscal incentives (for
example, Canada's small business deduction) on the basis of the
residence of the taxpayer.
Third, pensions. Canada has preserved its right to tax
pensions paid to residents of the countries covered by this bill.
In the cases of Argentina, Zimbabwe and Hungary, the
maximum rate of tax applicable in the source country to periodic
pension and annuity payments is 15 per cent. In the case of
Nigeria, there
3314
is no stated maximum rate of tax applicable to periodic pension
payments.
Finally, war veterans pensions are generally exempt from tax
under the four treaties.
Fourth, double taxation relief. The treaties provide that in
Canada, double taxation of foreign source income of Canadian
residents is alleviated by way of a foreign tax credit, in
accordance with the limitations provided for in the Canadian
legislation.
In addition, devidends received by a company resident in
Canada from the exempt surplus of foreign affiliates resident in
a treaty country are exempt from tax in Canada. Reciprocally,
relief from double taxation is granted in the other treaty country
in accordance with the method recognized by that country.
(1025)
Let me turn now to a final undertaking enacted by this
legislation. Bill S-2 will implement a protocol to the tax
convention signed by Canada and the Kingdom of the
Netherlands in 1986. This protocal updates this existing treaty
to take into consideration changes made to the respective laws
and policies of the two countries.
For example, in Canada's 1992 federal budget, the
government announced it was prepared, in tax treaty
negotiations, to reciprocally reduce the withholding tax rate on
direct dividends. This was seen as a valuable incentive to
encourage direct international investment. And in the 1993
budget, the governement affirmed its desire to negotiate, on a
bilateral basis, exemptions from withholding taxes on payments
made for the use of computer software.
I am pleased to say that the Netherlands is the first country
with which we have signed such an agreement.
Under this bill, in cases where a dividend recipient holds 25
per cent or more of the capital, or 10 per cent or more of the
voting rights, of the dividend-paying corporation, the
withholding tax will be reduced to 5 per cent from the current 10
per cent. This reduction will take place over a five-year period
starting from 1993. As regards interest payments, the protocol
reduces the rate to 10 per cent from the current 15 per cent.
As well, the agreement eliminates the withholding tax on
royalties for computer software and on interest paid to pension
funds.
To conclude, on balance, the terms of the four tax conventions
and the protocol provide some equitable solutions to the various
problems of double taxation existing between Canada and these
countries. Each of these countries hopes to implement the
bilateral convention as soon as possible. Consequently, I
commend this bill to the House and urge its speedy passage.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): I welcome
this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois in this
debate on Bill S-2, which, as the hon. member explained,
proposes to implement income tax conventions between Canada
and Hungary, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Argentina and the
Netherlands.
The purpose of tax treaties is to avoid double taxation of
business profits in the case of companies that have branches or
affiliated companies in the other country. These treaties are
useful and may, in certain cases, apply to trips by Quebec and
Canadian performers who go abroad-or even athletes,
including hockey players.
It is clear that tax treaties are not something new. They have
always existed, and I have the impression they always will,
especially in a world that is undergoing globalization.
(1030)
Tax treaties establish what is called reciprocal treatment
between countries with respect to income tax. However,
reciprocity is only possible when tax rates for Canadian
businesses and businesses in the countries with which tax
treaties are signed are more or less equivalent or at least
comparable.
Madam Speaker, the first negative aspect I want to discuss
today concerning tax treaties is that, because tax rates on
business profits in Canada differ greatly from those in countries
that are signatories to such treaties, the system has long been
considered to be a standing invitation to tax avoidance by
Canadian corporations with foreign affiliates.
In fact, countries considered tax havens, such as Barbados,
Cyprus, Malta and Singapore, to name only a few, have signed
tax treaties with Canada. The tax rate applied in these tax havens
is much lower than in Canada. This means, as was pointed out by
the Auditor General in his 1992 report, and I quote:
Income earned in countries that are tax havens-
-like the ones I just mentioned-
-and that are designated by order in council can enter Canada tax free, even
if it was not taxed or only taxed at a very low rate.
Still according to the Auditor General, the Department of
National Revenue is aware of a number of taxpayers who have
used this scheme to be in a position to move $500 million into
Canada tax free. Quite frankly, this is outrageous. Earlier, I was
amazed when I heard the presentation on Bill S-2, in which
everything was sweetness and light, and I sat there wondering
whether the members opposite were completely oblivious to the
real world of tax treaties.
Madam Speaker, another reason, and this concerns the second
negative aspect, why the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for a
review of all our tax treaties is to pinpoint cases where tax rates
on business profits are comparable to those in Canada and
preserve only those treaties. The point is that the foreign income
of a Canadian corporation, which is tax exempt or taxed at a
very low rate, when paid in the form of dividends to Canadian
3315
shareholders, is eligible for the same federal tax credit as
dividends paid by a Canadian company operating in Canada,
whose income is taxed in Canada.
We have often raised the problem of tax inequities between
individuals, Quebecers and Canadians, but here we are dealing
with an unfair tax situation affecting corporations based in
Canada who decide to invest in Canada, to create jobs in Canada,
to generate profits and to be good corporate citizens. All the
while, other corporations decide to set up foreign affiliates and,
through their investments abroad, benefit from tax exemptions
here in Canada. These exemptions are generous, if not more
generous in fact, than those enjoyed by corporations striving to
create and fuel economic growth.
These inequities clearly act as a disincentive to economic
development here at home. There is no question that preferential
treatment is given to foreign investments by Canadian residents.
If this is how we plan to develop the Quebec and Canadian
economies and employment, then I think we have taken a wrong
turn. This situation is clearly unacceptable.
The third aspect of the tax convention legislation that caught
my eye is the fact that pursuant to this act, a Canadian-resident
corporation can deduct interest on funds it borrows for the
purpose of investing in a foreign affiliate. Here again,
investments made in Quebec and in Canada are afforded unfair
treatment, all because of tax conventions signed between
Canada and various countries considered tax havens.
Corporations that invest in tax havens avoid taxation in two
ways: first, they can deduct some of the interest on funds
borrowed and second, they can bring their profits, which were
either not taxed at all or taxed only sparingly abroad, back into
the country.
(1035)
Mention is made of taxation rates that vary anywhere from 3
per cent to 10 per cent in some cases. These corporations are
taxed little, if at all, abroad and enjoy tax-exempt status in
Canada. The tax convention system is full of holes and has been
for some time now.
According to the Auditor General, and I quote:
That deduction of interest reduces Canada's tax revenue and, at the same
time, the related income.
It is precisely this related income which is tax exempt in
Canada. Speaking of income related to this investment,
It may be received as a tax exempt dividend and may never appear in the
Canadian tax base.
In times of serious financial crisis such as we are now facing
in Canada, the government should not be encouraging
corporations to invest their money abroad. Instead, it should be
creating incentives to promote investment here at home, to
develop employment and to fuel economic growth. In almost all
instances, tax conventions clearly do not help us to achieve this
objective.
Allow me to describe some of the other problems associated
with tax havens. Some Canadian companies use stratagems to
avoid paying their fair share of tax in Canada such as upstream
loans or revenue stripping, as these methods are called in
business jargon. Let me explain.
For one thing, these schemes enable Canadian companies to
avoid tax by transferring the losses of foreign subsidiaries to the
Canadian parent. In other words, if a Canadian company has a
foreign subsidiary, the losses incurred abroad are brought home
to Canada and included in calculating the Canadian company's
tax.
Secondly, they allow Canadian companies to avoid tax by
sending the income of Canadian corporations abroad, which
works the other way. Some Canadian companies make profits in
Canada, export these profits to countries where they have a
subsidiary and with which a tax convention has been signed,
thus avoiding paying tax in Canada.
Thirdly, these stratagems enable Canadian companies to
avoid Canadian tax by making the income of Canadian
corporations exempt.
The history of tax conventions between Canada and the
signatory countries is full of horror stories which we are unused
to reading about in the Auditor General's reports and which
enrage us. Let me tell you a few of them, taken from the Auditor
General's report for 1992.
A Netherlands Antilles subsidiary of a Canadian company had assets of $865
million and income of $92 million not subject to the foreign income rules.
Although the income of the foreign subsidiary has not been taxed at a rate that
approximates Canadian rates, it can be transferred to the Canadian parent as
tax-free dividends. The offshore income is not taxed on entering Canada, but it
carries with it federal tax credits on dividends paid out to Canadian
shareholders. The Canadian parent incurred the financing costs for its
investment-
-it was still on Dutch territory-
-in the subsidiary and reported a tax loss of $29 million.
With the huge financial problems we have, it is as if we
suddenly decided to send $29 million abroad, as if we
deliberately drove capital away, as if with all the loopholes in
the tax conventions, we deliberately caused a revenue shortfall
for the federal government, when the situation could be
corrected quite quickly and easily.
3316
Let me give you another of these horror stories, again taken
from the Auditor General's report:
A Canadian company transferred $318 million in investments to its Barbados
subsidiary. In six months this $318 million brought in revenues of $37 million
exempt from foreign income regulations.
(1040)
Even if the subsidiary's revenues were not taxed at a rate
similar to the Canadian rate, namely 3 per cent, they can be
transferred to the Canadian parent company as exempted
dividends. Foreign income would then be tax-exempt on
entering Canada, even if no, or practically no, taxes on this
income were paid in Barbados. This net income is not subject to
any taxes on entering Canada.
The Canadian parent company of this subsidiary also incurred
financing charges for investing in its Barbadian subsidiary and
reported-without generating any economic activity in
Canada-fiscal losses in Canada. Again, we are losing millions
of dollars in tax revenues when we do not need these tax losses.
Everyone will agree that we really do not need them. With a
$507 billion debt and a deficit that will exceed $40 billion, I
think we should not hurt ourselves intentionally. Only
masochists can present such tax convention proposals in a
sentimental manner. As they say in my riding, no wonder things
are not going well at the shop.
No exhaustive studies have been done on the 52 or 53 tax
conventions now in effect between Canada and certain
countries, but the Auditor General gave us a general idea of the
tax losses they can result in. According to him, Canadian
businesses that, in 1990, invested close to $92 billion in
non-resident companies with which they have a non-arm's
length relationship may have benefited a great deal-he does
not give the proportion as there are no exhaustive studies on
this-but it probably led to tax losses such as I mentioned
earlier.
As the Auditor General pointed out, some investments are
probably quite legitimate and totally above suspicion, but others
are not. They may be legal but they are not legitimate given the
federal government's financial position. In 1990, for instance,
$5.2 billion was invested in businesses located in Barbados, a
well-known tax haven. These investments in Barbados
generated $400 million in tax-free dividends.
Here is another example: $10.9 billion was invested in
businesses in Cyprus, Ireland, Liberia, the Netherlands and
Switzerland, which are also considered tax havens. These
investments brought in over $200 million in tax-free dividends,
so that Canadian shareholders could benefit from the tax
exemption on dividends paid to Canadian residents.
We must realize that much if not most of these so-called
investments in these tax havens are made so that Canadian
parent companies can avoid Canadian taxes and contribute to the
deterioration of public finances already damaged by several
years of budget carelessness on the part of successive
governments here in Ottawa.
We can reasonably conclude that, as the Auditor General
pointed out, the Canadian government-again, they are proving
us right by presenting Bill S-2, which renews and introduces
similar tax conventions-intentionally deprives itself of
hundreds of millions of dollars in annual tax revenues.
The problems related to tax conventions have been known for
a long time, mostly by the people opposite. And I would like to
point out how long this kind of inconsistency, how long the
problem of tax avoidance under tax conventions has been
known. You should not laugh because public finance
management is far from rosy, as is the way you treat Canadians
by maintaining such a shameless system and by cutting social
programs by $7.5 billion over the next three years.
(1045)
The problem of tax avoidance under conventions has been
well-known for a long time. For example, in 1987, the
Department of Finance announced that it would review the
taxation of affiliated foreign corporations. These studies were
never carried out.
In 1989, the public accounts committee stated that the
Department of Finance should ensure that tax avoidance under
tax agreements be closely monitored and that solutions be
proposed. Again, that was in 1989 and we are still waiting.
In 1992, in his comments on the Auditor General's report, the
Minister of Finance clearly indicated that he had no intention of
tackling the problem, even though he was aware of it.
In December of the same year-and the hon. members
opposite should listen carefully to this-Jean-Robert Gauthier,
a veteran Liberal member of Parliament, who was then chairman
of the public accounts committee, said that what really
concerned the committee was that the Department of Finance
had taken no steps to eliminate, where possible, the tax
avoidance schemes used by foreign subsidiaries. Mr. Gauthier,
who is still a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, added that,
in his opinion, the problem was not a new one; it had simply
resurfaced.
Not only does Bill S-2 renew such conventions without an
appropriate review of the opportunities for tax avoidance in
countries considered to be tax havens but, on top of that, nothing
was done by the government since it came to office to try
somehow to save even a part of the hundreds of millions of
dollars which are lost because of tax avoidance schemes linked
to these agreements.
The Minister of Finance was quite pleased with himself when
he tabled his first budget-a budget which has since been
disavowed by the Prime Minister of Canada. The finance
minister then said that his budget included amendments which
would enable the government to alleviate the problem related to
tax conventions.
3317
However, this was just another performance put on by the
stand-up comic that the Minister of Finance is when it comes to
our economic policy.
Sure, some changes were made, but not to avoid the loss of
hundreds of millions annually, and not to avoid problems which
exist and which we have been aware of since 1982.
The measures taken will definitely not solve the problem and I
urge the government to review all of the 52 or 53 tax conventions
signed with other countries. These countries are not all tax
havens, but many are and they deliberately deprive us of tax
revenues.
It is a thorough disgrace to maintain such a system without an
adequate review, especially when you consider that the system
has been criticized for a long time by the Auditor General, by the
Liberals when they were in office, and even by the various
finance ministers, who pledged to do something but never did. It
is unacceptable and it is even a disgrace to tolerate such a flawed
system, especially when you consider that the recent budget puts
a heavier burden on people who should not have to bear that
burden. Indeed, the unemployed will contribute $5.5 billion
through reduced benefits and fewer insurable weeks.
The government puts the burden on those who should not have
to pay, since these people are already living in poverty because
their government is unable to give them jobs to support their
families and get their dignity back.
Neither was it necessary to take this other shameful measure,
which consists in reducing by $2.5 billion, over the next few
years, established programs financing. Again, this is not where
the government should have looked to find the money it needs.
Nor should it reduce, cut and even eliminate the tax credit for
seniors. These people do not deserve such treatment. They
should not have to pay for the financial problems of the
Canadian government, considering that they have already
contribution so much throughout their lives and that the
government persists in tolerating tax avoidance through these
tax conventions.
(1050)
The government also did not have the right to shift the burden
of the deficit or to demonstrate such a lack of control and
imagination in getting a handle on public finances. There was no
need to make the provinces pay for the deficit by capping or
freezing equalization payments, for instance. Canadian
provinces have already lost $ 1.5 billion.
Bill S-2 has nothing to do with the tax agreement reform we
have been calling for since the beginning of the election
campaign which saw us become the Official Opposition in this
House.
Before endorsing any new tax agreements or renewing any
existing ones, I call on my colleagues and on the government to
embark on a complete, total, in-depth review of such
agreements and of the countries which are party to them.
My colleagues and I have nothing against Hungary, Nigeria,
Zimbabwe, Argentina or the Netherlands, but in view of the
financial burden Canadians and Quebecers must shoulder, one
should not waste money on purpose or create a situation where
we lose several hundred million dollars a year in tax revenue.
What we need is to develop a sense of responsibility which has
been totally lacking since this government came into power on
October 25.
These people do not act responsibly. Not only do they shift the
burden of the debt onto the shoulders of those who should not
have to carry any more but, due to their incompetence, they
cause Quebecers and Canadians to lose billions of dollars
because of the uncertainty they create on financial markets. As
we saw recently, not only did they take money away from people
who did not deserve it, they did not even manage to please
financial community, which found nothing in this government's
first budget that would allow it to put its financial house in order
and give some credibility to a government that is completely out
of it.
As one of my colleagues said, not only has it failed to close
the tax loopholes provided by these agreements, even though it
is doing an about-face, having itself condemned this form of tax
avoidance in the past, but it is doing nothing to get rid of
shameful schemes such as family trusts.
As we said before, it is becoming increasingly clear that this
government is starting to behave like the previous one,
favouring its friends, and the businesses which pour thousands
of dollars every year into the Liberal coffers. As long as the
issues of party financing by the public and lobbying are not
settled, in a true democratic manner, that is, we will keep on
having this kind of inconsistency and tomfoolery which causes
us to lose money when we are in no position to do so.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, we will vote against Bill S-2 not,
as I said earlier, because we have something against these
countries, but because we want the government to review tax
agreements as a whole.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Madam Speaker, I rise
today on behalf of the Reform Party to address Bill S-2 which in
essence establishes conventions between Canada and a number
of other countries so as to prevent income tax evasion and
double taxation of workers from Canada, Hungary, Nigeria,
Zimbabwe, Argentina and the Netherlands while working
abroad in these countries.
After listening to the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois
who just delivered his comments, perhaps a lot of us will be
looking at how to enter into an arrangement with the Barbados
and making a deal there since its taxation system is so
favourable.
3318
My party supports Bill S-2 but would like to point out to
members in both Houses, this House and the other place, that
there are millions of Canadians who do not work abroad who
could surely use a break from the high taxes they are forced to
pay at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.
Implementing tax conventions between Canada and countries
like Hungary is noble, but what about implementing similar
conventions between federal, provincial and municipal levels of
government within our own borders, ensuring that the Canadian
taxpayer is not overburdened with double taxation?
(1055)
For instance, the agreement between Hungary and Canada is
20 pages thick. I read it because my parents are Hungarian, I
speak Hungarian, and I have a bit of a vested interest in Hungary
and what happens there. If the principles in this agreement
between Canada and Hungary were looked at and reviewed by
this Liberal government, and it tried to negotiate and apply some
of these principles with the provincial governments, what it
would gain from that are the principles that would lead to
removal of some of the interprovincial barriers to trade. That
could save the country, our country, our economy and our
taxpayers. The cost of doing business could be reduced by $4
billion to $5 billion.
One of the most common complaints about the goods and
services tax that has been raised in finance meetings is the fact
that when people purchase goods they are hit with a provincial
sales tax of between 8 and 12 per cent and a GST of 7 per cent. In
the eyes of most Canadians, this is seen as a double hit on their
pocketbooks and has encouraged them to take billions of dollars
in taxable revenue underground.
At a meeting in Vancouver either yesterday or today there is a
presentation on the underground economy and the value of it.
Why does one exist? It exists because this House and this
government is continuing the practices of tax and spend and has
not addressed the real issue of reduced spending, spending cuts,
putting the money back into the taxpayers' hands so people
would be willing to pay taxes on an equitable and fair basis and
not go into the underground economy. It is becoming too
expensive to be honest in this country. Even the finance minister
has acknowledged that fact.
In the eyes of most Canadians the double taxation system with
sales taxes, hidden taxes and income taxes is more than a double
hit on their pocketbooks. It is a triple, quadruple whammy and it
has encouraged them, as I said earlier, to deal in ways that they
can save money.
According to Canadian Business magazine: ``Canada now
enjoys the dubious distinction of imposing one of the highest
taxation rates among the group of seven industrialized
countries''.
I hope the government does not follow the practices of the
previous Conservative government of always quoting the group
of seven nations and how the United Nations said that this
country is number one. We are no longer number one in anything
except high spending on a per capita basis.
When will the government wake up and realize that the
present system of tax and spend will no longer be tolerated by
investors, lenders and consumers?
One of my constituents wrote in reply to a questionnaire that I
sent out: ``Only the federal government could find ways to make
people pay for the privilege of living more simply and
moderately''.
For too long governments have forced people to live within
their means and exercise fiscal restraint while politicians have
lived in the world of guaranteed pensions and expensive junkets.
While many Canadians are sitting around the kitchen table
planning a budget, deciding what they need versus what they
want, members of Parliament have travelled the globe, costing
taxpayers millions of dollars. Parliamentary committees travel
the country, justified on the basis that they are consulting with
the people.
The cost of all these committee travels, combined with the
junkets, is not in the millions of dollars, it is over a billion
dollars. Yet the government will not look at ways and means of
saving the taxpayers' money and getting input from taxpayers
through householders or through visiting their constituencies
every once in a while and finding out what they want.
It takes the Clerk of the House to look at ways and means of
saving money for committees. It is a noble effort on the Clerk's
part and the government should be looking and encouraging
more effort on that basis.
How many trips have there been by members of Parliament,
their spouses and their aides to Hungary, Nigeria, the
Netherlands, Argentina, or Zimbabwe to hammer out the
particulars of S-2?
(1100 )
I was invited to go to Hungary as a parliamentarian. I speak
Hungarian. It would have been a wonderful opportunity to visit
the country where I was born, but I turned it down. I turned it
down because there was nothing to be gained there. There is
more to be gained here. If they want to do a deal with us they can
come here.
By doing that I hope I have sent the message that we will
co-operate with other countries but we have problems to solve
at home without trying to solve other people's problems for
them. They have a responsibility to work on that themselves,
including Hungarians.
Bill S-2 is largely a housekeeping bill. The federal
government should consider housekeeping measures in our
income tax system. It should stop dusting around the edges. I
encourage
3319
government members to take their gloves off and start throwing
things out, such as unnecessary programs.
The Liberals should start by throwing out the Income Tax Act
with its over 2,500 pages. They should develop a new
proportional simple tax based on equity and understanding. It
should be geared to family size, the amount of income and the
family's ability to pay taxes on that income.
It is our high taxation level that is responsible for people
fleeing to countries like those mentioned in Bill S-2. That is
why the government is forced to draw up these conventions.
We have a system of overseas tax credits. People who work
outside Canada for extended periods it is believed ought not to
pay full taxes since they do not consume their full share of
government services. That virtually eliminates tax on 80 per
cent of their total income if they have been out of the country for
six months.
On that basis an engineer making $70,000 would barely pay
$7,000 whereas that engineer working at home would pay
$23,000. When I questioned a certified accountant in my riding
of Calgary Centre he told me about this and that it is a huge
incentive. It makes it worthwhile for people to leave their
families and work in Russia or Hungary for half the year to make
this extra income.
The nature of this bill is technical and serves to provide a
better understanding between Canada and foreign countries. Let
me leave the government with some constructive questions that
arise out of reviewing this bill, which I hope will lead to some
improvements for Canada.
Bill S-2 is a good first step. But why are we only signing on
with the countries mentioned in the bill and not some of the
emerging markets we will be trading with in the future?
The reason for these conventions is that tax evasion exists in
Canada due to our comparatively high level of taxation. Is the
government willing to prevent this problem from occurring by
bringing our tax level in line with other countries?
Is it realistic to expect these conventions to be workable when
Canada's tax system is considerably more complicated than the
countries we are signing conventions with?
Is our high taxation level responsible for people fleeing to
these countries and is that why we need these conventions? My
answer to that is yes.
In conclusion, it is Canada's high tax burden which must be
addressed in order to attract investment in Canada and have a
positive net cash flow of foreign investments to add to our gross
national product.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1105 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, an act
to amend the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act (force) as reported (without amendment) from
the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I have a ruling by Mr.
Speaker on Bill C-8, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (force).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There is one motion in
amendment on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-8,
an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act (force).
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-8 be amended in Clause 1 in the English version by replacing line
30, on page 2, with the following:
``grounds that the inmate or any other inmate of the''.
She said: Madam Speaker, the amendment I am proposing this
morning is very simple not only because it is short and
self-explanatory, it is simple in every way. It proposes a
simplification of the wording of the bill. In other words, I am
suggesting we express what is clear in clear terms and that we
state the two possibilities separately in both official languages. I
am trying to give the legislative purpose of the bill a
comparable, equivalent and similar form in the two official
versions, French and English.
I am not questioning the content of the bill because I agree
with it. I do not feel that these amendments to the Criminal Code
will modify the state of the law. They simply give a structure to
parameters the courts have already established around section
25 concerning the use of deadly force by policemen.
I am not convinced that all policemen will submit themselves
to the five-step test imposed by the bill when faced with a life
and death situation; on the other hand, I do not think this new
legislation is changing anything much. Our consultations with
3320
the judiciary and police forces have shown us that the spirit of
the bill is accepted almost unanimously. It is not the content
which is questionable but the form.
This bill gives us the opportunity to discuss a very serious
legislative problem, a problem in the drafting of legislation. For
a few years now, federal bills have taken on a very specific style
in each of the two official languages and I am not talking about
their literary aspect. I invite members to read at random parts of
federal legislation.
Earlier this week, during the debate on Bill C-7, I commented
on this obscure new drafting technique. I will certainly come
back to it some other time. Let me just say for now that any piece
of legislation, particularly in the case of criminal law, must be
easy for ordinary people to understand.
What concerns me in the case of Bill C-8 for which I am
proposing an amendment, as for all federal legislation, is the
fact that the French and English versions generally do not
match. My amendment is very simple and proposes to make both
texts identical, not only similar or comparable but absolutely
identical.
The statutes of Canada are enforced all over the country and
both versions are equally official. They are enacted, printed, and
published in both official languages. According to the Official
Languages Act, both versions are ``equally authoritative''.
(1110)
It must then be concluded that, where the English and French
versions are diametrically opposed, two different laws must
apply. Besides, the Official Languages Act itself illustrates that
point perfectly as it includes its own contradictory clauses.
Members of the House will understand what I mean merely by
skimming through that act.
In Canada, we really have two official languages acts, just as
we usually end up with two laws whenever we adopt a particular
piece of legislation. No doubt, this situation is unique in the
world, and we must make do with it, for better or for worse.
As I just said, even the Official Languages Act has two
different official versions. Section 13 of the Act, which declares
both versions equally authoritative, does not say it with the same
meaning and effect in French and in English.
As one might expect, since the Official Languages Act has
two official contradictory versions, so do all federal enactments.
For example, in the English version of Bill C-8, section 25(5)
authorizing the use of deadly force against an inmate who is
escaping reads as follows: ``any of the inmates- poses a threat
of death- to the peace officer or any other person-''
In the English version, the threat of death comes from all
inmates and is directed against the peace officer concerned and
any other person. In the French version, the peace officer can use
deadly force against that inmate and any other inmate.
We understand that ``all inmates'' includes the inmate who is
escaping. We also understand that, in spite of a different
wording, the peace officer is justified in using deadly force
whenever he is threatened by an inmate who is trying to escape.
But why must we say it differently in English and French?
Why must we always complicate things and risk creating
confusion? ``Any of the inmates'' does not mean ``ce détenu et
tout autre détenu''. We must say clearly ``un détenu'' to
translate ``any of the inmates'', or ``this inmate and any other
inmate'' to really translate ``ce détenu ou tout autre détenu''.
Let us stop complicating simple things.
That is the purpose of my amendment. As I said, it is simple
and it is aimed at ensuring simplicity, and, if I may say so, at
ensuring clarity and agreement between both official versions.
[English]
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):
Madam Speaker, the member for Saint Hubert is proposing to
amend the English version of Bill C-8 to bring the wording
closer to the French version.
Legislative drafting takes place parallel in English and
French. Each official version conforms to and reflects the
genius, spirit and rules of each language. Neither version is the
literal translation of the other nor is it meant to be. Therefore,
formal discrepancies are inevitable.
The language in clause 1 as in other clauses is meant to be in
plain language to the extent possible. The language in the
French and English versions is used to express the intent of the
legislation with the utmost clarity and precision, respecting
grammatical rules and seeking to avoid undue repetitions and
the use of more words than are necessary.
(1115 )
The use of the words ``any of the inmates'' in line 30 is short
and clear and easy to understand. To add the extra words in
English, as proposed by the hon. member, just in order to
achieve a literal English translation of the French, adds nothing
of substance and serves only to detract from the current English
plain language version and therefore cannot be supported.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
3321
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it. I declare the motion negatived.
(Motion No. 1 negatived.)
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (for the Minister of Justice)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When shall the bill be
read the third time? By leave, now?
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, there has been agreement by
the three parties that we proceed now with third reading.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew (for the Minister of Justice) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):
Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of Bill
C-8 at third reading. I hope this bill will receive support from all
sides of the House.
Bill C-8 marks a significant advance forward from the
anachronistic fleeing felon rule. In addition, it preserves the
ability of the police to protect themselves and the public from
serious harm or death. As well, this bill balances the ability of
police officers to maintain the safety and security of the public
while respecting the rights of Canadians.
Hon. members should know that Bill C-8 has the support of
the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian
Police Association. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police believes that Bill C-8 responds to the need for change in a
way that provides police officers with the necessary tools to do
their jobs in dangerous situations, while at the same time places
on police officers the responsibility when using deadly force
against fleeing suspects to do so in the circumstances which
would be permitted by the proposed new subsection 25(4) of the
Criminal Code.
The Canadian Police Association expressed the view that the
legislation is balanced and accords with commonly accepted
police practice. It deals with the uncertainty caused by a
decision of a court in Ontario that concluded that the present
subsection is unconstitutional.
(1120)
Both the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the
Canadian Police Association are comfortable with the wording
in the proposed new subsection 25(4).
Bill C-8 also addresses the types of situations that arise when
peace officers in federal penitentiaries use force to prevent
potentially dangerous inmates from escaping custody.
With the proposed new subsection 25(5) of the Criminal
Code, Bill C-8 strikes a sensible balance between individual
rights and community needs and guarantees that peace officers
in our penitentiaries will continue to enjoy the authority they
need to carry out their responsibility for the protection of
society.
Finally, the bill would also amend the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act to provide express statutory authority for a
protection officer to use disabling force against a fleeing foreign
fishing vessel in order to arrest the master of the vessel. This
amendment will ensure that the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans is able to maintain this deterrent to foreign vessels'
fishing illegally inside Canada's fishing zones.
The amendment includes the authority to create regulations
establishing the procedures governing the use of disabling
force.
The government intends to develop these regulations so that
they will be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and with recognized and reasonable international
practice in the use of disabling force at sea.
This will include a guaranteed use of force to ensure that only
the minimum level of force necessary to carry out an arrest is
used.
