TABLE OF CONTENTS
Wednesday, September 21, 1994
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 5936
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 5937
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 5938
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5940
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5940
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5941
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5941
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5941
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5942
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5942
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5942
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5942
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5942
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5942
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5942
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5942
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5944
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5945
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 5947
Bill C-267. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 5947
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5947
Bill C-268. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 5947
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5947
Bill C-269. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 5948
Bill C-270. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 5948
Bill C-271. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 5948
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5948
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5950
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5951
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5951
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5951
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5951
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5959
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5966
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 5966
5935
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, September 21, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, it was reported in the media Tuesday that the minister
of supply and services has struck a committee of bureaucrats to
find ways of moving supply and services jobs from Ottawa to
Atlantic Canada.
I strongly disagree with the study and any decision to move
public servants from the national capital region.
[Translation]
At the present time 31.7 per cent of federal public servants
work in the national capital region, whereas in each province
and territory the number is proportionate to population.
[English]
The minister has no intention of either pursuing Tory
practices or, even worse, applying the Reform Party's right wing
agenda vis-à-vis the public service. He informed me today that
the study is just that, a study. I am confident that we will treat
any suggestion of transferring public servants out of the capital
as an ill advised, bad public policy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, the recent figures in the Work Competitiveness Report
show that Canada is in a very bad position. In 1989 Canada had
the fourth most competitive economy among OECD countries.
Five years later, it stood fourteenth!
This drop is the predictable result of the federal government's
inability to control its deficit. The government's stubborn
insistence on using its spending power to intervene in provincial
areas of jurisdiction is a waste of public funds and is slowing
down job creation. Labour training, a tangle of
federal-provincial overlap, as the Quebec manufacturers
association pointed out yesterday, is a perfect example of the
ineffectiveness of federal intervention. And who is paying for
all this? Taxpayers and the unemployed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to call upon the government to properly
compensate my constituent, Mr. Walter Jerram.
His bull was seized because its only crime was being imported
from the United Kingdom and just may have been exposed to
BSE, mad cow disease.
Last Thursday Agriculture Canada and the RCMP seized the
bull at 6.30 a.m. They cut through his chain fence, seized his
bull and were gone in 20 minutes. No warrant was produced and
a curt letter was left behind informing him that because he had
resorted to legal recourse he would not be paid the routine, if
low, $2,000 in compensation.
The handling of this case is despicable. They came as thieves
in the night. Canadians deserve better from their government. I
call upon the minister of agriculture to pay the compensation my
constituent deserves and launch an inquiry into the handling of
this case.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, a
couple of weeks ago in my riding I had the privilege of attending
the graduation ceremony of 14 young Vietnamese men who
found an alternative to their lives. Of these young men
two-thirds were on drugs and three were in jail. They were all
part of gangs, did not have families and were all on social
assistance.
These young people participated in a project called New
Directions. For a year they were coached, taught, put through
school, and they are now all free from drugs. They all have
become part of society and some are continuing with school. It
was an uplifting experience. Fourteen lives were saved. There is
an alternative to crime but we must be proactive.
5936
Congratulations to immigrant services societies and the
agencies involved and to the instructors and young people who
had the courage to complete the program.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
railway policy lacks a short line railway strategy. Several
American states, our most important trading partners and
stiffest competition, have dynamic, comprehensive plans to
strengthen and expand their short lines.
[Translation]
In Canada, and particularly in the province of Ontario, CN and
CP are abandoning their branch lines at an astonishing rate.
[English]
This includes Midland-Uhthoff subdivision which will be
abandoned as of October 8, 1994 unless the petition to governor
in council I presented on August 30 is successful in keeping the
line open.
[Translation]
These closures are taking place at a time when Ontario's new
labour legislation does not allow operators of secondary lines to
buy and run abandoned lines at a profit.
[English]
Canada needs a strategy to address this grave situation before
our short line network has been completely dismantled. I urge
the Minister of Transport to come up with a plan quickly to save
our short line network.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, on September 15, 1994 the Government of Canada
entered into two administrative agreements with the province of
Saskatchewan. These agreements provide for the more effective
administration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,
the pollution provisions of the Fisheries Act and the
complementary Saskatchewan legislation.
The agreements are among the first of their kind in Canada.
They apply to the areas of environmental protection and are
jointly regulated by federal and provincial groups. The
agreements will lead to more effective environmental protection
programs by reducing duplication. The agreements ensure
co-operation and reduce duplication in areas of reporting spills,
spill response, inspections, investigation and information
gathering.
The agreements reflect the federal government's goal to
effectively protect the environment through federal-provincial
harmonization and to ensure wise use of our limited resources.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, when the
people of Quebec make a little noise and threaten to walk out,
you can always find some well-intentioned English-speaking
Canadians to tell them that their Canada includes Quebec. The
fact of the matter is that the rest of Canada usually greets
Quebec's claims with: ``Your demands are inadmissible and
unacceptable. But we really like you and would want you to
remain within Canada.''
That is precisely what happened yesterday at the Canadian
Chamber of Commerce convention, where the delegates from
English Canada rejected a resolution from the Sainte-Foy
Chamber of Commerce asking that manpower training be
transferred to the provinces. ``Quebec, we love you'', said the
Premier of Alberta yesterday.
For an increasing number of Quebecers, the English Canadian
mermaid's song is losing its appeal and fast.
* * *
(1405 )
[English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, my very
first member's statement in the House was about a young
cowboy from the heart of Yellowhead country, Mayerthorpe,
Alberta. I spoke about Rod Hay, a tough cowboy who has seen it
all.
I am not talking about the beautiful countryside. I am talking
about mud, dust and pain. In fact Rod walks around with plates,
screws and wire holding his hip together because of a rodeo
mishap three years ago.
He is almost in as bad shape as I am. All of the pain and hard
work has paid off for this 25-year old cowboy. Today Rod is
$50,000 richer thanks to the biggest rodeo win in his life, the
saddle-bronc championship at the greatest outdoor show on
earth, The Calgary Stampede.
The win puts an exclamation point on Rod's illustrious career
as the best bronco buster in Canada. Rod is also the reigning
Canadian saddle-bronc champion and he will represent Canada
at the world championships this fall.
I ask all members to join me in cheering for Rod Hay.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
5937
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, during the first
week in September I had the privilege of being part of the
Canadian delegation to the United Nations conference on
population and development in Cairo, Egypt.
There were many significant things to be learned. One of the
most interesting was an understanding as to how the world
community views Canada. Canada is nation to be trusted. It is a
nation turned to when issues are polarized and emotions are
frayed.
We are truly the honest broker on the global stage. This is
important for us to understand right now because initiatives here
at home threaten to tear our country apart. For Canadians that
means risking the loss of the rich culture and heritage that is so
much a part of Quebec and her people. For the world there is a
risk of loss of a great partner, the likes of which could never be
replaced.
* * *
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pleasure I announce to the House that during the
summer break the city of Winnipeg won the bid to host the 1999
Pan-American Games. We view the games as an opportunity to
bring the world to our doorstep, to extend friendship and to
exchange cultural traditions with our close cousins in the
American hemisphere.
Indeed showcasing Canada to the world by hosting
international games contributes immeasurably to forging
international bonds. At the same time it instils in Canadians a
sense of national pride and unity and a better understanding of
the diversity of linguistic and cultural identities.
It will be a great celebration in 1999. Winnipeg has a long
tradition of excellence in playing host to major events. I am
proud to have had the opportunity to work with the excellent
co-chairs Don Mackenzie and Barbara Huck, the mayor of the
city of Winnipeg, the premier and the numerous volunteers to
bring the games home again.
I would like to say a special thanks to the Prime Minister for
supporting the bid to its success.
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pride that I rise in the House today to congratulate a
constituent of mine, Michael Strange, the gold medalist in
boxing, 60 kilograms class, at the 25th Commonwealth Games
in Victoria, British Columbia, where Team Canada won 128
medals.
Michael's achievement was remarkable, given the many
adversities that he and his team mates encountered outside the
ring. His outstanding performance is testimony to his skills,
hard work and commitment to excellence. The efforts,
teamwork, sportsmanship and dedication of athletes like Mr.
Strange constantly make Canada's sporting scene one of the best
in the world.
If we are to enjoy a repeated performance by Team Canada at
world events we must, as Canadians, continue to recognize the
positive influence these young athletes have on Canadian youth
and support the valuable contributions they make to the
Canadian identity.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, as we know, Quebec spent $45 million in 1992 to
organize its own referendum on federal offers. Yesterday, we
learned that the federal government refused to refund the $26
million, or one quarter of the total costs, the people of Quebec
have contributed toward the referendum held in the nine other
provinces.
All told, the cost of the referendum on the Charlottetown
Accord to the Quebec taxpayers was $70 million, as compared to
$80 million for the rest of Canada. Moreover, the Deputy Prime
Minister was pleased to hear this yesterday. She said that
separation is expensive.
(1410)
Unfortunately, Quebec is not a sovereign state yet and the
Quebec taxpayers have paid three times as much as those from
the other Canadian provinces for the referendum that buried any
hope of federal renewal to be held. It was expensive indeed just
to find out that federalism equals status quo.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to report that yesterday the Reform Party broke new ground in
Ontario. Three Reform MPs, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake
Centre, the member for Prince George-Peace River and I,
participated in the international ploughing match special class
competition for members of Parliament. This took place in
Pembroke.
I am proud to say that we ploughed the competition under and
left them in the dust. My colleague, the member for Prince
George-Peace River, was straight and focused to the end. His
winning performance proved that with hard work and
perseverance we will be the voters' choice as well.
5938
Give us a chance and we will plough under the national debt
which today stands at $531,298,621,000.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, like
millions of Quebecers, I understood that there was some
confusion following a telephone conversation between Premier
Parizeau and the Prime Minister of Canada. However, I clearly
heard Mr. Parizeau make an election commitment to hold a
referendum within 10 months. That statement is the only one
that matters.
[English]
I say ignore the advice of the Leader of the Opposition to put
off the referendum until the climate is more favourable. I can
assure Mr. Parizeau that these are not the winds of change he
hears from the Leader of the Opposition. It is simply hot air.
[Translation]
Mr. Parizeau, hold the referendum in 10 months as you had
planned and promised Quebecers during the election campaign.
It is time for the Leader of the Opposition to respect the
democratic choice of Quebecers and the commitment made by
Premier Parizeau, who stated that the referendum must be held
quickly, that is, 8 to 10 months after the election.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, Sunday night's agreement between Haiti's illegal
president and Mr. Carter, which was drafted without consulting
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide or the United Nations, is a
tragic betrayal of the Haitian people. The hoodlum Raoul Cédras
and his associates did not sign anything, do not have to leave the
country and will even enjoy a general amnesty.
Last week, President Clinton strongly denounced Cédras and
his army of thugs and condemned his reign of terror. Today,
according to him, he is an honourable man. President Aristide
has called for the implementation of Resolution 940 and of the
Governors Island Accord, and I hope that the Government of
Canada will support him while denouncing this repugnant
agreement.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw the attention of my colleagues in this House
to the 14th Terry Fox Run which was held on Sunday, September
18.
[English]
At 3,400 different sites across Canada on Sunday, hundreds of
thousands of people took part in the event which raised a total of
$8.5 million in 40 countries worldwide last year and is expected
to raise more this year.
These donations pay 20 per cent of all the cancer research in
Canada.
[Translation]
Over half a million Canadians walked, ran, pedalled or skated
in memory of Terry Fox, who died of cancer in June 1981. I
would like to pay tribute to the Canadians who once again
volunteered their time to promote this cause they care about.
Volunteers are needed now more than ever.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): Mr.
Speaker, a dream came true in my constituency of
Restigouche-Chaleur. Last Monday, Radio-Restigouche, a
community radio station also known as CIMS-FM, went on the
air.
For the last few years, a great number of volunteers and
employees have been working relentlessly to reach this goal.
This community radio station aims at promoting the Acadian
and French culture and at providing high quality regional news.
CIMS-FM will also give its many volunteers the opportunity to
train in the communications sector.
I want to congratulate all the members of the
Radio-Restigouche team for their hard work. Such commitment
by volunteers is worth mentioning. Long live
Radio-Restigouche.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: I like to draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery today of Major-General Roméo
Dallaire, des forces armée canadiennes.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
5939
The Speaker: It seems that his reputation has preceded him
and rightly so for all members of the House. I welcome you
home, Major-General Roméo Dallaire. This is your place and
we are glad to have you here.
_____________________________________________
5939
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the brutal repression which the Haitian police and army
carry on is getting worse in Port-au-Prince, as the American
soldiers watch impassively. For his part, exiled President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide has publicly repudiated the agreement
reached between Washington and the military junta, referring
back to the Governors Island Accord. The UN special envoy who
was in charge of negotiating these accords has just resigned. His
name is Dante Caputo.
I ask the minister who seems to be increasingly embarrassed
by the growing confusion to tell us if negotiations are now going
on in Washington to ensure the speedy and effective return of
President Aristide.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, my answer is yes. As much as the Leader of the
Opposition, I deplore this carnage that has followed the arrival
of multinational troops in Haiti. These are certainly
unacceptable actions which should have been expected from the
military who are losing control of the country. I think that we
must see what is happening there in that context and I would ask
the Leader of the Opposition not to make a partisan issue of it
but to accept that the Government of Canada is playing a very
important and very useful role with President Aristide, who will
return to his country very soon.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I always thought that Canada's policy was to support
President Aristide. I wonder if President Aristide cannot rightly
ask whether Canada did not support him by signing an
agreement with an impostor president who has taken his place,
without any reference to President Aristide's own legitimacy.
[English]
Did the minister intervene on behalf of Canada with
Washington in order to ensure that the return of President
Aristide takes place under conditions which respect the
Governors Island agreement rather than according to the terms
of agreement negotiated last Sunday with the U.S.?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should know; if he does
not, he should talk to President Aristide, who will confirm for
him that he fully supports what the Canadian government is
doing.
(1420)
President Aristide has always shown himself to be very
interested in and very close to the positions taken by Canada. He
knows that the Canadian government is a dependable friend and
ally.
