Debates of Dec. 4th, 1995

Petitions

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is with respect to assisted suicide and euthanasia. It has been signed by constituents from Rosenfeld, Rosenort, Niverville and St-Malo.

They too respectfully pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no change in the law which would sanction or allow in any way the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition collected during the recent tour of the mining photography exhibit Les galeries de mines . The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Canadian and Quebec mining industry is the main employer in over 150 communities, a significant contributor to the gross national product and to Canadian exports, and a cornerstone of the Canadian economy. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon the House to take the necessary steps to support our mining industry.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I have two petitions primarily from the riding of Windsor West.

The first petition refers to the steps the petitioners wish to be taken with respect to the apprehension, investigation, punishment and release of dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to the issue of doctor assisted suicides.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a number of petitioners from my riding have asked me to present their petition. It draws the attention of the House to the following. The majority of Canadians respect the

sanctity of human life and human life at the pre-born stage is not protected in Canadian society. The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 192 and 205.

Question No. 192-

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Through which mechanism and in pursuance of which specific powers, either statutory or regulatory, is the federal government able to determine, for the benefit of the provinces, who among all individuals receiving welfare in Canada are sponsored immigrants?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) uses memoranda of understanding (MOU) to facilitate the exchange of information on sponsored immigrants with provinces, and where applicable with municipalities, for the purpose of administering social assistance programs and for the department's own sponsorship initiatives. Privacy is a concern and the MOUs must respect federal and provincial privacy legislation. At this time CIC has MOUs with the municipalities of metropolitan Toronto, Peel, Windsor, London, York, and the Ontario ministries of community and social services and health. Negotiations are under way to sign MOUs with other provinces and municipalities that require them. In Ontario some municipalities require their own MOU because the provincial data base does not hold all municipal data.

The MOUs allow CIC to confirm with welfare authorities that an applicant is a sponsored immigrant and how long the sponsorship is for. They also allow welfare authorities to advise CIC when a sponsor has defaulted on his or her sponsorship agreement and to confirm that the sponsor has paid back the provincial funds paid out to the sponsored immigrant.

Question No. 205-

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

What was the total dollar amount, direct and indirect, and source of government funding per annum from 1990 to the present, including the 1995-96 estimates, to the Valhalla Society?

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

I am informed as follows. In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned, 1994-95, $58,325, environmental partners funds; 1995-96, $21,045, environmental partners funds.

In so far as Human Resources Development Canada is concerned, 1990-91, $1,671, Canadian jobs strategy summer employment placement; 1993-94, $2,624, Canadian strategy workplace based training placement.

The following departments and agencies have reported no information: Canadian International Development Agency, Department of Canadian Heritage, National Capital Commission and Natural Resources Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 144 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 144 be deemed to have been made an order for return?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 144-

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

For each of the fiscal years 1992-93 and 1993-94, which groups received the ten largest amounts in federal grants for multiculturalism, and what were the amounts?

Return tabled.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

The Balkans

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

Mr. Speaker, just before question period, the parliamentary secretary to the defence minister had just completed his speech. I noted that, as in the speech of the Minister of Defence, the government is not providing any details about Canada's intervention in the upcoming peace mission in Bosnia.

From the speeches we have heard in here since this morning, it is clear the Reform Party, which is to some extent in favour of participating in this mission, as well as the Bloc Quebecois, want to know what the government proposes to do.

We asked this morning for details on how aid will be provided, the size of the contingent, the costs, the length of time involved and Canada's commitments in once again being part of this mission. We had a fine description of Canada's entire participation and how proud everyone is of it, but now we would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us what the direct implications are, as they have yet to be revealed.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member gave me an opportunity to comment on some of the things he said.

I really have a problem with this. The opposition parties say there must be a debate in order for them to have input and say what it is they believe the government should be doing. I have heard three speakers and they have sat on the fence saying: "I wish the government would tell us what it is going to do".

In my presentation I went through the roles and missions of the NATO force and what it is supposed to be doing, as did the minister. I listed the participating countries. I mentioned precisely some of the things we may be doing. Last week opposition members had a briefing for over an hour and received a 19-page document with maps, options, command and controls and rules of engagement.

