Debates of Dec. 4th, 1995

The Balkans

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Well, I am sure he would not choose you to be his Minister of National Defence, as well.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

How many sons do you have over there? Let us hear an answer.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

May I remind the hon. members that comments should be addressed through the Chair.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Remind the minister of that.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I looked forward to this debate for some weeks, having heard the Prime Minister say that he promised a full debate in the House of Commons before any decision was made in regard to this matter. I can only say that I was extremely disappointed to find out in the last couple of days that the whole debate was to be a fraud, a sham, that the decisions have already been made, not only to commit soldiers but how many soldiers would be committed.

I suppose five years from now the auditor general will be able to tell us what the operation cost, because the Minister of National Defence, the finance department and the government have no idea what will cost, or at least they are not willing to share it with us.

The government knows what the command structure will be for the Russian forces there and who will be in charge of those forces, but they do not know yet who will be in command of the Canadian Armed Forces and what the command structure will be. That does not give one great confidence. In addition, there is the unmitigated arrogance of members across the way to taunt us on this very serious matter, this insult to democracy we have witnessed all day.

I can say that the Reform Party has every bit as much concern as anybody on that side of the House for the suffering and the atrocities that are taking place in the former Yugoslavia. However, our primary concern must be for our Canadian sons and daughters. My concern is that the government would send my son and his colleagues into the theatre of war without properly equipping them and without proper command. I think that is truly atrocious.

We have simply asked from the beginning of this whole debate that the government and the ministers lay before Parliament a proposal that would clearly lay out the Canadian criteria, the mandate for the mission. We have also asked that the government lay out the command structure and how our Canadian soldiers and commanders would fit into that structure.

As we have heard before in previous debates on this issue, there were great concerns that we were one of the major forces in the peacekeeping effort in the former Yugoslavia and that we had

absolutely no input into the decisions made concerning those forces. We really do not want to be in that situation again. We want to be able to make decisions and be part of that command structure.

We also asked that the government lay before Parliament for debate the rules of engagement. What happens when some of these war criminals are arrested and taken into custody? What happens when our Canadian soldiers are face to face with those individuals and perhaps need to shoot somebody to enforce the mandate they have been given?

I do not think we have heard anything on any of these issues. We have questioned the business of the length of the commitment. We have heard 12 months and yet we hear that at the end of 12 months this mandate is to be handed over to some fictitious organization and that our soldiers will be withdrawn and the authority transferred to others.

It is unbelievable that they can go into the situation that exists there now and in 12 months they can have democratic elections and that we can have some kind of a government structure in there to turn this whole situation over to.

We have heard again from our members the problems our peacekeepers have already faced in the former Yugoslavia such as our soldiers not having enough combat helmets. They certainly do know which way to wear them, front or back, but if they do not have them it is difficult to put them on either way.

We have also heard about the armoured personnel carriers that were rolling coffins our soldiers were riding around in and the efforts to armour them to provide safe transport for our soldiers. After that they were so heavy they did not have enough power to get to the top of a hill. There are all kinds of horror stories, and that was a peacekeeping role. Clearly the members opposite do not seem to understand the difference. This is not a peacekeeping role. This is a combat role.

I believe we have asked a lot of reasonable questions that the government would bring forward on this debate and that we could debate and we could have discussion. We had hoped Parliament might have a chance to have a free vote on the issues debated and that members could make a democratic decision on behalf of their constituents based on that vote.

[An hon. member]

We make democratic decisions and you do not agree with them anyway. You lose the vote and then you complain.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Yes, we know all about your democratic decisions.

I am truly disappointed and concerned for the welfare of our young people whom the government is now sending into a combat situation, having a long tradition of a once very proud participation of my family in Canada's military, having served in the second world war and Korea and now my son in the Canadian Armed Forces participating in the peacekeeping roles. It makes me and my son truly embarrassed at what Liberal governments have done in the last 30 years to the Canadian military, once one of the proudest organizations in the world with much to be proud of.

