House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was forces.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for York Centre (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 71% of the vote.

Statements in the House

National Defence February 18th, 1999

First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that the aircraft was able to land without any injuries.

The problem in a number of our Sea Kings as of late is related to the start-up sequence of the aircraft. All of that is being rectified.

As I have said on numerous occasions, we have a very high maintenance level. We do not fly aircraft unless they are safe to fly. I have also said on numerous occasions that we are in the final stages of developing a procurement strategy with respect to the replacement of the Sea Kings.

National Defence February 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, they are not being sent into harm's way. Those who were in the former republic of Macedonia are in fact there to help in an extraction force that would help to take our verifiers out of Kosovo if that is necessary. But they are there in an engineering capacity and in a medical capacity. They are not actually going into Kosovo at all. They are there in a supporting role. They are in fact quite safe and secure.

National Defence February 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I would not believe any of that. I would believe that what we will do is ensure the proper protection of our troops.

If our troops go into Kosovo, and that has not been determined yet, they will be going on a peacekeeping mission. They will be going there only after the two parties reach an agreement. The conditions under which our troops will go in will help to ensure their safety.

Peacekeeping February 17th, 1999

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly stated, we are not going in there under some war like conditions if we go in there with ground troops.

We would be going in under similar conditions as in Bosnia to enforce an agreement and ensure peace. That is the basis on which troops would be deployed. They would be deployed on a NATO led basis. The UN security council would be asked to endorse, and certainly every indication is that it would want to endorse, any agreement that is reached between the parties because the UN has quite clearly said that it wants the killing to stop. It wants the parties to come to an agreement. If they do come to an agreement it would be a NATO led force but it would not be just NATO that would be there. We would expect and hope the Russians would be there and other non-NATO countries, just as we have currently in Bosnia.

If the hon. member looks at the situation in Bosnia in terms of the division of different forces under a NATO led banner he would see a similar situation that would happen in this case.

In terms of the equipment, we are going to send our people in with the best equipment. We bought some new armed personnel carriers. We have in terms of our reconnaissance vehicle the Coyote, one of the best found anywhere in the world. We have been getting new clothing and many new aspects of equipment and kit for our troops and we would send them in there with the best equipment so that they could do their job. They will do a very effective job as they have done in many cases before.

Peacekeeping February 17th, 1999

It is NATO led.

Peacekeeping February 17th, 1999

Madam Speaker, we have outlined in the policy framework for defence, the 1994 white paper, exactly what our contingency levels of commitment are in terms of NATO, the UN and NORAD. We will continue to meet those. Those are always taken into consideration when we decide to deploy people overseas.

We currently have about 2,000 on 18 missions although three-quarters of that number are on two missions, the largest number being 1,300 in Bosnia and the second largest being 185 in the Golan Heights where we also at the moment have the commanding officer position.

We can manage this at a 500 to 800 level. Quite right, we would be stretching it at the 1,000 level, particularly in terms of sustainability, but that is why we have recommended the 500 to 800 level. I know that is somewhat of a spread but as NATO firms up what its needs will be, and as the agreement is reached hopefully in Rambouillet, then we will be able to pin down more precisely the exact number.

Peacekeeping February 17th, 1999

Madam Speaker, the second question was what would the troops be doing.

This has not yet been worked out. We are in the throes of seeing that done. There is a NATO meeting of military personnel tomorrow in Brussels who will finalize the preliminary plan. I say preliminary plan because until the parties in Rambouillet agree on a formula for allowing ground troops to go in in a peacekeeping role, we cannot finalize what the exact roles will be. In turn we cannot finalize what the roles for Canadians would be.

When that is done we would then get two weeks notice to give a formal response agreeing to NATO's request which would be issued sometime after the agreement is reached. Then there would be 60 days to actually put them in the field.

He mentioned the difficulties we are experiencing in Bosnia by the UN troops. That is one of the reasons they went to NATO troops. NATO troops operate under a different set of rules of engagement and are able to overcome those kinds of difficulties.

In the case of Kosovo we are again looking at a NATO led operation that would be quite successful in being able to keep the hostilities from happening again.

Peacekeeping February 17th, 1999

Madam Speaker, today we are taking note of possible peacekeeping activities in Kosovo and in the Central African Republic.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has just explained to the House the context for Canadian participation in an extension of the commitment to the Central African Republic and our potential contribution to a NATO led peace monitoring force in Kosovo. I am in complete agreement with the arguments that he gives for Canadian participation in both.

I would like to focus on the operational aspects of these missions. They will have an important bearing of course on any government decision.

Let me first deal with the Central African Republic where the situation is stable but tension remains. The Canadian forces currently have 47 personnel deployed in the Central African Republic, including four staff officers attached to a multinational force headquarters, a national logistics and command element, and a signals unit.

The Canadian contingent provides the communications backbone for this multinational force which is known as MINURCA. This force would not have achieved its past success without Canada's important contribution in communications.

