Debates of May 30th, 1995

Liberal Party Of Canada

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the next couple of weeks members across the way face a critical test that will characterize the very essence of their stay in Ottawa. They must decide if they are here to serve their constituents or they are here to serve their party masters.

The Liberal red book promised free votes. The 35th Parliament has yet to have one government bill open to a free vote.

In the next few weeks votes on bills as diverse as the sentencing bill, the employment equity bill and the gun registration bill are all due. Free votes are clearly called. Liberal members have been told their party comes first. History however tells another tale and I urge Liberal MPs to vote with their constituents.

The next few weeks will be interesting indeed. The very definition of parliamentary democracy is at stake. Hopefully the voice of the majority of Canadians will be the one that Liberal members listen to.

National Access Awareness Week

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Access Awareness Week. It was

my privilege yesterday to join with Canadians from communities across the country at the national kick-off ceremony.

This week gives individuals with disabilities the opportunity to celebrate their many accomplishments and allows for the setting of new goals for improving access.

With learning as the focus of this year's celebration, we are reminded that learning is a lifelong process. It is important to ensure that all learning opportunities are available to everyone, including Canadians with disabilities.

We have much to learn from each other. Canada cannot afford to ignore the tremendous talents, abilities and skills that persons with disabilities can contribute to the workplace, to schools and to communities.

As members of Parliament let us commit to removing all physical and attitudinal barriers faced by persons with disabilities to ensure their full participation in all aspects of community life.

Pete McGarvey

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House and recognize the contributions my friend Pete McGarvey has made to Canada and Canadians for many years.

I have known Pete McGarvey for the last 21 years and he has had an immense influence on my life since first meeting him in 1974. I commend the city of Orillia for inducting him into Orillia's Hall of Fame.

Pete McGarvey was chosen for his continuing service in the community, for being the driving force behind the restoration of the Leacock home and for his accomplishments as a successful writer and broadcaster.

I am confident the citizens of Orillia will agree with me, Mr. McGarvey deserves this honour and much more.

I call on the House to join with me in congratulating Pete McGarvey, his family and the city of Orillia for making him its choice for the Hall of Fame.

Bosnia

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaking, following the meeting of the contact group on Bosnia, Canada's allies decided to respond to the affronts by Bosnian Serbs by consolidating the action of the peacekeeping forces through a redefinition of their mandate and a diplomatic approach to obtaining the release of nearly 400 peacekeepers, including ten Canadians. Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs followed closely in NATO's footsteps this morning, but without, however, setting out Canada's position in clear terms with respect to the consolidation of the peacekeepers' mandate.

My question is for the Prime Minister. In the light of the emergency debate permitted yesterday, would he tell us what definite instructions he sent to his Minister of Foreign Affairs, who will represent us tomorrow at NATO's other meeting?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity yesterday in this House to explain the need at this point for the United Nations to establish new directives for the troops in order to avoid a repetition of the hostage taking and, perhaps, to redefine their mandate so that the troops could act more quickly in the event of an emergency than they have been able to in the past.

Today, at the United Nations, the Secretary General is to submit new directives in this regard to the Security Council. We had an opportunity over the weekend to express Canada's point of view. We will see what the Security Council decides. Our troops in Bosnia are under the command of the United Nations, and the UN gives the necessary orders.

The Secretary General confirmed to me that the role of our soldiers needed redefining and that they should be redeployed so as to be in a position to defend themselves more readily. We will see what the UN decides later on this week.

As for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he is acting on the instructions in the statements issued in this House during yesterday's debate by the Minister of National Defence and my responses in Question Period yesterday.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Foreign Affairs has only what the Prime Minister has just said to go on, he will have to fudge it tomorrow in Brussels, because there is nothing clear in what the Prime Minister has said, it is extremely ambiguous. Other countries are members of the UN forces and have made concrete decisions. France, Great Britain and the United States, for example, have sent additional troops and equipment that is more suitable for over there.