I hope that hon. members will provide this bill with their
support.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): I would like to state the
position of the Official Opposition on Bill C-8, an Act to amend
the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
First of all, this bill would amend section 25(4) of the
Criminal Code, which specifies the degree of force peace
officers can use to apprehend a fleeing suspect or an inmate
trying to escape from a penitentiary.
3322
Second, Bill C-8 would amend the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act to provide express authority for an officer to use
force to disable a foreign fishing vessel whose captain is trying
to escape.
As members undoubtedly know, this far-reaching piece of
legislation has been a very controversial issue in Canada for a
number of years now.
I will start by addressing the first part of the bill. The use of
force by police officers to arrest fleeing suspects involves a
number of social issues.
Obviously, law enforcement is at stake. For the public's sake,
criminal law must be enforced and offenders must be arrested
and prosecuted.
I recognize that we need to provide police officers with the
tools they need to do their work, to protect themselves and to
protect the citizens. However, law enforcement goes beyond
ordinary police work. According to a very basic principle, it is
up to the legal system to try the accused and to sentence the
guilty.
When police intervention causes death, as it does from time to
time, that principle is encroached upon at the expense of society.
(1125)
Sometimes, it also goes against the will of the people who are
asking for an overall reduction in the force used by police
officers.
When less violent and objectionable police techniques can be
efficiently used, it is in the interest of society to do so. There is
always the possibility that an innocent individual, mistaken for
a fleeing suspect, can be killed or harmed.
The population must also think about its own security. Two
possible scenarios come to mind. On the one hand, dangerous
criminals trying to avoid being arrested can put people at risk.
In such a case, there may be good reasons to risk causing
grievous bodily harm to the offender, given the likelihood that
he would inflict a lot of pain on people if he escapes.
On the other hand, when you are dealing with an offender who
is not a public threat, or at least not a very serious one, public
security would be more at stake if police officers were to use
force to arrest the suspect, either by firing in the air or aiming at
a fleeing car, instead of using less violent measures, at the risk
of losing their suspect.
In the last few years, we have had to face another public
policy issue following allegations that police forces are
mistreating visible minorities.
When people are under the impression that the police are
treating visible minority suspects differently, it can often create
tense situations.
It is in the best interest of our society to reduce the use of force
so as to avoid provoking anger among minorities and touching
off a crisis.
So, we agree with the bill, which clarifies the criteria set for
the use of force by peace officers against fleeing suspects, thus
confirming the practice applied in the last few years.
Nonetheless, the use of the terms ``imminent or future'' in
section 25(4) leads to abuse.
We would have liked the government to clarify these terms,
which appear rather ambiguous to us.
The second part of my speech concerns changes to the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act. Indeed, according to the Criminal
Code, peace officers are allowed to use force in arresting an
escapee.
We support this principle in the context of the Criminal Code,
but we consider this approach not to be convenient for the
fisheries.
We feel there is a huge disproportion between the various
aspects of Bill C-8 and the scope of these measures.
The situation is tense in the fishing industry and the use of
force to disable a foreign fishing vessel could result in an
escalation of violence.
Moreover, the bill does not provide for the use of necessary
force to disable a Canadian vessel, on grounds that other
measures exist to track down offenders in Canada. This is an
outright negation of the very purpose of this bill.
The use of force to disable a vessel is not the most efficient
means to put an end to foreign overfishing. In the past, the use of
warning shots has not permitted officers to board delinquent
foreign vessels to inspect them.
(1130)
Consequently, protection officers could be tempted to use
more force, which could in turn lead to an escalation of violence.
Trying to show the international community how determined
Canada is to put an end to illicit practices is a commendable
objective. However, there are risks attached to it when the
problem of unlawful fishing is not solved at the root.
Illegal fishing cannot be stopped without the help of foreign
countries. Negotiations with the international community
should continue since, as we all know, Canada cannot legislate
in an international zone. Therefore, negotiations are the only
recourse.
Madam Speaker, it is possible, through bilateral and
multilateral agreements, to obtain the support of foreign
governments in order to penalize shipowners who would chance
to fish illegally in Canadian waters. Sanctions would have to be
severe enough to deter offenders.
Although such cases are rare, we can put an end to this without
jeopardizing the life of crew members. Disabling a vessel at sea
is not as simple as it seems.
3323
Even though we have all the necessary means to identify
offenders, the government should rely on the cooperation of
foreign governments instead. The amendment to the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act does not give the Canadian government
the power to intervene in an international zone where
agreements are not respected. The only way of settling the
matter is to put in place, with other countries, a system of
sanctions.
The addition of clause 8(1) could prompt the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans to better equip its vessels so that they have
enough striking power to intimidate foreign vessels. These
investments are not a priority at this time considering the crying
needs of the fishing industry.
Since I do not want to dwell on this, I will conclude by saying
that the term ``to disable'' a vessel must be better defined and
that the regulations must put some restrictions on the use of
force in order to prevent abuse.
I hope the government will take these remarks into
consideration. The use of force involves risks that cannot be
taken lightly.
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby):
Madam Speaker, Reformers will support Bill C-8. We admit we
had reservations as the bill seemed at first to be limiting the
discretion of the police to do a difficult job. The bill was seen as
circumscribing the law around the use of force for fleeing
criminals. On hearing the various witnesses and delegations at
the committee stage, we are satisfied that the bill responds in a
reasonable manner to unfinished business of the charter
argument and the ruling of the Lines case.
The bill also clarifies the use of deadly force against escaping
prisoners from medium and maximum penitentiaries.
Additionally it provides authority to disable foreign vessels
fleeing from Canadian authorities.
The bill is a culmination of a process that started in 1979 in
the Ouimet committee. In 1989 Ontario race relations and police
task forces made observations on the topic. Over the years there
has been concern from the Law Reform Commission and the
subject was brought to a head by the Ontario Lines case in April
1993 wherein existing sections of the Criminal Code were
declared unconstitutional.
The bill catches up to the court and to the manuals of practice
and training of current police operations. We had concerns that
there was not sufficient consultation at the front line level of
peace officers. We still hold that to be true. The bill, although
appearing inherently sound, still is a ``top down, we know best''
piece of work.
(1135 )
It is interesting to note that the civil libertarians and the
prisoners rights representatives we heard at committee stage
opposed the bill. They want peace officer powers much more
strictly circumscribed, as is presented here. Most interestingly it
seems that Bloc members were very worried about the fleeing
foreign vessel section as they may envision themselves in the
future as being categorized as foreign vessels fleeing from
Canadian authorities as they challenge sovereignty in disputed
waters. The separatist agenda was coming through.
The basic premise of the bill relating to peace officer use of
force in the three areas of fleeing criminals, escaping inmates
and runaway foreign vessels is proportionality. We hope the bill
will bring the right balance. On the one hand peace officers must
have the capacity to do their job with authority and on the other
the rights of individuals must be protected.
In closing I want to make a strong point to wake up the
government. Reformers will vote for the bill as a housekeeping
measure. However we hope the justice minister will soon bring
forward more than just promises to tighten up the criminal
justice system, for in so many other areas all proportionality has
evaporated.
The public demands action in view of what it sees as the
bleeding heart justice agenda of the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions,
and I think that you will find that there is unanimous consent to
suspend the sitting of the House until two o'clock.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The sitting is therefore
suspended until two o'clock this afternoon.
3324
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.37 a.m.)
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
_____________________________________________
3324
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, life
begins from the moment of conception and continues until
natural death. It is demanded that this Parliament exercise its
power, authority and jurisdiction to enact legislation to protect
and safeguard the rights and the life of the child dans le ventre de
sa mère, the child within the womb.
Be reminded that the preamble of the Canadian Constitution
and entrenched charter of rights recognizes the supremacy of
God. However, a nation such as ours that condones, facilitates
and finances abortion is indeed a nation without a conscience, a
pagan nation.
Enact legislation now to guarantee the right to life at all stages
from the moment of conception until natural death.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, a few days ago, we learned about violent fires raging on
Isabella Island in the Galapagos archipelago. Fire is threatening
rare species of plants and flowers as well as the breeding sites of
the giant tortoises. Ecuador does not have the equipment
required to control these fires, which could ravage one of the
most important parts of the world's natural heritage.
The government authorities in Ecuador are calling for help
and hope that international aid will come quickly. In particular,
they ask Canada to mobilize its Canadair water bombers, which
all experts say is the only way to end the disaster.
We ask the government to accede to the appeal from the
Ecuadoran government and to send water bombers immediately
in order to save this wonderful fauna and flora from the ravages
of fire.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
the residents of the village of Warfield have a great deal of pride
in their community.
Warfield has a village council, a volunteer fire department, a
community hall, a swimming pool, local schooling from
kindergarten to grade seven and a variety of stores and services
to look after the needs of local citizens. Warfield also has an
annual parade in honour of family sports, this year held on June
11.
In short, the village of Warfield has everything necessary to
justify its civic pride except one thing. The missing ingredient is
an address. All mail sent to Warfield is addressed to the
neighbouring town of Trail.
The postal codes for Warfield are unique. No change or new
costs would be necessary except to have Canada Post recognize
the rights of the citizens of Warfield to have their own name on
their mail.
In conclusion, I would like to make it clear that people of
Warfield are not looking for a post office or any change in
service, only their own identity.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, this is Earth
Week and on behalf of an organization that is very active in my
riding of Rosedale I would like to introduce to the House an
important environmental education initiative.
The schoolground naturalization program is a national
program of the Evergreen Foundation designed to transform
schoolgrounds into natural outdoor classrooms. Many schools
across Canada are presently landscaped with asphalt and
concrete playing fields and are surrounded by institutional
fencing. They look more like parking lots or prisons than
schools.
These areas provide little educational value, few community
advantages and no environmental or health benefits.
Schoolgrounds need to be changed. They must become learning
grounds by adding natural areas.
We must better understand the importance of creating better
learning environments for our children and work to change our
schoolgrounds from bleak expanses of concrete to areas of
environmental significance and educational value.
This program of the Evergreen Foundation is doing that. I
urge other members to support this initiative in their areas.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker,
there is in this country a small number of people suffering from
environmental illness, or 20th century disease.
This is a malady thought to have causes from working in
contaminated sites or in areas where water and air have been
contaminated. At the same time, we know that doctors and
scientists have a great deal of difficulty in defining exact causes.
3325
The laboratory centre for disease control at Health and
Welfare Canada in 1990 recommended that environmental
sensitivities need to be considered on a case by case basis with
acknowledgement of disability and compassion for the
individual case.
Today, four years after this statement, individuals such as
Susan Andersen of Calgary are forced to go to centres in Dallas,
Texas to live and be treated in special medical centres.
Unfortunately these individuals are not given any financial
help by our health care system notwithstanding the fact that
there are no facilities for treatment in Canada.
I call on the Minister of Health, along with her provincial
counterparts, to find a solution whereby all Canadians are
subject to a health care system which is truly universal and to
show the compassion suggested by the health department toward
these individuals and their families which they deserve in a
country which declares to have a universal health care system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker,
volunteerism is a well-established tradition in Canada. At this
time when human and financial resources are limited,
volunteers are even more essential in Canadian society.
(1405)
On the occasion of National Volunteer Week, I would like to
point out the invaluable contribution of organizations like the
United Way of Montreal. Thanks to the United Way, many
volunteer organizations can develop and continue to provide
services to the neediest people in our society.
[English]
I wish to take this opportunity to applaud all the volunteers in
my riding of Saint-Denis. Organizations like Les Femmes D'ici
et D'Ailleurs, the Park Extension Youth Organization, Moisson
Montréal, La Maison des Grands Parents de Villeray, to name
but a few, have helped to foster a community of caring and
co-operation in Saint-Denis.
I ask all my fellow members to support and assist the
volunteers in their ridings and encourage them to continue their
efforts in helping those most in need.
* * *
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, members of
the Bloc Quebecois are increasingly concerned that MPs of the
other parties are riding a wave of linguistic intolerance.
Members from both the Reform and the Liberal parties have
presented petitions calling for an end to official bilingualism.
I am shocked and dismayed at this continued use of
double-talk by the Liberal Party of Canada. This attitude can
only be described as hypocritical. They are saying one thing to
their constituents and another when speaking in the House.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois do not support such
intolerant and narrow-minded petitions.
Is the Bloc Quebecois the only remaining political party
defending the use of both official languages in federal
institutions? Is this the new Canada? Do the Liberals have any
shame?
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to give tribute to the late Frank A. Griffiths,
born December 17, 1916, who left us April 7 at 77 years. He is
survived by his wife Emily, two sons, two daughters and 15
grandchildren.
An accountant by training, he became a business leader in
British Columbia. He built a broadcasting network of radio and
TV stations, including from my riding CKNW, B.C.'s most
listened to station. His Western International Communications
Company included BCTV, 11 radio stations, 2 networks and
satellite communications. He also purchased the Vancouver
Canucks in 1974. He became vice-chairman of the NHL and was
inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.
Mr. Griffiths worked for community charities and was
awarded numerous citations. His companies also had their own
charitable organizations: the CKNW Orphans Fund, BCTV
Variety Club Telethon and the Canuck Foundation.
Mr. Griffiths was a builder, a British Columbian who led by
example, leaving his community a better place for us all.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
the European union's legal action in the European Court of
Justice against the Greek government, because of its
non-acceptance of the breakaway Yugoslav republic of Skopje's
appropriating the name and symbols of Greek Macedonia,
ignores the fact that European union member countries may
have contributed to state succession problems in the Balkans by
premature recognition of Skopje in conflict with classical
international law rules on recognition of new states.
3326
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
take this opportunity to congratulate three university athletes
from my riding on their recent accomplishments.
John Ryan of Sussex, New Brunswick was named male athlete
of the year at the University College of Cape Breton. Dennis
Lackie of Smith Creek was named most valuable player at St.
Thomas University for its soccer team. David Haley of Sussex
corner was named top rebounder for the St. Thomas University
men's basketball team.
I would like to join with the families, friends and fans of these
young athletes in saluting their success. Their dedication and
team work make all three of them positive role models for the
youth of Fundy-Royal. On behalf of the people of
Fundy-Royal I wish them all the best in their future
endeavours.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
congratulate two acting troupes within my riding of Oxford. The
Woodstock Little Theatre recently won the Western Ontario
Drama League Festival in London. Another of the main
competitors in this event was the Ingersoll Theatre of the
Performing Arts.
Both groups gave very creditable performances and the
Woodstock presentation will now move on to the provincial
championships to be held this May in Cambridge, Ontario.
As an amateur actor myself, I know firsthand the amount of
work that goes into these productions. There are always a large
number of people behind the scenes who do a great amount of
work with much less recognition than those who appear on
stage. Together these little theatre people provide live theatre to
enthusiastic audiences in many towns and cities across this land.
They are to be applauded.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Public Service Alliance of Canada almost unanimously
approved the creation of a regional council for Quebec. We must
applaud the vision and courage of this Canada-wide union
which, unlike the traditional political parties, has recognized
Quebec's distinctiveness.
The Bloc Quebecois also salutes the courage shown by the
Alliance, which democratically decided to adjust now to the
inevitable changes that the political structures of Canada and
Quebec will undergo in the near future.
Yesterday's events confirm that grassroots unionism is a
powerful instrument for changing and restructuring realities to
bring them in line with people's aspirations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, our
refugee system is failing and the minister of immigration is
doing nothing about it.
Our refugee determination system with its many levels and
dangerous loopholes cannot distinguish genuine from
illegitimate refugees. The UN estimates that 60 per cent of our
refugees are bogus. Refugee claims are being heard in Canadian
prisons. Thousands of real refugees are forced to languish in
camps while economic migrants sneak in through the back door.
Through all this, lawyers win big. Canada spends more money
on legal aid for immigrants than it gives to overseas refugee aid
programs.
Despite the failure of our refugee system our minister of
immigration travels abroad to teach European nations how to
manage refugee policy. The minister refuses to sign a treaty with
the U.S. that would stem the flow of bogus refugees.
I urge the minister to cancel his next European trip, quit trying
to convince the U.S. to adopt our refugee policies and get to
work in fixing our system.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, in this
National Volunteer Week I applaud the vital contribution of
volunteers in our communities.
Volunteering benefits both parties. It provides self-fulfilment
for the volunteer. The volunteer performs numerous tasks that
otherwise could not be done. Participation by volunteers in our
society strengthens the interrelated fabric of our communities.
Over 13 million Canadians are involved in volunteer work
either on their own or through an organization. Canadians
contribute over one billion hours in time to voluntary
organizations, the equivalent of 617,000 full time positions.
Translated into a 1990 dollar equivalent, the collective value of
this volunteer time is $13.2 billion annually.
It is important to thank these selfless people who enrich and
serve our country through their generous sharing of time and
talents.
3327
Bravo, fellow Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I was shocked
and angered last night to hear United States Senator Kent
Conrad suggest before a United States hearing that the United
States should retarget its Minuteman missiles against Canada to
deter us from our trade initiatives.
This attitude and threatening rhetoric by the Senator and some
of his American colleagues is both out of line and
unsubstantiated. The facts are that Canada has been proven four
times to have been a fair trader, once by the U.S. General
Accounting Office, once by the U.S. International Trade
Commission, once by COSTA and most recently by an
international audit.
Senator Conrad should look in the mirror and see where the
real problem lies and that is with the use of the export
enhancement program in which they subsidize prices in the
international market, drain their supply short, and naturally
when they are short stocked we are going to as fair traders move
stock into that market.
Senator Conrad should be wise and refocus his policy.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow, April 22, is Earth Day and although polling
experts say that eight out of ten Canadians are deeply concerned
about ecological issues the present public policy agenda has
been completely taken over by economic concerns, the debt and
the deficit, social programs and unemployment.
Although these issues are important their significance pales
next to the long term significance of a healthy and sustainable
environment.
(1415 )
It is time we acknowledged it is not only the federal deficit
that threatens future generations of Canadians. If we destroy the
earth's ability to support our way of life there definitely will be
fewer jobs and social programs. The economic issues that
preoccupy public policy makers now will be completely
irrelevant.
Therefore, on Earth Day I urge all Canadians who are
concerned about the environment to continue to try to keep it at
the top of the public agenda. It is only through constant attention
that the environment will be placed high on the government's
list of priorities.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, the
city of Rossland, British Columbia has regularized direct
democracy through the use of citizens initiatives.
Rossland has adopted a constitution that gives taxpayers the
right to challenge council's decisions. It has energized
community participation, protected the public process from
interest groups, saved taxpayers money and surprise, it has not
resulted in irresponsible decisions.
One hundred and fifty years ago politicians wondered aloud if
lay people could be trusted to vote. A century ago they
questioned whether women could handle the power of suffrage.
Today some politicians ask the question: Can the average
citizen be trusted to make decisions between elections? Well
history reveals and the experience in Rossland confirms that the
answer is a resounding yes.
Let us put aside our private political agendas and get on with
the agenda of the people by giving citizens a way to challenge
and even initiate federal legislation.
_____________________________________________
3327
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, last night in Toronto, the Prime Minister told his
audience what he thought of the unemployed and people on
welfare. To him, these are unproductive people who, and I quote,
``sit around at home drinking beer''. That is how the leader of
this government referred to people who feel rejected and
insecure because they have lost their jobs and have very little
hope of finding new jobs in spite of all their efforts. Coming
from anyone else, such comments would be unacceptable, and
they are even more so, coming from the Prime Minister.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, who has discredited those
who are suffering the most in Canada and Quebec, to withdraw
his insulting remarks and specifically apologize in this House
today to those he so offended.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if
the Leader of the Opposition would read the whole speech, I also
said that people on welfare and unemployment insurance have
only one desire, and that is to have the dignity of work, and that
they do not want to sit around doing nothing. Perhaps the term I
used was unfortunate, but I did mention, and that was the theme
of our election campaign, ``the dignity of work''. I said there
were people who were at home doing nothing, and I could have
said it differently. If this was offensive, I apologize. What I
meant and what I said repeatedly during the election campaign
3328
and what I say when I travel across the country today, is that
people want all governments and all members of this House to
work together to create jobs. They are sick and tired of partisan
squabbling. Instead of concentrating on the real issues which are
about giving everyone dignity and jobs, they talk about
independence, separation and constitutional problems, at a time
when people want jobs. These people want to work. If I offended
anyone, I apologize. The hon. member should have read the
whole speech. It is a reflection of our election platform-dignity
and work.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, it was not a slip of the tongue, because the Prime
Minister also said that he wanted to break the current attitude of
the unemployed.
I think the Prime Minister would have gained in stature if he
had simply apologized today. The case would have been closed,
and we would have gone on to other matters.
How can he stand there and refuse to apologize and withdraw
what he said, when in his election campaign, he promised the
needy and the unemployed he would give them renewed hope
and dignity? His reference to people sitting around drinking
beer reflects prejudice and contempt.
(1420)
Should we be surprised that this government is so insensitive
and so intent on attacking social programs-the Prime
Minister's strategy to break the attitude of the unemployed?
What kind of message is being sent to potential employers
who may want to hire these unemployed workers, when they are
told they are lazy and good for nothing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if
the Leader of the Opposition had read the text or had been there,
he would have known that I said Canada's workers are the best. I
said that Canadians spend the most on training and giving
people the advantage of a university education, and that we
spend more than any other Western country on education in this
country. I was very positive in what I said. I said I was an
optimist who was confident in the skills of Canadian workers
and in Canada's future.
However, these are difficult circumstances, because at a time
when we want to take specific action to improve the situation in
this country, we have an opposition that is intent on destroying a
country that could provide long-term guarantees for all workers
in Canada.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I may remind the Prime Minister that we were not the
ones who said that the unemployed were people who sat around
at home drinking beer, and that separation is not the issue here.
What is the issue is respect for people, and beyond our social
programs, we must still respect the dignity of people who are
suffering.
Instead of trying to enlist newspaper editors in his crusade
against the needy, the Prime Minister should have, I
believe-and today, I want to ask: Does he agree that he should
have offered them a real job recovery program to restore the
hope and dignity of the unemployed and the needy?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
that is exactly what we are trying to do. We are proposing
changes in Canada which are absolutely needed at this time to
find jobs and give the people the dignity of work.
The Leader of the Opposition is always talking about
jurisdiction and the Constitution, not caring at all about the real
problems of people getting jobs.
I repeat what I said in a speech that the best workers in the
world are the Canadian workers. They do not want to stay home.
They are not happy when they do not work. They are not happy
not being productive. They want all of us to work to make sure
they get jobs and have the dignity of work. They do not want us
to talk about the Constitution or jurisdiction. They want us to
create jobs and this government will do that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, how can the
Prime Minister of Canada be surprised at the criticism directed
at a system that only results in unemployment and misery? How
can he be surprised at this?
For two weeks now, the federal government has been in total
disarray over the issue of social program reform. As a result,
war has been declared between the provinces and the federal
government.
To top it off, we learned today that the Minister of Human
Resources put on quite a show, even though he did not write the
script. He said: ``We did not have a document to table because,
quite frankly, I still do not have one in hand. I have not presented
any proposals to Cabinet or to my caucus. I am not ready to do so
yet.''
That is what the Minister of Human Resources said. Can the
Prime Minister confirm whether the moratorium his Minister of
Finance referred to yesterday and that was agreed to by his
ministers and the Quebec Minister of Finance is due to the
improvisation to which the Minister of Human Resources
Development admittedly resorted?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): I do not
understand what the hon. member is saying. He is always saying
that we must consult.
3329
(1425)
When the minister rises and, in all honesty, says to the people:
``I cannot put any proposals on the table right now because I
want to sit down with all my counterparts and explore different
options in order to get the results that we all want'', this is an
approach that will benefit employment in the country and help
people acquire the dignity that comes through employment.
Now the member is getting all upset because the minister is
holding consultations.
Would the member prefer it if the minister showed up with a
clear, final plan and used the majority in this House to push it
through in one week? We could do it, but that is not our style.
Our style is to convince all provinces and all stakeholders that
we must work together in the interest of creating jobs and giving
workers some dignity.
I cannot understand why the member does not want us to hold
consultations. We will have to make a note of that.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, are we to
understand from the Prime Minister's wishy-washy answer that
a moratorium has now been declared and negotiated, as his
Minister of Finance indicated yesterday, between his ministers
and the Quebec Minister of Finance? Has a moratorium been
declared, yes or no, and is it due to the lack of preparedness on
the part of his Minister of Human Resources Development who
is doing a poor job?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Human Resources Development had called a
meeting for Monday. Several governments said they were not
ready yet and would like a few more weeks. The government
agreed to a moratorium-if you want to call it that-to give
them time to prepare. The Minister of Finance has done the same
thing. There have been more consultations between the Minister
of Finance and his provincial counterparts in the last six months
than ever before in Canada.
Since they have asked us for more time, we will give them
more time, because we want everyone to work together to find a
good solution. However, the system will have to change one day
because if it does not, unemployment will continue to increase,
people will grow discouraged and they will lose even more of
their dignity.
All parliamentarians, whether federal or provincial, have a
duty to work toward a common goal, that is creating jobs,
enhancing productivity, increasing the country's wealth and
building a better society than the one we have now.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The recent kidnapping of Canadian soldiers, the detention of
other UN personnel and increased offensive action in and around
Gorazde make it rather obvious that Serbian leaders have little
appreciation or respect for the UN forces deployed in Bosnia or
the will of the UN to take effective action.
The situation in Gorazde is at or even past the critical stage.
Many people are dead, many more wounded and many are in
imminent danger.
The Prime Minister has spoken with President Clinton and I
understand cabinet met this morning. Has the government come
to a decision as to whether to support the UN in its request for air
strikes?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the description of the situation illustrated
by the hon. member's question. Clearly the situation has
evolved in a totally unacceptable way.
Efforts have been made to bring all the parties to the table to
agree on a peace plan. Unfortunately, while the Croatians and
the Muslims have agreed and have signed an agreement in
Washington, the Bosnian Serbs have not been willing to
co-operate and participate in peace operations.
Requests have been made by the Secretary-General of the
United Nations to apply a solution similar to that applicable to
Sarajevo and the other free areas in Bosnia.
Cabinet met this morning. It was decided that as we have done
in the past on an undertaking by the Prime Minister, when there
is an important decision of this nature to make, we will consult
Parliament.
(1430 )
This is why the House leader has been instructed to consult
with his counterparts to agree to an emergency debate tonight on
this very question.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, my
supplemental is for the Minister of National Defence. However I
want to acknowledge the co-operation of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs in agreeing to our request for this debate this
evening.
The minister will be aware that the Canadian forces
commander in Bosnia has now refused to deploy his forces into
Serb controlled territory out of concern for the safety of his
troops.
If air strikes are initiated, what further action will the
government take to protect Canadian forces from possible
retaliation?
3330
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
would rather not deal with this hypothetical situation in today's
very emotionally charged context.
I think we have to acknowledge the fact that
Lieutenant-Colonel Moore has taken the right decision to
minimize the danger to his people in and around Visoko.
However any further steps and any further anticipation of
difficult action will have to be measured by him as the hours and
the days go by. I do not think that we should prejudge anything
he may do.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, if
Canada agrees to NATO carrying out the air strikes, has the
minister discussed with the United Nations the commitment of
more UN troops, and is the government considering sending
more Canadian troops to Bosnia?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, a request was made some time ago by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations to have much larger
contingents of troops in the area than the one that is currently
there. Unfortunately so far very few countries have responded
positively.
Although Canada at some point was wondering whether we
were pursuing peacekeeping missions, we have agreed to
commit the same level of troops, close to 2,000 soldiers, serving
under the UN for another six months.
Clearly we believe that our own effort is taxing our troops
substantially. Canada would like to see other countries respond
more quickly to the UN secretary's request. Unfortunately this
has not taken place.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, like
my colleague from the Reform Party, I would like to put my
question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We know that the
final decision of the 16 NATO countries regarding air strikes is
to be made tomorrow. I would like to know where negotiations
stand, particularly with respect to Russia's position.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, it is very difficult for me to state the position of the
Russian authorities. We read, as the hon. member probably did,
the dispatches saying that the Russian authorities are
ambivalent about the proposals that were made. On the one
hand, the Russian authorities deplore the Serbs' lack of
co-operation and think that the Bosnian Serbs should have
responded to the invitation and joined the Croats and the
Moslems in signing a peace agreement. On the other hand, they
expressed certain reservations about the use of air strikes.
At this time, I can only say that discussions are going on
between the various authorities who want this conflict to end as
quickly as possible, and I think that we will have to wait for
these discussions to be completed before we know the exact
position of every power involved in this conflict.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, what I
would have liked to know is when NATO members decide
whether or not to step up the air strikes, will the Russian
representatives be consulted first, unlike what was done before?
Could the minister tell us whether contacts were made between
NATO and Russian leaders?
(1435)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): When I had a
chance to speak with President Clinton yesterday, I raised this
point with him. I asked him what was happening with Russia. He
told me he would communicate with the Russians as he had
placed a call at about the same time, and I will speak with him
again tonight. He assured me that Mr. Yeltsin would be
contacted before NATO makes a decision tomorrow morning.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The government is about to undertake a thorough review of all
social programs including the unemployment insurance system.
At a time when the Prime Minister ought to be demonstrating
compassion and understanding to unfortunate Canadians, he
insults them with insensitive remarks.
I am reminded of last fall when he chastised Kim Campbell
for her arrogant intellectualism in using the same beer drinking
analogy.
A successful overhaul of the social safety system will require
skilful and understanding leadership. On the basis of his
remarks last evening, could the Prime Minister explain why
Canadians should have any confidence that he is able to meet
this challenge?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if
the member would take the time to read my speech she would see
what I said.
In my speech I said that Canadian workers are the best in the
world and are the best prepared. I also said that Canadian people
do not want to stay home doing nothing; they want to work.
Perhaps I used one word there that I should not have used. I
could have said something else. Sometimes in a speech one uses
a word that perhaps in context is misplaced, but I clearly said
that they want to work. I know this, since I have served in
Parliament for a long time. Canadian people desire to work. A
lot of people say: ``Don't do anything''. On the contrary we
3331
want to do something. Nobody likes to be on welfare. Nobody
likes to be on employment insurance. They want jobs.
This is why we have created some programs and are trying to
apply the resources of government to programs where the people
who are unemployed will be productive. This is what we want to
do. It is the program of the government.
