Debates of Feb. 4th, 1999

Supply

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We want to consent to extend the period beyond 5.15 p.m. for the speaking block but not necessarily to 5.30 p.m. I understand there was some confusion about what was being agreed to.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps the hon. member could clarify this. The speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre commenced at 5.00 p.m. She indicated she was splitting her time. She would have a 20 minutes speech with 10 minutes of questions and comments. Were it split there would be two 10 minute speeches with 5 minutes of questions and comments we would go to 5.30 p.m.

Is it the plan to allow for these two speeches and questions on those alone? If so, it would end before. She said until private members' hour. Private members' hour would normally start no later than 5.30 p.m. but whenever the House got to the completion of the question.

I ask her to clarify if it was to 5.30 p.m., assuming the debate would go to 5.30 p.m. If it ends at 5.25 p.m. after these two speeches is it the intention to end then? Perhaps the member could clarify what he is trying to do.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if they end up shorter than 20 and 10, we would like to end it at that point and not bring a new speaker into the mix who would be cut off.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Churchill River to make remarks in accordance with the guidelines of a normal 10 minute speech and 5 minutes questions and comments, then the debate would terminate?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification. Are you asking for the debate to continue after 5.30 p.m.? If the NDP members want to use the time provided and speak from 5 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. and you assure me that the debate will end at 5.30 p.m., I agree. I, however, would not want us to continue after 5.30 p.m. The NDP members had the whole day to take part in today's debate. But if you assure me that the debate will end at 5.30 p.m., I agree.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Fine, I can give the assurance to the House that the debate will end no later than 5.30 p.m. Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment about the discussions around social union since we are awaiting the full details of today's developments but I know full well Canadians have clearly indicated that they have felt left in the dark on these very substantive and serious developments pertaining to the future of national programs in the country today.

Let it be clearly put on the record that once again Canadians feel decisions are being made at the level of executive federalism away from parliament and beyond the ability of Canadians to participate actively and fully in the debate. I want it to be clear and on the record that we call once again for this discussion of social union to go from this day forward into the public domain where all parliamentarians can debate the issues and where all Canadians can be fully involved.

Although this point will be further elaborated by my colleague from Churchill River, aboriginal peoples remain concerned that they have been excluded from fundamental decision making around the future of national social programs and once again we are left without the adequate input and advice to deal with what is clearly a most horrific problem in terms of health care on reserves and outside reserves among aboriginal peoples. It is a matter of serious concern to all of us that in a country as wealthy as Canada we have third world conditions all around us and we see deplorable conditions pertaining to the health and well-being of first nation communities.

There are some delicious ironies in this debate. It is clear we are talking about the future of a national health care plan. We are talking about the ability of the federal and provincial governments to co-operate with participation from Canadian citizens on the future of our health care system. At the same time we have a federal government that is so hung up and preoccupied with this notion of taking political credit and demanding report cards about provincial activities although it is this government that took the $6 billion away from taxpayers that was going toward the health and social programs of Canada.

It is certainly ironic especially since it was this government in 1995 that brought in the Canada health and social transfer which not only took the biggest chunk out of health care spending in the history of this country but which also removed conditions by which provinces would be required to adhere to certain standards and principles. That is one delicious irony of this debate.

On the flip side another irony comes from a province like Manitoba with a provincial government that has cut so deeply into its provincial health care system, all the while sitting on a significant surplus. And it has the gall to issue a petition calling on the federal government to increase its share of transfer payments. That is the kind of ridiculous situation we enter into when we do not as a country recognize the serious problems at hand and work together to build for the future.

It is absolutely clear that what is at hand today and hopefully is being resolved as a result of developments today is a commitment on the part of the federal government to reverse the decisions it made a number of years ago which in effect put us on the road to the death of medicare. It is absolutely clear that today we are are trying to put our health care system on some kind of stable footing out of a crisis mode of operation so we can move forward.

Any kind of contribution from members, including those from the Bloc who have brought us this motion today, is most welcome. But let us be clear that what is fundamentally at stake is the question of medicare, the question of a national, publicly administered, universally accessible health care system.

While we take some encouragement from today's developments, we are also very worried given the past history of the federal Liberal government on this issue. Let us keep in mind why we are in such a mess today and learn from the lessons of the past and correct those errors.

