Debates of March 12th, 1997

Appropriation Act No. 1, 1997-98

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, the proportions requested in the bill are for all essential needs of the federal public service until the second period for the authorization of expenditures in 1997-98.

The bill does not release the full amount of any of the items. The bill is in the usual form of interim supply bills. Concurring in this bill will in no way prejudice the rights or privileges of members to criticize items in the Estimates when these are examined in committee.

The usual undertaking is hereby given that these rights and privileges will be respected and that they will be neither abolished nor restricted in any way through concurring in this bill.

(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.)

(Schedules A and B agreed to.)

(Clause 1 agreed to.)

(Preamble agreed to.)

(Title agreed to.)

(Bill deemed reported.)

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask, when the maximum volume for nos exceeded that of the yeas, you assumed those motions were all passed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Adopted on division.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

moved that Bill C-88 be concurred in.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, official opposition members will be voting no.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, NDP members present vote no.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be voting no.

[Jag Bhaduria, Liberal, Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the third reading stage of the bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

The House resumed from December 10, 1996 consideration of the motion and the amendment.

Peacekeeping Or Peace Enforcement Commitments

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the order that was adopted earlier today with respect to Private Members' Business Motion No. 31, I believe you will find consent that at the conclusion of the debate on Motion No. 31 today, a recorded division be deemed requested and deemed deferred until Monday, April 7, 1997 at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that we will have an amendment to Motion M-31 and that we agree that the vote be deferred to April 7.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak the motion by my colleague from Red Deer which would allow all proposed peacekeeping or peace enforcement commitments involving more than 100 Canadian personnel to be put to a free vote in the House for approval or for rejection. I believe that is a very reasonable request in a democratic fashion, something that this party over here has a difficult time understanding. We certainly saw an example of it a few minutes ago.

Peacekeeping has become one of the most important aspects of our foreign policy. It has allowed Parliament some influence on foreign conflicts. The problem over the years is that modern day peacekeeping has become both dangerous and extremely costly. Therefore it is important for Parliament to chose wisely which missions it will participate in. The risks and the costs should be evaluated. The mandate and the rules of engagement should be known and the chances of success should be examined.

Motion No. 31 would allow these points to be raised in parliamentary debate followed by a vote when all members could represent their constituents and let their vote count.

When the soldiers from Wild Rose are ordered to put their lives on the line, I would like to think that I would be able to say to them Parliament looked at all the facts and made the best decision in their interest.

The problem with this Liberal government is that there is always too little too late with decisions being made in a rush behind closed doors. Currently troops are already on a plane on their way to a mission before we are even asked if they should be sent. Then they question whether we have the resources in place for this mission.

This was seen most recently in February when the Canadian government again decided to keep our peacemakers in Haiti for another five years. Canadian taxpayers had already paid over $430 million for this mission and now we find there is no end in sight. However, the government did not consult with Parliament before making this expensive and irresponsible decision; nor has it offered any long term solutions or plans.

If ever there was a need for elected representatives to have a voice, it is in these situations. The Canadian people expect Parliament to face up to the responsibility of sending our troops on these missions. When our soldiers go it should be a Canadian decision endorsed by the House of Commons. We have to be accountable to the people and give them concrete reasons why Canadian soldiers have gone on peacekeeping missions with their tax dollars.

Canadians want accountability for a change, which only a full parliamentary debate and a free vote can provide.

It has recently been reported that the Canadian people are starting to question why the Canadian government is always quick to volunteer our troops for every mission. The repercussions of this are being felt by our troops both physically and emotionally. Some Canadian soldiers served four tours of duty in the former Yugoslavia in a three year time period. This created tremendous hardship and family stress for them.

As reported in Monday's Ottawa Citizen : ``Peacekeeping has produced hundreds of psychological casualties. At least six soldiers have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, the result of witnessing the horrors of war on a daily basis. They live in almost constant depression. Hundreds of others, as many as 20 per cent of all peacekeepers, could be suffering from various forms of stress according to defence officials''.

The problem is the average Canadian does not know what a peacekeeper must endure today. Since 1994 there have been about 2,000 Canadian soldiers overseas every year. So far 16 Canadians have died during these missions, 3 from battle wounds and the other 13 from accidents or disease. More than 115 Canadians have been wounded, most in the wars that have raged in the former Yugoslavia.

To commit our forces to the atrocities going on in today's world is not a decision to be taken lightly. Peacekeepers today are plunged into the middle of civil wars. This is why a full debate of the matter is imperative. We have an obligation to stand up for our troops at every turn, to discuss the lives of our young people and the place our country has in the world.

