Debates of April 19th, 1999

Supply

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The matter before the House and part of the debate of course centres around the vote as the Bloc motion clearly indicates. It has nothing to do with what question period information was brought forward about troops burying some—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but I do not think the hon. member is raising a legitimate point of order. He asked a question and he is getting an answer. While he may not agree with the answer, I am afraid he is stuck with it.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Your arguments are not convincing, sir—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon member for Beauharnois—Salaberry must address his remarks to the Chair.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's arguments are no more convincing than those of his counterpart at foreign affairs.

One of the reasons they are even less convincing is that this morning one of his colleagues reminded us that this House had voted on several occasions on sending troops, not only to Iraq, but also to the Congo, Cyprus, and the Middle East.

There are examples when the House voted. Why is the government refusing to change the practice it brought in when it came to power, according to which it refuses to hold a vote after a debate?

The government should learn something from this war, a lesson in democracy.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand at all the attitude of the members across the way.

I said it over and again in my speech as well as before when I answered the question put to me by my colleague from Calgary North, I know neither how many debates were held nor how many members rose in this House to discuss the issue.

We should not forget either that every day, technical briefings are given at National Defense Headquarters by people from DND and the Department of Foreign Affairs. There is an awful lot of information out there. People only have to go and get it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, The Budget; the hon. member for Markham, The Economy; the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Black Lake BC Mine.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members know I do not believe in fighting.

At the outset I would like to congratulate the Bloc for using this opposition day in a constructive manner to put on the floor of this place an issue that really should be debated.

I said last week that I thought the opposition day was misused by the official opposition when in fact Canada is at war. If somebody wants to put an issue forward to discuss a vote, why not do it this way? Why not use the opposition day which is parliamentary tradition and put this issue to a vote instead of standing up and saying one thing in question period and doing another at a time when the opportunity presents itself to have an opposition day?

While I can say that I congratulate the Bloc, which is not something I would do often, for taking the opportunity to put forward this motion to allow for constructive debate, it would probably not be surprised to find I cannot support the motion as it stands. But I do support the concept of having debates in this place, particularly when it involves the three words we have heard in the media lately that really are foreign to this country. Canada at war. Those are the three words. I believe there is a show on CBC tomorrow evening. It is an astounding thing to think about in 1999.

[An hon. member]

Are we?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we are. We are involved aggressively with our allies in a war to try to resolve a problem.

I do not think anyone in this place would question the intentions or the desire to bring peace to that region. Part of the reason I have difficulty with the concept is that we would have a debate in here about whether or not the next step in our military deployment should be this or should be that.

Think about it. There is a potential of putting our armed forces at risk. We are going to say to Mr. Milosevic “Hold on. We are going to have a debate in parliament. Don't do anything. We will get back to you. We have all our men lined up and ready to go with weapons cocked but we have to have a debate in this place called parliament in Canada and then we have to have a vote and we will decide whether or not we are going to deploy our troops”.

Never before in the history of this country would that kind of process have been undertaken. It was not undertaken in 1939 when this country joined forces to fight the Nazis. It was not undertaken when we declared war against imperial Japan. It was not undertaken when we declared war on Korea. It is unbelievable to think that a responsible parliamentarian would want us to have some kind of debate and a vote. Imagine what would happen.

What kind of message would we be sending if for some reason the vote was extremely close? We know with a majority government we could carry it. I do not believe that the official opposition or anyone in opposition wants to send a message of instability or mixed messages to the people who are putting their lives on the line. I just do not believe it.

I will read a quote and then say who said it. “It is also our view as I wrote the Prime Minister on March 31 that once the decision was made to commit Canadian air forces to the NATO effort in Yugoslavia, we in this parliament should not engage in second guessing the mission when it has scarcely begun. Rather, we should offer our steadfast support, our political support, our moral support, our vocal support to those brave Canadian personnel who are involved”. The Leader of the Official Opposition said that on April 12, 1999.

We would have to say that is a responsible position to take. Once again it is not often I throw accolades to the official opposition. I think it makes sense to take a position such as this when people are putting their lives on the line.

