Debates of Feb. 17th, 1999

Peacekeeping

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

For the benefit of members in the House who may not have been here earlier and for the television audience across the country, I will make a statement now which reflects on issues that occurred earlier tonight in the debate.

Under the standing orders for this debate, the rules were that there would be no requests for unanimous consent and no dilatory motions. One was entertained, so for the purposes of ensuring that this is not precedential in nature and so there will no confusion in future dates, I will read it into the record.

The Chair reminds the House that the special order under which this debate is being conducted states clearly that the Chair may receive no requests for unanimous consent to waive rules. The Chair has wanted to accommodate the will of the House and of the sponsoring ministers in permitting a period of joint questions and comments after the ministers had spoken. However, the Chair would be remiss if I did not point out that this is not to be considered a precedent in the remainder of this debate tonight or indeed on future occasions governed by similar special orders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and to tell you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette.

First, I want to stress the importance of such a debate. The Bloc Quebecois has always supported such debates, because it is important for Parliament to discuss peacekeeping or peace-building missions before we send troops to implement decisions made by a regional or universal international organization such as the United Nations.

I basically agree with the Reform Party, which proposed ways to make parliamentary debates more meaningful and influential because, as you can see, there are just a few of us here in the House. The ministers have left and a meaningful debate should take place under circumstances and according to procedures that would promote greater participation from parliamentarians. In that sense, it is unfortunate that the motion recently moved by the hon. member for Red Deer was defeated after a vote in the House.

It is true that lack of preparation is certainly one the main problems with this kind of parliamentary debate, as exemplified by the preparatory briefings held last week on the issue of Kosovo; briefings on the Central African Republic were scheduled for tomorrow, but they will be pointless because the debate will have taken place the evening before in the House of Commons.

That having been said, we have a decision to make on whether or not to dispatch Canadian troops to Kosovo if a peace agreement were to be signed in the next few days in Rambouillet as well as on renewing the MINURCA mandate in the Central African Republic. Unlike the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois will be clear: we are in favour of sending a Canadian contingent, should a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo be decided on, and in favour of renewing the mandate of the mission set up by the United Nations in the Central African Republic.

That is not to say that we have no concerns. With respect to Kosovo, I would like to share two concerns of ours, which deserve consideration by this House.

First, regarding the nature of the mission to be deployed in Kosovo, what we are expected to be debating this evening is obviously the dispatch of a peacekeeping mission. But it is far from certain that this is the kind of mission that will be contemplated in the next few days, since, as we know full well today, negotiations in Rambouillet are stalled.

President Milosevic has issued a statement indicating that he did not want any multinational force in Kosovo. In this case, unless the President of Yugoslavia changes his position—the Minister of External Affairs suggested a few moments ago that it could be a bargaining position—the mission in which Canada must take part may very well not be a mission to maintain a negotiated peace, but rather a mission to force the Yugoslav government to accept a negotiated peace, which would most likely involve the use of armed force.

Such debate is not taking place but it should because, should Canada be called upon to take part not in a peacekeeping mission but in a mission involving air strikes, Parliament should have an opportunity to debate the issue. This debate should not be restricted in such a way as to prevent us from authorizing the government to take part in a mission of a totally different nature.

This is one concern that had to be voiced by the Bloc Quebecois. Another concern is the way in which this peacekeeping mission, if such is the case, will be set up and whether or not it will be authorized by the United Nations.

On several occasions, I have expressed in this House our party's concern that such a mission should be authorized by the United Nations. Obviously, the Security Council does not seem in a position to authorize such a mission since any country that has the right of veto can exercise that right.

Consequently, Canada, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who himself could chair the Security Council, must still make sure that this question is put to the Council and eventually the General Assembly of the United Nations, since it can deal with it should the Security Council be stymied by a veto. The famous Acheson resolution, which my colleague from Vancouver Quadra knows so well, would enable the General Assembly to consider this mission in Kosovo.

So, there are two unanswered questions that should be the subject of concern to the Government of Canada before a peacekeeping mission is sent to Kosovo.

Regarding the mission to the Central African Republic, I was in New York on a parliamentary mission when Canada was asked to be part of this mission. The Bloc Quebecois immediately indicated its support for such a mission there. That is still true today. We know this mission ends February 28 and Canada's participation is to be renewed.

It is important to maintain a certain stability in this African country, which is starting the process of democracy that will lead to presidential elections, and it may help if foreign troops are present as part of MINURCA.

The Bloc Quebecois has always supported the idea of sending peacekeeping and peacebuilding troops abroad. We believe it is an investment for and in peace.

When I hear the objections of my Reform Party colleagues, with more of the rhetoric we saw earlier this evening, I do not think they show any sign of being able to form an alternative, even a united one, in Canada, to the government, or of being concerned with the matters that should concern a party with ambitions of forming a government.

The concerns of the present government, as presented by the ministers, have enough merit in our view that our party will be supporting them. As it did before, our party reiterates this support and also notes, as did the Reform Party, that it would like to see debates such as this one have a greater impact, be better prepared and be discussed beforehand, probably in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as was done before. This way, the public would have a better understanding of, and be more open to, the investment in material and human resources required of a country engaged in peacekeeping missions.

