Debates of March 29th, 1995

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Cochrane—Superior, ON]

Telephones help.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

As the member for Cochrane-Superior says: "Telephones help". He has a particular problem given the geographic size of his riding. The country is enormous. Members of Parliament have a particularly difficult role to play, a multifaceted role that involves more than sitting in Ottawa and doing the work demanded of them in this place.

I will continue with the subject of the Constitution.

I would like to comment on what the hon. member for Bellechasse said in his speech today and also on what he said Monday in connection with his motion in amendment to this bill.

It is clear that what he wanted to change was really a section of the Canadian Constitution, not a section of this bill. He argued that he wanted a change that would give the Province of Quebec a minimum level of representation or at least 25 per cent of the members. This kind of change would require an amendment to the Constitution Act. Two sections are affected by this proposal, one of which is section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and I would like to read it to the hon. member, although I am sure he has already read it: "The Number of Members of the House of Commons may be from Time to Time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate Representation of the Provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed".

A change of the kind he proposed would clearly change the ratios established by the current legislation with respect to representation of the provinces. This means that to make the proposed change, we would have to amend the Constitution.

The other section that is crucial to this matter is section 42(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which reads as follows: "An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with paragraph 38(1)(a)". One such matter is "the principle of proportional representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada".

So we cannot make changes except "in accordance" with section 38. Section 38(1) provides for "resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons; and resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces".

So, it would be very difficult to make such a change in the Constitution. We tried to during the debate and the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, but the Canadian people did not want it. I am surprised today that the hon. member for Bellechasse and his party supported such a change to Canada's constitution, after opposing the Charlottetown accord.

The accord would have guaranteed Quebec 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, but they opposed it. What happened? Why are they supporting this amendment to the Constitution in the House today? This is nothing more than a game for them. They are not sincere in proposing such a motion in this House. Oh yes, indeed. And look who proposed the motion: a party that has decided it will not be here after the referendum.

If this party wins the referendum, Quebec will separate from Canada. If it loses, its leader has promised he will resign, and all his members will do the same. How can they propose a change like this to guarantee Quebec a minimum number of seats here in the House, when they do not plan to stay? What is the problem here? I do not understand the position of the Bloc Quebecois on this matter. I would also suggest that the remarks of the hon. member for Bellechasse are just another attempt to confuse the issue and give a boost to the separatists' campaign to help them catch up.

Clearly they have problems, and some other issue must be found for Quebec electors, an issue of no importance to anyone.

Everybody in Canada would be happy to ensure adequate representation for every part of the country, but the hon. member for Bellechasse in his speech criticized the fact that Prince Edward Island had a guarantee of four seats. He used that as an argument to suggest that somehow other provinces should also have guarantees.

If we all had guarantees of a minimum percentage we would never make any changes in the representation. Everybody in the House including the hon. member for Bellechasse supported the notion of representation by population in the discussions in the committee. Clause 19 of the bill provides for effective representation based on population. It is the guiding principle for redistribution and was supported by all members. He supports that principle and he knows it.

By his amendment he is trying to raise a red herring that has nothing to do with the bill. It is really an amendment to the Constitution of Canada that he would like to get and that frankly he opposes in relation to certain other provinces that are very small.

I share his views. I do not think anybody should have a minimum number of seats in the House. We should be dealing

with fairness and representation and trying to get the very best maps we can so that members have an area they can represent that is manageable and that allows them to do a good job in the House for all the country. That is our aim.

With great respect I invite hon. members opposite to rethink their negative thoughts on the bill, look at the good side of it and support it.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has made a few errors. At one point, I almost thought I was hearing Flora MacDonald. Now really, we do understand that the riding may remain the same, but we do at least expect the incumbents to change. Indeed, Mrs. MacDonald did once hold the seat; now it is the hon. member and, one day, there will be somebody new there. If voters do not ensure this happens, nature surely will, as it will for me one day too.

Something remains to be clarified and corrected. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said that the amendment proposed by the official opposition on the issue of minimum guaranteed representation for Quebec would change the Constitution of Canada in an unorthodox way, that we cannot proceed in this fashion and that we should use the 7-50 rule, which is 7 provinces representing 50 per cent of the population of Canada, plus the two federal Houses. This is the way he suggests we do it, even though we clearly indicated that under the circumstances this is not the way to go.

The amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois would have changed the text of subclause 16(2) of the bill to the following-I am sure that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will be listening to this: "On receipt by the Chief Electoral Officer of a return referred to in subsection (1) in respect of a decennial census, the Chief Electoral Officer shall calculate the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned to each of the provinces, subject and according to the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the rules provided therein''. And our amendment would add that: ``and, notwithstanding the foregoing, when by application of this subsection the number of members to be assigned to the Province of Quebec is less than 25 per cent of the total number of members in the House of Commons, the Chief Electoral Officer shall assign at least 25 per cent of the total number of members to the Province of Quebec''. That is the amendment which would have guaranteed us 25 per cent of all seats.

Our amendment refers directly to a constitutional amendment; by our wording we are modifying section 51. Did we have the right to propose this amendment from a constitutional point of view? The question has been raised before the courts. I will provide my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands with a copy of the decision in Campbell vs. Attorney General of Canada, reported in 1985-49BLR, 4th edition, page 321. Five judges of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the federal Parliament had the authority to make laws, and that it could make laws with respect to the criterion of proportional representation, bearing in mind that proportional representation must be interpreted in the Canadian sense of the term, not in a rigid, mathematical sense, but in the context of Canadian history. This was the ruling of the honourable judges of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Campbell .

The legislative authority on which the official opposition's amendment is based is section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. I would remind members that section 44 does not specify exactly how we in the federal Parliament are to use our authority to amend the Constitution of Canada within our areas of jurisdiction. Are we to change its wording directly or by reference? We are making a reference to the wording. As the Constitution does not specify a method, either, in my opinion, is acceptable.

In concluding, I would like to ask the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands a question of principle. Setting aside the constitutional arguments that could occupy us for hours, why does the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands not wish to see the people of Quebec, as one of the founding races of this country in 1867, retain this critical mass of 25 per cent of the number of members, which gives it the power to influence certain decisions?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the position of the hon. member concerning section 44 of the Constitution is wrong. It is obvious that the operative words in this case are "principle of representation by population" and I do not need to quote the section again in this House; the words are quite clear. We can change certain things concerning representation in this House but not the principle of representation by population for the provinces. That can be changed only if census figures warrant it under the regulations if it is in section 51 of the Constitution.

I am a firm believer in the concept of the two founding races. I believe fully that the partnership that created our country and has caused it to prosper and develop is a fundamental part of our Constitution. I have absolutely no reluctance in recognizing that principle.

I do not share the hon. member's view that the only way to do it is to accord a guaranteed minimum number of seats to one of the provinces. I do not like the minimum guarantees that we have for seats in the House. There may be other ways to do it,

perhaps by a minimum number of seats in the Senate or by some other method.

I firmly believe that the House should be elected on the basis of representation by population. I have always been a believer in that principle. I stick by it.

There are conflicts of principles now and again in the way we do things. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster in his speech referred to the principle of representation by population. I am a firm believer in it and so is the hon. member in his heart of hearts. I know he does not like the minimums that are already there. I do not either. I would prefer to see those changed.

I recognize there are certain political realities in Canada by which we have to abide. I am not anxious to engage in changes to those realities without an overall view of how the Constitution could be changed in various ways.

The Charlottetown accord was an attempt to do that. The hon. member opposed it. I supported it with some reluctance. I did not like parts of it. However in it was the 25 per cent minimum. I supported Charlottetown. I am prepared to support Charlottetown again if I have to. I would prefer not to. I would prefer a better deal. I think we can get a better deal some day.

We are not into Constitution making now. Canadians are fed up with Constitution making. In my view we ought not to be engaging in it here in a roundabout way, as the hon. member suggests, and which I suggest is illegal.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member for Kingston and the Islands respond to the hon. member for Bellechasse he was arguing for and against himself. He reiterated what I said in my speech.

He alluded a bit to some constitutional changes that would be necessary if we were to reduce the number of members in the House. We discussed this in committee. As the member for Calgary West very adequately explained to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, any constitutional changes would be minimal and could be done within the confines of the House. They do not require the very complicated and difficult amending formula to authorize the changes. It would be necessary to deal with the grandfather clause which prohibits an equitable reduction in the size of the House.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre, who had some input at committee in the bill, used California as an example of a jurisdiction in the United States with a population equal to the population of our entire country which at the federal level only has, if I remember correctly, 56 federal members to represent nearly 30 million people.

His argument that we need 294 MPs at the federal level to adequately administer this country does not hold water. Both our system and our capabilities are equal or perhaps superior to those of the politicians in the state of California.

I have a concern the hon. member did not address and to which I would like him to respond. We have thrown away $5 million. We are going to draw new maps after the bill is passed. Given the population shift in the province of Ontario, I am quite sure that the results may be very similar to the results we saw when the maps came out in the former process. In those maps northern Ontario lost one seat. Perhaps now with the population changes it will lose two seats and the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior will have a larger riding and another member will not have a riding at all.

How is the hon. member's government going to respond when the maps come out again? The results could be even less favourable to his members than they were this past time. Will they again demand changes? Is the government going to again delay the process and bring in new legislation to try to get the maps drawn the way those members want them?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some pretty far-reaching assertions in the course of his remarks. I want to go back to the California example he cited, although he did not specifically ask me a question on it.

He suggested that because in California members of the house of representatives represent huge numbers of people that we should do the same. I do not agree that the American experience is one that we necessarily need to follow. We have never done so in the past on major political matters. I do not know why we would today.

