Debates of Oct. 29th, 1998

Military Missions Beyond Canadian Boundaries

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before we begin debate, the Chair has received notice from the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Friday, October 30, 1998.

As it was not possible to change positions on the list of priorities, I ask the clerk to drop this motion to the bottom of the list.

Private Members' Business will thus be cancelled and the House will continue with the business before it prior to Private Members' Business.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured indeed to rise to speak in support of my colleague's Motion No. 380. The motion brought forward by the official opposition's chief critic on foreign affairs, the hon. member for Red Deer, asks this House to seek majority support through an official vote in the House before Canadian military personnel are committed to an active military mission outside the country.

All members of the House should support this motion. This is a motion that would strengthen our democracy and make the executive branch of government more accountable to Canadians. This motion attempts to balance the requirements of ruling with the argument of accountability. It is a step forward in redefining responsible government as we enter the 21st century.

It seems only just and right that we should always debate and vote to support our troops before we agree to send them overseas. Our troops can then embark on their mission knowing that a majority of elected representatives from every part of Canada approve and support that mission as they go off to foreign destinations to protect freedom and democracy and defend defenceless people in so many parts of the world.

If passed, this motion will help inform Canadians. This motion will help make the foreign policy process more transparent and therefore more legitimate.

In the foreign policy paper “Canada in the World” the government claims it wants a new and broader process for foreign policy formulation, but when it comes to practising it the government fails.

By making decisions to commit our troops without debate in this House, the government is attempting to prevent itself from being held accountable for the lack of equipment and the poor grade of equipment our troops are asked to use despite year after year defence budget cuts.

Motion No. 380 asks for a debate to take place in the House every time the Liberals want to risk the lives of those who have pledged to die for our country so we can compare the capability of our armed forces to what the Liberals are asking them to do. This House is the very place where Canadians should be consulted. Canadians want the days of secret decision making to be gone.

Take note debate takes place only after a decision to dispatch our troops has already been made by the Prime Minister while on the telephone with another world leader. That is not democratic. It is autocratic and shameful.

Recently in the House we debated military action in Kosovo. Did the Liberal government have any long term plan for dealing with Kosovo? No. Did we simply have a phony emergency debate to affirm the knee-jerk decision made by the Prime Minister?

What plan does the government have to prevent a Kosovo type conflict in the future? What leadership role is this government willing to play to handle such a situation in the future in a better, more efficient and visionary manner? The government has the habit of inappropriately addressing various issues, whether taxes, the economy, justice, national unity and so on. The take note debate regarding the Kosovo decision was all the Liberal government allowed members of parliament and Canadians.

In order to deal with such problems there should be two plans. According to plan A diplomatic initiatives should be aggressively pursued at the first signs of a problem. Kosovo was an example of a too little, too late initiative by this Liberal government and other world governments. The government did not pursue plan A aggressively.

When we know plan A has failed we can go to plan B which is military action. That is where Motion No. 380 kicks in. Before we prescribe this bitter medicine Canadians will need answers to many questions. Why are we choosing a military situation over a diplomatic situation? What are the actions the government has taken? What other possible solutions can we pursue? What are the possibilities of finding a long term solution? How are we dealing with the long term persistent hatred in the minds of ethnic people? How much involvement are we asking from the other affected and related countries to deal with an issue that is in their backyards?

Canadians want to know whether we are creating more victims by sending troops. They want to know how far we will go, how much it will cost, who is paying and what share we will pay. Did the government assess the degree of risk before it committed the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces? Do they have enough equipment and facilities? What strategy do we have to deal with the original security situation? We look forward to the answers as do Canadian forces personnel. These decisions are made before we get the answers to these questions from this government. Motion No. 380 would make the information available in a timely fashion before the decision is made.

There have repeatedly been serious situations in the world, in Rwanda, Somalia, Nigeria, Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, and the list goes on. Such situations will happen again somewhere, someday. We are not prepared to address international conflict situations in their infancies. We should be. We should be able to monitor and perhaps predict when economic, social, cultural, political or other factors are creating conflict in different parts of the world and we should address the conflicts before we have to use costly military force anywhere in the world.

Canadians are proud of their tradition of caring and intervention for the sake of peace but the world cannot continue to merely react to these situations. We have sent many peacekeeping missions around the world. I ask the foreign minister to look into the possibility of peacemaking missions rather than peacekeeping missions.

I cannot understand how we can keep peace when it is not even made yet. How can we keep something that does not exist? Let me give an analogy. When a pressure cooker is heated, steam is produced. To contain that steam we put pressure on the pressure cooker. Suppressing the steam under weight might cause the whole thing to explode and create another mess. The best thing would be to remove the heat under the pressure cooker. No steam would be produced and we would not have to put any pressure on it.

Why do we always use military pressure to contain the steam of conflict in the world? Have we ever taken action to remove the heat under the pressure cooker? No. Would it not be easier to address the root cause of the problem? Why can we not prevent problems before they happen? That is the key question. Unfortunately this government has not taken this sort of action.

Our peacekeeping forces were stationed in Cypress for 29 years. Still peace was not made when we withdrew. We should focus on peacemaking before peacekeeping.