I will close with the statement that, if war is necessary—because it is likely or at least possible, and the Bloc Quebecois no more wants to see a war than any other reasonable person, just to make Yugoslavia listen to reason in its dispute with the Kosovars—then let us hope, as André Malraux wrote in the wonderful novel

Les Noyers de l'Altenburg

that victory goes to those who go to war but take no pleasure in it.

But I would rather quote Aristide Briand to the House. I address my words to the Yugoslavians listening this evening, and particularly to their representative who is in the gallery. Aristide Briand said “It takes two to stop fighting: you and the other fellow”.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry stressed very appropriately the difference between chapter 6 and chapter 7 of the UN charter. There is a huge legal gap between the two concepts.

Did he consider the fact that international common law prevails? That was the ruling made by the international court, in the case of Nicaragua versus the United States.

I support the principle of humanitarian intervention, which was so abused by colonial powers during the 19th century and even at the beginning of the 20th century. Some have raised that possibility. Does the hon. member think this could provide a legal basis for the actions contemplated by the hon. member for Red Deer?

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

Mr. Speaker, this evening, as in October, the member for Vancouver Quadra wants once again to discuss international law in the House.

That is fine, but let us never forget that international law must, first and foremost, serve peace. We are reminded of that in the preamble of the UN charter, which includes its most important provisions.

Indeed, we can always claim and argue that international common law now authorizes humanitarian types of interventions, interventions that are different from 19th century humanitarian interventions, which were made for eminently political reasons and far less humanitarian ones.

But I do believe that a practice has developed that would now allow states to take an action such as the one being contemplated for Kosovo, or that was contemplated under other circumstances. That action could be based on international law, so as to avoid the issue of the legality of such an intervention without the security council's formal and express authorization.

But still, I am urging the parliamentary secretary to act as a messenger to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I told him this afternoon, when the standing committee met, that, in spite of the possibility of invoking humanitarian international law, if the UN is to maintain its credibility and its legitimacy in this intervention in Kosovo, the security council must, if not the UN general assembly, be involved. The UN must have an opportunity to approve the intervention by soldiers from various national contingents on behalf of NATO.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Minister of External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence, we have two issues to debate this evening. The first one is Canada's participation in the United Nations mission to the Central African Republic.

On this issue, I too would have appreciated a preliminary briefing. We had requested a joint foreign affairs and national defence committee, which was originally approved and scheduled to sit tomorrow. However, this evening, shortly before dinner, we learned that the meeting had been cancelled and could not be held.

It is always desirable that members of parliament be as well informed as possible before undertaking a debate like this one.

In any event, concerning the United Nations mission in the Central African Republic, we know that it involves a small contingent of Canadian signals and logistics officers. This is part of one of the agreements previously entered into by Canada. Obviously, the Bloc will support the renewal of this mission.

The second issue we are dealing with this evening is a more serious issue: Canada's participation in a peace mission to Kosovo. As the previous speaker said, the Bloc Quebecois' position is clear on this issue. We have repeatedly expressed concern about the situation in Kosovo. We have condemned the repression, brutality and inhumanity of Serb security forces.

I spoke on this very issue in March, as did my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry. We strongly condemned the inhuman operations carried out in that country.

We also put several questions in the House, asking the foreign affairs minister what he intended to do to put an end to this conflict. We also asked if he was willing to use force, if necessary, and if he thought diplomacy was good enough when dealing with someone like Slobodan Milosevic.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Canada sending troops to this interposition and peacekeeping operation. On a more general note, we also agree with the use of force to put an end to atrocities occurring anywhere in the world, especially when these brutal conflicts or operations are taking place in countries that can undermine the very stability of our political system, our democracy.

So, we are in agreement, and I would like to give the House a few reasons why we will be supporting this government decision.

First of all, the world community has repeatedly called for hostilities to end and negotiations to start, but its calls went unanswered.

Also, warnings were given by various countries, including France, the United Kingdom, the United States and even Canada. Diplomatic and economic sanctions have been implemented against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the UN has adopted resolutions 1199 and 1203, but all to no avail. Instead, the conflict has slowly escalated.

The present conflict is a humanitarian disaster involving the killing of civilians, torture, rape, and the massive exodus of whole villages. The conflict in Kosovo could very well spell instability for the whole region, and especially for Macedonia, officially the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYROM, with an Albanian speaking minority of 30%, and Albania itself, which is already struggling with economic instability.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a party to the Dayton Accords, and its present conduct is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the accords, and further threatens a regional stabilization process that is already precarious.

Because of the de facto failure of the Dayton Accords, the international community has decided to impose the Rambouillet negotiations, and the deadline the Americans have set to reach a conclusion is Saturday, February 20.

If it is not to lose all credibility, the international community must therefore follow through with the use of force if its warnings go unheeded. In this case, the aggressor has been clearly identified and its aggression has been going on for several years.

