Debates of March 10th, 1994

Privilege

[The Speaker]

Could you please make it very brief.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I did not realize, Mr. Speaker, that when presenting questions of privilege we were required to make them brief. One would expect we would be given the opportunity to explain fully our questions of privilege.

I will conclude. I would ask you, as the Speaker of the House and the person responsible, to ensure fairness and to ensure that private members have the opportunity to be meaningful in the House. I ask you to review the process.

To ask a group of individuals who have already made these patently unfair decisions to rule again on the same question is inappropriate.

I would ask you, Sir, as Speaker of the House, to rule on the matter.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member. I will at this moment reserve judgment. I will come back to the House very soon.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, really the only-

[The Speaker]

Is this the same question of privilege?

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

It is and it affects me personally. It arises out of the comments the hon. member made and it relates to them specifically.

[The Speaker]

I will hear the question of privilege arising out of the same question of privilege.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member very carefully. He made mention of the witness protection bill which happens to be my bill. I did not even know it had been chosen to be votable.

However, I want to tell the hon. member and other members in the House that I too committed to my constituents during the election that if I were re-elected I would attempt to bring forward a national witness protection plan. I told tens of thousands of people who signed petitions across the country, which I presented to the House, that I would do so. I take great personal umbrage in the member's comments disparaging the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the difficulties that have been raised, I think Your Honour will appreciate that the argument advanced by the hon. member for York South-Weston is not a valid question of privilege in the House.

Frankly he is complaining about the decision of the committee. We have heard the opposite side in effect from the hon. member for Scarborough West. I recognize the committee has a difficult decision to make with respect to votable items, particularly on the first selection when it has to choose 10 items out of the 30 on the order of precedence.

The hon. member for York South-Weston first complained about the length of time it has taken to get to this point. If he reads all of the rules relating to Private Members' Business, he will know that Private Members' Business cannot begin until there are items on the Order Paper from at least 30 members of the House. There was a lengthy delay in the early part of this Parliament in getting the requisite number of members to table motions or private members bills in order to reach the point of a draw.

That point was finally reached. A draw was held and the committee which I chair met promptly through its subcommittee. The subcommittee has met three days this week. It submitted its report this morning to the committee. That report was adopted by the committee, tabled in the House earlier this morning, and was concurred in on tabling.

The hon. member for York South-Weston was here in the last Parliament. He has known of this procedure for years. That has been the practice in the House for many years, certainly since before 1988 when I was first elected. I cannot say when the procedure was first adopted. It was modified a bit in the last Parliament to increase the number of opportunities for members to present private members bills and have them voted on in the House.

The fact that his bill was not selected is regrettable. All the bills the committee considered were important, and it came to the conclusion that certain ones would be considered in priority to others, that is they would be given a vote.

His bill will be debated in the House. It will receive an hour of debate. It may be that at the end of the time the House will be willing to allow him to go to a vote on it. I do not know; that is not a decision that I can make.

I can tell the hon. member that first of all it is not a matter for Your Honour to decide. In support of that proposition I cite page 222 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 760(3):

The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.

That is the citation and I invite Your Honour to direct the hon. member for York South-Weston to direct his criticisms, if any, to the committee. He can go there and make his submission again. He and every other member had an opportunity to appear and make their submissions before the subcommittee, which then rendered a decision.

I submit the decision was fair. He had an equal opportunity with every other member of the House who had been in on the draw to make his submission. The committee did not happen to agree with him and so he is here today complaining.

I also submit it is not a question of privilege. The committee has acted entirely properly. Its report has been tabled in the House and adopted. I suggest there is not a question of privilege here. In fact the committee has acted extremely carefully in this matter and with due consideration to all factors it is required to take into account.

[The Speaker]

Submissions have been made to the Chair with regard to privilege. I suggested the hon. member for York South-Weston might want to appear before the committee. The fact is that the report has been adopted by the House of Commons and it cannot be reversed by the Chair. That does not negate the chance of the hon. member appearing before that committee at some future date to plead his case.

At this point it is clear to me that I would rule there is no question of privilege, that the report has been accepted and that it cannot and will not be reversed by the Chair. I would like to put this question of privilege to one side.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. A decision has been taken by the Chair. I have made my ruling now and the ruling will stand. This question of privilege is over.

