Bob Mills

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I share the sentiments the hon. member just gave about the refugees and how we are going to deal with them. However, we have not talked about what sort of a mandate we have, what sort of numbers. We have not talked about any of the details.

We are told to come up with all of these figures, that it is the opposition's job to come up with all of this. I thought the government would come forward with a proposal which we would then debate and discuss. The government does not have any ideas and it expects us to supply them.

We have listened to a lot of things. Just about an hour ago a CP reporter said that he had been told by a NATO official that Canada has committed a battalion of combat troops. We heard the Prime Minister say that Canadians could be there for up to three years. What does he know that we do not know? Why would he say something like that? We have heard Mr. Ouellet say that we are committed-

[Implementation Force, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I did check with the Clerk to try and look at the rules.

We have talked about many human rights abuses in all parts of the world. We have talked about the genocide that has occurred in places, particularly the former Yugoslavia.

I would like to know what the government has in mind for all of our forces any place in the world to handle how they are going to deal with the issue of genocide.

[Implementation Force, December 4th, 1995]

Will the minister table this proposal in full detail and allow Parliament to have-

[Implementation Force, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have no details about the Canadian role in the upcoming NATO deployment or the size of the contingent or much else. The defence minister says the cabinet will decide tomorrow.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for saying it a different way. We need to debate this in the House. We need to look at all the issues. But we are not doing that. That is the problem.

The real issue is about talking to the people. I have talked to the Croatian communities. I have been invited to the Serbian communities. I have talked to them. I know what the people are saying. They are saying: "Give us the facts before you write the blank cheque". That is the point: "Give us the facts before you write the cheque".

Would the member who just spoke send his grandson or granddaughter to this conflict knowing what he knows today? That is the question.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what difference is there whether the decision is made in a caucus room or a cabinet room and then put out that way or whether we come here with the decision already made and for show only listen to the opposition members saying whatever they have to say, which is not important anyway, and the government members saying what in fact the government wants them to say? The government will pick on something like NATO: "They do not want to be part of NATO", or "They are not for our troops".

We are proud of our troops. They have done a great job. But let us not keep asking them to do the impossible. Do not tell me that another member will disagree with that, because another member in our party will look at it from the defence standpoint, as the defence minister should. I said I was looking at it from the big picture. I said we should look at it from the NATO involvement, the countries, the history, the mandate, the criteria and so on. Our other member will look at it simply by asking whether we can continue to ask the military to do the impossible. That will be the question he will deal with.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

I do not really think I can add any more to what the members do not understand.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

You know what we want. We have said we want the criteria, the details.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member obviously did not listen to the Bloc member either. The Bloc member said the same thing: we do not have the details.

The briefing was a laugh: it might cost between $2 million and $70 million; we do not now what the mandate will be; we do not know who will run the show after NATO leaves.

We need to know the cost, the exact budget. We need to know the mission. What is the mission all about? We need to know who will be in command. We need to have something to debate. We have not been given any information. The briefing is a laugh.

We know the government has made up its mind, just as in the past. It has the information, which is why we ask for it. Check out the letter to the Prime Minister to see what we asked for. Two weeks ago we outlined exactly what we want. We want a free vote in the House. We do not want a bunch of parrots. We want a free vote where people can consult with their constituents and come here and say exactly what they think, based on the facts, not based on a bunch of stuff that spin doctors turn out. I am sick and tired of the spin doctors. I am sick and tired of how the government tries to turn it and put the responsibility on the third party.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. No decision has been made but we will send troops. Parliament is here to inform Canadians, to talk about the issues, to have answers to the questions. What I hope to do today is talk about the process we are undergoing right now, the criteria the House should follow and some of the pitfalls we possibly can go into.

It is not for me to say anything about our peacekeepers. We have done a lot of backslapping here. We agree our peacekeepers are the best. We are proud of them and we would say nothing negative about our peacekeepers or our Canadian forces when they get over there to do a job. We are proud of them and we should say that loud and clear because we mean it.

