Jean H. Leroux

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to tell this House that I support the motion tabled on March 5 by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the importance of the role of the

North American Aerospace Defence Command, better known as NORAD.

I do support the government's intention of renewing the NORAD agreement with the United States for a further five years.

I support the motion, but I also want to propose some major changes to this strategic defence alliance, with a view to promoting a pan-American integrated alliance. As we know, the first NORAD agreement was signed on May 12, 1958. Since then, the agreement has been renewed seven times.

We all agree that the international situation is very different now, and that NORAD should adjust to the new reality. Let us first look at the political aspect. It is important to ensure that Canada is represented effectively. To that end, it is absolutely necessary that the Canadian government come up with a new defence policy that is sound, detailed and practical, given our international commitments as well as the state of Canadian public finances.

The government must assume its responsibilities by clearly stating its position in that regard, while also reiterating its commitment to NORAD. From a strategic point of view, the geopolitical context is changing at an accelerated pace. That evolution must not necessarily be viewed as the portent of a new era of peace in the world, quite the contrary.

The bloody conflicts that occur everywhere on the planet should make us aware of the need for this type of co-operation and for the development of new military alliances that are better integrated.

It would be illogical to think that, because of the disappearance of the bipolar world that came into existence after the second world war, we must stop playing a role in strategic alliances. On the contrary, we must develop such alliances, for they have served us well so far. It is through them that Canada, a middle power, has achieved a measure of credibility around the world.

Through our membership in NATO and our partnership with the U.S. as part of NORAD, we have developed a multilateral approach to the defence and security of North America.

We are working with our partners and allies to promote peace and stability because we know that we cannot do much on our own.

This, however, does not prevent us from reviewing our role in current alliances and redefining our mission within these alliances, in light of the changes dictated by today's realities and in anticipation of the new data that may affect us later.

I would now like to make a few points. Contrary to what many Canadians and Quebecers may think, NORAD is not an agreement for the integrated defence of North America but a bilateral defence agreement to develop a joint Canada-U.S air defence based on a unified command structure.

Earlier this week, we met with defence and foreign affairs officials, who told us that NORAD is costing Canada around $300 million a year. We pay about 10 per cent of the costs, which puts the total for both Canada and the U.S. at a little less than $3 billion.

Canada allocates 700 person-years to NORAD, while the U.S. assigns some 12,000 troops.

For the Canadian government, NORAD has always been the cheapest way to monitor and defend Canada's vast air space since implementation costs are shared.

Yet, since the early 1980s, the purpose and content of the NORAD agreements have changed in ways that have broadened the geographical area over which facilities are scattered and especially the nature of the equipment's surveillance and interception mission. It must be understood that times have changed, technology has evolved and NORAD has had to adapt.

The review process put in place when the agreement was last renewed, in 1991, concluded that NORAD "was not obsolete" in the unstable context of a world "still equipped with nuclear weapons posing enough of a threat to justify maintaining collective air and space surveillance".

The 1994 white paper on defence goes along the same lines. That is why the government undertook to take "a close look at areas that may require updating in view of new challenges to continental security".

The Bloc Quebecois is pleased with the government's decision to allow a debate to be held on the renewal of the NORAD agreement. This perfectly meets the expectations we has expressed in our dissenting report on the review of Canada's defence policy.

It must be understood that this House of the Canadian Parliament is the only elected House in Canada. It is therefore important that this kind of matter, that accords or agreements like this one, between Canada and the U.S. first be submitted to this House, and not the opposite, where we would be consulted after a decision was made. That is what I call phoney consultations, and that is unacceptable.

However, I think that, contrary to the way things were done in 1991, this time, as part of the renewal process, the new role of NORAD in the context of the post-cold war era should be examined much more openly.

The government could take this opportunity to redefine the primary role of NORAD, as promised in its 1994 white paper. On this subject, I would like to ask a few basic questions to this House and to the minister.

Today, in 1996, against whom does NORAD protect us? Does NORAD's initial role reflect the new dynamics of the post-cold war era? Why should we continue spending billions of dollars on defence if Canada is no longer threatened by any direct military threat? In all parts of Quebec and Canada, our constituents all ask the same think: What is the use of defence?