So I do not accept the Leader of the Opposition trying for
partisan reasons to create dissension between the Government
of Canada and President Aristide when there is none at all.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, let us limit the debate to whether or not Canada is
meeting its commitments to democracy and the support
promised for President Aristide.
In this regard, if the government really played an important
role, how could it let this agreement be reached with an impostor
president, with no mention of President Aristide, who is
supposed to be Canada's protégé?
In particular, I ask the minister whether he agrees with the
clauses in the latest agreement that provide for amnesty, despite
what was in the Governors Island Accord; according to our
information, these clauses are the main obstacle to President
Aristide's return.
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I find it particularly interesting that the Leader of the
Opposition is now second guessing the actions of President
Carter and the emissaries who at the very last minute obtained
capitulations from the military junta.
What took place there at the last minute was that decisions
were made by the Haitian junta to accept that multinational
forces would arrive in Haiti without any confrontation in order
to ensure that there would not be any loss of lives. That is what
took place. Nothing else.
All the elements of resolution 940 will be carried out and will
be exercised by the military forces that are there. That will
ensure the speedy and safe return of President Aristide.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. The Auditor General of
Canada, Mr. Denis Desautels, is understandably concerned by
the problems experienced by the government in collecting
unpaid taxes. In the last five years, the amount of taxes owed by
Canadian taxpayers has nearly doubled, going from 3.7 to more
than $6.2 billion.
5940
Will the Minister of Finance recognize that, before targeting
the poorest ones through a social reform, he should first set up a
more efficient system to collect the more than six billion dollars
owed in taxes?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I read the account by Norman Delisle in this morning's
La Presse of the speech by the Auditor General, and I must say I
was very encouraged and pleased by what I read. He has
identified the close to doubling of the taxes owed during the last
five years of the Tory administration of which my hon. friend
has made mention.
He has made it perfectly clear that this is indeed an area which
the Government of Canada must pursue vigorously to make sure
that all Canadians pay their fair share of taxes and that the
business community is faced with a level playing field so it does
not have to compete for contracts against those who do not pay
their share. It is clear that he has identified a problem which we
have recognized.
I remind the hon. member that within three weeks of
becoming minister I announced a major campaign in
consultation with my friend the hon. Minister of Finance to
make sure that we would be able to address these very problems
that the Auditor General mentioned in Quebec City yesterday.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, the results
are yet to come. The minister and his government were elected a
year ago. Will the minister tell us why his government did not
make as much effort to collect taxes owed to the Treasury as it
does to cut social benefits through its upcoming reform of those
social programs designed to protect the poorest ones in our
society? Why did the government not make as much effort to
collect those unpaid taxes?
(1425 )
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I mentioned that within three weeks of becoming
minister we launched a major campaign against the underground
economy and against those who are not paying their fair share.
I pointed out that this was an important initiative of the
government. The member seems to have overlooked the fact that
revenues are up dramatically for this period over last year and
that a considerable part of this, approximately $700 million, is
due to improved efficiency of collection. He has overlooked the
fact that we are doing much better.
He has also overlooked the fact that the Auditor General in
this article to which I referred earlier said the following:
[Translation]
The Auditor was very pleased by the decision of the federal
Revenue minister to intensify measures to collect amounts owed
to the Treasury.
[English]
Had the hon. member bothered to read the story and the
speech of the Auditor General, he would have noticed that the
Auditor General is congratulating us for the actions we are
taking.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal premier of New Brunswick has expressed the view
that Canada will sink into a lower economic order if the federal
government does not come to grips with the debt problem.
He says that the efforts of the provinces to control their
spending are being held back by the federal government which
has yet to show a clear demonstrable commitment to fiscal
management that would inspire international investors.
The Prime Minister will not heed advice from members on
this side with respect to this subject. He does not heed advice
from the taxpayers and the investment community. Perhaps he
will heed the words of his Liberal colleagues and provide a clear
demonstrable commitment to sound fiscal management.
Will the Prime Minister publicly direct the finance minister to
reduce the deficit, not by raising taxes but by further spending
reductions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
that is exactly what the Minister of Finance is doing.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister apparently has no idea of the uncertainty that
these non-answers and political answers create with respect to
investors and taxpayers.
Many resource companies, particularly in western Canada,
are starting to make money for the first time in a number of
years. They are in a position of trying to decide whether to invest
those profits in Canada or take them elsewhere out of the reach
of the government.
Since the Prime Minister, given his track record on this issue
and the uncertainty, creates only more uncertainty by
responding, will the finance minister clear the air by stating
categorically that he is not planning any tax increases on the
resource industry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to know that the leader of the Reform Party is
conceding that when we had a Conservative government even
less right wing than his, business was not making money and
with the Liberal government in power it is starting to make
5941
money. It does not know where to invest it. It is better to have
that problem than the problem it had with the Tories in
government.
Talking about uncertainty I would like the leader of the
Reform Party to be a bit objective. It is on TV every night and
every morning that the Canadian dollar is going up. The interest
rate is going down. The international community has more
confidence in Canada than ever before. He should rejoice. That
is simple.
(1430 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): I read the
papers, Mr. Speaker, but I am more conscious of the fact that the
government is spending $110 million more per day than it takes
in, and a lot of other people recognize that as well.
If the Prime Minister cannot answer this question with clarity
and resolve uncertainty in the resource industry perhaps he can
say something that would calm the uncertainty among RRSP
investors.
Yesterday the Prime Minister would not give a straight answer
on whether the government is contemplating a raid on RRSP
contributions. These investors are already organizing
themselves to oppose an expected tax grab while we wait for an
answer from the government on how many more dollars will
seek a safer haven elsewhere.
My question is for the finance minister if the Prime Minister
cannot answer. Will he clear the air on this issue by stating
categorically that he is not planning a tax raid on RRSP
contributions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we have made it very
clear that we are about to embark on the most comprehensive,
deep consultative process in the budget preparation that has ever
been done. There will be extensive opportunity for debate. We
welcome that opportunity.
The challenge I lay before the leader of the Reform Party is to
rise to that opportunity. Or, is the Reform Party going to do what
it did in the pre-budget debate, what it has done throughout the
summer, and that is refuse to be constructive, refuse to tell us
what it would do and refuse to face the fundamental challenges
facing the country?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
we now know that in five years, Canada has dropped from fourth
to fourteenth place among the 24 OECD countries as far its
competitive position is concerned, mainly because of the
unprecedented extent of the federal debt, inefficient government
policies that undermine job creation and, above all, the wasteful
overlap in manpower training.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Considering this disastrous state of affairs, what more will it
take for the Minister of Finance to decide to make a move, act
responsibly, eliminate the inefficiencies in federal spending and
at last do something about duplication and overlap?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we have every intention
of dealing with overlap. In fact, the Minister responsible for
Public Service Renewal has been given that role.
I may add that the problems are more fundamental and that we
will have to deal with the loss of our technological edge, the
manpower issue, and, of course, the issue of the debt. That is
why the Minister of Human Resources Development is going to
start on his program to restructure our social programs, why the
Minister of Industry is going to start on his program to
restructure industry, and why we intend to reach our objective of
bringing the federal deficit down to 3 per cent of GNP.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
earlier I heard the Prime Minister refer to the Conservatives. I
now hear the Minister of Finance saying exactly the same thing
he said about a year ago.
Mr. Speaker, I will put the question to the minister: What has
he done for the past year, aside from conducting some pretty
useless consultations, to cut operating expenditures? What has
he done to eliminate overlap and duplication? What has he done
to help the government make a sensible decision, which would
be to decentralize all authority over manpower training to
Quebec?
Eight hundred thousand unemployed individuals are waiting
for this to happen. They are waiting for the glimmer of hope that
the Minister of Finance and the government are certainly not
giving them. So what has he done? That is my question.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, what we did? Real
growth was 6.4 per cent during the past quarter, the best
performance of all our G-7 partners. Consumer spending was up
3.5 per cent during the first half of 1994. Exports were up 0.6 per
cent in July, and I can go on.
(1435)
The hon. member asked me what I did. Well, I am not entirely
responsible for all this. The government is.
5942
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, you will
know there has been some debate outside the House this week
concerning the date of a referendum in Quebec. You will also
know that many Canadians, after 25 years, are sick and tired of
this separatist merry-go-round.
I would like the Prime Minister to clarify for the House
whether he has clearly communicated the position of his
government, of the vast majority of members of the House and
the vast majority of the population of Canada that the premier of
Quebec should fulfil his commitment to have this referendum as
soon as possible. What assurances has he received in that
regard?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is yes, and the commitment was not only in a private
conversation. It was made public on the Wednesday afternoon
during a press conference when Mr. Parizeau answered a
question by a CBC radio reporter stating he was to fulfil his
commitment. I took his word in the press as well as what he said
privately.
I see that the Reform Party is trying to make money on that
subject by having a 1-900 telephone number. It is pretty
awkward for a political party to want people to express a view
and pay money to the Reform Party on a divisive issue like this
one.
It is unbelievable and not very ethical to take a controversial
problem, one that is very divisive and ask the people to pay to
make money for the Reform Party. I can understand why the
Reform Party has problems with its funding at this time, if we
judge it by its performance in the House of Commons.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
It is in the interests of this party and should be in the interests
of the government to get the views of all Canadians on the unity
of the country. I am surprised that the Prime Minister does not
want that.
[Translation]
Here is my supplementary question: Does the Prime Minister
intend to contact officially the new Quebec Government to urge
it to respect its commitment and hold its referendum as quickly
as possible, on the simple question of Quebec separation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
already called them, as I mentioned before in this House, and I
made a speech in Quebec City, before the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce last Sunday, so my message is well known. We want
this question to be resolved in a civilized manner and quickly, so
we can turn our attention to the other problems facing this
country.
I would like to tell the hon. member that his party should have
subscribed to a 1-800 number, instead of trying to make money
with a 1-900 number. This is quite inappropriate.
* * *
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Once again, this
year, Kingston High School students went back to school in
shacks without running water or bathrooms because Kingston
city council still refuses to let the school board build a school on
its land.
On May 31, the Prime Minister pledged to help francophones
get their high school without delay. In his opinion, is it normal
for the school board to have to resort to the courts to have this
fundamental right upheld? Given that the school will not be built
soon, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that his May 31
pledge was nothing but hogwash?
(1440)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
have asked ministers who have Crown lands in Kingston to make
a site available to the Kingston French-Language School Board
to build a school, if it cannot come to an agreement with the city
council. The Solicitor General and the Minister of National
Defence have been trying to resolve this issue and we will find a
suitable site if no agreement is forthcoming.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, does the Prime Minister recognize that the systematic
obstruction and the obvious bad faith of Kingston city council
confirm what the Commissioner of Official Languages said,
namely that it will be extremely difficult to turn Kingston into a
bilingual place respectful of the fundamental rights of
francophones in this country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we intend to take the necessary steps to ensure that Kingston
college provides services in both official languages to all its
students.
I am surprised to see how emotional these people who want to
split Quebec from Canada and have their own army and so on
can be. We will do what is good for Canada. We will make sure
that anyone attending the only military college this country
needs since we reduced our troops to 60,000-will be able to
attend a bilingual institution, as required by Canadian
legislation.
5943
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, the Security Intelligence Review Committee has
publicly stated that the Solicitor General will have sole
discretion in determining the openness of the SIRC report on the
CSIS-Bristow affair.
Will the minister assure the House that he will make the entire
report public, excluding the identification of confidential CSIS
sources, other than Grant Bristow?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
it is my objective to make as much as possible of the report
public. Once I receive the report I will review it. I will seek such
legal advice as I need to make up my mind on how much I can
make public.
It is my objective, as I said, to make as much as possible of the
report public. If I can make the whole thing public I will
certainly do so.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year SIRC tried to convince the justice
committee that the fact that Canada was a world leader in the
petroleum industry was a national secret.
Will the minister assure the House that he will provide a
broader interpretation of what national security is?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
think the CSIS act adopted by the House provides a definition. It
is a very broad definition.
I appreciate the hon. member's question. I look forward to
receiving the SIRC report so that after receiving advice on my
legal position I can proceed as quickly as possible to make as
much of that report public as possible to help reassure the public
about this important subject.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The minister said at a press conference on September 12 that
the inspection carried out by the Food and Drug Administration
resulted from a change in the American regulations.
How can the minister reconcile her statement with that made
by Red Cross spokespersons who were saying exactly the
opposite, namely that there had been no change in the American
regulations.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
must tell the hon. member that there has in fact been a change in
the FDA policy. They have decided to require Canadian blood
collection centres to have a licence. There was already a request
for this licence in their system. The FDA had not required
Canadian centres to have this licence for several years.
(1445)
So, they suddenly changed their mind and now require us to
licence these centres in order to meet the US regulations.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whom we should believe. In response to a question I asked at a
press conference, she told us that the American regulations have
been changed. Then the Red Cross looks into it and says that
there has been no change. I am trying to sort this out. I never get
a straight answer.
I ask her the same question again: Was there, yes or no, any
change in the American regulations? And I expect a clear
answer.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
there was a change in the policies of the FDA. Red Cross centres
are now required to have a licence. That is all.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Justice. On behalf of thousands of honest
law-abiding gun owners in Canada and being one myself as a
former president of the Dover Rod and Gun Club and with many
legitimate target shooting clubs wondering about their future,
will the minister clearly state the government's position on the
banning of handguns?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the regulation of handguns is
just one aspect of a comprehensive package this government is
preparing in response to the Prime Minister's request last May.
I can tell the hon. member we are going to have to deal with
handguns. A poll taken less than a year ago showed that 71 per
cent of Canadians and a clear majority of firearms owners were
in favour of an absolute ban on handguns. I am not suggesting
the answer is that simple and no final decision has been made.
I spent the last three months speaking with dozens of pistol
clubs, shooting clubs and handgun associations, among others. I
am very sensitive to the interests they claim.
A study released yesterday by the Metropolitan Toronto
Police Force gave further reason to believe this subject needs
attention. We already knew that 3,800 firearms are lost or stolen
each year, about half of which are handguns. The study released
yesterday demonstrated that about 30 per cent of the firearms
5944
used in the commission of crimes in Toronto were originally
legally registered handguns.