I have some idea of what I would like to do, but I am not permitted to do it. We have to wait for a debate and we want to wait for a debate. The opposition parties are cajoling us. Now that we are having a debate they are criticizing us because we have not told them what it is the government wants to do. If they want us to do that, I imagine the government could accommodate them. We have a lot of good decision makers here, so we could decide.

I thought the purpose of the debate was to allow the opposition parties to have input with respect to roughly how much money they thought would be reasonable and what roles we should continue in peacekeeping. Should they be military roles or would they like the preponderance to be in the human rights area? Should they be quasi-military or quasi-civilian roles? Would they prefer us to put all our eggs in the special commission basket? That is what I want to hear from them. If they want us to tell them, we can do that. Which is it? Do they want to participate or do they not?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time for comments and questions has now expired. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Verchères.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to speak in this debate on Canada's participation in the NATO forces as part of the Dayton peace plan.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, on November 21 the three main belligerents agreed to end a conflict that has been raging for more than three years in the former Yugoslavia. The agreement which, for the time being, exists only on paper, was signed in Dayton, Ohio under the auspices of the Americans.

As part of this peace plan, a peace implementation force is to be deployed in the former Yugoslavia, mainly in Bosnia. The implementation force will consist of nearly 60,000 soldiers. This military force will be under NATO command. Most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with the exception of Canada, Denmark and Iceland which has no armed forces, have agreed to send troops for the military operation that is included in the Dayton agreements. In fact, Canada has yet formally to advise its allies whether it intends to participate in these operations and if so, what its contribution will be.

That is why we are having a debate today in this House. The Liberal government claims it wishes to consult Parliament before making a decision on Canada's participation in this operation.

In the past few weeks it has been clear the Liberal government does not play by the rules. In fact, we have a distinct impression of déjà vu.

The government has already made up its mind. This was obvious from a report in The Citizen on Friday, December 1, quoting National Defence spokesman Stéphane Corbin that no decision had been made on the Canadian contribution. However, Canada's commitment is clear.

The Prime Minister already made it perfectly clear that Canada would send troops. On November 23, the Prime Minister stated that certain number of soldiers would be involved, but the extent of our contribution would depend on what we could do and what we would be asked to do. In this statement the leader of the government showed how little respect he has for this House, whose prerogatives he should be the first to defend, but he seems quite incapable of doing so.

This becomes even more obvious when we realize that the Prime Minister already agreed with UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali on the duration of Canada's participation in this NATO mission. According to their understanding any country that would take part in the implementation force would be committed until

peace had been restored in the former Yugoslavia, whether it took six months or three years.

Making such a commitment without consulting Parliament, despite the changeable situation and the possible consequences, is very alarming for the future and shows a flagrant lack of consideration for the role of Parliament.

Despite condemning this kind of behaviour, the official opposition has a duty to fulfil its role in this House and to act in line with its principles and ideals. Not only because of our responsibility to our fellow citizens, but also because of our responsibility to the international community.

For these reasons and despite the partisan politics that can divide us in this House, the Bloc Quebecois supports the government's commitment to send troops to the former Yugoslavia so that the Dayton peace agreement can be implemented.

Despite its flaws, this agreement may be our last chance to end the conflict that has been raging for years in that region of the Balkans. Even if Canada's participation appears to lack public support and involves risks for our soldiers, we must not remain insensitive to what is occurring outside our borders.

For several years now, Bosnia-Hercegovina has been ravaged by a war to which we too often remain indifferent, because television too often shows us only nameless faces that resemble millions of others. Yet, each of the people living in the region torn apart by this deadly conflict enjoyed an apparently normal life before all this started. Men, women and children have seen their lives turned upside down by this protracted, seemingly endless conflict. We have a moral obligation to them, because our responsibility is not restricted to the national territory of Quebec and Canada.

For most of their histories, Quebec and Canada have been spared from violent conflicts. Although we have long enjoyed a very enviable standard of living, we should not forget that others outside our borders are suffering and need our help. Given its status as an affluent nation, Canada has a responsibility to help those who are the innocent victims of war.

In response to our Reform colleagues, I must point out that we should stop looking at outside conflicts or problems as having nothing to do with our domestic problems. In this world of increasing globalization and integration, it must be understood that international problems are also our domestic problems, and that our domestic problems are also international problems.