The hon. member, in reflecting on this issue, would agree with me that the American political experience has not been all roses either. He points to the parts of it he likes and says this is what we should do. However he ignores the disadvantages that their system affords, which are significant.

Canadians do not expect their members of Parliament to represent huge numbers of people. They feel they are well represented now with a House of reasonable size. Based on population we have always had a fairly large House compared to the United States and I am sure we are going to continue to have for the foreseeable future.

The second part of his question was about the proposals we have here and if the commissions are coming up with new maps are we going to throw those out a second time. I do not think so. I have no reason to believe that would be the case.

However, the member should bear in mind that in dealing with these maps the government is not throwing them out. The commissions will be free to use them as one of the three they put forward for public consideration should they decide to do so. They do not have to redraw every line on every map. This may be one of the three sets they have to do but I remind the hon.

member that they do now have to produce three. So these maps in fact could be quite helpful.

The census figures that were set out on a geographic basis for the entire country will be available to the new commissions as were to the old. All that work will not be duplicated.

For the hon. member to suggest that we have trashed everything by this bill and wasted $7 million is not accurate. We will have good use for some of things that have happened. Certainly some of the money that was spent on advertising will not be spent a second time. We are not going to trash everything and waste all the money. We are moving to save money with the new redistribution. There will be some loss from the expenses already incurred.

However, had the hon. member been vigorous in supporting our first bill instead of supporting the senators who held it up and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, we would be away ahead of the game. If those commissions had cancelled as soon as the bill was introduced we would have saved several million dollars. It was wasted because the hon. member and the Senate got into bed together and blocked the passage of the bill and cost us a lot of money as has-

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are two minutes to go. I do not believe the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata wishes to begin her speech. I wonder if we might call it 5.30 by agreement.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Statutory Program Evaluation Act

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

moved that Bill C-289, an act to provide for evaluations of statutory programs, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak to this private member's bill. Unfortunately, it has been designated a non-votable bill and will not be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

However, there is a tide in the affairs of men which when taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Shakespeare said this 400 years ago. There is a tide today that is causing government to re-examine its profligate ways and return to the sanity of fiscal responsibility, hence ensuring the prosperity of Canadians in future generations.

Canadian taxpayers have seen their taxes rise dramatically over the last 15 to 20 years in the name of reining in the budget deficit. Yet that deficit is no closer to being tamed than in the years before. We have had a continuous stream of finance ministers stand in the House and proclaim that the battle will be won through the increased taxes that they have introduced. These have been empty promises. We have listened to finance ministers tell us that spending is being constrained in the name of deficit reduction. Every year when we add it all up, the spending has gone up.

What is the problem? When more and more taxes only contain the unsustainable deficit, the problem is being perceived as insurmountable. Perhaps the real reason lies in the way we spend taxpayers' money and the needs we as a government have perceived as needs to be addressed.

Over the years governments past and present have created programs to address virtually every perceivable need for Canadians from health to unemployment, grain transportation, disaster relief, alleviating aboriginal problems, educating our young, combating poverty, heritage, industrial development and international marketing. The list is endless.

Some of these programs are highly visible. They serve Canadians every day. Some are out of sight of the Canadian taxpayer and yet we hope are performing some valuable service. Some are out of date and out of touch. Some are just plain obsolete. Some continue because no one has bothered to shut them down. They are forgotten, expensive and ongoing. Are they Beneficial? No.

In this day and age when we are trying to justify every dollar spent, we should take the time to evaluate on a program by program basis what we are actually doing and why.

The President of the Treasury Board has announced that 45,000 civil servants are going to lose their jobs. Is that because we have suddenly found out their work was irrelevant? I doubt it.

Somehow the Treasury Board is telling us that government can do the job required with 45,000 fewer civil servants. We do not have these answers, only questions and concerns. What does it mean for those Canadians who depend on a certain program? Will it still be there for them tomorrow?

What about the career of a civil servant which has suddenly been shattered? What does the future hold for him? Why did we find out now that we can dispense with 45,000 civil servants? It did not appear apparent to us last year or the year before that we could dispense with these civil servants, 30,000 of them, 20,000 of them or 10,000 of them. Why now?

Over the last 10 to 15 years the private sector has realized technology has changed the world, that profit margins are slimmer. Efficiency must be improved to maintain profitability. Innovation is the only way to success.

By recognizing these signs and acting on them, Canadian industry leads the world today in rising productivity growth. To them we owe a great debt of gratitude. If they had been as laggardly and as slothful as the Government of Canada, the country would have had a financial crisis long ago.

The private sector is constantly reviewing what it does, how well it does it, how it can improve efficiency and how it can innovate. Is the government exempt from these issues? The answer is no. It does not have the political will to address them.

My private members' bill is a serious attempt to redress that problem. I have focused on statutory spending in my private members' bill, spending that accounts for $112 billion this fiscal year. It is included in the estimates for information only.

Members of Parliament cannot debate it. They cannot vote on it. They cannot reduce it. They cannot eliminate it. Like old man river, it keeps rolling on every day. I want to take stock of that $112 billion of spending.

Like the private sector, I want it done rationally, completely, objectively and most of all on a cyclical basis of seven to ten years.

I am proposing in my private member's bill that all statutory spending, no matter how great or small, how meaningful or meaningless, be evaluated every decade using four fundamental principles. Is the program still relevant? Is the program effective in addressing the needs that have been identified? Is the program being delivered efficiently? Is there a better way to achieve the same results? Those are four fundamental criteria on which to evaluate every statutory program that has been authorized by the Government of Canada over the years.

Let us look at these points again. Is the program relevant? We all know we live in a changing society. Statistics Canada is continually measuring these changes in our society, the size of urban poor, child poverty, wealth, the size of our houses, the products we buy, the appliances we own, our level of education. The index of Statistics Canada is an inch thick. Who says a program designed 20 or 30 years ago is meeting the challenges of today unless we ask what is the challenge we are trying to meet today?

Therefore I want the question asked whether the program is still relevant. That will cause the senior bureaucrats and the political masters to define clearly and specifically what the need is in today's terms, not last year's terms or last decade's terms. What are they trying to accomplish today? It is simple enough. The private sector does it all the time. It boggles my mind that this is an innovative idea for the Government of Canada.

The second principle of evaluation is whether the program is effective in addressing the identified need. That again seems a fairly simple question to which we would want to know the answer. Surely if we have identified a need through the discussion on relevancy it behoves us to know we are addressing that need effectively, not just 60 per cent of the need being addressed and 40 per cent being ignored or whatever percentage we want to choose.

On the other side of the coin, why would we want to address a need with 20 per cent overlap beyond that? We would be wasting taxpayers' money because we did not examine our programs to determine if they are effective. Worst of all, what would we say if we were to find that a program is addressing issues largely irrelevant to the fundamental focus of the programs, spending money with abandon while the need identified remains unaddressed?

Surely it is our job as parliamentarians to be asking these questions to ensure on behalf of taxpayers that we have the answers.

The third principle of my bill requires that we ask how efficiently we are delivering these programs. Is our service up to par or do we have to wait months for a disability pension from CPP, for example? I found out through my work on the public accounts committee that the Canada pension plan only answers four out of every 11 telephone calls. I found out that the Department of National Defence built a warehouse in Halifax to house inventory. However, after the building was largely complete it looked at the inventory it wanted to put into the building and realized it was largely obsolete and was not being used.

Therefore, when we ask whether the program is being delivered efficiently, I hope in most cases the answer is yes. We want to know every situation when the answer is no.

The final principle of the bill asks the simple yet fundamental question is there a better way? Too often we get caught up in repetition instead of innovation. As needs change we have new tools and new technology to identify needs. As we improve our efficiency we should always ask whether there is a better way.

Preventive maintenance goes a long way to reduce renovation. A stitch in time saves nine. Program evaluation, as proposed in my private member's bill, is an ongoing process that will provide value to the Canadian taxpayer. It is not politically driven. It is open and transparent.

My bill will require each program evaluation be laid before the House and referred to a standing committee for its input, for public discussion, hearings and for recommendations. It would be a public process.

We have program reviews going on today with the Minister of Human Resources Development. These reviews are taking place behind the scenes. They are being presented, according to the Auditor General, without pooled information. In his last report he mentioned we would require more information. It would be a public process and the government would be required to respond the committee's report within 150 days.

Another major point is we must have faith in the quality of the evaluations. For that reason my bill causes evaluations on programs that spend more than $250 million annually to be reviewed by the Auditor General, and his report on the evaluation to be laid before the House also.

Program evaluation is an idea whose time has come. The Auditor General has been critical of the progress of development of program evaluation in his 1993 report. Program evaluation has been introduced in other western democracies with significant success and savings to the taxpayer. It can, will and must do the same here.

As parliamentarians who are wrestling with a serious budget deficit and an accumulated debt almost out of control, we owe it to the taxpayers to adopt program evaluation. As members of Parliament responsible for the public purse, program evaluation is without doubt the best tool that has come along to assist us in our work in decades.

The Auditor General said: "The story of program evaluation in the Government of Canada is one of high expectations and great potential that have only been partly fulfilled". That quote is from the 1993 Auditor General's report, paragraph 844.

Let us not have heads of gold and feet of clay. Let program evaluation achieve its full potential in playing its very real and substantial role in managing government programs.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on Bill C-289, a private member's bill.

The bill provides for the regular evaluation of continuing government programs funded by statutory appropriations by a program evaluation process set by the President of the Treasury Board. Responsible ministers would be required to table in the House the results of these evaluations.

The bill also requires the Auditor General of Canada to review and report to the House of Commons on major evaluations.

During this period of concern for the deficit and the level of the national debt, it is very important all parliamentarians and all Canadians know which government programs are working; which government programs are working well and which ones are not working well. We also want to know how we can improve them so they are affordable and that they meet the objectives established for them.