This behaviour violates international law as well as the spirit and letter of the UN Charter. It destabilizes the Balkans and damages international relations. It increases international instability. It violates UN Security Council resolution 1199, as I was saying a few moments ago.

In short, for a number of years, the behaviour of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has violated the basic values and principles which must guide the international community in its quest for a world that is safer, that is more fair and that respects the most fundamental human values.

The Rambouillet negotiations must be the last chance. One cannot negotiate indefinitely with someone who does not understand democracy, who does not understand what negotiating is all about and who can only be made to understand through the use of force. We must see the obvious and accept the use of force to restore peace in that country.

However, we think the use of force must meet certain conditions. The security of civilians, which is the first condition, must be the primary concern in any intervention. Canada's interventions must take place under the auspices of international organizations, ideally the UN, of course, or NATO.

Any action by the international community in Yugoslavia should ideally be supported by as many countries as possible. The larger the number of countries willing to use persuasion to settle the conflict in Kosovo, the easier it will be to achieve the desired results.

The forces involved in such a mission must be multinational. The objectives must correspond to resolutions by the Security Council The specific requirements of the parties to the conflict must be made publicly and armed force used until the parties agree publicly to meet these requirements.

Independence for Kosovo must be seriously considered rather than simply dismissed, because it is one solution to be explored to restore peace in the region, including at the end of the three-year transitional period when the Kosovar people will have to decide on their political status.

The aim of our intervention is not to decide for the Kosovars, the Serbs or the Albanians. It is to ensure peace while they continue their negotiations in an effort to find a way to ensure the safety of civilians.

My time is almost up. There are other things I would have liked to say, but I hope to be asked questions that will allow me to complete my comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, to help my colleague, I am going to ask him a few questions. But first I would like to mention that the member said he agreed about the need to maintain peace in Kosovo.

My question concerns how long we are prepared to stay. This relates to something that happened two weeks ago in Washington. We were briefed on what the United States was going to do. It is starting to sing a different tune.

Now it says it is prepared to go to Kosovo, but for a very short period, at the request of other NATO members. It says that this is a conflict taking place in Europe and one that should therefore be covered by Europeans, who are right there.

This is perhaps not a bad idea. It wants our presence, it wants visibility, particularly at the beginning, to put together a peacekeeping system. Once the system is up and running, we should withdraw. We should stay perhaps three months, six at most, and not become mired as we are in Bosnia, where we will be stuck for a long time.

We know that Kosovo will be the same, that it will drag on if we become involved. Should we not perhaps consider something like that, taking part at the beginning and then providing support for ground forces?

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if an agreement is reached in Rambouillet before troops are sent to that country, the peacemaking process should be a lot easier. It will be a matter of staying in Kosovo, monitoring the situation and ensuring that the conflict does not erupt again in a month or two.

On the other hand, if we must impose peace, it could take longer. As we know, “you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink”.

Getting the Serbs and the Kosovars to stop shooting at and shelling each other, getting them to stay on their respective side and to start negotiating again will not be achieved in just a month.

Such a mission could take three years. This may be a reasonable minimum. If, unfortunately, peace is not restored after three years, we would then have to contemplate alternatives. It could be that Canada would find another country prepared to take over the operation. It is not just Canada's responsibility. There are many other countries in the world. NATO and the UN have many members and they are all concerned about maintaining peace in the world.

Canada plays a role because it made commitments to NATO. It plays a role because it is a member of the United Nations. The mission may involve 500 to 800 troops. It is reasonable that we be there, given Canada's credibility, given its international reputation as a peacemaking and a peacekeeping country.

We must not back off because of a matter of months. This is an operation which we must support to help make it a success. Let us learn from our past experiences in other countries to make this operation a success.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity to speak on this very important subject.

On October 7, 1998 we gathered together in this House and had a debate on Kosovo. At that time we debated a motion put forward by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs:

That this House take note of the dire humanitarian situation confronting the people of Kosovo and the government's intention to take measures in co-operation with the international community to resolve the conflict, promote a political settlement for Kosovo and facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance to refugees.

That this House take note of possible Canadian peacekeeping activities in Kosovo and the possible changes in peacekeeping activities in the Central African Republic.

I would say right up front, on behalf of the NDP caucus, that we certainly support the idea that Canada should fulfil its international obligations and should take every measure possible to try to end the suffering, to end the senseless bloodshed that occurs in a lot of these countries and to bring about some humanitarian efforts and to try to stabilize such countries.

I also have to raise a number of issues around this motion and what we are doing here tonight. First, as was mentioned earlier, we are to have a briefing tomorrow afternoon on Kosovo and the Central African Republic. It certainly would have been preferable to have had this briefing prior to coming here to debate this very important topic.

I realize and I am learning every day in politics that things seem to happen very quickly and in a hurry, but I am not convinced yet that is the way things have to be.

My mother has a phrase she has used many times, haste makes waste. I am afraid that in this political business far too often we hurry very important business to the point that we make a lot of mistakes that would not be made otherwise.

