Lost his last election, in 2008, with 16% of the vote.
Kosovo April 20th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, through you, will the minister answer the question put to him by the member for Compton—Stanstead with a yes or a no? Could he simply tell the House whether or not the Canadian army has special operation forces in the Balkans? Or is it a national security issue?
Kosovo April 20th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to tell the Minister of National Defence that, because of his arrogance and his lack of information or consultation, because of what you did, you have lost the war, the war of diplomacy and democracy right here in Canada.
I hope, sir, that you will understand—
Kosovo April 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question.
I am asking the minister whether or not it is true that Canada, like other countries, but specifically Canada, has armed forces on a mission inside Kosovo and Yugoslavia? It would therefore appear that we already have ground troops there. True or false?
Kosovo April 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Defence confirm that Canadian forces personnel are already engaged in operations in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia, more specifically as part of joint task force 2, yes or no?
Supply April 19th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. The fact is there was a UN mandate in the case of the war in the Persian Gulf. The security council had agreed on certain resolutions and on the need for military intervention, and parliament was then consulted.
Now, if we use words like prior to the possibility of, this means that before we go to the UN, we need to reach an agreement here. The logistics of it all become a bit difficult.
However, I do understand my hon. colleague's concern, and after the conflict, we will eventually have time to review the whole matter and improve the system.
Supply April 19th, 1999
Madam Speaker, our role today is not to criticize and tell the government that it did not do a good job back then, but that it is doing better now. That is not the idea.
There is lots of time for partisanship. We wanted to respond to the government's statement that there has been debate. That is nonsense.
The member is perfectly right. It is time, and perhaps even a bit too late. At some point it will perhaps become clear that things have gone further than we think. We will perhaps find out too late that things have already gone too far and that we are in much deeper than we thought.
We agree that we must have accurate information and a genuine debate in accordance with the rules of parliament, but time is of the essence because the situation is changing very quickly.
Supply April 19th, 1999
Madam Speaker, it is no pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion on the war in Kosovo and the probable sending of ground troops.
We are, of course, going to support the Bloc motion, but not the amendment. Nevertheless, one can never say one rises with any pleasure in this House when the subject is war, when men, women and children are dying because of the actions of their regime, but also because of the actions of those who want to see the end of that regime, in other words NATO.
Yet this must be discussed, debated and indeed voted on. There has been reference in recent weeks to the gulf war. There is nothing perfect about war, certainly; in fact, war is imperfect. Yet, as far as information and consultation of parliamentarians and of the Quebec and Canadian public is concerned, it is important.
I will take a few minutes of the short time I have available to me to give a very brief overview of the events of 1990-91. But first I have two comments to make.
If there is one thing that is insulting to an MP—or perhaps I just lack experience—it is the take-note debates, as this is a way to cast aside the legitimate work of parliamentarians by invoking extraordinary rules, which means doing away with the traditional rules on which this parliament is built.
Since 1993, the government has made use of extraordinary measures, during debate, that go against the rules that make parliament run smoothly are concerned: no quorum calls, no votes, no amendments and so on. Since 1993, this government has, on several occasions, used extraordinary rules for essential debates, which makes the debates meaningless. I trust there will be no more of this.
It is true that the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave evidence before to committee. The last time, he stayed two hours and a half, and I salute him for that.
That was not, however, what we had asked for. We wanted a complete briefing for MPs, not the extension of Oral Question Period this turned out to be. Perhaps it was a bit better than nothing, but we did not get any information. We have been at war for one month, and there has never been any official briefing.
We have been promised one this week. The foreign affairs committee is going to meet and is supposed to get a briefing, a month after the war started. In the meantime, we have tripled our military presence, maybe even more than that. This is what we are being told here. This war was off to as bad a start as far as parliamentary rules are concerned as it was from the military point of view.
I am not an expert on military issues, but this seems to be an improvised war. The gulf war had all the negative characteristics of a war, but members will recall that all necessary preparations were made. Everything was there: aircraft, ships, ground forces.
We told Saddam Hussein: “Listen, either you leave Kuwait or we will take action”. We took action. We did not have to double or triple our initial commitment in the process. We were prepared.