Some people are arguing that we want to do it too fast. That is
one of the problems, that we were too keen to solve the problem.
Some of the provincial governments were afraid that we were
moving too fast. Yesterday the premier of Ontario made a speech
in which he said he wanted to work with us and find some
solutions.
We will take the time that we need because we believe in the
dignity of the people. Rather than refusing to do something, we
are working on it. We hope the hon. member will support us in
our endeavours.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, there is no
dignity in being unemployed in the country and being accused
by the Prime Minister of sitting home drinking beer. My
supplementary question is for the Prime Minister as well.
Several provinces have expressed hesitation about the
government's intentions concerning total wide open social
reform. Is the Prime Minister's recklessness with words going to
help or hinder this extremely sensitive process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
something that pleases me today is that this is the first time a
question has been asked by a member of the Reform Party about
the unemployed people of Canada.
When they get up in the House they are always telling us:
``Cut, cut, cut. Don't help them. Let them starve''. It is not our
way. Our way is to earn their respect and we are working hard on
it. I am very pleased to see the Reform Party is now waking up to
the reality the unemployed people want the government to help
them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. As part of the action plan
on smuggling announced in February, the government included
a $3 million or so anti-smoking media campaign to inform and
educate the public, particularly young people. Now, the word
came out that after meeting with groups of young people, the
minister has decided to terminate the ad campaign.
(1440)
Can the minister confirm in this House what she has already
recognized publicly, namely that this anti-smoking campaign
was cancelled because, by her own admission, it had no impact
whatsoever on young people?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her question. I must first say that I
have indeed inherited the ad campaign you may have seen
recently. This campaign was launched by the previous
government, and as I travelled across the country, I was
confirmed in my personal opinion. When I first saw this ad
campaign, I was not convinced that it suited the present
situation, as it had been devised three or four years ago. Young
people have confirmed that I was right all along.
I have asked my department to review all the ads-and that is
what we are doing right now-to ensure that every dollar spent
on publicity is spent as wisely as possible.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not realize that this prevention campaign was the very
last thread of credibility she had in the eyes of the anti-tobacco
lobby following the reduction by her government of consumer
taxes on tobacco and that now she has none left whatsoever?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let
me advise members opposite that while I am reviewing all
public relations and publicity I have many tools at my disposal.
I have said that we would look at new ads. Yes, we are going to
continue doing some publicity, but it will have to be very tough,
very targeted and very effective because we do not have a lot of
dollars to spend foolishly. Any dollars that I spend I will spend
very wisely.
As a result we are developing a new campaign which I am
going to share with members of the anti-smoking lobby as well
as provincial governments. We are working together on the
campaign to make it as effective as possible.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
For the first time in its 28-year history the Canada pension
plan has been forced to dip into its contingency fund. Many
Canadians believe that unless it is reformed it is only a matter of
time before the Canada pension plan runs out of money.
What plans does the government have to preserve the Canada
pension plan for the long term?
3332
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is worrying unnecessarily. The plan is
operating very much as expected. The CPP fund was established
to meet the contingencies as outlined by the hon. member.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, in spite
of the hon. member's reassuring words, many analysts suggest
the aging of our population means that the Canada pension plan
cannot survive as currently structured. The situation is so bad
that many Canadians do not expect to collect CPP when they
retire and think of CPP premiums as a tax on youth.
The CPP has now turned a corner. Premiums are no longer
keeping up with payouts. Does the government have specific
proposals for CPP reform?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps I should present some facts to the hon. member.
In the long term the fund intended to operate as ``a pay as you
go'' with contributions and benefits more or less in balance. It
was intended to hold two years of benefits as a buffer against
fluctuations in the economy. The fund now has about three years
worth of benefits.
(1445)
As legislated contribution rates increase and come into force,
the plan's income and expenditures are projected to be more
closely in balance. Reserves will grow from $41 billion to nearly
$55 billion over the next 10 years.
I hope this answers the hon. member's question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Public Works. In response to the
questions I asked him yesterday, the Minister of Public Works
said that BioVac offered to sell its flu vaccine for $1.85 a dose
compared to $1.69 for Connaught. By dividing the contract
equally between Connaught and BioVac, the minister claims
that the government will pay $1.77 a dose.
Does the Minister of Public Works admit that the figures he
advanced yesterday are inaccurate since, in the tendering
process, BioVac bid $1.70 a dose compared to $1.46 for
Connaught, and that by dividing the contract in two, the
government will pay not $1.77 a dose as the minister said
yesterday, but $1.85 a dose? Could he admit that his figures are
inaccurate?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm to the
hon. member that the facts I have are quite different from the
ones she has.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister admit that by awarding 100 per cent of the contract to
BioVac, the only Canadian maker of flu vaccine, at $1.70 a dose,
he would have saved Canadian taxpayers more than $600,000
and preserved high-tech jobs?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's concern with regard to the fiscal responsibility and
capacity of the Government of Canada, but I find it passing
strange that when it comes to human resources we are accused of
not consulting with the provinces.
When two companies, BioVac and Connaught Laboratories
get together, consult with provincial governments, territorial
governments and the Government of Canada and agree to a
blended price thereby providing jobs and economic
opportunities in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, somehow
the hon. member finds that to be despicable.
The hon. member should know that BioVac was charging
$1.85 a dose, Connaught, $1.69 a dose. The blended price is
$1.77.
* * *
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
According to recent news reports as many as 24,000 former
refugee claimants whose claims were rejected after a hearing
have not yet been removed from Canada. Since most of them are
not allowed to work this will place an additional burden on the
taxpayer.
Can the government advise the House how many people are in
this category, when the removals will proceed, and can we be
assured that these circumstances will not impair the integrity of
Canada's refugee program?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend and
colleague for Scarborough-Rouge River.
I can say to the hon. member and to the House that the number
is lower than the 24,000 being thrown around by the media.
Approximately 10,000 of those individuals, would be claimants
have been refused but because of previous policy directives
have not been removed. For instance the individuals from the
People's Republic of China as well as other countries fall into
that category. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government is
3333
actively pursuing a strategy of how to clarify that status in
fairness to them and to the system.
An anticipated one-third of those individuals are no longer in
this country and therefore are not a financial drain. There are
also individuals in detention and in our prisons and there are
some cases where the processing of a particular case has fallen
between the cracks as sometimes happens with governments.
I ask the member to recognize that the government has moved
on allowing work permits for refugee claimants while they wait
for their cases. We have had approximately a 70 per cent take-up
of claimants asking for work permits. As the Prime Minister
said moments ago, not only could we give them the dignity of
work but also lessen the load on our social service programs.
* * *
(1450)
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Trade. Why is the minister
even considering agreeing to quotas on durum wheat shipments
to the United States?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, we did not agree with the United States position in
the recent trade talks which included a sub-cap on durum under
the total cap on wheat that it had proposed. It is not our present
intention to agree to such a sub-cap.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, U.S. Senator
Kent Conrad suggested that the American solution is to nuke
Canada. Mickey Cantor says that he is ready for a dust-up with
Canada. These are fighting words.
Wheat farmers want government to face this challenge head
on. They demand assurance that the government will not cave in
to the Americans and allow wheat quotas. Will the minister give
farmers the assurance that he will not agree to quotas?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to the United States our position.
We do not agree that its present position on a cap on wheat
exports to the United States is acceptable to Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, last
Saturday, the daily
La Presse said that according to the latest
U.S. government report on international narcotic control,
Canada is a haven for laundering money from drug trafficking.
My question is for the Solicitor General. With the information
at his disposal, can the Solicitor General confirm the finding of
the U.S. government report as mentioned in La Presse?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
have asked officials to provide me with any information they
have to confirm this American government report. They tell me
that they have not yet found any empirical evidence to confirm
it.
Furthermore Canada is a member of the financial action task
force of the G-7 industrial countries. I am told that Canada does
meet the minimum requirements of that task force that is
designed to look into the matter of money laundering as it
concerns the major G-7 industrial countries.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, what
does the Solicitor General intend to do to restore Canada's
reputation in this area?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we have been putting in place over a period of years a number of
measures to deal with money laundering and we will continue to
intensify our efforts.
I think that if you go by the report of the financial action task
force of the G-7 countries, Canada's reputation is a solid one,
but certainly we want to work to maintain that reputation and
increase our efforts when it comes to money laundering.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
What is the minister doing about the criminal activity with
respect to the tampering of minutes of the Métis Society of
Saskatchewan?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House
the other day, we expect by the end of the present month to
receive a formal audit in final form with respect to the Métis
society. I expect that we will by that time have information with
respect to all such matters.
I do not intend to comment in advance of receiving the formal
and final audit. As I said the other day, I deplore the fact that bits
and pieces of information seem to be leaking into the media and
3334
are being referred to and quoted which I think is terribly unfair.
As far as the Department of Justice is concerned we are
investigating to ensure that that has not happened as a result of
anyone who is working under our authority.
I will be able to respond to the hon. member's questions when
I have the audit and I will be pleased to do it at that time.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): I have a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the minister stonewalling because of the involvement or
association of Marc LeClair, chief administrative officer of the
Métis National Council, adviser to the Métis Society of
Saskatchewan, a participant in the drafting of the Liberal red
book and a member of the extraordinary Liberal aboriginal
caucus?
(1455 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member
that we are working to a time deadline that was established long
ago in accordance with administrative procedures. This is not a
matter of stonewalling. I am simply not in the position to
respond to questions about a report that has not yet been
delivered to me in final form.
I can tell the hon. member that once I have the report and it is
in final form I will be pleased to respond to any questions he has
about it.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker, I
rose in the House yesterday to describe the ecological and
humanitarian disasters being perpetrated against Shia Muslims.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will our
government consider requesting UN peace observers to visit the
southern Iraq marshes to report on the following: Measures
being taken to stop the free flow of water to the marshes and
effectively destroying their ecostructure; a blockade around the
marshes which restricts the movement of food, people and
medical care; the systematic torture and murder of women,
children and the elderly.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly share the view expressed by the hon.
member about the terrible situation imposed on the people
living in Iraq and the persistent violation of human rights by the
authorities there.
The representative of Canada at the United Nations,
particularly at the Human Rights Commission, has proposed
resolutions to send monitors, particularly to that region of Iraq,
to assist these people who are abused by the authorities.
Unfortunately, in order to achieve a remedy we need the
co-operation of the authorities who have systematically refused
UN missions or UN observers being sent there.
We will pursue this matter and hope that through perseverance
the Iraqi authorities will accept the UN monitors.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, 400
employees of Q.N.S. & L., in Sept-îles, have now been in
lockout for two months. The federal legislation does not prevent
the employer, a mining company, to hire scabs. Since nothing
keeps the company from carrying on its operations, it refuses to
negotiate with the employees, who want to negotiate and to go
back to work.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the lack of federal
anti-scab legislation is responsible for the deterioration of the
negotiations between Q.N.S. & L. and the steelworkers union?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. I will take it under
advisement and report to him as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, I
would still like to ask a supplementary since I did not get a full
answer. Will the government and the Prime Minister pledge to
see what can be done to help these workers, given the fact that no
anti-scab legislation exists?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, as
I said earlier, I will take the question under advisement and
report to the hon. member as soon as possible.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker,
according to page 23 of the red book of the election campaign:
An area where substantial savings can be realized is in grants to businesses.
Over 700 federal and provincial programs currently deliver such grants, an
overgrowth of bureaucracy that cannot possibly be justified.
My question is for the Minister of Industry or the
parliamentary secretary. What is the Liberal government doing
and what has it done to eliminate that overgrowth of
bureaucracy?
3335
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question
because it gives us an opportunity to basically review the
position that the Minister of Finance put forward in the budget.
(1500 )
The hon. member should realize we have already begun the
review within the Department of Industry and with the private
sector. We will reduce and eliminate the paper burden. This is a
very important exercise and the private sector has welcomed it.
It is well under way. The committee will be reporting to the
Minister of Finance by the end of June.
At the same time I remind the hon. member we are continuing
to investigate ways in which we can access capital for small and
medium sized businesses. The Prime Minister has said
repeatedly that we believe the greatest hope for putting
Canadians back to work rests with the 900,000 entrepreneurs in
Canada who are trying very hard to get this country going again.
The hon. member mentioned tourism and that is another area
we are working on.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately we are not talking about loans here.
Budgetary expenditures show the government is planning to
spend $3.3 billion in grants to businesses in 1994-95 and a
further $3.1 billion in 1995-96. The Canadian Federation of
Independent Business has recommended there be no grants to
businesses.
When the red book promised substantial savings can be
realized in grants to businesses and when the CFIB itself does
not want these grants, why is this government planning to spend
billions of dollars this way in the next two years?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks in the
estimates book for the Department of Industry he will see there
have been tremendous cutbacks in the department.
He will also notice from an analysis of the industry estimates
we are very carefully targeting the taxpayers' money relating to
industry. We are targeting it to the proven winners in our
community that we think have the best chance of putting
Canadians back to work in industries that are very important to
keep us globally competitive.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade. On January
1 the government signed the NAFTA promising an end to trade
wars with the United States.
Barely four months since the signing of that agreement we
have not just a scuffle but a full-fledged attack on our Canadian
wheat farmers, Minutemen missiles and all. NAFTA seems to
offer about as much protection as an umbrella would against an
American missile. Do not look up.
NAFTA has failed the Canadian wheat farmer and the barley
farmer. What specific assurances has the minister given to these
farmers that their interests will be taken into consideration?
What specifically can he tell us today?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, I could give the hon. member a very long answer to
that question.
Let me say very briefly that the wheat dispute with the United
States is not under NAFTA. The Americans are pursuing what
they believe to be their remedies under the GATT and not under
NAFTA.
I would point out with regard to our stance in the Canada-U.S.
discussions on wheat, we have taken positions that respect and
guard the interests of Canadian grain farmers.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, during
question period the Prime Minister said that Reformers have
said to the unemployed, and I quote: ``Do nothing. Let them
starve''. That is not true. I am asking the Prime Minister-
The Speaker: The hon. member and all of us from time to
time have used the points of order for debate. I think we are
probably getting into a little bit of debate.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, you have often said in this House
yourself about imputing motives. As far as I am concerned that
is imputing motives.
(1505 )
The Speaker: Order. We have dealt with the point order. I
believe it is a point of debate and I trust that most hon. members
will agree.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, could the
Government House leader please tell us what is on the agenda
for the next few days?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, after I present the statement of business for the
3336
coming week, I intend to ask the unanimous consent of the
House to enable a special debate to take place this evening on the
situation in Bosnia.
In that connection, I want to thank the Reform Party House
leader for making a suggestion about having such a debate and
suggesting a theme to be taken into account in the motion on
which the debate will be based. It was a force of coincidence his
request came at a time when we were giving thought to the same
matter. I want to thank the Reform Party House leader for his
constructive point in this regard.
This afternoon we will consider report stage and third reading
of Bill C-6 regarding oil and gas. On Friday, Bill C-4 respecting
the NAFTA side deals will be considered at the report and third
reading stages. On Monday, the House will have before it second
reading of Bill C-16 regarding certain land claims.
The business on Tuesday shall be Bill C-22 respecting
Pearson airport which is at the second reading stage. After
completing this bill we will call second reading of Bill C-21
regarding railway lands and Bill C-12 to update the Canada
Business Corporations Act. This business will likely take us into
Wednesday.
There are two bills the Minister of the Environment will be
introducing on Monday that the House may wish to deal with
next week as well. Finally, Thursday, April 28 shall be an
opposition day.
As I said just before my statement, there have been
consultations and I believe there will be consent for the
following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, at 6 p.m. this day, the House shall
consider a motion by the Minister of Foreign Affairs as follows:
That this House, taking note of the tragic events which have taken place in and
around Gorazde, and NATO's agreement in February to a UN request for the use of
air support to protect a safe area around Sarajevo, consider the request contained in
the UN Secretary-General's April 18 letter to the Secretary General of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization to extend arrangements similar to those in place to
protect Sarajevo to the five other UN safe areas in Bosnia.
That, during debate on the said motion, the first four members to speak shall
speak for not more than 15 minutes and any subsequent members shall speak for
not more than 10 minutes; and
That, when no members rise to speak, but in any case not later than 10 p.m.
the Speaker shall adjourn the House.
I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would ask if there is
consent for the motion I have read. If so, I would be prepared to
put the motion and seek the unanimous consent of the House that
this motion be adopted so that a debate on this matter of great
interest and concern to members will begin at six o'clock this
evening.
The Speaker: Is there consent for this motion to be put?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is there agreement that the motion be debated
tonight at six o'clock under the terms prescribed in the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: So ordered.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
3336
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1510)
[English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act
to amend the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada
Petroleum Resources Act and the National Energy Board Act
and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as
reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When shall the bill be
read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. McLellan moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
She said: Madam Speaker, hon. members, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to speak before this House today during
third reading of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Canada Oil and
Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, and
the National Energy Board Act.
The main purpose of Bill C-6 is to give the National Energy
Board the authority to regulate frontier oil and gas activity. It
will not however affect offshore Newfoundland and Nova Scotia
where petroleum management is shared under
federal-provincial accords. Bill C-6 will ensure that the frontier
regulatory process is more transparent as decisions will be taken
by an experienced independent organization.
Essentially the National Energy Board's main responsibilities
will be: protection of worker safety; maximizing resource
conservation by ensuring good oil field practices; and protection
of the environment.
I am very sensitive to concerns regarding protection of the
fragile environment of the north and other frontier areas.
Consistent with efforts to better integrate environmental
considerations in policy decisions, a review of the proposed
legislative changes was conducted co-operatively by Natural
Resources Canada and the National Energy Board. It concluded
there
3337
would be no adverse environmental impacts as a result of the
proposed amendments.
The government is also committed to real and meaningful
consultations with all key stakeholders and views this as a
critical feature of the legislative process. Wide-ranging
consultations with interested parties have been held at all stages
of the development of this proposed legislation. These included
both provincial and territorial governments, native groups,
industry, and environmental organizations.
Let me turn to some of the issues that were raised during
second reading and committee consideration of Bill C-6.
Concern was expressed by some members of this House
regarding the impact Bill C-6 may have on provincial
jurisdiction over frontier resources.
[Translation]
This bill will have no impact on jurisdiction over offshore
regions of Quebec and other frontier areas. It merely transfers to
the National Energy Board regulatory powers which already
belong to the federal government, and it does not affect any
offshore frontier areas.
[English]
Further, there is nothing in the bill which would prejudice the
outcome of any discussions with the territorial governments on
the delegation of onshore responsibilities, or impact on
discussions with other coastal provinces regarding future shared
management arrangements.
(1515 )
Some members also felt that in the exceptional circumstances
of a future appeal the National Energy Board would somehow
not be expert or independent enough to give industry a fair
hearing. NEB decisions are not currently subject to outside
review except by the courts and then only on questions of law or
jurisdiction.
The oil and gas committee appeal process is being abolished
under this legislation because the integrity of the NEB process,
and therefore its independence and effectiveness, depends
heavily on maintaining this principle.
The proposed amendments reflect our view that in the few
instances this appeal function may be exercised it will be
competently and objectively performed by the NEB.
The National Energy Board already has diverse regulatory
responsibilities. These include the licensing of the export of oil,
gas and electricity; the issuance of certificates for international
pipelines; and the setting of just and reasonable tolls. The
National Energy Board is well placed to take on the authority to
regulate frontier oil and gas as proposed in the amendments.
I am fully confident that for all its responsibilities the board
will continue its mandate to regulate in the Canadian public
interest fairly and effectively, taking into consideration the
views of all interested parties.
[Translation]
In conclusion, what the government of Canada wants to do
with this bill is to give clear and specific operating rules to the
industry.
[English]
Without these amendments the NEB will not be able to
operate effectively and industry will continue to be faced with a
time consuming approval process.
The National Energy Board was given additional staff and
responsibilities for frontier oil and gas in 1991. Bill C-6 would
finally give the board the legal authority to do its job.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies):
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-6.
However, since this legislation will now give the National
Energy Board the official power to hear appeals and to give
advice to ministers, we truly hope that the National Energy
Board will hear our own appeal today and make sure that it does
indeed give advice to government ministers, because they badly
need it.
In recent years, the federal government has agreed to provide
financial support to major energy projects, or energy
megaprojects, as they are called. Together, these agreements
represent an initial commitment of over $3 billion. I must point
out here, for the benefit of those who are listening to us, that one
billion is a thousand millions. In the case of Hibernia, we are
talking of 2,700 million dollars.
These projects require considerable public funds which the
government, of course, gets from already overtaxed Canadians.
As we know, the middle class is already on its knees because it is
overtaxed. In fact, the Auditor General of Canada himself said
that taxpayers have the right to expect public expenditures to be
managed with caution.
Yet, what do we see? Again, the Auditor General had this to
say: ``We examined the energy megaprojects assisted and
funded by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Our
observations on the Hibernia, Lloydminster Bi-Provincial
Upgrader and Regina NewGrade Upgrader projects point to
some fundamental weaknesses.''
Let me mention five weaknesses noted by the Auditor
General. First, the lack of a comprehensive set of clear and
measurable objectives. Second, an inadequate co-ordination of
benefit monitoring. Third, deficiencies in monitoring
environmental
3338
assessment recommendations and commitments. Fourth,
continuing gaps in effectiveness measurement. That brings me
to the fifth and final point, although we could have listed many
others, but we will stop at five. The fifth point is limited and
poor reporting to Parliament and the public in Part III of the
Main Estimates.
(1520)
The Auditor General adds:
Another key problem we noted in the Hibernia and Bi-Provincial Upgrader
agreements was the lack of a connection between performance and payment.
Federal payments are based on project expenditures, and not on construction
milestones or achievement of certain intended economic benefits that have been
specifically identified with these projects. Even if the Department determined
through its monitoring efforts that certain intended benefits were not being
achieved, it would have no legal basis to stop payments to the projects.
Then, the Auditor General stresses that:
Without a direct connection between performance and payment, the payment
is in the nature of a grant.
We are talking about billions of dollars that were given to
companies involved in the Hibernia project and which are in fact
grants. In other words, the Auditor General is telling us that the
thousands of millions of dollars, all taxpayers' money, which
were invested in these projects, supposedly to create jobs and
create all kinds of industrial benefits, are meaningless since the
government has no legal basis to guarantee the intended
benefits.
Of course, following this statement by the Auditor General,
the department took the following commitment:
The Department is devoting additional resources to the monitoring function,
particularly with respect to industrial and employment benefits.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. This government was elected on the promise
to create jobs. Therefore the least we should expect is that the
taxpayers' hard-earned money which is invested in big projects
helps create jobs at home. But such is not the case. In spite of all
the promises made by the department I just mentioned, an Act to
repeal the requirements concerning Canadian participation was
enacted only a few months ago.
According to a document coming directly from the Minister
of Natural Resources, this is what this bill does essentially:
The highlights of this bill are the elimination of the minimum 50 per cent
Canadian participation as a condition to grant a licence for oil and gas
production in frontier areas; the elimination of the need to obtain the minister's
approval to transfer, in whole or in part, ownership rights under a licence
contract to produce oil and gas in frontier areas; and the repeal of the present
regulation under which certain individuals may hold production licences and of
related requirements regarding the place of residence.
In short, not only is the federal government unable to legally
guarantee definite spin-offs for the billions of dollars of
taxpayers' money it invests in such ventures, it deliberately lifts
the minimum requirements imposed on companies to which it
gives money so that they can create jobs in Canada.
We recognize that, in the last few months, some
improvements have been made regarding the management of
this project, but they have not been as far-reaching as we would
have liked. An in-depth assessment of the project should have
taken place before work began, not after.
Where is all this leading us? The government goes and takes
billions of dollars from already overtaxed Canadians and
Quebecers. It gives money to big companies over which, as the
Auditor General said, it has hardly any control. It allows them to
create jobs elsewhere. Jobs, jobs, jobs for Korea, not for us. In
the meantime, we can be sure that, no matter what we do, our
horrendous $500 billion debt will grow to $600 billion in three
years, if everything goes well, because otherwise it could be a
lot worse. The truth is, as things stand today, we are on the verge
on bankruptcy.
We can also be sure that unemployment rates will remain
exactly the same and that young people will have no jobs. The
only solution this government could find was to cut
unemployment benefits and old age pensions; such was its
choice.
(1525)
Of course, the unemployed, the people of modest means,
those without voice or clout, would not accept this situation if
they were not, first of all, made to feel guilty, to feel that they are
the real problem in Canada.
The statements by the Prime Minister, last night on television
and this morning in the newspapers, show that this policy is
actively pursued.
I would like to quote today's Le Droit which carries a headline
that reads: ``Loafers cost $500 billion: their attitude must be
broken'', which I hasten to say were perhaps not the words used
by the Prime Minister. He said, according to the article:
``Canadians have to break that mentality, because the country is
$500 billion in the hole. We cannot keep people sitting at home
drinking beer''.
I object to what the Prime Minister said today. I consider that
a frightful statement. I remind the Prime Minister that the
former Hyundai employees who lost their jobs are not
beer-drinking loafers. They are out looking for work.
The fishers of Gaspé who can no longer go out and fish are not
beer-drinking loafers, they are looking for work. The former
employees of the CNR, the CPR or MIL Davie in Lauzon, that
3339
cannot get government contracts to build ferries, are not sitting
at home drinking beer and watching TV. They are looking for
work.
Young people, among whom unemployment is sky high, who
come out of school with two university degrees and go bankrupt
even before they start their productive life are not beer drinkers
and television addicts, they are looking for work.
I urge the prime minister to come and visit my riding of
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies on Monday morning and meet the
people who come to me, hoping I can find them some work. I do
not know what he would tell them, but if he were to tell them that
they are beer-drinking loafers, I am sure they would have
something to say to him.
It is known that Quebec provides almost 25 per cent of federal
tax revenues in Canada and that, in most Canadian job creating
reinvestments, benefits that Quebec is getting are not equal to
the revenues that it provides, whether it is in research and
development, in federal acquisitions, in army spending or in
funds for agriculture and megaprojects.
In the case of Hibernia, although Quebecers will pay
approximately $800 million in federal taxes for that project,
over and above the grants that will have to be given for each
barrel of oil coming out of Hibernia if the international price is
not high enough, the future of the MIL shipyards in Lauzon
remains bleak and lay-offs are predicted for 1994.
Although Lauzon's shipyards are in fact the only one to have
built drilling platforms in Canada, including 13 for Texas in the
early 1980's, the federal government has stuffed the province of
Newfoundland with contracts awarded without any bidding: the
building of concrete bases, the building of the five
super-modules. The other contracts were awarded to foreign
firms, after the federal government had abolished the 25 per cent
tariff on the importation of oil platforms that had been in place
since 1983. And that is one of the fundamental reasons why
things are going badly in this country, because billion of dollars
are invested in the creation of jobs somewhere else, and the
unemployed of this country, that have been created by the
government, are being called beer drinkers and lazy bums who
just watch television.
There was also the building of a large-capacity shipyard in
Bull's Arm, which was paid for with a regional development
fund of $300 million. They agreed to go ahead with the
modernization of the Marystown shipyard and a vast manpower
training program for Newfoundland.
Therefore, if the Bloc Quebecois approves the passage of Bill
C-6 at third reading, it becomes the duty of all members of this
House to make sure that megaprojects like Hibernia really
generate the spin-off benefits promised both by this government
and its predecessor, because taxpayers of Quebec and Canada
are entitled to expect such benefits.
As for the outrageous statements of Canada's Prime Minister,
he may be sure that Quebecers will remember them during the
next provincial election and the referendum which will surely be
held in the months to come.
(1530)
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Madam Speaker, I will be the only
speaker for the Reform Party on this matter and I shall be brief.
Bill C-6 is mostly housekeeping. As we stated earlier in the
House, we will endorse its basic thrust which is to transfer
regulatory authority over frontier oil and gas development from
the political arena to an independent body, the National Energy
Board. We believe that this action is also endorsed by most of
the industry stakeholders.
This bill does have one glaring weakness which we were
unable to remedy in committee. It gives the National Energy
Board unlimited power to determine what is or is not a
significant discovery or a commercial discovery and to make
unilateral decisions affecting certain technical operations.
Aggrieved parties will be able to appeal a board decision only
to the board itself so that a single quasi-judicial body becomes
in effect judge, jury and executioner. Questions of law of course
could be further appealed to the courts by any party willing to
accept the cost and long delay of such actions. But questions of
fact, technical decisions, could not be challenged.
Industry representatives have indicated to us that the National
Energy Board as presently constituted functions well, has
knowledgeable personnel and has a good track record.
Our concern is that we are looking at the board in a snapshot in
time. We do not know what it will be like 10 or 15 years from
now. Bill C-6 nevertheless gives it an extraordinary amount of
power with no checks or balances.
Laws are like contracts. They should be written to deal with
worst case scenarios, not under the assumption that all
concerned parties will be forever noble, rational and fair.
In committee we attempted to rectify this problem with
amendments to allow final appeals of board decisions to a
second independent body, the oil and gas committee as defined
in the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. Having failed to win
this safeguard in committee, the Reform Party will not
vexatiously continue to pursue a cause which is already lost.
3340
Most of the bill and its intent are acceptable to us. We
therefore support it, albeit somewhat grudgingly.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
[Translation]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Madam Speaker, I
think you would find that there is unanimous consent to suspend
the sitting of the House until 4.30 p.m. at which time we would
proceed with Private Members' Business.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House is suspended
until 4.30 p.m.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.34 p.m.)
[Translation]
The House resumed at 4:30 p.m.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3340
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert) moved that Bill
C-218, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act
(excepted employment), be read the second time and referred to
committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all the hon. members
who have expressed support for this bill. Unfortunately, they
could not all be listed in the Order Paper because there are too
many of them. As we know, pursuant to our Standing Orders, no
more than 20 names may appear on the list of seconders
published in the Order Paper. Allow me then to extend my
thanks in this House to those members whose names are on the
list as well as to all the others who, without being listed, support
me nonetheless.
Bill C-218 is a bill to repeal paragraph 3(2)(c) of the
Unemployment Insurance Act. It may sound technical but in
fact, I am simply asking this House to repair a serious injustice
done to nearly one million Canadians, of whom 650,000 are
women.