Are there any other questions of privilege or points of order hon. members would like to raise? On a point of order, the hon. member for Beaver River.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us perhaps sum this up by saying that there is a process in place. The parliamentary secretary just went through it.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will understand that this question of privilege is over. Unless the hon. member has another point of order or question of privilege I would like to proceed with the affairs of the day.

If there are no other points of order or questions of privilege I will proceed from here to House business.

Business Of The House

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Government House Leader to tell us what the business of the House will be for the next few days.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, today the House will conclude the budget debate.

Tomorrow, Friday, the House will consider Bill C-5 regarding the customs tariff and Bill C-6 concerning oil and gas operations.

Next week, Monday, Wednesday and Thursday shall be allotted days. On Tuesday of next week the House will consider a motion by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to establish a special joint committee of this House and the other place to review Canada's foreign policy.

The business for Friday, March 18, next week will be legislation to be announced later.

Having given that statement of House business, I would like to say that there has been consultation and I believe if you seek the view of the House you will find agreement that the Minister of Foreign Affairs be allowed to revert to the period of Statements by Ministers to make a statement and opposition critics can reply. Therefore, considering the consultation that has taken place, I would like to seek unanimous consent for my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs to make his statement.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to make a statement at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Presence Of Canadian Troops In Former Yugoslavia

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. members of this House for allowing me to make this statement at this time.

I would like to inform the House of a decision the government made in this morning's Cabinet meeting regarding the presence of Canadian troops in the former Yugoslavia.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last January, the government consulted the House on the future of our troops in that part of the world. During the debate, a majority of hon. members stated that they were in favour of maintaining a Canadian presence within the United Nations Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia. The House decided that Canada was making an important contribution to the objectives of preventing the war from escalating and getting out of hand, trying to negotiate an end to the conflict and participating in the humanitarian effort. The House also reaffirmed Canada's commitment to its traditional role of peacekeeper, the promotion of stability and security in Europe, and the quest for a negotiated solution to the situation in the Balkans.

I am pleased to announce today that in light of that debate and the developments that have taken place in recent weeks, the government has decided that the Canadian troops, whose mandate was set to end on March 31, will remain in the area for another six months.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC]

The number of troops will not change. In connection with this decision, the government will consider the possibility of redeploying some Canadian troops to the Balkans theatre, if that is what the United Nations Protection Force Command wishes, to provide maximum support for the current effort to achieve peace.

In making its decision, the government took into account the encouraging progress that has been made in the area. Specifically, ceasefires have been negotiated and observed in Sarajevo. The Archbishop of Sarajevo was here in this House a moment ago, and this seems an opportune time to make this statement when all parties involved are trying to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Sarajevo. We should also say that ceasefires have been negotiated throughout Central Bosnia, the parties in the conflict have begun serious negotiations, the airport in Tuzla has been turned over to the United Nations, and our unit in Srebrenica has managed to leave the enclave and rejoin its battalion in Visoko.

I can say today that Canadian soldiers carried out in Srebrenica an outstanding mission that brings credit to the Canadian armed forces.

We are now in a situation where major steps have been taken toward a peaceful solution, in particular the agreement between Croats and Muslims in Bosnia to form a Confederation. It is important to underline the vital diplomatic intervention of the Americans, who invited Croatian and Muslim representatives to Washington and helped them take this very big step toward peace.

Ceasefires have helped create an atmosphere of negotiation, facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid and reduced the danger for the troops stationed in the area.

Canada has been a full participant in the diplomatic talks surrounding these developments in NATO, the United Nations and other forums. On the international scene, Canada has a duty to speak up whenever it does not agree with something but it also has an obligation to protect the unity of the allies. That is what the Prime Minister of Canada did at the NATO summit in Brussels when he vigorously opposed a military escalation in favour of diplomacy. Canada delayed the use of air strikes that could have been launched last January.

Today, without the use of air strikes, the airport in Tuzla has been liberated, our soldiers have left Srebrenica, and the peace process is resolutely moving forward. In its own way, Canada has served the cause of peace.

Under these circumstances, the presence of Canadian troops is more important than ever. We have an obligation to continue supporting the efforts being made by the international community under the direction of the United Nations in order to consolidate what has been accomplished in the past few weeks and clear the way for more progress in implementing the ceasefires and agreements. Canadian troops will be used more and more to carry out their traditional role as peacekeepers and will continue the task of helping ensure that humanitarian aid reaches the area.