Conflict resolution is a precursor to peacemaking. Ethnic tensions in many parts of the world can be resolved by equitable, democratic and better governance. Pilferage and smuggling of weapons can be stopped. Child armies can be banned. Foreign aid should be tied to transparency and accountability of recipient governments. Corruption, poverty, illiteracy and education needs can and should be addressed.

The weak Liberal government lacks a proactive leadership role. It is just reactive because it is used to making knee-jerk decisions. Often a humanitarian crisis is the consequence of what is fundamentally a political problem.

For example, in the Palestine and Israel conflict in the Middle East, to help the refugees we committed $55 million in 1995. But we had already spent more than $136 million and the refugees were still be produced the day I was there in 1998. We tried to resolve political problems with financial solutions through foreign aid. This was absolutely wrong.

We need to meet these problems head on. We should make educated and democratic decisions. One of the best things to do is debate it in the House before the decision is made. I urge all members of the House to support Motion No. 380.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, speaking about blowing steam, the hon. member for Surrey Central did a great job of it. Unfortunately he has not read very much history of the evolution of peacekeeping in this country, otherwise he would not have undertaken to say the things he has said.

I remind him that Canada's role in support of the United Nations is the most proactive and most forward advance that countries around the world have made. Canada is at the forefront. Canada moved to the forefront again by obtaining a seat on the security council.

When the hon. member accuses this government of not being proactive in peacekeeping, I suggest he reread his history books.

To speak to the motion more directly, the hon. member for Red Deer has proposed that there be a vote every time there is some deployment of personnel outside this country. I would just like to bring up a little history for the edification of the hon. member for Surrey Central.

In the declaration of war in 1939 the government announced the approval of the address in reply to the speech from the throne which stated the government's decision to support Britain and France would constitute approval of the declaration of war. On September 9 the address was approved without a recorded vote and war was declared the following day. This seems to me one of the most serious undertakings of this country.

When the demand in this modern day and age comes for personnel to go into other countries the call is quite instantaneous. We do not want to do anything to undo that which has been accomplished by the tireless efforts of thousands of courageous Canadian peacekeepers.

In the era we are in, the era of ethnic cleansing, of internal genocide and untold human suffering, it is simply unacceptable to propose that Canada, the world leader in peacekeeping, sit back and debate endlessly while tragedy unfolds.

To do so would be to relinquish the respect and admiration which Canada has merited as a peacekeeping nation for over 40 years.

This government, which is proud of Canada's peacekeeping tradition and respects the sacrifices of Canadian men and women who have worn the blue beret, does not support this motion.

Most Canadian military deployments in recent decades have been contingents for United Nations peacekeeping operations. But there are other occasions when Canadian forces personnel are called upon to serve on active duty outside Canada.

Our alliance commitments in NATO and NORAD are founded on the promise of immediate action against a threat to any alliance partner. Such promises do not allow for delays and Canada takes these promises extremely seriously.

There are also events such as the Persian Gulf crisis when Canada is asked to play a central role in dealing with threats to international peace and security.

There are times for debate and deliberation over principles. But there are also times when Canada must respond rapidly to meet its commitments and to show its resolve. This is not to say that this government opposes debate. On the contrary, we recognize that debate is essential, especially when men and women of the Canadian forces are put in harm's way.

Debate on important military issues is crucial and the opinion of this House is highly valued. Since its election by the people of Canada this government has done much to encourage the debate of all Canadian contributions to international peacekeeping operations, both within this House and in the public at large.

Discussion has indeed taken place, not only with regard to specific operations, but with regard to the principles and direction of Canada's peacekeeping policy in general.

It is obvious that no area of policy has been more openly discussed than Canada's contribution to international security. This openness is not only prevalent in this House. Canadians of all walks of life have been given the opportunity to comment on Canada's participation in peacekeeping operations.

As part of a Department of Foreign Affairs initiative to directly involve the Canadian public in our country's foreign policy, ordinary Canadians were invited to give their opinions and comments on Canada's involvement in the UN mission in Haiti.

This was accomplished through an Internet site which allowed private citizens to become more informed on Canada's involvement in international peacekeeping and to offer their own thoughts. The response was extremely positive. The site received over 500 visits and two-thirds of those who responded supported our involvement in Haiti.

We firmly believe that endeavours such as these go a long way toward opening up the foreign policy process to every Canadian much further than the mechanism proposed by this motion.

Given the ability and willingness of the Canadian public to voice their concerns with any peacekeeping operation and the quality of the frequent debate which takes place in this very House, it is clear that this motion is not a step forward. The only possible result would be the undermining of Canada's commitment to international security.

In this era when events unfold rapidly, leaving little time for reaction, a motion such as this is simply not viable. The government recognizes the need for the international community and Canada as one of its leaders to react quickly in times of crisis.

As the Canadian study toward a rapid reaction capability for the United Nations pointed out, the nations of the world must respond quickly. Having urged the international community to react promptly through this study, Canada has a responsibility to lead the way. That is precisely what this government intends to do.

As countless surveys and opinion polls have shown, Canadians support our country's role as the world leader in peacekeeping.

To suggest that a vote in the House is necessary to ascertain whether or not the Canadian public supports our leadership role is, quite simply, inaccurate.

Canadians support and have confidence in the government's choice to keep Canada at the forefront of international peacekeeping and security efforts.