(1635)
We all remember the omnibus reform of the unemployment
insurance system. We are now starting to appreciate the extent
of its social effects, some of which are plainly discriminatory.
The former Unemployment Insurance Act clearly excluded
from entitlement to benefits any person working for his or her
spouse or a company controlled by his or her spouse. The
legislation was clear and simple, and openly discriminatory. No
one would ever want of such a system today. In those days, a
woman working for her husband was automatically excluded
from contributing to the plan and receiving benefits. It was
clearly stated in the act and regulations.
This act was challenged before the courts and tested under the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Predictably enough, the courts
moved to restore the entitlement. Because the Act applied only
to spouses, and not to all people operating at arm's length,
former paragraphs 3(2)(c) and 4(3)(d) of the Act were ruled
invalid and ill-founded by the Human Rights Tribunal of the
Federal Court-Appeal Division, the Tax Court of Canada and
the Supreme Court of Canada.
The present Act was enacted on October 23, 1990, and
paragraph 3(2)(c) was amended to reflect the judicial decisions
regarding its unconstitutionality. The Conservatives found a
way to get round the problem in their legislation. From then on,
women working for their husband were no longer the only ones
excluded from benefits under the Act.
From now on, everyone not dealing at arm's length with their
employer is excluded from benefits. In this way, legally, the law
no longer seems discriminatory. Any employees not dealing at
arm's length with their employer are no longer automatically
entitled to benefits. Apparently, the employer's son, brother or
junior partner, as well as the woman working for her husband,
are now on an equal footing. They must all show a Revenue
Canada official that they are ``clean'' because it is up to that
official to determine if the employee is cheating or not.
The law is clear: if someone worked for an employer with
whom he was not dealing at arm's length, he will have to prove
that the job would have been given to an outsider under the same
conditions.
Just read paragraph 3(2)(c) to convince yourself at first
glance of the different way the Conservatives treated employees
who were ``guilty'' of working for a relative or a spouse.
3341
No other category of unemployed person has to prove to the
satisfaction of the Minister of National Revenue that he is not
trying to defraud unemployment insurance, but the law requires
relatives and spouses to prove it.
At first, it may seem normal to pay particular attention to the
cases of people whose job might give rise to obvious collusion
by the employer.
In some quarters, people might think that fathers and sons,
husbands and wives, brothers and sisters are potential cheaters.
For many people, it is not a real job if the employer is a spouse or
a relative. It is only a step from this view of the labour market to
the conviction that people not dealing at arm's length are out to
cheat the government, a step which the Conservatives gladly
took by passing the new Unemployment Insurance Act.
Before, the law applied only to spouses. But no matter, since it
was discriminatory, they had to go one better. By submerging
the category of spouses in the whole category of those not
dealing at arm's length with an employer, they thought that they
had really solved the problem.
Since spouses were no longer the only ones excluded, the law
was no longer discriminatory. It was not discriminatory because
it automatically excluded from benefits anyone whom the
Income Tax Act considered not to be dealing at arm's length, not
just spouses.
The presumption of honesty in all these cases is now replaced
with a presumption of fraud. It is now up to the employee to
prove to the discretionary satisfaction of the income tax official
that the labour contract has all the features of a job that the
employer would have given to someone completely unrelated to
him.
(1640)
In reviewing the claim, the official can conduct every
investigation he deems appropriate at the employer's place of
business. He can, in particular, check financial records,
approach clients and suppliers, look at bank statements,
examine work flow in the plant or office, and interview third
parties. In short, the official can pursue his investigation as far
as he considers necessary to form an opinion. In fact, that is
exactly the way things are done.
These thugs' only goal is to demean recipients. The smallest
doubt can lead to exclusion. They do not try to determine
eligibility but to prove that a fraud has been committed.
I stress that investigations are conducted by the Source
Deductions Division of Revenue Canada, Taxation. After the
investigation is completed, Revenue Canada gives its opinion to
the unemployment insurance people who then decide whether to
pay or withhold benefits.
Withholding benefits triggers off a series of administrative
and judicial appeals. First, a review application is filed with the
Appeals Division of Revenue Canada. If the decision is upheld,
a final appeal can be made to the Tax Court of Canada. Then, if
the unemployed person still has strength, resources and a good
deal of optimism, he or she may go to the Federal Court of
Appeal as a last resort. The minister or the taxpayer can still
appeal to the Supreme Court against the Federal Court's
decision.
Meanwhile, the unemployed person-usually a
woman-lives off her hopes while trying to understand why she
is being singled out by the system.
Why is the employer's spouse or relative being penalized?
How do we justify such actions? Why do we assume that a
certain class of employees are cheaters? Why are we more
distrustful of relatives than of strangers? Is it easier to cheat
between relatives than between residents of a small village
where they all know each other so well that they feel like
family?
It is unacceptable for legislators to use distrust to enforce the
law. That is exactly the effect of the current paragraph 3(2)(c).
Under the act, spouses and relatives are considered as
suspects. The government tells them they are not like other
citizens because they worked for a spouse or a relative. It then
asks them to prove their honesty.
What democratically minded Canadian citizen can accept
such an attack on fundamental values? Mr. Speaker, it may be
that employees and employers who are married or related to
each other cheat the UI system, just as perfect strangers may and
do commit fraud, perhaps with even greater ease than within a
family. But the criminal provisions of the act are explicit and
punitive enough to cover all fraudulent claims.
What is objectionable in this case is that it is up to the
unemployed to prove as soon as they file the claim that they did
not commit fraud. No other class of beneficiaries must bear such
a burden of proof. Not only could this person be liable to
prosecution, to criminal prosecution, for breaking the law, but it
would be assumed that from the outset of the application
process, the person intended to commit fraud.
I would be just as stunned, but perhaps less motivated to ask
for the repeal of paragraph 3(2)(c), if it applied to a wide range
of wage earners. But, in point of fact, the legislation targets a
clearly identifiable group. In my view, the primary effect of the
legislation, whether intended or whether the result of social
circumstances, is the systematic exclusion of women who work
for their spouse.
There are 650,000 women in this situation, Mr. Speaker. If
they were to lose their job, these wage earners who work in a
business managed by their spouses, who work ``in partnership''
with them, so to speak, would currently be excluded because of
3342
their status from receiving unconditional unemployment
insurance benefits.
(1645)
Women who fall into this particular category of wage earner
account for the vast majority of excepted employment cases
provided for in paragraph 3(2)(c). Furthermore, when we look at
the persons designated by the cumulative provisions of the
Income Tax Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, we see
that the group that is excluded the most is women who work with
their spouses. There is no point denying this fact. The current
law denies women the right to equality in the area of
unemployment insurance.
Some will say to me that if the law is so discriminatory, then
the courts will tear it to shreds as soon as the opportunity arises.
Let the courts do their jobs then, they will tell me. My answer to
them would be that it is incumbent upon legislators to amend
their laws. The courts intervene only as a last resort to correct
any injustices that may flow from the legislation. And, until
such time as a final court of appeal rules on a fundamental issue,
how many cases will have been abandoned for lack of resources
or hope? To leave it up to the courts to make the law is to
abdicate our own political and social responsibilities.
I would also say to these people that even if the courts did not
find the legislation to be discriminatory from a legal standpoint,
we should still intervene to point out the unfair aspects of the
law from a human and political standpoint. And finally,
unfortunately, even though the legislation institutionalizes this
injustice, I do not think that the Canadian courts, using
modern-day criteria, would find it discriminatory. Technically
speaking, it is not discriminatory. However, given our social and
demographic reality, the ramifications of the legislation would
indeed be discriminatory. It is the main reason why we must act
now and act fast. The courts will not do it.
In its 1990 reform, the now defunct Conservative government
had managed to get around the gains made before the courts by
women who work in partnership with their spouse. Indeed,
several decisions had sent very clear messages to law-makers.
The old act was invalid because it discriminated against spouses
engaged in a working relationship. As a result of these
decisions, women working for their spouse were entitled, albeit
for a very short period of time, to premiums and benefits. But
that was before the Tories' social conscience got the upper hand.
The break was short-lived. Through its 1990 amendments, the
Mulroney government caught up with these women and sent
them back to square one. It was done under the cover of an
extremely confusing piece of legislation in which the
amendment went nearly unnoticed. By putting spouses in a
seemingly larger group, those in a non-arm's length situation,
the new legislation is probably true to the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. I believe that, as in a recent case the Supreme Court
ruled on, the courts would be very reluctant to find paragraph
3(2)(c) invalid. I am referring to the Symes case on which the
Supreme Court rendered its decision in December 1993.
It involved a lawyer who wanted to claim her child care
expenses as operating expenses. We know that under the Income
Tax Act, the maximum allowed for child care expenses is
$1,000. She wanted to claim the whole amount of her child care
expenses, just as it can be done for entertainment expenses.
After all, if golfing expenses are deductible, why should people
not be allowed to claim child care expenses incurred as a result
of their work?
Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé of the Supreme Court found
that the legislation had to be analyzed according to its concrete
results in today's context. Finding that it had been proved that
child care expenses were nearly always borne by women, she
concluded that in today's social context, the Income Tax Act
must be interpreted and enforced in the light of the Charter. She
ruled in favour of the lawyer because, in her case, the law would
have discriminatory effects.
I share this opinion based on a progressive and
context-sensitive approach to the legislation.
(1650)
I agree with Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, who said that when
issues are examined in context, it becomes clear that certain
so-called objective truths may apply only to the circumstances
of a particular group in society, while the process may be
entirely inadequate in the case of other groups.
Unfortunately, that was not the majority opinion in the Symes
case. The courts are not likely to introduce contextual analysis
of the law very soon. They will continue to abide strictly by the
letter of the law, as they did in this case.
The Supreme Court therefore refused to examine the
constitutional aspects of the appeal, after concluding briefly
that the Income Tax Act contained its own system of reference.
For tax purposes, the law treats all taxpayers the same.
In fact, any individual may deduct child care expenses,
although in most cases today, these expenses are paid by women.
I am convinced that the courts would react similarly when asked
to rule on paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance
Act.
I think it is useless to wait for a final decision from the
Supreme Court and that we should act immediately to provide
for fair treatment of women employed by their spouses and, in
fact, for all Canadians employed by a family member.
3343
Women who work in partnership with their spouses, and who
often contribute to our GDP while giving up a substantial share
of their remuneration, should be treated with the respect they
deserve as active members of the labour force.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not need the additional
minute.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to speak against this bill.
As I understand the bill presented by the hon. member the
changes proposed to the Unemployment Insurance Act would
revoke the arm's length provision that is used by unemployment
insurance adjudicators to determine if spouses employed by
their spouses are in fact in a true employer-employee
relationship and therefore insurable and eligible to collect UI
benefits should they be laid off. This is the intent of this bill.
Therefore, the net effect of the bill would be to allow all
spouses employed by their spouses to become eligible to collect
UI benefits without giving the government any means of
determining if it is an employer-employee relationship and
whether that relationship is in fact legitimate.
Unemployment insurance officials predict that this change
would result in at least 2,000 illegitimate claims for
unemployment insurance each year. Considering that the
average benefit paid to each claimant in 1992 was $6,613, we are
talking about a minimum annual increase in UI payouts of about
$13 million.
If we used the figures from the hon. member's own office the
payout could exceed $26 million a year. If we consider the
increase in UI claims from spouses when everyone finds out that
the government has no means to investigate and control the
possible abuse in the system, the number of claims will increase
and the number of dollars paid out to illegitimate claimants will
also increase.
That is the main point I am trying to make. If we approve this
the number of claimants will dramatically increase because
spouses will be able to put their own husband or wife on UI and
we find this totally unacceptable. Not only will the costs be $13
million or $26 million, they will go way beyond that.
We oppose this bill because it opens up the Unemployment
Insurance Act to more abuse and the wasting of more taxpayers'
dollars when we should be tightening up the loopholes and
saving employer and employee UI premiums for legitimate UI
claims.
It would be helpful for everyone to have a bit of a history
lesson on how this issue has developed.
(1655 )
Prior to August 1988 all those employed by their spouses were
not insurable under the UI act. In August 1988 the Federal Court
of Appeal confirmed a decision by the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal that this section of the UI act was discriminatory on the
grounds of family status.
In order to provide a test to ensure the validity of the
employer-employee relationship the government included in
Bill C-21 an arm's length relationship clause. Pursuant to
section 3(2)(c) the employment of a person that is not at arm's
length is not insurable employment unless the terms and
conditions of employment are substantially similar to a
non-arm's length employment contract. We feel that is
sufficient. The possibility is there that if the claimant wishes to
insure his or her spouse, they have the availability to do so.
Unemployment insurance relies on Revenue Canada to make
the determination of the arm's length relationships between
employers and their employee spouses. Between 80 per cent and
90 per cent of Revenue Canada's decisions rule that an arm's
length relationship does exist.
This favours the husband, wife, or spouse relationship and the
spouse is therefore insurable in most cases. It would seem to be a
very reasonable approach to handling these cases. Senior
officials at the unemployment insurance office agree with this.
It is clear to all of us if this bill is approved it would result in
the federal government having no control over UI claims filed
by spouses. That control would virtually disappear. It would
open up a loophole so wide that thousands of people could walk
through it.
The likelihood is that when the general public realized the last
element of benefit control had been removed from the UI act in
regard to spousal employment, the number of illegitimate UI
claims would increase. That is the point I am trying to make.
Probably they would increase dramatically.
The potential for abuse is a greater concern for Canadian
taxpayers than any other consideration. We are constantly
receiving complaints about the raid on the public purse by UI
abusers and fraud artists.
We believe the unemployment insurance program should be
returned to a true insurance program based on sound financial
principles. This private member's bill does nothing to move in
this direction.
A broader concern we would like to raise is whether there can
ever be a true arm's length working relationship between
husbands and wives.
An employer who employs their spouse already has an added
tax benefit because the income of the business is split by two
wage earners living in the same household. Should an employer
3344
also be allowed to lay off their spouse whenever they want and
then have that spouse collect unemployment insurance? We
think not. I think it is obvious as to why that would not work.
We believe we should be looking for ways of tightening up the
system rather than opening it up for more abuse.
The hon. member makes the point that this is discriminatory
against women. I would like to remind the House that a spouse
can be either a man or a woman.
Canadians want the UI system to be fair. The current system
of having Revenue Canada determine if employers and their
employee spouses are legitimate employer-employee
relationships is fair. This section of the UI act is more than fair
and for this reason we oppose it.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill introduced by my
hon. colleague.
The proposal invites us to consider a topic most important to
this House and indeed to the whole country: the financial
integrity of the unemployment insurance program.
Every member of this House knows the vital importance of
small business. Every member personally knows of families in
their ridings who work long hours to be independent, to achieve
family goals, to contribute to their community. Every one of us
is very much aware how difficult, demanding and rewarding a
family business can be.
(1700)
The unemployment insurance program has been extremely
important to thousands of family businesses across this country.
In thousands of offices, stores and plants when the business has
run into a temporary slow period, revenue cannot support the
employment of a family member and the person has been laid
off, unemployment insurance has been there.
The family employee who has contributed along with the
other employees of the company to the unemployment insurance
account and qualifies for a claim has received temporary income
from the unemployment insurance program. Many family
business members have been able to receive help for training,
help in searching for a job with another firm, help in seeking
work elsewhere.
Along with millions of other Canadians, people who have
been employed in a family firm have obtained their rightful
benefits. Thousands of Canadians have also worked for small
business corporations with which they have had close
relationships. These men and women have also benefited from
the unemployment insurance program.
Throughout Canada these two groups have received regularly
their rightful benefits which they have earned as legitimate
employees of legitimate enterprises. They confirm that they are
genuine participants in our unemployment insurance program
and they obtain the temporary income while they seek new
employment.
For hundreds of thousands of these Canadians the present
Unemployment Insurance Act has been there in their time of
need. That is the intent of the act.
My hon. friend who has introduced Bill C-218 is rightly
concerned about the unemployment needs of family small
businesses. Every member in this House I am sure shares her
concern.
Every one of us knows family enterprises in our ridings which
have experienced difficulties in recent years. A father, mother,
sister, brother has faced unemployment when business has
turned down. Regrettably there are too many families who have
served the community for 10, 25 and even 50 years and suddenly
are no longer in business.
The record shows that these families have been well served by
the unemployment insurance program. For example, in the
fiscal year 1992-93 family businesses filed tens of thousands of
claims for unemployment insurance benefits. Of those, 15,000
cases were reviewed and 75 per cent were confirmed as
qualifying for benefits.
This position of the vast majority of claims by employees of
family businesses has been most satisfactory, from the
viewpoint of the employer and employee who finance the
program, and from the viewpoint of the administrators who have
the fiduciary responsibility to collect and to disperse the funds.
All members of the House who are familiar with the purpose
of the unemployment insurance fund understand that a balanced
and fair approach must be maintained. They know that funds are
to be dispersed to respond to lack of income because of
temporary and involuntary unemployment and to expedite
return to employment by claimants. This is the mandate of
Human Resources Development Canada.
These are funds collected from employers and employees to
alleviate temporary lack of employment by those who have
contributed. Any other treatment of these premiums collected
for specific purposes does not come within the scope of the
Unemployment Insurance Act.
(1705 )
The government has a responsibility to manage these funds
with prudence and fairness, ensuring that to the greatest possible
extent for those who have contributed, the misfortune of
unemployment is alleviated. To act otherwise is to risk the
integrity of the entire unemployment insurance program, to go
beyond the bounds of responsibility, competence and the
financial stability of the fund.
3345
This is not to say the Unemployment Insurance Act does not
require examination, review and revision by the House. As the
Minister of Human Resources Development has clearly pointed
out, all our social programs do indeed require reform. This view
has the support of Canadians. They require a comprehensive,
forward looking, perhaps sweeping reform to ensure they all
meet the needs of Canadians as they enter the 21st century.
Therefore, I feel it would be premature to look into the
application of unemployment insurance to the isolated
situations where the employer and the employee are not dealing
with each other at arm's length.
We all share the concern of the member who has introduced
this bill. Each one of us has in our own riding family businesses
that have been in difficulty. We know employees of family
businesses who have needed and obtained the benefits for which
they have paid.
I suggest that this bill for all its intent of responding to the
difficulties of family businesses is not quite what this House
would consider an appropriate contribution to our legislation at
this time.
I suggest that this question would be better considered as part
of our general review and reform of our social programs which
is now under way. I can assure the hon. member it will be.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, once again
today I appreciate the opportunity of commenting, this time on
unemployment insurance in support of Bill C-218, introduced
by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.
The purpose of this bill is to exclude from the definition of
excepted employment, employment where the employer and
employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length. That
this bill was tabled shows that we on this side of the House are
very much aware of what is happening in our ridings.
Every day, unemployment insurance claimants knock on the
doors of our riding offices and ask for our help because they feel
they are not being treated fairly by federal unemployment
insurance authorities. In fact, these people are fed up with the
way they are being treated.
They often feel powerless before the legislation and the
almighty bureaucracy. The problems with unemployment
insurance are many and complex. Unreasonable delays,
erroneous decisions and unwarranted investigations often haunt
the lives of claimants and make a mockery of their rights.
I am sure members opposite also see many people in their
offices with problems concerning unemployment insurance. If
they really want to stand up for the interests of these people,
they certainly should support this bill.
Since this government came to power, however, the Liberals
have chosen to forget the people at the bottom of the ladder. The
break with the grass roots has been very quick and very obvious.
The government's decisions and actions are a clear indication of
this development.
We should realize that the purpose of the unemployment
insurance system is to provide support, during a specific period,
for claimants who are out of work. The objective is quite clear
but unfortunately, the legislation, the way it is administered and
the whole bureaucracy around it often obscure the actual
purpose of this program. It is the applicants who suffer the
consequences.
(1710)
Of course, the main problem of all these people is the lack of
work. If our economy produced enough long-term jobs, all these
problems with unemployment insurance would be less or go
away, but such is not the case. In my riding, Laurentides, the
unemployment rate is 18 per cent. If we add to this large
percentage all those who are no longer looking because they are
discouraged by the non-existent job market and all those who
must rely on welfare, we come up with a frightful jobless rate of
30 per cent. I am very worried about this.
All these people are also very worried. The unemployed face
great tension and uncertainty. Imagine that you are the head of a
household with children and suddenly you lose your job. You
now receive only 57 per cent of your former income, soon a mere
55 per cent, as the callous Liberals decided, to support your
family. It is a great worry and concern for people who
unwillingly become unemployed.
Unfortunately, some say that one gets used to unemployment
and others will even say that for some it is a way of life. Far be it
from me to make such tendentious allegations. No one in our
society wants to collect unemployment insurance. No one gets
up some fine morning and says, ``Well, this morning I want to
lose my job and become a paid unemployed person.'' No one
sincerely or voluntarily desires such a situation. On the
contrary, people do want to work. They want lasting, well-paid
jobs. I do not think that receiving a reduced cheque every week,
looking for work day after day and finding none is paradise for
the unemployed people in my riding.
The people opposite do not understand what is going on out
there and they stupidly bury their heads in the sand, unable to
deliver the goods they promised so much during the election
campaign. Their promises are turning into crumbs. Crumbs
from the infrastructure program that will only create or maintain
some 45,000 jobs to meet the needs of 1.5 million unemployed.
A real joke, a real farce from the clowns opposite who
increasingly arouse laughter and scepticism from everyone.
3346
In my riding, this miraculous Liberal program will solve
nothing. It is a drop in the bucket, providing only insecure
short-term jobs. That is what we get from the conjurers
opposite.
What are you waiting for to come up with a real employment
policy? What are you waiting for to create and establish new,
intelligent, promising programs? What are you waiting for to
give technical and financial aid and support to companies and to
individuals who want to create new businesses? What are you
waiting for to invest massively in research and development?
Nothing, you are waiting, you are in neutral and, I even believe,
in reverse in many respects.
But what is even more disappointing and heartbreaking from
the Liberals is that not only have they forgotten about jobs, they
are cutting unemployment insurance. They are taking from
people whom they offer nothing, whom they are not giving a
chance. The conjurers opposite reason backwards.
This whole everyday reality of the unemployed creates
definite problems for them. One of these problems is related to
the Unemployment Insurance Act and Bill C-218 would
eliminate it by recognizing a 1989 Supreme Court decision that
excluding spouses from unemployment insurance is
discriminatory. Unfortunately, the insensitive Conservative
government in 1990 made life more difficult for spouses. I can
tell you that in my riding, where many people hire their spouses
to meet the needs of the tourist season, we have hundreds of
these problem cases due to paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Act. These
spouses, mostly women, go through a real nightmare when they
apply for benefits. To collect benefits, employees related by
blood, marriage or adoption must convince the officer that their
job is justified and that they are not cheating.
(1715)
So this employee carries the burden of proof, with all the
inquiries that this provision implies. These inquiries have
become almost systematic and impose unacceptable delays for
people who often badly need these unemployment benefits.
Furthermore, since the burden of proof is theirs, we generally
consider these people abusers of the system. Such an attitude is
unacceptable in a democracy, a free world where everyone is
presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Once again the main
victims of that provision are women. We women can take a lot.
Approximately 650,000 women would be in that category.
I therefore ask the members from the other side to approve
this bill, I ask the women of this House to bring these facts to the
attention of their male colleagues in order that we may redress
this injustice done against women by repealing this provision of
the legislation.
We must trust in ourselves, trust in others if we want them to
trust us and the system.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to rise on such an important occasion to speak
about unemployment insurance.
I recently spent two weeks in my riding. People are concerned
about the high cost of unemployment insurance to Canada, not
only to employees and employers but to the taxpayer. They are
concerned about abuse of the system. I have seen some of that
abuse firsthand.
Abuse of the UI system results in higher costs for employees,
employers and our entire tax system. It results in higher costs of
goods and services. Removing the safeguard that is in place
regarding spouses paying each other has the potential for a
tremendous abuse problem in the future. I see it rising very
greatly if we remove this safeguard.
I recognize that if spouses are not allowed to collect benefits
on an arm's length transaction they should not be expected to
pay premiums either. We do have a problem here that needs to be
addressed but let us address it directly and not try to do an end
run on the problem. There are other people who have to pay
premiums. Although I am a farmer I worked off the farm for
some time. I had to pay premiums and never could collect. That
needs to be addressed.
If spouses are not allowed to collect because they do not
qualify under the arm's length test, let us introduce a bill to deal
directly with the problem. This discriminatory practice should
not be continued.
The government has promised to bring in a review of the
entire unemployment insurance program. It is a welcome
review, one for which the people of Canada have been waiting
for a long time. Let us listen to what Canadians have to say in
these hearings on this issue as well as others. I believe they are
going to be telling us that they want to stop abuse of the system.
We have young people in Canada who have never seen either
parent bring home a pay cheque or hold a real job other than one
through unemployment insurance. I say that is a tragedy. A
program that was started with very good intentions, to provide
help for people in time of temporary crisis, has become a way of
life for a lot of people. We see it continuing from generation to
generation.
This practice has to be stopped not just for the taxpayers but
for those very young people who are going to fall into that same
cycle. It is not conducive to good self-worth and the sooner we
end that practice, the better. I am concerned that by removing
the safeguard that has been put in place to stop abuse in the case
of spouses employing each other will just add to that further
abuse. Therefore, I cannot support this bill. I encourage
members in this House to vote it down. A new bill should be
3347
introduced to deal with the problem where spouses have to pay
premiums when they are not allowed to collect.
(1720)
I believe there is good intent here but it is misdirected. I
certainly do not want to encourage any more abuse of our
unemployment insurance system than we have now. Let us have
a good thorough airing of this problem and the hearings that are
going to be conducted throughout the country through the
unemployment insurance review. I suggest we wait for that to
happen.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, the bill before us
today addresses a concern of every person who knows,
understands and values the family business today.
The Unemployment Insurance Act stipulates that workers
who are related to their employer are covered by unemployment
insurance if they qualify as do other workers. They work under
the same sort of employment contract as other workers who are
not related to the employer. Their employment is insured and
they pay premiums.
This means that if they become unemployed they will also be
able to claim any benefits for which they are qualified. Factors
such as rate of pay, conditions of employment, length, type and
importance of their work will determine whether or not their
employment is insurable. Clearly the basic question of
providing equal coverage to family businesses has been dealt
with in the existing legislation and the guidelines for
administration of unemployment insurance provisions are set
out.
In the last four years how have family businesses fared in
participating in the benefits provided to alleviate involuntary
temporary unemployment?
I am confident that a brief survey of the situation in the typical
riding will reveal this scenario. Family businesses which have
paid into the unemployment insurance account found they
needed the benefits. They filed their claims for the husband,
daughter, mother or son who had to be laid off. They
demonstrated the legitimacy of the claims and they received the
benefits to which they were entitled. The benefits for which they
may qualify include a broad range of services designed to help
them end their temporary involuntary unemployment.
Special benefits particularly relevant to a family business
include the following: 15 weeks of maternity benefits in the
period surrounding the birth of a child; 10 weeks of parental
benefits available to natural or adoptive parents, either mother
or father, or shared between them as they deem appropriate; and
a flexible combination of regular, sickness, maternity, and
parental benefits. More than one type of special benefit can be
claimed within the same benefit period up to 30 weeks. In
addition claimants may receive special benefits in combination
with regular benefits.
We can well imagine the situation where a mother and father
are operating a business together. One of them becomes ill. This
immediately threatens the entire future of that business. Under
unemployment insurance provisions today the person who is ill
may claim benefits which can help maintain the income of that
person and help to keep the family business alive.
Tens of thousands of legitimate businesses with legitimate
claims for benefits for which the employer and the employee
have paid are receiving those benefits. The responsible
competent management of the unemployment insurance fund
has produced billions of dollars in benefits. These benefits have
helped to ensure the financial survival of countless numbers of
families who are operating their own businesses.
Then there is the case of a family business experiencing a
slowdown and which must let go perhaps a daughter or son who
is an employee. For many of those persons unemployment
insurance has provided benefits while starting a new business to
meet a new need in the marketplace.
This is just one example of how flexible and versatile the
Unemployment Insurance Act can be to provide real solutions to
real problems.
(1725 )
I suggest that each of us inquire among families we know that
have benefited from the present act and learn their opinion. I
believe that people who know the breadth and depth of the
Unemployment Insurance Act will tell us that this act does serve
well legitimate family business with a legitimate claim.
The anomalies which can eventually appear in any act are best
dealt with in a comprehensive way in the context of all the social
programs which the federal government provides.
I believe that in spite of the intentions of the hon. member
who introduced this bill this proposal is not in the best interest of
family businesses, of any people who participate in our
unemployment insurance program or of all Canadians.
During the Easter recess I had the opportunity of holding three
meetings in my riding in connection with the social security
review. I had good attendance at these meetings and I had people
from across the county and people who were involved in
providing support services to our citizens. I can say that the
recommendations I received were wide ranging and will add to
the national debate that is occurring on this matter in Canada
now.
I believe all of us as members of Parliament should consult
our ridings to pass on their concerns to the minister. I and my
staff have prepared a report of my meetings to pass on to the hon.
Minister of Human Resources Development for his
consideration in this process. After I have given the report to the
minister I would be happy to share it with any interested
members who
3348
would like to conduct such meetings on this very important
review.
I believe the bill before us should also be considered within
the social policy review. It is best for us to consult the people of
Canada on this crucial issue, for it is their money we are working
with.
There was discussion on unemployment insurance and how it
might be improved. The general feeling is since it is an
insurance plan perhaps those who are most likely to become
uninsured should pay a higher premium than those who are
employed in a more secure occupation, a sort of pay as much as
you are likely to need plan.
There is also a great deal of concern, as the hon. member
across the House pointed out, for abuses within the system.
There are people who spend most of their time collecting
unemployment benefits and not contributing to the plan. I do not
suggest that family businesses are necessarily one of those.
Another thing that I have learned in my brief five months as an
MP is that to a lot of our constituents we can fix anything. We are
supposed to know everything and we are supposed to be able to
fix anything that goes wrong. As you would know from your
experience, Mr. Speaker, they do not always distinguish
between federal plans, provincial plans, municipal plans or even
private plans.