We have expressed great concern with the variability of the government to put that kind of a combat battalion in the field equipped to do the job and to rotate it on a regular basis and to avoid the battle fatigue and the problems we faced in the peacekeeping role in Yugoslavia.

To begin again, after some of our soldiers have put in four tours of duty in the former Yugoslavia and all the problems that has caused with the families and children of those people, there are grave concerns as to our ability to do that and at the same time preserve some kind of family structure for those involved.

Again, I am truly disappointed. I wish the government would be honest and provide a chance for some democracy in this place.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, tonight from all three parties in this discussion I have been hearing the expression the former Yugoslavia. Let me clarify this. The former Yugoslavia means a territory of newly formed countries, starting with Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and the former Republic of Macedonia.

It would be absurd to use the expression of Latvia as the former Soviet Union. I would appeal to members to use proper names. Those countries are members of the United Nations.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe there was a question there.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address some of the key concerns that-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We are still on questions and comments.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

I am aware of that and you will get a seven-minute comment from me.

This debate is about two things: the recent Dayton peace agreement in light of the international community's continued effort to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans, and to consider Canadian support for peace efforts by participation in a multinational military implementation force under NATO command.

Like Canadians everywhere, the residents of York North want to see this crisis resolved. They have watched civilians on both sides of the conflict suffer unnecessarily. They have seen fellow Canadians risk their lives participating in humanitarian missions. They

view the Dayton peace agreement as a ray of hope and they support Canadian participation in an implementation force.

Canada has long been an active player on the world stage. In the spring of 1945 Canada and 49 other nations gathered together to draft and adopt the charter of the United Nations, an international body created to prevent military conflict.

Since that day Canada has played an important and influential role in the operation of the United Nations.

It was, after all, our own Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson who presented the concept of peacekeeping to the world in response to the Suez crisis of 1956. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

Canada has taken part in almost every single United Nations peacekeeping operation since 1956 and many other missions outside the organization. As of November 1, 1995 more than 1,600 personnel are deployed in 13 missions, making Canada the sixth largest troop contributor.

My question is simple. Why would the Reform Party try to break down this very important Canadian tradition of helping a country during a very important crisis?

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, certainly you will not find me or any of my colleagues disputing the past history of the Canadian Armed Forces. We distinguished ourselves many times on the battle field and would continue to do that again.

The members of the armed forces are there because they are willing to do those things. They cannot do those things if the government does not provide them the tools.

It is truly disgraceful what the Liberal government has done to our Canadian Armed Forces since the end of the second world war. Do not imply that we think any less of our armed forces or are any less proud of our armed forces than you are.

It is time you put your money where your mouth is, put the money up and provide the equipment-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to have to remind the member once again to please address your comments through the chair. We have time for a very brief comment by the member for Scarborough Centre.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is what true democracy is all about, to be able to debate this important issue in the House.

I mentioned earlier about the flip-flop-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, there is a point of order.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, to the parliamentary secretary, because time is about to expire I would like to ask the hon. member if he could ask for unanimous consent to extend-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, I thought you were asking a question of the parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer the hon. member's question. There have been some consultations. I have spoken with the Minister of National Defence. We will be more than happy to extend the debate after the vote scheduled for 6.30 p.m.

We would be prepared to extend the debate for two hours to 9 p.m. on the understanding that during the extended hours of debate there would be no dilatory motions, no quorum calls and no other business called or motions put to the House except the item under discussion.

We would be more than happy to extend for that two-hour period if it would help the hon. member. I understand there are many hon. members who wish to participate in the debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent to extend the debate until nine o'clock under the conditions stipulated by the parliamentary secretary?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The remainder of the time is to the hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful and this is democracy at its best to be able to debate this most important issue.

I mentioned flip-flopping. The reverse party-I mean the Reform Party-is stating here that our troops are not equipped and that they are not prepared. I do not know what impression it has. It thinks we will send our troops over there unequipped, unprepared. That is a false illusion. If the Reform Party thinks there is an expenditure needed, is it supporting the minister to spend the money? If he spends the money the Reform Party will come back and haunt him for spending money when we should cut. What is its position?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the second reading stage of Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.

The House resumed from December 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.