I want to put on the record a brief statement by a well known former policy adviser to the Liberal government, Mr. Tom Kent, who recently released his own paper on social policy reform: “It is not in the stars, not because of forces beyond our control that we have faltered in national purposes, that our pursuit of the public interest has lagged. It is in ourselves, in the atrophy of national policies”.

Let me also put on record the words of a well known former Conservative, Mr. Dalton Camp, who recently very clearly described the problems we are facing: “It is simply folly to believe that we do not have the means to provide for a national health care system. Means and ends no longer converge. The idea of government as a custodian of the national interests has become a shibboleth and self-government a myth. We are now looked after, if at all, by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, America's trade and competitiveness act and the promoters of the pending multilateral agreement on investment. We are looked upon by other members of the new world club as compliant to the point of docility”.

That quote coupled with Mr. Kent's observations points to the very critical issues at hand. What is the true intention of the federal government in terms of health care from a national perspective? It is more than about money on the table. It is more than claiming political credit. It is truly about direction, about standards and about leadership.

The most graphic way one can refer to the concerns we have is to look at the way our public system has fallen into private hands.

There is no question, we have had report after, that a good part of our health care spending today is from the private sector. We are rapidly losing hold of a sound publicly administered system.

Our biggest worry is that we are very much on a slide to a two tier American style health care system. That is the last thing Canadians want.

I urge all members today to look to this point as the beginning of a new era where we can actually recognize the importance of a national health care program; the principles of the Canada Health Act, the need to stop offloading and deregulation by the federal government in the area of health protection, the need to find ways to stop this slide into a privatized American style health care system and to find ways where we can truly work at the federal-provincial level with citizens participating at building for the future.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I I am a little disappointed that the member continues to point fingers and use the rhetoric of the death of the health care system, the advancing of a two tier health care system, et cetera.

This is the kind of rhetoric Canadians do not want to hear. The issues at hand are the fact that the provinces, the territories and the federal government today have resolved all the bickering and have come up with a plan to assure all Canadians about our secure, sustainable health care system and that the funding will be there.

The member will also know that the responsibilities of the federal government are defined in that they are transfers for hospitals and for doctor fees, which is acute care, not the whole health care system, so there is some joint responsibility with regard to funding. On the member's numbers of $6 billion, et cetera, we are talking about health but now she rolls in post-secondary education and social programs and starts to muddy the waters. She is talking only about cash and not about tax points.

This is all the stuff Canadians want to stop hearing about. What they want to start hearing is that all levels of government are working together to ensure that Canada's health care system and the principles of the Canada Health Act continue to be supported and sustained for a long time to come.

I have a question for the member regarding some derogatory comments she made about report cards, et cetera. Canadians do want accountability. Yesterday I received the report of the advisory council on health infrastructure. One of its principal recommendations in the final report was to develop the analyses and the information gathering to be able to do report cards for Canadians so that Canadians will know how to assess the quality and the efficiency of our health care system.

Is the member saying reporting and being accountable to Canadians by some mechanism which may be referred to as report cards is inappropriate?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the last question first.

The member is not prepared to hear the irony I pointed to and also misses the point. It is absolutely clear that Canadians want accountability but they want all governments to be held accountable starting with the federal Liberal government. That is why we have proposed a mechanism by which we could try to have such accountability, to have a watchdog function to ensure the federal government and the provincial governments are living up to their responsibilities to preserve a quality health care system and build for the future.

It is interesting for the member to suggest I am only being negative when he is missing the point. We are here today trying to encourage members across the way to look beyond today, to look beyond the question of dealing with the reinvestment issues and to address what is actually happening to our health care system in terms of privatized health care.

The member only has to talk to folks in Alberta who are deeply worried about the possibility of a private hospital, on which the government has maintained absolute silence. I suggest he talk to people who are waiting in line for cataract surgery in a province like Alberta and are told if they want to wait many months they can get it in the public system. If they want to pay $4,800 now they can get it at a private clinic. That is exactly the kind of deterioration and damage that has happened to our public system that we have to be vigilant about. I would impress on the member to look to the future and to try to work to ensure that we maintain those fundamental principles of a publicly administered, universally accessible system.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to speak today is very crucial because it is sort of a celebration in terms of highlighting the responsibility of health to the federal government.

When I first came to the House and when debating the health issue back in our communities it was deemed a provincial jurisdiction. Today we are in the House of Commons debating health issues and the future of health care and the responsibility of the federal government. It is a major responsibility.