I realize that many times things happen quickly and we have to respond quickly. I am sure this issue did not develop overnight. I am sure the hon. ministers could and should have found time to brief us in advance and then had the debate so everyone is debating from a knowledge perspective about the issue.

Far too often I find I walk in on a certain day and I am told we are going to have a debate on this tomorrow night and I am speaking on it or can I speak on it. One does the best one can.

I am pleased that we are at least having the opportunity to discuss this. A while back I was quite concerned about this whole issue when I heard through the media that the Prime Minister had somehow committed Canadian troops to Kosovo and the matter at that point had not been brought before this House.

I actually had a question prepared but it did not get on the agenda unfortunately. The question was this. Canadian troops have been put on standby for military action in Kosovo. Has the Prime Minister decided to take unilateral control over decision making around Canada going to war or has he handed that over to the NATO generals? Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing any proposal to send Canadian women and men into battle before this elected House and ensure that any such action is backed by a UN resolution? Those questions have some very important points that are still relevant today as we discuss this issue.

I find it very interesting that I am standing here tonight in the House and I can count on one hand the number of people who are here listening to this debate. We had two hon. ministers come to present their information around something that we are going to make a very important decision on and they are no longer present.

I think that something as important—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We let the first one slide by but we are not letting the second one slide by. We do not refer to the presence or absence of members. As the hon. member knows, the parliamentary precincts are full of people watching this debate from their offices and from other places.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those remarks. I am very sorry.

The importance of this issue cannot be underscored enough because we are talking here tonight about sending our men and women off to very dangerous situations. While it has been indicated that we are talking about peacekeeping activities I guess we have to ask ourselves what does this really mean. What do we really mean when we talk about peacekeeping?

If we look at these countries and see the atrocities taking place, far too often peacekeeping means actually peacemaking. It means people going into a very dangerous situation not only for themselves but for many of the innocent civilians living in the area.

We are talking about sending our men and women into a war torn zone. It is a zone where people are killing each other, where there is senseless slaughter. We are talking about sending our troops to these areas. We must be mindful of that.

The other thing I am concerned about is that we saw various tapes and heard various reports about people who had returned from previous peacekeeping missions, whether it was in the gulf war or elsewhere. We heard about the post-traumatic stress syndrome and the after effects that many of these people experienced from being on these missions. The question is how well prepared are we to provide support when our troops return home. What kinds of preparation do we give people for these kinds of missions? How well equipped are our troops? This issue has been raised already in terms of what kinds of equipment we will have. We have heard stories of people returning from other missions. As they were crossing over and they knew people were going, they were exchanging helmets because we did not have proper supplies for these people.

The other issue that has been raised recently in the House is with respect to vaccines. We heard about troops who were given vaccines. There were questions as to whether these were properly tested, whether they were safe for our troops and so forth. These are issues that come to mind as well. We saw a person who was court martialled because he did not want to take a vaccine which he felt had some very serious questions about his safety and his health.

These are questions we have to look at when we think about these missions. Quite often we find that the people who have gone on these missions have become skilled and experienced. When it comes time for another mission we redeploy the same troops. We find these people are leaving their families again and are going off on missions quite often for unspecified periods of time. These are questions that have to be dealt with as well.

The other thing I asked the hon. minister earlier is what would be the duties of these people. What authority will they have to protect themselves and take action when they are faced with very serious and dangerous situations. The response was these things have not been defined yet. These will be worked out in due course. These are the kinds of issues that are very important and that we want to know before a decision is made to engage people in that activity. We want to know the kind of training received.

The other very important issue is will these missions be backed by a UN resolution. We find more and more we are moving toward, as the minister said, NATO led missions. What exactly does that mean? We know that when it comes to international affairs and concerns the United Nations is the body that should sanction and give approval to these kinds of missions. That is a very important issue that should be dealt with.

Generally speaking, when we think should we get involved in these missions, I do not feel we have much choice when it comes to deciding whether to help fellow human beings overcome adversity. It is very important that we as individuals, we as human beings, fulfil our responsibility to our brothers and our sisters. Am I my brother's keeper? I believe we are. We have an international obligation to fulfil our responsibilities in that regard. But we must do it under appropriate conditions.

We must do it knowing the situation. We should not be responding with a knee-jerk reaction simply because someone else is deciding that they need us to assist them in that mission. We should know the facts. We should know the details. We should be fully briefed ahead of time and able to address these issues with some degree of knowledge and some base of information.

I want to draw the attention of the House to what I feel is a very important matter. While we are looking at fighting or sending our troops to deal with issues in other parts of the world, it is important that we not loose sight of the fact that there are many issues at home that have an underlying dimension which is similar.

We have talked many times about ethic cleansing when we look at what is happening in some of the other parts of the world. But we see the same dynamics happening right here at home when we look at different situations involving our own people here in Canada. It is a matter of degree as to where the difference is but basically the same principle is there.

We need to respect each other as fellow human beings and deal with the issues of sharing of resources. A lot of these conflicts are based around struggles for power, for resources, whether it be mines with diamonds or whatever. These are quite often the things that are causing conflict between people. Everybody is struggling for these precious resources.