In a recent study documenting Canadian opinions on foreign and defence policy, 79% of those polled considered peacekeeping important for Canada.

A 1998 study showed that 68% of Canadians want our current commitment to international peace and security to be maintained or increased and a similar number regard peacekeeping as being a very positive source of Canada's international reputation.

Clearly the Canadian people support this country's efforts at peacekeeping and international security. To support this motion one would have to ignore several very important realities of the world around us. First and foremost, events today unfold rapidly and often with tragic consequences. It is important for Canadians, for Canada and for the world to be able to act quickly. Therefore, this motion cannot be supported.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in turn to speak to Motion No. M-380 presented by my Reform colleague, the member for Red Deer.

The aim of this motion is, and I quote:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek majority support through an official vote in the House of Commons, prior to committing a significant contingent of Canadian military personnel to an active military mission beyond the boundaries of Canada.

There have, on several occasions, been emergency debates to support, after the fact, a decision to send Canadian troops to take part in peacekeeping missions.

We have noted that the Government of Canada has consulted the various opposition parties about these missions on several occasions, but after the decision was already made. Today's motion calls for one step further.

As we know, the Bloc Quebecois has already spoken on the matter in its dissenting report at the time of the release of the government's foreign policy statement in 1994. The Bloc Quebecois felt that one of the primary roles of Canadian forces on the international scene is to support peacekeeping missions by taking part in them. This is undoubtedly a Canadian talent and a flower, as we put it, in its international reputation.

However, we wanted Canada's future interventions to be subject to more specific criteria, and that is the gist of today's motion. The motion before us seeks to ensure greater parliamentary control over the participation of Canadian military personnel to peacekeeping missions.

It goes without saying that members from our party are delighted to have this opportunity to discuss proposed changes to the Canadian Forces' activities abroad, during peacekeeping missions. We thank the hon. member for Red Deer for providing us with this opportunity to show the timeliness of our dissenting report.

Motion M-380 is consistent with the concerns expressed by the Bloc Quebecois during the various debates held in the House on this issue. Let me briefly mention the position adopted by our party regarding the issue before us today.

First, we think that the Canadian Forces play a major role on the international scene, and that they must support and actively participate in peacekeeping operations. However, we believe that the criteria used to determine Canada's future participation must be tightened.

As we know, recent peacekeeping missions have experienced problems, and Canada must take note of that. The missions to Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and Haiti, for instance, have reminded us that we need to base our interventions on democratic legitimacy and rigorous planning.

We also pointed out in our report that:

The costs and complexity of intervention will require a new attitude on the part of the international community. The events in Rwanda and Bosnia are eloquent evidence of this. Canada must learn from the experience of all these peacekeeping missions. In the future, mission objectives and orders will have to be carefully established, under the aegis of the United Nations.

The conflicts to which I just alluded have clearly demonstrated the importance of first defining a more explicit framework for our interventions. The Bloc Quebecois also recognized the need to give the Canadian Forces a special configuration to maintain the credibility of our intervention.

At this stage, I would like to comment on a remark the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs made earlier. He said that, while the motion calls for a vote to be taken in the House of Commons every time Canada is asked to send troops to restore, monitor or maintain peace, this would not be possible and that the urgency of the request would not allow us to summon the House and to make decisions in a timely fashion.

I would just like to tell the parliamentary secretary that the crises he gave as examples, which would require a timely response, never happen overnight. They usually develop over a long time. Canada has a duty not only to act in times of crisis, but also to prepare for crises that, as I just said, do not happen overnight.

At the same time, we believe Canada should review its existing military alliances. Let me quote, once again, from the 1994 dissenting report:

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to spell out the direction that Canada should take in this area. First, we think—and we still do—that Canada should rethink its current military alliances with NATO and NORAD so that their strategic missions reflect the UN's needs.

This approach would inject new life into these organizations and would make them more effective in protecting safety and in resolving conflicts. It would also make it possible for Canada to meet its public security objectives, which are crucial to its own domestic security.

In addition, the Bloc Quebecois considers that Canada should encourage the setting up of a permanent contingent available to the UN for its peacekeeping missions abroad.

We are talking about thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers engaged in peacekeeping and peacemaking missions. Of course, these soldiers being generally sent on a mission for six months or so, there is a rotation. However, since many human lives are at stake, we think the motion by the member for Red Deer should say something about determining the size of the contingent as well as the costs and the objective of the mission. Even though Motion M-380 is silent on these issues, it has the merit of putting the debate in the proper context.

Finally, as we have said many times in previous debates, we think Canada should submit any decision to participate in peacekeeping missions to a vote in the House of Commons, as rapidly as possible, where time allows. I would like to point out that we are being realistic, here.

We are happy to see this proposal being echoed in the motion before us today. Since the Bloc Quebecois supports the fundamental principles outlined in this motion, we will vote in favour of it.

In conclusion, I would like to remind the House of the great importance the Bloc Quebecois accords to this debate on the democratization of government decisions with respect to foreign affairs.

The globalization of exchanges we are now seeing, whatever their nature, makes the need for control of these activities by the people's elected representatives, and therefore by this House, all the more pressing.