I call on my colleagues to continue to support it because if we look at health care and talk about the millions of budget allocations that are needed to replenish the cutbacks that we have faced in the hospitals, home care, elderly care, maternity wards and emergency wards, all these cutbacks we have realized over the years, with a surplus in sight we have an opportunity to create a health system in the new millennium. It will be a collective effort and the federal government has to play a major role in this.

I looked at health care issues specifically in my area. There is a recent statement I highlight because there are many concerns over the state of our health care.

In my riding I have a majority of aboriginal people who live in northern Saskatchewan where we border the Northwest Territories, the boreal forest and the barren grounds. Here is what it says about the state of our health.

It says we are compared to developing countries because diseases such as tuberculosis and hepatitis A do not exist or run rampant in developed countries.

My riding in northern Saskatchewan has the highest count of tuberculosis in the country. Imagine that in 1999. We will step into the year 2000 and my constituents have the highest rate of acquiring TB right now. Let us address that issue.

How do you address that issue? What causes TB? Here is another statement: “Increased suffering from developing country diseases such as diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease”. Diabetes is a major issue.

A few years ago I had an opportunity to work with a colleague of mine, an Inuit lady from Inukjuak. She was sharing stories about her people when we talked about our homes. Jokingly she said her people in northern Quebec were addicted to Coca-Cola.

The next day the Globe and Mail printed a headline saying they had to fly in a load of Coca-Cola to their communities because the winter supply to be delivered by ship could not make it before spring break-up. It was an emergency that they had to fly in sweetened soda pop. Our people's diets that are causing health problems are a major cause of concern.

What is the status of our environment, the state of our air and water, doing to our health? There is a study dealing with the toxicology of contaminants and its relationship to neurological disorders, reproductive effects, immunosuppression and cancer. PCBs were a part of that study.

A study of Inuit boys in Canada showed that their birth weights were a lot lower if the mothers had high levels of PCBs in their breast milk. These studies were conducted in our own neighbourhood. This was a very recent study and recently the federal government cut the study program on northern contaminants. This did not go beyond the water and air flows in the immediate Arctic region. This study needs to be expanded into the lower boreal forest as well, into the Cree and Dene regions.

Not only Inuit live off the traditional lands. Contaminants are impacting all our northern communities. This is a national program because the northern half of all provinces feel the impact of transboundary pollutants.

The industries in northern Alberta all spew their pollutants into northern Saskatchewan and carry on to northern Manitoba. The industries from Ontario and Quebec carry on to the Atlantic provinces and our northern regions. The Arctic polar regions get theirs from Europe and Asia. It is circulating all over the north and into our regions of Canada.

This is having an impact on our health. I have another health statistic which is a predominate number. Of our northern population 37% is under 15 years of age. Almost 50% of our population consists of children. They will be middle aged, seeking employment, housing and family support in their communities. They are not moving out. They are not moving away from the northern communities because that is home.

The development of the north is very crucial to this. We share this all the way from British Columbia to Labrador. That is where the intrajurisdictional issue of federal responsibility is very important.

Our situation in the north was highlighted by the United Nations recently. Examples of death rates, infant deaths, premature deaths, low birth rates, cancer, teen pregnancy and diabetes are of international concern. Canada is a major highlight.

We just talked about the social union and health accord gathering that took place. The aboriginal people were missing from there. They did not have a chance to be heard. Provincial jurisdictions are providing services to those communities but the federal responsibility is crucial. The medical services branch has a role with the treaty obligations with the treaty Indians.

Our communities are mixed. There are not only treaty obligations but there are non-treaty obligations. Then there are Metis obligations and the Inuit obligations. These obligations of health jurisdictions between the federal government and provincial governments is very crucial. I applaud our members today who have brought that responsibility back to the federal government.

Health is crucial. It needs national leadership. It needs provincial leadership. It needs community leadership. But the federal government has to be accountable because it inflicted the cutbacks in transfers to the provinces and inflicted the cutbacks in the environmental departments for analysis of the impacts of our health.

The other situation which is a major crisis in health in this jurisdiction is accessibility of doctors. In my community we have a group of doctors who came from South Africa because the jurisdiction of other countries cannot readily access employment in this country. But the South African doctors found employment and were readily recruited by our communities because we need a stable supply of doctors. Because of immigration they have to get their working visas authorized outside Canada.