We have the same thing happening to a large degree right here in Canada. We do not have the kind of sharing of resources that we should have in order for people to take advantage of them, to get along together and lead a productive life.

We have to apply the lessons that we learn abroad here at home. It is just one step beyond that we could find ourselves facing similar kinds of strife within our country. Far too often we look at conflicts in other parts of the world and we think it is happening over there, it is really not the kind of thing that could happen here in Canada. But is it really something that could not happen here in Canada?

I was watching TV the other night when the riot police were called out to deal with the homeless who had come to Ottawa. My daughter said “Oh my goodness, dad, I have never seen anything like this before in Canada”. We could have very easily transposed that scene to a foreign country where there would be fighting in the street and riot police confronting people. We are not that different. Let us not kid ourselves.

Even though there are very serious questions around these missions and even though I am speaking on the basis of a lack of appropriate information because of the manner in which we have been briefed on this, I do feel that it is very important for Canada to support its allies with respect to trying to maintain peace and harmony in other countries and to help avoid the senseless bloodshed we see taking place with human beings being killed, maimed and violated every day in various ways.

I feel it is important for us to fulfill our duty and we would support the efforts that would be taken in that regard. As I said before, we must deal with those other issues and not always be responding after the fact and making the decisions in an emergency situation when there is sufficient time to get information in advance and to be briefed on these things properly.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote back to the previous speaker his question, am I my brother's keeper, and his injunction that indeed we should be and we should respond positively.

Certainly all Canadians feel that way. The difficulty the Reform Party has with this in very specific terms is that we have seen this Liberal government, that wants to bring this motion and send our troops, gut the armed forces to the tune of $7 billion and take away their ability to do things.

We have people in our armed forces who are absolutely second to none. We have heroes and heroines in our armed forces who are there to serve our country and to serve humanity, as the previous speaker said. The problem is that it is undefined whether this is a peacekeeping or peacemaking mission, it is undefined whether this is going to be strictly under a NATO mandate or a UN mandate. This seems to be chewing gum and baling wire where the government is working it as it goes.

The government cut $7 billion from the Canadian armed forces. The Reform Party has had a consistent position that whatever we ask our armed forces to do, we must be prepared to give them the proper resources, training, manpower, equipment, counselling, back-up support, health care, whatever is required.

If we are not prepared to resource the armed forces adequately, we should not be asking them to be doing things they are not capable of doing.

I would like to know what the position of the NDP is relative to the funding of the armed forces because I labour under the impression, particularly as a result of some of the comments and pronouncements that have been made by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, a very outspoken NDP member, that the idea would be to cut back and to cut back on the armed forces budget.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot ask our heroes and heroines in our armed forces to go into these conflicts without proper backup training, support, medication, counselling and equipment.

What is the position of the NDP? If we are going to be doing this kind of activity, would the NDP see putting money, not just the $400 million band-aid the government is talking about in this budget, but the proper resources back into the armed forces so that our people will have the ability to do the job that we are asking them to do?

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the member would check the records of the comments we have made on equipment, supplies and adequate financial remuneration for the armed forces, he would find that we certainly support that. We have supported the standing committee's report with respect to the various recommendations made therein. Personally I was quite disappointed to see in this budget the relatively small amount committed to meet the recommendations of that report.

I was also informed today that another Sea King was forced to land because of difficulties it was having. It struck a chord when the minister mentioned earlier in terms of this mission of supplying helicopters and so forth. We feel that it is very important for the armed forces to have adequate and safe equipment with which to do their jobs. I have no quarrel with that comment. I agree with it 100%.

I still feel that we have to support trying to do something to end the senseless slaughter that is taking place even if it is scaled down to what we can afford. I do feel that it is important for people to be properly prepared, to have proper equipment and that there is proper follow-up when they return.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and indeed some other members remarked that they were not briefed before this debate tonight.

I am sure the hon. member and all members will agree that the reason this debate is being held tonight and not next week is simply due to a logistical problem. All the House leaders agreed that the debate should take place tonight because the House will not be in session next week. As the hon. member and all members know, the full briefing will take place tomorrow. It is simply a matter of sorting out the basic logistics and the House leaders agreed. It should not be a matter of debate in terms of accusing the government of not doing something.

My hon. friend talks about NATO led forces. Does he believe that a NATO led force and a UN sanctioned action are mutually exclusive?

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the first point with respect to the debate, I hope the hon. member understands that I was certainly not suggesting that the debate be held next week. I was merely suggesting that the briefing should have been held in advance of the debate. I do not know why the briefing could not have been held prior to the debate.

That aside, to come to the question on whether a NATO led force and a UN sanctioned action are exclusive, no I have not suggested that either. The hon. minister mentioned with respect to whether this was backed by the UN, that it was NATO led and that there should not be any problem getting UN support. It seemed to me that was putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps the UN support should have been there and then if it was deemed that it be NATO led, that would be the route. That is simply what I was saying.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question.