This is another quote which was made in this place. “I would say right up front on behalf of the NDP caucus that we certainly support the idea that Canada should fulfill its international obligations and should take every measure possible to try to end the suffering, to end the senseless bloodshed that occurs in a lot of these countries and to bring about some humanitarian efforts and to try to stabilize the countries”.

That was said by the New Democratic Party critic, the member for Halifax West. Again, I think that is a responsible position that an opposition party should take.

To politicize this war into the opportunism we hear during question period or that we hear members opposite making is frightening. Frankly it is dangerous. We are not going into a war by committee. We are not going into a war where we have to say “Hold on, we will get back to you. We have not had a vote yet. There are 301 people in our parliament who need to vote on this”. We would be tying the hands of the military leaders. We would be tying the hands of the government to require such a thing to occur. I do not think Canadians are fooled by the rhetoric which would suggest that somehow we should do it that way.

I have a couple of points about what is going on in the region. Many will recall a debate in this place that was somewhat rancorous. It was about whether or not members of parliament should have a small Canadian flag on their desks. I recall it rather well. There were cars painted with the Canadian flag driving around Parliament Hill; all kinds of my nationalism is bigger than your nationalism; all kinds of attempts at one-upmanship. Frankly, I think we were as guilty as some members opposite who engaged in that debate.

My colleague, the member from Owen Sound, made a very interesting remark to me. He said “What really bothers me about this is it is nationalism and it is dangerous”. There is a difference between being proud of our country and standing up and shouting and yelling we are the best or we are the strongest. What we are seeing in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia is nationalism and tribalism gone mad.

In 1990 as a member of the provincial legislature I was part of a parliamentary delegation that witnessed the first free elections since the second world war in Croatia. I spent time in Zagreb and went down the coast and met with many Croatian people. I remember on election day people queuing up to vote with tears in their eyes because they had not had that freedom under Tito. This was their opportunity to say “ Zivjela Hrvatska ”. This was their opportunity to vote for independence, to vote for a strong Croatia. We are in the same region.

The other night when I was watching a newscast I heard one of the commentators, I think it was Henry Kissinger say that what we have in this part of the world is irreconcilable hatred. We have to think about that. It is absolutely true. I do not know how we resolve the hatred and the passion that people feel. I am not sure we could even understand it, never mind resolve it. I do not know how we can suggest that we are going to magically sit down at a peace table and resolve a conflict that is not 10 or 20 years old but hundreds of years old, perhaps thousands of years old. That conflict is there in such a personal fashion it is hard to conceive.

In no circumstances could I support putting our soldiers at risk in that theatre. To suggest that we have a vote on this issue would do that and it would send the wrong message. We should be supporting our personnel. I support them as I hope all members will.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

Maybe he does not know it, but there have been votes in the House to decide whether our troops would take part in military missions abroad. I will not give a list of these votes since somebody else did it in a previous speech.

So there is a precedent in the House where parliament was used as an important tool in the area of foreign policy.

I want to ask the member if he thinks that, considering the seriousness of the current situation in Kosovo and in the Balkans, a vote in parliament would be an important tool that should be used by the government to tell the international community that not only do the Government of Canada and the parties represented in the House of Commons agree on this issue, but that all members of the House of Commons share the same position with regard to the need to send in ground troops.

Would it not have some political weight and would it not advance the cause of democracy if we showed all Canadians that the members they elected to represent them in parliament had the opportunity to vote on this most important issue?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the sentiment, the principle or the idea that the Canadian parliament should vote on matters of national and international interest is valid. However the practical reality of having a vote and having some kind of potential for the opposition perhaps to use it for political statements, or for an opportunity to try to somehow embarrass the government, is the wrong kind of issue to do that with.

The member knows that what they are doing is absolutely appropriate. They are putting forward a motion that will generate a vote on an opposition day so that we all have the opportunity to stand in the House and put our position forward as to whether or not we support the government on the actions that are being taken.

I think we have to be careful and we have to depoliticize as much as possible the issue of whether or not ground troops are sent in. I pray to God that will not have to happen, but I fear that looking at the situation that it might well have to happen. We have to give them flexibility and the ability to deal with that at the military level.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment or two followed by a short question. It seems like the member for Mississauga West often engages in demagogic attacks at important times when we should be discussing matters of national interest. We are not under any imminent threat of a strike by Serbians or anyone else, so there is lots of time to debate the issue.

