Debates of May 29th, 1995

Bosnia

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we are discussing with the UN Secretary General.

In my answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I indicated that it was important to redefine the role of our soldiers and to ensure that they are not exposed, as they are right now, several kilometres from their base, in small numbers and completely on their own; we have been adamant on this. As for the right to attack or take firmer defensive actions, they have the power to do so, but right now, the engagement rules need to be reviewed.

As far as setting up a standing response force, I would like to know exactly what they mean. In our view, we are there to maintain peace, not to start a war with parties which are already fighting with one another.

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

Mr. Speaker, by his answer, the Prime Minister has shown once again that we should have a debate today, and not wait until tomorrow.

This morning, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that Canada intended to step up its diplomatic efforts and that a military approach would be a disaster.

Are we to understand from this statement that the Canadian government is opposed not only to redefining the mandate of the UN troops, as proposed by France, but also to any new air strikes?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are not against any new air strikes. Last week we said that we thought, and this was echoed by the French and the British Prime Ministers, that the air strikes had probably not been planned as well as they could have been.

Had we been given earlier notice, we could have taken the necessary steps to protect our soldiers. I raised this issue with the UN Secretary General who, to a certain extent, recognized the validity of my argument. I was pleased to hear the new French Prime Minister express the same point of view, yesterday, on French television.

A review of the situation is needed, but we cannot say that there will never be other air strikes because that would mean that, if we were attacked, we would not defend ourselves.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are rightly outraged that our soldiers are being held hostage and their lives endangered. The government has failed our peacekeepers and has failed Canadians. It renewed our mandate in Bosnia without any criteria for evaluating the mission.

The facts are plain. The warring factions continue to target UN troops. Ceasefires are not respected. Humanitarian efforts are impossible and there is no peace to keep. The government knew this in October, it knew this in March and it knows it know. Will the government commit itself to the withdrawal of Canadian troops as soon as possible?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that at this moment when Canadian soldiers have been kidnapped it is not the time for the Canadian government to run for cover and be subjected to blackmail.

We are there to play a useful role. Thousands and thousands of lives have been saved because our troops are there. The Canadian troops are among the best, if not the best. I would like to tell our soldiers that we support them. When they went there they knew they were not going to a picnic. I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition who said that we are backing the Canadian troops.

We have had similar incidents before and there will probably be more. In the meantime we are saving thousands of lives there, making sure that medication and food gets to the population.

The Canadian people are proud of this role and the Canadian people are backing the troops who at the moment are in difficulty.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no one is questioning the calibre and the jobs our peacekeepers have done.

The Liberal red book promised that Canada would no longer be a foreign policy camp follower. In Bosnia however, we have become a camp follower to all of NATO and to a contact group with limited involvement in the conflict. Germany for example, does not have one single soldier on the ground, yet has more voice than Canada. Our soldiers are being chained to posts outside ammunition dumps. Why is the government being diplomatically correct in letting the governments of France and Britain make our decisions for what we do in Bosnia?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are not part of the contact group. As I said before, 25 countries are there, some with more troops than Canada in Bosnia, and they are not part of the-

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Not troops.

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

Some are and they are not members of the contact group. This is a diplomatic effort by the Russians, the Americans and three European countries which have more direct influence than we have. We do not have a traditional presence there and I admit that. However neither are the Dutch, nor the Belgians, nor the Spanish and many others. We should not take offence at that.

We are on the ground and we are making the decisions in relation to Canadian soldiers. We are participating in the discussions at NATO. We are participating in the discussions at the UN.

I had the chance to talk to many of the leaders, the president of Croatia, Prime Minister Major and President Chirac, and the minister of foreign affairs in Bosnia who unfortunately was killed over the weekend. I met him in Paris. He told me the best soldiers in that very difficult situation were the Canadians. Therefore we will keep backing them up.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree we have the best soldiers. They should also have a say in the decisions.

The Reform Party warned the government not to renew Canada's mandate. The situation was unstable and the lives of Canadians would be placed in unacceptable danger if they were recommitted to Bosnia. The government ignored this advice and for a third time Canadian soldiers are being held hostage.

Canadians are demanding action. According to a recent poll of thousands, 90 per cent wanted Canada to pull out now. Why is the government refusing to listen to Canadians? Why is it showing such a total lack of good judgment in setting its policy toward Bosnia?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the Canadian military and we are supported by people who know something about this very difficult circumstance. Canadians have always been there in difficult circumstances. I am very happy that all parties except the Reform Party are supporting Canadian troops and the Canadian position.

It has been a tradition that when lives of Canadians are at stake in a difficult circumstance we back them up. The government is participating in discussions and decisions. We will make the best judgments to save lives.