Regarding the gulf war, on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein tried to invade Kuwait. On the same day, the UN security council passed its first resolution. The UN does not exist for nothing. It is there to serve the international community. The first resolution urged Iraq to get out of Kuwait.
On August 6, in the middle of the summer, resolution 661 regarding economic sanctions was passed. On August 10, the then Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, made a statement. I am doing my best to make a brief summary of the sequence of events. He said in that statement that Canada was willing, if necessary, to support the deployment of troops. At that time, we were mostly talking about ships. The first ship left Halifax on August 24.
On August 25, resolution 665 said that we would use whatever means necessary to apply economic sanctions.
On September 14, the cabinet agreed to send CF-18s if necessary. The first debate took place on September 24. No guns, no shots had been fired. Not a missile had been launched. Nobody had died because of the allied forces. The first debate was held, a 14 hour debate.
The motion condemned the invasion of Kuwait and led to Canada's support for troops to be sent under the aegis of the United Nations, a multinational force. In September, we debated this, and a vote was held.
Another motion was debated on November 28 and 29. No missiles had yet been launched. We had a second debate. What was going on? We had a debate before anyone started shooting. We had a second debate, with a vote, to support resolution 660. A Liberal amendment, which we have talked about, was rejected by the House.
Once into January, things started heating up. There were cutoff dates for Saddam Hussein. On January 11, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, our current Prime Minister, as a member of the Privy Council, was informed by the prime minister of the time. No missiles had yet been launched.
The current Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, was entitled to a briefing, because of his position. We have been waiting a month for such a briefing. The first official briefing for a leader of an opposition party was held this morning, one month later, because he is a member of the Privy Council. One month later. Missiles have been launched, our military involvement has tripled, but it took a month before there was a briefing.
In addition, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the current Prime Minister, said on January 16, 1991, after being informed in detail:
“War in the gulf is useless and dangerous”.
I am not sure that he does not regret his words today.
In January, we had our third debate, and no missiles had yet been launched. We debated for 46 hours. On January 16, Operation Desert Storm started.
There were three debates and three votes on hypothetical questions. Were we going to war in the Persian Gulf or not? These were hypothetical questions. Those in the House at the time had the opportunity to debate the questions on three occasions. It is a parliamentary privilege to vote. But it was on a hypothetical question. Were we going to fight or not? It came up three times.
As I said earlier today, the government is going to have to understand that parliamentarians and this parliament are a tool. We need to have accurate information. We all know what is going on in Kosovo, or at least we know what the media tell us, because we cannot trust the government.
We know what is going on in Kosovo. We know that major crimes are taking place. What is the exact nature of these crimes? We have our suspicions. There is increasing talk of mass graves. We know that there are problems with Montenegro and Macedonia, and that problems with Hungary are not far off. Trouble is brewing over there.
One month after the first military intervention, we have still not had a vote. Could we at least have a real debate, a vote on what has gone on, and if we are officially sending ground troops, could that be debated and voted on as well?
Unfortunately, we have much to learn from wars. Nothing is ever perfect. The last time, parliamentary committees were put to work. I hope the government will understand that parliament is a tool. War is madness, but parliamentarians and the public can bring about peace.
Reform Of International Organizations April 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because many members are here to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion on this opposition day.
The wording of the motion moved by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is far from perfect. I agree and I think the member would too. Naturally, it is not just a matter of the date for the conference, 1998. I am going to take a look at the wording of the motion.
As other colleagues have pointed out, the motion says “like-minded nations”. Some caution is perhaps in order, because if only “like-minded nations” are going to be involved in changing international organizations, even if this is just the ground work for such changes, there must be a consensus of countries belonging to these organizations.
For all the fine speeches and meetings held with countries that share our thinking in certain areas, it is becoming clear that we are shooting ourselves in the foot, as it were, because we will not be able to make these changes and reach a consensus when it comes to international organizations.
My Reform Party colleague gave the example of land mines. This example can cut both ways. Why? Because there was no consensus among the countries most affected by the land mine problem. Those least affected, such as Canada, signed the Ottawa agreement.
The countries most concerned, those wreaking the most havoc with land mines, were not part of the consensus. The debate must therefore be extended to take in all countries belonging to an organization. This debate should perhaps first be held here in Canada.
