CONTENTS
Monday, November 18, 1996
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6344
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6351
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6360
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 6361
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6363
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6364
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6366
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6366
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6367
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6367
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6370
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6371
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6371
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6371
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6373
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6373
Bill C-349. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6377
Consideration of motion resumed 6380
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6380
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 6404
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 136; Nays, 22 6404
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 6405
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
6337
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 18, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, wheat and barley producers in western Canada
should be given greater flexibility and more choices by amending the Canadian
Wheat Board Act to include a special two year opting out provision for those farmers
interested in developing niche export markets.
He said: Mr. Speaker, over the past two years, but more recently,
I have followed up on my many discussions with farmers in my
riding of Wild Rose. I questioned the farmers, asking what they
wanted me to do. The result is this motion. The farmers are asking
for the opportunity to opt out of the Canadian Wheat Board for a
period of two years in order to see how marketing their niche
produce goes.
The question I put to the farmers was: ``Should farmers be
allowed to opt out of the Canadian Wheat Board?'' and 835 said
yes, 70 said no. That represents about 90 per cent of the returns. As
well, I used information I picked up at different gatherings when I
was talking to individual farmers at town halls. It was obvious to
me that they desire this. They want the opportunity.
As elected officials I believe we are obligated to give them that
opportunity. As the representative for Wild Rose I put forward this
motion with the idea that possibly they could have that opportunity.
Let us make it perfectly clear right off the bat, before the
Liberals send out any more documents from the Prime Minister's
office, these 90 per cent or 835 farmers do not want to scrap the
wheat board. Nor does the Reform Party of Canada want to scrap
the wheat board. Let us make that perfectly clear before the
Liberals send out any more of their dumb propaganda that tells the
public what we are all about and it is not even close to the truth.
Neither the Reform Party of Canada nor the farmers of Wild
Rose want to see the wheat board scrapped. What they are asking
for is freedom of choice. Freedom is something that a democratic
society expects, something that producers across the land expect.
Unless, of course, you are a western prairie farmer of wheat and
barley. Then you must do as the government says or face the
mighty, heavy hand of the law.
Mr. Speaker, you know what law I am talking about. It is the law
that puts violent criminals into alternative measures programs, the
law that allows bail for sex offenders the very same day they
commit the offence, the law that allows bail for other violent
crimes. It is the same law that puts a man behind bars without bail
for selling his own product in violation of the law of the Canadian
Wheat Board, literally throwing away the key, the heavy hand of
the law.
Clearly farmers across the prairies desire to have a choice in the
way they market their grain. Clearly a plebiscite on the issue would
be in order. The red book said there would be one. It has not
happened though and most likely will not. After all, the results may
turn out to be against what the agriculture minister believes. We
could not have that now, could we? That is an obvious fact after the
minister selected his hand-picked panel to study the issue of the
wheat board. When some of its recommendations came back, if the
minister did not agree with them, then that was that.
It is well past time for this place and this government to start
listening to the people of this land, the people whom we are
supposed to serve and not dictate to. For nearly 30 years this place
has continually ignored the wishes of the people and does what it
wants. It uses dictatorial methods to continue to ram legislation
down our throats. I am one Canadian who is getting tired of that
kind of attitude. This place really needs an attitude adjustment. We
need the kind of adjustment that would make things a little
different.
(1110)
For example, if members listened to the Canadian people and
paid attention to the petitions that land in this place, section 745 of
the Criminal Code would disappear. But no, this place knows best,
we always know best.
Over the past 30 years things have been absolutely thrown into
this House, debated and passed which have been dead against the
wishes of the Canadian people. Think of the GST days. I could
6338
even go as far back as the time the metric system was first brought
in. Remember how the Canadian people felt about that? There are a
number of measures I could mention. Rather than listening to the
Canadian people and trying to implement legislation that is
pleasing to them, we shove it down their throats.
