Len Hopkins

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not go along with the scenario the hon. member just outlined. Everyone in this House who can add, subtract and divide knows full well that if we allow things to continue to escalate and get out of control, then interest rates will rise and there will be greater unemployment. The Minister of Finance is trying under very difficult circumstances to put a solid base on the financial structure of the country so that we will not have higher unemployment or high interest rates. Interest rates now are the lowest they have been in three decades. This alone will help businesses to grow. It is up to government to lay some firm foundations on which private enterprise can grow, bloom and hire people. Over the years governments have done this.

In the early 1980s the Liberal government, and I sat here with it, brought in deficit budgets. However I point out to the hon. member that unemployment was extremely high. Canadians across the country were having a very difficult time. World inflation was sky high. People said that never again would we see one digit interest rates in this country. That was in the early eighties and look where we are now. Interest rates are the lowest they have been in three decades. We have a solid financial plan.

The Minister of Finance is not delivering a powerful speech and then running away to hide and then give in to everything like the Tories did. As a result, the debt continued to grow under the Tories because there was no will in the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet to back up their own finance minister. That is why the Tories are not in the House today. Canadians know the difference.

I remember when we sat across the way and criticized the Tory government on its many weaknesses. God knows, we did not have to look very far for those. I say to the hon. member that I too know how easy it is to get up and deliver a speech from that side of the House and try to attack the solid foundation which is being built for the financial structure of the country on this side of the House.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest because probably unknowingly in his speech he gave credit to 40 Liberal MPs who sat in the House between 1984 and 1988 for scaring the blazes out of 212 Tories in the House. Then he gave credit to some 80 Liberal members who sat here between 1988 and 1993 for polishing them off and putting the government in place to run the country.

No matter when budgets are delivered in a parliamentary session and regardless of the fiscal issues surrounding a budget, each budget in turn has its impact on various segments of society.

The last two budgets have been aimed at getting federal finances in order. This budget is no exception to recent fiscal policies because there are benefactors and then there are others who get hit negatively.

The Minister of Finance does not have an easy role. Unlike his predecessors in the Tory days, when he sets a target he has every intention of meeting it. With all this scenario, it behoves us not to lose sight of those things in our economic structure that have served us well in the past and which will build a good future in the days ahead.

Sometimes there is a very thin line between cost cutting to save money and cost cutting which in the long run does not serve as well as hoped.

These are the challenges that face the Minister of Finance and the government today. There are a host of positive things in this budget and there are other items that lay the groundwork for difficulties to come.

We are ensuring a secure, stable and growing system of federal support for medicare, post-secondary education and social assistance through the Canada health and social transfer to the provinces. There will be no further cuts in the transfer to the provinces. We have announced a firm funding commitment for a five-year period beginning in 1998-99.

For the first two years the Canada health and social transfer will remain constant at $25.1 billion and for the next three years it will increase each year. For the first time the federal government has set a cash floor for transfers. The cash component of the Canada health and social transfer will never be lower than $11 billion a year during this period.

We are acting to restore confidence in the old age security system by creating a new seniors benefit to take effect in 2001 designed to help those who need help the most. That is the way it was when I first came into the House.

As promised, current seniors will continue to receive the benefits they receive now. The changes will ensure the sustainability of the system for years to come. Canada's future depends on our ability to show innovative technology leadership, and the government's commitment to jobs and growth was reinforced in both the speech from the throne and the budget.

The budget outlined priorities for investing in our future in three strategic areas: creating better ways to get young Canadians into the job market, expanding our efforts to increase international trade, and accelerating the development and use of technology. Technology is a priority because it is fundamental to increased economic growth in this country or any other modern day country.

In his budget speech the finance minister spoke about investing in the future, about providing hope for jobs and for growth. He

said: "If our future is to be brighter, we must invest in it". Clearly this is good business and it is also good government.

