Julian Reed

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I also listened very carefully to my hon. friend's argument.

Historically, Canada has not voted on issues of this gravity. When there was a vote taken on the Iraq situation, my hon. friend will remember that it was taken months after the fact. The debate did not occur at the outset of the hostilities. I believe it was upwards of four months after the commencement of the hostilities that there was even a debate.

I suggest to the hon. member that the position of the government has historically been that yes, parliament must be consulted. Parliament in this case has been consulted on a regular basis, probably more often than at any other time of serious conflict. It must remain the prerogative of the government to make the instant decisions when they need to be made.

My hon. friend referred to the section in the defence act which gives flexibility to the government. Certainly that flexibility has to be maintained all the way across the broad base.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by restating why Canada is involved in the action with NATO in the former Yugoslavia.

In Kosovo the Yugoslav regime has engaged in a campaign of brutal repression ever since it unilaterally striped Kosovo of its autonomy and abolished its local institutions in 1989 and 1990.

The United Nations Security Council, acting under chapter VII, has issued several resolutions regarding the Kosovo crisis which identified the conflict as a threat to peace and security in the region.

These resolutions and the October agreements between the FRY, the former republic of Yugoslavia, and the OSCE and NATO, impose a clear legal obligation on FRY to respect a ceasefire, protect the civilian population, and limit the deployment of a security force in Kosovo.

The FRY is in clear violation of these commitments which were accepted in October and is violating the obligations imposed by resolutions 1199 and 1203. The FRY has violated the ceasefire and has systematically violated international humanitarian law by launching a campaign of terror against civilians which includes killing and torturing, arbitrary detention and persecution, and denial of basic rights based on ethnicity.

Our preference has always been for a diplomatic solution to the problem of Kosovo. Diplomacy was given every chance to succeed. Numerous diplomatic missions were sent to Belgrade. The OSCE created a major verification mission. Finally the Rambouillet conference ultimately failed because of the consistent intransigence displayed by President Milosevic.

Only when these efforts had been exhausted and when all attempts to stop the regime's campaign of terror against civilians had failed did the allies resort to military action.

Clearly it would have been best if the UN could have facilitated an end to the conflict in Kosovo. When the security council is unable to reach consensus, however, we cannot remain passive in the presence of massacres and humanitarian disaster.

NATO's objective is to make the Yugoslav government end the savage repression of its own people, to degrade the military machine which supports this brutality, and to prompt Belgrade to negotiate an agreement with a just political settlement for the Kosovars.

The Yugoslav security forces and paramilitary organizations are now carrying out a campaign of terror and expelling large numbers of Kosovars. We have corroborated reports that they are implicated in summary executions and other atrocities against civilians.

Over one-third of the population of Kosovo has left the country. NATO is dealing with this humanitarian disaster, not only by stepping up the military intervention which is the only obstacle in the way of Serbian ethnic cleansing. It is also directly assisting the refugees, increasing its assistance to humanitarian organizations and supporting the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

The criticism that NATO action is the cause of the current deterioration of the humanitarian situation is unfounded. Ethnic cleansing by the Yugoslav authorities has been going on for months with forced expulsions, destruction of villages, and massacres by the security forces in 1998 and early 1999.

The regime blatantly violated UNSC resolutions and other obligations, harassed international verifiers and built up its military deployment in preparation for a massive spring offensive which started as soon as the OSCE verification mission was forced to leave.

This all happened before NATO began its military intervention. NATO responded to Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. It did not provoke it. The ideal course of action remains diplomacy. Any diplomatic overture must however open the way to a lasting solution.

Milosevic knows perfectly well what the conditions are for this to happen. He must immediately stop the campaign of ethnic cleansing and terror against civilians, withdraw Serbian forces from Kosovo, accept an international peacekeeping force which would provide the Kosovars with enough confidence to return home in safety and commit to a just political settlement.

I fully support Canada's participation in the NATO action precipitated by a humanitarian disaster. I also fully support our men and women in the Canadian forces who have responded so courageously to this situation.

I am not able to support the motion. The government is committed to consulting with parliament and has been doing so on an ongoing basis. So far there have been three separate debates on Kosovo in the House for a total of 26 hours in which almost 100 MPs participated. On the issue of deployment of ground troops, NATO has not so far requested Canada to provide ground troops to the action. Therefore the question remains hypothetical. If this request occurs the Prime Minister has committed to consulting with parliament.

