Debates of Feb. 17th, 1999

Peacekeeping

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, in answer to the first question, in my opening remarks I wanted to draw the attention of the House that within Africa there are number of major trouble spots.

We have been able in the Central Africa Republic to effectively participate in a peacekeeping mission that has stabilized one of the areas. In the case of Sierra Leone the tragedy is ongoing. In the west African nations there is the peacekeeping force, ECOMOG force. We have already made $1 million contribution to support that.

Right now as president of the council of the United Nations we are sponsoring a major discussion about what to do in Sierra Leone. What we are talking about is a specific mission in the Central Africa Republic of the nature described by the Minister of National Defence.

We should be aware of the fact that as these things unfold there will be a continuing necessity for the House and the government to look at how we can help in Africa to build up a higher level of stability and to support many of our partners in Africa that are taking on the responsibility of peacekeeping.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I realize that the questions from the member were for two different ministers. It is unusual to do that but with the consent of the House the Minister of National Defence could answer also. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the second question was what would the troops be doing.

This has not yet been worked out. We are in the throes of seeing that done. There is a NATO meeting of military personnel tomorrow in Brussels who will finalize the preliminary plan. I say preliminary plan because until the parties in Rambouillet agree on a formula for allowing ground troops to go in in a peacekeeping role, we cannot finalize what the exact roles will be. In turn we cannot finalize what the roles for Canadians would be.

When that is done we would then get two weeks notice to give a formal response agreeing to NATO's request which would be issued sometime after the agreement is reached. Then there would be 60 days to actually put them in the field.

He mentioned the difficulties we are experiencing in Bosnia by the UN troops. That is one of the reasons they went to NATO troops. NATO troops operate under a different set of rules of engagement and are able to overcome those kinds of difficulties.

In the case of Kosovo we are again looking at a NATO led operation that would be quite successful in being able to keep the hostilities from happening again.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time for questions and comments has expired. If the ministers were to agree and with the consent of the House we could add another 10 minutes to this period.

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister of defence.

Last week with the joint committee of foreign affairs and defence regarding Kosovo, we heard that we have roughly 2,000 troops out now. We talked about the possibility of 1,000 other troops. The minister mentioned this evening that it might be up around 800. We were told that a 1,000 troops would be really stretching things.

What are we going to do in terms of any emergency that comes up? The minister is stating that we are not looking at a short term. Three years is not what I call a short term in this kind of mission, especially with the kind of back-up that is required. We still have Bosnia ongoing and our 2,000 other troops out there who need to be supported.

I am wondering what we do in the case of an emergency.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have outlined in the policy framework for defence, the 1994 white paper, exactly what our contingency levels of commitment are in terms of NATO, the UN and NORAD. We will continue to meet those. Those are always taken into consideration when we decide to deploy people overseas.

We currently have about 2,000 on 18 missions although three-quarters of that number are on two missions, the largest number being 1,300 in Bosnia and the second largest being 185 in the Golan Heights where we also at the moment have the commanding officer position.

We can manage this at a 500 to 800 level. Quite right, we would be stretching it at the 1,000 level, particularly in terms of sustainability, but that is why we have recommended the 500 to 800 level. I know that is somewhat of a spread but as NATO firms up what its needs will be, and as the agreement is reached hopefully in Rambouillet, then we will be able to pin down more precisely the exact number.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in tomorrow's edition,

Le Monde

quotes President Milosevic, who says this on the subject of the potential deployment of an international force of 30,000 in Kosovo:

Our negative attitude to the presence of foreign troops in Kosovo is not just that of the Yugoslav government, it is also that of the people of our country, and the unanimous attitude of the representatives of the people in the Serbian Assembly, independent of their political leanings.

These are the words of President Milosevic. In the light of this attitude, it is highly likely that the troops to be deployed will not be doing peacekeeping, but rather carrying out air strikes.

I would like to know from the Minister of National Defence what the situation is in his opinion, in the light of the statement by President Milosevic, and whether the Canadian contingent would be different depending on whether the mission is one of more peaceful deployment or has the mandate to carry out air strikes in Yugoslavia?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I should first point out that under no circumstances are we talking about a force that would be going in as an active intervention. What we are discussing in the House is a peacekeeping mission that would be required to fulfill an agreement that was arrived at by both sides.

As members know, in any negotiations various bargaining statements are made by both sides in order to up the ante and to gain leverage. It is somewhat encouraging that the Russian foreign minister, Mr. Ivanov, whom I spoke to directly a few days ago, is undertaking a very specific mission to try to convince the Serbs that it would be in their best interests to reach an agreement. The alternative is frankly what we discussed in the opening statement.

We still have in place the activation orders of NATO that could be used in the way of air strikes. But that is the only form of NATO action being contemplated of a non-peacekeeping nature.

