Debates of Feb. 17th, 1999

The Budget

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I would ask the hon. member to choose his words carefully.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Absolutely, Madam Speaker. What I said was that it was rhetoric of rubbish. I do not know if that is vulgar or not. It is not, as far as I was concerned.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I once again rise on a point of order. In dealing with certain issues, I mentioned historical facts. I did not used bad words. And if this how he sees it, then the answer—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

This is not a point of order, this is a point of debate.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the two areas that I will address, because the member was up for quite a bit of time, are with respect to the G-7. He made reference to the accounting practices of the G-7. G-7 countries make use of what is called the financial requirements way of doing their books. We actually use the national accounts system which is a bit more stringent. In fact, if we moved to the way the G-7 looks at countries and the way they do books, our numbers as a country would look much better.

In terms of the health care issue, the member was taking exception to my comments about making the health care system perhaps a bit more transparent. What I was really making reference to was when a physician perhaps in Quebec or a physician in the maritimes or a physician out west may make an advance or a discovery in terms of service delivery, there is no system in place right now throughout the country where there is an exchange of this type of information.

When there is an exchange of this type of information we end up with a better quality of health care. I am not sure that the hon. member really would want to say he does not want to have Quebecers receive a better quality system of health care. That is the whole intent of the health care budget, that whether one lives in Quebec, out east or out west, one has an ability to receive quality health care.

There is no question that the delivery of health care is a provincial jurisdiction and that there is no intent by the federal government to invade provincial jurisdiction, because I know that is a big problem for the members opposite. What this health budget does is transfers $11.5 billion to provinces in order to deal with health care. But it also provides opportunity and framework for provinces and health care providers to communicate with each other so that they can provide greater efficiency in the health care system.

That is what it is all about. It is about Canadians regardless of what province they live in. Canadians want better service and this budget will help governments deliver it.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure as the chief finance critic of the official opposition to respond to the federal budget today, introduced by the finance minister yesterday.

I must say at the outset that the budget read more like a fairy tale than an honest accounting of the government's financial position. I want to explain what I mean by simply pointing out one thing. As I went through the budget documents yesterday I found it absolutely amazing that nowhere in those documents was I able to find the number that told us how much the government was prepared to spend this year; $104.5 billion was the number.

I think we need a much larger debate in this place about how we report on the government's financial position. Sadly I think the government has taken to using the budget as a propaganda tool instead of an accounting of the government's financial position.

The official opposition has many particular concerns with this budget but these can be summarized simply by saying this budget will mean that Canadians will pay much more in taxes and receive far less in health care. Pay more and get less. Members may have heard that theme but we will continue to say it because it is absolutely true.

I ask the House to consider this. In 1999 the average Canadian taxpayer will pay over $2,000 more in taxes than they paid in 1993. It is logical to expect that if we pay $2,000 more in taxes per taxpayer we would get more services. While that is logical, it is absolutely not the case under this government.

In 1999 the government will spend $450 less in health care per taxpayer than last year. Put another way, the total cuts to health care this government has delivered over the last three years per taxpayer amount to about $1,500 per person. This is coming from a government that claims to be so caring about health care, a government that claims that health care is part of our national fabric. I do not believe the government even believes its own rhetoric anymore.

Let us examine how this whole thing happened. The government argues that it had to keep raising taxes and slashing health care in order to eliminate the deficit. I will argue the government did not eliminate the deficit at all. All it did was transfer it on to the backs of taxpayers. It transferred a big chunk of it to taxpayers in the form of $2,000 a year more in taxes every year.

I see the hon. member from London is speaking in House. This is great to see because as far as I know he has never delivered a speech in this House before. It is good to hear him at least heckling.

The other chunk of the deficit was transferred to people who needed health care. This came in the form of a $1,500 per taxpayer reduction, as I pointed out a minute ago. I do not think that is the proper approach that this government should take if it truly cares about the citizens of Canada.

What is the alternative? I think the government had some alternatives and did not follow them. In the first place, going back to 1993 when this government took power, it should have acted a lot faster. It waited a full 18 months before it brought in a substantive budget of any kind. When one is carrying a debt of over $500 billion, time literally is money.