Parliament should develop criteria in order for the decision to be made in a thorough manner. In other words, we must know every aspect, from the cost of the mission to the exact mandate to how long we are going to stay. It clear that Canadians are willing to aid

the international community for humanitarian and security tasks, but we can no longer be the world's 911 number.

To date Canada's approach to peacekeeping has placed serious strains on the armed forces. Problems with equipment such as shortages of helmets, communications equipment and obsolete armoured personnel carriers have plagued operations. Fewer soldiers with fewer resources have been required to participate in more missions. Tension and burnout have been evident from too many tours too often.

These factors have to be considered for every mission. As well, we have to learn from the experience of past peacekeeping missions. The events in Rwanda and Bosnia are evidence of this.

The Minister of National Defence was kind enough to provide each member of Parliament with a chart outlining peacekeeping and humanitarian operation cost estimates. This chart clearly shows four missions that will be ending throughout 1997. With these dates clearly outlined there should be more than enough time to debate and vote on whether these operations should be continued.

This is why Motion No. 31 is so timely. It would allow each member of Parliament an opportunity to raise any issue related to these missions on behalf of their constituents and make their vote count as such. I would encourage all members to vote in favour of Motion No. 31 in order to empower Parliament to stand up for our troops.

There have been too many times that decisions are made behind closed doors. Then we use party politics and the power of we will punish you if you do not vote the way we tell you to vote. Decisions are made behind closed doors even before a debate begins. When that happens that makes this place a farce. To start a debate on a Monday when a decision has already been made on the past Thursday behind closed doors, with government members being told how to vote and that they must vote that way or be punished, is a sham, a shame and a disgrace to democracy.

I have made these kinds of statements before in the House and recently on the Internet someone made a comment regarding my comments about backroom decisions, closed door decisions. I would like to read it. It is from an individual who is a political hack from the old days and from the old way of doing things. Let me quote, showing the attitude and the way they look at how we should operate. This person has been in politics for years: "As for backroom deals, that is the nature of politics. That is how you get things done. If the government was truly above politics then things would never work right. For example, without the heavily attacked patronage system, important positions would go to people of questionable loyalty who may work to subvert the government and to undermine its efforts. Again, having no experience with government, Reform would have little or no understanding of this principle. Politics is a dirty business. No, you would want the best politicians in there who could cut those backroom deals, make those backroom decisions and keep things running well".

A person who has been in politics in this land for a number of years told me that was the way to run the country. In other words, the Canadian public or the Canadian taxpayer should not be involved in all these decisions. We should simply go behind closed doors because the average Canadian and the normal taxpayer are too stupid to make good decisions. I am sick and tired of that kind of democracy. It must end and this is a good chance to demonstrate that we can do it.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. Accepting the thrust of his speech, would he not recollect the debate on several occasions in the House on Canadian contributions to UN peacekeeping missions and the consensus that developed in which the minister of defence at the time indicated that wherever possible issues of this sort would be referred back to Parliament?

Would he not consider-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It seems the hon. member is asking a question or making a comment and this is not the time for that. This is the time for debate.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an important motion and this is an important issue. All members of the House are concerned about the handling of information about the way our peacekeepers are deployed and the way authorization is given for that deployment. Above all, we want to ensure that it is a transparent process so that all may know the consequences of what we are doing.

The motion proposes very little in the way of changes to make Canada's peacekeeping policy process more transparent. The simple reason is that the process is already extremely open.

The suggestions that unilateral decisions are being made behind closed doors have ignored the facts. Such assertions have no basis whatsoever in reality. The process, as it now exists, is one of the most open in the world. How many other countries have established Internet sites and conducted surveys to determine public support for involvement in peacekeeping missions?

I argue that such countries are few in number, yet our hon. colleagues insist the existing Canadian system is opaque and in need of reform. These statements are difficult to accept.

Furthermore, the principle underlying such a motion supports the thrust of government policy. It has been and will always be our policy to put to this House directly or through its Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade all issues

involving peacekeeping. When it has been possible and necessary to do so, that is what the government did.

We recognize the importance of thoroughly and freely debating all proposals to deploy Canadian forces personnel and we attach considerable importance to the opinion expressed in this House. For these reasons, the government is working to ensure that Canada's peacekeeping commitments are debated each time the occasion arises.

Furthermore, the minister and the government have indicated a willingness to adopt new and interesting procedures to enable this to take place.

The mover of the motion, the hon. member for Red Deer, knows very well that we have had the occasion in the foreign affairs and international trade committee to examine the deployment of troops in Haiti. On an extensive basis we were able to hear witnesses. We were able to have a frank, open debate in circumstances which were, I would submit, preferable to an exchange of views in the House which often tends to be adversarial in nature. We should be looking at that way of dealing with it. That is how we will deal with issues raised by the member for Wild Rose. He said that these were very costly and dangerous and must be evaluated. We are able to do that in committee in many ways far better than we are able to do it in the House.

