René Laurin

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Minister of External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence, we have two issues to debate this evening. The first one is Canada's participation in the United Nations mission to the Central African Republic.

On this issue, I too would have appreciated a preliminary briefing. We had requested a joint foreign affairs and national defence committee, which was originally approved and scheduled to sit tomorrow. However, this evening, shortly before dinner, we learned that the meeting had been cancelled and could not be held.

It is always desirable that members of parliament be as well informed as possible before undertaking a debate like this one.

In any event, concerning the United Nations mission in the Central African Republic, we know that it involves a small contingent of Canadian signals and logistics officers. This is part of one of the agreements previously entered into by Canada. Obviously, the Bloc will support the renewal of this mission.

The second issue we are dealing with this evening is a more serious issue: Canada's participation in a peace mission to Kosovo. As the previous speaker said, the Bloc Quebecois' position is clear on this issue. We have repeatedly expressed concern about the situation in Kosovo. We have condemned the repression, brutality and inhumanity of Serb security forces.

I spoke on this very issue in March, as did my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry. We strongly condemned the inhuman operations carried out in that country.

We also put several questions in the House, asking the foreign affairs minister what he intended to do to put an end to this conflict. We also asked if he was willing to use force, if necessary, and if he thought diplomacy was good enough when dealing with someone like Slobodan Milosevic.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Canada sending troops to this interposition and peacekeeping operation. On a more general note, we also agree with the use of force to put an end to atrocities occurring anywhere in the world, especially when these brutal conflicts or operations are taking place in countries that can undermine the very stability of our political system, our democracy.

So, we are in agreement, and I would like to give the House a few reasons why we will be supporting this government decision.

First of all, the world community has repeatedly called for hostilities to end and negotiations to start, but its calls went unanswered.

Also, warnings were given by various countries, including France, the United Kingdom, the United States and even Canada. Diplomatic and economic sanctions have been implemented against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the UN has adopted resolutions 1199 and 1203, but all to no avail. Instead, the conflict has slowly escalated.

The present conflict is a humanitarian disaster involving the killing of civilians, torture, rape, and the massive exodus of whole villages. The conflict in Kosovo could very well spell instability for the whole region, and especially for Macedonia, officially the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYROM, with an Albanian speaking minority of 30%, and Albania itself, which is already struggling with economic instability.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a party to the Dayton Accords, and its present conduct is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the accords, and further threatens a regional stabilization process that is already precarious.

Because of the de facto failure of the Dayton Accords, the international community has decided to impose the Rambouillet negotiations, and the deadline the Americans have set to reach a conclusion is Saturday, February 20.

If it is not to lose all credibility, the international community must therefore follow through with the use of force if its warnings go unheeded. In this case, the aggressor has been clearly identified and its aggression has been going on for several years.

This behaviour violates international law as well as the spirit and letter of the UN Charter. It destabilizes the Balkans and damages international relations. It increases international instability. It violates UN Security Council resolution 1199, as I was saying a few moments ago.

In short, for a number of years, the behaviour of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has violated the basic values and principles which must guide the international community in its quest for a world that is safer, that is more fair and that respects the most fundamental human values.

The Rambouillet negotiations must be the last chance. One cannot negotiate indefinitely with someone who does not understand democracy, who does not understand what negotiating is all about and who can only be made to understand through the use of force. We must see the obvious and accept the use of force to restore peace in that country.

However, we think the use of force must meet certain conditions. The security of civilians, which is the first condition, must be the primary concern in any intervention. Canada's interventions must take place under the auspices of international organizations, ideally the UN, of course, or NATO.

Any action by the international community in Yugoslavia should ideally be supported by as many countries as possible. The larger the number of countries willing to use persuasion to settle the conflict in Kosovo, the easier it will be to achieve the desired results.

The forces involved in such a mission must be multinational. The objectives must correspond to resolutions by the Security Council The specific requirements of the parties to the conflict must be made publicly and armed force used until the parties agree publicly to meet these requirements.

Independence for Kosovo must be seriously considered rather than simply dismissed, because it is one solution to be explored to restore peace in the region, including at the end of the three-year transitional period when the Kosovar people will have to decide on their political status.

The aim of our intervention is not to decide for the Kosovars, the Serbs or the Albanians. It is to ensure peace while they continue their negotiations in an effort to find a way to ensure the safety of civilians.

My time is almost up. There are other things I would have liked to say, but I hope to be asked questions that will allow me to complete my comments.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the following question to my colleague.

Does he not think that the situation in Kosovo is a lot like the one in Sarajevo? And Canada took part in the events in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

The Reform Party was in favour then. In this case, it is not Canada that has taken the peacekeeping initiative. It is an initiative by allies who have talked and decided to contribute what they can to ensure stability in the Balkans.