I want to raise this in terms of a doctor's story. We want them in our clinics and in our hospitals. When they visit their families on holidays, let us say Easter or Christmas break, some of our immigration offices or embassies are closed during the holidays. They cannot get their working visas to come back into Canada to serve the clinics and serve the patients in our communities. It was an atrocity to see that. They had to backtrack and call people for five days before this specific process was completed.

On the whole issue of doctors and the training of doctors in terms of the north we need northern doctors. We need access to community health and good home care. Not everyone can come to the large urban centres for major care. So health care and budgeting of home care units throughout the country and to supply our remote and rural communities is in dire need.

I applaud the federal leadership that is taking place and the provinces which are committed to working together. Finally health care is on the federal agenda.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my hon. colleague that on the very serious concerns he expressed about aboriginal peoples, and there are many issues of concerned to all Canadians, I believe that if he reads the framework to improve the social union for Canadians he will note that aboriginal peoples of Canada are included under the fundamental principles of a social union in the country. It indicates clearly that for greater certainty nothing in this agreement abrogates or derogates from any aboriginal treaties or other rights of aboriginal peoples, including self-government.

Furthermore, under working in partnership for Canadians there is a section under aboriginal peoples and it is absolutely vital that they not be excluded and that they are an important and integral part of Canada and Canadians, that we would put jurisdictional issues aside in this instance and we must address their pressing needs.

I believe the member will find that this issue has been discussed with Mr. Fontaine. There is nothing that is perfect but I do believe—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have to give the hon. member for Churchill the last word.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe in talking especially about the aboriginal community because that was the perspective of my speech. We have to look at health care. Is it a top down initiative? Does the doctor have the power to deliver health care to any individual? I do not think so.

The issues of community, families, employment, housing, the location of water supply and the condition of the environment, land and air are at the ground level. That is where the responsibility has to be. The issues of traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge have to be balanced and recognized. The stories of the elders, their knowledge of the land, the evolution of the land and the deterioration of the land and the species, have to be taken into account.

Those decisions must come from the community. We must empower our communities and give them the resources they need to help them create a healthy future for generations to come.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion are deemed to have been put, and a recorded division is deemed to have been requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 9, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 29, 1998, consideration of the motion.

Military Missions Beyond The Boundaries Of Canada

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point a order. I would like some clarification.

As you know, 60 minutes are set aside for Private Members' Business. I see that we have only 45 minutes left to debate the motion put forward by the member for Red Deer, which should take us to about 6.15 p.m. Normally we should still have 15 minutes left in the debate, but the division on the motion is deemed deferred until next Tuesday.

Does this mean that at 6.15 p.m. we will proceed immediately to the adjournment motion?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is correct.

We have 45 minutes for the debate and seven members have indicated their desire to speak to the motion, and there may be others. If possible, we could ask everyone to shave a couple of minutes off their presentations and that would give everyone a chance to get their oar in the water.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know many people have a lot of things to say in their speeches so I will ask for unanimous consent to enable all speakers to speak for the allotted 10 minutes per person. That would be fair and equitable and would give a chance to everybody who wants to speak.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has requested unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief since time is of the essence. I will not take all the time allotted to me and humbly heed your request.

My colleague from Compton—Stanstead already discussed Motion M-380 in this House. He made a brilliant speech. Above all, he generated interest in this matter in the House because, unfortunately, the government does not notify us ahead of time and consult us on a regular basis on the whole issue of a Canadian military presence abroad.

At any rate, to know what is going on with our troops, we are generally better off phoning the U.S. secretary of state, who will provide us with information before our own government tells us about our troops' involvement in various missions.

There was such an instance one year ago, when things were starting to heat up in Iraq, and the Americans and the British were preparing to intervene.

The Prime Minister announced that the House would be asked to take note of the fact that Canada might support action against Iraq. However, before this announcement was made, we learned that the American secretary of state knew that Canada had already given its consent.

This is somewhat frustrating. The government does not seem to want to consult Parliament. More specifically, the Minister of External Affairs does not seem to give a damn about what parliamentarians think on a number of matters, including the deployment of Canadian troops abroad to provide either humanitarian or military assistance, although the motion focuses on the military aspect.