Did this government act right away to save money for Canadians? No. It took its merry time. In the meantime, it cost Canadians literally thousands of dollars per taxpayer in the form of higher taxes and thousands of dollars per health care patient in the form of less services for health. The government really should have acted faster.

Secondly, the government should not have cut our most important services while maintaining our least important services. As Goethe once said, those things that matter most should never be at the mercy of those things that matter least. However, this government does not seem to understand that.

Consider that while it cut $20 billion out of health care over the last several years it did not touch a lot of the wasteful spending. It cut the things that make us healthier, smarter and more productive but did not at all touch many of the things that many Canadians consider to be extraordinarily wasteful. I want to talk about some of those things.

[An hon. member]

Name them.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

I am happy to do that. Let us talk about the $4 billion in pork barrel regional development grants spent over the last four years. My friend across the way, the hon. Minister of Transport, will know that some of that money was even spent in the Prime Minister's riding, given to a business associate of his under circumstances which people could only describe as very suspicious.

Let us talk about regional development. Let us talk about the millions upon millions of dollars—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We cannot sit here and listen to the hon. member directly cast aspersions on the Prime Minister and his constituency.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I will ask the hon. member to choose his words more carefully, please.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately we all face the consequences of our actions, and that includes the Prime Minister.

There are millions of other dollars wasted every year in regional development. I am glad that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, helped me make that point. Over the last several years we spent $3.2 billion running a television network in Canada at the same time as we were cutting billions of dollars out of health care. I think that is completely inappropriate. It shows that the government's priorities are totally mixed up.

Over the last few years we have spent over $4 billion in redundant bureaucracy in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

My friends across the way know that the auditor general routinely chastized the government for its bungling of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The department recently spent $91 million to negotiate treaties and not a single treaty was actually negotiated. This was brought to the attention of the government by the auditor general.

There were many things that the government spent money on that it did not need to and that it should not have spent money on. At the same time it was cutting the heart out of health care. I point out that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation routinely uncovers hundreds of millions of dollars in wasteful spending.

It was not very long ago that Walter Robinson, president of the federation, a position held by my colleague, the member for Calgary Southeast, held a press conference and unveiled access to information documents showing the federal government routinely makes loans of hundreds of millions of dollars to some of Canada's most profitable and most successful corporations and then fails to collect on the loans.

My friend across the way says it is not true but he cannot provide a shred of evidence that it is not true. Instead of providing that money to health care we see it go to companies that are making literally hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. That is a complete mix-up in terms of priorities.

How easy for the Liberals to spend other people's money so unwisely. Even more aggravating is the fact that the voices of business, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Catherine Swift, Garth White, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council on National Issues, routinely plead with the government to quit subsidizing business. There is not a year that goes by when the finance committee does not have those groups come before us and say please quit distorting the marketplace. Quit taking money from successful businesses, giving it to the government, letting it take a share, passing it on to other unsuccessful businesses so that they can be subsidized and then turn around and compete against these successful businesses. That makes absolutely no sense.

If there is so much wasteful low priority spending in the federal government why is the federal government cutting high priority things like funding for health care, education and RCMP services? Why is the federal government producing dumb blond joke books, giving grants to incredibly profitable businesses and building bureaucracies when sick people are forced to sleep in wheelchairs and in linen closets in Canada's hospitals? I argue that this government truly is the government that put the hell into health care.

When we look beyond the bafflegab in yesterday's speech from the finance minister, three things become very clear. The first thing is that the government wants us to think that after being world champion tax hikers it is now serious about reducing taxes. The second is that after savaging health care it wants us to believe that it really did not mean it and that taking a dollar out and putting 50 cents back in will fix the problems in health care.

The third thing that becomes abundantly clear is that the most important thing to the Liberal government is not health care, it is not reducing taxes, it is making government bigger. It wants to take more of our money and more our options so it can tell us how to live our lives. If members doubt for a moment what I am saying, look at the budget documents from yesterday where the government announced $30 billion in new spending. Where did that money go? Only about $11.5 billion went toward health care initiatives. Only $7.7 went to tax decreases. The remainder went to all kinds of other new spending, non-priority spending. This government has a huge spending problem. I fear that it has returned to its old free spending ways, its big government Liberal ways. Canadians know that is precisely how we got into the situation we are in now, $580 billion in debt.