We have gone through the process of take note debates before. I believe this is a democratic fraud, an illusion of consultation, a red book promise. We know many of the decisions have already been made. We know the leaks to the media have not been accidental. We know we will not get to vote on the issue. We know in the following weeks we will hear that there was a full, democratic debate in the House and that the full democratic debate was the basis on which the decision was made.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have announced a number of things regarding this issue. This is not peacekeeping; this is peace enforcement. We are using combat troops, not with the UN but with NATO. This is not part of the NATO mandate. This is not a NATO member that we are going to the defence of. This is quite different than the mandate for NATO. Let us not let the spin doctors turn this into a NATO, non-NATO, not participating with our partners debate. This debate is to get information for the Canadian people so they know what we are getting involved with.

When Mr. Mulroney decided we should go to the gulf war, everyone was absolutely abhorred the decision had been made without consulting the Canadian people. But how an election changes things.

A week ago Friday we sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking for three things. We wanted the proposal. What is the proposal so that we can discuss it? We want a full briefing, a full debate in the House and a free vote, three relatively straightforward requests. We did not even get the courtesy of an answer to the letter. We have had answers in the House that there will be a full debate; we would have all the details, maybe even a vote. We have gone through it. What a laugh the briefings were. I will get to that in a few minutes.

What is wrong is there is no true debate, no details for the proposal and we did not hear any this morning from the minister. There has been no adequate briefing, no chance to consult with Canadians. I was with 800 Canadians in one place on Saturday night. It would have been great to consult them on some of these issues.

There is no vote, let alone a free vote. It is not open, transparent and honest. The decisions have already been made. We can listen to the media talking about the decisions yesterday.

The government believes the opposition is basically an inconvenience, keep us in the dark. Obviously the backbenchers will go along with what they are told and with the speeches written for them. The spin doctors will say we are not supporting NATO, but this is not a NATO mandate. Let us get that right off the table now. Let us not make this a partisan political thing. Let us make it what is good for Canada. That is what this should be all about. That is why we need the information to debate and discuss. This whole sham we are going through is wrong and the minister knows it. He knows the information is not on the table for us to see.

What sort of things should we have discussed? We should have looked at some criteria. What kind of criteria? The last two speakers talked about the cost. This is not hard, cold and heartless; it is reality. Canadians are losing their health care. They are having difficulty educating their children and they have other problems, and we hear in our briefings that the cost may be between $2 million and $70 million. That is an accurate estimate. Now we hear in the House that it may be $50 million or $60 million. We already have made an investment of $600 million and ten lives in this area of the world. Let us talk reality here. Let us talk about what this means.

Let us look at some of the estimating that has been done. We estimated $22,000 for 1995-96 in foreign affairs for the Haiti mission. We now have requested another $67 million. Twenty-two thousand dollars for the Haiti mission in the estimates. Everybody must have known that was wrong. Let us get some estimates. Let us talk about the cost. It is a real issue.

What about the length of the mission? NATO says 12 months and we are out of there. The Prime Minister said last week that 12 months is not very long, maybe we will need three years. Maybe we will need 30 years as we did in Cyprus. How long will we stay if NATO leaves?

We also need to look at the record of 12 months in any place. Let us talk about Cyprus-30 years. Let us talk about Somalia. How successful were we in 12 months there? Let us talk about Haiti. We now have Mr. Aristide talking about taking another three years as dictator. Let us talk about the deterioration in Haiti which is ongoing. Let us talk about the duration of this mission and what we hope to accomplish.

Let us talk about the command. We have a hint that the minister knows quite a bit about it. I hope he does. In our briefing we were told that when NATO leaves it will be turned over to a group. Will we be part of the group? These are the questions Canadians want answered.

What about the mandate? What is the job we are to do? Obviously if the minister does not know we will tell him today. We will shoot to kill. We will be mean junkyard dogs. That is what the U.S. defence minister said. What does that mean for our troops? Can we really fight force with force? Is that how we get peace? Has it worked throughout history? Let us look at that.