Program evaluation is a good tool for reviewing programs. It allows for the questioning on a periodic basis of the rationale for each government program. It involves the systematic gathering of verifiable information on a program. This information would include demonstrable evidence of its results and cost effectiveness. This process would provide more and better information for decision making.

The government has already demonstrated its commitment to the need for regular program evaluations. Many of our public documents place an important focus on evaluation. For example, "Creating Opportunities", the red book, outlines the importance of evaluation information and the 1994 budget called for major reviews of federal programs.

These important reviews of federal programs had two objectives: first, to identify the programs and services that the government will continue to provide if there are enough resources and, second, to ensure that these programs are delivered in the most efficient way possible. We can already see the results of these reviews.

In addition, in May 1994 the Treasury Board approved a new review policy. The intent was to strengthen the ongoing review capabilities of departments and the government in general. More and improved review and evaluation findings are to be made publicly available.

Bill C-289 recommends evaluations be made of statutory programs on a cyclical basis. This a worthy approach. We need to ask how practical it is. There are only so many resources that can be devoted to program evaluation. We must use those resources carefully.

While major statutory programs are important, sometimes it is much more cost effective to evaluate issues which impact on more than one program and possibly on more than one department. Evaluations involving many departments are often more strategic and more likely to be useful.

The government needs to retain flexibility in this regard. Cyclical evaluations of singular statutory programs may not always provide the wider information base needed for a significant government decision. There is nothing wrong with supporting cyclical evaluation. One needs to think whether this approach is the best one in all cases.

Ultimately we want to ensure review of activities undertaken by government departments and central agencies are better linked to government priorities rather than some predetermined schedule.

The needs and aspirations of the population change rapidly. Unforeseen problems may arise. Decision makers and managers must adapt quickly to any change in conditions.

A long term fixed evaluation schedule is not always appropriate. Programs should be evaluated based on an analysis of risk, their importance to Canadians and, as the information is needed, for decision making. To have an evaluation for the sake of an evaluation is not cost effective or wise.

Evaluations are not the only source of information parliamentarians and Canadians can use to evaluate whether government programs and services are affordable and effective. There are many different activities in government which help us to learn how well programs are serving Canadians and also to identify successful practices that can lead to service and quality improvements when needed.

Earlier this week the President of the Treasury Board released details of the renewed expenditure management system of the Government of Canada. The new system is intended to support the objective of making the best use of tax dollars to deliver quality services to Canadians. The renewed expenditure management system introduced the concept of departmental outlooks. These outlooks on program priorities and expenditures will be provided to the various standing committees of the House.

These documents will give parliamentary committees better quality information that will enable them to evaluate future priorities and trends in departmental and program spending and to comment on them.

The public service is currently working to establish service standards for its programs. The role of service standards is to provide answers to questions such as how long will it take to provide a service? How often will it be provided? What can people do if they are not satisfied? Providing service standards that pose these types of questions invite public feedback. This feedback from the clients of government is an important element in the government's attempt to provide quality services that are affordable, efficient, effective and responsive to the needs of Canadians.

Internal audit is another important tool available to provide information on the success of programs and activities. Internal audits are designed to help managers achieve their business objectives by identifying weaknesses or opportunities to improve the overall economy, efficiency and effectiveness of program management practices.

It is also important to note that the information on program performance must be available on an ongoing basis. Managers, members of Parliament and senators along with the Canadian people would not be very happy to learn long after the fact that the programs have not produced the expected results.

There must be useful performance measures that provide answers on an ongoing basis. The Auditor General has for several years encouraged the government to improve the quality of the information in this area. Program managers must be encouraged to demonstrate on a timely basis the results being achieved by their programs.

Most of the mechanisms for providing information on program performance, what I have discussed already, have a permanent place in the management framework of government and are already used to assess statutory programs.

I have tried to demonstrate that, even if evaluation is an important management tool, it is not the only one. No single tool such as evaluation can meet all information needs that determine program effectiveness. Each review tool and each information tool must be used at the appropriate time and for the appropriate purposes.

I have tried to demonstrate the most important aspects of what is happening in government in terms of relating information to parliamentarians. The House recently passed a private member's bill that changed the Auditor General's act to allow him to report more frequently to the House. This change will provide us again with more timely information on government activities and I am sure it will provide the Auditor General with more work.

How much more work can we be asking the Auditor General to do before we start to reduce his effectiveness? That is one of the problems we would encounter.

The bill before the House is the result of an admirable effort by an hon. member to ensure that we all have access to good quality information on program performance. I suppose that we can never have enough information. We must, however, consider the costs.

As the bottom line there are many good sources of information available to us on a routine basis. We must ensure we are making full use of these resources. If we need further information there are many options open to us. Should we be enshrining a new review process into legislation without fully considering the options and costs involved? I think not.

I am prepared to look at the positive options of the proposed legislation. If they can be incorporated into some of the mechanisms we have in place it will be done.

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the hon. member for St. Albert, for taking the initiative of tabling Bill C-289. Incidentally, the hon. member sits on the public accounts committee that I chair and I share and certainly understand his interest in ensuring that an act is passed to provide for the evaluation of statutory programs.

The need for statutory program evaluation has clearly been established both in the public and the private sectors, especially at a time when costs are tightly controlled and we have to make the most of our scarce resources. The only thing standing in the way of this bill being passed and applied to major programs is an obtuse government unable to keep up with the times.

The public accounts committee has already devoted several meetings to program evaluation. The Auditor General of Canada, for his part, devoted chapters 8, 9 and 10 of his 1993 report to program evaluation, and made the following comment again in 1993, and I quote: "Our audit found that the story of program evaluation in the Government of Canada is one of high expectations and great potential that have been only partly fulfilled. Cabinet has been paying sustained attention to program evaluation data over the last ten years".

But this interest was given little more than lip service, really. The sixth report of the public accounts committee, tabled on November 21, reiterated the relevance of program evaluation. The auditor general indicated that most of the programs that were evaluated were not high expenditure programs.

In 1991-92, the evaluation of programs with budgets over $1 billion, that is to say 16 programs totalling $124.5 billion, showed that only two of these had undergone a comprehensive evaluation; the rest were only partially covered, if at all. In 1991-1992, twenty-four per cent of government's program expenditures were evaluated. That same year, 480 of the completed evaluations covered programs with expenditures of $250 million or less, as compared to 18 in the over $250 million category.

There is therefore a need to eliminate this kind of laissez-faire in government with respect to evaluating mostly low expenditure programs. That is why I agree with paragraph 8(2) of Bill C-289, which states that the Auditor General of Canada may review any program evaluation and submit a report on it to the House of Commons in the case of a program evaluation covering a statutory program with expenditures of $250 million or more each year.

I also support this bill because it is directly based on the main recommendations of the sixth report of the public accounts committee, which I signed last November.

This legislation would establish an objective decision making process regarding the continuation or the elimination of government programs, and it would help reduce the arbitrary and political nature of the decisions made. Having better documented and more objective decisions would give more weight to the role of managers and members of Parliament. An improved program evaluation process would result in a more efficient control of costs, given that the current deficit exceeds $37 billion for that the accumulated debt is close to $550 billion.

As the hon. member St. Albert pointed out, program evaluation is a modern day management tool. In this era of electronic highway and state of the art technology, why would the government keep ignoring the value of cost benefit analysis and objective criteria on which to base its decisions, and instead follow trends, rely on a gut feeling, or base these decisions on political or partisan considerations?

Program evaluation is definitely a protection against dramatic cost increases which become unmanageable over time. I should add that this explosion of costs which eventually become uncontrollable accurately reflects the Liberal Party saga of the last 25 years.

Bill C-289 is a rare attempt by this Parliament to get us out of the vicious circle of expenditures, debts and subsidies to friends of the party, in which the Liberals put this country two decades ago.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for the regular evaluation of government programs by a program evaluation process set by Treasury Board on a prescribed cycle. The President of the Treasury Board would determine the cycle for evaluating statutory programs. We could not agree more.

New programs would also be covered by this process within six months after the coming into force of an act authorizing a statutory program, the President of the Treasury Board shall, by order, prescribe the fiscal year as an initial evaluation year for the statutory program and prescribe the evaluation cycle for the statutory program. This whole process would tend to reduce the

risk of arbitrary decisions, and we therefore support section 3 of the bill.

In concluding, I have two suggestions for the hon. member for St. Albert: first, in subsection 7(4), the hon. member suggests 150 days for completing the evaluation of a statutory program after the end of the evaluation year. I think 90 days would be more reasonable. This means that tabling in the House would come after 120 days, instead of 180 as the hon. member initially suggested.

Second, considering the strategic role played by the auditor general in program evaluation, I would suggest to the hon. member that the program evaluation report and the auditor general's report connected with the former be referred to the Public Accounts Committee instead of a committee designated by the House as provided under section 9.

I endorse Bill C-289, and I urge the House to support this bill, so that the government will stop this debt spiral caused by unnecessary spending and programs that have outlived their usefulness.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this very thoughtful and very important legislation. As my colleague, the member for St. Albert, stated in his remarks, the objective of Bill C-289 is to hold statutory spending to the same standards of accountability that Parliament currently applies to discretionary expenditures. That is a very noble and worthwhile cause to put forward in this assembly.

While time is limited, there are two points I want to make in these remarks. First, as statutory programs come to represent an ever-increasing amount or share of total government expenditures, the inability of Parliament to evaluate these programs effectively and objectively is making it more and more difficult for members of Parliament to hold governments accountable. For this reason there is a need to have a bill such as Bill C-289.