If the concept of security has really changed, would it not be wiser and more positive to put our limited resources to use for new purposes, within new structures and more appropriate alliances?

Given that NORAD was set up during the cold war, it goes without saying that the agreement served a different purpose then than it does now. In my opinion, NORAD no longer concerns exclusively Soviet military power.

This is what brings me to discuss the need to redefine NORAD's mandate and to make a proposal to the minister, namely that NORAD's new mandate should promote a pan-American integrated alliance. That alliance would essentially set up a joint detection and surveillance network to monitor the skies, lands and waters of the whole continent.

NORAD's mandate could be extended so as to include other partners from the American continent. The agreement could be a precious tool to link our economic and commercial interests to military alliances that can ensure some continuity to the political stability that is emerging in some Central and South American states.

In short, the time has come to develop a defence policy that is responsible, turned to the future and, above all, that reflects Canadian democratic values. I do not claim to know the future any more than you, Mr. Speaker, the minister, or any other member of this House. Only time will tell whether Russia pursues its journey toward democracy and a market economy, or whether it opts for a more menacing type of regime.

I did not even attempt to speculate on the impact that a military conflict could have in regions that have been enjoying relative stability in recent years, including China and the Indian sub-continent.

I will only say that the relative peace that has been ours for over 40 years is a blessing for all. Developed countries must absolutely not take peace for granted, mainly because of the tensions caused by the worldwide increase in population and pollution.

One thing is for sure: should a major threat hang over the North-American continent, Canada will always be asked to take part in an alliance such as NORAD, and its citizens will always expect concrete action from their government.

[Government Expenditures, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the federal strategy aimed at raising one million Canadian flags before the end of the year, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is strongly suggesting that Quebec summer festivals receiving grants from the federal government increase its visibility on their sites.

How many additional millions is this going to cost Quebec taxpayers, when the federal government already spent at least $16 million to promote the Canadian identity during the 1995 Quebec referendum campaign?

I would ask the Prime Minister who is known to have condemned those he considered excessive devotees of the "flag on the hood", to remind the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage that moderation tastes better.

[Foreign Affairs, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Haiti, I am always reminded of the hundreds of priests, nuns, missionaries and young volunteers who have gone there at some point in their life to try and give these people a little more happiness in this world.

I am also reminded of my former colleague, the late Gaston Péloquin, a member of the Bloc Quebecois, who spent two years in Haiti and who adopted a young Haitian child who now lives in

Quebec. Pascal must be 18 now. I am also reminded of all these Haitians who have come to live in Quebec and elsewhere, mainly in Montreal, and who may be watching us tonight on television. I take this opportunity to say hello to them.

The Bloc supports and salutes the government for its present and future international commitments with regard to the peacekeeping mission in Haiti.

Because of our concern for Haiti and of our peacekeeping policy, Canada is now called upon by the United Nations to take military command of the UN mission in Haiti.

I am also very happy with the foreign affairs minister's decision to consult his parliamentary colleagues about Canada's participation in this mission. We, members of the Bloc, believe that it is very important.

This consulting of Parliament is very much in line with the recommendations made by the Bloc Quebecois in its dissenting report on Canada's foreign policy in November 1994.

In this report, on page 4, under chapter 1.2, the Bloc Quebecois insists that the government should, and I quote: "submit any decision to participate in peacekeeping missions to a vote in the House of Commons, as rapidly as possible, where time allows".

I think it is important to note that fact because it clearly demonstrates that, as the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois is doing its job conscientiously, adhering to highly democratic values.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs is demonstrating today, members of the Bloc often make recommendations which are very practical and reflect current events.

As a matter of fact, I believe that one of the main roles of Canadian forces on the international scene must be to support peacekeeping operations by taking part in them. Such participation is undeniably an asset for Canada and one of its major international accomplishments.

Canada must learn from previous operations. The case of Haïti reminds us that our interventions must absolutely be based on the legitimate democratic system that is gradually emerging in that country.