If the Reform Party agreed back then, what does it think is so different this time around that it raises considerations of available equipment and troop numbers? That is not the question. The question is whether or not Canada agrees to participate, as its allies are doing, in a peacekeeping operation, subject obviously to the resources and equipment now available to it.

That is the real question. It is no different than Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Reform Party supported that.

[Code Of Ethics, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the motion of my hon. colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley was read, I noted the potential for confusion, as he is calling upon the Governor General to cause the Government to lay before the House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.

In addition to the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public officer holders, federal government ministers are subject to a code of ethics adopted in June 1994. In addition to this code, federal government ministers are also governed by ministerial guidelines. These guidelines are only partially known, because the Prime Minister has always refused to disclose them.

In light of what the two previous speakers have had to say, we now understand that the motion refers to the Prime Minister's guidelines for his ministers.

In the wording of their motion which is being debated here in the House today, the Reform Party is calling for a copy of this ethics code to be tabled in the House. Given that the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public officer holders is already known, we understand, and I repeat, that they are referring instead to the guidelines for ministers.

If the Reform members had been referring to the code I have just mentioned, their motion would, of course, have been pointless, since that document already exists. Now we know this point has been settled.

The guidelines for ministers set out a framework for ministerial conduct to ensure that they not only conduct themselves properly but are perceived to conduct themselves properly. It is not enough for them to act correctly, but they must also appear to be acting correctly.

Two of these guidelines are now known to the public. One of these guidelines deals with conflicts of interest, while the other concerns relations with quasi-judicial tribunals.

With respect to conflicts of interest, the rule is simply that a minister who believes he may be in a conflict of interest or may find himself in one in the future must phone the ethics counsellor to let him know. That is what we know about this first guideline given by the Prime Minister to his ministers.

As for the second guideline, it concerns relations with quasi-judicial tribunals. Here is what the Globe and Mail of October 10, 1996, had to say on this issue:

“Basic Principle. Ministers shall not intervene or appear to intervene on behalf of any person or entity with federal quasi-judicial tribunals or any matter before them that requires a decision in their quasi-judicial capacity unless otherwise authorized by law”.

We realize that ministers must not interfere in any way in proceedings or with the quasi-judicial tribunals.

This guideline extends to ministerial staff as well. It is also a practice that ministers and their political staff must go through the appropriate ministerial office rather than deal directly with the officials of another department.

Obviously, many criticisms and comments may be made about these guidelines for the ministers. Here are a few.

First, the guidelines should be made public immediately, because it is a matter of public interest. The government must be transparent. And if guidelines on the ministers' integrity are in effect, hiding them totally defeats the purpose of such guidelines, which is to establish a trust relationship between the government and the public.

These guidelines are seriously flawed from a democratic point of view, given that they were established in 1994 by the Prime Minister and that no one, not even the duly elected representatives in this House, has yet been able to discuss them in a fully informed manner.

Third, the trust relationship between the government and the public is further weakened because we know that, in the case of a conflict of interest, the only known directive is, for a minister, to report to the ethics commissioner, Howard Wilson. Does this mean that a minister could report to the commissioner and the conflict of interest be settled without the public knowing about it?

Similarly, given the lack of transparency concerning these guidelines, are we to understand that a minister who is at fault for whatever reason is ultimately judged only by the Prime Minister, who then becomes both judge and jury?

The Prime Minister is not prepared to release these guidelines. It is as though he is telling himself “I will decide whether I should demand that my guidelines be complied with, or whether I will tolerate that a minister does not comply with them. And since no one else will know what happened, it will be easier for me to decide if it is appropriate or not to implement my guidelines, to be more or less tolerant, to cover a mistake made by a minister or a senior public servant that could be embarrassing for the government, or to say nothing about it”.

The Prime Minister retains this prerogative, whereas if the guidelines were known, public, any member of the House of Commons could say “Prime Minister, here is a case where a minister did not follow your guidelines. What are you going to do? Will you explain these rules? What are the consequences?”

At this point, the Prime Minister would be obliged to provide an accounting. He would be obliged to tell the House why he did not apply his own directives. Transparency in such cases is vital. It is like the first principle, which states “It is not enough not to be in conflict of interest, there must also appear to be no conflict of interest”.

This same reasoning works with the application of the Prime Minister's directives with his ministers. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to apply these directives and have them followed by his ministers, there must be the appearance that these directives are being followed. The only way for these guidelines to appear to be applied fairly is for them to be made public and the other members to be able to judge, discuss and see how the Prime Minister uses this instrument of justice and fairness for all members of parliament.

The Bloc Quebecois will support this motion, because it is an instrument of democracy. As we are in favour of transparency and of furthering democracy, we will support this motion with pleasure.

[50Th Anniversary Of Asbestos Strike, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the anniversary of an important date in Quebec's history.