I would ask the Prime Minister to tell us whether his government has sent or will send additional equipment on an emergency basis such as heavier tanks and arms so that our peacekeepers may defend themselves and bring their peace mission to a successful conclusion.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have not yet made any decision in this regard. We believe that our troops, where they are placed at the moment, have what they need in order to be able to react, particularly if

their mandate is redefined. We have decided not to send additional troops for the time being.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that I spoke of heavier equipment and more effective weapons and that the answer remains: "We have not made any decision". And so we are still in the dark. This is indeed worrisome, Mr. Speaker.

When decisions guiding international action in Bosnia are made by the contact group, how does the Prime Minister explain Canada's sending the fifth largest contingent to Bosnia and Croatia without being a member of the contact group, unlike the United States and Germany, which are members without having sent a single peacekeeper there?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I explained that 25 countries are represented with troops in the former Yugoslavia, and that most of them are not in the contact group. These countries include Spain, Holland, Denmark, Canada, Pakistan and others that are there.

We are in contact with these people at the moment, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in contact with his counterparts in the group. A NATO meeting was held this morning; there will be another one tomorrow, I think. And there is talk of a meeting of defence ministers on the weekend. So the Minister of National Defence will be there, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs is already there. I said that, as regards the Canadian position at this point, there is no need to send new equipment; what we have there now is satisfactory.

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

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

The public is concerned about the fate of the 380 peacekeepers, including 10 Canadians, held hostage by the Bosnian Serbs as well as 45 other Canadian soldiers surrounded by the Serbs. The base in Valcartier has received 1,200 calls from relatives concerned about the safety of the soldiers deployed in the former Yugoslavia.

Given that the public worries about the fate of our peacekeepers in Bosnia and that negotiations to secure the release of the Canadian hostages have yet to produce concrete results, how can the government be so vague-like the Prime Minister's response-about its position on the current crisis in Bosnia, when France, Great Britain and the U.S. have already announced concrete actions? These soldiers' families want concrete actions and decisions.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said that we participated in all the weekend discussions. I have been in contact with the leaders of the governments that have troops over there, like Great Britain and France, and with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Some of our soldiers are in a difficult position but they are not very far from the base in Visoko, and we are in contact with those who have been captured and those who are in a non-mobile position, so to speak. Two Canadians are held outside that area, one of them in Pale, and we were able to communicate with him in the last few hours.

Unfortunately, we have not heard recently from Corporal Lapalme, who is in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo, and with whom we are currently trying to establish contact. So far, however, we can assure the families that we are staying in contact with everyone involved, with the exception of Corporal Lapalme, and we are doing everything in our power to ensure that they remain alive. Our current approach is probably the best way of securing their release as soon as possible.

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

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

Given that everyone agrees that the peacekeepers' mandate should be redefined-although the Minister of National Defence was unable to do so yesterday-and that we are waiting for the United Nations' response, how does the Canadian government propose to redefine the UN mandate of Canadian peacekeepers?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said we took an initiative on that. Last week we discussed the mandate with the United Nations.

I will repeat in the House that we have to make sure troops are not spread around like they are at the moment. We would like them to be concentrated in places where they can defend themselves and be defended by other people at the bases. That is the main preoccupation. When they are alone in observation towers, for instance, they are in some difficulty because they cannot readily defend themselves.

That is exactly what the UN is considering at the moment, to give peacekeepers a role more in relation to the means they have. The troops are under the command of the United Nations there and the secretary general is supposed to present new guidelines to the security council possibly later today.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last 24 hours the UN's mandate in the former Yugoslavia is being shifted from a focus on peacekeeping to aggressive peacemaking.

Britain has announced it will be sending 5,000 more troops. France is committing an aircraft carrier and helicopter gun

ships. The U.S. may contribute commandos to the conflict. The UN contact group has also endorsed a plan that would give UN soldiers the power to aggressively attack warring factions.