Most people do not even know how many international organizations there are and which does what. It is becoming increasingly apparent that people are a bit lost and are no longer very clear on the distinction between the UN, the WTO, the former GATT, NATO and so on. There are so many names that people get mixed up. This is true for many parliamentarians, myself included. There are so many international organizations that is hard to keep them all straight.
In the motion, “international organizations” seems on the one hand to include all bodies, and on the other to exclude them.
The motion states:
—International organizations (e.g. International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations) so that they can identify the precursors of conflict and establish multilateral, conflict prevention initiatives.
I am not sure the WTO would play an important role in settling conflicts. Here again we do not know exactly what this is all about. Is it really a security issue, or a military, economic or humanitarian issue? We do not know, and it is unfortunate because, for the past few weeks, we have been hearing a lot about three major international organizations, namely the WTO, which got involved on the eve of the negotiations, the UN and NATO.
We might be well advised to make these international organizations better known in this parliament and across the country, inform Quebecers and Canadians and then ask them what their opinion is. If Canada can develop a national position, it will be much more credible internationally.
Canada has a leadership role to play nationally, but also on the world scene. For decades Canada has played a role in changing, improving, even creating international organizations. Unfortunately, over the past few weeks, Canada's leadership has been tarnished by events in Kosovo. We asked what steps Canada took before the war in Kosovo, and we are expecting answers. What efforts has the Government of Canada made? What leadership has the Government of Canada shown in preparing for the possibility of an armed conflict in the Yugoslav Republic? We still do not know.
The UN has been replaced by the flag of war, a war under NATO. International organizations are changing, and NATO is the prime example. The purpose of NATO was preparedness if one of its member countries were to be invaded, and now it has become an international police force.
Is this grounds for criticism? For questioning, at least. Is NATO's response in Kosovo not a sign of the UN's weakness? Perhaps. Maybe this was the only approach or maybe others could have been considered. Perhaps the UN and leading members of the UN, such as Canada, have not done their job. There are a lot of questions that will probably remain unanswered, in the short term at least.
There are many negative aspects to the motion with respect to its drafting. We are, however, going to support it because it calls for examining all international bodies, and this is something that is needed.
At present, one committee will address the WTO, another some other body, but there is no overall picture. There is a shift going on within the international bodies. To take an example that is not a military one, an examination of international protection of intellectual property, we realize that the international organization has no teeth and is calling upon the WTO to apply sanctions.
It is clear therefore that a shift is taking place within the international organizations, which creates a need to analyse all of them. As part of this process, we should perhaps look here as well in Parliament at the way Canada joins these organizations and signs protocols and treaties without parliament having any say, or at least much.
A reform of international organizations should include a look at how parliament ought to be changed in order to become a stakeholder in these international organizations and be involved from start to finish. That is very important. The government should learn to use Parliament much more than it does at the moment.
We want to draw attention to the quality of the motion, perhaps not in its formulation, but in what it proposes, that is, an analysis of and profound change in the way the international organizations operate.
We will support it with pleasure and we hope that this will be the beginning of a review of this parliament and how it relates to international organizations.
Kosovo April 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, for the minister's information, Mr. Shelton is General Baril's U.S. counterpart. He does carry some weight.
This American General Baril even spoke of inconsistencies between military and political objectives. In other words, whether there are 400, 700, or even 1,100 planes, as expected, or 6, 12, 18 and now about 20 for Canada, events seem to back Mr. Shelton up: the air strikes appear to be reducing Milosevic's capacity, period.
Can the minister confirm that the success of these political and humanitarian objectives therefore depends on sending in ground troops?
Kosovo April 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning, in testimony before the American senate committee, Hugh Shelton, chief of defence staff of the U.S. army, said that he had informed the American president that air strikes would achieve military goals and reduce Milosevic's military strength.
He also informed the American president that he doubted that air strikes would achieve the political objectives, which include, of course, the return and the safety of the Kosovars, in other words, humanitarian objectives.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree with these statements or not, and might it be that NATO is achieving its military objectives but failing to achieve its political and humanitarian objectives?