While MINURCA's extended mandate would remain essentially the same, as would the communications role, the number of personnel involved would remain the same with one possible exception. We may be asked to augment our current contribution during the presidential election period which is expected this fall. These troops would enhance the force's communication capability during the elections. This was already done last fall during parliamentary elections. It involves only the deployment of another 16 members.

I can assure the House that a continuing contribution of this scope is sustainable, particularly over the initial six month period that the Secretary General of the United Nations is recommending. After a 10 month period we would have to assess our ability to continue to support MINURCA. However, given that the UN intends to end the mandate 60 days after the fall election is announced, we do not see any problem with respect to sustainability.

Because we are serving as MINURCA's communications backbone, the withdrawal of our troops we feel would seriously compromise that entire operation. Nonetheless, there are some operational considerations that must be satisfied before the government can agree to extend Canadian participation.

The French intention to withdraw from the force at the end of the current mandate raises several important issues. Canada must be satisfied that the alternative UN plans to cover logistics, medical and security arrangements will be adequate. We are working with our MINURCA colleagues to resolve these matters, including assurances that a plan and the capability exist to withdraw our troops should the local situation come to pose serious dangers.

I can assure all hon. members that the government will not put the Canadian forces at an unacceptable risk in this or any other operation.

All in all we believe the prospects for this mission are promising. So long as the outstanding operational questions can be resolved, I believe the House should fully endorse our continued participation in this mission.

Turning to Kosovo, in Kosovo we face a different kind of military commitment with different operational considerations. Its deployment would first and foremost require a diplomatic agreement and a permissive environment for operations. The ultimate size and shape of this NATO led force will depend on the role it is assigned and the specific conditions governing its operations. This of course depends on the outcome of the negotiations.

Nonetheless, we can expect that the key elements of the mission would be to deter new conflict in Kosovo, to monitor the compliance of the parties with the interim agreement and, if necessary, to enforce compliance with that agreement.

The force would also likely be charged with broad support for the implementation of the civil aspects of the interim agreement, including support to other organizations involved in humanitarian assistance. Support of demining efforts would also be an important task for the force.

Where do our friends stand? All of Canada's key allies have announced that they will participate. The U.K. and France will lead with a troop contribution of approximately 8,000 and 5,000, respectively. The U.S., Germany and Italy plan to contribute approximately 4,000, 3,000 and 2,500 troops, respectively. Other non-NATO countries are expected to contribute as well.

This is an impressive display of international resolve and a significant moment for NATO. On this, the eve of the 50th anniversary of the alliance it has demonstrated its continued relevance and ability to act as a force for peace and stability. Canada has always championed collective action. That makes an important contribution to international stability. It is inconceivable for me that under these circumstances Canada would choose not to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies.

Canadian forces are in a position to make a meaningful contribution to this mission. The appropriate composition of our contingent as in the case of the entire NATO led force must await the outcome of the diplomatic process. However, I can say that we are in a position to consider making available certain elements of our land forces, possibly supported by helicopters. As members of the House are aware, we have six CF-18s stationed in Aviano, Italy. These aircraft would support the NATO monitoring force as well. As we discussed last fall, they are also there in case any air action is taken with respect to Kosovo should the negotiations break down in Rambouillet.

Aside from being appropriate to the tasks the NATO force would perform, our contribution must be sustainable. It is clear that any operation in Kosovo would need to be mounted for some time, probably at least three years. A sustainable Canadian contribution must take into account the current and future commitments of the Canadian forces. On the domestic side we must be in a position to respond to the potential Y2K disruptions. We hope they will not take place but we must be prepared. On the international side we are already busy. The Canadian forces are currently deployed in 18 missions around the globe.

With this range of commitments our potential contribution has limits. I can inform the House that while the file number will depend on the nature of the agreement that will be reached in Rambouillet, France, we could make a sustainable contribution in Kosovo in the order of 500 to 800 troops.

I can assure the House that a Canadian contribution would be structured to respect our long established practice of only deploying militarily viable units under Canadian national command. I can also assure hon. members that a Canadian contribution would respect our equally longstanding principle of deploying Canadian personnel only within acceptable levels of risk.

The creation of a powerful NATO force is the appropriate answer to the concerns about risk. Canadians can be confident that a military operation with our closest allies will be successful. The NATO force will be robust and very able to provide for its own protection. The Canadian forces are ready to participate. They would join a Kosovo bound force with a wealth of experience in Bosnia behind them. If they go to Kosovo let this House and all Canadians give them the support and gratitude they deserve.

The Budget February 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, it sure would not be the hon. member because he was touting a billion dollar cut in the last election. I would imagine that if the Reform Party would want to honour its commitment it would be cutting it a great deal.

We are investing money in our troops to ensure they get decent pay, decent housing, support for their families and care for the injured.

The Budget February 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, as usual, he has it all wrong. The $325 million is one year but the $700 million is over a number of years.

What happened yesterday is good news for our troops. It was the first increase the Canadian forces have had in their budget in over a decade. It also ensures that we can implement the quality of life measures in a comprehensive way as was recommended by SCONDVA.