Although not specifically mentioned in the budget speech, one outcome of the prebudget program review has been a 42 per cent cut in the annual allocation to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. The cut, to be administered over two years, was apparently the result of a purely business assessment, by government and by a firm brought in, of the short term needs of that crown corporation. It was based on bottom line logic from a consulting firm, not the vision for the future.

The government, through the Minister of Natural Resources, is attempting to find a new home for this one-half century of proven basic research that was started at Chalk River, Ontario about 50 years ago. What has only now become clear is that this 42 per cent cut in the business support spread out over two years has been transformed by AECL into the complete removal of all its basic research activities, some immediately and the rest within a year. It is cashing in on the very investment on which the future depends.

Basic or fundamental research is the search for scientific knowledge without a specific application in mind. This generalized search for knowledge is essential if real innovation is ever to occur because tomorrow's application of today's research usually cannot even be imagined today; we cannot command what we do not know.

A good example is about 170 years ago an accomplished British scientist was asked by the Royal Society to improve optical glass, a task which he felt he could not refuse. After 10 years of fruitless labour he wrote in 1831 to ask permission, "to set aside the glass work for a while that I may enjoy the pleasure of working out my own thoughts on other subjects". In other words, he wanted to do some pure research.

Within two months Michael Faraday had discovered electromagnetic induction and built the first prototype dynamo in world history. From those two months of basic research have come today's mammoth electricity generators that supply our industry and give us lights in the House.

There are two important questions that arise from this story. First, would the world today have been a better place if the Royal Society had insisted that Michael Faraday continue his efforts on the more practical application of glass? Second, is it likely that any government committee or task force in 1831 would have arrived at electromagnetic induction as a strategic technology worthy of public support?

The answer to both these questions is a resounding no. This historical observation is not lost on the G-7 countries today. For example, a document entitled "Science in the National Interest", issued and signed by President Clinton in late 1994, states: "We understand that the fruit of fundamental research initiatives may not ripen for some time. The time scale can be long and success may hinge on facilities and interdisciplinary research teams that take years to assemble. Even in the face of current budgetary pressures, considerations about fundamental science must remain integral to the agency planning activities. We cannot allow a short term mission focus to compromise the development of the intellectual capital vital to our nation's future".

Even more emphatic is the example of Japan. Its response to the recent downturn in its economy has been to double its spending on basic research.

In light of these facts, it is astonishing that we are now threatened in Canada with the dismantling of one of the best examples we have of a marriage of basic research and economically successful applications.

Basic research in nuclear science has been an essential part of the country's nuclear program since the mid-1940s when it was started under the National Research Council. It has supplied the fundamental knowledge required by the industry, provided many of its leaders and given lustre to the national effort by its international reputation for excellence.

As a result AECL and its partners have produced the best performing and most versatile reactor system in the world. They have done so at a fraction of the research and development cost of any of their competitors. The industry now employs 30,000 Canadians, contributes more than $3 billion per year to the gross domestic product and generates over $500 million in federal tax revenue.

In addition to its role in launching and sustaining this industry, the basic research components of AECL are also serving as national laboratories for university researchers and Canada around the world. They foster research in nuclear science and other related fields throughout the country. They offer facilities no one university could operate and maintain on its own. They give many university professors access to the frontiers of world science they could not otherwise find without going abroad. They train students who form the next generation of Canadian researchers.

These labs at Chalk River perfected the O ring for the U.S. shuttle when the previous shuttle had blown up. They manufactured and developed radio isotopes which are used in hospitals around the world today. I emphasize that at Chalk River our scientists and researchers handle radioactive wastes from hospitals across the country.

These national laboratories for basic research at Chalk River have been centres of excellence for decades. They have been examples of a partnership among government, industry and the universities. In short, they are exactly what the Canadian government seeks to create as we prepare for the next century.

I am hoping, and so are many others, that the Minister of Natural Resources will find a new home for such physics organizations as TASCC and Neutron Scattering and that environmental research will not be scaled back at Chalk River at this time.

These are the 260 letters that have been received from top scientists from across Canada and from approximately 30 countries around the world who respect the basic research that is going on in Canada today. I lay this before the House today because it is an important matter for the future of Canada.