As my colleagues on this side of the House and myself have already said, the development of democratic institutions in Eastern Europe and closer to us in the Americas is crucial to the preservation of social peace and to economic development in the world.

I believe that reinforcement of democratic institutions and respect of human rights are necessary pillars to the security of the new international environment.

This is a major foreign policy concern that must be shared by stable democratic societies likes ours.

When something like the United Nations mission in Haïti takes leading to joint action, that concern yields results.

The end of dictatorship and restoration of democracy in Haïti are largely the result of the tenacity of the international community, which put its democratic ideals above everything else.

We, as members of this House, must take good note of this fact but we must above all make sure that Canada will give it a leading role in its foreign policy and also in its domestic policy. We ought to be able to practice at home what we want to implement elsewhere.

I understand that cabinet has already agreed in principle to the deployment of 750 peacekeepers from Valcartier, which means an additional 250 troops and a six-month extension of Canadian participation in the United Nations mission in Haïti.

This means Canada will take over command of the mission from the United States.

As I see it, the presence of UN troops under Canadian supervision for a limited time will undoubtedly be very helpful to a country formerly known as the Pearl of the Antilles.

The new responsibilities taken on by Canada may also help to restore a credibility that was damaged by the events in Somalia. However, we can allow no recurrence of what happened in Somalia. That would be unacceptable and an outrage in the eyes of all those who put their trust in these missions and who send people over there.

Our participation will help to rebuild democratic and economic institutions in that country.

Our support for the newly-elected President of Haiti, René Préval, and his brand new Prime Minister, Rony Smarth, is a continuation of our support for the democratic process triggered by none other than Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

In his quest for democracy, Mr. Aristide managed to give back to the Haitian people their dignity and independent institutions which are a guarantee of a lasting peace.

According to the Bloc Quebecois, the mandate of Canadian troops should consist mainly in co-ordinating reconstruction efforts and supporting the current process of democratic growth so that there will be a viable system by the end of that mandate.

Since this transitional mission will be smaller in size, it should concentrate on training the new Haitian police and on supporting civilian institutions. The military aspects of the mandate should be substantially reduced.

If the government wants the Official Opposition to support its decision, it should make it clear that this particular mission will be carefully planned, that its objectives will be realistic and clearly identified, and finally, that adequate means will be provided to achieve those objectives.

In concluding, I want to say again that when Canada and Quebec, because as you know we are still part of Canada, when we send Canadian troops as UN peacekeepers, I think it is important, and everyone in this House will understand, that these people are well prepared and above reproach. After all, they represent us, and as long as they do that well, we are proud of them. If they break the rules, we all bear the blame.

And finally, I want to say that our young people, our young soldiers who are over there, our young policemen who are over there and who are helping a country that is discovering again what democracy means, this is fine, we support and encourage them, and we support the government's motion.

[The Constitution, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's bill to give five regions of Canada a right of veto on any eventual constitutional amendment is worse than the amending formula contained in the Constitution imposed on us in 1982.

In less than two weeks, the Liberal government will have imposed distinct society on Quebec against the will of the Quebec National Assembly and given a veto to two provinces that do not want it or would prefer something else.

The amending formula for the Constitution that requires the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the Canadian population was already considered particularly coercive. Now consent will be required from seven provinces representing 92 per cent of the population.

As Jean Dion writes in today's Le Devoir , we can just imagine some smart alecs inferring that the consent of 14 provinces representing 142 per cent of the population will be required in the future.

[Member For Brome-Missisquoi, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, according the December 2 issue of the newspaper La voix de l'Est , the member of Parliament for Brome-Missisquoi helped a group, which includes one of his good friends, obtained a CIDA grant of close to half a million dollars for an eight-month business trip to Hungary.

We also learned that this good friend, Daniel Barbeau, was selected as one of the eight lawyers who will participate in the project by one of the minister's associates in his Bedford law firm, who sat on the selection committee.

Assuming this information is true, how, given the current budget situation, could the member for Brome-Missisquoi manage to help his friends benefit from such a sweet grant?

