Debates of Oct. 19th, 1995

Bosnia

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Washington the foreign affairs minister announced we will be sending troops to Bosnia as part of the new NATO combat force. Prior to the announcement there was no consultation with Parliament or with Canadians.

It is outrageous. It is just like the Mulroney Tories, who the Liberals often condemn.

In opposition the now Minister of Human Resources Development said about the deployment of troops to the Persian Gulf, and I quote: "To deny the opportunity of this Parliament to be heard or to represent the Canadian people is a dereliction of duty by the government".

I ask the Prime Minister, why has this government abandoned its principles and adopted the same style of government as the hated Mulroney?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that as of this moment we have had three debates. The minister said "if necessary".

The Americans, our partners in the Bosnian situation, are trying to achieve peace. If peace is achieved they would like it to be maintained. The Americans, who have not yet put one soldier there, are apparently willing to send in up to 25,000 soldiers. They have asked us if we would participate. The minister said we would look into it and if it is absolutely necessary troops would be sent. However, before we make a decision we will come to cabinet and the House of Commons.

The member should congratulate the ministers and all those involved for the peace we are about to have in Bosnia. One of the reasons we will have peace in Bosnia is because of our Canadian soldiers and others who have been there for the last three years developing a situation that is leading to that peace today.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have peace in the former Yugoslavia, which we all hope for, we certainly would not be sending troops that are the biggest and baddest junkyard dogs to take care of themselves over there; we would be sending peacekeepers. That is what was promised in this House.

This is a totally new role. The Canadian people demand to know how many troops we are sending. What is the duration of their stay there? What will be the cost? What will be the exact mandate of these troops?

Will the Prime Minister agree that Parliament must be allowed to establish the criteria for a dangerous mission like this?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

I do not know if you remember, Mr. Speaker, but I remember that they voted twice in this House for having troops there. They got up from their seats and approved the actions of the government.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Fine, no. I am sorry, they just made speeches in favour of that but they did not vote. When I say something, I also vote that way.

It is a very useful situation at the moment. We said that everybody wants to be involved and there will be even more troops if a peace treaty is ratified to make sure the situation evolves peacefully in Bosnia. We all want that to happen.

If Canadian soldiers are needed, Mr. Christopher was informed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we will look into the possibility. However, before we make a decision we will consult the cabinet and the House of Commons where you can express your views. Again I can expect that what you say is not necessarily what you will vote for.

[The Speaker]

I ask my colleagues to please address the Chair.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we should remember we are not voting during these discussions and that the decision has been made before the discussions.

The defence minister said yesterday the force we are sending to Bosnia will not have a peacekeeping role. That means the government is sending Canadian troops into a combat role without consulting Parliament, which is outrageous.

With the lives of young Canadians at stake will the Prime Minister at the very minimum allow Parliament to have a free vote on whether our men and women should be sent into a combat role in Bosnia?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member took this quotation from but I assure him what we are expecting is peace at last in the former Yugoslavia.

We are not getting ready to send combat troops. We feel it is the profound sentiment of Canadians all across the country to support UN peacekeeping missions. We have in the past and we will in the future because that is where Canadians have been singled out as among the best, a duty Canadian troops expect to continue in the future.

Referendum Campaign

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Speaking before the greater Quebec City chamber of commerce yesterday, the Prime Minister stated that Quebec constitutes a distinct society because it has its own language, culture and institutions, but refused to give this fact formal recognition in the Canadian Constitution.

If he is serious in making his own the notion of distinct society as defined in the Meech Lake accord, can the Prime Minister tell us why he has so far refused to make a commitment to amend the constitution to include this definition of distinct society?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it takes some nerve on the part of an hon. member who voted against a distinct society in the Quebec referendum on the Charlottetown accord to rise in this House and ask me if I support the notion of distinct society.

I have always said, and we voted accordingly, that these matters were discussed in the collective document issued by the No side. But the Bloc Quebecois and its members across the way all voted against the distinct society clause when it was introduced. It was included in the Charlottetown accord, yet they all voted against it. It takes some nerve to come and blame us for that today. In rejecting it, for all kinds of reasons, they actually sided with the Reform Party against the Charlottetown accord. We, on the other hand, voted for and believe in it.

As for the constitution, it will be amended if and when discussions are held on the matter. The existing amending formula, as proposed by Mr. Lévesque, requires the consent of at least seven provinces. The federal government really cannot speak for the provinces because, as Mr. Lévesque put it at the time, all the provinces are equal and must take part in the constitutional amendment process.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we support the concept of distinct society when it really means something.