The increased importance of international organizations such as the UN and the European Union, our participation in NORAD and NATO, the globalization of social movements, population movements, human rights issues, problems related to drug trafficking, and environmental abuse, to name just a few factors, all have a direct impact on both global security and on the sovereignty of nations.

With this motion, the government has an opportunity to take a first step and meet the challenge of transparency by involving Parliament in decisions about whether to send Canadian military personnel abroad.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me on behalf of all constituents in the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to speak to this motion and highlight this government's commitment to enhancing the role of parliament in the consideration of Canadian defence and foreign policy issues.

A similar motion was debated in October 1996. At that time the government noted that any additional steps in the deployment process would seriously undermine Canada's ability to respond rapidly and effectively to international crises. The government's view remains unchanged as the nature of international crises does not make this motion a viable option for Canada.

However, a comprehensive public discussion of any major Canadian forces overseas deployment is a healthy and important activity that must be encouraged. Thus the government has continued its active engagement in consultation with parliament on Canadian forces troop deployments wherever possible and necessary.

Recent history shows us that these are not empty words or vacuous rhetoric that on occasion is the mantra for some members opposite. I am excluding the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore but I could be including the member for Lakeland when I say this.

Earlier this month the House debated the evolving situation in Kosovo and the prospect of Canadian involvement. All parties agreed that this was a serious humanitarian crisis and supported action if no diplomatic solution could be reached. We all agreed that air strikes may be necessary to quell the violence there.

In April of this year the House was consulted on two highly visible international developments. A special joint meeting of the House of Commons defence and foreign affairs committees attended by both ministers came to the unanimous conclusion that Canadian participation in a peacekeeping force to the Central African Republic was necessary. It is worth noting that the peacekeeping force was deployed in record time. Later that month a House debate led to unanimous House approval of continued Canadian participation in the NATO led stabilization force in Bosnia. There are many more examples of the government's commitment to open debate.

In addition to consulting parliament on troop deployments, many major foreign policy issues have been discussed in parliament. The Dayton peace agreement, cruise missile testing, NATO enlargement and NORAD renewal have all received consideration by parliament. Few areas of public policy receive more open discussion than do Canada's contribution to international security.

Indeed, it has been the policy of this government from the beginning that major defence and foreign policy issues be brought to the House. We have kept our word.

In addition the government called on the House for a comprehensive review of Canadian defence and foreign policies prior to the government reaching decisions on these matters. Parliament's recommendations were highly influential in defining Canadian policy for the 1990s and beyond.

My hon. friend's motion might be interpreted by some to imply that this government's decision on troop deployments rarely if ever involve parliament, that these decisions go against the democratic grain in this country. This is simply not the case.

We should all recall that Mackenzie King, a champion of full parliamentary sovereignty over Canadian policy, called parliament back from recess for an emergency debate on Canadian participation in the second world war. This government also strongly believes in parliamentary involvement. Earlier this year our Prime Minister called upon the House for urgent debate regarding Canadian involvement in the Persian Gulf, regarding Kosovo, and the Central African Republic and SFOR. Mackenzie King's democratic tradition continues.

It is also suggested that this motion will lend parliamentary support, approval and legitimacy to the deployment of Canadian forces abroad, as if these qualities were somehow absent today. The fact of the matter is that parliament is consulted on troop deployments whenever possible and necessary, and that these discussions are taken seriously by the government. The views of this House are taken into consideration when decisions are taken by the government.

And what of the international environment? The new international security environment is unstable. Crucial developments occur at astonishing speeds. It has been suggested that predicting international crises is relatively easy, that nothing comes up overnight.

Collapsing states and ethnic violence are not overnight developments but decisions on multinational intervention are. These actions, be they through the UN or NATO, are not often afforded the luxury of time. In this era of ethnic cleansing, of genocide and of untold human suffering, a few days delay could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. This happened in Rwanda.

Our ability to deploy rapidly has even more significant implications for Canada. Our NATO and NORAD commitments are founded on the promise of immediate action against a threat to any alliance partner. Canada takes these promises extremely seriously. If ever the need to defend our allies arose and our troops remained waiting idly by because of undue delay, our international reputation would be severely damaged. Hence the need for speed.

The international community's pursuit of a fully functional rapid reaction force especially at the UN is well documented. Canada has and will continue to build an important role in the development of such a force.

Canada's 1995 study “Toward a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations” was a highly influential examination of how the UN and individual countries could improve their ability to respond to international crises. This initiative spawned an agreement in principle to develop a rapidly deployable mission headquarters. This headquarters will increase the UN's ability to get operations under way in a far shorter time. Also related to this is the United Nations multinational standby high readiness brigade, or SHIRBRIG, a co-operative effort between Canada and many European states. We hope that this brigade will be available to the UN by January 1999.

To address humanitarian disasters, national defence maintains the innovative Canadian forces disaster assistance response team under the acronym DART, which is not to be misconstrued with another DART, the acronym for Draconian arrant reform truculence. The Canadian forces DART is composed of 180 personnel who can be deployed for humanitarian and disaster relief within 48 hours.

Canada's commitment to developing rapid reaction capabilities is unparalleled. But Canada also tries to lead by example. Our quick contribution to address the recent crisis in the Central African Republic and the deployment of troops and equipment to help Italian regions devastated by mudslides are cases in point.