Does the government support shifting the UN mandate in this direction, shifts which will escalate military activity in the former Yugoslavia?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question at this moment of shifting the mandate of peacekeeping to enforcing peace in the way described by the hon. member. They are sending more troops there to protect their own troops.

I explained the Canadian situation. We are not in exactly the same position. Our troops are not as spread out as others. It is not a question at this moment of Canada's sending more troops.

The mandate is not to start a war with anybody but to protect the troops there, which is exactly what we are supporting.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to many observers it appears the UN mandate is shifting. If the government simply passively accepts those shifts, the public will want to know what that means for Canada.

In March the government sent our peacekeepers back to Bosnia without a clear mandate, without firm criteria for staying or withdrawing and without a voice in the decision making contact group.

If the government insists on staying under conditions of military escalation will it now insist on being given a place at the table with the United Nations contact group? In other words, will that be a condition which must be met if Canadian peacekeepers are to remain?

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been concerns on the part of a number of countries about the contact group and membership.

As a result we are now looking at perhaps shifting some of the focus to NATO nations contributing troops. There may be a meeting on Saturday or a few days later in Brussels to deal with that.

Canada is certainly a member of that group. We had one meeting last December-

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

It is almost June.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

If the hon. member would listen, I will explain.

We have had continual contact back and forth, personal, one on one and bilateral and other multilateral meetings since last December between the Minister of Foreign Affairs, myself and other ministers of defence of NATO contributing nations.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is in Europe, has been fully apprised of what has been happening and has given input into the deliberations that went on yesterday.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what continually disturbs us about this discussion is the fuzziness of the government's criteria for remaining and the fuzziness of its strategy in this troubled part of the world.

I will ask the minister again a very straight question, one Canadians want answered. If the government has decided Canadian peacekeepers are to remain in the former Yugoslavia, with their lives even more at risk because of the escalating dangers, will it be conditional on the government's being given a place in the UN contact group, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. leader of the Reform Party is so preoccupied at this late date with the forum for discussion.

Discussions are ongoing. There is nothing fuzzy about the government's position. I do not know how the hon. leader of the Reform Party can make that statement having sat here last night and listened to my speech in which I outlined the number of criteria for our continued participation in a redefined UN mandate. That was outlined again today by our Minister of Foreign Affairs in The Hague.

Exports Of Military Equipment

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

A study conducted by Project Ploughshares, a research institute in Waterloo, Ontario, shows that in 1993-94, more than US$200 million in military equipment manufactured in Canada was exported to at least 11 of the 39 countries ravaged by civil war last year, in contravention of the arms exports controls.

How can the Minister of National Defence explain the fact that the government authorized the sale of Canadian-made arms and military equipment to countries like Peru, Turkey and Burma, where human rights are systematically violated?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is very clear in the countries that it supports with the delivery of arms and parts for munitions.

Most of our trade is with the United States, with NATO countries or with other countries with which we have a production agreement. We do not send and sell arms to third world

countries that are in a conflict situation or any country that is in a conflict situation either with another state or with its internal population.

We have not yet seen the report to which the member refers. It has not been made public to us but we will be reviewing it as soon as it is made available to the government.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

But this was reported in the press yesterday, Mr. Speaker. This study also shows that Canada is the seventh largest supplier of military weapons to third world countries.

My supplementary is for the Minister of National Defence. Are we to understand that this violation of arms trade regulations by the Canadian government is totally in line with its new foreign policy, which puts trade before human rights?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the report which was reported upon in the press yesterday has not been made publicly available to the government. We will be reviewing it when we do get that document.

The fact is that Canada supports the reduction of the production in trade of conventional weapons. We are very active on the international commitment to that. We are dialoguing with other nations to see what we can do.

We feel that the proliferation of conventional weapons is one of the most serious problems confronting our world and is causing so much of the conflict that we are having to address.