I want to assure the House and the hon. member that what we are talking about here is purely peacekeeping activities of ground forces that would be required under an agreement if it is arrived at this weekend.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have listened fairly closely to the minister of defence. There seems to be a misconception, and I ask for clarification, that this is not a NATO participation role in Kosovo. Is that correct? In other words, it is a UN peacekeeping mission.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

It is NATO led.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

If it is a NATO led force my understanding is it will be interventionist. They will go in and make peace. That is also some of the discussion that has gone on in spite of the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If we are not going in as peacemakers but as peacekeepers is it under the UN banner? I do not think that is very clear.

What kind of equipment will they have? The equipment they have right now in any hostilities would not be adequate.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly stated, we are not going in there under some war like conditions if we go in there with ground troops.

We would be going in under similar conditions as in Bosnia to enforce an agreement and ensure peace. That is the basis on which troops would be deployed. They would be deployed on a NATO led basis. The UN security council would be asked to endorse, and certainly every indication is that it would want to endorse, any agreement that is reached between the parties because the UN has quite clearly said that it wants the killing to stop. It wants the parties to come to an agreement. If they do come to an agreement it would be a NATO led force but it would not be just NATO that would be there. We would expect and hope the Russians would be there and other non-NATO countries, just as we have currently in Bosnia.

If the hon. member looks at the situation in Bosnia in terms of the division of different forces under a NATO led banner he would see a similar situation that would happen in this case.

In terms of the equipment, we are going to send our people in with the best equipment. We bought some new armed personnel carriers. We have in terms of our reconnaissance vehicle the Coyote, one of the best found anywhere in the world. We have been getting new clothing and many new aspects of equipment and kit for our troops and we would send them in there with the best equipment so that they could do their job. They will do a very effective job as they have done in many cases before.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of issues I would like to deal with.

The first one is central Africa. We have a briefing set for central Africa tomorrow. Of course the debate is tonight but that is probably not a problem to the government.

I contacted foreign affairs yesterday, five times today, and at 6.53 this evening I got my briefing sheet on the Central African Republic. I think that probably tells us the level of importance of what we are doing here tonight when this kind of blatant abuse goes on in parliament.

To deal with this situation first, the government did not have the briefing and therefore I felt it was essential that somebody at least try to find out a bit of what our mission is all about. This is a rather unstable former French colony of 3.3 million people. It has had a very fragile France sponsored democracy since 1993. Basically the French government has propped up various dictators and regimes from about 1979.

There was a 1,400 man French force that was withdrawn on April 15 of last year and replaced by 1,350 international francophone peacekeepers, of whom Canada had 45.

Today the number of Canadians there is 47 and basically they are attempting to maintain stability. When we look at the stability that is being created this is the sort of thing we have.

President Patasse has faced three armed rebellions since May 1996 and really could not have remained in power without these foreign troops, the French and 47 Canadians.

Mutinies are motivated by unpaid wages, ethnic hatred of the president and the story goes on. Human rights records are that there are routine summary executions, torture, restrictions on basic freedoms, looting by the peacekeepers, mistreatment of women and of a whole race of pygmies in the area.

With no information from foreign affairs or DND we are here to endorse the keeping of Canadian troops there.

There are only 47 but those are 47 Canadian lives we are saying we should leave there or extend there, whatever. But we do not live in a dictatorship. We live in a democracy where we need the information. Canadians need the information. We should be talking about this and it should not be a partisan issue. We are talking about Canadian lives, men and women, our armed forces. That is the kind of disrespect the government shows for those fighting people of our country.

There is much more that we can talk about with Kosovo because all of us have watched CNN, we have read the news and we have been part of this debate for a long time. It was back in about 1990 that everybody felt Kosovo would be the part of Yugoslavia to break away first. It has always had a problem and that goes back maybe 1,500 years.

We can also be fairly certain as Canadians that a decision has already been made as to what we will do. On January 29 when the Prime Minister committed Canadian forces he did not do that by accident. That decision had already been made. The defence minister of course immediately questioned it. The general questioned it. He said we really could not do that. Our critic from Calgary North questioned it.

Certainly we said we should be debating it. In the February 16

Toronto Star

the defence minister also said maybe we will have to skip a debate in the House and go on with that. On February 16 when asked that question in the House, it was rather interesting to see the House leader jump up and answer the question. He said dare you ask that question because at the House leaders meeting today we are going to be discussing that issue.

How am I supposed to know what will be discussed at the House leaders meeting after question period? Our House leader certainly did not know what the agenda would be and I am not even sure what that answer was all about.

The decision has already been made. The government does not care much about this. It wants this for bragging rights, to say the issue was brought here to be debated by parliamentarians so that parliamentarians had a say in what would happen. Of course that justifies anything that happens.