I have been hearing a lot of noise tonight about our government not giving enough money to the Canadian armed forces. In yesterday's budget there was quite an amount given to the Canadian armed forces. I believe it was the first time in 12 years that the Canadian armed forces have had new money. If memory serves me correctly, there was $175 million for the next three years and also about another $150 million a year in incremental terms. We are looking at close to $1 billion over three years.

The member from the Reform Party says it is a band-aid solution. I think $1 billion for the Canadian armed forces is a lot more than a band-aid solution.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there really was no question so I will comment on the comment.

When one uses figures and says that the amount is over three years and which adds up to a large number, what is missed in the equation is what was cut in the years before. If so much has been cut to the point that one is operating with an inadequate amount and then something is thrown back in, it does not necessarily mean the full need has been met.

I was saying that the recommendations in the report of the standing committee certainly would have called for a larger amount than $175 million over three years. The minister's estimate was at least $700 million to start with.

There was less put in than would be determined to meet the need. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on that.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead. You will recall that my colleague is the one who revealed to Canadians that North Korean missiles were aimed at Montreal.

This being said, this debate, which is not really a debate, but rather the opportunity to express our emotions, raises several questions. Parliamentary rules do not really apply and members have until 11.30 p.m. to speak.

There is one thing government members have been asking us often and that is “Will the opposition parties support the government sending troops to Kosovo?” In fact, the true question is “Will the government support Canadian armed forces so they can to do their job” This is the real question. My colleague from Compton—Stanstead will elaborate on this.

For my part I would like to deal with the diplomatic and geopolitical aspects of the problem in Kosovo. It has been going on for some time now. I do not want to trace the history of this situation at this point, but as members know, throughout history, wars have caused countries to be born and countries to disappear, empires to be built and empires to crumble, and borders to be redefined. On a regular basis, we see very regional problems following various operations, various wars that occurred during the last few decades or the last century.

But our main concern about the situation in Kosovo is the way these activities will be justified and explained. We are thinking about sending a peacekeeping force led by NATO. So there is a problem in that the missions we participate in are normally led by the UN or, in a few cases, by the U.S. But this mission would be led by NATO. The foreign affairs minister talks about “NATO plus”.

This reminds me of when the Americans decided to attack Irak. To justify that operation, the expression “United States plus” was coined, but we said we would not go until a peace agreement was reached. So we hope such an agreement will be reached by February 20.

If this happens before February 20 and we send troops in support of a NATO operation, how will the Serbs and the Kosovars react? These are NATO troops we will be sending over there. These last few months, we had NATO aircraft flying over the Kosovar and Serb territories. This is not a peacekeeping force. That is why it is so hard to justify it.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party have no lessons to learn from anyone. We will indeed support sending troops on peacekeeping duty. It is part of our traditions and we will maintain this tradition. However, I do hope the government realizes we are facing a problem justifying our decision internationally.

Serbia, Albania and the whole geopolitical region are fragile. There are problems in nearby Greece and in Macedonia, where many Albanians live. In Greece, the problems are with the Turks. Then there is not-so-distant Russia, which is preventing us from securing UN support by using its right of veto.

So we are left wondering under which international organization our troops should be deployed. Next thing you know, there will be a new international organization. Should our troops be deployed under the UN? Under NATO? It may not be NATO's role. Perhaps NATO's role will be redefined. It was the role of the UN, but it has financial problems and can no longer afford to send troops on peacekeeping missions. The UN does not have any money to pay for these missions.

When the UN was established, funding for peacekeeping forces was to be provided by the UN. In committee this afternoon, the Minister of External Affairs gave a very good example, Bangladesh, which used to send highly professional and disciplined peacekeeping troops but can no longer afford to do so.

We in Canada keep sending troops. Canadian taxpayers are paying for that, but the government opposite is not being very supportive. Otherwise, the men and women of our armed forces would be better dressed, they would have boots to wear. Thank God, things are beginning to move in the right direction.

But, once again, we have a problem justifying our involvement. Working only with NATO is dangerous. It is extremely dangerous. It sends a very bad message. The Serbs do not seem to take this threat seriously.

And what will happen should the peacekeeping negotiations fail? The UN's efforts have failed. NATO's efforts have failed. At one point, even the OSCE had representatives in Kosovo. There is a whole lot of people who have gone to Kosovo without having the mandate to settle the conflict. And we are now trying to justify sending our troops there. It is extremely dangerous.

We are pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this issue. I will simply say that I hope parliament will be unanimous in sending our troops on a peacekeeping mission. This is extremely important. We must avoid another situation like the Gulf war, even though this is different, where our Liberal friends refused to support our armed forces.

I sincerely hope that, together, we will be able to support our armed forces in this mission. I also hope that we will be able to provide financial and technical support to our men and women who will represent us in this peacekeeping mission to Kosovo.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the situation in Turkey.

While it is profoundly important that we debate in this chamber tonight the role of Canada in Kosovo and our possible role in Africa, it is also essential, particularly at this very crucial and difficult time, that we note another human tragedy unfolding, the tragedy of the Kurds. I want to take the opportunity of this debate to make a brief comment on that.