In the meantime I know the millions of people living in that region are very grateful that Canadians are there to save lives and provide food and medication in a terrible situation.

Winnipeg Jets

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

It is unjustifiable on the part of the federal government to help a professional hockey club to the tune of $20 million, while cutting billions of dollars in social program funding.

After deciding that the federal assistance was inadequate, the Manitoba Entertainment Complex Save the Jets group applied to Revenue Canada for charitable status, so as to become eligible for indirect federal assistance in the form of tax deductions.

Can the Minister of National Revenue tell us what is the status of the application made by Manitoba Entertainment Complex and whether he intends to increase federal assistance to the Winnipeg Jets through tax deductions?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the rules governing charities are set out by the courts, not by Parliament or the government. They are set out by a series of court decisions.

It has been determined over a fairly lengthy series of court cases that an organization entirely for the promotion of a sport is not a charitable organization. I cannot comment on the particulars of any one organization and where it stands within the process. I can as a general rule assure the hon. member that any

organization strictly for sporting purposes would not qualify for charitable status.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Revenue confirm information suggesting that the donations made to Manitoba Entertainment Complex would be considered as donations to the state or to a provincial Crown corporation, thus substantially increasing federal assistance to the Winnipeg Jets by allowing the deduction of such donations for federal income tax purposes?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, once again it is difficult to comment directly about a specific case. It is not our practice to do that.

However, in general terms I can assure the hon. member any attempt to avoid the existing law as it has been laid down by the courts will be objected to by Revenue Canada. The law should be applied directly and fairly to all, as it has been in the past. It is always possible for people to attempt to alter the nature of an organization's objectives or to alter the nature of gifts to a charitable organization or to bring it within a charitable status. That is within their right. We will examine it thereafter when we receive that information and determine whether it meets the law.

We insist any organization that attempts to get charitable status meet the full requirements of the law.

Bosnia

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make it plain from the outset that the Reform Party, like all parties in the House and all Canadians, supports and has great respect and admiration for our troops in Bosnia.

The Bosnian Serb reaction to NATO air strikes on Pale last week was entirely predictable, indeed a forgone conclusion. Was the Canadian government consulted on the decision to carry out the air strikes and if so did it approve?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is a decision made by NATO and the UN. In my discussion with the secretary general of the UN yesterday he said he had agreed.

We have not been formally consulted like the others. It was a decision made at that moment by the people who have the authority. We were not formally consulted for this air strike. We discuss policies all the time but the people on the ground make these decisions. It was approved by the UN, as requested in the policy of double keys.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while Canada may not have the largest contingent of troops in the former Yugoslavia, we certainly have had a substantial commitment throughout the conflict and that commitment is highly rated.

Why, with so many Canadians vulnerable to the hostage taking which resulted, did the Canadian government not insist its approval be sought before NATO air strikes were approved?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate what the Prime Minister said.

A procedure was put down a year ago when NATO discussed the possibility of using air strikes. The United Nations has the authority in certain circumstances where warranted to ask NATO to perform those air strikes.

That procedure was followed last week and there was nothing abnormal about the procedures.

Regional Development

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

With its bill redefining the mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank, the federal government is once again going over the head of the provinces by assuming the right to sign agreements directly with organizations which come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

How can the Prime Minister justify this new federal interference in regional development through the signing of agreements with organizations which come directly under Quebec's jurisdiction? Is this another example of what the Prime Minister calls flexible federalism?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's constitution clearly states that banks come under federal, not provincial, jurisdiction.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

By refusing to renew the federal-provincial agreement on regional development, Ottawa rejected any form of dialogue with the Quebec government.

Will the Prime Minister recognize that the federal government is laying the foundations of another confrontation with Quebec by allowing the new Business Development Bank of Canada to sign agreements directly with organizations which come under Quebec's jurisdiction, and also by keeping the province from playing any role in the process?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is related to ERDA, that is the agreement between the federal government and the provincial government. I should tell the hon. member that, unless I am mistaken, I already had one meeting with Mr. Chevrette. Two letters were written, and I told Mr. Chevrette that we are ready, right now, to sit down to renegotiate an agreement. The ball is definitely in the provincial government's court.

Infrastructure

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, more questions have surfaced concerning the diversion of funds from highway 104 in Nova Scotia and the role of the public works minister.

The Prime Minister has said this is an issue for the Minister of Transport, and when one of his caucus members called it misappropriation of funds she was told to keep quiet.

If the minister of public works was such a minor player in all this, how could he have announced the funding diversion in February 1994 when according to a letter from the minister of transportation federal and provincial officials amended the agreement only three months after that? On whose authority was the minister of public works acting?