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it would be a good thing if, following a one year commitment, the government came back to the House and asked if we agree to extend Canada's participation.

Again, it is important to have the figures. People must know the cost of that participation. This is what is important.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, where we disagree with the government is the way it is going about this. We are always told that the House is its own master, that Parliament is a sovereign institution. In fact, that is not the case. The Prime Minister has already made a commitment. He now puts the issue before the House, in order to have his decision endorsed by the different parties, and this is what we object to.

We do agree with the decision. We know that Canada has commitments to NATO. We know that it has always fulfilled its commitments. We have no problems with that. What we are saying is: fine, let us go, but according to our means.

As you know, we may be one of the most indebted countries in the world, per capita. Sure, we must continue to help others, but we should also take our situation into consideration when making that decision. The Bloc Quebecois agrees that we should send troops to Bosnia-Hercegovina, along with our partners. However, the government should not always surprise us at the last minute. If the House is its own master, if it is sovereign, then it should be the one to decide. The government should come back and tell the House how many troops should be sent, and so on, because these are important issues.

In my speech, I mentioned that President Clinton waited for the approval of both Houses before taking action. That was not done here, in spite of the Prime Minister's promise.

In conclusion, it is important to fulfil our commitments, but we must also not lose sight of what is going on. This operation is very different from a peacekeeping mission. Some lives may be lost. Our troops risk their lives, but the risk could or will be greater this time. If we send armed forces personnel over there, it does not have to be combat troops. We could send auxiliary forces, engineers, nurses, etc. We have all this expertise available in Canada. We would still be taking part. But I think we must be careful. We do not have to do more than others. We must do our share, but we do not have to do more than others.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

I want to speak today on the participation of the Canadian Armed Forces in the implementation force in the former Yugoslavia. I agree with the principle but not with the way the government, particularly the Prime Minister and the defence minister, made commitments to our NATO allies.

First, on November 23, in a speech he gave following a meeting with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Prime Minister had already committed in principle Canadian funds and human resources, without first seeking the approval of this House.

Indeed, even before Parliament was asked to debate the issue, the decision had already been made. As far as I know, the

government should be at the service of Parliament and not the other way around. What is the use of having a democratic institution like Parliament where parliamentarians give advice to the government and pass legislation, if this government ignores procedure and only asks Parliament to rubber stamp its decisions?

Indeed, on November 23, the Prime Minister said, and I quote: "Of course, we will send some troops, but the size of our contribution will depend on what we are able to do and what we are asked to do". The Prime Minister was referring to our NATO allies and particularly to our neighbours, the Americans. Therefore, the decision on Canada's contribution will depend on the decision of our neighbours to the South and not on what our Parliament would have decided first. That is how decisions are made in Canada.

While I support in principle the Canadian government's peace plan to participate in NATO's operations in the former Yugoslavia, I am still puzzled by the way the federal Liberals are proceeding. It is a question of attitude.

Even President Clinton did not formally make a commitment until the American Congress ratified the United States' contribution to the ceasefire monitoring group. In my opinion, the Prime Minister's statement is further proof that he attaches very little importance to parliamentarians' opinions, since he announced, even before today's debate, that he would send troops to Bosnia.

Undoubtedly, the Prime Minister has a double standard. Even last week, he proclaimed that the House was sovereign on the matter of his famous distinct society clause and that this clause had priority over everything else. Today, in the case of the Canadian Armed Forces's involvement in the multinational military implementation force under NATO command, the decision has already been made and the only thing the House can do is ratify it. That is what we are being asked to do today.

I would like to raise several other points which strike me as irreconcilable differences between what the Government is saying publicly and what is being said here in this House.

At an information session this past Thursday, an Armed Forces spokesperson indicated that Ottawa's contribution to date to the United Nations Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia has been more than half a billion dollars over three years, or approximately $517 million, for a force ranging from 1,600 to 2,000 in size. That half billion, or some $172 million yearly, represents the additional cost for National Defence to commit Canadian troops to UN peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia. In other words, this figure represents what it cost over and above the normal costs of keeping our troops here in Canada.