The stress testing of aircraft parts of the aircraft we fly in has been done in these labs. The aerospace industry has benefited greatly. Bertram Brockhouse, our 1994 Nobel laureate, worked in the physics labs at Chalk River. His award was granted because of the work he did in the 1950s and 1960s.

My message today is: Let us find a new home for these facilities so that they are not lost, so that Canada's science community does not have a brain drain and that we continue to lay the excellent groundwork for years to come for basic research and development in Canada.

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was announced that non-commissioned members of the Canadian forces will receive a 2.2 per cent pay catch-up to bring them in line with federal public salaries. This is welcome news to the men and women who have dedicated their lives to serving of our country.

Will the Minister of National Defence tell the House when these truly deserving members of the Canadian forces can expect this measure to take effect? This is another good news story to follow up on his clarification of the purchase of equipment which he made just a few minutes ago.

[Foreign Affairs, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this very important debate on Canada's role with the United Nations in Haiti. Haiti has had a very tumultuous past.

Canada has an immense national interest in the Caribbean area. That is why it is very important for Canada to be associated with the United Nations in the very important task of helping to establish a permanent democracy in Haiti. The national interests of Canada are served by what the Canadian Armed Forces are doing in that region because we have a tremendous relationship with the countries throughout the Caribbean and in South America.

I want to give an example of the respect with which Canada is held in the eyes of countries in the Caribbean. I remember a number of years ago when Lincoln Alexander, a former member of this House and former Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, and I went to the Caribbean to a meeting as Canadian observers.

There were about 64 delegates from around the Caribbean at that meeting. At the beginning, one of the Prime Ministers who was chairing the meeting said that he wanted Canadians to know that not only were they welcome, but even though they were observers, he wanted them to feel free to participate in the discussions at any time they wished to do so.

The Prime Minister of one of the countries went on to say that it was because Canada was its greatest friend in the world. Britain came second and after that, he did not even enumerate them.

It is very important that Canada look after her interests in the Caribbean. As we know, Canada is really synonymous with peacekeeping excellence. Over the past 50 years, our peacekeepers have served throughout the world and their experience and expertise remain unsurpassed.

The Canadian forces are always combat ready. They are peacekeeping ready. They are also diplomats when they go abroad because they do so much good work while there on a volunteer basis. They are well trained. They get along well with the people wherever they are. They help those people out.

As we debate this issue, let us remember that every time a peacekeeper goes abroad on duty there is a family back home. I want to pay tribute tonight to the families that remain at home and the challenges they face while a spouse, a father or mother, is abroad with a peacekeeping force. Let us remember them as well in this debate.

It comes as no surprise to any of us that the international community is looking to Canada to assume a significant role in the ongoing work in Haiti. Our peacekeepers have already shown that they are well suited for this mission. They may now have an opportunity to go a step further in assisting Haiti and its people during a difficult period of transition.

My purpose today is to review Canada's peacekeeping record and remind members of the superb qualifications that Canadian forces personnel bring to this job. They have the skills necessary to meet the demands of modern operations.

Peacekeeping began modestly for Canada. In the late 1940s the UN began deploying unarmed military personnel to observe peace agreements in some of the world's conflict ridden regions. Canada's participation in two of these early missions continues to this day. I am referring to the UN truce supervision organization in the Middle East and the UN military observer group in India and Pakistan.

Peacekeeping moved beyond observing and took on a more demanding role with the Suez crisis of 1956. Lester B. Pearson, Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs at the time, recommended placing a UN force between the warring parties once a ceasefire had been signed. The multinational force would then police the ceasefire, setting the stage for a negotiated settlement. Mr. Pearson argued his case with skill and determination, overcoming the scepticism of some of the UN members. The United Nations Emergency Force was thus born and Mr. Pearson was awarded the Nobel peace prize.