On the issue of holding a vote I would argue that our system in which the government and not parliament is responsible for deploying troops needs to maintain its current flexibility. This ensures that if necessary the government can deploy troops as it at times has on an emergency basis.

Parliament is not always sitting and may not be in a position to respond to an emergency. In practice, when Canadian military personnel are called upon to support peacekeeping or humanitarian missions abroad, the need for their presence can be immediate in very real terms. A prime example is the disaster assistance response team which is designed to begin deployment of its 180 members within 48 hours. Therefore I believe it would be inappropriate to tie the hands of the government to respond quickly and effectively.

I reiterate that opposition to the motion does not mean the government is denying that parliament has an important role to play. Parliament has been engaged throughout this conflict, as have the standing committees on foreign affairs and defence. I repeat that the Prime Minister has made a firm commitment to consult parliament if the situation in Kosovo changes significantly.

[Reform Of International Organizations, April 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised a number of very serious issues on the world scene, each of which represents a separate debate.

One very important issue to which he referred was the reform of the monetary system. World finances have a great bearing on conflicts which erupt in various countries. It is not the only reason, and we certainly acknowledge that. However, the monetary system in our world is very important. With his indulgence and with the indulgence of the House I will dwell on the monetary system rather than try to make an omnibus contribution to this debate. I want to zero in on that one very important area.

The international agenda recently has been saturated with initiatives of crises prevention, more effective management of international financial crises and more sustainable economic development. What started as a G-7 plan of action is now being echoed by the nations of APEC, the primary international organization for promoting open trade and economic co-operation among 21 member countries around the Pacific rim, which will be discussed later this month at spring meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, and in June at the G-7 summit.

There is a groundswell of support for strengthening domestic and international financial institutions and for economies that are more resilient to economic and financial crises when they do occur. Canada is committed to strengthening the international financial system and the world economy. We started this at the G-7 summit in Halifax in 1995.

Last year, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis, Canada proposed a six-point plan aimed at helping to sustain global growth while at the same time reducing the risk of future financial crises.

We call for ensuring appropriate monetary policy through G-7 central banks, paying close attention and giving appropriate weight to the risk of a further slowdown in the global economy; expeditious action to strengthen national financial systems and international oversight; development of a practical guide or road map for safe capital liberalization in developing countries; agreement to work urgently toward a better mechanism to involve private sector investors in the resolution of financial crises, including the possibility of an emergency standstill clause; and greater attention to the needs of the poorest countries to ensure they receive the resources and support they need to reduce poverty and begin growing.

At the G-7 summit in Birmingham in May last year, leaders accelerated work begun in the 1995 Halifax summit on strengthening the international financial architecture to help prevent and better manage financial crises. Key elements of these efforts include: reports of the three G-22 working parties, improving transparency and accountability, strengthening national financial systems and addressing international financial crises delivered at the G-22 meeting October 5, 1998; the G-7 leaders statement on the world economy issued October 30, 1998 together with the declaration of G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors; the plan for implementing reforms to the global financial architecture presented by G-7 finance ministers to heads in December 1998; the February 20, 1999 communique of G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors; the February 1999 Tietmeyer report to G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors on international co-operation and co-ordination in the area of financial market supervision and surveillance, and its proposal for the establishment of a financial stability forum to provide a mechanism for co-ordination and exchange of views among financial sector regulators and supervisors; the first meeting of the financial stability forum on April 13; and two seminars, one held on March 11 and the other to be held on April 25, 1999, involving 33 industrial countries and emerging markets to discuss outstanding issues in the international financial architecture.

Priority areas for strengthening the international architecture outlined in the October 1998 leaders statement on the world economy include greater transparency and openness in financial systems, better processes for monitoring and promoting international financial stability and improvements in corporate governance, orderly capital account liberalization, private sector involvement in preventing and resolving future crises, protecting the most vulnerable in society, and improving the effectiveness of international financial institutions.

The latter includes a proposal for an enhanced IMF facility to provide a precautionary line of credit for countries pursuing strong IMF approved policies, accompanied by bilateral assistance on a case by case basis, and with appropriate private sector involvement. Much has already been accomplished in these areas.