Let me explain why we must have substantive tax relief, why making health care healthy requires more than just cash and why big government liberalism hurts the poor and the sick and those without skills while sucking away our prosperity and our spirit of innovation.

Let me talk specifically about why we need tax relief. I want to lay out four different arguments for why Canada needs tax relief.

The first point I want to make is that it is the taxpayers' turn. It was taxpayers who balanced this budget. We have had at least, to be generous, 38 tax increases since this government came to power. We are now in the 35th year of having increasing taxes in Canada. We have not had a tax break in Canada in 35 years. We have surtaxes that were added specifically to eliminate the deficit. Well the deficit is still gone but the 5% surtax is still there.

The machinery of government was preserved through all of this, but the taxpayer was hung out to dry, absolutely hung out to dry. We saw government bureaucracies in some cases not only not shrink but actually get bigger.

The first big reason we need to give Canadians some tax relief is simply because it is their turn. Everybody else has benefited in the past with what the government has done, but not the taxpayers. Taxpayers are the ones who have been the long suffering, very patient heroes in this whole mess. They are the ones who bailed this government out. It is time that taxpayers got their share.

The second point I want to make is that the economy needs a tax cut right now. I heard the parliamentary secretary talking a few minutes ago about what is going on around the world and about Brazil, Japan and Russia. We are all very aware of that.

We also know that we had a crisis this summer when the dollar hit new lows which was in part because Canada's tax regime was completely bloated. We could not compete with a tax regime that had Canadians paying some of the highest personal income taxes in the world.

I heard the member for Waterloo—Wellington give a member's statement about how he was so proud that the dollar had now recovered up to 67 cents. I have never seen anyone so inspired by mediocrity in my life. This government seems to think that a 67 cent dollar is just fine. I can guarantee to members across the way that the Reform Party does not agree with them. We think the dollar is a barometer of the health of the economy. We will not accept a 67 cent dollar. We will do things to ensure that Canada's dollar strengthens.

First on the list is to start to cut taxes. I do not agree at all with my friend across the way who says that now is not the time to cut taxes substantially. We disagree with that. We say let us cut taxes substantially. If we do that, the next time there is a crisis in the world, money will come to Canada instead of fleeing Canada like it routinely does under this Liberal government.

The third reason we need to cut taxes immediately is to stem the brain drain. We see a massive brain drain from the member from London. We see it right now. There are four reasons people are leaving Canada in droves.

The first is that young people get their university educations in Canada, subsidized, and then they leave to go to the United States. The reason they go is that there are more jobs in the United States, 4.3% unemployment, than in Canada.

The second point is that the United States pays better. The jobs pay more because there is more of a demand for good employees down there. Jobs end up paying more.

The third point is that they get to keep more of what they earn because their taxes are much lower. The industry department itself pointed out just the other day that in Canada Canadians are paying far higher taxes and their incomes are far lower than those in the United States.

The government's own industry department has chastised the government saying it is time to get our taxes in line with the United States. The Reform Party agrees completely. We point out that if we did cut taxes our revenues would go up just as they went up in Ontario.

The fourth reason people do better when they go to the United States is that the U.S. dollar buys more. We have a 67 cent dollar in Canada, the northern peso. I am embarrassed of our dollar. I think it is ridiculous that my friend from London thinks it is so wonderful.

[An hon. member]

I am not from London.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Well, from Mars or wherever he is from. He is certainly not from this planet.

My friend across the way is heckling but never have I seen him speak in the House on a bill. I suggest to him that he should have the courage of his convictions and rise to his feet and debate this budget instead of heckling and spouting inanities from the other side.

The fourth reason we need to cut taxes in Canada is simply because we have to put some chains on government. I fear very much that government in Canada is starting to grow again. I am concerned that we will see a return to the old-style liberalism where government starts to interfere more and more in people's lives. It already interferes substantially in people's lives and many Canadians today resent it greatly.

What we see after yesterday's budget is a huge increase overall in spending. We saw the government go $7.6 billion over budget in this year's spending. It is proposing to go somewhere in the range of $30 billion, I would say over budget, over the next three years, at least if this year's budget numbers are used as a standard for the next three years. That is crazy. We are in a situation where we have had exactly two surpluses to date.