We will be turning our attention to this subject. We will do our
best to find a solution that respects the legitimate interests of
Canadians and at the same time enhances public safety.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In 1981 Mr. Dudley Vincent Forbes was ordered deported to
Jamaica for overstaying his visa. Four years later he was
actually deported and the following year he returned. He was
deported again and again he returned. Last Saturday Mr. Forbes
allegedly walked into a Toronto establishment and opened fire
on a crowd killing two and wounding several more.
After having been deported twice Forbes was recently granted
permanent resident status. My question is why?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, this case is before the police. This
individual came to Canada in 1981. He was asked to leave after
overstaying and returned in 1986.
(1450 )
If the hon. member is questioning whether people who are
deported should not be permitted to return and go through due
process then why is it that his party is refusing to adopt Bill
C-44? Those amendments would allow the individual to be
turned around at the border without legal process. Why is his
party saying no to that?
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, this
minister's record is not before the police; it is open for the
public to look at. Bill C-44 would not have stopped Forbes from
entering this country. We will not support the half measures the
government proposes.
Will this minister agree today to put the protection of
Canadian health and safety ahead of all other concerns in
immigration, ahead of procedure, ahead of his friends in the
immigration industry, ahead of his own personal ambitions?
The Speaker: My colleagues, we should not in any way
impugn motives. That part of the question is out of order. I will
allow the first part of the question to stand, if the minister would
like to answer it.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party does not like to
deal with the facts, but it should get around to doing that.
The facts are that this individual came to Canada and left
some 15 years ago. The police are looking for this individual.
Charges are pending. The person is at large. There are
deportations on the books of individuals who are convicted of
crimes that we believe are due to deportation. Fifteen years after
this individual has entered Canada, is charged by the
police-not convicted, charged-and is at large, what does that
member expect me as minister of immigration to do?
On July 7 this government made a very clear reorientation of
how we remove individuals. We set up a joint task force made up
of police, RCMP, provincial and federal immigration
authorities.
The hon. member does not need to lecture this government
about taking the appropriate action. However the member does
need a lecture about how our judicial system works and that we
cannot deport someone who is charged and at large.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The latest figures from the
finance department show a significant reduction in UI benefits
from April to July. However, these numbers also show a
significant increase in social assistance costs-and that applies
only to the federal government's share and does not include the
increased costs in the provinces.
Given these figures, how can the Prime Minister take
pleasure, as he did last Sunday at the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce in Quebec City, in saying that a growing number of
Canadian households no longer need to rely on unemployment
insurance or social assistance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is very clear that there has been a significant decrease in the
number of people who need UI benefits at this time and that the
creation of 275,000 jobs allowed these people to return to the
workforce. That is why I said that fewer people need to rely on
unemployment insurance and social assistance, since many jobs
have been created in the last 10 months.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, if the
figures are higher, it is certainly not because there are fewer
beneficiaries.
(1455)
Does the Prime Minister not recognize that the reduction in UI
benefits is due in very large part to the reforms, the exemptions
voted not only by the former government but also by the current
government, that this is a tragedy for individuals and that it
simply means a heavier burden for the provinces?
5945
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as far as the reduction is
concerned, it is very clear. The figures are there. In Quebec
alone, for example, the help wanted index is 10 per cent higher
than in 1993. Since we were elected, Quebec's unemployment
rate has fallen by more than 1 per cent. Again, in Quebec, 79,000
jobs were created, while 261,000 jobs were created in Canada.
That is why the rates are down.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice knows that Keith Legere is a reported
pedophile just released from prison for the killing of a six-year
old boy. His psychiatric assessment shows he is a pedophile with
psychopathic tendencies. The protection of society has to be our
number one priority yet there is no mechanism in our system to
protect society against people like Keith Legere.
Will the minister take immediate steps to bring in legislation
that will indefinitely incarcerate dangerous offenders?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, part XXIV of the Criminal
Code calls for the indefinite incarceration of dangerous
offenders. Part XXIV has been in place for decades. In the
appropriate cases it permits the prosecuting attorney to bring to
the attention of the court circumstances which would establish
that the accused person is of sufficient danger to society that
they should be locked up indefinitely. That happens weekly in
the courts of the country.
The government has identified a gap in the system. It is that
category of case in which no such application under part XXIV
of the Criminal Code is brought. Such persons may be
incarcerated for fixed periods but may arguably still be
dangerous upon the expiration of those terms.
I am not speaking to the case of Legere but speaking generally
when I say that for the past several months the Solicitor General,
the Minister of Health and I have been working with our
provincial counterparts toward the creation of a nationwide
policy with changes to the provincial health acts, if necessary.
This is to provide for the continued detention under the health
regimes of persons who, upon the expiration of their criminal
terms, may be dangerous to the public.
I will be happy to provide the hon. member with details of the
state of those discussions. They continue and I remain
optimistic as do my colleagues that we can make a significant
improvement in the system in that way.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, that is
good talk and I would like to see something really happen.
However from what I have seen from the proposals and the talk I
have heard their policies are going to be as useless as the
immigration policies.
I will give another example. A convicted sexual predator, a
pedophile named Galienne, will be released in October. Experts
say he is not rehabilitated and will prey on young children again.
Washington State has successfully enacted legislation that
locks up perverts indefinitely. Will the justice minister
implement an immediate moratorium on the release of all
dangerous offenders until such time as new effective legislation
is in place?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's
concern for the safety of the public, but I suggest that a different
approach would be more effective and in the long run necessary
as constitutional.
The hon. member may have noticed two weeks ago that an
Ontario court upheld a ruling. It would keep in detention a
person who had completed a prison term but who was taken into
the Ontario health regime and held involuntarily for the
protection of the public.
(1500 )
The person challenged that ruling and the ruling was upheld. I
took that as very encouraging for the approach that the Solicitor
General of Canada, the Minister of Health and I want to pursue,
which is working with the health systems to fill that gap.
There cannot be a moratorium because that would not be
lawful. It would not be constitutional.
An hon. member: Would it be safe?
Mr. Rock: What is safe and expedient is not always what is
lawful. The rule of law must govern. I can assure the hon.
member that we will pursue the approach I have described. We
are confident it will result in an enhancement of public safety.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. In 1985, UNESCO of the United Nations recognized
the unsurpassed heritage value of the historic old port in Quebec
City, placing it on the world list of heritage sites.
Will the government also recognize the heritage value of the
old port of Quebec and monitor the encroachment of developers
whose sole interests for prime real estate are for profit?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I thank our colleague for her interest in the historic
district of Quebec. Of course Canada played an important role in
the development of the world heritage convention.
5946
As minister responsible for heritage sites in Canada, I am
always encouraging the very careful management of the lands in
the old, historic district of Quebec and in adjacent areas.
[Translation]
To reassure her further, I am pleased to report that I was
informed that the City of Quebec announced on June 23 that it
was pulling out of a project to build parking spaces and, a few
days later, the promoters of a Imax cinema project also
abandoned their plans for that area.
This means that the district is indeed protected and I have no
doubt that we will remain vigilant in the future.
* * *
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources. The 128
workers of Ogilvie Mills, in Montreal, have been on strike for
three and a half months now. And there is no hope of settlement
in sight, as the company can hire scabs to remain in operation.
Considering that about 70 per cent of the Canadian workforce
is already protected by provincial anti-strikebreaking
legislation, does the minister intend to table in this House
proposals to amend the Canada Labour Code by adding
anti-strikebreaking provisions at the federal level?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to reply to the hon. member that the
minister met on Monday with several CNTU officers
representing Ogilvie Mills workers. He assured them that he was
taking a close look at this whole issue of Canadian
anti-strikebreaking legislation, an issue which will be
considered as part of the in-depth reform of the Canada Labour
Code, and that he will give this problem the urgent and serious
attention it deserves.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, on February 18 in
the House my colleague from Surrey North warned the Minister
of Health about the differences between the Canadian blood
supply and the U.S. blood supply. The minister's answer was do
not worry. We are inspecting the blood supply and by March this
will all be taken care of.
If those inspections had been done, we would not be in the
pickle we are in today. Were those inspections done, or was this
simply to cover the minister's gluteus maximus?
The Speaker: The question is out of order.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, my question of privilege, of which I had given notice,
related to certain comments made during the course of debate
yesterday by the member for Central Nova.
(1505 )
However, following consultation with the Clerk, I understand
that this matter may be more appropriately addressed as a point
of order. I will certainly pursue the matter at the earliest possible
opportunity, after having given notice to the member for Central
Nova.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I too
would like to rise on a point of order regarding question period
yesterday afternoon. I asked the Prime Minister a question about
an appointment of a lawyer.
I would like to draw your attention to Beauchesne's 6th
edition, citation 489 which states that the phrase ``has not got
the guts'' is unparliamentary. That comes from Debates of May
27, 1959, page 4078.
I would like to draw your attention to Hansard of yesterday,
page 5898 where the Prime Minister responded to me with the
exact words ``if the member had any guts she would try to prove
that the person is not competent''.
I think it is fairly clear that statement is out of order and I
would like to ask that the Prime Minister either withdraw those
comments or apologize.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
am speaking in my capacity as government House leader.
With respect to the point of order just raised, I respectfully
submit there are two problems with it. First, I am not aware
whether the hon. member gave notice to the Prime Minister that
she intended to raise it so that he could be present. More
important, I understand that such matters are to be raised at the
5947
first opportunity which should have been yesterday
immediately after the end of the question period.
The time has passed for raising this point. However in saying
that I am not in any way accepting the premise of the hon.
member's point of order.
The Speaker: Many times in the course of debate when we
take words out of context they do not always have the same
connotation that they ordinarily would have.
Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member has rightly
pointed out that the statement which she quotes as being used is
out of order I would refer the hon. member to page 149 of
Beauchesne's 6th edition, ``unparliamentary language'', where
it says:
The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be
temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue
of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is parliamentary in one
context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary.
I would say the point has been made. I would rule that it
should have been brought up probably at the instant when it
occurred rather than a day later. I am hopeful the hon. member
will accept it is on the record that these words are indeed
unparliamentary. My ruling for now would simply be that I hope
the use of these words would not occur again in the near future.
Is this on the same point of order?
Miss Grey: Yes.
The Speaker: Unless it adds something new I would prefer
just to lay this aside. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, my question was
ruled out of order and I would like to request a ruling on that
please.
The Speaker: The ruling is simply that it is out of order in the
context in which it was made. I think that this kind of language
in certain circumstances could be very inflammatory and I
would ask the hon. member that in future when he is putting
questions that they not in any way stoop to even a hint of
vulgarity.
That is not by way of explanation so much as it is by way of
asking the hon. member to please refrain from language which
could be judged to be inflammatory.
_____________________________________________
5947
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1510)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to table, in both official languages, and pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to five
petitions.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the
honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the
report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the
Third Annual Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on
Security and Co-operation in Europe held in Vienna, Austria,
from July 4 to July 8, 1994.
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present to the House the third report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning the
North Atlantic Assembly's spring session which was held in
Oslo, Norway, May 26 to May 30, 1994.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-267, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(election expenses).
He said: Madam Speaker, with the permission of the House,
may I make a short statement on each bill.
The purpose of the bill covering election expenses is to
eliminate any reimbursement by taxpayers of election expenses
incurred by candidates and political parties.
(1515 )
The Canada Elections Act presently obliges taxpayers to
reimburse 50 per cent of election expenses of candidates and
political parties if they achieve set percentages of the vote.
Such reimbursement is actually a taxpayer funded grant to a
special interest group which should be raising the money from
the people it purports to represent. Passage of the bill would
ensure that they would have to do exactly that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-268, an act to promote the use of plain
language in federal statutes and regulations.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill regarding
plain language is to ensure that plain language is used in federal
legislation so that legislation may be clearly and readily
understood by non-lawyers. Some of the bills the House has
passed and no doubt will pass in the future are so legally
complex that it takes a gaggle of lawyers to interpret and explain
the legislation. Even then it is not unusual for the original intent
of the bill to end up being lost in legal challenges.
5948
This bill if passed would ensure that the final language of a
bill is straightforward enough and in simple enough language
that its intent could not be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-269, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan
(income transferred to spouse).
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend
the Canada pension plan to permit income transferred to a
spouse to qualify as pensionable and thereby extend CPP
benefits to stay at home parents.
The bill is a follow-up to my, Bill C-256, introduced on June
7, 1994 which proposed to amend the Income Tax Act to allow
one spouse to pay or split income up to $25,000 to the other
spouse who is managing the family home and caring for at least
one dependent child who has not commenced full time
attendance at school.
This new bill would give further recognition to the principle
that caring for children is an important job to be fairly
compensated including the extension of pension benefits to a
parent working in the home.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-270, an act to amend the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (money purchase pension).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce
a private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (money purchase pension).
The bill if passed will significantly change the MPs pension
plan. It is designed to reduce the burden significantly taken on
by taxpayers under the current member of Parliament pension
plan.
Currently members of Parliament contribute $1 for $7 of
taxpayers' money to the existing plan. This new plan is $1 for
$1, taxpayer by member. It will reduce the cost to taxpayers of
the pension plan for members of Parliament by approximately
$11.7 million per year.
This is a plan that is endorsed by the Saskatchewan Taxpayers
Association, the Canadian Taxpayers Association and the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It is a plan that is
modelled after the Saskatchewan MLAs plan which has been in
place for over 15 years and works very well for both taxpayers
and members.
It will end unfunded future liabilities of MPs pensions. It will
also reduce overall pension payout and set a higher age limit for
qualifying for a pension.
I hope to gain support from all sides of the House on this very
important bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1520 )
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-271, an act to amend the Yukon First Nations
Land Claims Settlement Act (Interpretation).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House
today to introduce an act to amend the Yukon First Nations Land
Claims Settlement Act.
One of the more serious flaws in Bill C-33 allows the
agreements of the Yukon First Nations to take precedence over
Canadian laws. The bill would amend Bill C-33, the Yukon First
Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, so that federal or
territorial law will prevail where there is an inconsistency or
conflict with any final agreement or transboundary agreement.