I have had many requests about problems with internal
revenue, about problems with UI, about problems with the
Canada pension plan and about problems with any number of
other plans and services and benefits that I knew nothing about. I
can honestly say the problem purported to be so serious and to
which this amendment relates is one that is entirely new to me.
No one has complained in this regard yet and I am sure there are
lots of family businesses in the riding of Oxford as there are in
other places.
I congratulate the member for bringing this bill forward, but I
would ask her to bring it forward in the social policy review and
be looked at along with other recommendations of concerned
Canadians.
The Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to
Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I think you might find unanimous consent to suspend
the sitting until 6 p.m. so that we can proceed pursuant to the
arrangement arrived at earlier this day.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: We will suspend until six o'clock when we will
resume debate.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.30 p.m.)
The House resumed at 6.03 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6 p.m., pursuant
to order made earlier this day the House will now proceed to a
special debate.
_____________________________________________
SPECIAL DEBATE
[
Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs) moved:
``That this House, taking note of the tragic events which have taken place in and
around Gorazde, and NATO's agreement in February to a UN request for the use of
air support to protect a safe area around Sarajevo, consider the request contained in
the UN Secretary General's April 18 letter to the Secretary General of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization to extend arrangements similar to those in place to
protect Sarajevo to the five other UN safe areas in Bosnia'';
He said: Madam Speaker, the government promised at the
beginning of its mandate to consult Parliament and Canadians
on major foreign policy issues. As I said during the debate on the
review of our foreign policy, Canadians care about their
country's foreign policy. That is easy to understand when we
look at all our peacekeepers overseas.
Bosnia-Hercegovina is probably the most dangerous theatre
in which our troops currently operate.
The February slaughter in the Sarajevo marketplace prompted
the international community to act with more strength and
determination than before. Once again, the international
community must take a firm and definite position on Bosnia
after the totally unacceptable events that are taking place in
Gorazde.
Our goal, I repeat, is still to achieve a lasting peace in Bosnia.
All our efforts in Bosnia have always been aimed at promoting
the negotiating process. We must never cause the conflict to
escalate. Only a diplomatic solution can bring lasting peace to
Bosnia. All the parties involved in the conflict, especially the
Bosnian Serbs, must realize that there can be no military
solutions. We must find a way to get the peace process moving
again, because the continuation of hostilities in Bosnia threatens
the stability of the entire region.
I must say that, despite all the efforts made by the UN, NATO
and the European Union, as well as the specific initiatives of the
Americans and the Russians, the situation is deteriorating
rapidly.
3349
After the Serbs attacked the city of Gorazde and violated the
various ceasefires negotiated in the last few days, the UN
Secretary General formally called on NATO to take all
necessary measures to protect the five safe areas in Bosnia,
Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, Bihac, Srebrenica and Sarajevo, by
launching air strikes mostly against Serb forces, unfortunately.
The NATO Council discussed the issue yesterday and asked
its military authorities to prepare various scenarios in response
to the request of the UN Secretary General. Tomorrow the
council will reach its decision on the UN Secretary General's
request.
We will have to take position at this meeting of the NATO
Council. Before making that decision, we feel it is important to
hear what parliamentarians have to say about this request from
the Secretary General.
We are giving an opportunity to government and opposition
members to make suggestions. My colleague the Minister of
Defence and myself will be listening to the speeches and, at 10
p.m. tonight, there will be a special Cabinet meeting so that our
instructions can be given to those who will be representing us at
NATO tomorrow.
I must say however that, in February, Canada did express
reservations about using air power to protect Sarajevo. But in
the end, we came to the conclusion that it was the only way to
deal with a situation which was becoming critical. Canada's
concerns were taken into consideration in making a decision at
NATO in February. We also indicated very clearly that, in the
event of a drastic change in the nature of UN operations in
Bosnia, whereby our troops would no longer be involved in
strictly peacekeeping activities, we might reconsider our
military presence in Bosnia.
(1810)
I would like to point out that our representative to the NATO
Council reiterated yesterday Canada's reservations about using
air strikes. Air power alone cannot resolve the situation in
Bosnia. We must make our decisions on the basis of our strategic
objectives, which remain above all peace and negotiations.
However, in view of the daily flood of horrifying images from
Bosnia, we must not overlook the fact that significant progress
was nonetheless achieved, as evidenced for instance by the
support of a Muslim Croat federation. NATO and the UN had
advocated, in February, stepping up operations to protect
Sarajevo and relieve the city from the hellish conditions under
which it has been living for far too long. We did manage to quiet
guns and mortars without resorting to NATO air strikes.
Unfortunately, the war mentality got the better in other
regions of Bosnia. So, Gorazde was declared UN safe area. We
have the duty to protect the populations which have taken refuge
over there. However, last week's events in Gorazde show that for
the international community to step up operations entails risks.
We must be fully aware of that.
If we take a firmer approach, as requested by the Secretary
General of NATO and proposed to NATO, we must do it with our
eyes wide open and accept the consequences of our decision.
[English]
We are also aware and must be aware that the conflict has
evolved. The progress made in Bosnia is compromised by a
totally uncontrollable Bosnian Serb army. We must recognize
the very positive role that the Russians have played in seeking a
negotiated solution to this bloody conflict. We must therefore
attach more weight to the observations of the Russians in recent
days about the intransigence of the Bosnian Serbs as a primary
contribution to the current impasse.
In this context it will be wise to take into consideration the
Russian position in any eventual action taken by NATO. This is
certainly something that we will be speaking about with our
friends and allies in NATO tomorrow. If we want to end this
conflict, certainly we have to tell the Bosnian Serbs
unequivocally that what they are doing is unacceptable and
cannot be tolerated.
As we said in regard to Sarajevo, if they do not respect the
ceasefire, if they do not respect the safe areas, they will risk the
consequence of air strikes. As we also said in Sarajevo, we were
ready to do it. Fortunately common sense prevailed and it was
not necessary to use air strikes.
We are going to be ready if need be to follow the same logic,
the same strategy, in regard to the other areas where there are
populations that are hostage to belligerents who resist the
request of everyone to come to the table to sign a peace
agreement.
We obviously have to realize that the original mandate of the
Canadian troops sent there to serve as peacekeepers and to help
in the delivery of humanitarian aid is singularly compromised at
the moment.
(1815 )
The mandate in Bosnia of peacekeeping missions does not
work and cannot work unless all parties agree to a peaceful
solution to the conflicts. The only ones resisting so far are the
Bosnian Serbs and we are determined to make sure that they
understand they cannot perpetrate a war that all the other parties
want to stop.
Therefore, I believe that we have to make tough decisions in
the name of peace and security. We will have to consult with our
allies and design the appropriate recourse necessary to assist
those who have the responsibility to implement peace in this
area of the world.
Canada has served brilliantly in the past on many UN
peacekeeping missions. It has been a proud participant in NATO
and has been ready to serve whenever asked in any type of
capacity. If we can no longer serve under the UN on
peacekeeping
3350
missions we might be asked to serve, and we will have to give a
response in this regard, under NATO to carry on very vigorous
actions to clearly establish good sense in the minds of the
Bosnian Serbs.
Hopefully air strikes will not be necessary but we have to say
tonight that if necessary there will be air strikes.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Madam
Speaker, first I would like to say that the government is to be
commended for agreeing that this was an appropriate time to
have a debate that will give all parliamentarians who wish to do
so an opportunity to speak and, above all, to express the views of
the opposition for the benefit of the government.
After listening to the speech by the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, which I felt was a very responsible and very balanced
presentation, I think we can reasonably expect that the House
will unanimously approve this very serious decision the
government must make. I believe it is very important to be able
to proceed on the basis of a consensus of all political affiliations
in this House.
It is clear that the peacekeeping mission, as it has been
defined thus far, has failed. First, because there is no peace.
There is a war and even a regular slaughter of civilians. On
television we see children killed and dismembered by shells. We
see women dying, women who have been raped. We see a
country that is a bloody battlefield, where 200,000 people have
been killed in the past two years.
Today, 28 people were killed in Gorazde. They did not die in
battle but in the hospital, because the Serbs opted for the
unthinkable strategy of attacking hospitals. Yesterday, a rocket
launcher fired on the hospital, people in the emergency ward
were killed and operating rooms were destroyed. Today, there
was another attack on the hospital. It was not an accident but a
deliberate decision to attack the hospitals. It is impossible to go
out and help the wounded because they fire at the medical teams.
There is no peace, and there is no will to make peace. There
has been a lot of talk about negotiations. However, so far all
negotiations have been marred by the bad faith of the Serbs. The
violation of the cease-fire around Gorazde is a case in point. The
cease-fires that were agreed on have been systematically
violated. They were never even enforced. They were violated
before the ink was dry.
Speaking of violations, I am told that in the past three months,
the Serbs violated at least 57 agreements on Gorazde and
Sarajevo.
(1820)
Furthermore, the peace talks are going nowhere. In fact, they
are yielding no positive results because the Serbs refuse to join
the Croats and the Muslims of Bosnia in their will for peace. We
know that Croats and Muslims have signed an agreement but the
Serbs refused to be part of it. In fact, we should be talking about
Serb duplicity. They see the negotiations as an opportunity to
lull the West while intensifying their efforts. Their strategy is
obvious. The Serbs pretend they are negotiating but in reality
they are using that time to occupy more land and get into a
strategic position for the events to come.
This acknowledgement of failure leads us to believe that,
given the current situation, the presence of the peacekeepers in
Bosnia could even be prolonging the conflict. Instructions are
not clear. The military do not know what to do. They cannot
defend themselves. They could very well become helpless
hostages if the Serbs get a notion to act along those lines. We
absolutely must make a decision.
We talk about our soldiers' safety in case of air attacks, but we
must also talk about their safety as things stand right now. Our
troops are in danger. The safety of Canadian soldiers is being
threatened at this very moment. These soldiers cannot defend
themselves; they must watch helplessly as hostilities take place
with extreme speed and intensity.
To conclude on the diplomatic aspect of the question, I think
most of all that the credibility of western democracies and of the
United Nations is at stake here. What is left of Canada's
credibility as a peacekeeping country, as a country that is
consistent in its policies and able to act in a coherent fashion?
What will be left of the credibility of the British, the French, the
Americans and the United Nations if we do nothing? It is
because they knew how to play on our wish for peace and our
pacifism that the Serbs have succeeded in occupying most of
Bosnia and that they might be right now taking actions that look
an awful lot like ethnic cleansing.
In other words, the situation has reached a critical level. We
must redefine Canada's mission. We must do so either by
redirecting our peacekeepers' mission in that country or by
withdrawing our troops altogether. But is that possible? The fact
is that we have no choice, since the alternative is not an option,
in practice or in principle.
If we were to withdraw, what would it mean? It would mean,
first of all, the end of humanitarian aid. Let us not forget that
together with peacekeeping, even if we have failed at that, we
are engaged in other operations such as protecting food convoys
and supplying a minimum of water and sanitation, as well as
drugs to save a few lives, where possible. In that respect, a lot
has been achieved. It must go on.
Second, the credibility of peacekeeping missions and the UN
would be definitely jeopardized if we were to withdraw today.
What would the world think of a total abdication by the UN and
by NATO countries, if we were to withdraw now? Moreover, we
would be abandoning the Bosnians. Try to imagine what would
happen to them if we were to withdraw. All the more so as we
have disarmed them. It is not well known that the embargo we
declared against Bosnians has been so effective that they have
no arms and are finding it increasingly difficult to counter Serb
attacks. And finally, we would open the country to possible
territorial expansion.
3351
We are dealing with a powder keg, with the Balkans, where
several of the great wars started. We can already see the
emergence of a threat from Iran. The Muslims' religious
solidarity could come into play, as recent statements from Iran
lead us to believe. To leave would allow the conflict to
degenerate.
Therefore, we must redefine the UN's mission. I think that we
will all agree to answer the Secretary General's call and endorse
President Clinton's proposal to apply the approach followed in
Sarajevo to the six safe areas remaining in Bosnia. That means
the use of air strikes, this time offensive ones preceded by an
ultimatum. Let us not mince words. We are talking about a real
ultimatum. The Serbs must know that if they do not comply with
the specific request to free the six safe areas and surrender all
their heavy armament, they will in effect decide to become the
targets of air strikes.
(1825)
These air strikes, if unfortunately it came to this, must have a
significant effect. The time for half-measures has passed.
Strikes must target strategic positions. This would at least
ensure the safety of our troops, in the event retaliatory strikes
were subsequently launched against them. Heavy Serb
weaponry must be destroyed if the Serbs do not respond to the
ultimatums.
Of course, we must protect ourselves. We must have the
support of the Russians. I do not know if this will be possible, as
the wire reports do not give us a clear picture of the situation in
Russia. We do know that the United Nations Security Council
will be meeting this evening in New York and that the Russians
will be in attendance. They have the power to veto the Council's
decisions. We have to get beyond the Security Council and hope
that Russia will allow itself to be convinced by Western
diplomacy to set aside its sympathy for the Serbs, considering
how harshly it has been treated by the Serbs. Russian honour is
at stake because the Russians vouched for the fact that the Serbs
would respect the treaties and ceasefires, when in fact the Serbs
violated them anyway. One must hope that the Russians will join
the ranks of those who want peace to be restored to that area of
the world.
Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the safety of our
troops. We realize that this situation is extremely difficult for
them. Our soldiers have already been taken hostage.
Fortunately, they were freed. This time, we must ensure that the
military backup is in place so that our soldiers cannot be taken
hostage as easily as before.
There is also the matter of additional troops that could be
required. A number of military experts, including General
MacKenzie, have indicated that ground support is needed to
ensure the effectiveness of air strikes. Should additional troops
be needed, and I do not know if they will as this will be for the
military to decide, I do not think that Canada ought to be asked
to supply them.
Canada's effort has already been substantial. Its troops
account for 8 per cent of the forces in place, whereas it accounts
for only 3 per cent of NATO's budget. Some countries still have
not sent any troops yet to this area of the world. Some have not
sent the numbers they should have. I think we should urge our
allies and friends in NATO to match Canada's effort. I have no
doubt that we would then have enough troops on the ground to
sustain the attacks.
[English]
In conclusion, the Bloc will support the implementation of the
plan proposed by the American president and strongly advises
the government to answer favourably to the call of the Secretary
General of the United Nations.
This is a case where we have to be united. This is a case where
we have to fulfil a duty of international solidarity because
humanitarianism calls for it and it is the kind of responsibility
we have to show when the rights and democracy of people are
directly threatened.
I can assure the government that we will support any initiative
which will be taken in the direction of my comments.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Madam Speaker,
I want to again acknowledge and thank the government for
agreeing to this debate this evening. Also, I want to register our
great satisfaction that the cabinet will not meet to decide on this
issue until after this debate has been concluded. This is a
situation which Canadians should be involved in and it is a
situation which should not result from partisan politics.
The situation in Bosnia has become very serious and a
decision soon to be taken will have great impact on the Canadian
forces committed to the United Nations efforts in Bosnia. It will
also have tremendous impact on Bosnian citizens who are in
grave danger.
Once again I would remind all that none of the antagonists in
Bosnia can claim clean hands in this terrible confrontation. All
have been involved in actions for which they could only expect
world condemnation. However, it would seem that at this time it
is the Bosnian Serbs who are responsible for the escalation and
the continuation of the war in Bosnia.
Madam Speaker, you may remember that in my previous
submission on Bosnia during the debates here on January 25, I
suggested that Canada should take a lead role, and I quote: ``by
hosting a conference here in Ottawa in early February before
that Geneva meeting to include all countries with forces in the
former Yugoslavia. At this conference Canada should urge that
the UN issue a clear and unequivocal ultimatum to the bellige--
3352
rents: either accept moves to achieve an enforceable, peaceful
solution or accept the withdrawal of UN forces''.
(1830)
That advice was overlooked or ignored. Now some three
months later we find ourselves in an even more critical
situation. We have had Canadian forces held hostage, detained
and interfered with along with other UN personnel. We have had
intense bombardment of a UN declared safe zone at Gorazde
resulting in many casualties killed and wounded.
It has become obvious that at least one of the protagonists in
Bosnia has little appreciation for our purpose in being there or
respect for the will of the United Nations to effect a peaceful
resolution of the conflict.
At the end of March Canada agreed to extend the commitment
of Canadian forces in Bosnia for a further six months, taking us
through to the end of September. But when that commitment was
made there appeared to be light at the end of the tunnel and very
good prospects of a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
That has now changed and in light of that Canada should
reassess the situation and reconsider our options. A withdrawal
of Canadian forces is one option. Canadians are not ones to cut
and run when the going gets tough and we have proven that to
everyone's satisfaction. But in Bosnia right now we are
relegated to being mere observers of atrocities, bloodshed and
cruelty. If the Bosnian Serbs cannot somehow be convinced that
they have to change their ways, is there any point in Canadians
remaining involved, particularly when there seems to be every
prospect that some will be placed in great danger and perhaps
killed or wounded?
Even President Yeltsin has agreed that the Serbs have violated
their agreement. President Clinton said in a news conference
that consultations are still going on and that while he cannot
commit President Yeltsin to a course until he sees the U.S.
proposal in writing, he can say that in general President Yeltsin
agreed that the present understanding for air power was
ineffective and that the Serbs plainly violated their agreement
and overreached in Gorazde. But he feels, as everyone does, that
over the long run NATO air power alone will not settle this
conflict. It will have to be settled by negotiations.
Without in any way suggesting that my council is as informed
as either president, I agree with these assessments. Air power
alone will not resolve the war in Bosnia. But the judicious use
and firm application of air power may convince the Bosnian
Serbs that their best interests lie in coming to the conference
table to negotiate in good faith.
As a result I would advocate that Canada should agree to the
UN request for NATO air strikes on the condition that such
strikes are called for by the commanders on the ground. It is
important that when the air strikes are put in that they are put in
with the knowledge and consent of the people who will be
directly affected by any retaliation that may take place.
Obviously air strikes are a weapon that can be used to great
effect. The present proposal is for these air strikes to be applied
directly in support of the enclaves or the one enclave at Gorazde.
However, they could also be applied to the logistics chain, to the
supply despots, to the ammunition dumps, to the roads and rail
bridges that are providing the transport link for the Serbs to be
resupplied. That I do not think is what we are considering at this
moment, but it is another aspect that air power could bring to the
situation if it is necessary.
I think we should also consider the UN embargo on the
provision of weapons to the Bosnian Muslims. When
Vice-President Ganic was here two days ago in conversation he
said that he thought that the UN was to a large extent responsible
for the situation in Bosnia as a result of that embargo. He felt
very strongly and spoke very eloquently that because of the
disparity in the weapons capability between the Bosnian Serbs
and the Bosnian Muslims that there was no way a reconciliation
could be reached. He advocated very strongly that we drop this
embargo and allow the Muslims to be armed adequately.
(1835)
In response to my question would this involve an increase in
hostilities, he admitted that at the outset this could very well be
the case but he was convinced that for a long term resolution of
the conflict in Bosnia this was the only option that would give a
real hope of that happening.
In conclusion, I want to commend the government for their
position. I want to say that the Reform Party will be supporting
them again. I think this is a decision that should be not taken
along political lines but in the interests of Canadians. I think it
would be unwelcome in the broad Canadian public right now for
Canadians to withdraw their forces. I think we should stay there
and attempt to see that a peaceful resolution is reached.
However, I do think that it should be made plain that if we are
there only to observe atrocities and further bloodshed that we
will have to reconsider that option when the time comes.
[Translation]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Madam Speaker,
in September 1992, the UN Security Council broadened the
mandate and increased the size of UNPROFOR to provide
protection to humanitarian assistance convoys in
Bosnia-Hercegovina, under the supervision of the United
Nations High Commission for Refugees. Canada agreed to send
about 1,200 more troops and, by November 5, 1992, the second
battalion group had been
3353
deployed. In December 1992, the UN Security Council
established a deterrent presence in the former Yugoslavian
Republic of Macedonia. A company of the Second Canadian
Battalion carried out this operation from January until March of
last year.
When these troops were relieved last autumn, the
participation of Canadian forces in UNPROFOR was reviewed
and increased to about 2,000 soldiers divided in two smaller
battalion groups. Currently, almost 2,000 Canadians troops are
supporting UNPROFOR efforts in Croatia and Bosnia-
Hercegovina.
[English]
We have taken a number of steps in the last couple of years. I
believe the ones I have just mentioned outlined Canada's
commitment to peace and stability in the former republic of
Bosnia-Hercegovina of the former republic of Yugoslavia. It
has been a great challenge to thousands of Canadians, friends
and families of those who have been affected and those who
have served in this particular theatre.
We believe that the contributions that we have made in the
past two years in the former republic of Yugoslavia, both in
Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, have been significant. The
Canadian forces have made a difference. They have saved lives.
They have helped foster what peace there is in that region and
have contributed effectively to the humanitarian effort.
We are talking this evening about the massive deterioration of
the situation in Bosnia. Bosnian Serb forces have been
unrelenting in their attacks on Gorazde which is a designated
United Nations safe area. On numerous occasions UNPROFOR
officials have attempted to persuade Bosnian Serbs to halt their
aggressive activities. So far these attempts have been
unsuccessful and Bosnian Serbs remain. They have detained UN
officials and impeded the delivery of humanitarian assistance.
In this environment it is becoming increasingly difficult for
UNPROFOR to fulfil its objectives. The international
community and in particular NATO countries, the European
union and Russia were faced with a fundamental dilemma of
how to encourage co-operation without either escalating or
widening the conflict.
Taking into consideration all of the factors before him the UN
Secretary-General Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has concluded
that stronger military action is required.
The House will recall that in February of this year NATO
agreed to provide air support to protect the UN safe area of
Sarajevo. Three days ago Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali wrote to
Manfred Woerner, the Secretary General of NATO, requesting
that the arrangement be made to protect the Sarajevo safe area
and be extended to the five other UN safe areas in and around
Gorazde, Srebrenica, Zepa, Tuzla and the Bihac pocket area.
(1840 )
Yesterday the NATO Council discussed this request and asked
NATO military authorities to develop an operational plan. The
operational plan that is being developed will cover such areas as
command and control arrangements, selection of targets and the
safety of UN personnel.
In any agreement that Canada would have to the UN
Secretary-General's proposal we would have to be assured that
the command and control of such air strikes meet Canadian
expectations and normal NATO requirements for effectiveness
and safety. My military officials have been in touch with those
of other NATO countries to ensure that if such strikes were
permitted our concerns will indeed be addressed.
The plan of the Secretary-General will define the size of the
exclusion zones in and around each safe area and will specify
how and under which condition air strikes will be used. Some
members of the House will say that the government has in the
past been opposed to air strikes and will wonder why we have
not flatly opposed the UN Secretary-General's latest request.
I would just like to better explain our position. My colleague,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has enlightened us this evening
on his position.
We have supported the use of air strikes for the protection of
UN troops. We said that we would consider other requests as
long as they took into consideration a number of factors, these
factors being that air strikes contributed to the overall peace
process, would not clearly associate the UN with one side,
would not make it impossible for UN forces to assist in the
delivery of humanitarian aid and would not expose UN
personnel to unacceptable risks.
There has been much discussion of the American plan posed
by President Clinton yesterday. It was a much more
comprehensive plan which goes beyond Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali's request and this plan not only includes the
extension of air support projecting Sarajevo to other safe areas
but also calls for tighter sanctions aimed at limiting the ability
of Serbia and Bosnia to wage war and for a high level meeting
between the United States, Europe, Russia and the United
Nations.
Tomorrow morning, as my colleague, the secretary of state for
foreign affairs has said, the NATO Council will meet to consider
the operational plan that is being developed by military
authorities and to discuss President Clinton's proposal.
3354
Of course, any decision NATO takes will have an impact on
UNPROFOR and more specifically we will have to look closely
at whether all of these proposals will change the nature of the
UNPROFOR mission. In addition, we will have to look at the
operational plan to determine its military viability and its
impact on the safety of UN personnel.
We have known from the start that deploying forces in the
former Yugoslavia meant exposing our personnel to some risk.
This concern has been with us since the beginning of the mission
and the situation in Srebrenica as well as the incident last week
involving 16 members of the Canadian forces when they were
detained by Bosnian Serbs reminded us that the risks were very
real.
I would like to pay particular tribute at this point to those 16
individuals and to the other United Nations observer, a
Canadian, being detained.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Collenette: A member of our force is in Gorazde today as
it is being shelled to pieces. A Canadian is there and we pray for
his return.
The decision tomorrow will not be taken lightly but as my
colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has said, too often in
the past nations have turned a blind eye to wanton aggression.
Too often we have accepted unconscionable atrocities being
committed. They are being committed in other places around the
world and that should give us equal cause for condemnation.
When we see this kind of situation happening in Europe in
1994, in the heart of western civilization, if you will, when we
see people who are ethnoculturally the same but who are
essentially divided along religious lines doing unspeakable
things to each other, when we see one faction wantonly
thumbing its nose at the international community, the time has
come to act.
We cannot stand by as we did not stand by-others did not
stand by-earlier in this century because if we do, we will only
encourage the aggressor more. We will allow more and more
atrocities to occur, more and more rights to be abused.
(1845 )
More and more we will see the end of civility in a part of the
world where civility has been very much the norm for the past 50
years, in a relatively peaceful situation, notwithstanding the
enmities in the history of the past.
As we go forward this evening in cabinet and make a final
decision, we will weigh the remarks of hon. members opposite
and those on the government side of the House.
We certainly appreciate the valuable contributions made by
the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member from
Saanich-Gulf Islands, the critic for the Reform Party. When we
stand here tonight discussing this issue we stand here not as
Liberals or as Reformers or as members of the Bloc Quebecois
or other political parties. We stand here as Canadians.
Canadians are serving with resolve and determination. They
have our total support. They will be pleased to know members of
the House of Commons are thinking about them and are trying to
ensure the world community brings about some course of action
that will help them return safely home when this mandate is
completed but equally important, brings lasting peace to the
former republic of Yugoslavia.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Madam Speaker,
this is the second time in this 35th Parliament that I rise to speak
on the issue of Bosnia and peacekeeping missions. When the
first debate took place, the parties in this House were
unanimously in favour of letting Canadian troops participate in
a peacekeeping mission which was nevertheless very different
from previous exercises to which Canadians had taken part in.
Unfortunately, the situation has changed. Reform Party
members, as well as the Minister of National Defence and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, have spoken at length on the
evolution of the conflict and the diplomatic means used. We can
now see what the situation is. You all sadly remember how the
horrors of Sarajevo shocked the world. At that time, NATO had
decided, following an ultimatum, to use air strikes in order to
free the area surrounding Sarajevo.
Later, every diplomatic effort was made by western nations,
and even by Russia which, through negotiation, managed to
convince Bosnian Serbs to agree to a ceasefire and to
agreements signed by Croatians and Bosnian Muslims. At that
point, it looked like a solution was in sight, but Bosnian Serbs
once again failed to live up to their word. In so doing, they
ridiculed UN members and betrayed the trust of Russia, which
had negotiated with them.
In my opinion, this is no longer a situation where nations try
to arrive at a negotiated solution but, rather, an attack on the
very existence of humanity, its values and its evolution. How
can we tolerate any longer a situation which the whole world
condemns? Clearly, diplomacy has failed somewhere when
belligerents decide to bomb hospitals, as they did in Gorazde
and in Sarajevo before. Nothing will bring back to life those who
were killed in this conflict, and nothing justifies such barbaric
acts.
My preamble gives you an idea of the position suggested by
the Bloc Quebecois. Indeed, we believe that Canada must
support the proposal put forward by the U.S. President, Mr.
Clinton, and that support must be unequivocal. The idea is to
define six safe areas, as NATO did, and to pattern this exercise
on the Sarajevo experience. In other words, an ultimatum must
be given, but it should have a very short deadline. If this
3355
ultimatum is not observed, then we should resort to strategic and
intensive air strikes.
(1850)
Clearly, some people will say that there is an escalation and
that this form of intervention is radically different from those
formerly endorsed by Canada.
However, the massacre must cease. All the people in the field
said and keep saying that inaction cannot be tolerated any longer
considering the horror of the situation. UN troops are sick of
helplessly watching the slaughter of often unarmed civilians.
They have performed brilliantly, despite the paucity of their
resources and the often confusing directions they received. They
saved thousands of lives and I can say, because I heard it from
people who were there, that they are even willing to put their
lives in danger to stop this bloody massacre.
I met with a few Bosnian Muslims now residing in Canada,
who may have been in touch with the Minister of Foreign Affairs
or the Minister of National Defence. They were describing the
situation in Sarajevo, and now in Gorazde, as something that
should be unacceptable to countries which consider themselves
civilized, and they were shocked that Canada, where they live
and wish to remain, could watch this without reacting more
strongly.
All the parties involved, that is western countries, the
European Community, Russia and the United States, should
decide as one to intervene in the most forceful way. Since they
have gone back on their word so many times, the Bosnian Serbs
can no longer make other countries believe that they are willing
to carry out diplomatic negotiations in good faith.
Obviously, this decision will not be taken lightly. However,
under the circumstances, I think that it is the only humanitarian
solution possible. We have also said that the safety of Canadian
and other peacekeepers is of primary importance to us, but given
the slaughter that is taking place, this action can only be
beneficial and worthwhile.
There is no question that procrastination, coupled with a lack
of clear decisions and strategies, has prolonged this barbaric
conflict and at times further endangered the lives of
peacekeepers. You cannot put a price on a human life, as all of
our brave soldiers have so clearly shown us. They want to put an
end to this conflict, even if it means risking their lives. They
realize that their profession and training places them in
situations which can at times be dangerous. However, they are
trained for combat and they are prepared to face the
consequences.
In my view, the safety of our peacekeepers must be our top
priority. This issue is of even greater concern to me since the
majority of our peacekeeping troops hail from my riding. I have
met with several of them who have returned from Bosnia and,
without necessarily speaking on their behalf, I would like to
pass along this message from our courageous soldiers: Let us act
in a clear-sighted and circumspect manner, but let us act now to
end the slaughter.
In conclusion, I believe there is no other solution but to
designate these enclaves as safe areas. If the Bosnian Serbs
violate these designations, a firm, unwavering ultimatum should
be issued to them, so that we can finally put an end to this
shameful episode in the history of humanity. When we reach the
point where hospitals are being bombed and civilians and
children are being murdered, I think we must make some
decisions which may at times seem difficult.