It is time that we put a rein on government, that we put some limits on government so that those surpluses can accumulate for the benefit of Canadians, so that they can go back to people in the form of lower taxes, so that we can pay down the debt, not so that we can build up more government programs. We do not need that. That is extraordinarily dangerous.

The government continues to tax away $11 billion a year from people who make less than $30,000. That is absolutely irresponsible. We are punishing people at the low end of the income scale.

The best way to chain a meddling and clumsy government is to quit giving it so much in taxes. I argue it is time to start cutting taxes in a substantive way. My party has come up with a program that would give Canadians $26 billion in tax relief over the next three years, pay down $17 billion in debt, put $6 billion into health care and also start a debate with the provinces and the public on how we can fix health care in Canada today.

I argue it is time to take a new approach. The only think that stands in our way is the 157 Liberals across the way, including the member for Haliburton—Victoria. I did not know where he was from because he never stands up and speaks.

I encourage people across the country, if they are tired of high taxes and slashed health care, help us throw the Liberals out because it is time for Canada to have a new fresh approach.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Since there are quite a few members who want to ask questions of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, I would suggest two minutes per question.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was quite surprised when the member for Medicine Hat stated only about $11.5 billion and the rest are unaccountable for.

He touched upon an issue that is so important to all of us, and I know it is important to them as well, which is the investment in our future, our youth, our future scientists, researchers and what have you. He failed.

Does the member not agree that the $240 million to support development of the Canadian institutes for health research will help the future scientists and researchers stay in Canada? Does he not understand that the $200 million to the Canada Foundation for Innovation is a worthwhile investment? Does he not understand that the money going to support our soldiers is a worthwhile investment? Does he not understand that $190 million to better meet the health needs of the first nations and Inuit communities is a good investment?

I could go on and on but time is short. That is where the rest of the money is going.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member recognizes that people are fleeing Canada in droves and the government in its feeble way is trying to staunch the flow. I would simply point out that many of those people who are leaving are being scared away. They are being punished by high taxes in Canada.

We argue that the government should introduce sweeping tax relief. We argue that we should attract investment here for the high tech and biotech industries by cutting the capital gains inclusion rate in half.

Many Canadians in those fields argue that we are on the right track. I point out that people from Nesbitt Burns, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Chamber of Commerce chastised the government in the strongest possible language for its performance in the budget this time around. These are people who have a vested interest in ensuring that our high tech industry is well looked after. They think that what the government did was extraordinarily feeble.

I would encourage the member to revisit the budget and consider that there is a much better approach and we offered it just a minute ago.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the importance of our high tech industries. Earlier in his speech he was critical of the government with regard to the technology partnerships. The government is in partnership with a large number of companies to support our high tech industries.

The member also repeated an allegation from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that these refundable loans were not being paid back. The fact is that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation included in its calculations amounts of loans which were not currently repayable under the terms of the agreements. All of those loans are being serviced in accordance with the agreements.

Is the member ignorant of the facts or is he just trying to mislead the House?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of ignorance on the other side. I think that is a fact.

My friend is ignorant if he does not understand that when billions of dollars go to high tech companies, it means that billions of dollars do not go into health care and they do not go into giving low income Canadians tax relief. I think my friend across the way is ignorant if he does not understand that Canadians know much better how to use that money. He is ignorant if he does not understand that the money will be better spent by investors if it is turned back to them in the form of lower taxes.

I urge my friend to become more knowledgeable. Ignorance does not wear well on him.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the party opposite is always fond of supporting family values.

The member overlooked in his speech that portion of the budget which dealt with the tax breaks to low and middle income families. I refer him to page 130 of the budget plan. A one earner family of four earning $30,000 is going to get $353 more in tax relief as a result of the budget. Similarly, a family of four earning $50,000 is going to get tax relief of $373 with this budget.

The member should acknowledge that we are doing something very positive for the nuclear family.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, how sad that my friend is perpetrating the shell game.

The government is going to raise payroll taxes through the Canada pension plan by $7.2 billion over the next three years; it is going to raise through bracket creep another $2.7 billion, $9.9 billion. The government is offering $7.7 billion in tax relief. In the end, Canadians are worse off by $2 billion. If they are worse off by $2 billion, I ask my friend from Hamilton how does that leave Canadians better off? If they are paying more money out of their pockets, how are Canadians better off?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to the order made Tuesday, February 16, 1999, the House will now proceed to a special debate on peacekeeping in Kosovo and the Central African Republic.