The second point is that the intense fiscal pressures brought about by decades of government over-spending not only make enhanced review and evaluation of statutory expenditures desirable, but certainly very essential at this point.

On the first point, I would like to remind the members of the House how our system of government is supposed to work. Under the Constitution as members of Parliament we have been granted three very important powers. First, we must decide how much government will be permitted to spend. Second, we must decide how the government will spend it. Third, we have an obligation to hold the government accountable for those expenditures.

The objective of the legislation is to bolster and to enhance the third of these three parliamentary powers that are given to us as members of Parliament. Specifically, it asks that statutory programs be subject to the same periodic program evaluations that are presently applied to non-statutory programs.

These program evaluations seek to answer four very fundamental questions. First, is the program relevant? Second, is the program effective in meeting its objectives? Third, is the program being delivered effectively and efficiently? Fourth, can the purpose of the program be fulfilled through a variety of different means?

At present no such reviews are conducted for statutory items. When weighing the merits of extending program evaluations to cover this area, we must consider the following: This year, fiscal year 1995-96, the Government of Canada will spend some $164 billion dollars. Of this only $48 billion will be subject to parliamentary review. That means that some 71 per cent, or the remaining $116 billion of our tax dollars will be spent automatically without any attempt to evaluate those programs success. That is just not accountability. That has to change. That is the main purpose of Bill C-289.

Given the size of these annual expenditures, it seem rather ludicrous that members of the House would not be provided with the information to determine whether such programs are effective in meeting their objectives. It is hard to believe that members would have no way of determining whether there is a better way to do things. Yet that is the current state of affairs. Members do not have the information they need to evaluate the effectiveness of statutory programs.

This brings me to my second point. The federal government is presently facing what amounts to a fiscal crisis. It finds itself under immense pressure to reduce government expenditures. Even after making significant cuts to discretionary expenditures in its last budget, it will still have a deficit of $25 billion in the year 1997.

Simple arithmetic tells us that if the government has any hope of achieving a balanced budget then the lion's share of the cuts will have to be made in the area of statutory expenditures. Discretionary programs have already been cut or pared to the bone. The only sizeable pool of money left is in the area of statutory programs and programs such as old age assistance.

That is why Bill C-289, which would subject the statutory programs to periodic review and evaluation, is so critical. In the coming years, members of Parliament will be called on to make more difficult and tough decisions than previous Parliaments have had to make. We will have no choice but to reduce or even

eliminate benefits which millions of Canadians consider to be virtual birthrights.

If we as parliamentarians are to fulfil that task in a responsible manner then we will need the information to make intelligent decisions. At present this information does not exist. Bill C-289 seeks to fill this information gap.

In conclusion, Bill C-289 is valuable legislation which would address two fundamental concerns. First, by improving the scrutiny of statutory expenditures, it would begin to put control of the government purse back in the hands of Parliament.

Second, the information obtained from these evaluations and reviews would provide members with the information they need to make intelligent spending decisions. At a time when every government program is being evaluated, when the most sacred of government cows is being reconsidered and when every dollar is now subject to careful scrutiny by the budget cutters, legislation like Bill C-289 is not merely desirable but is most essential.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising, along with the previous speaker from Lethbridge, to support Bill C-289. In doing so, I want to thank the hon. member for St. Albert for having brought the bill to the House. It is one of a series of bills he has brought forward to improve the financial accountability of Parliament.

I would also like to thank the hon. member for La Prairie for his support. He gives his party the kind of financial perspective we need in this House. As chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, he helps the cause of public finances in Canada.

In addressing the bill I would really like to ask a question. Do we do anything here other than provide the veneer of democratic decision making to what goes on in the massive leviathan we call the Government of Canada?

Historically our system did not begin in Parliament. It began with the crown. The crown would periodically call together Parliament in order to get Parliament's input into important decisions. The crown would do that because it needed tax dollars and felt that a process of consultation with both the Lords and the Commons would aid in getting their consent to raise tax dollars in the general governance of the country.

As British history unfolded, Parliament asserted more and more its rights, not only to give its approval and its input, but to control the entire process: to control the agenda, to select ministers, to ultimately provide responsible government and democratic control over the affairs of the crown.

The funny thing about this is that as time went on the process almost reversed itself. Gradually Parliament pushed the crown out as the governing force in British democratic countries. As soon as that happened, the government increasingly became a force very much independent of Parliament, until it is as we have it today, where estimates are presented in the hundreds of billions of dollars, approved by Parliament without serious scrutiny, almost on a ritualistic basis. We saw that here last week.

Auditors General have pointed out on many occasions, and in many different ways, that Parliament has lost control of the estimate process. The question will increasingly arise, particularly as we go through this period of governments cutting spending, cutting favours and the goodies which they give to the population, as to why people believe that this process protects their interests, protects their tax dollars and protects their financial interests.

We are talking about the estimates and a bill to expand the scrutiny of Parliament beyond the estimates. Previous to getting involved in politics I spent some time as a student and as a professional studying the history of federal government spending.

One of the things that really strikes us when we look at what has occurred since the second world war is the relative decline in non-statutory spending as a proportion of the total and the increase in statutory programs as the significant element in federal government spending. Thirty years ago about one-third of all spending was of a statutory nature. Today it is well over two-thirds, as previous speakers have pointed out. That is not simply due to the increase in our debt and the statutory interest payments, it is also due to the focus which we increasingly have on a small number of statutory programs, mainly in the area of social spending.

It is unbelievable to realize that this portion of spending is not at all controlled by the estimate process. It is only mentioned in the estimates. Information is provided, but it is not controlled at all. In fact, there is no formal review mechanism for Parliament on this 70 per cent of spending.

The parliamentary secretary commented, as he has before, on the question of the cost effectiveness of these cost control measures. I find it distressing that the question of cost effectiveness only seems to come up on cost control measures and never on the actual spending programs in the first place.

The hon. member for St. Albert gave us the example of the problem with the disability aspects of the Canada pension plan, which is a statutory program. I know in my own riding that we have recently dealt with cases where there are serious problems in program administration and in the attendant conduct and administration of the program. However, because it is a statuto-

ry program there is no regular review conducted through the parliamentary process.

The parliamentary secretary also mentioned the resources that it might tie up to review these programs. One fact that needs to be mentioned is that we are talking about a large number of dollars but a small number of programs. There are 11 major statutory programs. There are payments under the Farm Income Protection Act. There are payments under the International Financial Organizations Act.

There is the public debt charge program. There is the fiscal transfer program to the provinces. There are military pensions in the Department of National Defence; payments to the provinces for health and medical care; payments to the provinces for CAP, the Canada assistance plan; the old age security program; grants to municipalities and other authorities under the real property program of the Department of Public Works; post-secondary education payments; and payments to railway companies by the National Transportation Agency under the Western Grain Transportation Act.

These 11 programs account for 97 per cent of all statutory spending. In effect they account for over two-thirds of all federal government spending. They are the 11 programs for which the bill suggests there should be a mechanism to review on an ongoing basis.

It is a new way. It is a suggestion to deal with what are some fairly obvious difficulties. I hope no one in his right mind, even in the government, would hold up the way we have conducted the public finances of the country in the last generation as a proper way to do business.

We know from our background, wherever we came from, that we cannot run the Government of Canada as a committee of 295 people. We know generally what happens when committees try to run anything, but especially a committee of 295 people.

The bill suggests that Parliament use its authority, rather then just have vague political debates and vague political reviews, to set up a formal mechanism that properly evaluates the non-political aspects of major spending and that Parliament be provided with a formal way of reviewing the technical aspects. The inevitable political debates will accompany that.

I cannot see how that will use a lot of resources. I cannot see how it can possibly be ineffective in some kind of cost way. It would seem to me it is just a logical development now that the major programs occupy such a large percentage of our spending.

I know the hon. member for St. Albert is aware that adopting a bill such as this one would plug a very small hole in our boat. We have lots of holes. It is safe to say that we are not only taking in a lot of water. Our boat has been sitting at the bottom of the ocean for some time.

Maybe a bill like this one and thinking a little more constructively and innovatively in this direction would help us eventually construct the giant crane we will need to pull the financial boat up from the bottom of the ocean and get it back to the surface where it needs to be.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate in the debate from the perspective of a member of the House who is here to represent the constituents of Calgary Southeast.

I know why I came to Parliament. I came here to look for accountability. I came here to look for responsibility. I came here to make a difference. Those elements of my life are extremely important to me.

As I listened to my colleagues tonight I was absolutely astounded and amazed to realize how very little a part I can play in actually touching the heartbeat of government when I will not be able to make a difference in 71 per cent of its program spending.

This was a tremendous surprise to me and I guess I would have to say a major disappointment. In everything I do as I represent constituents of Calgary Southeast I look at the questions that were asked by my colleague from St. Albert. Is what I am doing relevant? That would apply to anything I would be reviewing here. Certainly when I look at applications that come from the human resources department for grants and applications to help employment opportunities, I always ask a question of the submission: Is it relevant?

What kind of effect will that relevance have not only on the constituents I represent but on all Canadians? I get all kinds of letters as do all members from constituents who are extremely frustrated with the spending practices not only of the government but governments of the past. If it does not pass the test of relevancy then I have to ask the question: Why not? What can we do to make it better? What can we do to fix it?

When looking at effectiveness and meeting its objectives I have to ask: Are the objectives even established? I cannot say the number of times I have looked at projects or proposals and there has been no long range planning.

The minister of defence has been challenged many times in the last month on looking at meeting objectives and having objectives for spending. They have been missing. I was absolutely amazed and appalled that although short term goals were

laid out in the budget that were to be met, the long range goal must have been missing. All kinds of changes to the budget came after the fact.