As members know, Kurds around the world have been voicing a sense of anguish, pain, anger, outrage and deep concern about the arrest of Abdullah Ocalan or Apo. Here in Ottawa today we unfortunately saw a violent confrontation outside the Turkish embassy. Fortunately it was ultimately resolved in a peaceful manner.

I want to take the opportunity of this debate to call on our government, the Government of Canada, to end its shameful silence on the plight of the Kurds, particularly in Turkey but also in Iraq, Iran and Syria. I fear that our desire to sell Candu reactors and military hardware as well as our membership in the NATO alliance have silenced us.

We cannot remain silent on this issue. It is essential that Canada play an important role. With respect to the arrest of Ocalan, it is essential that Canada and others in the international community take steps urgently to ensure an open and fair trial for Mr. Ocalan, to see that he is not tortured as the UN special rapporteur on torture has urged as well. I am calling on our government to send a delegation to Turkey to monitor this very serious question.

Most important, it is time that our government spoke out with respect to the underlying massive violation of the fundamental human, political and cultural rights of the Kurdish people which have led to the destruction of Kurdish villages, which have led to the murder, torture and killing of over 30,000 people.

In conclusion I take this opportunity to say that we face terrible tragedy in Kosovo and the Central African Republic, but let us not lose sight of the unfolding human tragedy of the Kurdish people that for too long has been ignored.

Biji Kurdistan

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's comment interesting.

However, it is obvious that he is quite familiar with procedure; he is using this debate on a specific problem to raise other issues. I believe I could have done the same on a topic I raised this afternoon in committee, namely North Korea, where three million people have died in recent years, out of a total population of 20 million.

This being said, tonight's debate is on Kosovo and that geopolitical region. I have, however, raised the Kurdish problem in an indirect way. What I am asking is that the government, through various embassies, non-governmental organisations or even the minister himself, continue to apply use accelerated, effective and productive diplomacy, not only with Serbia or representatives of Kosovo but with every country in the whole region, in order to prevent its breakdown.

This issue must not become a time bomb. If we can deal with the Kurdish problem, so much the better; if we can deal with the problems in other areas of that region, so much the better.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I listened carefully. I knew the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas was straying strictly speaking from the topic tonight. However there is no question that these issues are all interrelated. I felt, since we are here enjoying each other's comments, what is a little bit of extension.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I love you and you love me; it is a big family.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Exactly.

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

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Kosovo is grave. We recently witnessed an atrocious massacre and the spring campaign season is upon us within weeks. NATO has given both sides until February 20 to reach a peace agreement or face NATO air power. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and our other NATO allies are preparing to send ground troops into the bloody province and the NATO secretary general is asking for Canadian participation.

The Prime Minister, in his usual open mouth insert foot manner said that we might send ground troops to Kosovo in addition to our CF-18s based in Italy, without our being asked formally or informally for troops by anyone. I cannot imagine another responsible statesman in the world doing such a thing, but there we have it.

The foreign affairs minister and Nobel Peace Prize wannabe has said that Canada would send ground forces only if the operation was approved by the UN Security Council. It seems he has changed his mind. The defence minister who obviously has not clout around the cabinet table after yesterday's insulting budget has said it will not be an aggressive force but simple peacekeeping like Bosnia. Bosnia has already cost 16 Canadian lives. That is something I cannot dismiss quite so cavalierly.

The Serbs have rejected any NATO peacekeeping force on their soil. The defence minister has also said that sending ground troops would stretch the Canadian forces to the limit, which begs the question as to where are the troops for Kosovo going to come from, especially after yesterday's budget which made significant troop cuts a reality. This lack of Liberal clarity has left Canadians wondering what is the government's policy on Kosovo. It has left Canadians with several questions about the deployment of Canadian military forces to this troubled region.

Lieutenant General Lewis MacKenzie, one of Canada's most famous peacekeepers and someone who is very familiar with the region, has questioned Canadian involvement and has demanded that there be a public debate. This is a public debate in a sense.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

With no information.

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

Absolutely.

My fear is that the time when we controlled events with regard to our involvement in Kosovo is now long since past. I want to join our foreign affairs critic and say that all peace loving people would like to see an end to fighting in Kosovo and an end to the killing of innocent civilians. I also think that if NATO decides to go into to Kosovo we as NATO allies must join our closest international friends in facing our joint destiny.

I also think that the deployment of ground troops and military power is the worst decision that any statesman ever has to make. Once taken by the governor in council Canadians will support the government of the day.

These are conclusions that all responsible Canadians would come to with regard to the Kosovo question. The big issue for me is: Are our Canadian forces ready to go to Kosovo and what units are going? The problem is that serious questions are left unanswered about Kosovo.

We have never really had an opportunity to debate government deployment of Canadian forces to the Central African Republic. That was done with a sleight of hand, but I will concentrate on Kosovo today.

The minister has told us that we would only be going in a ceasefire mode. In terms of entering the area on the basis of ceasefire, I point out that just because we enter in ceasefire does not mean that it will hold. We might find ourselves in a situation worse than an invasion.