Peacekeeping

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

moved:

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

Madam Speaker, at the outset let me gain the agreement of the Chair for a division of time between me and the Minister of National Defence. We will use the opportunity if we may.

Let me say that tonight we have the opportunity in this forum to discuss the situation in two troubled spots on two different continents, Kosovo and the Central African Republic, and to discuss Canada's contribution in resolving the conflicts faced by these regions and the people in these regions.

This is a demonstration of the range and the extent of Canada's worldwide interest and the responsibilities that the international community expects Canada to undertake on behalf of the large question of ensuring peace and security in the world.

Members will recall that last October the House took note of and supported the need for the international community to support and prevent an impending human disaster in Kosovo. Fortunately the disaster by the actions of the international community was averted. The underlying issues, however, were not resolved. We were simply put in a position where an agreement was made, but the parties to that agreement were not prepared to fulfil their commitments.

Therefore once again the international community has been called upon to take action when the breakdown of responsibility in Kosovo was so apparent to many of us in terms of the human tragedy that was occurring.

It is important, however, to recognize that in the course of that we learned a very fundamental lesson. The willingness to take action, the fact that NATO and Canada as a member of NATO were prepared to be part of the preparation to take strong, effective action, did bring the parties to the table. Once again the capacity and the capability of a group of international players of which Canada is a part were put forward and brought about the new negotiation.

In the case of Kosovo we are in the situation now where an ultimatum has been given to the parties. Either they come to an agreement to withdraw their troops, to arrive at a settlement that will allow for free elections in an open democracy, that will provide for police and security forces which reflect the population and that they will respect human and civil rights, or once again we will be called upon to take action.

I am here in an optimistic mood in the sense that the negotiations in Ramvouillet are continuing. No one can foresee the outcome, but it is important to recognize that if an agreement is made, if the parties can come to an agreement based upon the principles which were put forward by the top contact group, by the NATO council and by the United Nations Security Council, then there will be a call upon resources of a peacekeeping nature; a responsibility to make sure the agreement is enforced; and a robust intervention which will ensure, as we did in Bosnia, that the breakdowns, the transgressions and the violation that have been so much part of the story of that region will be intercepted by an effective international presence in Kosovo.

The Minister of National Defence and I cannot be in the House tonight to tell members exactly how many or where or what. The minister of defence will do his best to outline what the nature of the rules of engagement would be and the responsibilities. However, it is important for us to be able to indicate to the international community that we are prepared to participate and that we are prepared to make a commitment in this very serious and very important condition in the international community at this time.

It is also important to note that the commitment is not simply just for peacekeeping troops. That will be a very important commitment, but accompanying that commitment is also a peacebuilding responsibility. There is no point just simply sending in a group of good soldiers to separate the combatants, if we are not also prepared to invest in helping to put in place the building blocks of a resolution to start helping to develop a society in which elections can be held and in which the communities can begin to develop some degree of responsibility for their own government in which human rights are respected.

It is important to notify the House and have it acknowledge that this is simply not a peacekeeping initiative. It would also require participation through the OSCE and other bodies of a responsibility to help ensure fair and free elections, to help in a commitment to develop a civil society, to help in the resettlement of refugees of which there are close to 300,000 in that country right now, and to help with the basic humanitarian requirements.

It is important to note that we already have 40 Canadians in Kosovo as part of the verification mission and that CIDA has already contributed several millions of dollars to humanitarian aid.

I want it to be clearly understood by the House the reason for having this debate. If an agreement is reached and Canada participates we will have more than just troops, as crucial a role as they may play. There will also be the civil peacebuilding role that will have to accompany it at the same time.

I would make the case that it is the kind of contribution Canadians would want us to make. It is an investment worth making because to help ensure stability, to help protect the security of helpless civilians who have been harassed and violated and transgressed against, is part of what Canadians can make as a worthwhile, serious contribution to world peace.

The third element which is also important is that as the president of the security council this month we will also be in a position to ensure that the United Nations Security Council is fully engaged on this matter. In the last rounds of negotiation the council did endorse the peace proposal that came out of the meetings of the NATO council. Canada played a role in ensuring that part of the responsibility of the council was met.