The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage has been challenged a number of times on changes made to budget statements and to program estimates. If we are not effective in establishing objectives, how can we possibly hope to meet them if they are missing from the documentation?

I came here to vote on absolutely everything. On any piece of legislation that came before the House I wanted to give expression to what I felt was important. It disturbs me when 71 per cent of the decisions we make in the House of Commons are non-votable items. Canadians must be absolutely appalled to be hearing that tonight. I certainly am stunned to hear of that kind of spending without any accountability to anybody.

Where is the openness? Where is the effectiveness of the money I am giving to the government through my tax dollars? Where is the accountability?

Another question I often put when I receive requests for assistance is: Is the delivery efficient? If it is not, how can we continue to go through the process over and over again of giving money to the same kinds of programs without even looking at the efficiencies?

Once again we come back to objectives. Are their objectives in place? Are those objectives being met? In the corporate sector everybody always evaluates what they do. Business would not survive if it did not have that part of the expenditure process at the end of every year where an evaluation based on delivery is actually done.

My husband works in the corporate sector. Believe me, he is accountable to his managers and they in turn are accountable to their superiors to look at efficient and effective delivery of product. If that does not happen, they are out of business.

Then we come to the final question: Is there a better way? My colleagues from St. Albert in all good faith brought forward a non-votable bill. This is the place for rational and reasoned debate. This is where we should be able to talk about the issues of the day, to have a broad discussion with everyone participating.

What do we have? We have a handful of people standing in the House tonight talking about a major concern for Canadians: accountability in terms of how we spend money. It is disappointing to hear that we are doing well enough and that we can defend the status quo because we truly are into new times that demand a different point of view, a different way of doing business. If we undertake to look at it honestly and directly from a different point of view, we will be able to hold government accountable. We as parliamentarians will be able to stand in front of our constituents and say that we made a difference in the 35th Parliament.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no further members rising to debate the bill and it not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the bill is dropped from the Order Paper.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to a special debate.

Peacekeeping

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

moved:

That this House, in light of the UN Security Council consideration of renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia, take note of the rotation of Canadian forces serving with UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening to have a debate before the government decides on yet another difficult position for Canada in terms of the deployment of its troops in the former Yugoslavia.

I would like to begin by drawing to the attention of the House the efforts of the international community to reach a diplomatic settlement of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. The world community has made significant efforts to resolve the conflict in the Balkans and has used various means to do so, including crisis diplomacy, the imposition of sanctions, the establishment of prohibited air zones and, of course, the deployment of UNPROFOR.

Currently UNPROFOR is made up of 38 national contingents or specialized units, totalling about 39,000 military personnel. There are about 5,300 civilians also assigned to the particular force, making it the largest peacekeeping mission ever put together by the United Nations. Eleven NATO countries are providing about 44 per cent of the total personnel and Canada is foremost among those countries.

UNPROFOR was created in February 1992 specifically to monitor the ceasefire between the Croatian and Krajina-Serb forces, to supervise this demilitarized UN protected area, and to try to bring some kind of semblance of normal life back to the people in the region.

As the situation deteriorated to the south in Bosnia-Hercegovina in September 1992, UNPROFOR's mandate was expanded to provide security for humanitarian relief efforts in the region. As we know, an UNPROFOR element was deployed to the

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to help deter possible aggression.

In the brief time I have this evening I want to talk about the situation in Croatia because it is becoming much more relevant to Canada and the Canadian position in the former Yugoslavia.

The conflict between Croatia and the Krajina-Serbs, as I said, has been at an impasse since 1992. At the root of the impasse is Croatia's determination to regain sovereignty over about 30 per cent of the territory held by the Krajina-Serbs who are reticent to disarm in the process.

Talks have been held under the auspices of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia in November 1993. A three-part strategy was set out to help resolve the problem.

First, a ceasefire had to be established, then discussions held on economic issues and, finally, agreement reached on a form of political reconciliation. This strategy permitted some progress.

In December 1993, the Croatian government and representatives of the Serbs in the area reached an agreement on setting up a series of ceasefires. At the end of March 1994, a general ceasefire agreement had been signed between the Croatian government and the Krajina-Serb authorities. UNPROFOR succeeded in making sure the agreement held, one of its various achievements in Croatia.

At the same time, this agreement caused considerable concern among the Croatian population. These people were afraid they would be victims of a situation like that persisting in Cyprus and were concerned that the country would be permanently divided by UNPROFOR.

Nonetheless, the general ceasefire did raise expectations that an economic agreement and ultimately a political settlement were within reach. Efforts to reach a lasting settlement in Croatia were dealt a shocking blow on January 12, 1995 when the Croatian president, Dr. Franjo Tudjman, informed the UN secretary-general that his government would not renew the mandate of UNPROFOR in Croatia beyond March 31.

President Tudjman said that Croatia's experience over the past two years had led him to conclude: "Although UNPROFOR has played an important role in stopping violence and major conflicts in Croatia, it is an indisputable fact that the present character of the UNPROFOR mission does not provide conditions necessary for establishing lasting peace and order in the republic of Croatia".

Before looking at the events in Croatia and at the United Nations following the dramatic statement by Mr. Tudjman, I would like to consider the diplomatic situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The efforts that went into resolving the conflict there paralleled the war itself.

At the start of 1994, Muslims and Croatians in Bosnia reached an agreement resulting in a ceasefire and constituting a major step in establishing a federation encompassing the two groups.

This ceasefire continues to hold. It is monitored by UNPROFOR. In central Bosnia, CANBAT 2 has tasks related to monitoring this ceasefire. Of course we have our troops also in the Krajina region, CANBAT 1. We also have a group largely in the service area located in Split.

This three-part conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina has been stabilized to some degree. The international community has turned its attention to finding a solution to the conflict between the Bosnian muslims and the Bosnian Serbs.

As we know, to inject more life into this the contact group was established with Great Britain, France, the European Union, the United States and the Russian federation in April 1994. This group has worked particularly diligently in trying to get a solution.

Its first proposition was to redraw the map in a post-conflict Bosnia whereby the Bosnian muslims and Croats would receive about 51 per cent of the territory and the Bosnian Serbs about 49 per cent. The parties were also offered a number of incentives and disincentives to encourage their acceptance of the new plan.

Like previous international offers, the plan was rejected in a Bosnian-Serb referendum by more than 90 per cent of the voters. Despite these setbacks, the contact group and the warring parties have continued.

There was another development recently, before the year end. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met with officials in both Sarajevo and Pale and succeeded in negotiating an agreement for a countrywide ceasefire in Bosnia-Hercegovina and the opening of negotiations for an end to hostilities by January 1, 1995.

On December 31, 1994 the Government of Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Bosnian Serbs signed a cessation of hostilities agreement to take effect along the lines of confrontation for a four month period ending in April 1995.

This agreement is being supervised and monitored by UNPROFOR, including our troops. The agreement calls for a separation of the forces, full freedom of movement, the opening of the Sarajevo airport, restoration of utilities, exchanges of prisoners of war and the withdrawal of all foreign troops.

Throughout the first two months of 1995 the agreement held with only minor violations. By late February violations had increased and most observers do not expect a ceasefire to last beyond the next few weeks. We hope that common ground may be found between the parties whereby an agreement may be extended. One can only hope that these negotiations begin very quickly.

On the current diplomatic situation on the UN mandate, it is useful to set the tone. This is the backdrop by which we will perhaps redeploy our troops starting next week.

President Tudjman, after considerable pressure, very courageously decided to re-evaluate his original thinking. He agreed to a continuation of an albeit smaller UN reformulated presence, a different kind of mandate. It is more along the traditional peacekeeping lines that Canada participated in during our years in Cyprus whereby we work the line between two hostile factions.

President Tudjman envisages a new independent force to be established. This new mission should help to implement the ceasefire agreement and it should assist in the implementation of the economic agreement, the one I mentioned earlier. It should also put in place elements of the existing UN peacekeeping plan for Croatia. That continues to be accepted by both parties, including the maintenance of UN presence on international borders as well as confidence building and humanitarian measures such as assistance to refugees and displaced persons, protection of ethnic minorities, mine clearance, convoy assistance and the like.

As the current UNPROFOR mandate expires in two days, the UN must reach some kind of agreement on the renewal of its presence. The United Nations is now working very closely with all the parties involved to reach a workable agreement on this continued UN presence. Canada has been a party to many of these discussions.

The UN secretary-general has proposed three distinct missions in the region to meet the unique circumstances in Croatia, Bosnia and the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.

Canada's position is that we say to Canadians we know their feelings of pride in Canada in trying to assist in this very difficult situation in the heart of Europe. Canadians have been quite happy to do their part with their continued presence in both Croatia and Bosnia. We also understand that Canadians are becoming a little bit concerned that this deployment not be open ended and that we not continue ad infinitum.

I think we were in Cyprus for about 29 years. We do not plan to be in Bosnia and Croatia for 29 years. We on the government's part are obviously re-evaluating our commitment to the region. We do not want to walk out on our allies, on the UN. We have all been in this together. We believe there can be a negotiated settlement.

From a Canadian point of view, we hope that we can start to reduce our presence in the region somewhat but at the same time try to continue the good work we have been involved in. In other words, we believe that perhaps with a reformulated mandate in Croatia and a heightened Canadian presence there, we may be able to more effectively contribute in that area. That would be for the UN to decide whether or not it wants us to continue in both theatres, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia, or whether or not it wants us to concentrate our efforts in Croatia.

These are the questions with which we are grappling at this time. Canada certainly is willing to continue to do its part in the region. We feel it is incumbent upon the government to listen to the views of members of Parliament.