The House has not been given the full opportunity to debate it. No opportunity for a vote was given. His own prime minister, his own leader, when the war was going on in Kuwait accused the previous prime minister of being an American stooge for not bringing the issue before the House for a vote when he supported the Americans in that.

What does he think of the situation now that his party is in the position of being the governing party of the country? Do they want to be thought of the same way, or will they allow a vote finally to take place on the issue because there is time and a real need?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will accept the fact that I have stood from time to time in this place and thrown castigations at the opposition parties. I did not do that in this speech, precisely for the reason that the hon. member mentions. This is much too serious an issue for us to be worrying about partisan shots at one another. We can live to fight another day on those issues, and I am sure we will.

I even quoted the Leader of the Opposition in a positive light from Hansard and congratulated him for his statement. I quoted the New Democratic member for Halifax West. I congratulated the Bloc for using an opposition day in what I view to be an appropriate manner.

This is much too serious an issue for us to be politicizing it and taking cheap shots at one another. I certainly did not do that and have no intention of doing that.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address the motion proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. It does not happen often on this side of the House that the Bloc would receive congratulations from the official opposition.

I believe the debate is certainly well timed. It could be carried a bit further, but so be it. The fact of the matter is that it is before the House for debate and actually for a vote to encourage, if nothing else, the government to take the right steps, that is to take a vote on the issue of entering or escalating our presence in the Kosovo crisis.

I have been listening to some of the comments on the issue of voting on this motion. I will read the motion again for anyone who may be viewing or listening:

That this House demand that the government submit to a debate and a vote in the House—

I also include the amendment of the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry: “prior to the possibility of”.

—the sending of Canadian soldiers to the Balkans who may be involved in military or peacekeeping operations on the ground in Kosovo and the Balkan region.

Over the short time I have been sitting in the House listening to the debate, the comments from that side of the House toward the opposition or toward anyone seeking to have a vote on the issue are amazing. It has nothing to do per se with the events happening over there.

First, alarm bells have been sent out: “We will not have time for a debate in the House on this issue because it could be an emergency”. It is not an emergency. There is ample time to debate the topic about sending ground forces in. There is plenty of time for the government to prepare and for the opposition to receive pertinent information so that all hon. members of the House could be well informed about a vote. As well there would be a substantial show of support throughout. There is no way out once members stand in the House to take a vote on an issue as important as this one.

The opposition has again been accused of trying to turn the House into a congressional system. What on earth does that mean? To have a democratic process involved in the sending of troops, or whether or not one supports sending troops or escalating our presence in the Kosovo crisis, what on earth does that have to do with turning the House into a congressional system?

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

It means where one person does not make all the decisions.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Yes, as my hon. colleague said, it means that one person does not make all the decisions. That is what seems to be the point of greatest fear on the other side of the House and the government has clear support, if a vote is taken, even from the opposition members.

In this case I inform the other side of the House that the Reform Party, the official opposition, supports the government's role and the troops in NATO thus far.

The hon. member for Mississauga West made a very accurate statement about our leader and his position, that we did in fact support the government. He could have continued on to inform the House and those viewing the debate that our leader also advised the Prime Minister and the House that if any escalation were contemplated which might require ground troops being sent in, the Leader of the Opposition clearly stated that we would seek to have a vote in the House on the matter and another debate. That is the conclusion of the opposition leader's statement.

There was also a statement from the Liberal side relating to the issue of the vote, that to vote on this issue would put the troops at risk. Can anyone on the other side of the House tell me how a vote would put our troops at risk? I cannot understand that.

How would we be jeopardizing their safety by having a vote on this issue? I would like to be shown how we would place our troops at risk by the mere fact that we would debating and voting on the issue.

I can tell members that our troops would feel very supported if the majority of members in the House rose in support of their action over there. I believe they deserve our support.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence brought forward a statement accusing the opposition of political jockeying. What are we jockeying for? The majority of opposition members support our role and the government's role in this NATO crisis. Where is the political jockeying?