The motion does not specify under which authority the mission would be placed. Would it be under the UN? Under NATO? Under the Americans? This might make for an interesting debate.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is not listening, as he showed us today on the issue of plutonium imports. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade heard witnesses on this issue. In the report on plutonium, all parliamentarians—we always wonder about the Reformers—asked that absolutely no plutonium be imported into the country. The minister says “We will see, we are not sure”. He did not read the report. We submitted a report to him and he did not even read it. He does not care about us one bit. When it comes to deciding whether we should send military personnel, it is the Americans who make the decision.

We can understand the frustration behind the motion moved by the member for Red Deer. Unfortunately, that motion is flawed. It is incorrect. It is difficult to defend because it is incomplete. It creates a process which may not be necessary, but that motion is the product of frustration.

What is meant by “a significant contingent”? As the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead pointed out, if we send one soldier to Cyprus, does that mean we must have a debate in the House? We already have aircraft stationed in Italy that are ready for action in Kosovo. Must we have a debate about that? The minister said we would have a debate in this House.

All too often the debate is short and its purpose is primarily to inform the House that Canada has already told the United States, England, France, NATO, the UN, the Pope and everyone else that it would take part in a mission. Everyone has been told except us parliamentarians.

The motion is incomplete, and we will have a lot of trouble supporting it. At the same time, we must also recognize the government's executive power to make decisions. It is ineffective from a governmental point of view. However, minimum respect for the men and women in this House would dictate that the government inform them of its intentions and allow them to play their role as parliamentarians. It is so important for a government to have the support of parliament when taking action.

Take the humanitarian missions, for example. There was no debate in the House in the case of Hurricane Mitch. There were questions about what Canada was contributing in the way of money, troops, and human and material resources. Not one member of the House rose to say that they were not in favour of sending our troops to help out in the case of Hurricane Mitch. What we are talking about here is military missions that are a much greater risk to Canada's credibility but above all to the lives of our men and women in the armed forces.

The member for Red Deer means well. However, the motion perhaps conveys more frustration than credibility. We are very open to improved consultation of parliament in the case of a decision involving Canadian military personnel outside Canada's boundaries.

We hope that the government will listen for once and, contrary to what it did in the case of the nuclear bomb tests, Iraq, Kosovo, and all sorts of other situations, will want to share information and probably hear a few arguments from all four opposition parties.

I congratulate people for being interested in the military question. It is an important one. However, a message needs to be sent as well. If there is going to be a debate before troops are sent overseas on an official mission, we should perhaps also make sure they are well equipped.

On the subject of the planes, the minister was saying there was no problem with the ejectable seat, that it was the parachute that did not work. That makes no sense.

Last year, they were short of boots in the Canadian armed forces. They want to cut another 5,000 people, men and women, the staff of the Canadian armed forces. What do they want? A scout troop with hard hats? If that is it, let them say so.

In closing, the government should discuss more with parliamentarians and make them allies. There is often talk of American, French and British allies, but the greatest allies of the Canadian armed forces are to be found here. Our military needs support when it goes on foreign missions, let the government consult the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion on the role of parliament with respect to defence and external affairs policy matters.

First of all, let me make it perfectly clear that we are against having to take a vote before any Canadian troops can be deployed abroad. This motion was debated for the first time in June, and again in October. Both times, we opposed this motion to make a vote mandatory before Canadian military personnel can be deployed abroad. Our position has not changed. We continue to believe not only that timely and effective action is required in times of international crisis but also that this position is consistent with what the people of Canada want.

We also continue to believe that it is important to consult parliament on the deployment of military personnel, and we have demonstrated on many occasions. Canada has made a name for itself internationally, and it is proud of it. Our involvement in the two world wars, the Korean War and various peacekeeping missions as well as the fact that we belong to many international organizations reflects that.

This tradition lives on today, the same way Canadians continue to depend on multiculturalism. The people of Canada continue to pay attention to what is happening internationally and to support a Canadian presence in hot spots around the world.

Let me draw attention to a public opinion poll conducted by Pollara in November of last year. In that poll Canadians responded overwhelmingly that Canada needed the Canadian forces. They supported UN peacekeeping, peace making missions requiring the use of force, NATO out of area operations and NORAD.

We recently reaffirmed Canada's international role by winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Three-quarters of the votes cast were in favour of Canada's bid, a clear endorsement of our international credentials, a recognition of our longstanding commitment to the United Nations and our commitment to a better world.