Six areas were also identified in the October 1998 leaders statement as requiring further attention. These six priority areas form the basis for G-33 discussion in the international seminars held on March 11 and to be held on April 25. They include: examining the scope for strengthened prudential regulation in industrial countries; further strengthening prudential regulation and financial systems in emerging markets; considering the elements necessary for the maintenance of sustainable exchange rate regimes in emerging markets; developing new ways to respond to crises and promote greater participation by the private sector; assessing proposals for strengthening the IMF, and proposals for strengthening the interim and development committees of the IMF and World Bank; and minimizing the human cost of crises and protecting the most vulnerable.

Canada supports the six priority areas outlined in the October 1998 leaders statement as requiring further action and is committed to advancing work in these areas. In particular, Canadian objectives in discussions on reforming the international architecture are presently focused on ensuring that the substantive aspects of these discussions take place within a permanent process that is representative of the major participants in the international financial system, that measures to effectively involve the private sector in crisis resolution are established to attenuate imprudent lending, and that the social aspects of international financial crises are addressed.

Prospects for a successful conclusion of the substantive aspects of discussions on establishing a permanent process for addressing international financial issues will be enhanced if they take place within a process that represents the interests and points of view of the major participants in the international financial system, and is anchored within the governance structures of the IMF. For this reason, Canada is supportive of efforts to improve the functioning of the interim committee.

The G-22 working group on financial crises agreed on some mechanisms for enhancing private sector involvement in crisis prevention and resolution, including collective action clauses in bond contracts and contingent financial arrangements with the private sector. Canada attaches a high priority to moving ahead with their implementation and moving even further to address the incentives that lead to imprudent lending. Canadian proposals for greater private sector involvement in crisis prevention and resolution received general support at the March 11 seminar.

Canada is particularly concerned about the social impacts of financial instability. We welcome this opportunity to put forward Canada's position on the reform of these financial institutions.

[International Treaties, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to table, in both official languages, international treaties that were entered into force for Canada in 1997 and 1996, a list of which is also tabled.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would ask my friend if he really believes that it is irresponsible to only spend what one has. Does he honestly believe that it is irresponsible government to use money which is available and spend it over time? Does he feel it is irresponsible to put in place, for instance, a millennium scholarship fund when it can be afforded by the country and bring Canada into the 21st century, hopefully with the most highly educated Canadian citizens we have ever had? Does he feel that putting money that is available now into a trust to be spent in future years is irresponsible?

A few years back the member's predecessors speculated on whether there would be a surplus or a shortfall in the year to come. When there was a shortfall of perhaps $10 billion, which was the average shortfall, some excuse would be given to explain why targets had not been met. We were told that it was external influences over which we had no control.

This government is simply doing its accounting in a different way. It is not spending what it does not have. I ask him, in all sincerity, if he considers that to be irresponsible.

[Plutonium, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, plutonium may be retroactive as well. I suggest that the NDP raising this at this time really proves that it is beyond its half life.

[Plutonium, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is a report that was placed by the committee on foreign affairs into the hands of the minister. The minister has 150 days to reply and I am sure there will be commentary on that very subject.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the evening during the debate, I inadvertently misled the member for Halifax West concerning a briefing tomorrow. Apparently what was news earlier today is not news now. I ask him to accept my apology and my withdrawal in the spirit in which it is given.

I could go on as well because my speech will focus on the Central African Republic. I want to point out to him that concerning briefings on that part, on February 9 at the regular House leaders meeting the leaders of all the official parties agreed that this matter could be dealt with in committee and due notice was given.

Few areas of national endeavour come close as peacekeeping to a source of national pride and international respect and influence. In this House we have a responsibility to examine current and possible peacekeeping operations. We owe it to the peacekeepers and to the mothers and brothers and sisters and fathers to make very good use of this time tonight. Anything less would be a disservice to those who wear the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces and who daily put their lives on the line for us.

This country strongly supports a continued primary role for the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security. Canada's pre-eminence in peacekeeping has resulted from our willingness to become involved and our ability to do so quickly and effectively. This has won us the acclaim and admiration of the entire international community.

This government is proud of Canada's peacekeeping tradition and respects the sacrifices of Canadian men and women who have worn the blue beret. We are asking them to take up the blue berets once again, travel thousand of kilometres away from Canada and help unfamiliar people to make sense of their own lives. The government believes Canada must continue to participate in the Mission des Nations unies en République centrafricaine, MINURCA. This is a concrete example of our support for the UN and our concern over continuing conflicts in Africa.