Many have said that those who support choice are young farmers
who do not understand. Gordon Reed of Cremona, Alberta, Jack
Morgan and Nels Eskenson of Sundre, Alberta along with scores of
other long time farmers, those who began farming before there ever
was a wheat board, are the very ones who tell me they want choice.
They all stated that what was good in 1946 is not what is needed in
1996, and they want some change.
In 1993 when the open barley market was put in place, not only
was there a tremendous upswing in the sales of barley by private
entrepreneurs, but the board as well experienced an increase in
sales and profits. Actually the competition was probably healthy
for it. It got off its backside, went out and began to do a little
selling, a little promoting, and it worked.
Many niche producers are looking for buyers of their products
and are finding markets for their specialty. One of these specialties
is chemical free barley. These markets are not met by the buyers
the board is aware of and have contact with. But these buyers do
have a number of contacts with these niche producers and would
very much like to purchase certified chemical free grains. Creating
natural food for consumption would be their whole idea. There is a
growing demand for that kind of product.
No organic producer receives sales help from the wheat board so
why should they not be allowed to search on their own? There are a
number of good reasons why farmers as entrepreneurs should be
able to seek out and sell to their own markets, and that is just one of
them.
When they go out, they work the land side by side with members
of their families, and they try to produce something that they find is
increasingly in demand. They try to meet the expectations of the
buyers they have in mind who they were able to find on their own.
Then they cannot sell them the product. It must go through the
wheat board, and the best price they can expect from the wheat
board are feed barley prices. It gets very discouraging. Many
people who are out doing these very things are working for the
livelihood of their families and are striving hard to save their farms
from going under during tough times.
It is time for the government to look at modern times, at the
modern way of doing things. We would like to see the wheat board
democratized. We have said that on many occasions and I will
repeat it once again so there is no confusion on that side. We do not
want to scrap the wheat board. No one in the Reform Party has ever
said that, nor has it ever been part of our platform.
(1115 )
We do need some changes. The wheat board needs to be more
producer driven and more producer sensitive. We need to stop
patronage appointments to those kinds of positions. An elected
board is needed, one that is elected by the producers to serve the
producers, to go out into the world to look for those new markets,
not just the global market and whatever price is set by the global
market, but to get out and do some work and search and find those
kinds of markets that would benefit those people who are working
so hard.
We need a body of people who have open books and who are
accountable to the people of Canada. I really find it strange that we
can get no information whatsoever regarding revenues, costs,
expenses and what is happening at the wheat board. It is an absolute
closed society. If that is the norm of a democratic country, then we
really need some changes.
The Reform Party has tried in the past to make this kind of an
item votable. There are criteria for what makes a private member's
motion or bill a votable item. If the material that we submit
regarding the motion or the bill follows the criteria right to the
letter, follows it so that all 12 requirements to make it votable are in
place, then it should be votable.
There are members on both sides of the House who have
introduced private member's bills and have come away wondering
why their item has not been made a votable one. If the criteria and
the regulations are in place and all the rules are followed, then it
should be a votable item and we should be able to stand in this
House to cast our votes on behalf of the people we represent.
I have often wondered why that does not happen, that when these
things do meet the criteria they still are not votable. There is only
one conclusion we can come to. It is because of a few people sitting
in the front row on that side of the House. If they decide something
should or should not happen, then that is the way it is. That is
democracy in this land.
They will come into this place of debate, turn around and look at
the 177 members on the benches behind them and tell them: ``This
is the way you will vote. If you do not vote that way, we will kick
you out of the party''. I am sure the Speaker knows what I am
talking about. I also believe that when people are forced to do what
they do not want to do with respect to the legislation that comes
before this House, when they are not given an opportunity to have
their say, that is not democracy.
The agriculture minister has promised a plebiscite. Why has
there not been one? Is it truly because the results will be
unfavourable to what the government has already decided should
happen?