We are all Canadians and the laws of the land should apply
equally to all.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I think you will find unanimous consent of the House for the
following motion. I move:
That the order of the House of Wednesday, February 23, 1994 respecting the
Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy be amended by adding
thereto the following:
That, not withstanding the usual practices of this House substitution in the
membership of the Committee shall be in accordance with Standing Order
114(2),
and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours thereof.
5949
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons) moved:
That the Order of the House of March 16, 1994, respecting the Special Joint
Committee on Canada's Foreign Policy be amended by adding thereto the
following:
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, substitution in the
membership of the Committee shall be in accordance with Standing Order
114(2), and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours thereof.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker,
these petitioners are concerned as are all Canadians that abuse
and violence are real concerns throughout the whole nation.
The petitioners want all forms of abuse and violence
controlled and preferably to cease; that is, those forms of abuse
and violence that we hear on radio and see on television. They
request that the government ask the CRTC to regulate forms of
abuse and violence that are contrary to what they are trying to do
to raise their families.
(1525 )
These parents point out that their efforts to raise and educate
their children are often counteracted by what happens on radio
and television.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise today to present
three petitions signed by my constituents in Capilano-Howe
Sound.
The first petition calls on Parliament not to amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Madam
Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Madam
Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament to prohibit
assisted suicide and that Parliament make no changes in the law
which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Madam Speaker, I am
presenting petitions today on behalf of members of the Kaska
Dena Council of Yukon and B.C. These members are from
diverse points, Watson Lake, Fort Nelson, including Good
Hope.
The Kaska Dena Council requests that Parliament ensure that
its fiduciary rights as related to the federal government are
respected, particularly in relation to land claims issues in Yukon
and B.C. in which its territory spans both that province and
territory.
The Kaska Dena Council seeks the support of the minister of
Indian affairs to ensure that he carries out this responsibility and
former agreements with the Kaska Dena Council.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Madam Speaker, it
is my pleasure today to present a petition to the House signed by
a number of my constituents as well as Canadians throughout
southwestern Ontario.
These petitioners call on Parliament to vigorously enforce the
Criminal Code of Canada to prohibit assisted suicide and they
further call on Parliament to make no changes in the law which
would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
I present this and most heartily concur with these petitioners.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Madam
Speaker, I am privileged to table in the House today duly
certified petitions on behalf of the constituents of Moose
Jaw-Lake Centre.
The first two petitions ask Parliament to enforce the present
provisions of the Criminal Code respecting assisted suicides and
that no changes in the law be contemplated by Parliament.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Madam
Speaker, I table the wishes of persons in Moose Jaw-Lake
Centre who humbly pray that Parliament not amend the human
rights code concerning the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I concur wholeheartedly with each of these petitions of my
constituents.
5950
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition which is signed by
residents across Canada, including from the cities of Calgary,
Moose Jaw and Mill Bay.
These petitioners draw to the attention of the House the fact
that the current Criminal Code denies people who are suffering
from terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to
choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with the
assistance of a physician.
Therefore the petitions call upon Parliament to amend the
Criminal Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with
dignity by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and
debilitating illnesses the right to the assistance of a physician in
ending their lives at a time of their choice subject to strict
safeguards to prevent abuse and to ensure that the decision is
free, informed, competent and voluntary.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Madam Speaker, it
is my pleasure on behalf of constituents and other Canadians in
Saskatchewan to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order
36. The petition is signed by people from Moose Jaw,
Saskatoon, Pangman, Ogema, Minton, Oungre, Kenora and
Nipawin, all in Saskatchewan.
(1530)
The petitioners are extremely worried about the impact of Bill
C-91 which was passed in the last Parliament extending the
patent on some prescription drugs for up to 20 years and
guaranteeing drug manufacturers monopoly prices and
substantial profits at Canadians' expense.
Prescription drug prices in Canada are the most expensive in
the world as a result of the bill. The petitioners are calling for the
repeal of Bill C-91. The Liberals in opposition supported the
repealing of Bill C-91. The petitioners are asking the
government to repeal the bill as quickly as possible to reduce the
pressure on drug plans and health care plans across the country.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to provide a petition to the House today from
constituents in Fraser Valley West and Langley, Aldergrove and
Matsqui.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the human
right code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Madam Speaker, I have a
petition from more than 60 people in the riding of Peterborough.
These are people concerned about child abuse. They point out
that babies and young children lack the ability to defend
themselves and they fall victim to sexual abuse and serious
physical and psychological abuse each year.
They urge that Parliament amend the Criminal Code to ensure
stiffer sentences and mandatory treatment for all child abusers.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): I have a second petition,
Madam Speaker, prompted by the recent death of Debra
Redhead and it is presented by people from the Native
Friendship Centre in Peterborough. They point out that the
existing judicial system continues to fail and in some cases
participates in the deaths of incarcerated First Nations peoples.
The group Cries to the Spirits is urging the federal government
to recognize and act on this.
They petition Parliament to accept and respect First Nations
people's right to reintroduce their traditional judicial system
which promotes healing as opposed to punishment.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, I have four
petitions to present today, two that relate to opposition to same
sex couples, homosexuality and sexual orientation.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): The second petition asks
Parliament not to change any legislation relating to euthanasia.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): The final petition asks for
protection of the unborn child.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present
petitions on behalf of my constituents to request Parliament not
to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights
Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): The second
petition is presented on behalf of Canadian grandparents asking
Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to assure grandparents of
continuous access to grandchildren and to inquire as to the
health, education and welfare of their grandchildren.
5951
It is the hope of this member that all members of the House
will support our grandparents and realize the needs of our
grandchildren have got to be addressed. By addressing their
needs we also address the needs of grandparents.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Madam Speaker, it is my duty to
present two petitions today pursuant to Standing Order 36, the
first signed by 238 constituents of Oxford County who pray that
Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn
child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): The second petition requests that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of
petitions on behalf of constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands,
Victoria and Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation providing for a referendum of the people, binding
upon Parliament, to accept or reject two official languages,
English and French, for the government and the people of
Canada.
(1535)
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I have three petitions I would like to
present today on behalf of my constituents in Simcoe Centre.
The first deals with euthanasia. The petitioners request that
the current laws regarding active euthanasia be enforced.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, the
second petition deals with abortion. The petitioners request that
Parliament reconsider amendments to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, the third
petition deals with sexual orientation.
I wish to present a petition requesting that the Government of
Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase
sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion
would lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and
societal privileges as married people.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Madam Speaker, under
Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present a petition duly
signed by constituents of Wetaskiwin who humbly pray that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Human Rights
Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which
would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code on the grounds that this could include
discrimination.
I present the petition on behalf of the constituents of
Wetaskiwin.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker,
unfortunately during introduction of my private members' bills
the seconders of the two bills were rotated. I would like to
correct that for the records of the House.
The seconder for the bill entitled an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act was Grant Hill. The seconder for the act to
promote the use of plain language in federal statutes and
regulations was Bob Ringma.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): That is fine. I will make
sure the corrections are made.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
Question No. 42 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 42-Mrs. Guay:
With respect to the cellular telephones in use in all government departments
and agencies, (a) how many are in active use, (b) how many are not in active use,
(c) are they leased or owned outright and in what proportions, (d) what are the
costs involved in their lease or purchase, and (e) what are the total costs of use
and communications?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): The information
provided was obtained by soliciting 68 departments and
agencies of which 61 had cellular telephones. The legislature
(Parliament), the judiciary and crown corporations are not
included.
Due to the large geographical area involved, the wide variety
of leasing and usage costs, the means and time frames of billing
procedures and availability of records, the figures provided are
only good for the day they were collated by each government
institution.
![](/web/20061117203033im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0949x02_r0.gif)
![]()
![]()
![]()
![](/web/20061117203033im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0949x01_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117203033im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0949x01_r1.gif)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question
enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): I ask, Madam
Speaker, that all notices of motions stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall all notices of
motions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs) moved:
That this House take note of Canada's current and future international
peacekeeping commitments in this world, with particular reference to the
former Yugoslavia, Haiti and Rwanda.
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to address the House this
afternoon about one of the strongest and most enduring
traditions of Canadian foreign policy, our commitment to
peacekeeping. Almost forty years ago, Lester B. Pearson first
developed the modern concept of peacekeeping: a UN Force.
That idea defused an explosive international crisis and led to a
peaceful disengagement of warring parties under the United
Nations flag.
(1540)
Today, I may recall that since the creation of the first United
Nations Emergency Force in 1956, under the leadership of a
Canadian, Lt. Gen. E.L.M. Burns, there have been 26 other UN
peacekeeping missions. In every case, Canada has participated
in some way. Canadians have served with distinction in all 16
peacekeeping operations currently under way in the UN.
More than 3,700 Canadians are currently deployed in eight
international operations, while helping the UN secretary general
with the planning of two other missions in which some 700
Canadians might eventually be called to serve. This is a unique
record of achievement of which all Canadians should be proud.
A decade ago, the UN had only three active peacekeeping
missions, but today, a number of important factors, including
the end of the Cold War, the unfortunate outbreak of ethnic and
nationalist conflict, and the new co-operation among the
members of the Security Council, where veto rights are no
longer used to paralyse the UN-have changed the
peacekeeping equation.
The United Nations has been empowered to act where once
there was a stalemate. As a result, the UN is now becoming the
instrument of international co-operation which was the world
community's hope in 1945. The fact that the Security Council is
now using peacekeeping as a central instrument to bring about
peaceful change is a development we should applaud and one we
wholeheartedly support. There is no doubt that Canada is one of
the UN's strongest supporters.
Next week at the United Nations, I will be putting forward
suggestions for making the organization more responsive to a
new era in which peacekeeping and related tasks will become
even more central to its mandate.
But we have also recognized in recent months, pending the
implementation of these vital reforms, that the UN has more
peacekeeping mandates than it can realistically handle,
involving a variety of tasks which the international community
is ill-equipped to manage. It therefore seems a useful time to
take stock of the situation and to ask ourselves a series of
questions about peacekeeping. What are Canada's national
interests in the new era of peacekeeping? How should we play a
role in the more diverse and demanding era which is now
confronting us? How should we deploy our very valuable
resources abroad at a time of
5953
fiscal constraint at home? How should we support the UN in a
time of transition to new and more demanding tasks?
In the coming weeks, two parliamentary committees, one
responsible for reviewing Canada's foreign policy and one
responsible for reviewing our defence policy, will be asked to
prepare a report by the end of October, and I am sure that both
committees will have some very interesting recommendations
to make, as they try to answer these questions.
I am also convinced that today's debate in the House will give
many of us an opportunity to intervene and offer the government
suggestions on the best way to answer the very fundamental
questions I just formulated.
(1545)
Allow me at this point in time to make a few personal
comments.
[English]
My view is that peacekeeping is fundamental to Canadian
foreign policy. It is not simply a question of continuing a
tradition for which Canadians have a deserved international
reputation. It is a question of making a concrete and key
contribution to international security at a time of instability in
many parts of the world. It is also a question of making the
United Nations work in directions that are in Canada's interests
and in the interests of virtually the entire global community.
In emphasizing the importance of peacekeeping, we have to
recognize Canada's strong desire to help the UN whenever we
can, but at the same time we have to acknowledge that Canada
cannot be everywhere and do everything.
[Translation]
In my view, a number of factors should guide our future
action. First of all, we should devote time, attention and
resources to the planning and administrative functions at the UN
which will enable the UN to function effectively in the future.
This means developing ideas to make the UN secretariat more
responsive to international developments, offering personnel to
the UN for explicit planning functions, helping the UN plan and
coordinate the initial phases of operations and, in certain cases,
offering our leadership in operations, as we did in Rwanda. We
had the pleasure earlier today to salute Major-General Dallaire,
who was in the visitor gallery, and who so brilliantly served the
UN in Rwanda.
This emphasis on the ``front end'', based on wide-ranging
Canadian experience, will help to ensure that UN operations can
function with a maximum of effectiveness. Second, Canada
should focus on roles in UN missions involving what we do best.
In Rwanda this has meant communications and logistics, the
supply of fresh water, and the provision of medical field
hospitals.
This is also what we have done with our civilian police
contributions, through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in
Namibia and the former Yugoslavia. This is what we intend to do
shortly in Haiti.
Third, we should try, in thinking about our roles, to offer
contributions which are not only useful in the peacekeeping
phase, but which also make a contribution to the broader
reconstruction of society-the ``peacebuilding phase'' which
follows a peaceful settlement. In Kigali, for example, Canadian
troops have opened the airports, and helped restore vital
communications functions. In Haiti, the UN will use an
international force of specially trained police officers, under the
leadership of Superintendent Pouliot of the RCMP, to transform
the Haitian police into a professional unit appropriate to a
democratic society.
Lastly, I believe we should be open and responsive when
needs arise quickly and when the international community
requires an urgent response. But, to fulfil this fourth objective
we will need the necessary resources. The Canadian
Government and the Department of National Defence will have
to plan, a bit ahead of time, to make available the human
resources required to intervene, when the situation requires it, in
an area of the world where our traditions or our interests might
call us.
(1550)
I am thinking in particular about the day when peace in the
Middle East will finally have been achieved. As you know,
Canada was part of the very first UN peace mission in the
Middle East. Here is a part of the world where Canada can play a
significant and useful role, and I am sure it will certainly be
willing to help implement the peace process which seems to be
taking shape and in which we are actively involved.
[English]
There are no hard and fast rules about Canadian participation.
There should be no arbitrary limits to Canada's contributions.
What we do in each situation must be judged in light of our
interests, in light of the requirements, and in light of our ability
to participate.
Resource constraints have become an obvious consideration.
A decade ago our share of the total UN cost of peacekeeping was
only $8 million. In this fiscal year the Canadian share will be in
excess of $150 million.
Other issues need to be looked at. For example, there is the
continued deployment of our peacekeepers and the capacity of
other countries to participate in these types of operations. There
is always value in reviewing our ongoing peacekeeping
commitments.
In light of the conditions I have just outlined, the House
knows that our future peacekeeping presence in the former
Yugoslavia is up for renewal at the end of this month. As
members will recall, last February the government held a debate
on the same question. Today we are continuing this tradition. We
5954
are looking for advice, suggestions and comments from
members on both sides of the House before a final decision is
reached by cabinet.