As I said, two battalions of the Royal 22nd Regiment are ready to deploy. We have about 2,100 people in Bosnia-Hercegovina and in Croatia. We have another 400 to 500 in the area generally, the UN observers, the people with Operation Sharp Guard on our ships, and the people who have been involved in the airlift operation of supplies to Sarajevo. We have quite a commitment in the region.

Before I conclude, I want to underscore Canada's willingness to be flexible in helping the UN address the concerns. I also want to underscore the fact that Canada's commitment in this particular operation cannot last indefinitely.

We believe Canadians want us to review our participation. They welcome the views of parliamentarians to see whether we should continue with this particular rotation for another six months and perhaps talk about scaling down in the fall after we have further discussions. Perhaps the Croatian force itself, the idea of it, will become a bit more mature and well defined.

Perhaps the best posture for us to take is to continue with this rotation. As I said in the House the other day, we do have flexibility. We could decide not to rotate. We could keep some of our troops there for a number of weeks while alternate arrangements are made. Obviously, getting so close to the wire with a number of scenarios unfolding, especially with the new force in Croatia, we feel that may be very difficult to do from the point of view of the UN. We do not want to let the UN down.

However, we do believe we are coming very close to the point when Canada has to make some significant changes in its commitment in the region. We welcome any ideas the UN may have for continued Canadian presence which will demonstrate to Canadians that we are just not there indefinitely performing the same valuable functions, but that we are making progress

toward a peaceful settlement and that Canadian participation is helping to move in that direction.

I will be very interested to hear the views of members opposite. Unfortunately I will not be able to stay for the entire debate. My parliamentary secretary is here, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who will be taking notes and taking part in the debate.

I want to assure hon. members that once we have the views of the members this evening, they certainly will be taken into account. The government will address the views expressed in the debate tomorrow morning. We will have something more to say on the matter of the deployment at some point tomorrow.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we can all congratulate ourselves for the fine job our Canadian soldiers did in Bosnia and Croatia.

Having said this, I do not think we can be so proud of what the Canadian government did and above all of what it failed to do during these peacekeeping missions, since the situation is far from rosy in Bosnia and Croatia as the UN's mandate expires and as we draw near to the end of a very important ceasefire in Bosnia.

On the diplomatic level, the situation is at a standstill, the stalemate remains to be broken and the efforts of the contact group have been relatively unfruitful. Therefore, compared with last year, it is a dead-end situation which has dragged on. There is not even a hope on the horizon of resolving it peacefully.

On the military level, the situation is hardly any better, it is even worse than it has ever been and, recently, the situation rapidly deteriorated once again. We know that over the past four days or so, there have been no fewer than a dozen confrontations in Bosnia, mostly orchestrated by the Bosnian government. It is attacking strategic positions in the hopes of gaining more leverage in negotiations, and of course the Serbs are retaliating. There have been 12 to 14 battles over the past four days.

The Serbs, quite recently by the way, have opened up artillery fire on four positions in protected areas, in contravention of all of the existing agreements. Last Sunday, Bosnian Serbs called for a general mobilization, which will certainly not relieve any tension in the area. At the same time, the new general of UNPROFOR, Rupert Smith, who is from Britain, threatened air strikes against Serb positions if they shell neutral zones. The Serbs issued a reply, of course: they would consider all peacekeepers stationed there as enemies if NATO were to attack their positions.

We know that the Serbs are serious when they make threats of this kind, since they took and held hostages, around fifty Canadian peacekeepers, the last time we used air strikes.

In reality, we are faced with, on the one hand, the Serbs, who have decided to wage a war of attrition, mostly against peacekeeping missions. The Serbs know that we are there temporarily, that it is costing us, that public support for a peacekeeping presence in the former Yugoslavia may wane, that one day we will have to leave, and that, from that moment on, they will have the Bosnians' blood. They, who have been fighting for centuries, know that they have all the time in the world and that it is essentially only a matter of time.

So they say let the hands of time keep on turning, in the end, it is the Serbs who will prevail. After spending so much money, unfortunately also after wasting so many human lives, the Allied Forces of the UN will have to withdraw, probably in humiliation, and leave the area for the Serbs' taking. Their calculation is quite obvious. They do not negotiate or they negotiate only when threatened by an immediate air strike. As soon as the heat is off, before the coalition can regroup, they return to their former positions, they violate ceasefires, they attack protected zones. It is an never-ending cat and mouse game.

As for the Croats, now that the mandate is about to expire, they have all kinds of demands: that the mandate be redefined; that units be split up-apparently, the UN is about to agree to this demand-so that, instead of a single UN force, there would be three contingents, one in Macedonia, one in Bosnia and one in Croatia, under a diversified command which could be a UN general co-ordinating operations. But they also have demands regarding the contingents. Although we are currently unable to carry out the missions entrusted to us, although there are not enough troops to do all the tasks that are assigned, they want to reduce contingents from 12,000 to 5,000 troops. We are negotiating with people who need our presence to keep the peace, who need enough people to achieve the desired results.

All this after nearly two years of presence if not more and for us, Canadians, $314 million in expenditures, 10 soldiers killed during operations, not to mention those who have recently committed suicide-we do not know too much about this, but we can assume that some suicides are linked to the operations conducted over there or feared by those who do not want to go.

This is the context in which the government is inviting the opposition parties to participate in a debate, but a debate on what? The motion calls for the House to take note of the April rotation of Canadian forces. What does that mean? Does it mean that it has already been decided that there will be a rotation? Will the government claim today that no decision had been made

yet? Does this mean that tomorrow night, the government could move to replace 1,600 troops, two 800 member contingents, and deal with aircraft, logistics, transportation, options? Are they trying to tell us that no decision has been made yet?

The very wording of the motion shows that I am right. They are laughing at Parliament today. They are laughing at us.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

A debate on what? What kind of debate is this? How can we seriously debate this issue, when the government has not even taken stock of the situation over there, when there is no assessment, no information? All that we know, we have learned from reading the papers. The government never provided us with any significant, specific and clear information on anything that went on over there. It never told us how the operations were evaluated, or what it was prognosticating. We were never told whether our troops were there for the duration or only a certain length of time, and in which case, how long that would be. We know nothing. We are kept in the dark.

We are expected do drink in the words of the Minister of National Defence and take leaps of faith, sign blank cheques and continue to send troops who operate in total frustration over there, not knowing what their mandate is, not being authorized by military authorities to conduct the operations that need to be conducted. They are helpless witnesses to revolting situations: children being tortured and killed, people being blown to pieces, civilians becoming live targets for blind fire from the hills. We are despatching our troops under very poor conditions. Are they there for the duration and under what conditions?

I think that the position the government finds itself today is such that it does not have much of a choice. The only argument it has left is to say: "We do not have any choice; we have to maintain our presence over there". The worst of it is that they are right: we do not have a choice.

We do not have a choice because, by its failure to act, its negligence and its superficial commitments, the government has put itself in such a position that we do not have any choice any more. A government or state that bases its policies on arguments like: "We do not have a choice" is in big trouble.

I think that this is the kind of action that has to be decided as a matter of choice, deliberately, for humanitarian reasons, on compassionate grounds, as a show of solidarity. In this case, the decision is based on an absence of policy. This government does not have a policy.

I dare anyone to get a serious response from government to the questions: what is Canada's policy regarding peacekeeping missions, what are the guiding principles, on what basis are decisions made regarding these operations? These questions will remain unanswered because they do not know.

We know for a fact that the government, through its members on the foreign affairs committee which reviewed Canada's foreign policy, agreed with the opposition that some criteria and standards were now required, and that we could no longer make individual commitments on a case-by-case basis in operations such as this one, where people die and where incredible amounts of money are spent in vain, without making a difference. The fact is that we did not make any progress whatsoever since last year. On the contrary, the issue is becoming more and more insoluble and it is increasingly obvious that we have reached a deadlock.

We wanted to get information from the government. We wanted the government to table these documents and set up a House committee, but all we got was an advance notice of a few hours yesterday. Indeed, yesterday afternoon we suddenly received notice of a debate on Bosnia and Croatia. Earlier today, we managed to get a one-hour briefing from defence officials who were very co-operative in answering our questions. However, we did not get the necessary files, the basic information required.

If the government is serious about this issue, it should allow a House committee to review the situation and hear witnesses, and it should also make these documents available. If we have to respect parliamentary secrecy, if the members of such a committee have to work in secrecy, they will do it. We are all responsible people, whether we belong to the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or the Liberal Party. We could conduct an in-depth review of the situation in Bosnia and Croatia, because right now we do not know what is going on.

Because the government let the events dictate its policy, we do have to remain there, since nothing was solved and the situation is still the same. From a humanitarian point of view, we are well aware that if, under the current conditions, UN troops were to withdraw, including the Canadian peacekeepers, the whole Sarajevo population could die of hunger.

All the food that enters the city is airlifted by UN forces, along with water, gas, medication and so on. People barely survive in extremely harsh conditions and almost unacceptable sanitary conditions, but they do survive thanks to the humanitarian assistance provided by peacekeeping forces in Bosnia.

We are well aware that the UN mission in Bosnia is essentially humanitarian in nature. It is a military one in Croatia, since there is a buffer zone that keeps the factions apart with, in the

middle, the UN forces. But in the case of Bosnia, it is far more than that. It is humanitarian. It is a matter of helping people to survive.

So can we just decide to withdraw? Of course not. We know perfectly well we cannot. The government knew this. The government thought that by starting this debate, it would necessarily get the support of the opposition.

However, although we cannot do otherwise, we are aware that the government has failed in several respects, in that it does not put its cards on the table and give us a chance to make informed decisions. In a democracy, people want to make informed decisions. They want to know why, because they want to choose the best option. In this case, we have no option.