The first commander of the United Nations emergency force was a Canadian, Lieutenant-General E. L. M. Burns. General Burns, operating in unfamiliar territory, was often forced to chart his own course as he carried out the difficult job of keeping the peace between Arab and Israeli. In the end he excelled in this delicate task. Why? Because he was well trained for the job in the Canadian military community.

Suez was an important precedent for the United Nations. Over the next three decades most peacekeeping missions rested on the principles established by the United Nations Emergency Force.

Peacekeeping forces were expected to be lightly armed and impartial, and enjoy the consent of the warring parties. During this period Canada established herself as a leader in the peacekeeping field. We participated in virtually every UN mission and some outside the UN as well.

By the end of the cold war more than 80,000 Canadian forces' personnel had served in peacekeeping operations: from the Congo and West New Guinea to Cyprus and the Golan Heights. Canada's peacekeeping excellence did not disappear with the end of the cold war. Indeed, in recent years our expertise has been more in demand than ever.

Since 1989 the United Nations has become a much more active and interventionist organization. It has become more involved in interstate disputes and it has tackled human rights and humanitarian issues on a greater scale than ever before. As well, it has played a larger role in helping states embrace democracy and recover from the ravages of war.

Our soldiers, while serving on UN duty, quite often on a volunteer basis build bridges, roads, schools, homes. They teach people trades and occupations. They teach people how to farm, how to grow their food. This is all done on a voluntary basis. These are the things for which our forces very seldom get credit in the public media.

As a result, the number of UN peacekeeping missions has increased dramatically because of all the ravages of war in the hot spots that exist around the world in recent times. What is more,

these missions have become more complex and even more demanding.

Modern peace support operations, as they might more accurately be labelled, include preventive deployment, the delivery of humanitarian assistance, peace enforcement and peace building in addition to traditional peacekeeping.

These operations are multi-functional and multi-disciplinary, encompassing both military and civilian activities. Whether it is police officers, election observers, humanitarian workers or engineers, civilians are playing an increasing role in peace support operations. They are part of the new peacekeeping partnership.

Canada and in particular the Pearson International Peacekeeping Training Centre at Cornwallis are helping pave the way for greater co-operation between military and civilians working together in support of peace.

Canada has taken other steps to help improve peace support operations. Our study looking into ways to enhance the UN's capability to respond rapidly to a crisis stands out. But our greatest contribution remains our people in the field.

Modern peace support operations demand a full range of military capabilities on the ground, in the air and at sea. Canada, with its combat capable, multi-purpose forces, has been able to respond to this demand and play an important role in many of these new missions whether in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia or Central America.

In the former Yugoslavia, for example, Canadian ground troops performed a wide range of humanitarian tasks while the conflict raged. Currently we have nearly 1,000 troops in Bosnia, many of whom come from Petawawa, my home community. They are serving there with the NATO-led peace implementation force.

In Cambodia we have personnel serving with the Cambodian Mine Action Centre which is responsible for mine clearance operations.

At sea, Canadian naval forces have participated in operations off the coast of the former Yugoslavia, enforcing economic sanctions and arms embargoes.

We also have had Canadian personnel involved in naval peacekeeping operations in Cambodia, the Middle East and Central America. In the air we have had personnel serving aboard NATO airborne warning and control system aircraft, AWACS, enforcing the no-fly zone in the former Yugoslavia.

At present there are about 2,000 Canadian forces personnel participating in peace support operations worldwide. They continue to carry out a broad range of activities.

In all these operations, Canadians carry out their tasks with skill and professionalism, proving once again that fully trained soldiers are the best peacekeepers. Combined with specialized instruction in such areas as cultural sensitivity, combat training gives Canadian forces all the tools required to meet new challenges.

Given this impressive record, there should be no doubt that Canada can make a significant contribution to a mission in Haiti operating under a new mandate. We have been an active participant in attempts to restore Haitian democracy since 1991. Canadian ships helped enforce economic sanctions in an effort to convince Haiti's illegal regime to step down and Canadian forces personnel have been participating in the United Nations Mission in Haiti since March 1995.