Our well earned reputation has been won in part by our willingness and our ability to act quickly. We must do nothing that threatens this. In fact we must do the exact opposite. It would not be wise to add any step in the approval process that could hamper our ability to respond. Requiring a vote on the deployment of Canadian forces abroad could in some circumstances impose delay and the cost of such delay would be measured in human suffering.

The record of the last five years shows that where a mission is about to be launched or the government is considering the renewal of an existing commitment, parliament will normally be involved. This can take the form of debate in the House or the appearance of ministers before standing committees.

Matters related to the overseas deployment of Canadian forces personnel are usually brought before this House for debate. I see no sign that the government will stop taking advantage of the opportunities to do so.

It is vitally important that the government retain the ability to act quickly. To limit its ability to do so in the manner proposed in this motion would be incompatible with Canadian values and interests. Given the government's record in consulting parliament regarding these matters, I also see little practical advantage to be gained by imposing such a requirement.

To support this motion, one would not only have to ignore a well-established and consistent record of consultation, one would have to ignore the reality of the world around us. Events today are unfolding rapidly and often with tragic consequences. Rapid response is necessary.

The now well-established practice of consulting parliament has served this House, this government and Canadians very well. The government will continue to consult parliament on major defence and foreign policy issues.

In the final analysis, the Liberal government's commitment is to be strong. The Liberal government's commitment is to safety. The Liberal government's commitment is to save lives.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say it is never really fair to follow the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. He mentioned speed. I know about his love for horses and he knows a lot about speed.

Speaking of speed the member talked about the lives that could be lost if we brought this motion to parliament. The fact is that lives are being lost now, even without this motion. Many lives have been lost in Kosovo, in Asia and other parts of the world because of bureaucratic bungling.

Yesterday in this House the Indian affairs and northern development minister stated “This government must be accountable and transparent”. Truer words could not be spoken. The unfortunate part is that this government is not acting on what she said.

There are 301 elected members of parliament in the House of Commons. Probably each and every single riding has military personnel serving in the country, very proudly and very well. It only stands to reason that members elected from those ridings should have a vote or a say on where we deploy these brave men and women around the world.

I wish to digress and mention my family background. My father was in the Dutch resistance during the war, was captured by the Germans and put in a prison camp. He and other members of the camp were rescued by the Canadians. The Canadians valiantly liberated the south of Holland and moved north through the rest of the country.

In 1956 my parents decided to immigrate to Canada. I was eight months old. My father said the only place to move in the world would be to Canada because it had a brave military and absolutely wonderful people. He said it would be a great opportunity for his children to grow up there.

Forty years later I stand in this House as a member of parliament. I came from the country of Holland and am now in Canada because my mother and father gave me and my eight brothers and sisters that opportunity. That is what this country has done. This country is based on fundamental democratic policies, policies that this motion reflects.

Our current military is under attack through underutilized resources. The media heavily attacks military concerns.

Everyone here has seen the tapes. Everyone here has read the media articles about our military men and women around the world. The unfortunate part is that those articles do not reflect the true essence of our military today.

In my riding of Sackville—Eastern Shore there is a town called Eastern Passage which has the military base of Shearwater. Shearwater has been there for 80 years, serving this country proud. I might note that 80 years has passed since World War I.

The men and women of Shearwater do an outstanding job. The problem is that they do that job, literally, on a shoestring. They are under attack by their own personal wages, they are under attack by the equipment they have and they are under attack by their deployment. Yet the motto of all military people, especially those in the navy, is “Ready, aye ready”.

The previous speaker from the Liberal Party indicated that this motion would risk or delay their capability of being ready. I would like to remind him and all of his colleagues in the Liberal Party that our military stands to be ready at a moment's notice. They are proud people.

The member from the Bloc indicated quite rightly that we are now in a globalized world. There is global uncertainty in other parts of the world. Our forces are traditionally put under UN forces to merge with other western nations to assist nations that are in conflict. Many times members of this House, especially in opposition and even those in the Liberal government, do not really know where the troops are being deployed or whose directions they are following.

All this motion is asking is that all elected members of parliament should at least understand where the troops are going and what they are doing. Members should have a say in that movement. I do not believe for a second that in the event of a crisis the opposition would purposely delay action.

Regardless of the suffering that our military personnel are going through on a domestic level, they do an outstanding job. On November 11 all of us in the country will honour the sacrifices of our military personnel, who are buried in over 60 countries around the world. We will remember all of the conflicts which they have encountered.

I will be very proud to lay a wreath in my riding on November 11 on behalf of the people of Canada. Wreaths will be laid by veterans at eight other cenotaphs in my riding on behalf of the people of Canada.

All the Reform Party is asking for in this motion, which I support, is the chance to have a say. We just want to have an opportunity to speak before we send men and women into areas of the world where they may run into conflict. An ill-fated decision which is made too quickly may cause the lives of our military men and women.

In the 1990s military action means more than just the deployment of troops. It is about families. It is about the women and children left behind or the men and children left behind.

We have a right as members of parliament to decide their respective partner's future. I do not believe that it should be just the government that decides. If the government is fully confident in this House of Commons and fully confident in other members of parliament, it would bring it to the House for debate. It could be a very quick debate if need be, but it should be one in which every member of parliament can debate and vote upon the situation. That is all we ask.