I should also point out that Canada will continue to be an active player in the international effort to help in many ways. We will continue to provide financial support for various international humanitarian aid agencies and make military flights available to the United Nations to deliver that aid. We will continue to facilitate implementation of the United Nations sanctions, particularly through our naval units that are there.

Canada is also prepared to continue its effort in other non-military sectors, such as the presence of a large contingent of Royal Canadian Mounted Police and civilian experts. We will

also continue our efforts to find an overall diplomatic solution to the current conflict.

In closing, I would like to draw special attention to the outstanding job the Canadian military is doing in the former Yugoslavia. Despite conditions that at times have been very difficult, its contribution to peace is something that Canadians can be proud of and something that we in this House of Commons should commend.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last January 25, the Official Opposition actively participated in the debate held in this House on the future of peacekeeping operations and of Canada's commitment in Bosnia.

The Bloc Quebecois was totally sincere in deciding to reverse its position on this thorny and pressing issue. For a while, public opinion was shaken by the apparent futility of our efforts, the danger to which our soldiers were exposed, the costs of the operation, and the complexity of the political and military situation in Bosnia. However, the encouraging results achieved in recent days in Bosnia are restoring Quebecers' and Canadians' confidence in our commitment in that country.

In the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, Canadian missions and CIDA are great sources of pride in Quebec and in Canada. Both have helped to establish Canada's credibility in the world.

It would have been easy to give up, to pick up all our equipment and leave, but it is not how Canada earned a solid reputation as a peacekeeping nation ready to make the extra effort to preserve it, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier.

The truth is that the Prime Minister was at least careless when he mentioned, on leaving Brussels at the beginning of January, the possibility of a unilateral withdrawal of Canadian troops from the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Today, the government is at last reassuring its allies, with whom it must act in concert. It could not break the solidarity pact that Canada was courageous enough to draft with its NATO partners.

The government then decided, after alarming all its partners involved in the United Nations Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia, to extend the presence of Canadian troops, whose mandate was set to end on March 31, for another six months.

However, Canada refuses to respond favourably to the urgent appeal made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who is asking for more peacekeepers in Bosnia. Since strengthening the peace process requires a larger number of peacekeeping contingents, the Bloc Quebecois asked the government on many occasions to reconsider its decision not to send more Canadian troops to Bosnia.

Incidentally, on this issue, today's newspapers widely report the opinion of Canadian General Lewis McKenzie, who commanded UN forces in the Sarajevo area at the beginning of the war.

In his opinion, if the UN does not succeed in convincing member states to provide extra troops within a month, the opportunity for peace will be lost.

The government must reverse its decision and respond favourably to the urgent appeal it received, so that peace achievements to this day can be built on and moved in the direction of total peace.

Finally, I would like to point out once again the courage and dignity with which our soldiers carry out their difficult task overseas. They deserve our admiration and full support. We also think of their loved ones who are also going through a very difficult time.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I extend our appreciation to the minister and to this government for allowing this House to discuss the Bosnian issue in January. We have received many comments from our constituents about the excellent state of those statements. I want to extend our thank you.

This not only allowed the MPs to have input, it also gave the people of Canada the opportunity to have input. It got people listening, reading and discussing the issue. This form of consultation is not only appreciated but helps return some credibility to this parliamentary process which has been tarnished by previous governments' lack of consultation.

The situation in the former Yugoslavia is not one which has an easy solution. As we expressed during the debate, none of the warring factions are totally right or totally wrong and an easy settlement is not possible.

Like the minister we appreciate the level of service our troops have shown and continue to show. Certainly their actions are what build the national pride in this country and make us the proud Canadians we are. The level of humanitarian aid which has been provided is unquestionable and the fact that our presence has made a difference is obvious.

Because a tenuous ceasefire has been in force for some two weeks now it appears that the will of the people to settle their differences may exist and we should help to make it happen.

Because some light appears at the end of the tunnel, we agree with this announcement today. I wish, however, this announcement would have included a cost estimate for this decision. We simply cannot keep making statements in the House and not include what it costs.

As I understand it, we will incur an additional cost for such things as delivering more humanitarian efforts, more military flights, enforcement of the UN sanctions, the RCMP, civilian experts, and so on. The depth of our financial crisis must be recognized and must be foremost in every decision we make.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see the member for Kamloops rising. Is there unanimous consent to have the member for Kamloops give a position on behalf of his party?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.