Having become involved in this unfortunate conflict in the
former Yugoslavia, the UN can no longer act as a mere observer.
It must make some decisions which ultimately may give rise to
debate. Peacekeepers have already saved many lives, but I
believe that if we support this course of action, they will
ultimately be able to save even more human beings.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Madam
Speaker, this is a very serious debate this evening.
I have listened to five speakers, all of whom have spoken
without regard for their affiliation to any party. As a Canadian I
am very proud to stand tonight and say they have all spoken as
Canadians in the best interests of this country. I am very
honoured to join that nature of the debate this evening on such a
serious subject.
(1855)
I want to approach this debate from a slightly different
perspective. I want to look at what is in our national interest.
After all, this is what we are talking about as Canadians.
What is in our national interest in the debate this evening is
peace and security in the world and a total abhorrence of the
genocide we see in front of us. But for every national aim and
every national wish, there has to be a risk.
What is at risk? It is not our reputation as peacekeepers that is
at risk. We demonstrated in the Arab-Israeli war in 1967 that we
can peacekeep, but we can also leave when people really want to
fight. We have created the precedent for doing both in the same
operation.
However we do have a risk. It is the close to 2,000 Canadians
who are involved in this operation. It has to be very clear to
Canadians that in this goal and national aim of peace and
security and the abhorrence of genocide, our peacekeepers are at
risk.
3356
Having said that I want to look at this operation as one which I
suppose could be described as typically escalatory. The question
I ask in an operation that takes that trend is: Where does it stop?
We started with a handful of officers and non-commissioned
members in September 1991 to support the European
Community monitoring mission to cease fire on the borders and
to provide humanitarian assistance.
In February 1992 we sent a 1,200 member battalion group. In
June 1992 we dispatched part of that battalion group to open the
Sarajevo airport. Canadians will remember that; it was a very
tense time in this operation. In September 1992 we sent another
1,200 troops.
Well, the history of the 57 ceasefires and the use that the
Bosnian Serbs have made of these sham ceasefires add to the
escalation we see in front of us. In every escalation there is a
quagmire. That is where we are now. We are at a quagmire.
What options are open to us? There are three basic options. In
one way or another they have been described here this evening.
The first option is to declare we have lost the battle, that there
is no further use for us to remain in the present position doing
the present things we are doing. We would get out. The
consequence is that it would give a certain signal to the Bosnian
Serbs. It would put at risk thousands of civilian lives, most of
them Muslims. It would put at risk other Muslim populations in
the eastern part of Bosnia that we would be concerned about.
It would also give a signal to other aggressors that may want
to do the same thing. The history of genocide and our view as
Canadians on this kind of atrocity is very clear. Our actions have
always been the same.
The second option is to stay the course of what is happening. I
am not sure what good that would do us. We are providing
humanitarian aid and suggesting air strikes. Unless something
changes from what is happening now, I believe any chance of a
peace will be totally bogged down. The government which is
Muslim Bosnian, as I see it, will perhaps get the wrong signal
and expect that sooner or later we may want to come down on its
side. I do not have to tell anybody in the House that our troops
were not sent there for that reason. Neither are they equipped to
do so.
(1900)
It would also give the wrong signal to the Serbs that we are
going to stay there. They will continue to have their little games
of ceasefires, and every time there is a ceasefire they will
strengthen their position. This has been the history. Why would
we expect anything different?
The third option relates to the option that is now being
proposed by this motion and the option that seems to be getting
total support in the House this evening, that is to have our troops
that are vulnerable put in a safe area and to consider more
seriously the use of air strikes.
In considering that option we have to remember that the
Secretary-General of the United Nations under UN resolutions
824 and 836 authorized NATO to execute air strikes last Sunday.
It has been four days since we have looked at that.
What message are we sending to the Serbs? What are they
saying? To balance that, again history will show that air strikes
without follow-on action with ground troops sometimes have
the effect of strengthening the resolve of those people who are
being struck with the air power.
The history of air power in the mountainous country in which
we are involved in this operation has not been terribly
successful. There are some difficulties with air strikes. They
have been successful, but there are difficulties and we have to
consider them.
There is another area that has not been discussed in any detail
this evening. I want to bring it to the attention of the House. I
request that the Minister of Foreign Affairs take into
consideration that we have a three-organization naval blockade
in the Adriatic Sea: the Western European Union Task Force, the
Standing Naval Force Atlantic of which a Canadian commodore
just relinquished command on April 14, and the Standing Naval
Forces Mediterranean, all under the command of
COMNAVSOUTH. We need to look at that to see how it relates
to the action that will stem from the discussions that will take
place tomorrow.
It is with a certain amount of hesitation, I would have to
admit, that I would be in favour of air strikes. It would be on the
condition that there would be a summit involving the Russians,
all NATO forces and all United Nations forces. Whatever we do
in our negotiations tomorrow I know I do not have to remind the
House in my presentation this evening that the peacekeepers we
have there now are at risk. Any further involvement we may
undertake as a result of the action that will be contemplated in
the next few days will have to be seen as escalatory. We have to
bear that in consideration.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Madam
Speaker, I rise in the House tonight to speak on this very
important issue. Certainly most of us in the House tonight would
be doing more pleasant duties; I had no idea when I was elected
some six short months ago that we would be here tonight as
members of Parliament in the House making such a serious
decision on such a serious issue.
Back in January I made my maiden speech on the topic of our
role in Bosnia for two reasons. The first one was my personal
history which goes back to that part of the world. My heritage is
from that area and certainly I have concern for what is going on
there.
3357
(1905 )
Second, the important thing that we have not talked about
very much in these debates is the history of the area. The history
of this area will tell us that for the past 500 years we have had
these types of flare-ups. We have had wars. We have had people
murdering or massacring each other. There have been no good
guys and there have been no bad guys in this particular area. It
has been a fact of life that this has been a very volatile area of the
world.
I had hoped when I gave that maiden speech back in January
that there would not be a need for the type of debate that we hold
tonight. Unfortunately that has not been the fact.
My concern tonight really is twofold. First and foremost I am
very concerned for the safety of our Canadian people there. We
as Canadians have a priority and we must protect. We must not
allow some of the things that have gone on in that area to happen
to our Canadian troops. Safety has to be a top priority.
Second, my concern is for the innocent victims, the innocent
people. We have seen thousands of people who have been
victims of this war.
I do not believe that we can ask the United Nations to keep
peace in a part of the world where there simply is no peace to
keep. I am not a supporter of violence. In fact I hate violence and
I hate what it does to innocent people. We have drawn lines in
the sand in this part of the world for some two years now. We
keep backing up and keep drawing new lines in the sand. I
believe we are at a point where we can no longer draw lines in
the sand.
Threats and ultimatums simply have not worked. I believe
that we must take a firmer stand, but I say this with mixed
emotions. As I mentioned before I have relatives in this part of
the world and I am obviously very concerned for their safety.
I do not believe we have any other option at this point in time.
As a world community I believe that we have the obligation to
protect innocent people wherever they are. Thousands of lives
have been lost already and tens of thousands more are in
immediate direct jeopardy.
About 20 minutes ago I received a letter from one of my
constituents that I would like to quote at this time. She states:
``As a wife of a peacekeeper who served in Croatia, I know what
it is like to worry that my husband may not make it back to me.
My husband served as a peacekeeper proudly for both his
country and the United Nations. Every patrol he went out on he
never knew if it would be his last one. I believe that the Serbians
must be forced by whatever means to respect the safe zones
established by the United Nations. However, for the sake of our
soldiers let us be very clear in what we are doing. This is no
longer peacekeeping. The soldiers who now operate under the
United Nations umbrella must be given a new, clear enforceable
mandate or alternatively, they should be pulled out altogether
and NATO should step in.
Dennis just told me a few minutes ago that he would be glad
and have no problems throwing his combats on and going back.
As his wife, and mother of his child, all I ask is that if you send
him or his colleagues over, make his mandate clear and give him
the resources and backing to make it back again''.
As I mentioned before it is with mixed emotions that I stand in
the House tonight. I support the idea of air strikes, not because I
want to see punishment inflicted on anyone but because I want to
see this horrific war stopped and stopped now.
I believe that the only option we have and the one we must
choose is to pull back all Canadians to safe areas and then
proceed with any and all efforts required to stop this bloodshed.
Then and only then can we talk about peacekeeping and then and
only then can our peacekeepers do the job for which we have
become known throughout the world.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Madam Speaker, I first want to
thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National
Defence and the government for providing all members of
Parliament with this opportunity of sharing our views to assist
the government in making this difficult decision later tonight. I
also want to thank the government for holding off on its cabinet
decision until after it has heard input from members of
Parliament.
(1910 )
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, we support this
initiative. Our effort is to make the support unanimous on this
very critical issue.
I wish to pay tribute to the extraordinary and outstanding
effort of our peacekeeping troops who have been serving in the
area. Their contribution to the safety and security of innocent
people has been nothing short of extraordinary. All of our hearts,
our thoughts, our prayers go out to not only them but of course to
their families back home as well.
It is fair to say that none of the parties involved are totally free
of criticism, some by a long shot. The time has come in terms of
the Serbian issue that we simply cannot allow a war to
perpetuate that literally all now want stopped. This is now
calling upon extraordinary measures to stop the brutality, the
savagery, the horror, the unbelievable level of suffering
particularly for the innocent civilians in the region.
There have been tens of thousands killed in this conflict. Tens
of thousands have fled the area as refugees. Thousands of
women have been systematically raped as an instrument of war.
We hear of ethnic cleansing, the concentration camps, the
massacres, the destruction of holy buildings.
3358
It has come to a point where we as Canadians can no longer
stand passively by and say that this can continue. We have to
stand up and be counted. With the United Nations now calling
for support for air strikes, it is only right and proper we lend our
support as a country to this initiative.
We must take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the
safety of our troops in these areas. If the mandate changes and
ground support is required to back up the air strikes in order to
bring peace and a negotiated settlement eventually, then
obviously the mandate for our troops has to be changed. It will
be up to us to give them the equipment and support to allow them
to do the job that must be done.
What turned the situation for us in the last few days was when
we witnessed the television reports of the bombardment and
shelling of homes, hospitals and churches which symbolized the
ultimate in the savagery which has occurred in this region. For
us now to stand passively by and allow this to continue is
something none of us are prepared to tolerate any longer.
I applaud the government for its initiative. I appreciate that
the government has solicited our views prior to cabinet making
this very difficult decision. Let us only hope and pray we do not
have to revisit this again in a few weeks when the situation may
have even escalated beyond these unimaginable levels.
I am now going to allow my colleague from Regina to
complete this time sequence.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity of
participating in this debate. I also thank the government, the
Official Opposition and the Reform Party for allowing us to
participate in this most important debate.
Earlier today I spoke to a constituent, a mother whose son had
just returned from serving in the former Yugoslavia. Her major
point to me as her son related his experience to her was that we
are no longer capable of playing a peacekeeper role. When the
major parties are not in acceptance of our position and do not
abide by ceasefires then we cannot play the role of the
peacekeeper.
Our forces are not equipped to play the role of the
peacemaker. Yet what has been requested of NATO is to change
the UN role from one of peacekeeping to one of peacemaking. It
seems the Serb forces have forced the United Nations and the
world community into that position.
What has been going on has been a farce. We have now
reached the point where a serious decision will have to be made.
I appreciate that the cabinet will be meeting after this debate and
I am certain that the cabinet will take into very serious
consideration all the implications that are involved.
(1915)
Some suggest that this might be the opening to a new Vietnam
type war. I have been in Bosnia as I have been in Croatia and I
followed the events very closely over the years. I know the
terrain in Bosnia is not conducive to the type of warfare that we
think of. Certainly it is not like the deserts in the war in the
Middle East. We remember as well the few handfuls of partisans
who were able to hold down many German divisions during the
second world war.
We cannot allow the rape and the killing to continue. I have
been to the front and I have seen hospitals that have been
attacked by scatter bombs. I have seen attacks on churches, I
have seen attacks on civilians and the total disregard for
innocent people, the total immorality.
As someone suggested to me, it is the devil's banquet that is
going on there. We cannot tolerate it. We cannot just sit in front
of our television sets and do nothing. I think air strikes have to
be used.
Now the question is what happens to our Canadian forces?
They are not equipped. They are out there almost as hostages. I
believe what has to be done immediately is before the air strikes,
the UN troops who are out there and ill-equipped to protect
themselves have to be removed and moved into secure areas.
The other suggestion I would make is that under article 51 of
the United Nations the state has the right to protect itself. We
have a state here. We have the federation between the Croatians
and the Muslim Bosnians. We have as well a co-confederation
between this new state of Bosnia and Croatia. Why not lift the
arms embargo and allow the Muslims and the Croatians to
protect their own homes and their own cities? Surely that would
make a lot of sense.
The blood of Canadian boys need not necessarily be spilled on
the fields in Bosnia. Allow the Bosnian Muslims and Croats to
protect their homes, to protect their villages. Use them as the
ground troops, the ground forces necessary to protect the safe
havens. Back them up with air power. That combination will
create a level playing field.
I believe the Serbs will negotiate in good faith if there is a
level playing field. They inherited the third largest or the fourth
largest and most powerful army in Europe at the end of the cold
war, the army of Yugoslavia. They inherited all that fire power.
They are using that fire power against the Muslims and the
Croats. It is not a level playing field.
The embargo on arms has helped the Serbs and has put the
Croats and the Muslims at a disadvantage. Take away that
disadvantage, allow a level playing field, allow the Muslim and
the Croatian armies to protect their cities. Back them up with air
power. In that way I believe we can be effective and we can see
3359
an end to this conflict because it will force the Serb forces to
negotiate in good faith.
I believe there are some possibilities that should be explored
which might prevent a full scale blood bath. In fact it is already
there. We cannot prevent it, it is already occurring. However,
perhaps we can bring it to a more speedy end if we lift the
embargo and back up Muslim and Croat forces with air power. I
believe some good will come out of that.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on
a very serious issue, the Canadian position on Bosnia.
Our policy has been consistent. In our foreign policy
handbook issued in May of 1993 we warned: ``The Yugoslav
question will take years to resolve. Canada must be prepared to
commit resources and time to help rebuild new states and
societies in this region''.
(1920)
Before we can help rebuild we must first help to resolve this
terrible tragic situation in Bosnia.
The issue before us tonight is the use of air support to protect
safe areas in the former republic of Yugoslavia, a very delicate
question and an issue that is fundamentally different for Canada
than it is for that of the United States; as already mentioned,
different since we are the ones with peacekeeping troops on the
ground. If the United States administration had followed
through on the Vance-Owen plan and committed U.S. ground
troops as part of the UN force we may not be facing the question
we are facing tonight.
On May 2, 1993 the U.S. pledged 25,000 troops. To this day
the U.S. has no troops in the former republic of Yugoslavia.
Our troops have undertaken tremendously difficult UN
assignments. In June 1992 they were deployed to Sarajevo to
reopen and secure the airport so that the airlift of relief supplies
could begin. In January and February of 1993 more Canadian
troops were deployed temporarily to the former Yugoslav
republic of Macedonia to monitor developments in the border
areas with Serbia. In April 1993 more Canadian troops were sent
to Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia to ensure the presence of UN
protection force in the besieged city.
We must insist that if they go forward with air strikes the same
country that is so eager to do so will also bring ground troops to
help. We must ensure that our strategy is sound to protect our
Canadian peacekeepers in a very volatile situation.
It will be very difficult to suggest the removal of our troops
with the knowledge of the brutality being suffered and the great
need for humanitarian assistance.
We went to the former Yugoslavia to promote a peaceful
settlement to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and to
provide relief to its victims, innocent victims we know have
endured unbelievable brutality and senseless death. We know
that women have been raped, innocent children killed and both
men and women senselessly tortured. In this day and age it is
not tolerable to have this situation continuing.
We then face the question of how to resolve it. What is the
next step? We must formulate a strategic plan, a plan that goes
beyond one day, a plan that goes into the future, a plan that
includes a settlement that can bring lasting peace to the region.
The settlement must include the NATO forces, the Russians, the
Serbs, the Bosnians, the Muslims and all other involved parties
so we can end the history of hate that began over 1,000 years
ago.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Madam Speaker, the people
of Quebec and Canada have agreed to send troops to the former
Yugoslavia to keep the peace. Our troops are part of a 23,000
member UN force which has been making commendable efforts
for months to restore peace to that European country. With
dignity, courage and efficiency, our soldiers have carried out
their mandate, a narrow and demanding mandate that they have
managed to carry out effectively.
Our troops have saved lives. They have provided medical
treatment. They have helped people escape the combat zone.
(1925)
After many months of hard work, an agreement was finally
reached just recently, under which Bosnian Serbs accepted that
six safe areas be defined. Sarajevo and Gorazde were among
these areas.
We are forced to recognize that the Bosnian Serbs did not live
up to their word, as this has been the case all too often over the
past few months, and hostilities resumed. The city of Gorazde is
currently under Bosnian Serb fire, its unarmed and defenceless
population subjected to mortar shelling day in and day out.
Blind fire is killing civilians, women and children. Just today,
28 people were killed in the shelling of a hospital.
We are facing a difficult situation. Will we look on helplessly,
as brutal force, ill intent and duplicity triumph? Will we keep on
worrying about what happens to our troops in the field? On the
other hand, should we not help those who are proposing
concerted, effective actions to force Bosnian Serbs to abide by
the agreements concluded, to stop shelling and remove their
guns from around guaranteed safe areas? I think we should. I
think that the nations involved in the operations must send a
clear message, an ultimatum, to the people who are shelling
defenceless people, shelling civilians and children, shelling
hospitals.
3360
The ultimatum must be clear and have a short deadline. It
seems that is the only language which the soldiers operating
under the colours of the Bosnian Serbs understand.
We must issue this ultimatum and if they do not comply, we
must, as suggested, strike effectively and rapidly so that the
weapons shooting civilians and defenceless people are
destroyed and that the troops in the field are no longer subject to
the bad faith of the Bosnian Serbs, who as we have seen believe
that they do not have to keep their word.
We must issue this ultimatum and use the necessary force if
the Bosnian Serbs do not comply, because it is a humanitarian
duty. We are witnessing barbaric acts. We are witnessing
frightful things. For a long time, we had not seen people in
Europe being subjected to mortar fire, random shooting and
bombing.
Canadians do not accept violence in their own country.
Increasingly, they call for action, and I believe that they have the
same attitude to situations of violence abroad directed against
defenceless people.
Therefore it is a humanitarian duty to intervene. It also takes
the lessons of history into account.
(1930)
If the League of Nations, a few years prior to 1939, had taken
the necessary steps to stop Hitlerian madness in Germany, many
millions of people might not have died in World War II.
History teaches us that if we do not do anything to stop
massacres, injustice and unspeakable violence against civilians,
against defenceless populations-if we witness all these
horrible scenes without reacting-we will pay dearly for our
inaction several years later. That is also what the news teaches
us.
Staggering events are now occurring in Rwanda, Africa. We
see people being slaughtered and ask ourselves whether we
could have done something in the first hours of the crisis. I think
the answer is yes. So I think we should intervene. We have a duty
to intervene in the face of growing violence, of the return to
Europe of barbarities it had not seen in 50 years.
It is with regret but also with a sense of duty that I think
Canada should agree to implement the program proposed by the
UN to NATO and, if the ultimatum is rejected by the Bosnian
Serbs, to launch the air strikes required to make them live up to
their word. In all honesty, I think it is our duty to show solidarity
with our fellow human beings.
[English]
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Madam Speaker, I rise
in this House proud to be a Canadian, a Canadian with family
residing in Croatia.
In resolving the issue before the House, the decision that we
must make as a government is to determine what is in the best
interests of our country Canada. When so doing we must
consider what is in the interest of peace and security of the
world.
On January 26 on debate in this honourable House I stated it is
my position that Canada should withdraw its peacekeeping
military forces from both Croatia and Bosnia. Bring the soldiers
home. At that time my conclusion to withdraw the Canadian
troops from the former Yugoslavia was predicated on the fact
that there is no need for peacekeeping since there is no peace to
keep.
However, due to the constantly changing circumstances on the
ground it becomes extremely difficult and possibly meaningless
to hold a fixed position among aspects of the wars in former
Yugoslavia.
Today the original Canadian mandate to serve as
peacekeepers and to deliver aid continues to be seriously
compromised. The resistance of Bosnian Serbs to make peace
has dictated the need for an urgent and a new direction for the
role of Canada in defence and foreign affairs.
There is still no peace to keep and the war continues. As a
nation of conscience we cannot tolerate the slaughter of
innocent victims of genocide. We cannot trust the Serbs to
negotiate peace. We cannot compromise our credibility as a
nation.
This is the most difficult foreign policy question of our time.
Since the end of World War II Canada has proudly stood as a
leader in world affairs, stepping forward whenever international
peace and security were threatened. However, the cold war has
passed and the world we face today is much more complex.
The anticipated peace has given way to a resurgence and deep
rooted and often brutal ethnic conflict. The situation in the
former Yugoslavia is the most striking example of this problem.
(1935 )
The position the Canadian government will take on this very
important issue will undoubtedly have profound implications
on, first, the safety of Canada's armed forces; second, the
practice of future peacekeeping; third, the evolution of the
United Nations and its future mandate; fourth, the role of NATO;
and, fifth and most important, the future of democracy in the
western world and peace and security in our world.
It is my position that Canada has no alternative but to support
NATO's demand for air strikes. It is in the best interest of
Canadians. It is in the best interest of the people of the former
Yugoslavia. However in the negotiations with NATO I ask our
government to consider carefully the role of Russia.
3361
NATO must take into consideration the position of Russia and
consider carefully the consequences of Russia's position and the
impact it will have on the resolution of the conflict. Russia at
this time is the key to peace in this conflict. I trust that every
effort will be made to ensure that Russia supports NATO's
position regarding air strikes.
I wish to take this opportunity to commend the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and Minister of National Defence for their
immediate attention to this urgent matter. I pray the decisions
made by our government will bring lasting peace to former
Yugoslavia.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):
Madam Speaker, one of the greatest tragedies of our time has
been the destruction of the dream of world peace by surging
ethnic and national conflicts.
Naive as the vision may have been, when the iron curtain
collapsed people around the world believed that in a history
plagued with war and atrocities mankind would finally be on the
path to a peaceful coexistence. Of course that has not proven to
be the case.
Eighty years ago the world was plunged into World War I by
events which took place in the same unfortunate lands that we
are discussing tonight. The firestorm that resulted produced one
of the saddest chapters in human history. We must ensure that we
do not become entangled in that same web.
The difference today is that this civil war is being played out
in real time for millions of television viewers. Almost every day
grisly images of mangled children and slaughtered civilians are
brought to our screens and in the newspapers. I picked up a copy
of the Globe and Mail in which the mayor of Gorazde was
reported as saying that Gorazde looked like a slaughterhouse.
There were reports of scores of injured and dead lying as they
fell amid the debris. An amateur radio operator yesterday was
heard saying: ``Wounded people are lying everywhere. The
situation is desperate''. Stories of atrocities abound and the term
ethnic cleansing, despised by all civilized people since the days
of Hitler, has re-entered our vocabulary.
The root cause of this age old conflict is ethnic intolerance
and greed. This conflict reaches back into time across the
Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Turkish Empire and beyond.
These are old quarrels being reignited; new battles over old
grievances and old hatreds. The fighting has been bitter and
indiscriminate.
Two years ago the United Nations dispatched a peacekeeping
force into this savage war zone when the Red Cross and other
humanitarian agencies were prevented from bringing relief to
civilians. For the first time UN forces were deployed during a
conflict to ease the plight of innocents. This too was
accompanied with television images and the terrible price being
paid by the non-combatants: children maimed, orphans
abandoned by their care givers, women brutally and
systematically raped, marketplaces shelled, and old people
lying in twisted heaps. Civilized people could not stand by and
let this misery and indiscriminate slaughter continue.
Another article in the paper quoted the Bosnian prime
minister in an interview saying: ``NATO must take immediate
and decisive action to prevent a mass slaughter in Gorazde''.
(1940 )
UN peacekeepers have done their best to bring food and
medical supplies to these people, to provide some of the very
basic things that human beings need to survive. They have done
their jobs valiantly and in the face of great adversity. They have
been blockaded and besieged. They have been threatened with
deadly force, captured and held hostage, terrorized, shot at and
shelled. They have performed with exceptional dedication,
bringing hope to the victims of this war.
At every turn attempts to find a peaceful settlement have been
thwarted by the Serbs. The lies, the deceit and the irresponsible
actions of these people are an affront to civilized humanity.
Truces have been declared, only to be broken within hours if not
minutes. Ceasefires have been agreed to, only to be kept until
the military manoeuvres were completed and then violated.
For peacekeeping to function there must be a wish for peace.
For peace to be possible there must be some recognition by the
combatants that war is a last resort, that the inhuman acts
occasioned by war are repugnant, and that all other means must
be exhausted before the final option of war is exercised. That
does not exist in Bosnia.
We have at least one combatant in the struggle, Serbia, which
sees that war as a means to achieve its national objectives. While
no one has clean hands in this conflict, perhaps finally the other
two protagonists, the Croats and the Muslims, have come to
realize that continued arms struggle only brings disaster to their
own people and that in the end nothing is really gained. The
Serbs on the other hand are prosecuting a war of aggression that
aims to subjugate and eliminate the other ethnic groups.
It is understandable in the face of all the horrible facts of this
conflict and its capacity to seemingly go on forever that
civilized nations are considering more drastic measures to put
an end to it and that urgent calls are heard to bring more military
force to bear.
The arrogant manner in which the Serbian leadership has
conducted themselves, almost as if they hold themselves beyond
accountability for their actions, and the utter disdain they
obviously have for the United Nations demonstrate clearly their
rather primeval attitude, like a bully with a chip on his shoulder.
Serbian leaders have dared the UN to take action to stop them.
3362
No matter what our feelings, we must exercise wisdom and
restraint. We must consider very carefully where we cross the
line between humanitarian relief for the innocent civilians and
becoming combatants ourselves. We must not justify the bully's
actions by adopting his methods.
The use of air strikes around Sarajevo succeeded because it
demonstrated the resolve of the UN to protect safe havens it had
created. It was great for the people of that city, but it took the UN
down a path of intervention in a civil war that could be
dangerous. This was demonstrated when a British Harrier was
shot down over Gorazde. The spiral of action and reaction can be
very dangerous.
The request before NATO now is to expand the use of air
strikes to cover other safe havens. This draws the UN and NATO
even further into the web. When did we cross the line, becoming
participants in this conflict rather than neutrals? We must ask
ourselves whether we are inviting reprisals against our
peacekeepers on the ground. At the very least there must be
co-ordination between the Canadian forces and NATO to ensure
that our troops, Canadian troops, are as safe as possible from
reprisals.
Will these actions improve the ability of our troops to deliver
aid or impair them? What will our response be if Canadian
peacekeepers are attacked and suffer casualties? Is this the right
action to take?
(1945 )
Already the Canadian military is facing difficulties in
sustaining operations at existing levels. If we agree to these air
strikes we will be by extension committing ourselves to
expanded troop commitments if the call goes out for them.
Indeed many questions are before the House. Can we, on the
other hand, ignore the suffering brought on by the Serbian
aggressors against the enclaves and the safe havens? The
shelling of the hospitals, the careless endangering of innocent
civilians is unacceptable.
The Serbs have shown a blatant disregard for international
protest and concerns. They have repeatedly rebuffed the
attempts of peace envoys, international delegations and truce
negotiators to try to resolve this conflict. Almost at every step
United Nations protection forces are hampered in their efforts to
provide aid.
Even Russia, which has shown great reluctance to join the
international chorus of protest, has angrily condemned recent
actions by the Serbs.
I support the actions that we would take in support of these air
strikes and I would ask every Canadian tonight at home as they
are going to bed thinking of how safe we are in our country to
spend a few moments and think about our Canadian
peacekeepers who are doing a tremendous job for the entire
world and say a few words for them.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough): Madam Speaker, I want
to congratulate the government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
the minister of defence and veterans affairs for bringing this
resolution forward tonight to be debated and to say to Canadians
that we again in this House are seeing democracy working.
We also see the laying aside of partisan politics as we debate
the very important issue that hopefully will resolve some
terrible situations that abound in the world. I want to
congratulate our colleagues who have spoken earlier on this
matter.
Originally today I was going to go to my riding. The finance
committee is meeting there tomorrow morning. I was going to
appear before that but when I saw that this situation was coming
here tonight, the resolution and the emergency debate, I felt that
having served some time involved with matters of defence with
a lot of great people on all sides of this House, I should be here to
take part in this very important issue that we are dealing with.
We watch with horror the situation that has developed in
Bosnia over the past number of years and this is now truly a
global village because every night the true extent of what is
happening around the world is brought into our homes. It shows
us just how thin the veneer of civilization is. The basic humanity
in civilization which we all take for granted has been stripped
away and we are left with the barbarous acts perpetrated on
people by their fellow human beings.
Unfortunately the horror of these events in what was once
known as the cockpit of Europe, an area of conflict through the
centuries, shows that we must always be vigilant to ensure that
we remain at the level that we think we have attained. Reality
dictates that our society must always remain on guard to see that
the things we hold as basic rights of humanity and citizenship
remain in tact.
When communism died we felt that a better world would take
its place. I and others were told the other day by the
vice-president of Bosnia that when that happened there was a
vacuum left, that perhaps something else could have happened.
Perhaps democracy and those who know democracy could have
been in these places to fill that vacuum by teaching people the
ways of democracy. That did not happen. Ancient hatreds and
ethnic conflicts have come to the forefront and have led us to
these situations.
(1950)
Canada has for many years enjoyed an enviable reputation as
a peacekeeper. Of course we all are concerned for the safety of
our troops wherever they may be. What we always have to
remember also is that Canada, which has gained this reputation
as a peacekeeper, has the capabilities and has been involved in
other types of military actions. We stood second to no one in this
in two world wars and in the Korean war. We never backed away
from anything. We are not a military country. That is not what
3363
we were built on. When we were asked to go, no one ever
reneged on that.