Let us look at the state of the Canadian forces. The present government defined its defence policy with the 1994 defence white paper which committed Canada to the maintenance of a modern, combat capable land, sea and air force to deal with operations all across the spectrum of combat.

In terms of implementing our national security objectives the government directed the Canadian forces to provide a joint task force headquarters and one or more of the following: an able task group of four major service combatants, one support ship and a maritime air support, three separate battle groups or a brigade group, a fighter wing and a transport squadron, for a grand total of 10,000 personnel at one time.

The intent was to have the vanguard of this joint task force in place within three weeks and the entire force operational within three months. This was to be done by a regular force of 60,000 personnel. Therefore we have a question today. We have 2,000 on the ground now. It is tough to get another 1,000 and yet we have 60,400 troops that are being paid. We are supposed to be able to get 10,000. There are lots of people missing there.

In terms of the navy, the government started out with an urgent need for a new maritime helicopter to replace the aging Sea King. The white paper also promised to examine the option to buy United Kingdom upholder class submarines. Last, the government stated it would consider replacing our old operational support vessels.

Canada's army was promised three adequately equipped brigade groups and some 3,000 more soldiers in three light infantry battalions. The white paper called for new armoured personnel carriers to replace the obsolete M-113 fleet. There was also a discussion in very loose terms for the future replacement of direct fire support vehicles. There was not mention of a new main battle tank to replace the obsolete Leopard.

The air force was promised an upgrade of its CF-18 fighter aircraft fleet and new search and rescue helicopters. The government also stated its intention to reduce Canada's fighter fleet by 25%, but the remaining fighters would receive new precision guided munitions for ground support.

In the end, as always, the 1994 defence white paper has been big on promises and very short on substance, with the result that it is now sadly outdated if for no other reason than the absolute lack of leadership and budget.

Canada's navy has yet to see a new maritime helicopter and after yesterday's Liberal budget it is increasingly unlikely to see them for probably up to eight years.

There has been little discussion by the government of the proposed multi-role support vehicles, and the lack of strategic sealift means that the army is largely landlocked on the continent. The upholder class submarines will not start arriving until the year 2000.

The army has just started to receive its new armoured personnel carriers in the form of the LAV-25, but we do not have enough. I suspect we do not have enough for a good recce regiment. The three light battalions were created of about 3,000 soldiers. However, the army has such a budget problem—and I am told right now that it is about $170 million in deficit—that it may be forced to cut 3,000 positions. This cut would be in addition to yesterday's budgetary slap in the face and would mean cuts through the other three services.

The air force acquired new precision guided munitions for the existing CF-18 fleet. It also got the long awaited EH-101 helicopters for search and rescue. They are getting them; they are not there yet. However the air force lost its air refuelling tankers and received no new airlift capability.

As of today Canada lacks both strategic sealift and strategic airlift capabilities and thus is forced to rent these items on the open market or to be dependent upon the United States for any large military operation.

The old commitment and capability gap still haunts Canada. The lack of power projection capability is Canada's biggest force problem. After that of course there is money. That is the central issue. The white paper must be implemented if we are to be able to project our forces abroad effectively in support of foreign policy objectives, and that includes Kosovo.

The Canadian army and air force are virtually incapable of projecting power without outside international assistance, and thus the only real force we have for independent timely service is Canada's navy. Unfortunately for the government, Kosovo is landlocked and the navy is just out of the picture. We are left with CF-18s that the air force says need an upgrade and an army that lacks the modern armoured personnel carriers, main battle tanks and troops.

The white paper stated that Canada should be able to deploy 10,000 personnel around the world at any one time, but the minister has said that it would be stretched to the limit to come up with just another 1,000 or so for Kosovo. Tonight he said 800. That gives him a 200 leeway so now he is not quite as stretched. That was before yesterday's miserly defence allocation.

Having examined the state of Canada's Liberal neglected military and its deficiencies brings me to my last point. In terms of the Kosovo operation a number of issues need examination by parliament prior to the deployment of Canadian forces. For instance, how long does NATO make a commitment to stay in Kosovo? Judging by Bosnia it will be measured in years and not just months. The United States, from my discussions in recent briefings with United States officials, do not want a long term commitment. They want to be in and then out. They do not believe that Canada's participation is really necessary.

What happens if both sides decide to engage in hostilities with each other or NATO? This situation could turn to war at any moment. We do not even know how NATO troops, our troops, are getting in and out if it turns to all-out war. Sadly, next to it is Bosnia. What happens to Bosnia? Will we send a significant contingent, perhaps a battalion sized group, or no troops at all?

We do not know what the national command relationships will be. What are the rules of engagement?

The other day on television a British commander said that his orders were to shoot to kill. I cannot imagine a Canadian officer daring to say that, right or wrong, in the present post-Somalia inquiry climate. We do not know how we will get our troops over to Kosovo because we have no real sea lift or air lift capability. How will we sustain them in Kosovo? I would suggest probably piggybacking our existing air supply to Bosnia, but no one has said that for sure.

We do not—