These are men's and women's lives we are talking about. We should not be talking about politics. It should be non-partisan. We should be talking about whether we should participate, what we are participating in, how much it will cost, what our role will be and who will command those troops. All those are the kinds of questions that should be dealt with here tonight but which I doubt will even be mentioned.

How could we do it better? This will now be the sixth time I believe we have had a take note debate since I have been here. The proposal I will put forward again will be very simple. The way to really accomplish all we want to accomplish is to have a committee of the whole with 301 MPs who should be responsible. They should be in the House listening to this because it is men and women from their ridings who could conceivably lose their lives. We should be here to give support to those troops who do such a heck of a fine job. I will always remember meeting those troops in Yugoslavia and thinking wow, these people are Canadians. I was proud of the flag and proud of seeing them there. They need to know we are 100% behind them.

What should we do? We should have the experts come in and tell 301 members of parliament the exact and complete information. Then what we should do is have two or however many party members from each party and extra ones from the government present the party position. Then we should have a free vote. We should be voting on this item because it is the lives of our men and women. That is what is really important.

I do not know why the government does not like that idea. We would inform members of parliament, we would inform Canadians and we would then have an intelligent presentation and a free vote. The government would not fall if it was the decision of 301 members to not go to a country. Maybe we should not be going to the Central African Republic or staying there. Maybe we cannot be the 911 number for all peacekeeping missions. Those are the kinds of things this House should decide and the onus should be on us to decide.

Let us get to the committing of troops to this imaginary UN or maybe NATO force that we might send. Should we commit them? Obviously all of us have seen the newsreels. We have seen the 40 people from a village brutally killed and mutilated and tortured. All of us are sickened by that. They are unforgettable sights. All Canadians are hurt by those. All Canadians say we should be involved in trying to stop those. That is not the issue.

It is a lot deeper than that. We have to understand the cultural nature of these conflicts. We have to understand the propaganda involved. We have to understand the interrelationship of history, religion and the conflict going on.

I think we would all say those tragedies have to stop. We all abhor them. We cannot stand them and we want to do something. I think the question that comes down is what should we do. As Canadians I am not sure that it is fair or that it helps us to send troops, to send planes, to send whatever it takes unless they are equipped and unless they can do the very best possible job they are required to do. I am not saying they would not try. The problem is that we handicap them.

Again I go back to Bosnia when I saw those Canadian vehicles with patches, part paint jobs, 35 years old, belching diesel fuel and then I saw some of the other countries' equipment, silent and fast moving. I thought our guys and girls are there trying to do the job for us. But we are handicapping them. We have to be hurting them and their pride just because of what we do.

We have to take that into consideration. We cannot simply go everywhere. Many of our veterans are particularly touched by this issue as well. During the world wars we were right there. We were part of the decision making. We were leading in a lot of situations. There was a huge amount of pride. We had a huge role in many of those conflicts.

It was a Canadian prime minister who started peacekeeping back in the Suez Canal days. There was pride. There was pride when we went to Cyprus. I believe we have hurt that pride. We have done in this country something to lessen our position. By sending off troops and again asking them to do something, we do not really know what, we are doing nothing to help enhance that pride.

I cannot help but remind the House about 1996 and the Zaire mission. The Prime Minister and his wife were sitting around watching television. They saw a terrible massacre on CNN and said “We should call Raymond and tell him to do something about this”. They called Raymond down in Washington and Raymond went flying over and said “Yes, we will be the saviours; we will be the white knights”. The only problem was that nobody else followed.

We started moving troops there. We did not know what they would do. It was probably one of the biggest military-foreign affairs embarrassments we had ever had. A week later it was all cancelled, and we said we had to watch the Prime Minister watching television.

We also have to ask about our UN Security Council position. I am glad we are there. I hope we can make a difference. We must remember that we held it in 1948-49, 1958-59, 1967-68, 1977-78, 1989-90 and 1999-2000. We have had it every 10 years for the last six decades. That is what we would expect. We are along with Gabon, Namibia, Slovenia and so on.

We should not brag too much about that. We should do something. Instead of just talking we should do something. As far as soft power is concerned, as long as there are no bad guys left in the world it might work, but flower power will only go so far.

There are lots of bad guys out there: the North Koreas, the Kadaffes, the Saddam Husseins and the Angolas. The minister is very proud of our record in Angola where we have spent $2.3 billion on UN peacekeeping. We are about to reduce the 1,000 peacekeepers down to 100 and basically leave in disgrace. The British ambassador says that the crises in Sudan, Angola, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Eritrea and so on demonstrate that the UN is powerless to cope with crises as they arise. While we brag a lot, maybe we should ask what we are to do.