Canada's participation in the United Nations Mission in Haiti currently includes about 500 Canadian forces personnel with helicopter transport and engineering support, and almost 100 civilian police to help establish a professional Haitian police force.

Canadians know the country, they know the people, they know the challenges that must be faced. Canada is also no stranger to commanding multilateral military forces. Finally, Canadians know a great deal about being a civil, democratic society.

We could play a critical role as part of the international community in helping maintain a secure and stable environment and pave the way for the full restoration of democracy in Haiti.

Since 1947, more than 100,000 Canadians have participated in over 30 peacekeeping and related missions, a contribution which remains unmatched.

Over 100 Canadians have lost their lives in the line of duty and many more have been wounded. Canada, in short, understands peacekeeping like few other countries. We understand its effectiveness in promoting international peace and security. We understand its ability to help lay the groundwork for democracy. Perhaps most important of all, we understand how it works.

The world has always looked to Canada for peacekeeping experience and know how. In the case of Haiti it is doing so again. We can help Haiti build a better future and in doing so continue a long and proud peacekeeping tradition.

Tonight as this debate goes on, Canada's name has been carried around the world in much of the good work that has been done by the Canadian Armed Forces. Whatever the decision is we wish its members well with the United Nations. I know they will do a good job for Canada.

[Committee Of The Whole, February 27th, 1996]

This is the very point.

Every member in the House has a right to take a responsible position but never in the history of Parliament or ever in the history of Parliaments to come should the Chair be condemned because of a personal battle. It has become that today. I heard one member go on at great length about how the member for Madawaska-Victoria handled the chair in a committee. When it comes to the chair of the House of Commons no member in this House should be thinking

about carrying personal grudges or old debts against the person sitting in the chair of the House of Commons.

I am very sorry this has been made a personal matter by the House leader of the Reform Party and others. They came into the House saying that they were going to lay down new conduct in the House of Commons. They cannot do that if they are going to attack people personally. We are here to debate but this chair here must have the confidence of all members in the House when a person is put in it.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you that we should let the vote go forward as long as we do not have a whole batch of other speakers to hold the House up today. Let us elect this person to the position of chair in a democratic fashion on the floor of this House.

The conduct of the Reform Party today has been to accuse others of hypocrisy. They have spent a lot of time talking about new ideas of being civil in the House of Commons and so on. One cannot accuse an individual of not being capable of taking the chair when one has the background the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria has.

Today when the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria is elected by a vote in the House of Commons as one of the chairpersons, it is up to the Reform Party to respect her when she is in the chair on future occasions and not carry the old grudges from Parliament or committees into the House. Let us run this in a civilized manner. However, the House can run in a civilized manner only if the people who say they came here to change the House run it in a civilized manner themselves. It is not up to just a few people to be civil; everybody must be civil.

In fairness, let us get on with the democratic vote and let the chips fall where they may. However, after this person is elected let us respect the Chair of the House of Commons of Canada.

[Committee Of The Whole, February 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, all I have to say to you is that I am certainly glad you do not have to be appointed today.

As I sit here and listen to the debate I am particularly concerned about the way it has been personalized. The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria is a very intelligent young person who has had considerable experience. The government promised that when it got into office it would put responsible people into responsible positions.

The hon. member for Surrey North said that it is not a personalized matter, yet the hon. member for Lethbridge started the debate by saying that Reform members personally did not support the person who has been nominated. It was made a personalized matter by the Reform Party this afternoon.

I was interested in another comment made by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster who accused others of playing games in this House. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East talked about integrity. He said that they had nothing to learn from the Conservatives. They have learned too much from the Conservatives. Today we have heard about hypocrisy and so on.

The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria has my total confidence. She has the total confidence of her constituents, the people in that region and right across Canada. If we are going to have confidence and trust in office-this is a very key point down the road-and this debate has made it a personal matter, what is going to happen when the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria takes the chair?

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 11th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the more I listen to the debate, the more I am reminded of Sir Winston Churchill's statement that democracy is the worst of all kinds of government except all the others.