Let us talk about the escalation of the threat to world peace. Let us talk about Germany, Russia, the Turks and the U.S., their involvement over many years. This civil war started in 350 B.C. We must look at history if we want to understand it.

What about our commitment to allies? We talked about that. This is not a defence mission. This is not the protection of an ally. This is something totally different.

There are many criteria which need to be discussed and we must get honest and non-partisan answers to these questions.

What about the threats? Let us look at Sarajevo. They will take a city with 120,000 Serbs in it and say "get out". What does that say? How will we handle that in a peace sense?

Let us ask questions about elections. There are thousands of refugees. There is a scorched earth policy and houses are being destroyed. There is no infrastructure and they are to hold elections within one year? How will they have a democratic election? What role will our NATO troops play in the elections? We need the answers to those questions and the Canadian people are asking the minister for those answers.

What about the refugees? How will we get them food, shelter and infrastructure, the basics of life? How will we handle the emotions? They have seen their children, grandparents and other

relatives killed. They have seen their daughters raped. How will the NATO troops handle those emotions?

What about the stability between the Croats and the Muslims? What about the potential for a Croat-Serbian war? We need answers. We need to ask those questions in a non-partisan manner.

What about the American policy of rearming the Muslims? How do we rearm one faction while ignoring the other two factions? How will that help to create peace? How will arming that faction give more stability? Those are the questions we have to ask.

What about the war criminals, a gigantic moral dilemma? What will our NATO troops do when a little kid tugs on their tunics and says: "That guy over there killed my parents and raped my sister. What are you going to do about it?" We need to talk about what we are to do about it. We need to tell our troops what they are to do about it. We need to know what that means. How do we deal with those human rights areas?

Will the combatants simply wait for the year and then hope they all leave? What is the real commitment of the Americans? If I were an American looking at this, I would say that I know my troops are targets. An American GI is worth a lot more than anybody else. That is the big power. They have an X on them the minute they go somewhere.

Let us look at the background. Let us look at what Vietnam did to the U.S. psyche. Let us look at Beirut, Lebanon, as soon as the suicide bombers came. Let us look at Somalia when a dead marine is dragged through the streets and it shows up on the front page of every American newspaper, what impact that had on the American psyche again. What about Haiti?

The minister must tell us what happens if the Americans decide to leave. It is a lot different when we are on the ground and starting to go through this kind of thing. Will Canada stay if the Americans leave? Is this possible? How will this work? We need answers to these questions and we will not get them in the House because the minister will not respond.

The question for us is whether Bosnia is worth dying for. That is what the Americans are asking. Would the minister send his son or daughter into this conflict? Does it pass the mother test? We have to ask those questions. We should be talking about those in the House.

In conclusion, the government has refused to provide detailed briefings. The government has chosen to rule by decree. We cannot in this party honestly support or reject this process. How can we support or reject when we do not have the adequate information or opportunity to get answers for these issues? If this were an honest approach and we got honest answers, we could give an honest answer back. If we talk about it from a strictly military sense, the next speaker on our behalf will talk about why militarily we are not equipped to say yes.

I am talking about the big Canadian picture. The method was wrong. The decision is totally the government's. I never want to hear the minister pontificate again that we discussed it, had a democratic free debate in the House and are part of the decision. We are not part of the decision. The decision is the government's. They had better remember that. The government will be responsible. It cannot hide behind this parliamentary phony sham we are going through today and have gone through before.

The government actions are the same old-style politics. Liberal, Tory, same old story: Ottawa knows best; we do not need to inform or ask the people, we will just set it up in Parliament so that it looks like it is democratic.

The government can send our troops, and I hope the minister is right. I hope there will not be a disaster. I hope not one Canadian will be killed. I hope the NATO mission is a big success and Bosnia has permanent peace. But how much better would we feel in the House if we had been part of and heard the answers and looked at the commitment, looked at all this in a non-partisan way where we had an open discussion, where we had the House full of members. The reason it is not full of members is they know this is a sham.

I hope the war criminals are brought in. I hope for Canadians that nothing goes wrong with this mission. This is a government decision. The decision has been made and the government must live with that decision.