International developments have a direct impact on Canada and Quebec. When dealing, for example, with population movements, missed business opportunities, etc., it must be understood that developments abroad have an impact on our domestic policies.

Our goal is not to interfere in another country's internal affairs. We will not be deciding for them what is good or bad.

Our responsibility is limited to preventing those who did not ask for this conflict in the first place from suffering and being killed. So far, this responsibility has been carried out through the UNPROFOR, as part of a peacekeeping operation. However, measures taken to date were unsuccessful in putting an end to the conflict and its disastrous consequences.

Two weeks ago, the three main belligerents unexpectedly agreed to stop fighting. But for the peace plan to work, they need our help. The help they need from us does, however, involve risks much higher than those faced by Canadian troops who took part in UNPROFOR peacekeeping operations in the past three and a half years, no matter what our defence minister says; he who would have us believe that the type of military intervention contemplated is no riskier than the peacekeeping mission started in 1991.

In fact, the risks associated with the military operation arising from the Dayton agreements are higher because the nature of the operation to be carried out by NATO is completely different from the one carried out by the UNPROFOR. The operations lead by the UN in the former Yugoslavia since 1991 were conducted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which allows only for the pacific settlement of disputes between parties concerned.

Article 33 is quite clear on this matter. It reads as follows: "1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".

Then: "2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means". This is what articles 33.1 and 33.2 say.

But what we are debating today is not a simple peacekeeping operation, in which acts of aggression, while always possible, are unlikely. We are talking about a major military operation designed to force peace on belligerents. To implement the Dayton agreements, our troops will be mobilized in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Under the provisions of this chapter, armed forces under UN command, or the delegated command of NATO in this case, are allowed to use all necessary means to restore peace and fulfil their mission. This kind of mission exposes our troops to much higher risks, as they are more likely to see fire. Of course, they will be able to retaliate, but they would definitely be exposed to much more brutal attacks.

It is the first time that such an operation is led by NATO since the Korean war, more than 40 years ago. Therefore, we must ensure that our participation is not tainted by an aggression that could jeopardize Canada's credibility regarding peacekeeping operations. The government must inform Quebecers and Canadians of the possible consequences of such a mission. We have the right to know what dangers may lie ahead for our troops.

For that reason, the Canadian government must immediately tell us what its policy will be in the months to come regarding that issue. Unlike what occurred when our troops were sent to the former Yugoslavia as part of UNPROFOR, the Bloc Quebecois feels that, this time, Ottawa must takes its place and stop being meek. As you know, throughout our participation in UNPROFOR, the number of Canadian troops remained around 2,000, one of the largest contingents after those of France and the United Kingdom.

Yet, the federal government was not able to ensure Canada's active involvement in the political decision making process to manage the conflict. In spite of its strong participation in UNPROFOR, our country was not included in the international contact group set up in April 1994 to find a solution to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. That group included the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Germany. Given its implication, Canada fully deserved to be a member of that group.

Considering the large number of Canadian troops in the former Yugoslavia, we expected the federal government to take initiatives and propose solutions as to how to solve the conflict and end it. However, as we know, no such initiatives were taken.

Once it was decided to send humanitarian assistance and troops to maintain peace in the former Yugoslavia, Canadian diplomacy was content to let things happen. For these reasons, although we support Canada's participation to help implement the Dayton peace plan, we must be careful and avoid repeating past mistakes.

Therefore, we must immediately take a close look at all the issues relating to Canada's participation in the peace process in the former Yugoslavia. First, it is obvious to the Bloc Quebecois that Canada's participation in this NATO mission ought not to exceed the size of its UNPROFOR contingent, about 2,000 at its highest point.

Canada must make its intention of continuing to be actively involved in the peace process clear to the various stakeholders. I would like to take this opportunity to point out the regretfully low contribution of our European allies, with the exception of France, Great Britain and Germany, to this military force to be set up as part of the Dayton agreements. As for our own participation, it ought to be substantial enough to enable our diplomacy to play an active role in coming months.