[Translation]
Canada has played a key role in the Balkans over the past three
years. We joined the European Community monitoring mission
in 1991, and committed forces to the UN protection force in the
former Yugoslavia in 1992.
We are continuing the humanitarian airlift into Sarajevo in
cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for refugees.
We have contributed funding to the investigation of violations
of international humanitarian law and to the international
tribunal for war crimes. We have some 45 RCMP officers in
Bosnia to help in policing operations. Canadian Naval Forces
are part of NATO's Adriatic Command. We have participated in
CSCE investigative and monitoring missions, and we are about
to support the monitoring of the border between the federal
republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia.
[English]
I believe we have a moral obligation to continue to help. In the
field of humanitarian assistance, the Sarajevo air bridge has
proven indispensable and its work will continue.
Today I am pleased to announce in addition to what we have
pledged already, an additional contribution of $1 million to the
International Red Cross and $7 million to be divided among four
United Nations agencies: the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees; the World Food Program;
UNICEF; and the World Health Organization.
I also want to announce the extension of projects with Care
Canada for the installation of water purification units in
Sarajevo, and with Queen's University for developing a network
of rehabilitation centres for the wounded and the handicapped.
All of this is in Sarajevo. Canada will also contribute $500,000
to the special United Nations fund for the restoration of essential
services in Sarajevo.
(1555)
Having said that, I want the House to understand it is
increasingly difficult to sustain all of these efforts. This is
especially so at a time when the conflict still rages, when the
parties are far from a peaceful settlement and when the prospect
of lifting the arms embargo may compromise the UN's mandate
and endanger all peacekeeping forces in the region.
I am happy to report that the contact group is making a
significant contribution to the negotiating process, although the
prospect for a settlement remains far from certain.
Canada fully expects to play a role in the diplomatic process
commensurate with the size and importance of our
peacekeeping contribution. We will obviously be very happy to
know the views of all members of this House in regard to our
involvement in the former Yugoslavia.
[Translation]
I believe it is possible to sustain our role in the UN protection
force, at least in the short run. We need to give negotiations a
chance to work. We need to ensure the provision of humanitarian
assistance while political pressure takes effect.
What may prove to be necessary are adjustments in the size or
disposition of Canada's contribution at a time when there are
other real demands on our peacekeeping forces. Whatever
changes we may need to make in the months ahead, the first
priority of Canadian policy must be the conclusion of a peace
agreement among the parties.
Canada is also playing a key role in the efforts of the UN and
the OAS to help in the restoration of democratic government in
Haiti.
I think the House will share my relief at the last minute
agreement reached between the American negotiators led by
former president Carter and members of the de facto military
regime. We look forward to an early return of Jean-Bertrand
Aristide to his rightful place as democratically-elected
president of Haiti.
[English]
I understand that meetings are taking place today in
Washington between Secretary Perry and President Aristide.
There is a full briefing on the activities of the multinational
force in Haiti, how it has been deployed, what the mandate is of
this force and how it intends to facilitate the speedy and safe
return of President Aristide in his country.
I have a quote by President Aristide after his briefing. He
compliments President Clinton for what has taken place, saying
it was as a result of his leadership. There is no doubt that the
operation to unsettle the military junta was and still is a difficult
task. Many people have spoken out on it but it took decisive
action by the United States of America to fulfil what was
considered to be the first phase of an important process in
bringing back democracy in Haiti.
Some countries were ready to intervene in the first phase;
some were not ready to intervene in any phase. Canada has
indicated clearly from the very beginning that we would not
participate in the first phase in order to be able to play a greater
and more substantive role in the long run. We will participate in
the second phase and work side by side with President Aristide
to rebuild his country and help its population.
5955
(1600)
[Translation]
Canada will, of course, play a prominent role in re-building
democracy in that troubled country, when the time is right. We
feel confident that, in a few weeks, we will be able to deploy the
contingents we promised. One of their tasks will be to train
Haiti's civilian police. Canadian troops would also be part of a
UN peacekeeping mission to restore stability so that President
Aristide can govern his country without interference from a
military junta who did not, does not and will never believe in
democracy.
There is much work to be done over a period of time and we
are very confident that we can do it in a reasonable amount of
time in accordance with the wishes and goals of President
Aristide himself.
I must say that we have no doubt that the Americans heading
the multinational force in Haiti share our opinion that President
Aristide must be reinstated. Never, in all the discussions I have
had with American officials, have I doubted a single moment
that they were as committed as we are to ensuring that
democracy be restored in Haiti and that President Aristide be
allowed to complete his mandate as president of his country with
the full powers vested in him.
I wanted to clarify this point because my friend the Leader of
the Opposition led me to believe, by certain comments and
questions, that he assumed the Americans would not stand by
President Aristide and would let him down. I can tell him that, as
far as I am concerned, his doubts concerning the Americans are
unfounded. The Clinton administration must not be imputed
motives that it does not have in my view. Each within our own
area of responsibility, we must believe in and support this
process leading to the return of President Aristide in his country,
with him being able to exercise full powers.
Allow me in closing to briefly recall the actions Canada has
taken concerning Rwanda. I mentioned earlier the key role
played by General Dallaire. I would like to say that, through his
contribution and in many other ways, Canada has played a
prominent role in restoring some peace to that country. Last May
Canada called for a special session of the UN Commission on
Human Rights.
(1605)
Canada was also the first country to make funds available to
send observers to assess the human rights situation. When the
crisis escalated, Canada stood out among UN action supporters
by providing substantial financial assistance to the UN mission
in Rwanda, in support of General Dallaire as it were.
For a long time, we were the only country to provide air
transport to the capital, Kigali, taking in food and medicine and
bringing out the wounded or those in danger of dying. I say
without hesitation that the Canadian effort to reinforce this UN
mission helped to save thousands of lives, including that of the
current Prime Minister.
We were also among the first to lend tangible support to the
second element of our strategy, encouraging refugees to return
to Rwanda, which we think is very important at this time. We
sent a 200-person medical unit to Rwanda and we were the first
to send experts to see what could be done to restore the
infrastructure of the country, its water supply, electricity and
telephone services.
But we must realize that this awful crisis is primarily and
ultimately political. It is clear that any final agreement must
have the support of all parties. That is why Canada will continue
to increase its efforts in the UN mission in Rwanda and at other
levels, to help stabilize the situation and prepare the ground for a
peaceful settlement.
The Canadian Armed Forces may eventually be deployed in as
many as ten UN operations, but even with this type of global
involvement, Canada will also have the flexibility to respond
rapidly in the event of humanitarian tragedies or if the
conclusion of peace treaties results in a need for monitoring
activities. I say these things because, again, we must consider
the choices to be made. We want to make these choices after
consulting Parliament, as we promised at the beginning of our
mandate, after consulting the elected representatives in this
Parliament who can help us forge a foreign policy that fully
meets the objectives of the Canadian people and that is fully in
keeping with Canada's tradition and interests.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Madam
Speaker, first I want to thank the government and the minister
for providing us with an opportunity to discuss these very
important issues today. I certainly agree with the minister that
Canadians are very proud of their peacekeeping missions. In
fact, if there is one initiative which gets the full support of the
public in Canada, it is this collective commitment to
peacekeeping missions.
It should also be pointed out that these peacekeeping missions
were not an afterthought in the evolution of the Canadian
society. They were, from the very beginning, an integral part of
our diplomatic efforts as a sovereign state. They were an
extension of co-operation efforts which soon led to
interventions. Following the very appropriate comments made
by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I can only endorse the
compliments made to the late Lester B. Pearson, who is among
those responsible for building Canadian diplomacy, and for the
prestige that this country now enjoys.
5956
However, it must be said that while these missions proved
very beneficial, albeit not easy, and were perceived as being
effective in the first few years, they are now faced with new
problems.
(1610)
These problems are both enormous and very acute, and they
could undermine the credibility of Canadian commitments to
peacekeeping missions. This justified the setting up, by the
House of Commons, of committees which are developing new
policies in that sector and are trying to redefine commitments in
a way that is more relevant to the current reality.
These problems are not necessarily all new ones but they have
intensified and they are enormous. Take the cost issue. Canada is
not as rich as it was in the fifties. In those days, the costs
involved were probably not a major factor in determining
whether or not to participate in a mission. I believe that Mr.
Pearson was a happy political leader who did not have to worry
too much about this aspect. Indeed, at the time, costs were not
very high and, moreover, the Canadian government's debt was
almost non existent and its financial stability was such that the
public rarely opposed the allocation of monies to that purpose.
However, those costs have increased. Obviously, we need
increasingly sophisticated equipment. Some belligerents use
very modern equipment; consequently, we sometimes have to
face them with inadequate material. And increasingly, we must
deploy substantial contingents, so that cost becomes a very
pressing issue. Even more so, now that every debate in this
House and most of the concerns of the ministers and the Prime
Minister focus on the crisis in our public finances, so that
taxpayers, who are already taxed to the hilt as a result of our
national debt, are starting to ask questions. They are starting to
wonder how extensive this kind of international commitment
should become.
There is another factor, and I am referring to the complex
problems that create situations where intervention is necessary.
Mostly, we are looking at conflicts arising from religious or
ethnic differences or even worse, they may be connected with
the imperialistic designs of those who want to expand their
territory and engage in ethnic cleansing, and, of course,
conflicts whose causes are rooted in the history of these peoples.
It is very difficult for us to go into these countries, as North
Americans who may not have a European's sensitivity to this
type of problem. It is very difficult to go in and quickly find a
solution, a way to cut through the inextricable tangle of
problems that are rooted so deeply in a country's history. I may
recall what is happening now in Bosnia. The presence of
different ethnic groups within the same territory, in a crazy
patchwork of different communities is all due to the impact of
historic events and a very complex sequence of developments
that is practically impossible to reverse today.
There are also some new questions and principles being
formulated, in a debate that would have been unthinkable
before. People are now asking: Is it legitimate to violate the
sovereignty of foreign peoples? There used to be fundamental
principles that were never challenged, at least not until now. A
country's sovereignty was inviolable, period. No one would
dream of challenging this principle, and those who did were
condemned by the entire community.
Anyone who dared to break treaties, invade territory and
undue challenge the sovereignty of foreign countries was
ostracized by the rest of the world, while today, in democratic
societies like ours, at international venues as distinguished as
the UN and UNESCO, and elsewhere, we hear sensible people
who respect the rights of others asking whether we should not
intervene in such and such a country, irrespective of that
country's sovereign rights, to impose peace and to neutralize
situations that are a threat to human rights.
So we have these new fundamental questions and a new
debate. There is a new culture, and there is a new kind of action
that countries are being requested to take. And I am afraid that
people are starting to wonder more and more about the
effectiveness of these interventions. This is of course due to the
fact that interventions are taking place in increasingly difficult
situations, with fewer chances of being successful, but there is
also the issue of modern technology.
(1615)
Let us take Rwanda for example. I entirely agree with what
the minister just said about the outstanding Canadian
contribution in that part of the world, starting with
Major-General Roméo Dallaire, whom we had the pleasure of
welcoming today.
We know that there were outstanding acts of personal bravery,
that all the troops we have dispatched did their utmost and that
Canada made as much resources available as it could under
extremely difficult circumstances. Yet, we realize this is but a
drop in the ocean in the context of this conflict and that our
efforts, however laudable, had little effect on the magnitude of
the horrible massacres that have taken place over there.
Our limited capacity for intervention in any conflict or
situation of this sort is reflected most clearly by television, as
we can witness these horrible scenes broadcasted live night after
night. We will never be able to make everything right. There will
always be massacres. There will always be parts of operations
that will prove impossible to carry out. Mistakes will be made
and be caught on camera. Television crews in the field will
faithfully report them for us to see in our living rooms.
5957
People can see for themselves, in their daily life, from their
own homes, how difficult any action is and how little we were
able to accomplish. That is why they have questions, and some
pretty relevant ones at that.
I imagine we will soon take stock of the operations in Bosnia
and determine how useful our action was over there. We know
about what went wrong in Somalia. As for Rwanda, I think we
all saw what happened in terms of the consequences and the acts
of cruelty.
There are also aspects of a more political nature that we need
to look at. Take the events in Iraq for example. We went over
there to free Koweit which had been the victim of an intolerable
act of aggression. I remember the rationale for intervention, a
legitimate one at that, was to restore democracy. At the time, the
government of Kuwait had promised to put in place a more
democratic regime. We know full well that these promises were
not kept and the bottom line is that the billions of dollars
invested by many countries to free Kuwait and put Iraq in its
place had very little impact in terms of promoting democracy
either in Iraq or in Koweit.
Some may wonder if the intervention was not motivated by
more pragmatic considerations. The cause for such a rapid,
concerted and efficient action was the petroleum found under
the desert sand, was it not? Canadians are asking themselves a
lot of questions. I think we must be careful because if we do not
answer these questions adequately, we will hurt the credibility
of peacekeeping missions. On the day when Canadians no longer
support the government's efforts in this area, we will lose that
ability.
Again, I am happy to have the possibility in this House to
address this issue. It is very important to ask ourselves questions
and try to see where we are going. What path should we take?
There are no easy answers. We could perhaps take one
case-Haiti's case-and see if there are lessons to be learned
regarding the approaches and criteria we could adopt in the
future. So what is happening in Haiti?
I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister
that I never questioned the Americans' motives, but I did
question his. Of course, everyone knows that the Americans are
really eager to restore peace and democracy in Haiti and that
they are the only ones making a real sacrifice. Despite the
minister's heavy rhetoric, despite his lyrical statements, he did
nothing. He simply watched the Americans, as we all did. I
certainly am not blaming the Americans for anything in this
matter, on the contrary. It is the minister I blame for his
powerlessness and his sugary speeches. He tells us: ``I met with
President Aristide, I called him, I talked with him, I like him, he
likes me and we will protect him.'' Yet, President Aristide is still
in Washington and it is not the minister who will arrange his
return to Haiti. So please, let us not engage in petty politics. Do
not attribute to myself, my party and the Official Opposition the
slightest intention of undermining the honesty and selflessness
of American motives.