No area of policy has been more openly discussed than Canada's contribution to international security. Canadians of all walks of life continually express their views on Canada's participation in peacekeeping operations. They demand that parliament ensure our peacekeepers are properly supported, properly equipped and that they are sent on missions which make sense and where the Canadian contribution is used effectively.

The events being discussed here tonight serve to underscore the crucial role parliamentarians can and must play in examining matters of international peace and security. The situation in Kosovo has given rise to careful and meaningful debate tonight. The standing committees have kept a close watch on the UN peacekeeping operation in the Central African Republic. The government sincerely hopes that parliamentarians will continue to work on Kosovo and the Central African Republic and on other priority issues of foreign and defence policy.

Parliament is fully engaged as part of the overall Canadian effort to build a safer and more just global community. We are gratified by the contributions made by all members of the House so far and are taking careful note of the points raised by members of all parties here tonight.

As the ministers have noted, the United Nations peacekeeping operation in the Central African Republic has been in existence for almost a year. Canada has been involved since the beginning for several good reasons. Our troops have performed admirably and have made a clear contribution to the overall success of the mission so far. We fully anticipate that this success can be continued throughout 1999 until the current mandate and objectives have been completed.

The year 1993 was crucial in the democratic development of the Central African Republic. After years of struggle for democracy, the CAR held free and fair presidential elections for the first time in its history.

The people of the Central African Republic are among the poorest of the poor. The CAR is a land locked country with few marketable resources.

The 1998 United Nations human development index ranked the Central African Republic 154th out of 174 countries. Canada was marked first. Real per capita gross domestic product is approximately $1,092 in U.S. currency, less than one-twentieth of the gross domestic product enjoyed by Canadians. Life expectancy in the CAR is 48 years. The average Canadian can expect to live 31 years longer than the average person in the Central African Republic.

In addition to severe economic and developmental constraints and the growing pains that have come with a brand new multiparty political system, the CAR has to deal with internal and external conflicts. The government of President Ange Félex Patasse has for several years now faced unrest among some members of the country's military. Soldiers have mutinied on several occasions. French troops then stationed in the CAR were called on to quell the unrest.

Under the terms of a 1997 peace accord rebels and forces loyal to the president agreed to establish a multinational Mission Interafricaine de Surveillance de l'Application des Accords de Bangui. MISAB's job was to maintain peace and security in the capital city Bangui and to monitor the implementation of the peace agreement.

By early 1998 with MISAB's mandate winding down and long planned withdrawal of French military forces underway, it was clear that further international assistance was needed to keep the Central African Republic on a even keel. On March 27, 1998 the UN security council unanimously adopted resolution 1159 establishing MINURCA. This new UN mission has been deployed in the CAR since April 15, 1998 with some 1,350 troops from six African countries, France and Canada. A Canadian forces contingent of approximately 47 has been providing core communication services to MINURCA.

MINURCA was mandated first and foremost to assist the legitimate government of the Central African Republic to maintain security in and around the capital. Other key functions have included dealing with surrendered weapons and demobilised factions, ensuring the security and freedom of movement of UN personnel, training civilian police, and providing advice and technical support for legislative elections.

The activities of MINURCA in the Central African Republic have been absolutely essential to maintaining stability in that part of the world.

This government and the Canadian people are proud of Canada's role as world leader in the field of peacekeeping and as a reliable alliance partner and supporter of the United Nations. MINURCA is important for Canadians, for Africans and for the international community.

Let us tell our peacekeepers in the Central African Republic that the Parliament of Canada is thinking of them, that we support them and will welcome them home with honour when their work is complete.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and indeed some other members remarked that they were not briefed before this debate tonight.

I am sure the hon. member and all members will agree that the reason this debate is being held tonight and not next week is simply due to a logistical problem. All the House leaders agreed that the debate should take place tonight because the House will not be in session next week. As the hon. member and all members know, the full briefing will take place tomorrow. It is simply a matter of sorting out the basic logistics and the House leaders agreed. It should not be a matter of debate in terms of accusing the government of not doing something.

My hon. friend talks about NATO led forces. Does he believe that a NATO led force and a UN sanctioned action are mutually exclusive?

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member's recollection is right, it was 29 years since the government was accused of neglecting the armed forces.

We had a debate a year ago in committee on the Central African Republic and the provision of peacekeepers. Surprisingly the Reform Party agreed. There was no dissension.