Today we have heard many views of the solutions to the national unity problem we are facing in Canada. Regardless of how much we talk about it and to what depth we go into it, we must focus on the larger picture. The larger picture is that of a strong, united Canada. It means unity at the local level, loyalty to the community, loyalty to the province and loyalty to the nation as a whole, all blended together. That is what was intended by the Fathers of Confederation and great Canadian statesmen who put the country together.

We are now 128 years old. In terms of years and of the history of other countries that is not very long. However, we are still experiencing growing problems whether or not we recognize them as that.

The ongoing project for us today is that of being pioneers of our era and building a nation that was the dream of Canadians in the past and is the dream of Canadians in the future by bringing national unity into reality in a continent-wide country by bridging the challenges of geography, by bridging diverse peoples, by going against the pull of American influence, by bridging regional and cultural differences and by relationships between French speaking and English speaking communities.

A book that I depend upon a great deal is entitled Canada: A Story of Challenge by historian J. Mr. S. Careless. In one sentence he goes into the diversities of the country but ends up by saying the book is a surprised and measured satisfaction that so much has been accomplished in the face of such grave difficulties''. He wrote that more than 40 years ago. He ended by saying: ``Nevertheless, the author's awareness that Canada throughout her history has met and survived repeated and rigorous challenges still gives him a basis for believing that she will continue to do so''.

As we debate the issue today we must look at the larger picture. Instead of getting ourselves all tied up into knots about regional matters and who has a veto and who does not, let us be fair to the various regions of the country. Let us develop more and more a stronger and a more meaningful, deep and abiding national pride in the country as a whole. The depth of that feeling is called a national spirit or it is a feel for one's country as a whole.

We saw a good example of that in Montreal during the massive rally when Canadians came together. Our loyalties are a three-tier system: the community, the province and the nation. It is a pride in the entire nation that will pull the regions and their peoples closer together. Canadians can and should have love for their community and admiration for their province and their nation at the same time. But we must tie it all together with the words and the term, "love of nation-Canada".

Premiers have a responsibility to their individual provinces but must not think of becoming a power unto themselves. A few weeks ago the premiers were going to meet without the Prime Minister because they wanted to discuss what the provinces wanted. This is why Canada should have a strong national government. It will pull the nation together. It is why the premiers and the Prime Minister must work closely together, not separately as the premiers were attempting to do. Everybody must see the national picture if we are going to succeed. We must have good communications and good transportation links.

I have been disappointed with the Reform Party's tunnel vision on this, particularly the statement made by the leader of the Reform Party on October 28, when he said: "the less the politicians themselves get involved, the better. We have a lot of work to do on how to handle the morning after". The people of Canada expect their politicians to show leadership on this issue and it is what the government is attempting to do.

The B.C. premier complained about other items in order to get his point across, but he sounded more like the captain of a sinking ship.

If we were not going through this process now in the House, then the government would be accused of not being interested, not living up to its commitments. Our response to Quebec is a necessity. In my view, our response to B.C. is a necessity. I have always considered B.C. a very unique part of the country. I have

visited there on many occasions and have a great sense of appreciation for it.

This legislation is a response of support for those people in Quebec who want to stay in Canada and also to persuade others to change their minds, to come back and stay with the nation.

The leader of the Bloc states that he does not want any changes at all, that he is not going to accept any changes at all. That too is tunnel vision. Is it not surprising that it comes from a man who changes political parties like he changes his clothes?

I believe today and I have believed in times past that B.C. is a different region of the country. I have visited on many occasions and travelled through the Rockies on various occasions. I have visited the site where the last spike was driven for the CPR. Our country should put up a sign there 40 metres long and 20 metres high. If this had taken place in the United States it would be advertised. It is a big part of our history. Let us be proud of it.

After 1871 Canada were committed to building a railway across the country to tie it all together. The settlement of the prairies took place thereafter. I have visited the prairies on many occasions. People say that they get bored travelling the prairies. I do not at all. I think it is wonderful. As a person who grew up on a farm I have a great sense of appreciation for that great part of Canada.