(1620)
That said, it is not because we agree with the approach,
because we are satisfied with the first results of this approach
that we cannot be concerned about what is coming. There is
cause for concern; I am sure that the minister himself is
concerned and that it is only through considerable self-control
that he manages to hide his anxiety. Because the minister knows
full well that Mr. Aristide is now in Washington, that he
denounced the agreement that was reached, that American
soldiers are now in Haiti, powerless, their hands tied by an
agreement they signed with a presidential impostor.
I come from the legal world but I am still surprised to see that
this approach, this American operation in Haiti was based above
all on the need to restore the legitimate president, the first
president to be democratically elected in Haiti, that this was the
real approach, the real objective, the basic justification. So I am
surprised. The minister himself must have been surprised as a
lawyer whose legal knowledge I had a chance to appreciate back
in my university days. The minister must have been surprised as
I was to see that the first page of the agreement contains only the
name of the current president, the disgraced president, the
puppet president appointed by the military junta despite
President Aristide who was elected democratically a few years
ago. So that is rather surprising. It is dangerous to recognize a
usurper. The issue arises.
A practical question also arises. The Americans are now
there. President Cédras is the one who really controls the
situation, who is the trouble maker, the man who has denied all
democratic freedoms, who is ultimately responsible for the
massacres that we see on television. He has not signed the
agreement. He has incurred no obligation. He walks around the
streets of Haiti and continues to lead the military junta. On
television last night, we saw someone being killed as an
American soldier watched horrified, wondering what he was
doing there unable to intervene.
There is a problem, basically. The minister is surely
concerned about it. I am sure that once he is back in his
department with his senior officials, he will continue to express
his concern and call Washington and try to use Canada's
diplomatic efforts to bring about a quick settlement of the
situation, because it is disturbing.
October 15 is mentioned, but it is far off. How many more
people will die in the streets of Port-au-Prince? How many will
be beaten by the police, by those thugs in the streets of
Port-au-Prince who hit unarmed people? How much more will
the people have to suffer while the Americans look on
powerless? They will not stand for it either. If we Canadians do
not like to see that, imagine what the Americans think. What
would we say if we saw armed soldiers wearing the Canadian
uniform who had gone there from all over Canada and did not
say a word but
5958
watched powerless as those whom they had gone to fight strike
helpless victims? What would we say? We would not be pleased.
The Americans are not pleased either, I am sure. We must
push forward. The minister must intervene, he must speak
publicly and tell it like it is; he must stop giving us syrupy
speeches on his feelings for President Aristide, on the telephone
call he made to him yesterday and Mr. Aristide's call back to
him. That is not really serious. That is not the real issue. That is
not what a government is responsible for.
The Canadian government must intervene forcefully, speak
up and demand that President Aristide return there, and insist
that the Haitian army be dismembered and dismantled, because
what is going on? The Haitian army is still there, in control. But
it has no more structure, no more effectiveness, no more
operational integrity. How can President Aristide return under
such conditions?
How can we imagine that President Aristide will return to
Haiti in a few weeks and that the army, his enemy which fought
him and kills and tortures people, will now work hand in hand
with him and take his orders, and that General Cédras will go to
salute President Aristide every day in his office?
(1625)
No one can think that. What will happen? Are necessary
measures being taken to control the Haitian army? As far as we
know, this is not the case. We do not know anything. All we
know is that poor President Aristide, who denounced the accord
a few days ago, today congratulated President Clinton, even
though nothing had changed.
In conclusion, the government has the support of the official
opposition to find a solution to this issue. We will not play
politics with that issue. There are no votes to be won or lost. We
are well aware that this is a matter of honour, a matter of respect
for mankind, a matter of democracy. In fact, it is a matter of
preserving the credibility of our peacekeeping missions and our
role in this type of situation.
We have to intervene and we have to be credible. We have to
act in an efficient and pragmatic way, taking our means into
account, and our role must be redefined. How do we do that?
The first lesson to be learned from the Haiti operation is that
we cannot intervene elsewhere if such a measure is not based on
democratic legitimacy. We must not look to General Cedras but
to President Aristide. We must not look to the impostor but to
the real president. In our reviews, as well as in the criteria to be
defined, we should include a requirement to justify any
intervention on a democratic legitimacy in those countries.
Secondly, and more importantly, we must not compromise with
the enemies of democracy. In the case of Haiti, one cannot help
but wonder if we made a move to protect the Haitian army rather
than the population. Indeed, the Haitian army and police
continue to commit abuse.
Thirdly, I think that these interventions should be rigorously
planned in a concerted fashion. What does that mean? It means
that we should first clearly define the objectives and the tasking
orders. What happened in the case of Haiti is that a response
force showed up and, at the last minute, in extremely difficult
conditions, I agree, an agreement was hurriedly negotiated.
However, these people had no framework. No clear objective
had been defined at the outset. A compromise was negotiated in
the heat of the action, and that can sometime lead to an
arrangement that does not take all the relevant factors into
account. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case here.
I also said that these interventions should be planned in a
concerted fashion. Indeed, even though resolution 940 was
passed by the UN, the fact remains that there is only a national
force over there, namely the Americans; this is certainly not
what you would call a multinational intervention. I heard the
Minister use the word ``multilateral'' several times in his
remarks. This does not change the fact that the troops which are
there are strictly American. Some will say that this is because
the others were not brave enough to go. That may be so, but it is
still the case that it is a national force.
What we must hope for the future-and it cannot be done right
now, of course-is that the forces there will be more diversified
and put under UN command. This is easier said than done. The
UN must have the means to do it; we must redefine
``peacekeeping''; we must find a new framework for UN
missions. This is something we can do. It is better than the
minister's speeches; it is a job for Canadians; it is a job for our
diplomats.
We should be in New York right now, putting forward
proposals to revamp UN mechanisms defining peacekeepers'
mandates and mission objectives. This is a job for the minister, a
job for his colleagues. Instead of crying on President Aristide's
shoulder, let him do something constructive! Let them go to
New York! Let them come up with a plan, present it and advise
our friends to broaden the forces and to place them under the
auspices of the UN, whose main role it is anyway. As long as we
are relying on national policing forces-
Mr. Ouellet: It has been done already.
Mr. Bouchard: Did you present a proposal?
Mr. Ouellet: Yes, we did.
Mr. Bouchard: Well then, what are we doing to do now?
What is the existing commission doing right now? We need
much more than pious hope, we need proposals on how to share
the financial burden. Countries should tax themselves, Canada
should be a leader in that respect. If we do not take the lead in
that matter, let us do it with others. It must be done.
5959
As long as we depend on one national force, we will have
complicated situations like the one we have now.
[English]
I would like to say a few words about that. Of course we fully
support the maintenance of Canada's commitment in terms of
peace missions. A basic creed of Canada is to be present all over
the place when it is appropriate to do so. At the same time we
have to improve the way it is done, not only by us but the rest of
the world. We have to make sure that the credibility of our
interventions is maintained. If we do not do anything now we
will undermine the support this and other governments have
been given by the public in terms of tax money and different
interventions.
(1630)
It should be one of the fundamental tasks of the committees
now working to define and shape new objectives and missions
and to make sure that many countries will share the burden if it
cannot be achieved through United Nations activities. We have
to be very active at the UN and a strong supporter. We have to
stop making empty speeches. We have to make sure the next
mission will not be conducted by national forces like the
Americans, but that many countries will work together
efficiently in harmony so as to achieve clearly defined
objectives.
I do not accept the accusation from the minister that we
suspect the motives of the American administration. We agree
they were courageous. They were the only ones to do it. They
had the means to do it and they did it. They had the guts to do it
and now they are there. It was possible for them to land on Haiti
without any bloodshed. The problem is that now we have to go
further because blood is being shed in Haiti every day, the poor
people victims, and still the same people are hitting and killing
them, those against whom the Americans decided to intervene.
That is why I strongly urge the minister to work closely with
the Americans to make sure the commitment toward President
Aristide will be fully respected.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Fraser Valley West-Immigration.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, I thank the
minister for having the opportunity to talk on this most
important subject. This certainly is an example to Canadians
when Parliament is allowed to speak on a subject of such
national interest. I go along with the other speakers in terms of
our reputation and the pride we have as Canadians in our
peacekeepers.
Since the first peacekeeping mission in 1956 tens of
thousands of Canadians have been involved in these missions.
Some of them have made the ultimate sacrifice with their lives.
We want to thank those people for what they have done; it is
certainly appreciated. The millions of people around the world
they have helped certainly know what we as Canadians have
done. On behalf of the Reform Party and Canadians in general I
would like to pay tribute to those people and say: Job well done.
As the House is aware since early this year the special joint
committee reviewing Canadian foreign affairs, of which I am a
member, has been travelling across the country to find out from
Canadians what they think about foreign affairs and our
international commitments for the coming decades. It has
become very clear to me and to many members on the committee
just how deeply concerned Canadians are with events around the
world.
We want to stand up and be part of the missions that occur. We
do not want to bury our heads in the sand and not take part in all
of those things that affect our world.
(1635 )
Canadians are not prepared to give up on their proud tradition
of caring and intervention for the sake of peace. These times
however cannot be seen from a purely international perspective.
Our foreign commitments must be in harmony with our
domestic needs. Therefore we must be sure when we do support
peacekeeping that we are operating in Canada's best interests
and within the very real financial constraints that must be the
primary concern of any good government. We must pick our
spots and we must choose wisely.
Today's debate is an example of trying to choose those spots
and pick the ones that are of most interest. One thing we must
make clear is that Canada cannot become the 911 phone number
for the world. As much as we want to help others, this desire is
tempered by the fact that we cannot be all things to all people. It
is better that we help effectively in a few cases rather than
spreading ourselves too thin. In this way Canada can protect its
own vital interests and provide the most effective help for the
international community.
As we examine the issue of peacekeeping it is worthy to note
that since the end of the cold war the demand for peacekeepers
around the world has skyrocketed. If the past few years has
taught us any lesson it is that instability will continue. New hot
spots will continue to crop up and Canada must be ready. If more
requests come from Africa, southeast Asia or the former Soviet
republics how will Canada respond?
Clearly, Canada must establish criteria to test the importance
of each request for our help. While this is a sensitive issue and I
do not claim to have all the answers, I would argue that the
following should be considered by Parliament when deciding
whether to approve peacekeeping missions.
5960
First, Canada's economic ties are an extremely important
factor when we determine how willing Canadians would be to
commit our resources.
Second, the conflict's impact on the state of international
stability is another obvious test of whether Canada should get
involved. If the conflict has a serious potential to escalate or
destabilize the whole region, we should consider this seriously
when making our decision.
Third, geographic ties are important. For reasons of regional
stability, the world would be a better place if countries
co-operated to make sure that their own part of the world
remains stable. Where peace does break down, regional
organizations should co-operate to make things right. After all
it will be the member nations of such regional groups that have
the greatest interest in restoring stability. For logistical reasons
as well, proximity is an important factor in determining whether
a country can respond to a crisis in a timely and effective
manner.
Fourth, humanitarian considerations must also be taken into
account. While Canadians want bang for their buck, they also
want Canada to maintain its tradition for compassion. While I
could say more on this item, one of my colleagues will talk on
that subject later on this evening.
Fifth, our prior commitments must be given more weight than
is the current practice when determining what else we are going
to do. We only have so many troops and a limited amount of high
quality equipment. Therefore we owe it to our troops to be fair in
our decisions where we send them and to make sure that we do
not overcommit our forces. My fellow Reformer, the hon.
member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, will talk on
that issue.
Another very important consideration which must be taken
into account is that our judgment should not be clouded by the
media spin in each crisis, the so-called CNN factor. There are
many conflicts in this world which could use the assistance of
Canadian peacekeepers however the media does not treat them
equally.
The usual process involves one crisis headline becoming
really big and bouncing everything else from the front pages.
The media raises a hue and cry to be heard throughout the world:
Why is the world not helping to do more? Then two weeks or a
month later the media drops that story and picks up on
something new. That is just the way it works and we have to be
conscious of that. Just because the media likes this approach
does not mean their priorities are always correct; nor do they
always reflect Canadian interests.
(1640)
To the extent that Canadians do care about what they see in the
media, we have to acknowledge the media will always be a
factor. However, we must not let the headline du jour drive us
into unwise or hasty action. Whether it is a sexy headline or not
Parliament should do the right thing, period.
Now that I have outlined some of the basic criteria on which
we should be judging our participation in peacekeeping, I would
like to move on to two specific cases which we are discussing
today, Rwanda and Haiti.
According to the six criteria which I have listed, I do not
believe that Rwanda was a fully appropriate peacekeeping
initiative for Canada.
First, Rwanda and Canada have virtually no trade ties.
Therefore we certainly could not argue that our economic
interests were at stake. Other central African countries are
Rwanda's main trading partners and they are the ones who are
having their trade disrupted.
While the massacres in Rwanda have had an impact on the
neighbouring countries, especially in terms of creating large
flows of refugees, I do not believe the crisis there represents a
threat to regional or world stability.
In terms of my third criteria, geographic ties, Canada is
neither close to Rwanda nor do we have a tradition of dealing
with that country or its people. Therefore there was a long delay
before the majority of our peacekeepers could even get there.
In the future Canada should encourage regional organizations
such as the Organization of African Unity to build up their
capacity to respond when a local crisis arises. Beyond this
Europe has many more ties to central Africa than we do. This
tradition makes it more natural for them to adopt a leadership
role there just as France did.
When taking humanitarian considerations into account,
clearly Rwanda is a case which required the world's attention
and help. While Canadians will always help in such
circumstances, do we always have to send in the troops to show
we care? I do not think so.
Many thousands of Canadians spoke with their wallets and
donated money to Canadian and international NGOs that were
helping with humanitarian relief. This was an appropriate
reaction. We would like to do more, but quite frankly others
were better placed to provide the peacekeeping in Rwanda.
One of the main reasons that our reaction to the Rwandan
disaster was so limited relates to my fifth criteria: our prior
peacekeeping commitments. No other country has given more in
the cause of peacekeeping or has been on more missions, but our
forces are stretched to the limit. It simply is not fair to keep
asking our soldiers to go on so many endless peacekeeping
missions. They are the Canadian forces, not the Canadian
foreign legion. If we scale back or shut down other missions,
then perhaps we will have some reserve forces to be deployed
upon need, but right now we do not.