This place really needs an attitude adjustment. It is time we
started listening to the people who pay us. It is their money which
brings us here. It is their money which lets us sit here to debate
these issues. It is their money which helps us to decide what we
6339
should do on their behalf. Consequently we come out of here
making decisions daily on what we think is best and ignore their
wishes completely. That has to change.
I would like to give the members of this House an opportunity
today to change that attitude, to give the people of Canada and the
prairie farmers of western Canada the opportunity to truly be
entrepreneurs so that they can sell their products in the market
which is best for them and have the freedom to do it. We could do
that by making this a votable motion and giving every member of
this House an opportunity to truly represent what Canadians would
like to see. It is with that thought in mind and with the consent of
the House I would ask that this motion be made votable.
(1120)
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the member for Wild Rose
has moved that this motion be votable. Is there unanimous consent?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Accordingly, we will resume debate.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of
this motion is that the Canadian Wheat Board and the legislation it
supports lack flexibility and cannot serve the best interests of its
clients. The record does not support that premise. It is a retread of a
previous motion that was brought forward in June. The premise is
flawed.
The purpose of a two-year opting out provision contained in
today's motion appears to be a return to the motion made in June by
the hon. member and his colleagues. I would suggest that the letter
of this motion does not match its spirit if, as the hon. member's
motion suggests, this desire is an outcome that produces benefits
for producers when what we are talking about is consensus and
careful actions.
The Canadian Wheat Board has demonstrated a desire to expand
its accountability to farmers. In return the board and the marketing
system it maintains enjoy the support of a clear majority of our
primary producers. This support is not unconditional. It reflects the
commitment of the Canadian Wheat Board to improve service and
organizational renewal. These efforts will be aided by the
government.
We are taking steps to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board
keeps pace with the needs of its clients. As set out by the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food in his October 7, 1996 policy
statement, the government aims to renew and strengthen the wheat
board.
There will be changes to the management of the Canadian Wheat
Board. A board of directors will be appointed by the government in
1997 and that group will have a majority of producer
representatives. This interim body will give way to elected
members in 1998 which will also have a producer majority.
The necessary amendments to the legislation are expected to be
tabled in the House before the Christmas break. With these changes
the future mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board can be adjusted in
a democratic fashion according to the preferences of prairie grain
farmers. The way the board does business will also be improved
with changes designed to make price systems more flexible,
payment processes quicker, a change on the bottom line so to
speak.
The hon. member's motion also speaks of developing niche
markets for grain. Talk of such niche markets must begin with the
recognition that markets are inherently unpredictable, more so
when there are no stable influences in those markets such as those
provided by a single desk seller. We cannot discuss niches without
reference to the large markets and the forces that shape those
markets.
The presence of the Canadian Wheat Board has meant price
stability and security of markets. The potential of niches for
individual producers nowadays is traceable in no small part to the
work of the board on behalf of the wider community of producers.
One might argue that the business environment in grain markets
achieved through the Canadian Wheat Board has contributed to the
potential of niche markets. It has also ironically led to the mistaken
view taken by some of the board's harsher critics that the board is
an obstacle. It certainly is not. The Canadian Wheat Board actually
pursues many niche markets throughout the world.
There is a real possibility that having both a single desk
marketing system in the form of the Canadian Wheat Board and the
arrangement envisioned by the proponents on the right to opt out of
the system may actually deliver the worst of both worlds to our
producers. We would have a wheat board with reduced leverage in
the marketplace and thus greater exposure to producers to violate
market forces that can drive down prices and drive down profits for
all Canadian farmers.
(1125)
The message from farmers themselves is clear: You may be able
to opt out of the wheat board system but you will not be able to opt
out of the consequences that could result in harsh action. What is to
be done in the marketplace is not easily undone or turned about.
Returning to the benefits of a proven marketing system is not
assured once you have been given the problems that could exist
with two marketing systems.
Furthermore, the pursuit of opportunities by a few may reduce
the opportunities of the many. That is plainly going to be a concern
of those who make their livelihood producing grain in Canada. In
some ideal world we can wish for perfect win-win situations but we
6340
do not live in such a world. If the pursuit of alternative marketing
arrangements by the minority determines or diminishes the
benefits of single desk selling for the majority, then it is not a
win-win situation, it is a lose-lose situation.