We would also clearly like to see, if there is a decision or an agreement this weekend to go ahead with the development of an international presence in Kosovo, that the security council endorse such a movement and that there be a full and open exchange at the council to assert its responsibility under chapter 6 of the charter to exercise that particular role. Those are the kinds of conditions we have.

The importance of having the debate now is clear. Next week the House will be in recess. We will not have the opportunity to debate. If there is an agreement this weekend, which I am sure we all heartily hope there will be, then it will be necessary for us at least to have this initial debate so that when the government decides what course to take, what role we could play, we will have had the full opportunity to hear from members of parliament from all regions what they think the best judgment should be of Canadians on this very crucial issue.

I would like to speak for a moment as well about peacekeeping in the Central African Republic, the other theme of the motion. As the House knows, this is not a new initiative for Canada. We have already been in the Central African Republic, but let us just stop for a moment and look to see what is happening.

I cannot give a full discourse, but throughout central Africa and west Africa we are seeing a continuing situation of breakdown of governments. We are seeing the rising emergence of the warlords. We are seeing the interventions of those people who prey and profit off conflict by selling goods, by selling arms. We are seeing the incredible tragedy of young children being used as human shields. We are seeing the case of young children being recruited into armies. We are seeing the attempt in that area of societies that are trying to redevelop out of extreme poverty, being faced with, as someone said, the most effective weapon today: a young male under 15 with an AK-47. That is the situation we are now facing around the world.

Last year we were asked by the secretary general to offer support for a peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic in order to provide needed communications in both languages. That was a prerequisite for other African members of that peacekeeping mission to be able to mount their effectiveness.

That comes up for renewal. That is one of our responsibilities. We would also like to invite members of parliament to indicate their support for a continuation if the United Nations Security Council decides to go ahead with the MINURCA-UN project of peacekeeping in the Central African Republic. We believe that Canada should continue to play an effective and useful role as part of a partnership with other African states in the peacekeeping matters there.

Clearly, again, we need to have and would like to have the views and positions of members of parliament from all regions so that we can take that decision based upon the best judgment possible.

When I spoke in the House in October about the role of the international community in preventing humanitarian crises, I said that we need to act even in imperfect circumstances because all that is required for evil to triumph is a good do-nothing. The same formula applies. It is not perfect. There are difficulties ahead with some risk attached, but if we stand back and do not play our role then evil will triumph and that is not the Canadian way.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, today we are taking note of possible peacekeeping activities in Kosovo and in the Central African Republic.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has just explained to the House the context for Canadian participation in an extension of the commitment to the Central African Republic and our potential contribution to a NATO led peace monitoring force in Kosovo. I am in complete agreement with the arguments that he gives for Canadian participation in both.

I would like to focus on the operational aspects of these missions. They will have an important bearing of course on any government decision.

Let me first deal with the Central African Republic where the situation is stable but tension remains. The Canadian forces currently have 47 personnel deployed in the Central African Republic, including four staff officers attached to a multinational force headquarters, a national logistics and command element, and a signals unit.

The Canadian contingent provides the communications backbone for this multinational force which is known as MINURCA. This force would not have achieved its past success without Canada's important contribution in communications.

While MINURCA's extended mandate would remain essentially the same, as would the communications role, the number of personnel involved would remain the same with one possible exception. We may be asked to augment our current contribution during the presidential election period which is expected this fall. These troops would enhance the force's communication capability during the elections. This was already done last fall during parliamentary elections. It involves only the deployment of another 16 members.

I can assure the House that a continuing contribution of this scope is sustainable, particularly over the initial six month period that the Secretary General of the United Nations is recommending. After a 10 month period we would have to assess our ability to continue to support MINURCA. However, given that the UN intends to end the mandate 60 days after the fall election is announced, we do not see any problem with respect to sustainability.

Because we are serving as MINURCA's communications backbone, the withdrawal of our troops we feel would seriously compromise that entire operation. Nonetheless, there are some operational considerations that must be satisfied before the government can agree to extend Canadian participation.