The workers and the people of Quebec as a whole owe much of their freedom to the Asbestos strikers who, in 1949, threw off the shackles impeding Quebeckers' march toward modernity. The process was neither painless nor quick as their path was strewn with doubts, despondency and suffering.

Asbestos workers were able to express and demonstrate the strong desire of the people of Quebec to take control of their own destiny through sheer resistance and willpower and with dignity. The Asbestos strikers were instrumental in ushering in the Quiet Revolution, which signalled the birth of the Quebec nation but also brought significant scientific, economic and cultural developments.

Today, the Bloc Quebecois remembers and reflects on all the progress made in the past 50 years, which makes us very proud. When we think about what the future might hold, the long way we still have to go and the political shackles we have yet to throw off, we should remember Asbestos and be inspired by this lesson of resistance, perseverance and dignity.

[Military College In Saint-Jean, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, at a military symposium held in Ottawa last week, the director of the Canadian War Museum, Jack Granatstein, said that the federal government had done the right thing in closing the military college in Saint-Jean, as it was a Quebec separatist stronghold. “This was very clearly obvious”, he added.

In other words, it was fear of separatism that killed this institution. For the best part of 43 years, all francophones who dreamed of a career as an officer had to go through the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean. The college has seen 8,000 of them go on to have a career in the armed forces and another 4,000 earn a university degree. This is a function the very British royal military college of Kingston will never fulfil.

The situation in Kingston has convinced and will continue to convince many young Quebeckers in the military to become sovereignists.

[Military Missions Beyond The Boundaries Of Canada, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the motion by the member for Red Deer invokes the principle of respect for all parliamentarians when the time comes to decide whether or not to send an active military mission to another country.

It appears that all the opposition parties are prepared to support this motion, and the Bloc Quebecois has already said that that is what it will do. Unfortunately, the only arguments we have heard against have come from the government, the Liberal Party, which is getting ready to vote no for one reason alone. The main reason mentioned is that of wanting to retain room to manoeuvre so as to be able to act quickly.

This motion gives us an opportunity to solve a serious problem, which is that of asking Canadians and Quebeckers who are soldiers, who are members of a military force, to go overseas to defend the freedoms in which we believe, to defend democracy. We are asking them to put their lives on the line. These troops, who have partners, children, and families, are being asked to risk their lives, in most cases, to protect ours.

It seems to me it is important for these people to know that they have the support of not only a small number of people sitting at the cabinet table, but of all parliamentarians, regardless of their political stripes.

This is the principle behind the Reform Party's motion. Instead of attacking that motion, as the Liberal Party is about to do, we should support it and refer it to a committee for a more thorough review.

Sure, this is a motion which can be improved, but the only way to do so is to support it so that it can be referred to a committee which will conduct a more thorough review and which will suggest ways and solutions so that the motion, which would become a bill, would address the objections raised by the government and allow it to maintain some flexibility.

To show that this is possible, let me refer to a dissenting opinion expressed by the Bloc Quebecois in the report that followed the review of Canada's foreign policy by a joint special committee. The suggestions made by our party would help improve the motion of the Reform Party member.

We wrote, among other things, that Canada should encourage the setting up of a permanent contingent available to the UN for its peacekeeping missions abroad. We also said that there should be a limit on the number of troops in that contingent. We thought it might be reasonable to have 2,000 or 2,500 troops available to the UN for peacekeeping missions.

If Canada were in favour of the establishment of such a contingent, we would not have to come before the House every time to ask “Do we use the permanent contingent for this or that mission abroad?” No. There would be a permanent mandate from the House indicating to the UN “You can use these 2,000 or 2,500 armed service personnel people as you see fit, in peacekeeping missions anywhere in the world where freedom and democracy are being threatened'?.

Having this contingent would give the government the necessary latitude to respond to additional requests in specific cases. If there were a particular need for more than 2,000 or 2,500 Canadian military personnel, the government could then come before the House and hold a debate, in order to determine whether it had the support of the House for Canada's sending more than its regular contingent in order to resolve a problem. This would be one way of responding to the desire expressed in the motion, while at the same time allowing the government to maintain this necessary latitude.

With a permanent contingent there could be a response to need at all times, without the House having to make a decision, while specific additional requirements could be discussed in advance in the House, in order to give the Prime Minister a mandate as follows: “Mr. Prime Minister, in such and such a country on which there has just been a debate in the House, we will agree to Canada's having a supplementary contingent in addition to its permanent contingent”. The Prime Minister would then have the responsibility to decide the timing for Canada to send this additional contingent.

Then all the recognized principles would be in place, principles like making the system more democratic and involving all the members of this House in the decision to play an active role in maintaining world peace. The government would then have a perfectly legitimate right to enjoy some leeway when the time comes to make a decision.