The Bloc, however, has difficulty seeing how Canada could send any more soldiers to Bosnia-Hercegovina. Over the past three years, Canada has spent $517 million on its UNPROFOR participation and on humanitarian aid for the former Yugoslavia, that comes out to nearly $172 million a year. According to the Minister of Defence, the annual cost of sending between 50 and 3,500 Canadian soldiers to Bosnia-Hercegovina, however, would range between $2 million and $75 million.

In the same breath, the Minister of Defence admits that the cost of taking part in a NATO mission is twice as high as for an equivalent UN mission. The Bloc's extreme scepticism about the Minister of Defence's figures is therefore understandable. That is why I am demanding, on behalf of Quebec's and Canada's taxpayers, that the federal government provide a clear figure for the expenses that would be incurred in sending troops to Bosnia-Hercegovina, and do so even before they leave this country.

Moreover, Ottawa must also provide Canadians and Quebecers with answers on the composition of the Canadian intervention. The public wants to know, not only how many troops will be going, but whether these will be only combat troops or troops involved in logistics and support.

There is no doubt in the minds of the Bloc members that, judging from our past experience in peacekeeping operations, Canada ought to assume tasks more closely related to surveillance and communications, both being areas in which we have recognized expertise. In other words, only a small proportion of our troops should consist of combat troops.

The public also has the right to know how long our troops will be in Bosnia-Hercegovina. According to the Department of National Defence, allied chiefs of staff have agreed on rules for troop deployment for a period of 12 months. What if the government wants to extend the mandate of our troops? Will Parliament be asked to do so two days before their mandate expires, as was the case last April, when it was asked to renew the mandate of our peacekeepers with UNPROFOR? And will the Canadian government once again have made up its mind, as it did today, before the matter is tabled in Parliament? Will it show the same lack of consideration for the people of Quebec and Canada?

Will Canada have a political say in how our soldiers are used? This matter is an important one for the Bloc Quebecois. We realize that Canada has a moral obligation to participate in the implementation of the Dayton agreements. However, this obligation should not obscure the fact that we also have a responsibility to the public and to the soldiers who will be deployed over there. The Bloc Quebecois feels that the Canadian government should at all

times have the right to withdraw its troops from this mission. Ottawa should provide assurances to that end as well as a plan for emergency withdrawal.

According to the latest news, France, Belgium and Canada wanted a say in operations in case of incidents on the ground, but the United States objected.

It seems the matter has been resolved, but no one knows what transpired. The Canadian government must answer these questions before sending a single soldier to Bosnia.

Today, the public does not know how many of our soldiers will be sent over there, what role they will play or to which international division they will belong. Although these questions are important and deserve clear answers, the public is even more concerned about the risks to which our soldiers will be exposed.

There are also a number of other aspects involved in the implementation of the Dayton peace agreements, and I am referring to the judgment of war criminals. As far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, the war crimes tribunal set up by the United Nations must pursue its mission fully and independently. According to my party, we cannot condone amnesty for those who are accused of war crimes, including Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic.

The Dayton agreements indicate that these two individuals are to be excluded from political life, and rumour has it that these "warlords" may benefit from some kind of amnesty. Can the Government of Canada tell us whether it intends to insist that our allies and the international community respect the mandate of the international criminal court? We consider it would be unacceptable otherwise.

If the Dayton accords can be implemented without too much problem, we will be morally obliged to help the people of the former Yugoslavia rebuild their country. We will have to see what we can do, from an economic point of view. So the federal government should take a clear stand immediately on the role it intends to play at the meeting of the World Bank in Brussels to come up with funds for Bosnia-Hercegovina. Similarly, we might ask ourselves whether Canada will help in the expunging of Bosnia-Hercegovina's foreign debt, given the lamentable state of its own public finances. These are the questions that warrant our attention, and the position of the Canadian government should be clarified as quickly as possible.

In closing, you will permit me to once again express my regret at the fact that the federal government had decided, even before holding this debate, that it would send Canadian troops to former Yugoslavia. In so doing, as it did with the renewal of Canada's participation in UNPROFOR in May, the government is demonstrating a lack of respect for Canadians.

We would like the government to again consult this House within a year on whether we should pursue our involvement, and we would hope that it would not do so within a couple of hours of renewing the mandate.