Long before the hon. member offered this motion for debate
today, before he was even a member of this House, the Canadian
Wheat Board took the initiative of evaluating itself and its
operations, demonstrating a flexibility that we can applaud.
Certainly the wheat board has always been committed to providing
the best possible service for western Canadian grain farmers. In
recent years that commitment has led to some very critical
re-examination and re-evaluation.
In recent years the board has reviewed its operation and
management structures in order to improve its long term planning,
budgeting, management and reporting systems. In addition it has
also introduced a new system of performance evaluation. It would
have been enough for some, had the wheat board stopped there, to
say that the Canadian Wheat Board was neither complacent nor
unwilling to meet the challenges of the changing times, but as the
House knows, the wheat board undertook further measures.
The board now conducts an ongoing department by department
audit of its expenditures. It has expanded the information it
provides to its producer clients. It has also emphasized direct
contact between its staff and clients. The men and women on the
prairies who produce wheat and barley are better informed today.
At its most fundamental level, these people are the western
Canadian grain farmers and the western Canadian grain industry
itself.
Over the past few years new services have been provided to these
women and men on the prairies, new services such as pool return
outlooks and price forecasting, new market development initiatives
and business tools for enhanced risk management. The board has
also strengthened its worldwide business information networks and
opened a new office in the People's Republic of China.
In summary, the Canadian Wheat Board has met the test of
organized managing in tumultuous times. It has adapted, adopted
and improved in order to provide the best possible service for its
clients. The board and its management have made great strides in
meeting the needs of its clients and the challenges of global
markets in the late 20th century. All this has been accomplished
within the existing legal framework of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Amending the act is necessary in certain ways to put the
Canadian Wheat Board on an even better business footing and to
meet the demands of the western Canadian grain farmers for more
accountable management. This can easily be distinguished from
the kind of amendment contained in the hon. member's motion
which does not contribute to the modernization of the wheat board.
This motion also fails to meet the test of proposing change that has
broad base support among the western Canadian grain farmers and
that can dramatically improve sales of wheat and barley to its
customers.
(1130 )
The motion put forth by the hon. member for Wild Rose does not
recognize the flexibility and benefits of both the Canadian Wheat
Board and the legislation underlying it. I do not share his
presumption. I choose to support the farmers and the institutions
and reject the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): I welcome this
opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to speak on the motion put forward by
the hon. member for the Reform Party, who persists in advocating a
provision that would allow producers to opt out of the Canadian
Wheat Board for two years.
What baffles me, however, is the fact that my hon. colleague still
does not understand plain common sense. I recall speaking on this
issue in this House on June 19. The hon. member for the Reform
Party was probably away on that day. And he obviously does not
read Hansard.
For the last time, I sincerely hope that the Reformers will realize
that it is not a good idea to allow Canadian wheat and barley
producers to opt out for a period of two years. This is not the first
time that the Reformers have taken a stand against the Canadian
Wheat Board. I talked about this on June 19. This is starting to look
like sheer stubbornness.
The Reformers are at such a loss for new issues to make political
hay with that they are rehashing an old matter that has already been
debated in this House. It was discussed last June. Why are they
coming back with this two-year opting-out proposal or provision
for western producers? I can understand that the Reformers feel
that a general election is coming and realizing that they are not very
popular. They are trying to make political hay with this clause.
The Canadian Wheat Board is the institutional embodiment of a
marketing system developed to help producers. The pooling of
resources through the Canadian Wheat Board ensures that
producers receive the same initial payments year round. As for the
final payment, it is designed to reflect the value set by the market
during a given crop year. This means that the pool price is
representative of the price variations.
There is a whole system in place to calculate prices depending on
the grain category, thereby easing-fortunately for western
produc-
6341
ers-fluctuations, some of which are linked to foreign competition.
