Fred Mifflin

[National Defence, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the hon. member had a conversation with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, who voted in favour of our troops in Yugoslavia, he may be enlightened as to what it is we are thinking about.

[National Defence, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that a variety of scenarios can exist on peacekeeping missions, particularly one of this nature where the requirements of the peacekeepers are so varied and different, whether it is in Croatia or in Bosnia.

He also knows that the Canadian forces have a number of contingency plans to counter any of these operations. We are prepared. We have contingency plans. He also knows that it would not be appropriate to divulge the contingency plans on the floor of the House of Commons. I see he is nodding, Mr. Speaker.

[Peacekeeping, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate this evening. I want to put into perspective what Canadian troops are doing.

Right now we have in the former Yugoslavia, and I refer mostly to Croatia and Bosnia, roughly 40,000 United Nations troops from 35 countries participating in a variety of operations. We in Canada have the fifth largest operation and we have deployed roughly 2,100 troops. They are engaged in four main operations. There is the operation in Bosnia in which we have approximately 820 troops. They are mostly engaged in relief convoys and the protection of human beings, humanitarian protection.

In Croatia we have 770 peacekeepers; combat troops engaged in traditional peacekeeping, looking at the ceasefire areas and preventing skirmishes.

We have another operation in the southwest part of Croatia, on the coast, in Primosten, just north of the larger city of Split, where we have roughly 265 troops. They are logistics troops and represent the logistics battalion.

We also have a separate operation, which is actually a fifth operation. It is an air operation that has Hercules flights from Italy to Sarajevo to keep the airport open. There have been 1,600 flights. Roughly 11,500 people have been transported to and from the airport and 26,000 metric tonnes. That is an achievement in my mind.

Last but not least we have in the Adriatic coast a Canadian destroyer with 265 Canadians as part of the 15 nation, 21 ship force enforcing the arms embargo. This operation is one of which, despite what the opposition parties say, we are very proud and will continue to be.

We have been involved in this operation, if we include its beginning, from September 21, 1991 as we have in most UN operations that have ever happened in the world. That we have a reputation that is enviable is an understatement. We have heard all of it before in the House.

The question for debate tonight is whether we continue the mandate. Before I address the question I want to comment on something the hon. Leader of the Opposition said and something the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands said.

The Leader of the Opposition said that he deplored the fact that we were speaking so late, that it essentially gave no choice to Parliament. The hon. member for Verchères said that he would like some comment from this side of the House on why we are having the debate so late.

I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of a government that deployed troops and committed Canada to the gulf war without as much as a word of discussion in the House of Commons. That was absolutely despicable. All Canadians thought it was outrageous.

To have the Leader of the Opposition criticize the government for having the fourth debate on peacekeeping in 18 months plus other debates, one of which took place last week on defence, is absolutely disgraceful, outrageous, misleading and intolerable.

The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands complains that we are not having a debate on this matter. When it was put forward at the meeting last night I understand there was some question in the Reform Party whether it wanted to debate it. Whether or not the Reformers are being childish because it was at this point in time I do not know. It was not until late in the evening that they decided they would have the debate. I do not accept these complaints.

I want to make another point with respect to the opposition. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands spoke about renewing the mandate. He did nothing but moan about the Canadian forces and talk about morale.

If members of the opposition parties, particularly the third party, would refrain from taking brown envelopes from disgruntled people and using them on the government to reduce the credibility of the very credible actions that are taking place from day to day, I would suggest the morale of the Canadian forces, whatever state it is in now, would be a hell of a lot better.

I do not mean for the hon. member from Saanich-Gulf Islands to be a target; in fact we are quite good friends. He debated and complained about the state of equipment in the Canadian forces. We just finished a 10-month discussion on defence where all these matters were brought out. They were part of the white paper. They were addressed in a report to Parliament and are being addressed in the white paper.

I know he wants to be on record as to his knowledge of defence. He has made his point. I will make my point that we are aware of these deficiencies and the government is addressing them, including 3,000 more peacekeepers to make sure that the rotation is better than it was.

The mandate is a hard judgment to make. The support for peacekeeping in my constituency and in those parts of Canada to which I travel, including 10 months on the standing committee's defence policy review, was very strong. I sense that today it is not as strong as it was six months ago. I suggest the reason for that is the perception that we are not making any headway.

How can we expect significant progress to be made in a country where conflict has been ongoing for almost a thousand years? I do not pretend to understand all the politics. I doubt if all of us in the House, if we were put together, could understand what is happening there.

Where does that leave us? Should we not renew our mandate as 1 of 35 countries because we feel progress has not been made in peace?

There is more to it than that. We are supplying humanitarian aid. We are supplying hope to a country where hope is hard to come by.

I remind everybody in the House, particularly the members who were with me 10 months ago as we spent some time in Bosnia and Croatia, of a mental institution in a town called Bakovici where many inmates were murdered, raped, tortured and mutilated. The remaining inmates, the poor souls, we saw them. They were being protected by members of the Canadian

forces. It would rend one's heart to see this place in operation. There are many other examples.