All we are seeking is to have a vote on the issue in parliament. It is that simple. There is no political jockeying involved. It is a simple declaration that we support this initiative but we want a vote on it in the House. That is democracy.

All these matters have been raised in the last few minutes. Another statement was directed from the Liberal side toward the opposition, that the opposition was using this issue and this motion for political statements and posturing. Is this the actual view of the Liberal government of the opposition that has claimed time and time again that we are supporting the action over there just because we are asking for a vote?

There are some other underlying reasons the Liberal government is accusing the opposition of all these things. The parliamentary secretary to the foreign affairs minister stated, as reported in Hansard , that historically successive Canadian governments had maintained that it was best to present unanimity from all sides of the House on a decision of this gravity and magnitude.

How would it even know that? Since when has the government side been speaking for every member in the House? It is not speaking for every member in the House. There is an opposition here which has a role to play in the parliamentary system. It is not speaking for every member in the House, in spite of what the foreign affairs parliamentary secretary had to say.

Those are all the reasons brought forward in the last two hours of the debate. The accusations have been plentiful on that side trying to discredit or put down the opposition.

I am not speaking for every party but I certainly am speaking for our own. We support the government action in NATO on the Kosovo crisis. Why would the government side continually want to shut down the issue of a vote? There is only one reason I can think of. It does not want votes on important issues to take place. It does not want the democratic process to actually—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but did the member for Calgary Northeast indicate he was sharing his time with the member for Fraser Valley?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I am.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member has one minute to go.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker, for not letting you know earlier.

Obviously the government does not want votes on important issues, even if it means having to send ground troops into Kosovo and place the lives of men and women in the military in possible danger. It does not want to vote on it.

That is the history. We could go through a list of other things like hepatitis C compensation. There was no vote on that issue and it was an important issue. The issue of APEC funding consumed much debate in the House. There were many questions from the official opposition and other opposition parties to the government, but there was no debate.

We could also talk about the issue that brought some infamy to the secretary of state for financial institutions, which is the taxing of single parents or single income families. It is shameful. We could talk about the banning of kiddie porn. The list goes on and on. That is the real reason this government does not want to have a vote on the issue of Kosovo.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to people watching that this is an opposition day. Each year each of the four opposition parties receives a certain number of days on which they can pick any topic they want to debate. Today we are debating a motion by the Bloc which has to do with Kosovo.

We just listened to the third speech made by a Reform member. In that speech, as in the ones we heard this morning, there was the usual criticism of the government and much sanctimonious talk about democracy and how we should be dealing with Kosovo. By the way, this is our fourth debate on Kosovo. What people watching may not realize is that the Reform Party had an opposition day on which it could choose any topic it wished. That opposition day followed the all-night debate on Kosovo. The Reform Party picked a Mickey Mouse motion. It was a tragic-comic, partisan motion about alienation.

My question to the Reform member is this: If he is so keen on this issue, as he purports to be, why is it they picked the comic strip motion the day following the Kosovo debate instead of supporting the Bloc motion today? That is not a party which normally supports the Bloc. It is the party which says “No more prime ministers from Quebec”.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member, up to a point. I think he has been rather unduly critical of our party; in fact, very much so in his statements. I believe that nothing is comic in the House, including our opposition day motion.

However, the issue of the vote is clear. We asked for unanimous consent to have a vote on this issue the day it was debated in the House. We had an all-night debate on the issue. What happened? The Liberal side said no. The next day it was the same thing; the Liberal side said no. We asked for that vote and they would not agree to it.

I encourage the hon. member not to hurl these kinds of statements back to the opposition.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Reform member undoubtedly heard the hon. Liberal member who spoke before him quote my words, in which I indicated that we felt very strongly that every avenue should be pursued to try to bring an end to the useless bloodshed. One of the avenues we have been pursuing quite rigorously in light of that is the uniting for peace resolution. We feel that it is important to get this issue before the general assembly of the United Nations. That seems to be constantly shoved aside by the government. It is almost as if it does not want to bring the matter before a larger international body other than NATO.

I would ask the hon. member what his views are with respect to that suggestion.