With our commitment to multilateralism and our position as one of Canada's wealthier countries and a G-7 member Canada has the means and a responsibility to maintain and deploy high quality armed forces. When crises arise that threaten peace and security we need to be able to respond quickly and effectively.

The government usually submits to the attention of the House those issues that involve major deployments abroad to maintain peace or to achieve other purposes, and this is precisely what we have done. The debates have focused on specific operations as well as on the principles and the thrust of Canada's peacekeeping policy.

For example, last year, parliament discussed several highly visible international events. In October, the House focused its attention on the situation in Kosovo. It discussed the possibility of Canada's participation in the settlement of that terrible conflict. All the political parties were in favour of an intervention if no diplomatic solution could be applied to this very serious humanitarian crisis.

In April, the House discussed the renewal of Canada's participation in the NATO led stabilization force in Bosnia.

All the parties agreed that Canadian troops should remain in Bosnia to continue to bring their valuable support in that poor country.

Also, in April the House of Commons defence and foreign affairs committee met to discuss Canada's participation in a peacekeeping force in the central African republic with both ministers and the media in attendance.

The joint meeting unanimously resolved that Canada should participate. These are just a few examples of public discussion, but there are many others. This House debated long into the night in February 1998 the participation of the Canadian forces in a possible military action in the Persian Gulf.

In February 1997 members debated Canada's role in international efforts to sustain a secure and stable environment in Haiti. We also had numerous debates in 1994 and in 1995 on our participation in the former Yugoslavia.

In fact, a special joint committee of the House and the Senate made a major contribution to the development of our current defence policy, which gives the Minister of National Defence and the Canadian forces the mandate to defend Canada and to protect its interests, while helping restore peace and security in the world. All this shows the great importance given by the government to parliamentary debates on these issues.

Since the end of the cold war, the number and the complexity of peacekeeping missions and other peace operations has constantly increased and these activities also last longer. In this era of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and indescribable human suffering, we must react quickly to emerging crises.

Thanks to its rapid reaction, Canada has been able to make a true contribution on the international scene. One of the lessons learned from experiences such as Rwanda, for example, is that the success of humanitarian relief operations depends on rapid deployment.

We have taken these lessons to heart by improving our ability to react very quickly. In 1996, for example, the Department of National Defence worked with foreign affairs and international trade and the Canadian International Development Agency to create a plan for responding quickly to humanitarian disasters.

The result of this co-operative effort was the Canadian forces disaster assistance response team, DART. DART is capable of responding to a crisis in Canada or almost anywhere in the world and we can begin deploying within 48 hours of a government decision to send assistance.

It was deployed to Honduras in November and in December 1998 as part of the international humanitarian response to hurricane Mitch. DART reflects the Canadian forces unique capabilities and resources to meet these challenges.

We also tried to improve the UN's ability to react in the event of a crisis. We feel this is important because, in our opinion, international peacekeeping operations should preferably be the result of a multilateral response from the UN.

Our government and the Canadian people are proud of the role played by Canada as a world leader in peacekeeping operations and a faithful partner in times of crisis. We will continue to consult parliament, either by holding debates in the House, or by having ministers or other spokespersons appear before standing committees.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure today to speak on Motion No. 380. I compliment my colleague from Red Deer on pursuing this important issue.

This is an issue of accountability and an issue of democracy. The United States is even obligated to bring its requests for international military involvement in front of Congress.

The people's representatives must have the ability to analyse whether a group of our soldiers should be going abroad. This should not be left as an executive decision. There is an element of accountability and an element of democracy. Many things need to be done and we need to illustrate a very important problem. The hon. government member mentioned there were debates taking place in this House. The hon. member knows very well that in spite of the fact that the debates on a foreign affair took place in this House, the decision as to whether troops would be deployed were made prior to that.

In a visit to Davos, Switzerland, the Prime Minister made a side agreement and publicly stated that somehow he is going to send troops to Kosovo. Was anybody consulted? Not when the foreign affairs minister is saying something completely different. Apparently not. Motion No. 380 would prevent that from happening. It would enable parliament and the people's representatives to decide whether troops should be sent for the good of Canada.

I will get to the heart of the matter, that we have a big problem in our country. We have a huge discrepancy between the demands placed on our defence department, which is really the muscle of our foreign affairs department, the commitments being made by our foreign affairs department and the international needs being placed on us.