The humanitarian aspect would be sorely missed. I fear, because of the Canadian reputation in peacekeeping, that our decision to exit would give a signal that perhaps would not be conducive to world stability, particularly world stability in the Balkans.

I agree with my hon. friend from Saanich-Gulf Islands who says that ideally we should have a clear mandate. We should have a clear set of operating instructions. Ideally we should have acceptance from the countries we are participating in and a clear set of rules of engagement. These points and principles were included in the white paper. I fear they are not being totally regarded in our participation in the ex-Yugoslavia.

We do not live in an ideal world. Is the contact group, the five countries that were formed last year to negotiate a settlement, making progress? I think it is but it is very slow. If we accept this mandate for another six months how much longer are we prepared to go? I cannot answer that. I would say, as the minister of defence said, that I do not believe it is the intention of anyone in Parliament to have a commitment in ex-Yugoslavia that would last for 29 years.

We are a long way from 29 years. Yes, there are risks. Yes, there are many land mines. Yes, there are snipers. Yes, there are flareups. However the situation in ex-Yugoslavia now, despite the 14 ceasefire violations in the recent past, I am told by the operators is not much different from what it was three years ago.

Let us stay the course for this round. Let us help in the humanitarian aspect. Let us contribute as much as we can to the peace negotiation. Let us go forward with hope that we will see an amelioration of the situation if not an end to the conflict.

[Turkey, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that discussions with any country that is looking at the CF-5 aircraft, which I want to reiterate is a training aircraft, will be done as we always do business in these instances which is with the strictest export controls. There will be no change.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. colleague from Perth-Wellington-Waterloo for an excellent explanation of aspects of this subject which I am sure all members of the House found illuminating.

I still have difficulty understanding why members of the third party are so insistent on broadening terms. We have now in our possession and under way the broadest investigation and inquiry in the public inquiries act which has been conducted in the Canadian forces, if not in my lifetime certainly in 50 years. What more can they ask? They have said morale is an issue. They gave the reasons for the issue. They talked about the excellent leadership.

Any critic in any organization is expected to criticize. That is the job of the opposition. I find it interesting that a critic would make a comment that a minister may have problems that he is not aware of when that a minister is with his department 24 hours a day. This minister has shown his acumen, his preparedness to act and the tremendous ability he has in controlling his department, notwithstanding the difficulties which have occurred since he has been minister. That point was made very well by my colleague from Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.

How the opposition could say the minister may have problems that he is not aware of when it relies on brown envelopes from the media and the odd telephone call is difficult for me to understand.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, to have a precise idea of how much the Department of National Defence spends in Quebec, you have to look at the facts carefully. It is obvious to me that my colleague opposite does not have all the facts.

It is true that defense expenditures will be cut in Quebec like in every other province over a period of four years, and not one year, as this was suggested.

At any rate, I would like to point out that defence spending in Quebec, including salaries, operations and maintenance, presently accounts for 22.2 per cent of overall defence spending and that, after four years of cuts, this percentage will only have been reduced to 21.5 per cent. This means that Quebec is being treated equitably.

As far as capital expenditures are concerned, Quebec always benefited from the larger share in Canada on account of its industry.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to put a question to my hon. colleague. I knew the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke long before I became a politician. While I do not know every member in the House, I have to say that he is one of the strongest defenders of members of the Canadian forces and has been consistently known for that. The House in general would do well to pay attention to his words of wisdom.

It is because of that view that I would like to ask the hon. member a question. As we did the special joint committee on defence, what was his view on the state of morale and the state of leadership in the Canadian forces?

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

That is what this is about. I would like to address the comment of my hon. colleague from Red Deer.

It was tabled at 10 o'clock because it was the earliest possible time the minister could table the inquiry after the courts martial were finished. The press conference was held immediately after so it could be done in response to what the opposition and the third party wanted. That is the answer to the question.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it was because the minister was anxious to respond to the opposition parties.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer was somewhat repetitive in reciting a litany of media reports of which all of us are aware. I will not grace that with any comment.

I am very disappointed that he would use the opportunity of this debate to castigate in the House a public servant whose reputation and ability are outstanding. I do not think there is any place for that in this debate. The actions of all people involved in the Somalia affair will be looked at in great detail by the inquiry. The hon. member knows that and I regret he has used this debate for that reason.

Also, the third party cannot have it both ways. It cannot all of a sudden change its mind on the things it wants. It wants to reduce the deficit to zero, but it does not want the defence department to be cut.

The Reform Party wants to have an inquiry after the last court martial. When the minister of defence called a press conference the day after the sentencing, the member complained that the minister did it because it was the same day the deputy minister of defence, who is now our United Nations ambassador, happened to be in front of the foreign affairs committee.

The third party cannot have it both ways. If it asks for something and the government responds, then it has done a good job in opposition, but do not ask for more. It should not castigate the government for doing what it has asked the government to do.

The Reform Party asked for an inquiry into the Somalia affair; an inquiry as broad as it could get, with three outstanding Canadians and a broad mandate. Now it wants more. Then it complains about bureaucracy and morale. Inquiries are great. They do wonderful things. However, they do not do a great deal for morale when they are ongoing.