From the military point of view, we know what would happen if we left right away. We know that in Croatia, it would be a signal for all-out war. People are just waiting for a chance to attack each other. And of course in Bosnia, the Serbs would try, and they would probably succeed in settling their differences with the Bosnians, in ways we can well imagine.

Without the presence of tv cameras and without UN forces, we can imagine the kind of atrocities that would take place. It would be total war, a war that would not be contained, that would spread to the Balkan powder keg towards Greece. We know that the Greeks sympathize with the Serbs and have done so for centuries, and that the Serbs might depend on the support that the Greeks might be tempted to give them. The Turks support the Bosnians.

Finally, there are any number of reasons why we would see an incredible explosion of hostilities with all the consequences this might have for relations between the major powers. What would be the position of the Soviet Union if there was an outbreak of armed conflict of this magnitude? We can assume this would make international tensions even worse tense. In other words, we are trapped.

What we would like to see is for the government to commit itself, with the help of the opposition who would be glad to oblige, to identifying certain criteria before getting into this kind of trap, and second, to setting conditions for the renewal of the mandate. I think the government should set certain conditions. It has already said that it would not agree to have the arms embargo withdrawn. I think the government has already adopted this as its policy, and we support that policy. I think one of the conditions would have to be that the embargo must be maintained, because on the American side, there is a strong movement in favour of lifting the embargo.

Second, it must ensure that ceasefires will last. Ceasefires tend to have a very short life expectancy in that part of the world. There have been dozens and dozens of cease-fire violations. We must be able to set certain conditions. The UN will have to agree to identify more specific mandates. We must have a better idea of what we are going to do. To what extent can we reciprocate and in what way?

We have to know more about this, especially in connection with air strikes. For instance, does General Smith have the authority to carry out the threat he made recently without any input from Canada? Can they go ahead with air strikes without consulting the Canadian government? The answer would seem to be yes, in certain instances. It appears that, for reasons of defence, for example, General Smith is at liberty to launch air strikes. This is less clear in the case of offensive action, in which Canada apparently has some say, if only for reasons of defence, which we understand, in order to protect the lives of the peacekeeping force.

This means that things can escalate. We know very well how the Serbs will react to air raids on their positions. It is the people in the area who will pay. Who is going to be there? Our soldiers. There is also the whole question of morale in the Canadian armed forces as a backdrop. We will talk about this again in the House.

It seems to me the Canadian forces are going through a crisis. It seems to me that these peace missions have severely taxed their ability to meet these challenges. We might be tempted to think that, for the military, these missions are exotic tours of duty in faraway lands. Some might think that since apparently they do not have to engage the enemy, it is not an unpleasant business. We realize, however, that these missions are very hard and, perhaps, harder psychologically than traditional missions, because there is no clear objective, because these people often do not know why they are there and because they must remain impassive in the face of totally incomprehensible, uncivilized and unacceptable behaviour.

I think the Minister of National Defence should say more in this respect to the House. I am sure he has reports on morale in the Canadian forces, and I believe it is in the interest of all of us in this House to be informed of the constraints and of the actions that need to be taken in this area.

Therefore, the opposition's response, the one the government expected, the one it forces us to give, is yes. A very conditional yes. A yes that comes with lots of questions and doubts. Not a very happy yes.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to advise you we will be splitting our times-

[The Deputy Speaker]

There seems to be confusion about that. After the first three members, no member can speak for more than 10 minutes and so we will not have the dividing of time. This member has 20 minutes.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to start on a complaining note, but I feel I must. The timing of this debate is the one I would like to address. I would much rather have risen to my feet to discuss our commitment to Bosnia and Croatia in December or I suppose we could have accepted January.

To be rising two days before the commitment is to come to an end seems to me to be very late in the game. Moreover, until very late this afternoon there has been no consultation whatsoever or briefings presented by the government. This seems to be a very dramatic oversight on the part of the government.

I think that the opposition parties, while we represent different philosophies, are certainly also trying to represent Canadians and present their views in this House.

It strikes me that we have two committees, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and on foreign affairs, both of which would be appropriate forums to have discussed the possibilities of extension, the difficulties and the ramifications of extending the mandate in Bosnia.

We have heard overtures that this might happen, but as yet it has not. I think it is a dramatic oversight on the part of the government. I request very strongly it reconsider this and in future involve the opposition parties more deeply in this type of negotiation.

To move into the situation, the background on Croatia is that it is a true peacekeeping operation as the definition goes. It is basically a separation zone which keeps antagonists apart. Once again I would like to pay tribute to our troops not only in Croatia but in Bosnia. They have done superb work and unquestionably are, if not the most professional, among the most professional who are performing the duty in the UN mandate.

Bosnia is a totally different mandate because, to use the official term, it is humanitarian assistance. It is to try to separate three different groups of people who are rather antagonistic toward each other. They are again doing very good work under extremely difficult conditions that have really constrained their activities to a tremendous degree.

By virtue of their flexibility, their professionalism, they have managed to create homogeneous or friendly situations-friendly is probably going too far-but acceptable situations in areas by interceding on a personal level with the local leaders. By showing without any question they are totally unbiased, that they have no favouritism, they have performed very well.

It could be fairly safely said that Canada and perhaps one or two other nations are the only ones that can make the claim of being completely and totally unbiased.

The problem is there have been many violations of agreements. We have seen rapes, we have seen murders, we have seen atrocities that are unspeakable. These are conducted by people who are committed to hate each other. It seems such a shame. It is such a beautiful country and there is so much prospect for it to prosper. Unhappily, it is caught up in what is truly a war.

We have seen hostages taken. This comes about as a result normally of NATO exerting influence to try to coerce or force people to abide by agreements that they have made but choose not to abide by.

Canadians I think are in a particularly vulnerable position in this case because we are the only ones, to my knowledge, who are actually occupying positions in Serb held territory. The other UN forces are not so deployed.

As a result, if the UN calls on NATO air support to achieve a change of heart on the part of Serb aggression, the Serbs will in all likelihood do as they have done before and they will take Canadian hostages. This has happened twice now and I think it is pipe smoking opium if we do not think that it will happen again if the situation arises.

UN patrols have been fired on in both Bosnia and Croatia. In Croatia at New Year's two of our Canadian UN peacekeepers were wounded and it was only by some extraordinary effort on the part of one of them and good hospital facilities that resulted in no Canadian fatalities in this instance.

There were a total of nine soldiers killed in the UN commitment in the former Yugoslavia. I think it is likely that if the situation continues, and it does appear to be heating up, we could very well be in danger of having even more casualties.

We have seen the lifeline of Bosnia put in extreme danger or even cut off completely. The Sarajevo airport was closed for an extensive time. As recently as a couple of days ago UN aeroplanes were being shot up as they went in and out of the airport. This impacts of course on the ability of the UN and UNPROFOR to perform the duties they are there for which is to provide humanitarian assistance by delivering supplies to the people concerned.

The problem is that there does not seem to be any particular desire on the part of the antagonists there to abide by agreements that they have made. We have seen aggression in the form of UN declared safe zones which are totally ignored and in fact attacked in dramatic fashion by the opposing forces, particularly the Serbs in this case.

It appears that the UN really is a toothless monster. It makes agreements, gets concurrence in those and then the antagonists decide which one they are going to adhere to. As I mentioned before, we have seen atrocities committed and even now we are seeing more battles between the ethnic groups in the area.

As far as any cease fire agreement, and we are now in an realm where a cease fire was declared some time ago, there is no cease fire because as the hon. leader of the official opposition has said, in the past four days I believe there have been 14 different violations recorded. As I understand from the briefing we were given an hour ago, these are relatively major incidents that are recorded because the sniper who shoots at an individual in Sarajevo is not considered to be a reportable incident. I am told that on average there are between 80 and 200 incidents reported daily. That adds up to a pretty hot war situation.

All this came about because of mandate deficiencies. First, we did not have agreement from all parties concerned to involve ourselves or the UN in the area. We decided to impose ourselves there and they said: "You are here but we did not agree to you being here". There is no indication that they have changed their mind on that at all. They will go along with things they agree with, but the instant that it does not suit their purpose they go back to doing what they want to do. There is without question a lack of desire to achieve a peaceful resolution.

I must say that if there were any sort of a light at the end of the tunnel, a view on the horizon, that there could be an accommodation which would last it would be a very different solution than we are facing.

We have seen that UN agreements are unenforceable. The UN makes an agreement, people come forward and sign off on them and then sometimes within hours or a few days the thing is violated and it is gone.

It is patently obvious that despite the embargo arms are getting through. Word has it that the Bosnians are now armed to the extent that they feel relatively capable of operating on an even footing against the Serb forces. There is a lot of question as to the capability of the various forces, but it seems without any question that there is every likelihood that there will be what is referred to as a spring offensive. I sincerely hope this is not the case, but certainly every indication is that the war or the fighting in the area is becoming worse rather than tailing off.

I think there are some unique Canadian problems which should be discussed. I will start with equipment. The government and the chief of defence staff have said-the chief of course is required to say that-that the equipment in fact is functional and is adequate. I would call it obsolescent, if not obsolete. Certainly when we were on the ground in Bosnia and in Croatia, particularly in Croatia with the M-113 armoured personnel carriers, there was no question in the minds of the people who were using them that this was not a piece of kit that they really enjoyed. They are unreliable. The tracks broke regularly and they were not sufficiently armoured to do the job they were intended to do.

The solution to this of course was to add additional armour to them. The problem with adding additional armour is that it adds to the weight. Adding to the weight means that the drive train will be in trouble, the suspension will give up and the fuel consumption will rise tremendously. That is not an adequate solution.

The radios are vitally important in that situation, with observation posts and troops deployed in various areas; to be able to talk to the guy you want to talk to when you want to talk to him. We heard time and again from people that their radios were broken down. Everyone has become a fixer of communications equipment. That is unacceptable.