In speaking about veterans, the Liberal government talks about the work it has done, yet when it comes to the merchant marines it is very slow to react. We recently had three merchant marines on the steps of Parliament Hill, on a hunger strike, fighting for compensation for something that should have been dealt with right after the war. But this government waited and waited, and it still has not acted.

The fact is that merchant marines also died in the war. They were abandoned by the government after the war and that situation continues today. I pray to God that this government does not abandon them and fulfils its promise to speak with them and deal with their concerns.

If we are to continue to have a proud and honoured military tradition in this country, we need to have an open and transparent debate. That is true democracy. That is why I support the motion put forward by the member for Red Deer.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that an opposition member, with very good intentions, has proposed a motion to this House that is extremely counterproductive, redundant and does not serve the debate, democracy or the country as a whole. It does not serve the country that our armed forces personnel go to. It does not serve humanity. It does not serve any purpose.

On October 7 of this year the House had a debate. Members on all sides had a chance to speak out on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of Canadians. A motion was put before parliament that would allow the House of Commons to give guidance to the government in dealing with a crisis.

At that time the government clearly stated its intention to work in co-operation with the international community, in conjunction with the United Nations, our friends and allies, in order to put a stop to the tragedy in the Balkans.

It is high time that we put partisanship behind us and worked collectively, not only as a parliament, not only as a community and as a nation, but as a world. We live in one world. It is a global village. It is a small world.

If any of us had flown as far above the earth as Bondar did and looked down, we would not have been able to see a border. We would not have been able to see the colour of people or know their religion. We would not have been able to see a town or a city. We would only have seen the world as one unit.

What we have to do as a parliament, as a community and as a country is to promote the kind of feeling that we are all one. We live in one small environment, in one small global community.

We have to put a stop to the horrible things that are taking place around the world. We have to be proactive and vigilant. We have to seek venues, such as the United Nations community and other venues, to establish a mechanism so that we can begin to resolve international disputes and problems through dialogue and discussion rather than resorting to violence, attacks and torture.

The world cannot take it any more. Our resources are evaporating at an incredible rate. One of the most expensive resources on this planet is the human resource and we must protect it. We have done damage to our environment. We have burned forests all over the place. We have eliminated fish stocks from different parts of the ocean. We have created toxic waste all over the place.

Now we have wars all over the place because of borders and other things that may have happened 500, 1,000 or 5,000 years ago.

None of us owns any part of this world. This world belongs to all of us collectively. We are the trustees of this world, as my colleague would say. We have a responsibility collectively to work in harmony to improve the relationship that exists between people.

This government has been a very proactive government.

I would say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has set an example by getting this country to take the lead on the land mines issue, on the engagement process, trying to engage the other side and trying to enter into dialogue with the other side.

The previous minister of foreign affairs as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs and every officer who works in it have been very proactive in trying to encourage the United Nations to establish a United Nations peace service mechanism, a peace force in order to resolve disputes around the world. We have been very proactive.

I say to my colleagues in opposition, including those in the New Democratic Party, that they should be on board with what this government is doing. They should be supporting what the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs are trying to do on behalf of all us as public servants to get this country to be proactive.

We are trusted. We are a middle power. We do not have any colonial interests anywhere. We are not interested in annexing territories. We are a peaceful nation. There is confidence in our nation. There is confidence in our people.

We have to use that confidence around the globe in order to promote peace, prosperity and the resolution of problems through the mechanism we have spoken about, dialogue. Let us work together in unity. Let us not use it for a political purpose.

I have been here for almost ten years. It hurts me to see a motion like this trivializing the difficult times of the people in that part of the world who need us. Those on both sides need us. They need us to go in there and create an environment of engagement in that part of the world. The motion says that, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek majority support, through an official vote in the House of Commons, prior to committing a significant contingent of Canadian military personnel to an active military mission beyond the boundaries of Canada.

We are already in that part of the world. We have been in different parts of the world for over 40 years now. We have people who have been engaged pretty well in the vast majority of peacekeeping forces that exist in the different parts of the world.

There is nothing new here. Parliament has consistently been engaged in debate. Parliament has consistently debated issues affecting Canada's presence around the world, the peacekeeping presence around the world, the United Nations presence around the world.

Having a motion like this now is extremely counterproductive and not serving the democratic process the way it should be.

In light of what is taking place at this moment, if I were my colleague I would withdraw this motion and do the honourable thing and endorse what this government and this nation have been doing for the past 50 years or so.

To that extent, what we have to do as a House is say we have not only four walls and the floor and the ceiling but we have a nation. We have to take care of the business of the nation.

When we know the government has already made decisions on issues like this, when we know the government has international obligations, when we know the government has a role to play on the international scene as a member of the United Nations, as a member of NATO and as a member of the international community, we should say collectively that the government is doing the right thing. We should endorse what it is doing.

At the same time, as individual members of parliament we must continue to call on our friends everywhere, in our constituencies and around the globe, to pull aside the valance and come together as one people to start dialogue. This is the only way we can come to a conclusion so that we have a better community, a better nation and a better globe.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you very much because you have been a model here and in your constituency. Many members of the armed forces live there. You know firsthand the importance of supporting our armed forces.

