Gordon Earle

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite mentioned ACOA and economic development. ACOA has been a key player in the Canada infrastructure program, cost shared by the federal government, provinces and municipalities. This has aided a lot of small communities get basic infrastructure which they needed.

Can the hon. member tell me why there is nothing in the budget which would aid the continuation of this program for those vital infrastructure projects?

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments on the budget, many of which tend to dispel the myth the government is trying to create, the myth that this is a good news budget, the myth that is being perpetuated by the government's spending of millions of dollars to advertise it as a good news budget.

At the end of the day the people in Halifax West and in various other ridings across the country will ask themselves whether they have a job, whether they will still have to stand in line for health care, whether they will get out from under the heavy student debt load they are experiencing, whether they will have a place to live, whether they will be getting EI.

One very important issue that was not addressed by the budget was the question of a national shipbuilding policy for Canada, which would certainly help the Atlantic provinces with employment and with economic spin-off. There was a meeting a while back which involved the parties, but the Liberals did not send anyone to it. Will the member comment on whether the budget should have addressed the issue of a national shipbuilding policy?

[Kosovo, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the debate the other night was not based upon a specific detailed request from NATO.

In light of the fact that the Prime Minister said on TV last night that before any final decision is taken there will be a full debate in the House of Commons, will the minister commit to bringing the detailed request before parliament for a debate and a vote?

[Kosovo, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated during the take note debate on Kosovo that he did not know the details concerning the involvement of troops in a peacekeeping mission. The details would be worked out after the signing of a peace agreement. A formal request by NATO would be made of Canada and we would have two weeks to respond.

If this happens, will the minister commit to bringing the detailed request before parliament for a debate and a vote so that he might respond to the request with the full and open backing of Canadians through parliament?

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

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

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

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

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

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

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

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

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

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

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

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

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that something as important—

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

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?