The French intention to withdraw from the force at the end of the current mandate raises several important issues. Canada must be satisfied that the alternative UN plans to cover logistics, medical and security arrangements will be adequate. We are working with our MINURCA colleagues to resolve these matters, including assurances that a plan and the capability exist to withdraw our troops should the local situation come to pose serious dangers.

I can assure all hon. members that the government will not put the Canadian forces at an unacceptable risk in this or any other operation.

All in all we believe the prospects for this mission are promising. So long as the outstanding operational questions can be resolved, I believe the House should fully endorse our continued participation in this mission.

Turning to Kosovo, in Kosovo we face a different kind of military commitment with different operational considerations. Its deployment would first and foremost require a diplomatic agreement and a permissive environment for operations. The ultimate size and shape of this NATO led force will depend on the role it is assigned and the specific conditions governing its operations. This of course depends on the outcome of the negotiations.

Nonetheless, we can expect that the key elements of the mission would be to deter new conflict in Kosovo, to monitor the compliance of the parties with the interim agreement and, if necessary, to enforce compliance with that agreement.

The force would also likely be charged with broad support for the implementation of the civil aspects of the interim agreement, including support to other organizations involved in humanitarian assistance. Support of demining efforts would also be an important task for the force.

Where do our friends stand? All of Canada's key allies have announced that they will participate. The U.K. and France will lead with a troop contribution of approximately 8,000 and 5,000, respectively. The U.S., Germany and Italy plan to contribute approximately 4,000, 3,000 and 2,500 troops, respectively. Other non-NATO countries are expected to contribute as well.

This is an impressive display of international resolve and a significant moment for NATO. On this, the eve of the 50th anniversary of the alliance it has demonstrated its continued relevance and ability to act as a force for peace and stability. Canada has always championed collective action. That makes an important contribution to international stability. It is inconceivable for me that under these circumstances Canada would choose not to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies.

Canadian forces are in a position to make a meaningful contribution to this mission. The appropriate composition of our contingent as in the case of the entire NATO led force must await the outcome of the diplomatic process. However, I can say that we are in a position to consider making available certain elements of our land forces, possibly supported by helicopters. As members of the House are aware, we have six CF-18s stationed in Aviano, Italy. These aircraft would support the NATO monitoring force as well. As we discussed last fall, they are also there in case any air action is taken with respect to Kosovo should the negotiations break down in Rambouillet.

Aside from being appropriate to the tasks the NATO force would perform, our contribution must be sustainable. It is clear that any operation in Kosovo would need to be mounted for some time, probably at least three years. A sustainable Canadian contribution must take into account the current and future commitments of the Canadian forces. On the domestic side we must be in a position to respond to the potential Y2K disruptions. We hope they will not take place but we must be prepared. On the international side we are already busy. The Canadian forces are currently deployed in 18 missions around the globe.

With this range of commitments our potential contribution has limits. I can inform the House that while the file number will depend on the nature of the agreement that will be reached in Rambouillet, France, we could make a sustainable contribution in Kosovo in the order of 500 to 800 troops.

I can assure the House that a Canadian contribution would be structured to respect our long established practice of only deploying militarily viable units under Canadian national command. I can also assure hon. members that a Canadian contribution would respect our equally longstanding principle of deploying Canadian personnel only within acceptable levels of risk.

The creation of a powerful NATO force is the appropriate answer to the concerns about risk. Canadians can be confident that a military operation with our closest allies will be successful. The NATO force will be robust and very able to provide for its own protection. The Canadian forces are ready to participate. They would join a Kosovo bound force with a wealth of experience in Bosnia behind them. If they go to Kosovo let this House and all Canadians give them the support and gratitude they deserve.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have a question to either the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of National Defence. In his mention of the Central African Republic, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs also mentioned west Africa. Does that include Sierra Leone? Could someone elaborate more specifically on what our troops would be doing.

I recall seeing videotapes and hearing reports of various peacekeeping missions where it seemed the people being sent over were pretty helpless in preventing certain things from happening. They had guns pointed at their heads and they were in situations where they saw people being slaughtered but they were unable to actually intervene because of the nature of the peacekeeping mission, so to speak.

Will our troops be able to protect themselves and to intercede in situations where it appears that human life may be in danger?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is for the hon. Minister of National Defence. Is there unanimous consent that either one of the ministers may answer?