I take offence that members of the opposition sometimes try to undermine the credibility of one of the finest police forces, one of the finest armies and some of the finest personnel around the globe. We have to support them. We have to do everything we can to ensure that they can continue to do their duty, not only in this country but around the world.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 1 of this year I asked a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the export of water from Canada.

Earlier this year Nova Group, a Sault Ste. Marie firm, won a permit from the Ontario government allowing it to export 600 million litres of water a year from Lake Superior to certain Asian countries. Not long after, Nova Group saw its permit revoked amidst a national debate on the environmental and international aspects of allowing the export of our freshwater.

In July of this year, two months after the initial permit was given to Nova Group, the Ontario government passed new legislation that banned the bulk export of freshwater, which is a reason for Nova Group's licence having been taken away.

The problem lies in the fact that Nova Group is now approaching the Environmental Appeal Board fighting to reinstate its permit. The environmental minister has already stated that if the provinces agree Ottawa would get involved and do something about the situation. Furthermore, the foreign affairs minister has asked the United States to agree to refer the situation to the international joint committee responsible for boundary waters since the water in question is coming from Lake Superior which borders both countries.

The Ontario environmental minister, having realized the mistake made by giving Nova Group the permit, thinks that the federal government should get involved in this very important issue.

This past weekend the United States Great Lakes Commission, an American environmental group, joined in the efforts against Nova Group. It stated that if we begin letting one company export our freshwater it will turn a trickle into a flood. During the hearings for this case beginning on December 7 of this year, the Great Lakes commission will be officially demonstrating support for the opposition of selling this natural resource. According to the commission this single permit, if it is returned to the Nova Group, would inevitably have a significant impact on the future of North America's freshwater.

Our natural resources are very precious. We need to think of our children and of generations to come. We need to control this very precious resource which is a staple of life and is a very serious problem for all Canadians present and future. The issue of water exports needs to be examined and discussed at the federal government level.

Once again I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs what is his position on this matter.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is opposed to bulk water exports.

Let me clarify that there are no bulk ocean tanker shipments of Canadian water taking place now. The company, Nova Group, hoped to export to Asian markets, but the permit issued by the Government of Ontario was revoked. Nova Group has appealed the decision to the Ontario Environmental Appeal Board. That board has set its hearings early in the new year.

Federal officials consulted all provinces on options to deal with bulk freshwater export proposals. Considerable progress has been made in these discussions which were completed late last September.

The government will layout its strategy for a comprehensive approach to water exports before the end of the year, after ministers have had an opportunity to consider the results of these consultations with the provinces.

The U.S. has agreed to a joint reference to the International Joint Commission to investigate the issue of exports from boundary waters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first raised this issue during question period on October 5, 1998 and subsequently raised it with the solicitor general on October 19, some two weeks ago.

In the four short minutes I have to express my feelings on such a tragic issue as the totally inadequate funding of our Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the best route I could go is to read from a recent newspaper column I wrote on this very subject. What follows is my weekly column which ran in three dailies and seven weeklies in my huge riding of Prince George—Peace River just last week. This column was entitled “Policing Liberal Priorities”:

It's been almost three weeks since it was revealed that a serious “financial crisis” within the RCMP has forced senior Mounties to issue drastic orders. All RCMP boats remain tied up at the docks, all aircraft have been grounded and there is a ban on overtime and all training.

A couple of weeks ago I discussed how this shortage of funds will jeopardize the safety of Canadians, particularly those in rural British Columbia. The Mounties must make up a $14 million deficit—$8.5 million of that here in B.C. This has been good news for organized crime—there is no risk of being caught by surveillance boats and aircraft—and bad news for small towns who normally must rely on overtime to provide 24-hour policing.

As safety and security are considered a priority—even a right—in our society, filling this gap in policing is our government's top priority. Right? Apparently not, but it should be. The Solicitor General and the Prime Minister's government have had plenty of time to search the federal coffers for $14 million to fulfil an obligation to provide Canadians with adequate law enforcement. The trouble is, they are simply not interested.

So where do the Liberal interests and priorities lie? In the past several days, myself and fellow deputy Justice Critic, the member for Langley—Abbotsford, have been able to identify plenty of places in which to scrounge up enough cash to restore the essential services of the RCMP. While there are too many to list here, I've managed to narrow it down to the—

“Top Ten Reasons Why the Liberals Can't Pay for Policing in Canada”:

1. A $145 million spending spree designed to tell Canadians that the end of the Millennium is approaching just in case we hadn't heard. That includes $700,000 to build a replica of a tall ship in service during the War of 1812-14.

2. “Other plans” for spending the $3.5 billion surplus the government had this year.

3. A $10,000 grant for the International Conference on Visual Poetry.

4. $473,000 to reintegrate Malayan soldiers back into their society.

5. $2 million to promote the use of electrical energy in Brazil.

6. $15.5 million for the heritage minister's free flag handout.

7. $120,000 for the Prisoners Support Action Network.

8. $49,216 for the Prison Art Foundation.

9. A $14.6 million windfall to the Prime Minister's own Shawinigan riding to replace an armoury that the Defence Department originally said they don't need for another seventeen years! What a coincidence—it just happens to be the exact amount needed.