Ontario and Quebec have an industrial base. They have beauty, tourism and culture. I have visited different areas of Quebec with my family on many occasions.

The region of Atlantic Canada is unique, friendly, hard working. They believe in tourism and practice it well. The people have a wonderful sense of humour.

Come on Canada, look at what we have. Be positive. Be grateful and satisfied. The good Lord has been kind to us. It is time we showed some appreciation for the gift He has given to us. For heaven's sake, let us appreciate it. Let us build bridges through understanding, not hate. Let us stand up for Canada and be proud. Shout out our national pride and look to our opportunities and our good fortune.

Anyone can hate and criticize, but it takes a good solid Canadian citizen from anywhere in Canada to stand up and say: "I love my community, I love my province and I want Canadian unity and a Canadian spirit that works together in a dedicated way so that we can move forward and do good things for Canadians today, tomorrow and the next day" and send the message to the whole world that we have a Confederation success story to tell everybody. We have that great purpose and vision in our hands right now as we discuss this issue in Parliament.

Let us do it. Let us join with the Canadian people who showed their great unity at the major rally in Montreal and who sent messages across Canada when they could not be there. Let us show a sense of appreciation by coming together and finding a solid solution to the national unity of our beloved Canada.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to think we do things with the best of intentions and the greatest efficiency that we can, with the knowledge we have at hand at the moment.

We want all the answers in advance of what will happen. If Napoleon had had all the answers he needed in advance, he would never have gone to Waterloo. There are always questions that have to be answered, but only time will answer them.

If we are to sit back and do nothing at this time, then we are only adding to the problem. We know through world history that problems become bigger and bigger and eventually everybody is dragged into it.

As I said earlier today-

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, history would have taken quite a different turn without an organization such as NATO, which came to birth during the cold war years and served a very useful purpose during all those years.

Today as we come into an era in world history where we have some 80 hot spots around the world, we may well have more Yugoslavias to look after as the years go by. I suppose it is a case of managing them. It is very important that NATO and the UN be partners in these conflicts. NATO is needed because of its expertise and the UN needs NATO because it is a cohesive body of 16 countries.

I would also point out to my hon. friend that in no way inhibits all the other UN countries of the world from coming in to support them and to work with them. Some 40 countries may well be involved in this. We will find out whether Canada is directly involved by a formal decision of cabinet. That is the way things are done in a democratic country.

In the world today, it becomes absolutely necessary that organizations such as NATO, organizations that used to be the communist bloc, organizations such as the UN at large, all come together in a co-operative spirit to manage some of those meanspirited operations that are out there in the world and have to be managed as the days go by.

In answering my hon. friend, I look on it that all these are necessary. I am sure the minister is quite sure they are necessary, but we must always look toward putting them together as a massive international body for the good of mankind. If we do not we are wasting our energies.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, today we are having a very serious debate in the House on the Dayton peace agreement. A number of nations got together to hammer out a peace agreement for the combatants in the former Yugoslavia. This conflict has been ongoing for a number of years and Canada has made a tremendous contribution during the past four years to the humanitarian needs in that area.

There has been a wide sweeping debate in the House this afternoon and therefore I would like to read the motion before the House:

That this House take note and welcome the recent Dayton peace agreement and the international community's continued efforts to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans, and Canadian support of these efforts by participation in a multinational military implementation force (IFOR) under NATO command.

The implementation force will not be a peacekeeping mission in the traditional sense but rather a NATO led enforcement mission which will operate under the authority of the United Nations security council resolution pursuant to chapter VII of the United Nations charter which permits the use of all necessary means to fulfil a mission.

Since this would be an operation not in the traditional sense of peacekeeping and because NATO and many other countries are involved, it should not be surprising that we have been requested to send combat troops.

Given the nature of the world today, there are many hot spots. Some can become hotter. This is one big issue which we have today. What will it be six months, a year or five years from now? No one can predict. The world is a very unpredictable place in this era of our history.