I urge members of the House who are concerned about this matter and about the way Canadians feel about peacekeeping to examine some simple figures. In 1995, in spite of what the member for Wild Rose said, the results of a study documenting Canadian opinions on foreign and defence policies found that 79 per cent of those polled considered peacekeeping important for Canada.

A February 1996 study showed that 75 per cent of Canadians wanted our current commitment to peacekeeping to be maintained or increased. A similar percentage of respondents indicated that they believed peacekeeping to be a very positive source of Canada's international reputation. It is obvious the Canadian public recognizes the importance of peacekeeping to Canada internationally. Furthermore, Canadians firmly support our involvement in peacekeeping.

The high level of support shown leads us to wonder about the real value of this motion. The argument that the issue must be put to a parliamentary vote so electors may have their say simply does not hold water. They have already had it, in a much more significant way than they have for years. The same is true for the members of this House. Cabinet has not acted unilaterally behind closed doors in considering peacekeeping commitments. This House has had many opportunities to debate the issue, and the government has considered members' opinions.

What is quite concerning about the motion is the possible detrimental affect it could have on Canada's ability to effectively participate in international peacekeeping efforts.

For the last 40 years Canada has been an open international leader in peacekeeping. Our unparalleled reputation has resulted from our willingness to act in difficult circumstances and on short notice. These characteristics have become even more important in recent years. Gone are the days when peacekeeping was turned to only after a superpower had brokered a ceasefire between two states. Now the international community finds itself having to respond to internal conflicts causing humanitarian disasters of unprecedented magnitude.

Given the nature of those crises the international community is often confronted with, it has become obvious that the UN and its members do not have sufficient capability to react quickly. Canada has been a leader, making suggestions and looking for ways to develop mechanisms to increase the capability of the international community to react quickly to complex emergency situations.

A Canadian report entitled "Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations" has been an important contribution in this exercise. The UN has implemented a number of recommendations in this report, including the establishment of permanent headquarters for the rapid deployment of peace missions that will give the UN a whole new capability.

Nationally the Canadian Armed Forces has developed the disaster assistance response team or DART to respond quickly to international humanitarian disasters. Canada has also come forward in actual times of crisis showing the leadership for which we are renown. During the recent crisis in eastern Zaire, Canada stepped forward to lead the international community to action.

What a terrible irony it would be for Canada, one of the most ardent international supporters of rapid reaction, to take measures to make its own system cumbersome, in fact in some cases virtually useless.

That will be the likely outcome of this motion. Making Canada's peacekeeping commitments dependent on a vote in Parliament would be detrimental to Canada's leadership and effective contribution to international security.

The amended motion demanding that all proposals for peacekeeping or peace enforcement commitments be put to a vote in Parliament would considerably reduce our ability to make a timely contribution to international efforts. Whether it is the commitment of a unit the size of a battalion or just a couple of military observers, the difficulty would be the same. Obviously, we could not keep the leading role we now have in international peacekeeping if our participation were subject to such constraints.

Therefore the motion has implications not only for our international reputation but also for the lives of those people we are seeking to assist. It has become increasingly clear in recent years that without a rapid response from the international community countless lives which might have been saved will indeed be lost.

Canadians such as generals Dallaire and Baril know this all too well. The imposition of additional constraints on our ability to act nationally would fly in the face of all that we have tried so hard to achieve in the international arena.

In moving this motion, the hon. member neglected several highly significant realities about the world of today. First and foremost, it must be realized that events develop quickly, often with tragic outcomes. To insist that Canadian peacekeepers be reduced to doing nothing until the House can meet and debate the issue, while innocent people are suffering as the result of a conflict or a humanitarian disaster, is foreign to the interests and values Canadians hold dear.

The international community has learned one thing from the tragic events of recent years: we must act promptly when we are called upon. The motion in question could totally prevent us from doing what we have demanded of other members of the international community: providing a rapid response.

The hon. member also seems to ignore an even more immediate reality. As I have said, the government has consistently endeavoured to bring matters related to Canadian peacekeeping commitments before the House or before the appropriate committee for debate and informed discussion.

Furthermore, it has provided the Canadian people with a direct means to express their views concerning their country's peacekeeping policy. The Canadian public has expressed its opinion. It firmly believes in and supports Canada's role in international peacekeeping.

The Canadian government and the Canadian public are proud of the lead peacekeeping role Canada has assumed in the world. Our role in this area is important for Canadians, for Canada, and for the world.

We cannot support this rather unwise motion, which can only serve to diminish Canada's role in the noble enterprise of peacekeeping.