And, the Number One reason why the Liberals can't pay for policing in Canada—

$1.3 million for the development of a more disease resistant banana in Honduras!

Is it any wonder that Canadians are truly questioning the “screwed-up” priorities of this government? These are just some of the ridiculous places where our tax dollars are spent. Tax dollars are supposed to provide us with basic services such as police protection and the enforcement of laws designed to guarantee a safe and orderly society. In total, my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford offered up $60 million in questionable funding priorities in a letter to the Solicitor General to help him “find” the $14 million for the RCMP.

(That) week during Question Period, I informed the House frontline Mounties in Prince George—Peace River (had) told me there will indeed be an increased safety risk to British Columbians, and to the officers themselves, because of these drastic budget cutbacks—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave the grandstanding and political posturing to my colleague across the floor and concentrate on facts.

The RCMP is a government funded agency. Like all government entities it is expected to live within its established budgets. Decisions concerning the manner in which money is spent by the RCMP are operational questions appropriately left to the professional management of the RCMP. As is the case in several provinces, the RCMP is a provincial police force in British Columbia under contract with the provincial government.

First, as of December 1, 1998, 4,284 of the 4,286 authorized police contract positions in B.C. were filled. That is an average of 99.9%. It is not a bad batting average. Second, there have been no layoffs of RCMP members. Third, overtime is allowed for critical operational situations. Fourth, RCMP boats and aircraft are being maintained and are available for emergency use.

I would like to quote a letter from the RCMP commanding officer in British Columbia to the RCMP men and women in a division. It indicated that public safety remained its number one priority and would not be compromised.

Let me say as parliamentary secretary that I share the priority of public safety, not politicking the way the members across are doing.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is always refreshing to hear the Liberal Party talk about public safety. The member for Ottawa Centre actually admitted in the House of Commons that they were responsible for the depletion of the fish stocks. The member said “we destroyed the fish stocks”. A Liberal member said that. I wanted to reiterate it for the record.

My question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be on the coast guard. The parliamentary secretary was in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when we asked the acting commander at that time, Michael Turner, of the coast guard a few pointed questions about the serious cuts and erosion of morale at the coast guard. Referring to the coast guard Mr. Turner said:

We are undergoing a period right now where we're having to re-examine some of our present operations. We are under considerable pressure funding wise, the whole department is. It is true that yes we have transferred a fair amount of money over the last few years from the coast guard to the rest of DFO.

That figure is $200 million of coast guard money which was sent to DFO. As we all know the DFO does not have a good track record when it comes to handling money. He continued:

There will be some additional changes in the maritimes but I can confirm the $55 million figure mentioned mentioned in yesterday's paper is not correct. Not at all, nowhere near correct. We are simply looking at a few percent that have to be adjusted.

I will speed up the clock a bit. Neil Bellefontaine, regional director of DFO in Atlantic Canada, said that his department was forced to cut its national operating budget by 5% or $45 million. We are almost there. We are almost reaching the cuts.

After the Swissair disaster off Peggy's Cove the brave men and women of the Mary Hichens , the first coast guard ship that arrived, received a letter weeks later from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicating how proud he was. I give the minister credit for indicating how proud he and the government were that these people went through their own private little torture chambers after seeing what they saw in the waters that night and throughout the following weeks. However, it is an absolute disgrace that in the same envelope they received from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was another letter saying that the ship they were on would be tied up and they would be laid off.

We cannot say to these people that they did a great job under horrific circumstances and then turn around in another letter and say they are to be laid off. What a wonderful Christmas present that was. It was a major slap in the face.

The Daily News , a great paper in my riding in Nova Scotia, asked a question the other day of their readers saying “Given the importance of the service to the Atlantic region, should the federal government have left the coast guard alone and found the money from another source?” Seventy-one out of seventy-two callers said absolutely yes. The people in Atlantic Canada know the value of a good coast guard.

Who will guard the coast? Who will look after our three coastlines from coast to coast to coast and our inland waters of Lake Winnipeg and the Great Lakes, for example? The cuts to the coast guard have been absolutely devastating. We heard recently here about the cuts to the RCMP. We heard recently about the cuts to the military. Yet government members stand up and say that public safety will not be compromised. It will be compromised.

I would just love for the parliamentary secretary to come back with an answer to those remarks.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the member. I was preoccupied with how wrong the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore was in starting his remarks when he talked about the cause of the decline of the fishery. All along he has been saying it has been the foreign fishery and he comes up with a new line tonight. The member is eventually going to have to get his line straight.

Let me speak directly to the concerns of the member regarding the work of the Canadian Coast Guard. He is apparently under the impression from our session in committee that the coast guard had transferred up to $200 million to other parts of DFO and that this would impede it from fulfilling its marine safety responsibilities.

In this regard I am very pleased to advise the member that he is quite mistaken. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is also responsible for the coast guard, has made it very clear on several occasions that safety at sea is and will remain a top priority of the department. So is conservation. It is the coast guard which provides the vital at-sea capability necessary to meet both these objectives.

As the minister has confirmed on a number of occasions, the coast guard is an arm of government that by its very existence and its visible presence represents the obligations and authority of the nation in our waters, our ports, our territorial seas and our fishing zones. Those opposite need have no fear that the Canadian Coast Guard is about to wither away and disappear.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.)