The implementation force is the only way to handle this matter. There is a peace agreement which must be implemented. The basic way of life must be restored to the area. The people in that region must live without fear of what will happen to them.

This is not the time for Canada or for any other responsible country to fold up its tents and walk away. This is a time when the international community must come together, shoulder to shoulder, in the best interests of mankind.

The winners of such operations are those who will suddenly find themselves living in security and peace. The winners are the free countries of the world accepting their responsibility in what is otherwise a cruel world.

The winners are people like the Russians and those in the eastern European countries who a short time ago belonged to the communist bloc and who today are moving with their friends in the western world to implement this peace agreement in the former Yugoslavia.

If that is not a fantastic happening in this era of our history, I do not know what is. Who would have thought eight or ten years ago that we would see this happening on this date in history or that we would see it unfold in the days ahead?

The other winners of this of course will be those still alive in that country, the children and the women, who will finally have some peace. They will remember as they walk through their cemeteries young children from infants up, women, grandparents, old and young, whose names are on that flood of tombstones in cemeteries throughout the former Yugoslavia. It is a slaughter which neither this country nor any other responsible country could turn a blind eye to and walk away from. Without proper supervision it could happen again. Graveyards will be the reminders of this horrible period in the history of the former Yugoslavia.

The winners will be the NATO countries and the eastern bloc countries that have bridged the gap over recent times and are now putting their total efforts toward this humanitarian cause in a truly wonderful display of international unity for peace.

There is monitoring to be done and there are mines to be disassembled. If they are not, the country will live a further hell in days ahead.

Humanitarian aid has been provided very responsibly and generously by Canadians over the last four years. You bet our Canadian soldiers are well trained. They can build schools, hospitals, roads and bridges. They can do it well.

I do not appreciate the logic put forward in the House today when members of the Reform Party say our forces are becoming ineffective. I do not buy that for one minute. It is a terrible thing to say about our Canadian forces whom we expect to go on missions around the world. Are they capable of doing anything? You bet they are capable of doing anything and they will do their work over there along with the best in the world.

It is time Parliament and all members stood together united and thanked those people because regardless of a few problems they have carried the Canadian flag with dignity and with pride around the world. We owe them a great debt.

People in the former Yugoslavia want peace and security. Sure, some rebels are not happy and nothing will ever satisfy them, except when they get everything their own way. Hence the reason for the supervision and the necessity for it.

There are some in this world who lock their minds and throw away the key and do not want anyone questioning the mean streak they have in them. All the good things in life, the everyday necessities of life, must be brought back into action and rebuilt.

Government institutions are needed in the former Yugoslavia. Infrastructure faces a mass improvement because of the destructiveness that has gone on there for a number of years. Canada's participation has been a responsible one over a period of time.

Our forces have done a great job for us in the international community. We must look after them while they are on these missions, and that means more than good equipment. It means a commitment in money and a commitment in giving them the equipment to go forward in the days ahead. We have done a lot of that already.

However, it means another thing quite often forgotten in a debate such as this. It means making certain their families back home are well looked after. I talk about the story of a young person involved in a conversation with me in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia. He said: "I do not mind being over here serving at all because I feel I am doing a job that has to be done. I do not mind it as long as I know my family is all right back home".

We cannot keep peacekeeping alive and do things the same way we did with the blue berets when circumstances require a different scenario.

From an historical point of view we can ask how much money it will cost. We can ask how many troops are needed. However, we do not get the answers to all these solutions in the future. The danger of doing nothing is far worse than the danger in the implementation of this peace arrangement.

We belong to the UN as a responsible partner. We have been a member of NATO for years. Today we hear about the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson who brought about the first peacekeeping mission in Egypt. Let us remember one thing: Canada has done more than its share in comparison with any nation in the world in keeping up that policy.

Now as we try to take the steam out of heated debates and difficult situations in the world it becomes very important for Canada to be part of the solution and not part of an isolationist attitude.