David Collenette

[Defence Policy, December 2nd, 1994]

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that defence policy is to some degree an instrument of foreign policy but not exclusively so. There are constitutional requirements made of the armed forces which do not fall into the foreign affairs category. The whole question of protecting Canada offshore, around its coasts, aid to the civil power, are domestic considerations to protect Canada's interest.

With respect to the substance of the question on why we have done this now as opposed to doing it jointly with a foreign policy report, the government felt that with all of the rapid changes, especially reductions, being faced by the armed forces we owed it to all those in the forces, both civilian and uniform personnel, to give some clear indication of where we are going as quickly as possible, but also to set in motion some of the equipment purchases for which we have a dramatic need.

The defence white paper and its security review coincide with the recommendations of the joint committee on foreign policy, the joint committee on defence policy and was developed in conjunction with my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is quite comfortable with it.

From the point of view of Canada's security policy we feel it is quite appropriate to table the document at this particular time.

[Defence Policy, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the hon. member made this assertion. I can only assume he has not read the white paper. As has been pointed out by the critic for the Reform Party, the white paper has been very well received.

As to the timing, we always said we would try to table the document before Christmas. We are cognizant of the fact that going into the holiday season people are preoccupied with other matters and we wanted to give Parliament and Canadians a good time to reflect on it.

Again the hon. member is indirectly reflecting on the work of the special joint committee on defence. I know his party had a dissenting report, but there were three other parties including a party not represented in the House officially, but represented in the Senate-which shall remain nameless-that all agreed with the report. We have taken the core of that report, almost all the recommendations, and we have embellished them. I believe that if the hon. member reads the document he will see it does set out a clear vision for defence policy in the 21st century.

[Bosnia, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this gets a little out of my realm. Perhaps my colleague, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is here, would like to address it subsequently.

As far as we are concerned it is time to take a fresh look at negotiations for a settlement in the former Yugoslavia. Obviously the settlement the contact group came up with earlier this summer is unacceptable, at least to the Bosnian Serb side.

We need some fresh thinking. Whether or not Canada is part of the contact group we are kept informed. We have indirect input. I hope that Canada can play a more prominent role in bringing the various points of view together in the coming weeks.

[Bosnia, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we did not get any dramatically different news from the former Yugoslavia today than we got yesterday except that there are some hopeful signs. Some convoys, I believe involving British and Dutch, have been allowed to proceed. So they are not being detained.

Discussions are under way concerning our Canadian peacekeepers that have been detained. As I have said publicly, those people who are detaining them from the Bosnian-Serb side are not unknown to our forces. There is a good rapport between them. While it is obviously becoming much more worrying and frustrating for everyone concerned, especially the families, we have no reason to believe that the situation involving our own peacekeepers has deteriorated substantially.

[National Defence, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, they do come out of the defence budget now and they obviously will in the future.

I beg to differ with my friend. We believe that the bilateral assistance that we give to members of other armed forces is consistent not only with our foreign policy, but is an aspect of defence policy. That is something we will continue. In fact, in the white paper we do announce a decision which was communicated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday in Brussels to his colleagues to reduce our commitment to the NATO infrastructure budget so that some of those funds which now do not come back to Canada, because Canada has given one of the largest shares and has probably the lowest payback, will be used for bilateral training at our Lester B. Pearson Peacekeeping Institute in Cornwallis, Nova Scotia, involving specifically those countries in the Partnership for Peace Program from eastern Europe.

[National Defence, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has answered his own question, if I may say. The fact is this government has had debates on our peacekeeping engagements and I am sure the Prime Minister will continue to do that in future.

In terms of the flexibility of having those debates, that is really up to the Prime Minister and the government generally. Again it is a representation that I am sure we will consider.

[National Defence, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we deliberately did not address ourselves to this particular question in the white paper because this is really a matter of negotiation between the leaders of the various parties and in the other place. That is something my colleague, the House leader, will obviously take into consideration. However, that is not within the ambit of defence policy.

[National Defence, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, just because we have the capability to commit a certain number does not mean to say we actually do it.

What we say in the white paper is that at any one time we could deploy in missions, not necessarily in peacekeeping but in natural disasters or other measures, up to 10,000 people at once.

We also commit to increase by 3,000 the number of personnel actually involved in the army able to take part in the land forces missions.

Certainly the point that I raised earlier in terms of evaluating each particular mission on its merits answers the hon. member's question. We have to be very judicious in future in the way we deploy our forces. We believe that there is a consensus in Canada that this country really does want to continue to do its part for the UN and to help bring peace and stability to the world.

[National Defence, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the support of the hon. member and his party. He worked very hard on the joint committee and he should be commended. I thank him for his consideration.

With respect to the reduction in force personnel from a projected 66,700 as envisioned in the 1994 budget to an end state of around 60,000, we believe that much of the capability can be maintained simply by moving a lot of uniform people out of administrative positions of downsizing, of rationalizing, of privatizing certain services, of doing things efficiently to make better use of the personnel we actually have.

With respect to the specific point about those aspects of combat capability that we are losing, we are sort of trimming at the edges. Obviously the big one is that our fighter capability will be reduced somewhat from about 72 that are in service now to between 48 and 60. We have some flexibility depending on the financial requirements that I will be discussing with the Minister of Finance. It will be largely in that area.

My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has made it clear that from now on we just do not have the resources to take part in every peacekeeping mission. It is very expensive and we have to evaluate each request on its merits and look at what we can do and what we can afford to do.

[Bosnia, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been most articulate and most forceful in declaring Canada's interest in participating in all manner of fora to deal with the very terrible conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

We will certainly take note of the hon. member's support for our position that Canada should be much more involved in trying to get a diplomatic solution.