Let us not forget our individual security as nations is intimately entwined with our collective security. Right now in 1999 our allies do not look at us as a player, as the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned. We are not a player anymore in international security because our military does not have the capability to do the good job it has historically done. The individuals in the military are capable of doing that and they are very competent but they are not equipped and tasked to do the job.

The SCONDVA report that just came out articulately mentioned the wide and deep problems affecting our military. It also gave very pragmatic solutions to address those problems. The minister of defence needs to listen to that report. He needs to enact its solutions and resolutions immediately. If the minister does that we can start to fulfil our international obligations and get back the international respect we have had for so long.

How can we send our troops on so-called peacekeeping missions, which is really war by another name, without giving them the tools to do the job? For example, our helicopters are 30 years old, towed artillery is 45 years old, nearly going back to World War II, and our other artillery is 30 years old. Our CF-18 fighters are having so much strain in their superstructures that they are breaking down and our 30 year old helicopters are falling out of the sky. Our navy's anti-submarine warfare obligations are being severely compromised as are our search and rescue capabilities. Our country desperately needs those capabilities. Not only are those capabilities compromised but the men and women in our military who put their lives on the line every day for our security are put on the line.

We have an obligation to those men and women in uniform to fund them to do the job, to task them to do the job and to ensure the leadership is there to do the job. But as the SCONDVA report very articulately mentioned, that is not there.

The foreign affairs department has to work hand in glove with the defence department. They cannot work as two entities. They are two halves of the same whole. I commend the Minister of Foreign Affairs for doing a very good job on some of his initiatives over the last few years which have brought peace and security internationally. However, he must work with the minister of defence and vice versa.

From a foreign affairs perspective we must engage in initiatives to prevent conflict from happening. What we see internationally is a global impotence in dealing with conflict. Many meetings have taken place. The Kosovo example is just one or we could go back to Rwanda or any number of conflicts in recent years. The former Yugoslavia is another example. We hear a lot of talk, a lot of babble and a lot of hot air but we see individuals who are sometimes willing flaunt their power in the face of international law against their own people causing the death, destruction and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people. In the face of that the international community wags its finger impotently in their face. What to they get back? They get no response.

Kosovo is a perfect example. The bottom line is from a foreign affairs perspective if we are to face up to tyranny then we better have the muscle to back up what we demand of those draconian rulers.

From a non-military perspective there are foreign affairs initiatives that can take place. Our foreign affairs department has the capability of dealing with preventive measures. We need to use our personnel, particularly in the IMF, World Bank and the UN, to have an integrated, preventive approach to conflict.

War needs money. Choke off the money supply and the ability of individuals to engage in war is choked off. Whether we are looking at conflicts that are on the horizon or the many conflicts that are taking place right now, they put demands on our military. From Angola, which is about ready to blow up right now, to Sierra Leon, which is in a state of complete disarray, to central Africa, which is a conflict that threatens to expand and involve many countries, a war the likes of which we have not seen in decades, to the caucuses, to Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia, Indonesia, all these are just some of the hot spots we will potentially be asked to participate in. If we are to ask our people to participate, we have to fund them properly.

I ask that the foreign affairs minister be wise in his decisions concerning involvement. That is the root of the motion from the member for Red Deer. This decision should not be placed in the hands of a few but it should be placed in the hands of this House, the representative of the people, for it is Canadian people who are putting their lives on the line.

Returning to our military solutions and looking at the SCONDVA report, they require funding back to what they were in 1994. Military personnel now are 60,000 less than our capability. Bring them back to a fighting force of perhaps 70,000 to 75,000 or at least integrate the demands of our defence department with the number of personnel available.

On the pay and allowance issue, there are important concerns that need to be addressed. How can we ask men and women to travel half a world away if they are worried about whether their wives or husbands have enough food to put on the table to feed their children? That is how serious this issue is and that in part is eroding the morale of our forces.

The power of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to engage in non-military initiatives to prevent conflict has not been examined properly. Those groups need to look at the economic power and use that against despots who are willing to use their power against individuals for the sake of the pursuit of power in the most heinous ways.

I ask the foreign affairs minister to pursue that with our competent people in these organizations and offer the foreign affairs minister and the defence minister our help in pursuing the effective, pragmatic solutions that we can engage in to make Canada an effective contributor to peace internationally, to keep our troops safe and also to bring peace and security to a world in turmoil.