According to the last factor, the CNN factor, it is beyond
doubt that the extensive media treatment of the Rwandan
disaster initiated the response from this and many other
governments. Let us not forget that about two years before in
neighbouring Burundi many thousands were slaughtered for the
third
5961
or fourth time since the 1970s but there was no media reaction,
no hue and cry, and no peacekeepers.
In the future, Parliament must do a better job in assessing the
seriousness of a crisis. An international crisis is more than the
sum of the media coverage it receives.
Before I move on from the topic of Rwanda, I will talk about
my experience with Rwanda. In 1971 I read an article in
National Geographic about the mountain gorillas and the
country of Rwanda. I decided I had to go there and 15 years later
I managed to complete that dream.
My wife and I experienced a country with beautiful green
covered hills and mountains and fertile volcanic soil. There
were friendly people who were smiling and happy. I will always
remember the markets we visited with the children playing and
the people doing their weekly shopping. How can a country
change so dramatically? We were aware of the two tribes but not
of the hatred. What happened? NGOs and missionaries warned
of impending problems but nobody listened. Nobody took the
leadership to try to prevent the carnage which was to follow.
(1645)
If we wanted to get involved in Rwanda it should have been
then, when our diplomatic negotiations and leadership could
have been more effective. Instead the international community
failed to act proactively and went to its old standby: when the
damage was already done they called in the peacekeepers,
Canadians included.
We must learn from this experience. Proactive measures
through diplomatic channels or through international
organizations are not only more effective and cheaper than
expensive peacekeeping missions but they can save a lot of
lives.
Let me go on to Haiti. Once again we have a situation which is
seemingly thrust on us, a crisis that requires our immediate
attention. However, on closer inspection a very different picture
appears.
First, we have virtually no economic interests in Haiti.
Neither is international stability threatened. In terms of
geographic ties Haiti is certainly in our hemisphere, therefore
we should have an active interest. But if we are going to get
involved it should be under the auspices of the Organization of
American States, not as part of the U.S. led adventure that may
be opening a Pandora's box into which peacekeeping nations
may enter, never to withdraw.
If Canada is going to Haiti, let us make sure that we know
what we are getting into. How much will it cost? When do we get
to leave? What are we trying to accomplish? Is Cedras a
diabolical murderer yesterday and our partner for the reform of
Haiti today? Not in my books he is not. I would gladly kick his
butt but I would not shake his hand.
Clearly things are not going as the Americans first planned.
Haitians are still being beaten and killed by thugs. Aristide is
clearly unhappy. Haitians in Canada are unhappy. The American
soldiers are unhappy. In fact the only ones with smiles on their
faces are the coup leaders. If this is not a clear warning sign I do
not know what is.
On the humanitarian side, there is no doubt that Canada can be
of assistance to the poorest and most desperate people of Haiti.
Once again, I argue that it is our NGOs that are best equipped to
do this; not our soldiers who are already stretched to the
maximum when it comes to peacekeeping around the world.
The Haiti crisis is a hot item today in the media. It may be hot
tomorrow. However let us not forget that Jean-Bertrand Aristide
was thrown out in 1991. This is not a new issue. Haiti's problems
were not even new in 1915 when the Americans invaded the last
time. Back then they stayed for a generation. Let us make sure
that this time next year we are not watching the American troops
pull out only to leave our Canadian servicemen and women there
for the next generation.
Canada can be an effective world player and peacemaker.
Canadians are proud of this and we do not have to prove it to
anyone. If we decide not to go to Haiti the world will not hold it
against us.
Let us do Canadians a favour and give the Canadian forces a
break for once. We will keep our troops at home and instead take
a leadership role in the OAS. If we build the strength and
credibility of this and other regional organizations then maybe
we can really solve the problems of countries like Haiti.
It is in this precise role that Canada excels. While other
countries may be known for their strength or guile, Canada has
worked long and hard to develop its image as an honest broker
and leading middle power. We are a member of all of the
strongest clubs, NATO, G-7, UN, OAS, et cetera, and yet we do
not have the historical baggage of the world's great military
powers. Therefore others look to us and trust in our ability to
build up international institutions like the UN and the OAS.
Canada will do a great favour for the world if we take this role to
heart and help to bring about constructive change.
On a visit to Washington last week I asked the OAS and State
Department the same question: Do you feel Canada has played a
5962
strong leadership role in trying to solve the Haiti problems
diplomatically? I got a negative response from both. Instead I
was told that Canada is very timid and suffers from an
inferiority complex when it comes to dealing with foreigners.
(1650)
We can play a strong middle power role and become a world
leader in brokering peaceful solutions to international crises.
However first we need government leadership to show the way,
to demonstrate a commitment to diplomacy and playing a more
active role. We have the education, the foreign staff and most of
all a reputation as a reasonable, democratic society that can be
trusted.
What we have been lacking is the political will to succeed.
Such change would not only be good for the international
community but would be good for Canadians, since affected
international organizations could go a long way in preventing
any future problems. Without a crisis there is no need to spend
more money or risk the lives of members of the armed forces.
In conclusion, we should not enter Haiti or any other area until
we establish, first, the criteria; second, the cost; third, a plan
including the logistics, our specific job, how and when we will
get out. We must be sure that Canadians support our actions and
that we always debate this issue in the House of Commons.
The time has come for us to take a step back. Before we send
our troops on yet another indefinite mission with uncertain
dangers and an unknown cost, let us establish a credible set of
criteria on which we can depend to make sure that we pick our
spots wisely. Canada can make a difference in this world.
Canada can still be an innovator and a leader in the area of
peacekeeping but we have to make a choice. Any foolish
government can say: ``Yes, we will help'', and it will think it is
doing the best thing. It takes a strong government to say: ``Meet
me half way and then I will help; otherwise you are on your
own''.
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I understood there was a
brief question and comment period. If so, I have a question for
the hon. member.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that
Liberal members from here on will be using the 10-minute and
5-minute provision; in other words, sharing the time as opposed
to the usual format.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There are no questions
and comments for the first three speakers.
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
seek clarification with respect to the rules. My understanding
was that there were no questions and comments following the
initial speaker and then the speaker immediately following the
minister. Certainly my understanding is that the rules do provide
for a period of questions or comments after that.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): On your copy of the
Projected Order of Business for today you will read:
Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Minister moving the motion and
Member replying immediately after the motion-unlimited time.
All other Members-20 minute maximum and speeches are subject to a 10
minute question and comment period.
I would also refer you to Standing Order 43(1):
Unless otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, when the Speaker is in the
Chair, no Member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or
a Minister moving a government order and the Member speaking in reply
immediately after such Minister, shall speak for more than twenty minutes-
(1655 )
In this case orders of the day read that the first two speakers
have unlimited time. As a member responding for the Reform
Party he had unlimited time with no questions and no comments.
Because the wording reads ``only a member replying
immediately after the minister'', we will allow the usual
question and comment period for the member for Red Deer.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Madam
Speaker, I am not sure my question is that desperately
important. However I do appreciate the opportunity put a
question and make a comment with respect to the comments of
the member for Red Deer as the official spokesperson for the
Reform Party.
Certainly I share the deep concern that has been raised,
particularly by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to this
issue. In fact earlier during question period I spoke myself-
[Translation]
I pointed out that Sunday night's agreement between an
illegitimate president, a straw man, Mr. Jonassaint, and Mr.
Carter, an agreement made without consulting President
Aristide or the United Nations, was in fact a tragic betrayal of
the Haitian people.
[English]
I pointed out as well that President Carter just last week
referred to General Cedras and his armed thugs as conducting a
reign of terror, executing children, raping women, killing
priests. As the dictators have grown more desperate the
atrocities have grown ever more brutal.
Certainly many of us are deeply disturbed and angered by this
deal which in effect refers to the great honour and integrity of
these same people. There is talk of mutual respect. There is talk
of a general amnesty, of honourable retirement and appealing to
their sense of honour.
I want to ask the member for Red Deer for clarification. As I
understand it, the position of his leader, the member for Calgary
Southwest, was that Canada should be joining in the military
invasion with the United States. In fact the member for Calgary
Southwest said, and I quote that member from yesterday: ``We
can only play this game so long. We do not get our hands dirty at
the front end. But we come in after''. He suggested we should be
going in with the Americans.
I have listened with care to the comments of the member for
Red Deer who suggested that we should not be going in at all and
5963
that the OAS was the body that should have accepted
responsibility here.
I would like the member for Red Deer to clarify the position of
the Reform Party. Who speaks for the Reform Party? Is it the
leader of the Reform Party or is it the member for Red Deer?
Finally, I wonder if the member could clarify as well his
position with respect to the issue of prevention. Certainly in the
context of Rwanda, many of us believe that had the world acted
earlier to prevent the genocide that much of the subsequent
tragedy could have been averted.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, I really welcome the
opportunity to answer that question. I would have thought that a
member of such senior rank would know not to believe
everything he reads in the press.
(1700 )
To clarify, it is great that I have that opportunity. What my
leader did say in response to the reporter's question was that
Canada should have played a role in leadership in the OAS and
in the United Nations and that if we were to be involved and
entered the country we should be entering with an OAS force,
not a U.S. force.
That makes a major difference because going in with the OAS
and the United Nations is the big problem that we have. I
welcome the opportunity to clarify that and to make very clear
that the leader and I are speaking from exactly the same song
book.
Regarding the preventive measures, I hope I have made that
clear as well. In 1985 when I spent a month visiting Rwanda, the
country was not in turmoil. Shortly after that and with the
underlying problems, there were many NGOs and many
government people warning that there was an impending
problem.
It was at that point that we had to get in there and negotiate a
settlement between those two tribes. When it comes to
prevention, that is how one prevents those kinds of things, not
waiting until they start killing each other because emotions take
over as they did in Yugoslavia and as they do anywhere in the
world when one has a problem like that.
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary
question. I would note that until 1992 the previous government
was providing substantial government to government aid to the
brutal regime in Rwanda. We allowed into Quebec City as a
visiting professor one of the people who had been most vigorous
in his incitement of genocide when he was living in Rwanda.
Mr. Flis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We do
need clarification. My interpretation of the standing orders is
that when we divide a 20-minute period into 10 and 10, it is 10
minutes plus 5 minutes for comments and questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. We have not
yet started to divide our time. We will be dividing it after the
defence minister's speech. Questions and comment for 10
minutes for the hon. member for Red Deer.
Mr. Robinson: Nice try, Jesse. Madam Speaker, the member
for Red Deer in his comments did not make any reference to the
situation of Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia. Obviously this is
one of the important elements that the House is addressing.
I personally had the opportunity to visit our troops in
Gradacac in Croatia. Certainly the men and women there were
doing a very fine job under very difficult circumstances.
Could the hon. member for Red Deer clarify what his position
and the position of the Reform Party is with respect to the role of
Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia and in Croatia? The hon.
member is doubtless aware of the recent concerns.
Just today there was a report that some 750,000 Muslims and
Croats have fled from Serbian held areas of northern and eastern
Bosnia over the past two and a half years. According to the
representative of the United Nations, hundreds of thousands of
them are victims of ethnic cleansing.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member but the hon. member for Red Deer has 30
seconds left in his questions and comments. Would you like him
to respond to your question?
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I await with great interest
the response to the question.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, some of the money
that is being sent out there is a major concern. We have to tidy up
the whole CIDA program, that whole area. In answer to the very
first question, that would be my answer. Yes, we have to improve
on that.
Second, in terms of Bosnia and Yugoslavia, the hon. member
for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt will be speaking on the
subject of divided countries. The hon. member will hear the
answer. He will have to wait.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to remind
hon. members that the government has decided to divide its time
with 10 minutes each. There will be 5 minutes for questions and
comments after each speaker.
5964
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Madam Speaker, I
will take 10 minutes. I will be succinct.
(1705 )
I had some comments planned but I am absolutely shocked at
what I have been hearing this afternoon, the cynicism of the
member for Red Deer who just spoke on behalf of the Reform
Party dealing with our engagement in Rwanda and Haiti. I
understand my colleague, the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa, will deal with that in her speech following
me.
However I am even more shocked at the belligerent tone of the
Leader of the Opposition both in question period and this
afternoon in what had been until now really rational and well
ordered debate. His belligerent criticism of what happened on
the weekend, the agreement that former President Jimmy Carter
ironed out in Port au Prince, is beyond belief. His shooting from
the hip is incredible. If he conducts the affairs of his party that
way then I do not know what the rest of this parliamentary
session is going to be in for.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition should have reflected and
been a bit more statesmanlike. He perhaps would have found
that the deal that was made on the weekend had to be explained
to all the parties and indeed has been explained. Shortly after
three o'clock this afternoon, President Aristide issued a
statement in Washington. I quote: ``In the past three days
something has happened in Haiti to uphold democracy which
was the result of President Clinton's decision for the
commitment to lead a multinational effort in carrying out the
will of the United Nations to help restore democracy in Haiti''.
He has thanked the United States for its military intervention
to restore him to power. He said he will be back within 24 days.
He also said that to help foster the environment of civil liberties
and political stability he has asked his minister of defence,
General Jean Beliotte, to head a transition team and recommend
the next steps to be taken in order to ensure the quick restoration
of constitutional order.
To listen to the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon one
would have thought that he did not want President Carter to
avert the disaster that would have occurred with a military
invasion. I think the statement that President Aristide has just
issued should calm everyone and help bring some rationality to
the debate. President Aristide declared this afternoon that he
will be back within 24 days. After he is restored to power, as we
have said publicly on a number of occasions, we will take part in
any effort to help reconstruct Haiti, certainly using the Canadian
Armed Forces.
I will not give any details on what we will actually be doing
because we will be part of an international reconnaissance team.
In fact a Canadian colonel will be leading as chief of staff that
team in the days immediately following President Aristide's
return and stability being established there to determine what
requirements will be necessary of a UN peacekeeping
engagement. Canada will be happy to take part in helping with
the reconstruction of Haiti wearing blue berets.