Keeping those figures in mind, we are now told that the present NATO commitment ought not to cost more than an additional $75 million for a 12 month period involving some 2,000 to 3,000 Canadian soldiers-$75 million for a mission that differs greatly from a peacekeeping mission. This is inconceivable, half as much money, yet twice as much will be demanded of our troops.

In an article in Le Devoir on November 24, headed ``Canada to participate in intervention force'', the Minister of Defence is quoted as referring to far greater costs for this type of intervention, much more than $75 million.

I will read part of this article, and I quote: "Mr. Collenette also said that the logistics involved in combat operations of the kind organized by NATO are far more costly than in the case of UN peacekeeping missions. We will have to look at the financial aspects", concluded the Minister of National Defence.

There is a problem here. The Minister of National Defence tells us these combat operations may cost us a lot more than we are being told by the military, this in addition to the opinions of certain experts and officials who are saying that the cost of participating in a NATO mission is usually twice that of UN peacekeeping missions.

I am rather sceptical when people tell me it will cost only $75 million for 12 months, which is $75 million more than it normally costs, and people should realize that. Could the Minister of National Defence let the House know the real cost involved in these combat operations?

In another article published in Le Devoir on August 19, 1995, the Minister of Foreign Affairs responded to a report in Le Soleil in which it was estimated that the cost of Ottawa's commitment within UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia was $710 million over three years.

I have a very simple question: Who in this House could tell us the exact cost of such operations? Between departments there is a difference of about $193 million. Who is right? I find it hard to believe that the House is being asked to give its consent without knowing the real cost of these combat operations, especially when they are supposed to cost half as much as previous commitments to peacekeeping operations.

Considering the current federal deficit, how can we afford to ignore these facts? This is very disturbing. And I am sure the vast majority of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada would like to know the real cost of these combat operations.

The principle involved in peacekeeping operations is a noble one, but I doubt we can afford to get involved without knowing the

real cost of this gesture of human solidarity. When shown these figures, not a single banker in Quebec or in the rest of Canada would be willing to endorse such operations without at least knowing what he was getting into.

I support Canada's involvement in principle. The Bloc Quebecois supports Canada's participation in NATO's implementation force. I cannot, however, give this government a blank cheque without knowing where and how this money will be spent. It is taxpayers' money we are spending. And given the cuts imposed by the federal government on the most vulnerable in our society, it would be unthinkable not to know how much money will be spent and how it will really be spent.

Finally, as far as the implementation force's mission is concerned, no one knows, of course, how long it will last or what the implications will be in the medium term. The Prime Minister told the Secretary-General of the UN that participating forces would have to stay until peace is really restored, whether it takes six months or three years.

Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's commitment, should the mandate extend beyond the expected 12 months, I think the government should be required to submit its decision to the approval of this House. I also think that the 12 month mandate should be clearly stated and that Canada should commit no more than 2,000 troops to the NATO forces, which is approximately the maximum level of Canada's participation in UNPROFOR.

In conclusion, given our current financial situation, I have major reservations about the defence department's threat assessment.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, following the speech by the hon. member opposite, I would like to share some of my thoughts about what is going on.

The government is asking us to agree to send troops under NATO command, but it is being vague about it. This is what makes it difficult. It is difficult for us to take a position, because we do not know how much that will cost, how long the mission will last and what responsibilities will be given to our troops.

It is therefore very difficult for the opposition to decide. We, in the Bloc, are in agreement with that. We agree but, as I said earlier, restraint has to be used, and my hon. colleague just said something similar. So we agree on this. However, we will not know, before this debate comes to an end, how much all this will cost. In other words, the government is asking us to give it a blank cheque. I would like the hon. member's reaction to that.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

This has nothing to do with separatism. The minister is just babbling away.

Why seek to do great things, at a great cost, when we know very well that we cannot afford them? Let us be modest. That is what Canadians and Quebecers will ask: that we be modest in the decisions we make now.

Yes, we must go, to honour our commitments to NATO. But let us participate according to our means. This really has to be said.