A lot of questions need to be asked about Kosovo. Who will make the decisions on what happens there? Who is in the contact group? Will we have any say as to what happens to our 500 to 800 troops? What are the NATO objectives? Do we agree that there should be a referendum in Kosovo in three years and a vote possibly to separate? Do we agree with those kinds of politics?

What will we bomb if we bomb something? What sort of long term plans do we have? Will we just be a police force with a big stick? The minute we leave will it go back into crisis again? Or, will we really try to accomplish something? What about the expansion of this conflict? What are the chances of it spreading to Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and so on? Has anybody thought about that? What happens when we put this force in Kosovo? Will it spread out?

We have to ask about the cost. We have to ask about the 300,000 refugees. Who will take care of that problem? Who will work on that? What kind of plans are there? We are being asked to provide troops. Will we also provide infrastructure? What are we being asked? Are we being asked for a blank cheque, or what exactly is it that the government wants?

These questions have not been answered. We are not equipped to handle it. We will not have any control over our troops. As I say, it is a blank cheque. We are showing no leadership. We are showing no new spending.

Basically I am embarrassed when NATO calls upon us that we are not prepared to deliver. It is embarrassing for us as parliamentarians. It is embarrassing for our troops. How can we support a full mission? We want to support it. Obviously we owe that to NATO. I think we have tied our hands behind our backs. Governments for the past 30 years have made it very difficult for us to support something like this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that this debate is not about whether we bomb anybody. It is not about whether we send troops into a conflagration. It is a debate about peacekeeping forces and whether they should go into the Central African Republic and into Kosovo. It has nothing to do with bombing. It has nothing to do with striking.

I would like to cut through all the convoluted rhetoric I have heard across the House and ask the hon. member for Red Deer whether or not he wants to send troops. Yes or no.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer is that we are talking about going into a very difficult area, into a war zone. Obviously I am saying we are not equipped to send troops and therefore we cannot send troops.

We can provide some support, but we basically cannot get into this without knowing more details about our ability to deliver. We just do not know any answers. The government has not given us anything.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the same question as the parliamentary secretary.

I have also heard a lot of rhetoric. I heard someone whose position was not very clear. The government's position is that we should offer to take part in these peacekeeping missions, if peacekeeping is what is involved.

The Reform Party critic is not acting as a responsible member of the official opposition should. I think the Bloc Quebecois was a much more responsible official opposition.

This is an important question: Should Canada participate or not in a peacekeeping force to Kosovo and the Central African Republic? I repeat the question: What does the Reform Party member think? I would like him to give a clear answer.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have responsibilities as a member of NATO. We cannot live up to the full responsibilities in NATO because the government has undermined our military for 30 years. That is why we cannot live up to what we would want.

If we had the best, if we were able to deliver on what they are asking, yes, we are for that. Because of what the government has done, we have to take a lesser role. That lesser role means we cannot send troops into combat in these areas.

I do not now how else to say that more clearly to you except to answer in that way. We should not send troops into a combat zone. Show us all the answers to these questions and then we will say what kind of support we can give.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we get into the next round of questions and comments, I would appreciate it if members would address each other through the Chair. No more personal pronouns.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member's recollection is right, it was 29 years since the government was accused of neglecting the armed forces.

We had a debate a year ago in committee on the Central African Republic and the provision of peacekeepers. Surprisingly the Reform Party agreed. There was no dissension.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have quite a different situation. There was no information provided, as much as we tried. I got the information I just presented. I trust that it is true. If it is true, we are in a total different situation than we were then. Obviously our 47 people are in jeopardy, if the information I related to the House is true.

If it is not true information, I would certainly stand corrected. It certainly is not because we got any help from the government in finding out what the truth really was.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the following question to my colleague.

Does he not think that the situation in Kosovo is a lot like the one in Sarajevo? And Canada took part in the events in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

The Reform Party was in favour then. In this case, it is not Canada that has taken the peacekeeping initiative. It is an initiative by allies who have talked and decided to contribute what they can to ensure stability in the Balkans.

If the Reform Party agreed back then, what does it think is so different this time around that it raises considerations of available equipment and troop numbers? That is not the question. The question is whether or not Canada agrees to participate, as its allies are doing, in a peacekeeping operation, subject obviously to the resources and equipment now available to it.

That is the real question. It is no different than Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Reform Party supported that.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, basically the government wants the best of both worlds. It wants to continue to cut the forces, not provide any money for new equipment and not provide a better standard of living for the troops. The government wants to go everywhere, to be everywhere.

We deplore what is happening in Kosovo. As a NATO ally we should be equipped to go there and do our part. The problem is because of government negligence we are not able to do our job. That is the bottom line.

Do we want to go? Do we support going? Yes, but not the way we are and the way we are equipped today. We are asking our men and women to go into an impossible situation.