Canadians do not go around bragging very much about their
military prowess. Any time Canadians were asked to be part of a
conflict that was in the interests of the world, we were there.
Now we are saying should we in other nations change our role
from peacekeeping to that other mode. This would entail a new
set of priorities and actions.
We surely cannot tolerate scenes any more like those we saw a
few days ago when Canadians were held hostage, which has
been mentioned here tonight. We have a saying on the east coast
and it is time to use that saying. We either have to fish or cut bait.
We have come to that situation in the country we are talking
about here tonight. As unpalatable as it may be, if we are going
to be involved we may have to become involved in a differ
manner, one which may see young men and women from Canada
involved in these military operations which I speak about. That
may be the choice facing this House.
The request for more air strikes according to military experts
should be supported by more people on the ground. According to
people who have long military careers this is the way these
things are most effective.
Are members of the United Nations, members of NATO
prepared to do this? The topic has been debated here this
evening on what happened after the bombings, after the air
strikes at Sarajevo. We did not really go into it because they
were successful. It is hoped that if this has to take place, if we
have to go to the line, to the limit, cooler heads will prevail and
those people involved once again will know that the United
Nations and NATO mean business and we are not going to see
these atrocities go any further.
I say to all members of the House right here tonight that we
stand on the threshold at a pivotal time in our history, the history
of the world. What the United Nations and we the
representatives of the people here in Canada decide over the
next few days, indeed probably over the next few hours, will set
a tone for world affairs for years and decades to come.
I fully agree with the proposal put forward by the ministers
and from what I hear in the House tonight everyone else does
also. I believe we have to show these people, as someone said
earlier, who are thumbing their noses at the rest of the world that
the allied countries in the United Nations and in NATO mean
business, that we are there to stop these atrocities.
If air strikes have to be used, then we must be prepared to go
along with that. I am sure that tomorrow morning at the NATO
meetings a lot of negotiating, a lot of thought will go into the
final decision.
(1955 )
Madam Speaker and members of the House, I speak to those
involved in the negotiations and those on the ground, in the air
and on the sea in that country. I hope that by our decision here
tonight we will help to bring this terrible conflict to an end.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): I rise
this evening as member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup,
which is represented in Bosnia by militiamen of the Fusiliers du
Saint-Laurent, and I also speak on behalf of one of the 15
Canadians who were held as hostages last week.
These developments influence our action somewhat because
this conflict is not a black and white issue. It is a grey area and
the decision to be made is complex and difficult. However, we
must take our responsibilities and do what is necessary.
I would like to quote a comment I made in my speech on the
same issue, on January 25, 1994. I said: ``It is important for our
operations to contribute directly to resolving the crisis and
above all to avoid perpetuating the current imbroglio.''
In fact, one wonders whether the intervention in Sarajevo was
strong enough. We targeted only one of the safe areas and since
then the problem has spread to another of those areas, and this
could go on and on.
We realize that a more comprehensive solution is necessary.
Also, we must not lose sight of the objective of the intervention,
which is to ensure peace in Bosnia.
Names such as Bihac, Gorazde, Sarajevo, Srebrenica, Tuzla,
and Zepa are not part of our daily vocabulary. Yet, these names
have become synonymous with dying children, and adults
running in the streets to stay alive. All these images trigger a
common reaction.
It is important to adopt a position which will lead to a
complete and permanent solution. To that end, certain essential
elements must be taken into account. The first one is the need of
a consensus among nations. I think that if we act without first
enlisting Russia's support regarding a possible intervention, we
will repeat the mistake made in World War One, something
which would be very costly.
So it is very important to make representations within the
Security Council and at the UN and ensure that the Russians will
be at the table and will take part in the process. I think they have
realized that the behaviour of the Bosnian Serbs is unacceptable.
I think they see a certain betrayal of their commitments as a
result of this situation, and we can only hope that they will join
in the consensus that seems to be developing here.
It seems that another important point is that we should send a
clear message to the Bosnian Serbs because so far, commitments
and promises have meant absolutely nothing to them, since there
was not always a concerted effort to enforce these agreements.
3364
We have seen a kind of behaviour that in some cases does not
even observe the normal rules of war. When we see pictures of
people shooting at hospitals, and when we see shells going
through hospital walls, I think we have reached the point that
something has to be done to deal with the situation once and for
all.
In the circumstances, I was referring to a consensus in public
opinion, a clear message to the Bosnians-but I think it is also
important to have diplomatic initiatives by the major powers to
have a clear indication of where we are going and of the main
participants in this process. The point is that if we merely resort
to air strikes without providing for the next phase, we will only
move the problem somewhere else, and we must avoid
escalating the conflict.
(2000)
These are all very important considerations. I think we must
act responsibly on this conflict, but I am also concerned about
the security of our troops. I think it is important to minimize the
risk to the safety of our troops, although as the Minister of
Foreign Affairs said on April 14, and I quote: ``It is inherent in
their responsibilities and their duty as soldiers to risk their
lives''. We agree with this statement, that to take risks in a war
situation is part and parcel of a soldier's job, role and
commitment; on the other hand, we must do our utmost to avoid
casualties.
In my view, if we are to put the odds on our side, we must take
part in strategic planning, avoid a situation where Canadian and
Quebec soldiers would become the pawns of unacceptable
decisions, the victims of errors that could have been avoided. To
this aim, the choice of strategic targets must contain certain
minimum guarantees so that we do not pick targets which should
not be attacked and would not help solve the crisis, in any case.
When dealing with a problem such as this one, we know that it
is dangerous to intervene, and that some soldiers' lives will be
on the line. On the other hand, I think that there is a lesson to be
learned from last week's hostage-taking, which ended well, but
could have gone terribly wrong. Admittedly, this incident was to
some extent the result of the UN's procrastination. If we let
things drag on, we will face other similar situations, other times
when our soldiers' lives will really be threatened. It would be
unexcusable if it were to happen by pure negligence, for the
simple reason that we did not act responsibly.
I think that it is important that the consensus reached by the
Parliament be taken into consideration by the Cabinet and that,
with the same caution we feel in this House, it makes sure that
any action taken will be decisive and will protect the lives of our
troops as much as possible.
Finally, I would like to thank the Canadian peacekeepers,
especially those from my riding who volunteered for these
peacekeeping missions all over the world. I think that we can
never thank them enough. They are aware of the inherent
dangers of their job, but I believe that they have the right to
expect sound policy direction that gives due regard to the
importance of human lives, and to the importance of solving this
crisis, which is the result of many years of ethnic hatred. It is
important to find a political solution which will put an end, once
and for all, to this devastating conflict.
[English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Madam Speaker, as we stand in the House tonight we have a lot
to be thankful for. We have freedom of speech, a free country.
We have food in Canada. We have running water. We have
toilets. We have hospitals with good medical people. Tonight we
are going to talk about people who have very few if any of those
things.
I want to compliment the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the
Minister of National Defence and the government for bringing
this business before the House tonight. I also want to
compliment the other parties for agreeing with it and for
participating the way they have. Foreign affairs of this nature
should not be partisan. We as Canadians should be pulling
together on issues like this where great humanitarian values are
involved.
(2005)
The situation in the former Yugoslavia is something we never
thought we would see in the 20th century, certainly not in the
middle of Europe. But it is there and we have to face up to it.
We are dealing with a Serbian group who cannot keep
agreements. They are people who hold Canadian peacekeepers
hostage. That is something this country cannot stand for under
any conditions. The world cannot stand by and allow this to
continue.
Over the years foreign affairs have been very much a contest
among parties in this House but this one certainly should not.
We have to ask ourselves: What price do we pay for freedom?
What price do we pay to promote decency in the world? What
price do we pay for respect? The answer of course is that no
amount of money will buy them. They have to be earned and
Canadians have been earning these qualities over the years.
We must look at history from where we stand tonight. Henry
Ford once said that history is a lot of bunk. That is one of the
most horrible contributions that could possibly be given to the
record of the human race.
3365
Tonight we must take into consideration why during the
thirties the League of Nations failed. It failed because nobody
would support it. Nobody would stand up for the causes of
freedom and for the rights of people in other countries. There
was no unity within the world to promote those qualities.
World War II did not just happen; we drifted into it because we
did not do anything. We know what happened in World War I. It
was a Serb who shot a prince and from there we went into
international conflict in very short order.
Today there are over 60 hotspots in the world. More than 20 of
them are active conflicts today. This is a time to learn from
history, not to call it a lot of bunk, not to fall into the same old rut
we have fallen into before as a society.
Canadians have participated all around the world. The
Canadian forces have made their mark and made their name and
they have taken the qualities of Canadian nationhood with them.
We thank them for that.
Tonight the Muslims, the Croatians and the Serbs are in
turmoil. Let us ask why. They are in turmoil because of that
old-fashioned, centuries old term hatred. We talk about all the
diseases. No other disease creates so many problems for
humanity as hatred. No aggressor can be allowed to get away
with what is going on in Bosnia tonight, or tomorrow, or
yesterday.
Human rights and the decency of mankind is important to
Canada and to every free civilized nation. We cannot stand by
and allow slaughter to go on. We cannot stand by and allow rape
to occur in that country.
Peacekeeping versus peacemaking. If we are going to ask our
Canadian forces to go abroad into these difficult situations, then
I say with all sincerity it is up to this Parliament of Canada to
provide them with the right equipment to do so and the good
training which they have had over the years.
(2010 )
Let us get out there and support them in real terms and not just
with rhetoric from time to time. Our military community in
Canada has led the way on many great days for this nation over
the years of Canadian history and it will continue to do so in the
future. We in this Parliament and Canadians from every part of
this nation must give them our utmost support.
As we stand here tonight we can look upon this as a test case.
Do we allow the UN to become weakened? Do we allow the
western world to become divided? Do we not stand up and be
counted? Do we drift and send a message out there to the despots
and dictators of this world that there is not enough cohesiveness
in today's world among the nations of the free world to put a stop
to some of these atrocities?
If we allow that message to go out there we will not have more
than 20 hot spots around this world, we will have many, many
more because they will feel they will get away with it.
We have to stand up and be counted as a nation and Europe
itself must stand up and be counted as a group of nations. I think
it is a fair criticism tonight that many Europeans did not come
forward soon enough and that Canada has played a role in every
UN operation since day one. We need not be ashamed of our
record in any way whatsoever. We must be proud of it, but if we
are going there we want every nation pulling their weight.
Yes, NATO in this case is a UN support and it should not be
looked upon by any nations as anything else but a support to the
UN today. Yes, Russia should come on board with the rest of the
free world on this one because this too can affect it. You cannot
close your eyes and hope that it is going to go away. We cannot
send our troops lightly armed into a peacekeeping operation that
virtually becomes the middle of a war zone.
We have to make certain to take every measure for their
safety. NATO will do its part.
Hatred is older than the hills but it is creating and will
continue to create problems for mankind. It is the way we handle
these that counts. We have to handle the bullies and the cowards
of this world in the only way that they understand.
Canada is respected around the world. We cannot lose that
respect because many have paid a big price to earn it. They have
paid a big price to pave the way for nationhood in this country
and it is that price that I guess we are going to have to continue to
pay. Let us never fail to support those soldiers out there in the
field and those who are in training. This Parliament must resolve
to support them. Our Canadian soldiers will do their jobs but we
as the Canadian representatives in the Parliament of Canada
must do ours by supporting them in real terms.
Canada has been a nation that has played a major part in the
founding of the United Nations. Canada has played a major role
in the founding of NATO.
Madam Speaker, you are giving me my signal. I will give you
my closing remarks. Today, these two institutions are serving
mankind well. Let us remain as a team. Let us, as a responsible
nation in the free world, pull the other countries together and
work with them to bring peace to those troubled spots and to
bring decency and respect and decent living again to those poor
people in the former Yugoslavia.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your patience.
(2015 )
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Madam Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to participate in this debate tonight although I must
say I do so with minimal enthusiasm. This is the end of a rather
long personal road for me.
3366
I have always opposed the intervention by Canada or Canada's
allies in other people's wars but as of this time I have had to
change my outlook. Enough is enough.
Time after time in my lifetime the western world has stood by
compromised, temporized and allowed large numbers of people
to be butchered. We have the situation now in Gorazde in which
thousands of people are in imminent danger of death unless
somebody moves in from outside and helps them.
At this stage there is only one way that can be done and that is
with air strikes. There is no possibility on earth of getting
ground troops from anywhere into that area in time to help those
people.
I am not talking geopolitics here. I am talking humanitarian
efforts because those people will die en masse. There is no
question about it if the world does not do something. It has been
said many times here tonight that air strikes alone cannot solve
the problems in Bosnia. That is true but if they are executed
immediately they can save the people of Gorazde and that is
what counts.
There is no time for an ultimatum. There is no time for further
discussions. The necessary mechanics are already in place.
Warnings are not an option. Warnings have been given again and
again and they are no longer taken seriously. Air strikes have to
be not only immediate but unrelenting. Anything that moves,
tanks, field artillery, has to be taken out. Bridges have to be
taken down. Any kind of ammunition or field depot, anything
that helps the Serbian war effort, should be fair game in the
Gorazde area.
If that is done, if you punish them hard enough and fast
enough they, being normal human beings in some ways, will
have a self-protective instinct. They will move back. The
problem with this scenario is that there is also no time to pull out
our troops. If we are going to save Gorazde it has to be done now.
Our people cannot be taken to safe haven before the air strikes
are made.
Our field commanders on the ground must have the freedom
to do whatever they deem necessary to get our people out of
harm's way. If air strikes are executed we have to face as a
country and as a Parliament the fact there probably will be
Canadian casualties. It is inevitable and this is a responsibility
that the government with the support of apparently almost
everyone on the opposition side has to face up to.
We have all been briefed at great length on the inhospitable
terrain in that country for movement of troops, for normal
military manoeuvring. Even if we had large numbers of troops in
there we would still need the air strikes.
A lot of people I have spoken to who are military people
would agree that it does not necessarily follow that if we
escalate the war we must have hundreds of thousands of foreign
troops in Bosnia.
The Bosnian Muslims are there already. They have been
effectively disarmed by the embargo that we have imposed
supposedly against all of Yugoslavia. This has really had a
serious effect only on the people of Bosnia. They are the victims
of this. The Serbs one way or another have continued to get
arms. I presume they are able to make them because they have a
certain amount of industry intact. They have not had the war
rolling back and forth across their part of the country for two
years. They are getting them from elsewhere, they have to be.
(2020)
Let us lift the embargo. I think this is what the Bosnia
Muslims want. It would mean that we could help these people
without committing large numbers of western troops. Give them
a chance to die with dignity. They are dying anyway and they
will continue to die by the tens, perhaps the hundreds of
thousands if we do not give them the chance to help themselves.
I would urge, I would beg the government to take this to the
UN, take off the embargo. Give these poor devils a chance.
I notice that on this I am in complete agreement with the hon.
member for Regina-Qu'Appelle. I doubt if there is anyone in
North America with whom I have larger degrees of political
differences and I heartily concur with this. Let the Bosnian
Muslims have a chance to defend themselves.
First and foremost save the people of Gorazde. Stop making
idle threats. Stop giving ultimatums. Make the air strikes and
make them before it is too late.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Madam Speaker,
tonight members of Parliament have been asked to comment on
a very important and sensitive matter affecting the entire world.
The aggressions in Bosnia-Hercegovina continue to escalate
and now the Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, has asked Canada and others to consider, and the
operative word according to the minister is consider, the
advisability of further air strikes.
I think all members are very grateful that the government has
reserved this decision until it consulted with the House.
Tomorrow decisions will be made.
Why are we doing this? An Ottawa Citizen headline reads:
``Make Serbs Pay Price Says U.S.''. We have read these
headlines for months and months and the issues here are issues
of credibility in terms of making our decision, credibility of the
UN and whether it has taken appropriate action on a timely
basis; credibility of NATO and our NATO allies and whether
peacekeeping versus peacemaking has been properly addressed
here.
3367
Many members have said often in this House that we have no
peace in Bosnia and therefore how can we be peacekeepers. Our
Canadian troops are trained and equipped as peacekeepers, not
peacemakers.
As the minister mentioned earlier in the House, on April 18
the UN Secretary-General wrote to Manfred Woerner, the
Secretary General of NATO, requesting that the arrangement to
protect Sarajevo, a safe area, be extended to five additional
areas, being Gorazde, Srebrenica, Zepa, Tuzla and Bihac.
Gorazde, which is the area in which this aggression is now
taking place, is very close to the Serbian border, only a matter of
15 or 20 kilometres. Where are the Canadian troops? I want to
raise this because the previous speaker possibly raised some
concerns beyond the level which they should be at this time.
(2025)
Canadian troops are near the Croatian town of Gradacac. The
Princess Patricia Calgary Light Infantry is there. We also have
troops in the Bosnian town of Visoko, some 30 kilometres
northwest of Sarajevo. Right now our Canadian troops are not in
grave danger as a result of the present aggressions in and around
Gorazde. We do however have one officer, Major Stogran, in the
Gorazde area. His movements at this time are restricted.
Canadians have serious fears. Those fears have been growing
over the weeks and months. We all remember when some of our
Canadian peacekeepers were lined up in a mock firing squad
fashion. We also know the Serbs took some of our brave
Canadian peacekeepers hostage.
The Bosnian Serbs have not shown any signs of good faith at
any point during this period of aggression, despite the
international efforts to stop these atrocities against innocent
people. The Serbs have in fact demonstrated solely a thirst to
kill.
Before I came into the House this evening I asked for the
latest reports and they indicate that the Serbs have taken
Gorazde. Gorazde has fallen. There is house to house combat. I
am sorry to say that tomorrow we will likely read more statistics
about the carnage, atrocities and death of innocent people in that
Bosnian city.
Our fears as Canadians are also prompted by the fact that we
know what air strikes can do. There were air strikes in Sarajevo,
but the difference there was that there were ground troops to
support the air strikes. The situation in Gorazde is not as secure.
There is not the same kind of protection of ground troops, of
those people.
There have been many estimates of how many people have
died in this conflict. Now I am told that the number is
somewhere over 100,000 people who have lost their lives.
Tonight I asked defence officials how many people were in
Gorazde, how many Muslims were there in this so-called safe
area? We do not know how many people are there. All we know
is people have been going to safe areas in droves and no one can
possibly keep track. Estimates have been that in the range of
45,000 Muslims may be in Gorazde, but nobody knows.
What now? The UN, the Americans and most other partners in
the UN coalition have basically said that we need the right to go
forward with these strikes. How would they happen? They have
the ability. There are over 100 fighter aircraft ready to take part
in these strikes. They are in Italy. They are on aircraft carriers, et
cetera.
I have taken the time to consult with as many of my colleagues
as I could to find out what the sense was. There was unanimity
among all members and all parties, a serious concern for the
safety of our courageous troops in Bosnia.
I asked the minister's staff if I could have a copy of his
speech. I want to repeat the minister's concern about Canadian
troops because it is very important. Earlier today when he
commenced his speech he said: ``We have known from the start
that deploying forces in the former Yugoslavia meant exposing
our personnel to some risk. This concern has been with us since
the beginning of the mission. The situation in Srebrenica, as
well as the incident last week when 16 members of the Canadian
forces were detained by Bosnian Serbs, reminded us that the
risks were real''. He also said: ``As the UN and NATO
contemplate more vigorous action the safety of our troops will
continue to be a key consideration for the Canadian
government''.
It is critically important for Canadians to understand that the
government, the Official Opposition and the Reform Party have
all stated a sincere interest in protecting the interests of our
Canadian troops.
(2030 )
It is time to stop the senseless slaughter and the atrocities. We
do not need another Vietnam in our world. We need peace and
stability. We need international co-operation. We need Canada
to stand together with pride and with resolve with its UN
partners. We need to support our allies and accept the resolution
of the Secretary-General to consider air strikes against the
Bosnian Serbs.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Madam
Speaker, I rise this evening to take part in the special debate on
the situation in Bosnia not only as the member for
Brome-Missisquoi, but also and most of all, as a human being.
It is impossible not to be outraged when one sees atrocities like
those that have been perpetrated in the former Yugoslavia during
the last few months. We all agree that the situation cannot go on
and that we must take steps to put an end to those horrors.
3368
How then can we explain why Canada and the international
community have let that conflict deteriorate to the point where
Bosnia is now the scene of such savage and barbaric acts? The
present situation did not appear overnight in Bosnia. It has
evolved steadily since the beginning of the conflict while the
international community merely observed from a distance.
In the beginning, we were puzzled by the situation in the
former Yugoslavia, but there was no cause to send in troops yet.
Later on, rumours of ethnic cleansing made the conflict much
more disturbing. But there again, we preferred diplomatic
disincentives and negotiations. Afterwards, the bombing of
Sarajevo raised the confrontation to an unacceptable level of
unwarranted violence but still the UN forces refrained from
launching a massive intervention.
The international community's hesitation and procrastination
are the reason why we have reached a situation which is totally
unacceptable in a so-called civilized world. In fact, I find the
recent actions of the Serbian forces particularly revolting. How
can we let these people bomb residential areas and hospitals?
How can we still claim to try to solve this conflict by sending in
peacekeeping forces and advocating negotiations? After all,
Serbs showed long ago what little respect they have for the
agreements they sign. In fact, as the leader of the opposition said
earlier, they failed to keep their word 57 times in less than a
month. I cannot see how we would still want to negotiate with
such hypocrites.
Peacekeeping troops in Bosnia are no longer safe. The UN
Security Council must order air strikes on Serbian strongholds.
It must also send ground troops to help our peacekeepers in their
efforts to establish peace in that country. We can no longer be
content with observing from a distance without reacting. Serbs
have had every possible opportunity to prove their good faith,
and each time they turned around to attack civilian populations
even more viciously. The lives of hundreds of young children
and old people have been needlessly sacrificed.
Canada's position must be very clear. We must let the whole
world know that our country is prepared to take the necessary
measures to put an end to that conflict. So far, peacekeeping
forces may have managed to save lives, but their current
mandate is too restrictive to allow them to continue to do so
effectively. Indeed, the attitude displayed by Serbian forces
compels us to consider large-scale operations. We can no longer
give Serbs the benefit of the doubt, for too many human lives
have already been sacrificed because of our excessive tolerance.
(2035)
The destruction of Sarajevo was not enough to convince us of
the need for a strong military intervention. Today, it is the city of
Gorazde that is paying the price.
The American and Russian presidents have agreed to hold a
summit on this issue in the next month. How many schools and
hospitals will Serbian troops destroy during that period?
Yesterday again, 28 people died after the hospital in Gorazde
was bombed. We must therefore immediately put pressure on
those countries, because it is urgent for the innocent victims of
this conflict.
We just learned from a press report that one of the 10 speakers
invited to address the opening of a Security Council session
confirmed that the Bosnian Serb offensive in Gorazde is now
going from house to house. That is horrible.
In closing, I would like to remind the government that,
beyond our political differences, we as parliamentarians of a
peaceful country must show a powerful solidarity in this House
when the time comes to save human lives.
I am convinced that the people of Quebec and Canada will
support us without reservation in our effort. It is no longer time
for discussion; we must now act by hammering the Serbian
positions and forcing them if necessary to honestly negotiate an
agreement that will end this conflict which has already gone on
too long.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Madam Speaker, I rise with
some sadness this evening after hearing the news as members of
the caucus and of the House of Commons. Events have taken
place in a part of the world where people for the first time know
the inhuman deeds of the belligerents.
[English]
I must confess to the House that I was not one of those who
spoke in the previous debate with respect to the question of our
troops in Bosnia but I feel compelled for a variety of reasons to
put forward the best I can, as eloquently as I can, in as very quick
a time as I can, since many of the members in the House of
Commons will know that very few of us had a chance really to
prepare for lofty speeches. Madam Speaker, what you see is
what you get. It is the heart feeling, the mind feeling and the
reaction to what has taken place in a part of the world which
none of us in contemporary times will forget.
At the age of 16 I had the privilege of visiting Yugoslavia with
my godparents. I do not think it is important to suggest what
their background or their ethnic background may have been. The
reality is that those are villages and places that I once saw. I see
the people in those places living in such insufferable conditions
of inhumanity. This would not be the case if it were not for
Serbian aggression.
It seems to me that the arguments that have been put forward
suggest that we may not want to attack the Serbs because there is
some historical reticence on our behalf, that the Balkans has
always been a hot place on this planet, that every time there has
been a war it has always been very difficult and thousands if not
3369
millions of people have suffered. That historical excuse this
evening is simply not acceptable.
It has been suggested that the Wehrmacht army of the second
world war, the Nazis, as they invaded Yugoslavia or what was
then considered Serbia was not able to completely rid itself of
the opposition, that is the Serbian army. I must confess the Nazis
were the aggressors and not the Serbs.
(2040)
In April 1994 the Serbian army in Bosnia is indeed the
aggressor. They are indeed the belligerents. There may be other
options. I believe there is only one option at our disposal as a
country. That is to provide some kind of sanity to the very
difficult and senseless thing which is happening right now in
Gorazde.
Several weeks ago I had the opportunity along with many
members of the House of Commons of seeing the very moving
film ``Schindler's List''. That movie depicted an atrocity which
took place because good people stood by and did nothing, all
those except Oscar Schindler. Perhaps there are several Oscar
Schindlers in Canada this evening. Perhaps there are Oscar
Schindlers around the world. Ultimately however the difficulty
this issue presents us cannot be ignored and cannot be taken in
isolation of what has happened historically.
In 1941 we knew full well what was happening in Warsaw. We
saw the ghettoization of the Jewish people. We saw them
confined to an area where they would not be harmed, but at least
they were in a place where they would not affect anyone else. It
is interesting how history has so many parallels.
We have an obligation not to posterity, not to history but to
humanity in our time. Evil does prevail when good people stand
by and do nothing.
We may be on the cusp of a very difficult if not explosive
situation if we do not take into context that it is the Muslim
people, particularly the Bosnian Muslim people who are the
victims of this outrage.
We can talk about the UN not performing up to scratch. We
can talk about the United Nations not having done its homework
in terms of protecting these people, removing arms as so many
colleagues have talked of and leaving these people defenceless
in the promise they would be given a safe haven. That is fine and
I accept those. That is there for the record, but we now have a
chance to act.
We realize the Canadian troops may be in some difficulty. But
let us think about the Muslim blood which has been shed in that
part of the world. Those people have shown such patience in the
face of such outrageous angst and hatred. They find themselves
in the position of seeing more of the people who share their fate
decimated.
We can make the parallels with Kuwait and say: ``We
shouldn't do in Sarajevo, we shouldn't do in Bosnia, we
shouldn't do in Gorazde what we did in Iraq''. There is no such
thing as bad publicity in this case. We know the situation and the
suffering is very real. We have an obligation to address that
suffering and put aside the platitudes and the rhetoric.
I am a peaceful person but on this situation as a peaceful
member of this government I am so moved as to ensure that
dignity and respect for people's lives is well represented by this
country, Canada. We have an obligation. It is my hope we live up
to it.
[Translation]
We must not forget the lessons of history. We must act for
some fundamental reasons and these are to save lives when
possible. We have already invested time and weapons; we have
supported the United Nations. More must be done to protect
these people.
[English]
If I were standing here this evening with the many friends of
the Muslim community they would say to me: ``God be with
you, inch'allah''. I say to the ministers this evening, your
decision is is going to be a difficult one. Whatever decision you
make, I as a member of Parliament representing thousands of
people, support you in the test you now have to confront.
(2045 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster):
Madam Speaker, I want to concur with colleagues on both sides
of the House that this is not an occasion one looks forward to.
We know that events have transpired not only over the past few
hours but, as we have been made aware tonight, over many
weeks. In fact if we look back far enough, it has been over years
and decades. We are dealing with an area of the world that has
been the stage for much suffering, much violence and much
international tension.
I want to thank members of the other two parties, the Liberal
Party and the Bloc, for co-operating and allowing all members
to speak in this debate before serious decisions are made in the
upcoming hours. It brings credibility and strength to Parliament
to know that representatives of the people can take part in a
debate on a situation that affects all nations of the world. Several
hundreds of Canadian peacekeepers are directly affected by the
violence in the former Yugoslavia.
I also want to thank the Minister of National Defence and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs whom I respect for being patient.
They have been sitting here and listening to our concerns. I am
pleased they have expressed to us that they will take these
thoughts and expressions into consideration as they deliberate in
cabinet and make decisions regarding air strikes that may be
under way in the very near future.
3370
I was wondering as I sat here what Canadians were thinking
about tonight as they sense there are difficult decisions to be
made by our government and by other members of the United
Nations with regard to the former Yugoslavia. I am sure they
have watched the television newscasts at night and have been
angered, shocked and hurt as they saw the violence, the
ruthlessness and the needless bloodshed of innocent people in
the former Yugoslavia. They have seen the unfairness of one
side in a dispute that seems to have no lack of arms and another
side that seems to be unable to defend itself and no mercy being
shown.
I am sure Canadians tonight are very concerned about
Canadian troops currently serving in a peacekeeping role, what
may seem like an impossible role in the former Yugoslavia. We
certainly join with other members tonight in expressing concern
for our Canadian peacekeepers in this troubled area. We also
want to see wise decisions made that have their best interests at
heart.
With regard to the NATO air strikes, we have to consider what
options are available. We could probably consider three options.
As Canadians we could say: ``Let us go with NATO air strikes,
withdraw our troops, get them out of the country and see what
happens''. This would likely mean a greater chance of
preventing the injury or killing of Canadian peacekeepers. It
may add to the cost in human lives and suffering in the Bosnian
Muslim community.
We could say that we disagree with NATO air strikes on the
whole. Then we would have the problem of seeing ongoing
violence and the ongoing slaying of innocent people. We also
would have to realize that we have not solved the problem of
what we are going to do with our peacekeepers in the former
Yugoslavia.
Another option would be to support NATO air strikes but
perhaps initiate a circling of the wagons. In other words we
could support air strikes but do all we could to protect our own
peacekeepers serving in the dangerous area around Gorazde and
in other areas where there is potential violence and danger to
Canadians. We want to prevent, if we can, the chances of further
kidnappings of Canadian peacekeepers in the area.