Finally, I would like to point out that, in view of the change in our soldiers' mandate in Bosnia-Hercegovina, it would appear vital the government keep open the option of withdrawing our troops at any time. If the NATO mission passes without incident, so much the better. However, should the situation worsen, the government should keep all its options open including that of bringing our troops home.

This last eventuality should not be taken lightly, because again last Saturday, General Ratko Mladic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, said that the Dayton accords on Sarajevo should be renegotiated and that the Serbs would never agree to being governed by what they call the "butchers". A short while ago, the American general, John Shalikashvili, said the following on the NATO mission in Bosnia-Hercegovina as well:

"The mission will be tough, there is no doubt about it, and we have to be prepared for casualties".

The federal government will soon be sending our troops to Bosnia-Hercegovina as part of a mission to impose peace, which will be neither fun nor entertaining. The federal government must therefore be fully aware and act accordingly, because the lives of our soldiers are at stake. Ottawa must also get busy about other aspects of this mission, including proceedings against those guilty of war crimes.

The government may rest assured that the Bloc will be watching carefully and will follow the situation closely to ensure that the interests of our soldiers and, of course, of the people of Bosnia are looked after.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for a presentation that certainly relates to the debate. I want to make a couple of comments with respect to the more pointed nature of my feelings on what he had to say.

I certainly do understand his concern as a member of the opposition about the possibility of changing the structure, the participation, the withdrawal, or the future of any NATO force and the Canadian participation without a debate in the House. I would at the same time quickly remind him that his leader was a member of the government who not more than four years ago participated in committing a very large Canadian force to the Persian Gulf without

as much as one word of debate in the House. I will tell him that if that has to happen, I would ask him to be considerate because it is not without precedent.

The previous government, of which his leader was a cabinet minister, used the phrase that it was not expeditious and propitious to do that. It is not always propitious and expeditious, so I would ask him to have understanding for these kinds of things.

I was expecting to hear from the parties opposite some comment on the size and structure of the force. I will give the hon. member credit, he talked about the possibility of surveillance and communications troops. But he did not give any indication of the scope of money he or his party were prepared to support.

The opposition parties, both the main opposition and the third party, have been mouthing off to the press. They have been going through a great litany and lexicon of rhetoric about not having a debate. Now that the time has arrived, lo and behold, they do not want to tell us what is on their minds. I have not heard a member of the opposition, with the exception of the possibility of surveillance and communications troops, say anything about what they would like to have in the way of whether it should be military, quasi-military, should we be a member of the commission, what kinds of rules of engagement we should have, what kind of a force we should have that is tailored to this kind of a mission, what kinds of conditions we should have in place to withdraw.

The conditions are right for the members of the opposition to stand up and put their money where their mouths are and tell us what they want to do. Do not be afraid. We will consider it. We may not do it to the letter of the law, but give us some range. What do they have in mind? What are we good at doing? Should we continue doing what we were doing before or should we do something differently? What other areas of expertise would they like us to use? Mr. Speaker, ask them to tell us what they would like to do.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the parliamentary secretary, to read the remarks I made a few minutes ago, when they are available tomorrow.

The parliamentary secretary claims that we made no suggestions to the government. He really should read what I said, because we made many suggestions to the government, and it ought to consider them. None of the speeches by members on the government side this morning ever mentioned the number of troops it intends to send to Bosnia or the length of time they would have to stay there. None of the speeches made from the government mentioned the type of troops to be sent there. Should they be combat troops, communications troops, engineering troops, medical support troops?

The government has been absolutely silent on this issue since it called this debate. Today, we are asked to debate this issue. We readily admit that it is up to the government to make decisions on foreign policy, but we do not recognize in this debate the commitment made by this government to consult Parliament on foreign policy issues, since they are always hurried consultations. When Parliament is consulted, it is always in a hurry. On the one hand, members of Parliament cannot prepare adequately and, on the other, they know that the government has already made up its mind and decided what to do even before they were consulted. This whole consultation process in the House is nothing but a sham.

When the parliamentary secretary claims that we do not recognize this role of the government, mentioning that the present Leader of the Opposition was a member of the previous government, I simply remind him, because he seems not to have noticed yet, that the Leader of the Opposition resigned from the Conservative government and is now the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.