Monday, June 19, 1995
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VOLUME 133 NUMBER 221 1st SESSION 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, June 19, 1995 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, June 19, 1995 The House met at 11 a.m. Returning to Bosnia, the failure was in lacking a vision of what to do with Yugoslavia once it broke up, as inevitably it was _______________ to break up. Everyone predicted this when Tito should die and Tito’s regime should pass into history. We find there are Prayers alternative plans. Greater Serbia has been spoken of but there is a greater Bulgaria concept, a greater Greece concept, conflicting _______________ ambitions of Balkan powers restrained by the facts of life of the cold war and bipolarity but broke out with the breakdown of the PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS cold war system of world public order and the new pluralism which dangerously at times comes close to anarchy. [English] In this area Canada has played a constructive and useful role. We were not in at the beginning on the decisions on Yugoslavia PEACEKEEPING ACT and post–communist Yugoslavia. We were not part of the The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion contact group. To be frank, I see no point in our trying to join the that Bill C–295, an act to provide for the control of Canadian contact group now. We would in effect be trying to correct errors peacekeeping activities by Parliament and to amend the Nation- made by European foreign ministers who should have known al Defence Act in consequence thereof, as amended, be read the better. second time and referred to a committee. We have to search for solutions using other arenas like CSCE, Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. NATO, forum available to make our point. In terms of military Speaker, I am resuming remarks interrupted by other House operations, the Canadian forces have behaved with intelligence, business on another day and we now return to the motion of the good judgment and restraint. We have recognized that United hon. member for Fraser Valley East. Nations peacekeeping as devised by Prime Minister Pearson To recapitulate what I said earlier on this bill, one respects the absolutely prohibits a political role. What is now talked about in intention and the purpose behind it. In the interim I have had the contemporary international relations activities as crossing the privilege of sitting as a substitute member on the all party Mogadishu line is something Canadian military men above all committee on national defence. The experience reinforces the have always observed with proper self–restraint. We have to comment I made earlier. This is one of the very strong commit- face the reality that our peacekeeping forces have not been tees of the House. I was very impressed with the degree of developed with a view to imposing political solutions by mili- knowledge of the members and the degree of co–operation tary means. There is nothing in the training of our staff colleges across both sides of the table from all parties. In other words, that lends itself to this. there is a great deal of awareness in the committee of the gravity I have had the privilege of lecturing to our national defence of the problem and the search for proper remedies. college and the military college at various stages in my pre–par- That brings me back to the main point that the failure in liamentary life. They are very well trained but they cannot cover Bosnia is a failure in foreign policy and not in the military the whole world. If we are to send them to Somalia to impose a sphere of the operation. The failure goes back to a basic political solution or to former Yugoslavia to impose a political criticism many contemporary historians have made that this is solution the training is not there. We have behaved properly and one of the low periods in foreign policy in the world community. correctly. If we look at the confidence, the reaction to the events of the Counting this we have had three debates in the House on the emerging cold war in the late forties and fifties, the very creative future of peacekeeping. What emerges on the future of peace- period in American foreign policy, in European foreign policy keeping is a large interparty consensus which crosses the House with Adenauer, Schuman and De Gasperi creating the European that we wish to maintain the classical conception of peacekeep- community, we are now in one of those periods in which foreign ing. That is something we developed and which we do very well. ministers simply seem unable to cope with the problems. If it is a matter of moving into peacemaking, imposing political 14055 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 1995 Private Members’ Business solutions, we have to recognize the limits of our special compe- military involvement. All reports of the summit meeting sug- tence. gested we have exercised prudent self–restraint. Within the limits of our powers we have spoken to other foreign ministers, (1110 ) presidents and heads of states and have said as far as we are concerned we are peacekeepers, we cannot ourselves get in- volved in political–military ventures. In countries that have connections with the former British empire, the Commonwealth and la francophonie there are spe- That is the spirit of the House. I do not think it is necessary to cial ties of culture and experience that give us perhaps the legislate it. However, I commend the member for Fraser Valley ability to make political judgments if that is what is called for. East for giving us yet another occasion to reaffirm a striking Elsewhere, it is entering unchartered seas. Therefore, the clear consensus. conclusion emerging from our debates is that we maintain peacekeeping as our function for the United Nations, that we do [Translation] not get into peacemaking and that we do not cross the Mogadi- shu line. Mr. Jean–Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on several occasions already we have had a chance to speak in the In relation to the bill presented by the hon. member for Fraser House on subjects concerning the peace missions. As did the Valley East, I respect the intention here but I wonder about the member from the Liberal Party and my colleague from Foreign attempt to legislate what sensibly can be left to executive Affairs, we thanked the member for Fraser Valley East for administrative judgment. In article 5(2) the Canadian forces having given us, by means of this bill, an opportunity to discuss shall not participate in any action designed to force the governor the peace missions. of state to leave office or to install a government other than by facilitating a democratic process in accordance with the laws of (1115) the state or a resolution of the United Nations general assembly or the United Nations security council. During the review of Canada’s defence policy, the question of peacekeeping missions came up in the discussions of the nation- We are bound by international law. Because it is one of the al defence committee, of which I am a member. currently contested points before the International Court and elsewhere, it is arguable whether a United Nations general When you look at Bill C–295, as the previous speaker assembly or security council resolution can go beyond interna- remarked, you realize that there is an all–party consensus on the tional law. Where it does go beyond that it is arguable it is principle of peacekeeping missions and the humanitarian way. I unconstitutional in United Nations terms. would like to add that the people of Quebec and of Canada accept the fact that Canada participates in peacekeeping mis- I wonder why one should try to legislate this. We are bound by sions. common sense. The one thing emerging from the debates in the However, I am far from sure that this bill will remedy the House and which any foreign minister would take note of is that shortcomings that have been noted during recent peacekeeping Canadians do not want us to get into political ventures in the missions, whether in Rwanda or more recently still in the former Balkans or areas where we have no special historical ties and no Yugoslavia. background of historical experience to aid our judgment. In other words, we have done very well with General MacKenzie In my opinion, the bill—and we support it in principle, as I and the people we have had there. The all party consensus is said—contains certain restrictions that are not spelled out as the there and the defence committee reflects this. There is no need Bloc Quebecois has requested on a number of occasions. As to legislate this. Good sense prevails. well, in the report on the review of Canada’s defence policy, the member for Shefford and I asked on behalf of the Bloc Quebe- This bill is taking us into an American style constitutional cois that criteria for peacekeeping missions be defined. No- solution but it is unnecessary in our context. Even in the case of where, either in the bill or in a statement by the government, is the United States, all the legislation in the world and the there set out what Canada thinks should be the basis for a clear American constitution have not prevented the president of the definition of criteria governing participation by our military United States making those errors of political judgment and personnel in other or possible future peacekeeping missions. getting involved in political military ventures overseas that go And yet Canada is supposed to be a leader in peacekeeping beyond the letter and, some would argue, the spirit of the missions.