The flack jackets that our personnel wear there are cumbersome and uncomfortable. We saw in Croatia a new design which was being tried out, but the ones which were issued to our troops, in their opinion, are unacceptable.

We have a very poor night vision device available. That is absolutely unacceptable again because a lot of our observation posts are involved in night observations and if they cannot see or use them properly this is not good.

I think the business of helmets has been discussed a couple of times and I understand if it were not so tragic it would be humorous. When we got the Kevlar helmets they were not blue. We decided to paint them, so we went out and bought some paint. The only problem was that the paint reacted with the Kevlar and they became soft and basically useless. The other UN forces I think who use those helmets have put canvas covers on them. Again, I do not think we did our homework.

We also have a problem, in my estimation, with our people. First of all, I want to pay tribute to the co-operation, the professionalism, the dedication and the sincere interest that our people have shown and the way they have conducted themselves. However, I think we are rotating them through the operational zone too often. We have people who have been there three times. Soon if we keep up the rate we are doing, if we renew the commitment, we will have people on their fourth tours of operation.

Many of these people are volunteers, and I understand that. However, I still think that from a man management point of view, this is not the way we should go. It is fine for the troops who are in the zone, but their families are tremendously impacted by the fact that they are away. Dad is out of the picture or, in some cases, mom. The children suffer, the family suffers and therefore it has to impact to an extent on morale.

There is an increase in the incidence of alcoholism in the units that have been deployed. There have been increased disciplinary problems. This is natural because people are under an awful lot of tension and it will unquestionably affect them.

The whole thing boils down to a morale problem which I think would be difficult to deal with at the best of times. Added on to other problems that the Canadian force are now experiencing I think it is somewhat devastating. Basically we are asking our troops to be burned out. I do not think we can afford to do that.

With regard to the mandate in Bosnia and Croatia, Reform in December last year laid down what we thought were four reasonable conditions which Canada should demand or we should withdraw. First, peacekeepers should be left alone. They should not be taken hostage. They should not be interfered with. Second, we asked that the Sarajevo airport be opened and left open in order that humanitarian assistance could be brought in. Third, we asked that all aid convoys be able to proceed unimpeded. Finally, we asked that a ceasefire be in place and be holding and be seen to be holding.

The only one of these four proposals that has been met, and that is only recently, is the one to leave the peacekeepers alone. The Sarajevo airport has been closed many times. Aircraft have been shot at. Aid convoys have been held up or refused passage. Of course it is obvious there is no ceasefire and it is not holding.

The Reform Party believes the solution to this is that Canada should accept the situation is not now resolved, nor is it likely to be in the near future. This is a situation where there are no white hats. Every one of the ethnic people in that area are to some extent responsible for atrocities: the Croats, Muslims and the Serbs. Some may be more prone to it than others but everyone is guilty to an extent.

As I said just a few moments ago, Canadian resources are stretched to the limit. We should be aware of this and we have to accept it. It can be safely said that Canada has done her share. We have now committed our troops there for three years. We have done exemplary work. I do not think that anyone can point at Canada and say that we are not pulling our weight.

There are other UN forces committed there that are much less efficient. Some of them are not doing their job at all. One particular unit, which I will not mention by name, has brand new armoured personnel carriers bought by the UN, purchased in Korea, and it refuses to use them. It wants to keep the mileage low because the UN depreciates them and it is then going to take them home in almost brand new condition.

Other contingents will not go to the front lines. They will support only one side or the other in the conflict. It is only Canada and a few other nations that are truly perceived by the antagonists to be unbiased and impartial.

The Reform Party proposes that Canada should say: "We have done our share. It is time to withdraw our forces from Bosnia and Croatia". We should say to the United Nations that we understand that it will take them some time to find replacements. I suggest that an initial timeframe of three months' grace be given, after which time Canada would withdraw from the region.

I believe this is possible in Croatia. It might be more difficult in Bosnia. I do not think that Canada would be unreasonable if the time has to be extended. It could be but I think it should be extended by very short increments.

Finally, we should have learned a very dramatic lesson from our involvement in Bosnia and Croatia. All of us have at some time understood that we got in there with the thought that we were going there to do good. We have done well. The problem is that there was no agreement.

Canada should insist for instance that there be a time limit on our involvement. There should be an insistence that the people who are there want us there and that they want to come to a peaceful solution, that they want to solve the thing.

The matter of rules of engagement must be very clearly specified and they must be acceptable to Canada before we say yes we will go in. The financial aspect should be discussed and approved.

Unless we do this, Canada may once again wind up in a commitment such as we have here where our withdrawal, without question, will result in an accelerated conflict. I see no way of avoiding this. By Canadians staying there we are just extending it.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, we were 29 years in Cyprus and we certainly cannot stand 29 years in Bosnia and Croatia.

Therefore, the Reform Party advocates that Canada tell the UN that we would like our commitment to come to an end. We will give it a three-month period of grace after which time we will effectively withdraw.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing today the democratization of Canada's foreign policy. It began with the review by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons with certain recommendations to the government. The government responded and in that response it said that it wanted to involve Parliament in future important defence and foreign policy decisions. Therefore, I am very pleased that we are having this debate tonight. I recommend that we have more such debates.

Two weeks ago the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. At that point, the minister wanted to know the positions of the official opposition and of the Reform Party. I will come back to that.

Although I am pleased we are having the debate, I was truly shocked and disappointed by the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition when he opened his remarks by stating that he cannot be proud of what Canada has done or has not done. We on this side are very proud of what Canada has done in this conflict and we continue to be proud and supportive of these people.

He went on to blame Canada further. He said that Canada had not done anything. Does the Leader of the Opposition not realize that we are one of a team and we cannot act unilaterally? I guess the team approach to things is not in the leader's vocabulary.

Does he not realize that presently there are about 35 countries with 43,000 troops involved here? If it was not for all the negotiations that have been going on over all these years and all the troops and countries participating, who knows if we would not be in the middle of world war three today?

Yes, lives have been lost. Yes, it is expensive. However, thank God that countries like Canada are participating because we may have warded off another world war.

The Leader of the Opposition went on to complain that all we were debating the rotation and that the rotation has been decided. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to read what it is we are debating. It states:

That this House, in light of the UN Security Council consideration of renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia-

That is what we are debating. We are debating whether Canada should continue to keep its forces there or not. The rotation comes automatically. After the troops have been there six months they are replaced. However, if after a month Canada decides to pull out its troops, it pulls out fresh and strong troops, not tired troops.

It is the mandate we are debating. The rotation is automatic after six months. I was disappointed that the hon. member could not distinguish between that.

He went on to say that we have no choice. I thought he was going to say that we have no choice whether to stay or pull out. We do have a choice. That is why we are having this debate.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of National Defence said that before making an important decision like this one, whether or not to renew the mandate, Parliament would be consulted. That is what we are doing. To stand and say that we have no choice does not help the government. We are looking for some leadership from the opposition to help Canadians make an important decision.

The Leader of the Opposition went on to say: "What is Canada's policy in peacekeeping missions?" I suggest he read a bit of history. By going back to when the Prime Minister of Canada, Lester B. Pearson, recommended the peacekeeping forces. That role continues. We are changing that role. We are looking more at preventive measures, but the peacekeeping role continues. That is why Canada holds such an enviable position around the world.

The Leader of the Opposition does not seem to realize that conflicts since the end of the cold war are much different. In those days, one state attacked another state. Peace was made and we sent peacekeepers to keep the peace. Now it is internal conflicts. It is ethnocultural conflicts. It is tribal conflicts, wars, killings and genocide within a country. That is a totally different kind of challenge.

I was pleased that the Leader of the Opposition ended by saying: "Yes, we should renew the mandate". However he puts certain conditions on it. I guess it was a conditional yes. To be honest his remarks did not help the government very much to decide whether we should continue our mandate and keep our peacekeepers there or not.

The official spokesperson for the Reform Party complained that we had no consultations. We have had consultations through the whole foreign policy review. The government responds. The foreign affairs standing committee had the Minister of Foreign Affairs before it just two weeks ago. We discussed the Bosnia-Hercegovina conflict. The minister asked point blank the members of the official opposition what was their position. The answer was similar to what we got tonight.

When the minister asked the Reform Party, what the position was, the response was that they are split 50:50 on the issue. I was pleased that today the Reform Party made it clear that its position is to withdraw our forces. At least we know what the stand is, the position of the Reform Party.

To answer the Leader of the Opposition, I want to remind him that Canada remains one of the strongest advocates of reinforcing UN's conflict prevention and conflict resolution capability. We have been working with like-minded countries at the UN to bring about reforms that will provide the organization with the political, financial and military tools it needs to fulfil its growing responsibilities.

Canada is conducting a study on a UN rapid reaction capability and will host an international conference on the subject next week. We are organizing with our partners peacekeeping semi-

nars in the context of PAC, Regional Forum and the Organization for American States.

We are also working with the Organization of African Union to improve the capability of African countries to better contribute to peacekeeping operations and preventive diplomacy.

I do not want to finish my speech on Bosnia-Hercegovina without mentioning to all members that we have gone beyond peacekeeping. We are looking at conflict prevention. We are looking at reforming the United Nations so that our peacekeepers can be sent with a much clearer mandate.

I appeal to all members who will be taking part in the debate tonight, to the independent members, to the members on our government side, to the members of the Bloc Quebecois, the members of the Reform Party, to help the government make this important decision. Let us put our partisan politics aside. Let us hear what our constituents are telling us. Then we can make a very knowledgeable, intelligent and the right decision for Canada and hopefully for bringing peace to that area.