I want to talk for a few minutes, since we have not got much
time and have divided our time on this side, about the changing
nature of peacekeeping in the world. We are seeing that the
peacekeeping that was enunciated by former Prime Minister
Pearson and the peacekeeping tradition that was established in
the post Second World War era has drastically changed over the
last number of years. We are facing situations around the world
which are vastly more complex. They require a multiplicity of
responses. In some cases, as we have seen in Bosnia and Croatia,
the circumstances are incredibly dangerous.
In the past five years international operations have involved
three or four different types of peacekeeping arrangements:
humanitarian work in Ethiopia, Somalia and Bosnia. Let us not
forget that our troops have been in Bosnia as a humanitarian
effort under the auspices of the United Nations to bring relief
and supplies. I think our men and women have done a
remarkable job in the last two years in bringing that kind of
humanitarian relief to Bosnia. They are still there as we debate
this issue today.
We have been involved in demining and reconstruction in
Afghanistan, Cambodia, Kuwait, Iraq and Haiti. We have been
involved in nation building. We have been involved in embargo
enforcement such as in the Persian gulf, the Adriatic and the
waters off Haiti, and we have been involved in confidence
building through arms control and verification.
(1710)
When we talk about peacekeeping we do not just talk about
the strict conflict resolution and patrolling the line as we did in
Cyprus for many, many years in a very civilized fashion. We use
the word peacekeeping in a much wider context. For Canada to
take part in the world governance through the United Nations
requires a multifaceted capability on the part of our armed
forces to try to discharge the missions that come forward.
One of the points I want to raise today is that there is an
ongoing commitment of the armed forces. We have about 3,400
people actually deployed, not counting what we perhaps send to
Haiti and which we can discuss in the next few weeks. With a
whole group of people waiting to go, a whole group of people
just coming back, and those who are being deployed at the
moment, we are getting somewhat stretched. We have about
10,000 peacekeepers involved in this kind of rotation. One of the
concerns the government has at the moment is how much of our
resources should we continue to devote to these peacekeeping
missions.
5965
In particular I want to talk about the commitment concerning
Yugoslavia, Croatia and Bosnia.
[Translation]
I will outline our contribution to the United Nations force
deployed in the former Yugoslavia, which is our main
commitment at present. The mandate of the UNPROFOR
expires on September 30 this year, and will likely be extended.
Canada's commitment towards the force also ends on
September 30, and it has not yet been decided whether to extend
it.
[English]
In other words, we have not made the decision in fact to let the
members of the House know. We do have about 1,500 to 1,600
personnel ready to go to Croatia and Bosnia starting in the early
part of October, which is only about 10 or 15 days away. These
are the Royal Canadian Regiment that will be going to Croatia
and the Royal Canadian Dragoons that will be going to Bosnia.
They have both been training in the last little while at CFB
Petawawa.
This training is worth noting as more and more, because of the
engagements that we are taking on, we are having to deploy
reservists. This summer I spoke at a function in St. Thomas,
Ontario, one of the constituency functions of my colleague, the
member for Elgin. I was really quite touched by the fact that the
members of the Elgin Regiment, a reserve regiment, will be
offering nine people for this next engagement as part of the
Royal Canadian Regiment to go to Bosnia and Croatia.
We may well ask why is he saying that they are ready to go?
What is this debate all about? We want to know before we
actually send our people that the members of the House of
Commons are comfortable with a continuation of this
arrangement. The purpose of the debate is to get the views of the
men and women in the House who have been talking with their
constituents over the summer to see if we should continue this
engagement, how long, should we pull back a battalion or should
we cut it in half? We have 750 people in Croatia and 750 people
in Bosnia. The balance is near Split as a supply unit. We want to
know whether or not we should continue that operation for the
next engagement. As I said earlier, the engagement ends
September 30.
While no decision has been taken, the government is very
cognizant of the depletion of our resources. We are cognizant of
the fact that the armed forces budget is under pressure. We are
trying to find other, more effective, cheaper ways of discharging
our duties in terms of peacekeeping. As the Minister of Foreign
Affairs said, this government remains totally and absolutely
committed to the concept of peacekeeping, of Canada playing a
role as a bridge between other nations, whether it be at the sharp
end, as we see it in Bosnia and Croatia, or whether we see it in
terms of reconstruction as we have seen it in Rwanda and as we
may see it in Haiti. The Canadian Armed Forces has the most
enviable reputation. When the Prime Minister was in Bosnia
this summer the Prime Minister of Bosnia said we have
outstanding troops and he wanted us to stay and be part of the
effort to help bring peace to the area.
(1715)
We had the Serbian leader, General Karadzic, who said the
same when we were faced with the problem of how we would
relieve our forces in Srebrenica.
We have the best armed forces in the world. They have
suffered as a result of some of the deployments. We have lost 10
people in the former Yugoslavia. We have about 50 wounded but
those men and women are prepared to continue to discharge any
obligations that the government will seek to discharge and those
obligations will be determined by consultation with members of
the House of Commons and that is why we are very interested in
having the views of the members today.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's
comments and I too travelled to the former Yugoslavia and
found there that our troops indeed are doing a magnificent job
under extremely difficult circumstances and we should all be
very proud.
As the minister mentioned, peacekeeping is not the only issue
that the Canadian Armed Forces has to deal with and because the
resources are very thin and we are downsizing the Canadian
Armed Forces we have to look at the possibility of internal
conflicts here on our shores in Canada.
You might say that Canada never has to worry about things
like that but even in my own riding of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt this summer we had a forest
fire in that region and had to call out the Canadian troops and we
had people from Calgary come in and do a job there. That was a
very small contingent and just a small example.
We do not have to go back too far. We had a situation in Oka
where we had great demands put on the situation there as well.
How can the minister or the ministry deal with ensuring that
we keep our role in the world as a peacekeeper but also ensure
that we have enough resources to ensure we have the people here
to do the job as well?
Mr. Collenette: Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.
I thought I did address it although I am not used to having to
speak in 10-minute periods. Perhaps I did not have the time to
enunciate it.
More and more we discharge our obligations whether it be
peacekeeping or whether in aid to the civil power, domestic
crises such as the ones we saw this year. We helped in the search
for a young Saskatchewan girl. We helped with the forest fires in
B.C. We helped last winter with the floods in Quebec. We are
going to have to turn more and more to reservists, those men and
5966
women who train part time, on the weekends, the unsung heroes
of the Canadian military tradition.
It costs money and to continue to do this we have to reorder
our priorities, reshape our budgetary priorities.
I want to assure the hon. member that we will not be so
stretched that we will not be able to discharge those very
emergencies of which he speaks. That is why I have raised the
subject of our future continued engagement in Bosnia and
Croatia. We are getting not to the breaking point but to the
stretching point. If we are to continue the multiplicity of
peacekeeping engagements, and they have been coming fast and
furious, we are now talking about the possibilities of Haiti and
we have been in Rwanda, which was unforeseen certainly when I
became minister, obviously we are going to have to redirect
more and more of our budget to this. This could mean that we
will have to take it from other very deserving components of the
military budget.
I want to assure the member that when we have disasters such
as the ones of which he spoke a little earlier we will be there. We
will not let the Canadian people down.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, I guess what I
am concerned about is that there are so many areas that are going
to erupt and I do not see us developing any criteria as to what our
guidelines are going to be in the future.
(1720 )
We are getting more and more letters telling us about the
quality of our equipment. More and more letters are coming
back home saying our equipment is not adequate. Could the hon.
minister respond to that, please?
Mr. Collenette: Madam Speaker, we would not send people
outside of the country to do this work if the equipment were not
good. I can assure you and all Canadians the equipment is good.
However, we do have some needs to replace various
components of armed forces equipment. Those questions will be
addressed in the context of the defence review. I know one of the
points that the hon. member made for which he should be
commended is he is trying to put our peacekeeping engagements
in some kind of conceptual framework in terms of the priorities.
I do not particularly agree with the conclusions that he drew
with respect to Rwanda and Haiti, but the fact is the defence
review and the foreign policy review will I hope help set those
criteria so that we will be able to answer the hon. member and
the UN when it comes knocking on our door for future
commitments.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Madam Speaker, it is frustrating to hear some of
the debate going around the House and have inadequate time to
respond today. I was most disturbed by the comments made by
the Reform Party with regard to Rwanda and Haiti. For a party
that is supposed to represent the interests of the Canadian
people it is no wonder it is plunging in the polls today.
If the Reform Party had looked carefully it would understand
from polls that have been done recently moral and ethical
considerations are considered by Canadians the way that they
would judge priorities in the world. They put Rwanda and Haiti
at the top of the list. At the bottom of the list they put
self-interest. I am quite appalled that the Reform Party bases its
foreign policy on self-interest.
Canada's support to the United Nations and our commitment
to peacekeeping remain strong. Our reputation worldwide for
balanced and fair diplomacy, humanitarian and determined
confidence building initiatives such as peacekeeping and our
commitment to global peace and development all give Canada
influence much beyond what our economy and population size
would suggest is possible.
Canada must not squander the opportunities our reputation
presents both for our own good and the good of the world.
Canada does not earn this reputation through playing the role of
the belligerent, unfortunately necessary as this role might seem
to be from time to time. It is peacekeeping, the role so strongly
associated with Canada, that earns us our enviable reputation
and thus influence in the world.
However important peacekeeping is to Canada's foreign
policy and defence policy, it is costly. We must continue in our
role as peacekeepers but constantly look at less costly
alternatives such as early warning systems, conflict prevention,
management and resolution.
Granted, important initiatives are already being taken in this
area by Canada and others around the world, thereby warding off
the crises the public never hears about.
The government will continue to follow up good ideas and
recommendations with diplomatic initiatives. An example of
Canada's initiatives in this area of policy is our decision to send
Bernard Dussault to consult in and around Rwanda not only to
find appropriate and timely solutions to the crisis situation in
Rwanda but also to address the political difficulties in Burundi,
Zaire and the refugee problems in other countries in the region.
In the development of our strategy for Haiti Canada has been
fully conscious of the need for a long term strategy to not only
return democracy to Haiti through peacekeeping but to build and
strengthen the institutions needed to support and sustain it in the
long run.
I would wish that all members in this House had been able to
accompany me to visit President Aristide in Washington last
week to see the very warm reception that he gave to our Minister
of Foreign Affairs and his effusive thanks for the leadership role
that Canada has taken on the issue of Haiti and his return to Haiti
to head a democratically elected government there which he
represents.
5967
Our role fits into a broad historic approach that Canada has
taken to peacekeeping and emphasizes the contribution to be
made to that category of international peace operations that the
Secretary General of the United Nations has characterized as
peace building.
(1725 )
Once President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is returned to power in
Haiti, under the terms of Governors Island agreement and UN
resolution 940, Canada will participate in the United Nations
mission in Haiti, UNMIH, by providing up to 600 military and
100 police personnel. Canada will assume a particular
responsibility in police training and supervision.
Altogether UNMIH will assume the task of maintaining a
secure environment which will provide the necessary
foundation upon which to begin efforts aimed at establishing a
durable and lasting democratic system in Haiti.
These are daunting objectives that will require a long term
commitment. It is important to remember that we will remain in
Haiti for the long haul. Establishing the foundations of a civil
society in a country whose population has been numbed by years
of desperate poverty, brutal violence and repression is an
enormous challenge.
We have to build from the bottom up by providing assistance
with basic education and literacy training, agriculture and
health care and by creating employment opportunities that will
put in motion the wheels of a healthy economy. The success of
these initiatives is only possible when the political environment
is secure and stable.
Our aid program has and will continue to reinforce these
objectives through the provision of assistance to the
development of civil society and good governance, including
the respect for human rights in Haiti.
Our contribution to Rwanda has also been significant,
initiated well before the conflict escalated in April. Canada
provided the chief military observer to the first UN mission on
the Uganda-Rwanda border. We fully supported the Arusha
peace agreement providing for power sharing and integration of
the armed forces.
The force commander for the UN mission assigned to oversee
the implementation of this agreement was our Canadian hero
Major General Romeo Dallaire. Through a coherent strategy
formulated by the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Defence and
the Canadian International Development Agency, Canada has
also made a significant contribution to the peacekeeping and
humanitarian relief effort in Rwanda through the provision of
medical experts, engineers and the ongoing airborne delivery of
essential supplies. Assistance from multilateral and
non-governmental aid organizations working on the ground has
been invaluable.
In taking these initiatives to establish lasting peace and
stability in Rwanda Canada is clearly focused on the task.
Rwanda must have an acceptable, broad based government in
power. It badly needs a functioning infrastructure, basic
services such as water and electricity. The thousands of
displaced refugees must return to their homes as soon a possible.
These are all objectives of our peacekeeping mission in Rwanda.
Given the difficult circumstances peacekeepers have played
an indisputably critical role under the steady and courageous
leadership of Major General Romeo Dallaire and now Major
General Tousignant. Peacekeeping must be broadened by
committed political activities that do more than keep the
warring factions apart. We must be proactive to build the
institutional pillars of a peaceful and secure society and to assist
Rwandan citizens to experience their fullest human capacities.
In our debate today we have to address the important issues of
our extended peacekeeping role throughout the world in light of
limited resources for peacekeeping. I am attempting to convey
that despite our limited capacity to continue to respond to every
crisis in the world Canada can continue to have an effective
voice through concerted efforts to not only prevent conflict from
erupting but in maintaining our commitment to fragile states
once the peacekeeping phase is over. Peace building and conflict
prevention are much less costly than war and crisis responses.
I cannot finish these remarks without a particular
acknowledgement of the basic component of our peacekeeping
effort, our peacekeepers, our Canadian Blue Berets. Canada
would not have the enviable reputation for peacekeeping it has
were it not for the professionalism, skill and discipline of our
peacekeepers. Canada cannot take part in peacekeeping without
our soldiers having the best training and adequate equipment
and material support meeting the best standards for the
protection of our soldiers and assuring that they have all the
necessary tools to succeed in the task.
We must be grateful, as I am, for the women and men who
volunteer to serve Canada as part of our important peacekeeping
missions; grateful to them and their families for their sacrifice
in helping to bring about global peace and security, to bring
dignity and freedom to innocent men, women and children, the
victims of conflict.
(1730 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper. The
question and comment period of the secretary of state will have
to take
5968
place at 6.30 p.m. when we resume after Private Members'
Business.
_____________________________________________