Must we gather from the Prime Minister's refusal to make a commitment to recognize Quebec as a distinct society in the constitution that he not only does not believe in it himself but that he is also unable to get a sufficient number of provinces to agree on this issue?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me how the hon. member, who voted against the distinct society clause, can ask me to make all kinds of promises in this respect. She was against this concept and voted accordingly. Now she claims that it was not really the concept of distinct society, that it was not the right term. The question that was just put to me was: Do you support the concept of distinct society? My answer is Yes and I might add that the hon. member voted against the distinct society clause.

Bosnia

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I hope he knows his cabinet colleague announced the government's intention to send our troops back to Bosnia without consultation despite a number of serious shortcomings in the Canadian Armed Forces, including inadequate equipment, low morale and the current troop rotation. Some of our troops have been there for the third time.

How can the minister even consider sending our troops back to Bosnia without addressing these concerns?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what the hon. member's question is pertaining to.

I am perplexed by his question. As a previous member of the Canadian forces he knows the resiliency of the Canadian forces and their capacity to do what is asked of them despite adverse conditions and despite tasking.

I do not think anybody would disagree that our troops have had more than their fair share of work. The Prime Minister has indicated the work they have done has saved millions of lives and we should be very proud of that.

The hon. member is suggesting the Canadian forces do not have the capacity to participate in whatever decision is being made. Inasmuch as that decision is being made, I would prefer not to comment on it right now.

However, I assure him that if the government decides to participate in the NATO peace implementation plan, in the reconstruction of Bosnia or in the help for refugees it will be able to do what it plans to because the Canadian forces will have the capacity.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, evidence is increasing that our troops in Somalia were let down by their leadership.

Canadians have confidence in our troops in the field but they have serious reservations about the senior chain of command. It is the privates and the corporals who must bear the burden of this lack of leadership.

Canadians are asking is it wise for the government to volunteer our troops before the Somalia commission has reached its final conclusion?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already indicated that before decisions are made, whether there is a vote or not, we will have a discussion in the House.

I repeat, the Canadian forces will be capable of doing what the government asks them to do. If the member is suggesting morale is

not good in the Canadian forces, he is not doing anything to help the morale by suggesting that Canadian forces are not capable of doing what their government asks of them.

Referendum Campaign

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In the brochure distributed to every Quebec household by the director general of elections, the No committee says that the Quebec government must have full power in the fields which fall under its jurisdiction.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, far from putting an end to the federal spending power in fields of provincial jurisdiction, Bill C-96, which deals with manpower training and education, is an even greater interference in these sectors?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, I want to make sure that the Canadian constitution is complied with. Sometimes, there are sectors in which our respective jurisdictions have a bearing on one another. The spending power has been in our constitution since 1867 and, at this point in time, we cannot really abuse it, since we have little money.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how does the Prime Minister intend to convince Quebecers of the virtues of administrative arrangements when even his federalist ally, Daniel Johnson, and his labour minister have rejected the administrative agreement on labour, calling it a cheap arrangement?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it wrong. It was the present minister of employment, Madam Harel. When I wrote to the ministry offering specifically to transfer institutional training to the province of Quebec, as with other provinces, we received absolutely no response. It would be very useful for the hon. member to check her facts.

The Environment

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a landmark agreement on harmonizing environmental issues is floundering.

The minister has blamed the provinces, especially Alberta. According to a recent CCME publication, she knows the federal government walked out, not the provinces, contrary to what she said.

Will the minister now admit she stalled this process and apologize to the provinces?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the difference between the member for Beaver River and me is I was at the meeting.

I did not pinch a transcript and then claim it was something else. In front of at least 10 witnesses I offered to publish 10 of the 11 indexes to the public the day after that meeting. The offer was turned down by Mr. Ty Lund.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of who did what, we need to get on with this.

This needs to move forward, not backward. Let us not cast aspersions and blame. Let us move forward. This process is being totally held up. On August 25 all the premiers with the exception of the Quebec premier urged the Prime Minister to tell the Minister of the Environment to meet with her counterparts and get on with this draft agreement.

Next Monday the minister will meet with these counterparts again in Whitehorse. Will she stay at the meeting and will she commit to producing a draft agreement and get on with it?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly prepared to restate the commitment I made in Haines Junction. I hope the minister of the environment for Alberta will be open enough to begin the public discussion. The federal government asked very early in this process for public participation. That was turned down by the province of Alberta.

It is also interesting that the member for Beaver River said all the provinces with the exception of Quebec. She will know very well there was a formal letter written by the province of Quebec asking the CCME not to take action on that initiative at that meeting, a letter which conveniently her minister, Mr. Lund, chooses to ignore.