More importantly, we want to prevent the government from having to side with the United States simply because the President of the United States picked up the phone one evening and worked out an agreement or discussed some other matter with the Prime Minister of Canada. We want to make sure that the decisions or arrangements will not be made by a select few with a hidden agenda.

When asking our military personnel to put their lives on the line to protect us, we ought to make sure that they have a mandate that has been given to them in the most democratic manner possible, involving as many people as possible. This kind of support is essential. Our troops must feel that they have the entire nation behind them, and not only the ruling party. In terms of quality of life in the military, this is certainly one way of showing respect for our troops and to let them know that they are emissaries, sent out with the unanimous consent of Parliament to protect and defend our lives. That is what this motion is all about.

If the government really wanted to uphold this principle, instead of tossing out this motion, it could support it or say that it will refer it to committee for further study and we could come back to it later, thus respecting the wishes of both the opposition and the government. It is in this spirit that we are going to support the motion and we hope that the government will give it more serious thought before rejecting it out of hand. This is a unique opportunity to improve our decision-making process when world peace is threatened.

For Canada, it would represent an opportunity to transcend the role of peacekeeper. That is our international reputation. Canadians are viewed as the best peacekeepers in the world but, with this sort of solution, we could become the architects of peace, and not just its keepers. We could create conditions favourable to peacekeeping operations, to the advent of international peace. There is a world of difference between keeping the peace and actually creating it.

I hope that the government will think about what I and my colleagues have said and that it will support the motion when it is put to a vote next Tuesday.

[Military Missions Beyond The Boundaries Of Canada, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point a order. I would like some clarification.

As you know, 60 minutes are set aside for Private Members' Business. I see that we have only 45 minutes left to debate the motion put forward by the member for Red Deer, which should take us to about 6.15 p.m. Normally we should still have 15 minutes left in the debate, but the division on the motion is deemed deferred until next Tuesday.

Does this mean that at 6.15 p.m. we will proceed immediately to the adjournment motion?

[National Defence Act, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when the bill was introduced, the Bloc Quebecois opposed it for a number of reasons.

The main reason was that the bill did not seem to improve the situation sufficiently to ensure the rights of the military would be protected before the courts, especially as regards summary proceedings before military tribunals and court martials. For example, a member of the armed forces had only 24 hours to decide between a summary proceeding or a court martial. He could only consult a lawyer. He could not have one present at his trial.

These things remain in the bill and are unchanged by the amendment. Human rights in the military are, in our opinion, largely ignored.

There was another example this week. I read in the paper that a serviceman was taken to military court for refusing an anthrax vaccination. It that is what it means to respect human rights, we do not agree.

We can understand that more expeditious summary proceedings would be more commonly used in wartime. We are not in wartime, however, and the military deserves better treatment when their rights are at issue. This is particularly true in summary proceedings, when a serviceman is judged by a commanding officer, who is necessarily in a conflict of interest situation, because he has to judge one of his subordinates. He must discipline him, he must often pass judgment on his own decision concerning a soldier. The situation may be one in which he himself was involved.

The amendment does not resolve these situations. All that today's amendment, which the government is prepared to pass, accomplishes is to increase the number of reports tabled in the House. There will be more reports, which is admittedly already an improvement.

There is talk of an independent report, but what that means is not defined. Who will produce this independent report? By whom would the authors be appointed? By the department or by the government? Here again, it might be produced by the government and not really be independent. Will there be any soldiers on the committee responsible for producing the report?

We have no guarantee that the term independent will mean that there will be greater respect for the rights of the military when there occurs a contentious situation.

Unfortunately, therefore, we are unable to support the amendment. It does not correct the flaws we pointed out when the bill was introduced. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore be voting against this amendment.

[Merchant Marine Veterans, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 1992, the veterans of the merchant marine were given the same status as the veterans of the armed forces. They were thus entitled to the same pensions and compensation. However, this substantial progress was not made retroactive. Accordingly, the veterans of the merchant marine are being discriminated against.

Furthermore, the status of veteran was given to sailors in the merchant marine but denied civilians who served during the second world war, but only in sectors not considered combat zones. As enemy submarines struck in waters around the world, these sailors feel they faced the same risks as all Canadian sailors.

The Bloc Quebecois considers unjust the treatment afforded the former members of the merchant marine who filled a vital role, all the more meritorious because it was dangerous.

We therefore ask that they be accorded the same status and the same benefits as their comrades who fought in the armed forces, and retroactively.

[National Defence, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The latest statistics concerning sexual assaults in the army show that the total number of reported cases is now 241; that means there were 45 new cases during the last month.

How can the minister explain that there is almost one new case of sexual assault reported each day in the army despite the zero tolerance policy and the appointment of an ombudsman?