I sensed from other members in the House, and I share the
opinion, that the third alternative is perhaps the best alternative.
Yes, if it is the decision of our fellow United Nation members
and if we have full input into the decision making process, we
should support air strikes as a means to bring an end to foolish
and senseless bloodshed.
(2050 )
Also, we need to take whatever steps we can to make sure that
our own peacekeepers have the most available and complete
means of protection possible to them. We have to facilitate their
protection. We have to facilitate a plan and a program for peace
in this war-torn area. I do not believe that we should abandon
our Canadian peacekeepers at any price because the United
Nations and NATO make the decision that we must initiate air
strikes in this war zone.
It is important that we consult with our United Nations
partners and our NATO partners to make sure that if we escalate
the military action in this region, we do not bear an unfair brunt
of the load. As members know, Canada has an excellent
peacekeeping reputation. We have put many of our peacekeepers
into several hot spots over the past few decades. We are proud of
the reputation that Canadian peacekeepers have built for
themselves and the tradition they have earned.
It is important that if we are going to continue to be involved
in this war-torn area, other nations that may also support air
strikes but that do not have the possibility of paying a human
price for support of that action be prepared to get involved in the
conflict and be prepared to be an instrument for peace and an end
to the foolish and senseless slaying of human lives.
We have to be realistic and realize that there is a danger that
some Canadian peacekeepers will be hurt or killed regardless of
what steps we take. There is no guarantee whether we commit to
air strikes or not that we will not see the potential danger for
some of our troops in this area.
We also have to be concerned about the long term situation in
that region and realize that we are seeing mass murder of
innocent people who are unable to protect themselves. It is
incumbent upon us as citizens of the world to be part of the
solution and propose steps we can take to ensure that the
defenceless Bosnians have some capacity to defend themselves
and that we impose some pressure on the aggressing Serbs to
convince them to come to their senses and cease to continue this
needless slaughter.
With our international status and a good conscience, we must
not totally abandon innocent Bosnian citizens. We could look
back and probably see a lot of mistakes that all parties including
Canada perhaps may have made. We can second guess ourselves
but we have come to the point where second guessing is not
going to provide solutions. We have come to a point of reality
where we must make hard decisions.
While we possibly have not put forward guidelines and, as
someone mentioned previously, drawn lines not just in the sand
but lines written in stone, if we made more direct moves as a
result of bad decisions made by the aggressors in that area, we
would not have reached the point that we have reached tonight.
It has happened and therefore we have to press on to try to
improve the world situation.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali originally called for a controlled
strike solely on artillery posts, tanks and mortar positions. We
understand that President Clinton has indicated that the strike
could incorporate elements of retaliation against Serb aggres-
3371
sion and we understand that NATO officials perhaps have even
suggested a stronger agenda.
If we are going to act we need to be decisive and we need to
make these actions make a difference. The last thing we want to
do is just scratch a festering wound and aggravate it rather than
perhaps do some deeper cutting in the situation, make a
difference, provide a clean cut that is possible to heal and bring
peace to a very hurting part of the world.
These are the thoughts that are going through Canadians'
minds tonight as they have been hearing the newscasts and
contemplating what the situation is in this area and what our
response should be. I believe they do want us to protect our
troops. I believe they do want us to help the innocent Bosnians. I
do believe they want to promote peace through proactive strikes
with the least bloodshed possible.
(2055)
While bombing may be our only remaining option, let us only
agree to the NATO strikes if we can establish the resolve and
dedication to a real and defined plan. We must also consider a
contingency plan in case no heed is taken of our action and the
violence continues.
When we step into the water we have to be prepared to get wet.
We have to be prepared to ford through some fairly deep waters
if we are going to accomplish the goal we intend to achieve.
Again I thank government members for this opportunity to
speak. I thank them for their respect for Parliament in allowing
Parliament to have a part in the decision making process. I wish
them wisdom and Godspeed in the difficult decisions that lie
before them.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Madam
Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening on
this important debate. I thank the last speaker, my friend
opposite, for his comments as well. It is significant that our
leadership has allowed us this opportunity.
Only this afternoon I participated in a panel discussion with
three other members of Parliament. The discussion was on
reforms to Parliament and the nature of Parliament itself. There
is much criticism of the quality of debate and the usefulness of
this kind of debate. I came back here to find that members of
Parliament from all parties were co-operating and participating
in assisting the leadership of our government in making what is
a difficult and in many ways terrible decision.
Like many Canadians I am not very knowledgeable in this
area. My interests primarily are at home, as you often hear me
say, right there in Windsor. Quite frankly this question, while it
is not one I am particularly well versed on, is one I felt prompted
to speak to tonight because of calls and reactions from my
constituents and because of my strong personal reaction to some
of these calls.
Like many Canadians I find the ethnic fighting in Bosnia and
the massacre of innocents who cared nothing for power or
politics or the stakes of the game to be abhorrent. Like many
Canadians I want it to stop. We have an obligation to be part of
the solution. I truly trust our leadership to take the right steps to
accomplish this.
However I also worry about our troops there. Only two weeks
ago Ryan Hendy, a grade 13 student at St. Anne's High School in
Tecumseh, Ontario in my riding, an 18 year old lad who is a
friend of mine and whose parents are friends of mine, came to
me. He is a member of the Essex-Kent Scottish Reserves. He
told me he had been asked to go to the former Yugoslavia. His
youth and his patriotism moved me to think a little more about
our troops there.
Canadians in Windsor-St. Clair and everywhere in this
country have taken pride in their armed forces, pride in those
young people stationed in Bosnia and elsewhere in the Balkans
during this conflict. Canadians watched in fear as our young
military men were held as hostages last week and breathed a sigh
of relief when they were released.
These anxieties are not distant. All of us in this House know
we have constituents who are somehow connected with people
in Bosnia. Many of us have friends or even family who are
connected there. We have constituents whose children are
serving there with the Canadian forces. We have constituents
who are members of the forces serving there. We have
constituents of Bosnian, Serb, Croatian and Muslim descent
who have relatives still living in that country.
Madam Speaker, one of your own constituents sent us a letter
today. Marina Gavanski Zissis is her name. She is a Canadian of
Serbian descent. She warns us of the danger of these air strikes.
Her greatest concern is for the Canadians on the ground. I quote
from her letter: ``But much more important is the safety of the
Canadians already in Bosnia''.
To my mind Mrs. Zissis makes a great point. We cannot ever
forget the safety of these people and the situation in which they
might be placed by remaining on the ground during an air strike.
The American forces will be undertaking this air strike. In my
opinion, for what it is worth, they do not have a good record
when it comes to casualties by friendly fire.
(2100)
We must consider these figures: 15 to 20 per cent of U.S.
casualties in the Vietnam war fell from friendly fire and 16 per
cent of U.S. casualties in the recent gulf war fell from friendly
fire. On April 14, 1994, two U.S. helicopters were shot down by
American jets, killing 26 military and civilian personnel.
3372
This time it will be our troops and innocent Bosnian civilians
on the ground. It is not a textbook battleground. It is not a desert
where we can see the good guys on one side and the bad guys on
the other. The fighting is taking place in and around urban
enclaves containing thousands of civilians and our Canadian
troops.
I am not a military expert. I am not even very knowledgeable
about these matters, but I am a very concerned citizen and
member of the House. I know we must stand with our allies. I
know if we and our allies walk away we leave thousands of
innocent people to a slaughter.
I have faith in our leadership. I have faith in the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime
Minister. I am satisfied that they will guide us well and ably in
this decision, but I remind them to remember that it is our people
on the ground and to take care of them too.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Madam
Speaker, I would like to begin by stressing how important it is
for us to have this debate this evening. It is an opportunity for
members of all parties to express their indignation about the
intolerable situation that exists today in Bosnia, and it is also an
opportunity for parliamentarians to show the minister and the
government that we are all united in a cause that goes beyond
partisan interests and our differences on other issues, because I
believe that all parliamentarians here today share a desire to see
all parts of the world at peace and to put an end to the slaughter
in Bosnia.
There are certain facts we should remember. There have been
many ceasefires in that region. Ceasefires that were never
observed by the Bosnian Serbs who, today, continue to attack
civilian targets. Ceasefires which in some ways have allowed
the Bosnian Serbs to continue their offensive before the ink was
dry on the documents they had signed, in a hypocritical fashion.
Today, we must do better than ceasefires where one party is
acting in bad faith and the other has been disarmed. We must
send a clear message. In this respect, the Sarajevo strategy
which apparently will be proposed by President Clinton is the
only strategy we feel is realistic as a means to put an end to this
conflict. The strategy is to send a clear ultimatum to the Bosnian
Serbs, with the shortest possible grace period, after which we,
that is NATO and the UN must intervene and target the heavy
artillery of the Serbs, an ultimatum, as we were saying, that
would mean all cities and enclaves recognized as safe areas
would have to be respected as such.
We would also have to demand guarantees for the
peacekeepers. It is true that so far, Canada has intervened more
frequently than other countries. I think we must remind other
countries that although air strikes are necessary-in fact, we
will support them-the fact remains that Canadian and Quebec
soldiers are in position at the present time. If these air strikes
are to be accompanied by additional ground troops, the other
countries will have to participate, because Canada has already
done more than its share in this respect.
It is also true that air strikes may put our soldiers at risk,
which is a real possibility, although the present situation is not
any better, since our soldiers are in danger at the present time.
Last week's hostage taking is a case in point. Besides, we cannot
remain silent and powerless in the face of this situation.
(2105)
We have even more reason to be concerned about the tragic
events in Bosnia given that this region of the world has
historically been the site of war. Ethnic conflicts between
different countries have today moved into another realm,
namely that of religious wars. We must not lose sight of the rise
of Islamic extremism, not only in Bosnia, of course, but also in
the former Soviet republics of Tadzhikistan, Uzbekistan and
Azerbaijan. The zone in question extends to China, stretching
from Europe all the way to Asia and including the Middle East.
When I refer to the rise of extremism, I am not talking only
about Islamic extremism. Right-wing extremists are also
making their presence felt in France, Germany, Italy and Russia.
I mention Russia because we all realize that Russia has a unique
role to play in this conflict, since the Serbs and the Russians
share Slavic roots and throughout history, alliances have been
forged and in turn broken in this region. The situation is all the
more serious given that right-wing fascist forces in Russia are
now challenging President Yeltsin.
Nor should we forget that World War I began in this region,
only to spread to the entire world. We should also remember the
mistakes that were made by western democracies in the 1930s,
mistakes which led to the rise of nazism and fascism. These
democracies remained silent, at times motivated by pacifism,
albeit blind pacifism. We made the mistake of letting Hitler
invade parts of the world, triggering off a world war. We cannot
afford to let the Serbs start a world war today.
While the cold war may be over, there are regional conflicts in
some parts of the world that have the potential to start a
worldwide conflict and this conflict in particular appears to be
more serious and dangerous than any other around the world
right now. That is why the UN and NATO must define their roles
further. Of course, they must be discussion forums to instill a
spirit of peace worldwide. But they could go further, especially
when it is obvious that negotiations are going nowhere, that
some of the parties are talking for the sake of talking and
hypocritically failing to act on their promises and commitments.
3373
It must also be noted that Russia has a major role to play in
this conflict. Of course NATO can send out a unit, but this unit
will be made stronger by the support of Russia, and vice versa. If
Russia does not take a clear stand, get involved and play its role
with the Bosnian Serbs, it is obvious that NATO's position and
that of the UN will not be as strong as they could be.
We must-and it may sound paradoxical-impose peace. But
we must also plan ahead and look toward the reconstruction
effort that will be needed in that part of the world. For me,
imposing peace means ensuring it of course, but more
importantly, once that is done, democracy will have to be
brought to that part of the world because these people have not
known democracy, never have or at least not for a very long
time. They used to live in dictatorial regimes, particularly in the
U.S.S.R. and in Yugoslavia as well.
We must also be aware that peace can only be maintained
through coherent economic development and, to that end, our
international organizations will have to become more than mere
discussion and diplomacy forums in the future, their role will
have to expand beyond that of policing the world, to include
making sure we do not have to maintain forces wherever
military intervention is requested.
We have not reached that point yet, but any military
intervention, even short-lived or immediate, cannot be carried
out without thinking of its long term effects.
(2110)
The fact remains that for the time being, no plan can be made
for the future if a country such as Canada, as a western
democracy, does not impose peace. Such is the situation, peace
cannot be achieved without us imposing it.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Madam
Speaker, I speak to this issue deeply troubled because I have
listened to the debate this evening and the one thing that is very
clear is there is no easy solution. Whatever way we go in this
situation there will continue to be killing. There will continue to
be strife in Yugoslavia and we will continue to be at risk with not
only our soldiers but soldiers from other countries of the world.
I would like to look at a couple of points and express in my
way how I feel about this dilemma. I am actually opposed to an
air strike, certainly an air strike that is not tied to a strong show
of ground forces. An air strike in Bosnia at this time might
knock out some hardware but it will not knock out the Serbian
troops gathered around the enclave.
I think the example of history tells us that the more an
invading force is injured, the more likely it is to resort to
atrocities when it finally does conquer. If the Bosnian Serbs
suffer casualties from our air strikes there will be no doubt they
will take their anger out on the Muslim civilians as soon as they
occupy the city.
The other side of that equation is if we do not have an air strike
what is the consequence of that? What we face then is sending a
message to the Bosnian Serbs and any other peoples around the
world who would like to resort, shall we say, to a military
venture that we are helpless and they are able to do whatever
they wish. We could expect to see this type of action spread
around the world and certainly our chances of preserving the
other five enclaves in the former Yugoslavia would be just about
impossible.
Therefore, I do not envy the decision that is facing our
ministers this night, nor the decision facing the other members
of NATO as they wrestle with this very difficult decision.
Where do we go from here? Regardless of whether we have air
strikes in Bosnia we are facing civil war. Again as an example of
history, wherever you look in history, the absolute lesson is that
you cannot intervene successfully in a civil war. The combatants
in a civil war will fight it out.
I give the example of Afghanistan where the Soviet Union at
the height of its power tried to intervene and it was a complete
failure. It had to pull out. The classic example is Vietnam which
really was a civil war all along. Again, one of the most powerful
nations in the world failed to really effect any kind of outcome
there.
There are many examples, Sri Lanka for one. What would we
do in Sri Lanka? We cannot change the course of history in Sri
Lanka. These are ethnic hatreds which we fought over. Rwanda
is another one. What can we do there? What we are looking at
here is a situation that is increasingly going to face the
democracies of this world as the countries of the world resort to
more and more tribalism and more and more ethnic fighting.
I would like to say something with respect to our 2,000
soldiers in the former Yugoslavia. I remind the government of
Hong Kong and what happened there when we sent troops just
before the Japanese declaration of war in 1941. Our Canadian
troops fought bravely. When we look back on that incident we
realize that they not only did not affect the outcome of the war,
they did not affect the outcome of Japanese intentions. If
anything, it cost more casualties. If there had not been a fight for
Hong Kong there would have been fewer deaths in that area. We
have to ask ourselves about that.
(2115 )
I strongly believe that the tradition of the Canadian troops is
to be brave, to help the disadvantaged and to intervene but
always as peacekeepers. I do not see us as a nation of
combatants. I really do caution our government if it feels it is
drawn into a situation where our troops may have to join with
other NATO troops in a role that goes far beyond peacekeeping.
3374
Finally, I would like to direct a comment toward the question
of ethnic hatred. One thing that we should be very clear about is
what is happening in Yugoslavia and we can take this to
Afghanistan, Vietnam and many, many other countries is that we
are not dealing with something that has anything to do with race,
colour or visible minorities and we are not dealing with anything
that necessarily has anything to do with religion. Muslims and
Christians world-wide in many countries coexist most happily
and indeed there is much in their religions that teaches them that
they ought to cohabit.
What is happening in Yugoslavia is a return to the wrongs of
the past. I think if you look at most ethnic fighting you will find
it is because the people in the present are looking to the past and
they are deriving the hatreds of the past. Instead of looking to
the future or looking to the present and seeing what can unite
them today, they look to the wrongs of long ago, sometimes even
centuries ago.
What I would like to say in this debate is that I hope all of us
worldwide, but most especially this country, take heed of that
fact and remember not to look to the past for what went wrong
and the wrongs we did to one another in the past, but to look to
the future and what can unite us.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Madam
Speaker, I am struck tonight by the relative brevity and great
relevance of the remarks to this issue and what appears to be a
growing concern in this House on both sides as to where our
government should take us over the next few hours in dealing
with this very difficult issue of the request for the possible use of
air strikes in and around Gorazde and other places in Bosnia.
The views expressed here tonight I am very sure will provide
great strength to the members of the cabinet, our government,
when they make their decision, a very difficult decision but one
that they are charged with and one which will bind inevitably all
of us as Canadians, those who pay taxes, those who wear
military uniforms, those who have relatives abroad and
Canadians in all walks of life.
What we see here tonight is a Parliament at work expressing
the views of Canadians for the benefit of a government which
shortly must act. As I understand it there are a number of other
countries in this world which are waiting for Canada to make up
its mind. We are on the verge of that now as we speak.
I think most of the issues that one would have wanted to deal
with here tonight have been dealt with extremely well by my
colleagues. There are only two that I will refer to. It is the often
heard statement that we should not get involved in this kind of a
war because we cannot win it. We would prefer to be involved in
a peace. Let us not turn this into another Vietnam.
In this particular case I do not think the intention is to get
involved in a war. No one intends to invade Bosnia. What we are
dealing with is not even the whole country of Bosnia. What we
are dealing with is five safe havens, five places where the world,
through the United Nations, told Bosnians, principally Bosnian
Muslims, that they had safe haven. At the time we were
developing that thesis we also, maybe for good reason, imposed
an arms embargo. We said they may not have the arms to protect
themselves, we will stop arms from getting to them but we will
also put some blue helmets on the ground and have some safe
havens. In the end I think we had five safe havens.
(2120)
We created them. We set up the arms embargo and now the
people there numbering in the tens of thousands-in this
particular case tonight as we speak it is Gorazde-of men,
women and children without weapons to defend themselves. We
are watching and some of us are saying we should not be there. I
say we are there and we must stay there to finish our
commitment.
We cannot walk away and leave those men, women and
children to the guns that are advancing. References have been
made in this House tonight to other incidents in history in which
maybe we should have been there but we were not. Suffice it to
say that we are there because, although we might rather not be,
we wanted to be there and we have a job to do. I say we must
finish and deliver on our commitment.
The second thing I want to say is that there are millions of
people all over the world watching what is happening in Bosnia
with a slightly different perspective than that of most
Canadians. One cannot help but notice that the majority of the
people in Gorazde and in the safe havens are Muslims, people of
the Muslim faith. They have lots of brothers and sisters here in
Canada and they are also looking at the world. They are looking
to see if other countries of the world, those that have the money,
the guns, the resources, the morality, the guts, the principles, are
willing to stand by and protect the lives of those tens of
thousands of people.
The fact that they are of the Muslim faith is very relevant to
the whole world. There are millions of people all over the world
who will be watching to see how we Canadians stand up for the
principles, the morality which we have espoused since the
beginning of this country.
I want to close and mention the bad words air strike. This is a
mechanism, this is a method by which we are informed by the
experts, by the people who know about these things, that we may
be able to fulfil our commitment. It will not achieve it by itself.
It may enable us to accomplish those very limited goals of
protecting the safe havens.
3375
We do not want to micro-manage what happens there on a
minute by minute basis or even on a day by day basis. We are
asked to say yes to the use of that instrument and I am prepared
to say yes.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Madam Speaker,
as I rise to support the motion before us that air support to
protect the five safe areas in Bosnia be endorsed by Canada, I
recall a lesson I learned as a boy which strikes to the heart of my
feelings about the issue before us.
My mother used to tell me and my brothers and sisters you do
not achieve through war that which you can achieve through
peace. She added there are also times when you must wage war
to achieve that peace. That is a lesson that I have continued to
pass on to my four sons.
(2125 )
Canada has never been an aggressive nation. We certainly
would prefer to see the conflict in the former nation of
Yugoslavia resolved by peaceful means, but the aggressors have
continued their crimes against humanity.
Canada is a nation marked by unyielding compassion and a
deeply ingrained commitment to human rights, to peace and to
the promotion of freedom and democracy worldwide. I realize
the House encompasses a remarkably broad range of ideologies
and personal convictions, but tonight I am witnessing the unity
of hearts and minds. The palpable unanimity of views we have
seen emerging tonight speaks volumes about the need for
Canada to endorse the use of air support in defined safe areas in
Bosnia.
At this juncture I would like to commend and to pay tribute to
the brave Canadian troops who are there to continue to serve the
cause of peace. Throughout its history Canada has made the
right decision at the most difficult times.
For the Croatians and Muslims in Gorazde and in the former
Yugoslavia these are the most difficult of times. Indeed these are
also the most difficult of times for all peace loving people in the
world.
It is always agonizing to support a military manoeuvre which
may fan the flames of a war we have sought to extinguish, but we
cannot long endure the blatant disregard of human life, of
human dignity, practised daily by the Bosnian Serbs.
At a time when barriers to freedom have been torn down, at a
time when the Berlin wall has been levelled and the iron curtain
folded, it pains us to see the savagery of war perpetrated by the
Serbs in that part of the world.
The eyes of the world cannot be blind to the atrocities taking
place in that area. Our unequivocal support tonight for the
United Nation's request to extend air support in safe areas in
Bosnia would send a clear signal to the aggressors.
Many of history's great minds have shared their thoughts with
mankind on the subjects of war and peace. Two weeks ago I was
at the United Nations in New York participating in a forum of
human development. At a nearby book store a volume titled
Peace in 100 Languages caught my eye and I bought one. The
book reminds me that peace is a universal sentiment. It can be
expressed in different languages, but the sentiment is
nevertheless the same: human understanding.
I am reminded tonight of the words of the great U.S. President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt who once said: ``When peace has
been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries is in danger''.
I am reminded tonight of the words of Aristotle: ``Peace is
more difficult than war''.
I am reminded tonight of the words of Albert Einstein: ``Peace
cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by
understanding''.
Lastly I am reminded tonight of Mahatma Gandhi who once
said: ``It is possible to live in peace''.
It is our hope. We do not want to wage war to achieve peace,
but there are difficult times when we have to wage war to
achieve peace.
(2130)
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Madam
Speaker, I think all Canadians, and certainly all those
participating in this debate, share a feeling of revulsion towards
this horrible slaughter occurring almost in front of us, since we
see the same scenario every night on TV: massacres, a total lack
of respect for human life, inexplicable violence.
Looking at all this, we wonder what makes people resort to
such cruelty. As a man, I noticed that it is mostly the doing of
men. In fact, almost all the people waging war in Bosnia,
Somalia and Rwanda are men. When we look back, we see that
all wars have been fought by men.
[English]
In Bosnia not only are the Bosnians hostages to the violence,
but so too are the Canadian soldiers, soldiers from other nations
and indeed the whole world at large. All of us cannot be innocent
of this conflict. No matter where we live, we cannot help but be
impacted by the tremendous tragedy taking place.
Canadians should be proud that Canada in its time-honoured
tradition has continued to do its part. In fact it has done much
more than its share in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia.
Tonight our thoughts must go to the Canadian soldiers on the
ground in Bosnia, to their families here at home, including their
children who must be living very anxious hours.
3376
I think I translate the feelings of most Canadians. We have a
great friendship and a tremendous regard and respect for our
neighbours to the south, the Americans. At the same time I sense
from many Canadians that they do not think the Americans have
played their part in Bosnia. They think that somehow the
Americans have played a cosy game, that resorting to air strikes
mostly by American pressure and with American war planes will
be part of the American agenda because it is partly a political
agenda: Let us not send ground troops there, so let us carry out
bombing raids.
I wonder if it is normal that the smaller of the two North
American partners has had troops on the ground for many, many
months whereas the far more powerful and important partner has
managed to escape the responsibility of sending ground troops
for so many months. Is it also normal that many countries have
managed to cosily stand aside finding excuses not to take part in
the United Nations peacekeeping effort?
The great majority of us, perhaps all of us simply dread an
escalation of the war. We dread another bombing raid. We
wonder about the possible failure of bombing raids. Would
failure leave not only the Bosnians and their families but all our
troops even more vulnerable than they are today?
(2135 )
It is with a sense of a tremendous tearing apart of our minds
and hearts that we face this terrible decision. What do we do? I
think certainly it is essential for us to make sure that no decision
is taken without the Russians having their say and being
involved. Even if I happen to be completely opposed to the idea
of an air strike, seeing this I realize that decisions like this
cannot be black and white.
I listened very carefully to our two leading ministers on this
issue, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of
Defence, this afternoon in caucus and I was struck by their sense
of caution, of wisdom, of realizing that there is no easy solution.
I know that tonight the Prime Minister and our two ministers
must be thinking through this terrible dilemma that faces all of
us. In their case they are the people who have the decision to
make. Who am I to say that it should be one way or another
without the proper facts at my command, without the
responsibility to answer for whatever I say?
I trust our leadership. I think it has been wise. It has been
cautious so far. It has been extremely human in its approach.
Whatever the decision may be, and if it has to be bombing raids
after much thought, sad as I would be, I would understand that it
was made with a feeling that it may be the last resort to try and
stop the Serbians.
If this is what our leaders decide, I hope at the same time they
will add some caveats to the Canadian position asking others,
especially the United States, to do their share; asking President
Clinton for more than bombing raids and sending troops there. If
we can send 2,000 troops surely he can send 3,000 or 4,000 or
5,000 or 10,000.
I hope that our leaders convince the rest of the nations that are
not participating in the issue on Bosnia to do their fair share.
Finally, we must draw lessons from all of this. What of the
United Nations strategy? What happens in the future? What are
the lessons to be drawn from Somalia, from Rwanda and today
from Bosnia and tomorrow maybe from many other places? Can
we police the world? Can we keep the peace all over the world?
What should be our strategy for the future?
[Translation]
Tonight I must say, as a man, that I feel very sad thinking that
it is men like me who have carried out practically endless
slaughters in many parts of the world, be it in Africa, in
Northern Ireland or today in Yugoslavia.
I notice that the innocent victims of these acts of violence are
invariably women and children. So tonight we should look
mostly at the innocent people and pray that our leaders will
make wise decisions, as they did in the past, to keep our troops
safe and save the lives of innocent people.
[English]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Madam
Speaker, this debate is a difficult one for many of us and I would
like to briefly in the few minutes I have remind Canadians that
the House has been asked to consider a request contained in the
UN Secretary General's April 18 letter to the Secretary General
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to extend
arrangements similar to those in place to protect Sarajevo and
five other UN safe areas in Bosnia.
(2140 )
NATO had previously agreed to provide air-ground support
only for self defence of our forces, NATO forces and the United
Nations protection force, in order to facilitate certain things
such as rotation of UNPROFOR troops and to protect Sarajevo
which as we know was designated as an exclusion zone as of last
February.
An exclusion zone differs from a safe haven because in the
latter case, safe haven, the Bosnian-Serb forces in an exclusion
zone are required to withdraw their heavy weapons beyond 30
kilometres or to hand them over to UNPROFOR, UN forces.
I understand from what I hear and know of the situation today
that President Clinton has apparently suggested that all the safe
havens become exclusion zones, that sanctions be reinforced
and that a summit meeting be called.
3377
NATO is to meet tomorrow to consider what to do. If we agree
with the proposal, it would demonstrate to the Bosnian Serbs
and others who have questioned the UN's credibility that the
international community is serious about backing its words with
actions. It could possibly, as it did in Sarajevo, deter attacks on
other safe havens.
If we do not agree, we could be accused of doing nothing to
prevent ethnic cleansing, aggression. We could even be accused
of genocide. If we do not agree, the action may be too little, too
late and it would not prevent the Bosnian Serbs from continuing
with their inhumane actions against other human beings.
If we did not agree, it would put our forces at risk. It would
possibly create a situation that would be untenable for many
people in the former Yugoslavia. I find it very difficult
nevertheless to support air attacks because as we know in any
type of initiative of that nature, it has two consequences.
First, any air attack that is not supported by good ground
support in my view is not very effective. Second, it would
change our role in the UN forces from a peacekeeping to a
peacemaking role and I am not sure that Canadians today would
endorse that kind of initiative.
[Translation]
Keep in mind some of the reasons for which we sent our troops
to Bosnia under the United Nations flag. First, to support
peacekeeping in that region of the world and, second, for
humanitarian reasons. Everyone will recall the difficulties we
had in bringing humanitarian support to Sarajevo. I do not need
to remind Canadians of the difficulties UN forces had to
overcome in this conflict.
We must remember that Canada has in the past expressed
serious reservations about the use of air strikes. In our opinion,
the problem cannot be solved by air strikes; we look instead to a
negotiated solution. Let us not forget that the international
community must consider the effect this decision will have on
the peace process. In the end, a lasting peace can only be a
negotiated peace, unless the international community is ready to
impose peace by force.
At this time, UN forces in the field are neither equipped nor in
a position to enforce peace. Whatever decision the international
community will reach tomorrow must be credible in my eyes
and in those of the Canadian and international communities. We
should not make statements that cannot be backed up. Whatever
the decision, air strikes do not, in my opinion, meet these two
criteria for making peace unless we go all the way.
I do not think the Americans, who do not have any military
troops in the field at this time, can tell us once again to go there
while they stay home. So the Americans' contribution to the
land forces is an important consideration. I think that Russia
should be ready to participate and that it should have an
important role to play in this conflict. If I understood Mr. Yeltsin
correctly, he is ready to accept a summit meeting and that is very
positive.
I for one think that Canada must support Mr. Clinton's and Mr.
Yeltsin's proposal for a summit meeting where we will be
certainly present. I am among those who approve a negotiated
position. I can honestly say I am against violence and air strikes.
I don't think we would accomplish much with such measures.
I agree with those who are totally convinced that negotiation is
the way to go and that we must draw these people to the
negotiating table because otherwise we are heading straight for
a disaster; history will repeat itself. I say so with great sorrow
and hesitation since I know my opinion is contrary to that of
many colleagues in this House. Air strikes are not the solution to
this problem; we will have to negotiate and not use force.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): As there are no more
speakers, pursuant to the order adopted earlier this day, the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.48 p.m.)