The hon. members of the third party have short memories. In the
1980s, western grain producers definitely benefited from the
Canadian Wheat Board.
After certain pools accumulated huge deficits, the federal
government came to the rescue. Now some producers are smelling
business opportunities. I realize that some want to market their
products themselves, outside the board's jurisdiction, because they
want to get more. However, when times become hard again, they
will be happy to be part of the Canadian Wheat Board.
In a way, Reformers want to eliminate a system which works
relatively well, for the benefit of a small group of western
producers. Producers that would elect to take advantage of this
opting out provision would be allowed to leave the Canadian
Wheat Board for a period of two years. However, after this
two-year period, will producers be able to rejoin or, for that matter,
will they have to rejoin the Canadian Wheat Board? Who will
monitor the process and how? This new system would make it very
difficult for the board to fulfill its mandate.
The objective is to stabilize prices and set a median price, in
spite of market cycles. Everyone is looking for stability, but the
Reformers would turn the whole thing into a big mess. It would
indeed be the case, should the Canadian Wheat Board disappear,
because western producers would suffer major losses of income.
They would no longer have any protection.
(1135)
As you know, no one can predict the future. Who can say what
the supply and demand in a given region of the world will be? The
proposal of the hon. member for Wild Rose would undermine the
principles of price pooling and risk reduction, while creating a
parallel marketing system.
The Reform member and his colleagues will probably insist that
they are following up on the producers' request. In my opinion, this
is only a small group of producers who are either dissatisfied or
who want to make more money. It is tempting for producers located
along the Canada-U.S. border to sell their crops directly to the
Americans and to get paid immediately.
Indeed, it is very tempting and this is why some producers want
to go it alone. However, the wind might turn. Economic conditions,
fluctuations and many other factors can, at any time, change the
whole situation. Going that route would be tantamount to playing
Russian roulette, and the consequences could be just as tragic.
The Canadian Wheat Board must be maintained, because it is a
good instrument for western producers. The board has already
demonstrated its usefulness. It may not be perfect, but nothing
keeps us from improving it. For example, producers could be
granted more control over the board's operations, or the board
could be given more room to maneuver.
The proposal by the member for Wild Rose would undo many
years of work by the industry towards maximizing profits from the
sale of wheat. The introduction of a provision allowing producers
to opt out of the marketing system for two years would seriously
undermine the Canadian Wheat Board.
The board has been in existence for 61 years. Over that period of
time there have obviously been many changes and marketing has
undergone a considerable transformation. However, the
fundamental task continues to be one of selling a quality product
and offering clients outstanding service, while maximizing profits
for western producers. One thing remains unchanged, and that is
that grain marketing is just as risky a venture today as it was in
1935 when the Canadian Wheat Board was set up.
Back then, producers had to contend with price fluctuations
caused by World War II, while today's producers, like all their
fellow producers, have no influence over world prices.
The Canadian Wheat Board continues to provide producers with
a means of managing risk and a system for ensuring equity among
grain producers. The approach is the same as that used in other
agricultural sectors.
Once again, the motion by the member for Wild Rose must be
rejected, and I hope members of the Reform Party will change their
minds.
I think it would make more sense if we talked about creating
jobs. Has any thought been given to the jobs that could be created
with the money that would be saved by abolishing the Senate? I
hope that my colleagues in this House are finally going to talk
about the real problems, and about job creation. The dignity of
thousands of the young and the not so young is at stake.
Many of the inhabitants of my riding are looking for jobs. Many
have looked in vain. As recently as yesterday, November 17, one of
my constituents said that his unemployment insurance benefits had
melted away like snow on a warm day, leaving him with little
choice but to go on welfare, although he is in good health and wants
to work.
(1140)
I am sure I am not the only member who hears from people
looking for work. This is a situation affecting a good many
Quebecers and Canadians.
I trust that we will move on to the topic of jobs in this House in
the very near future. In the meantime, I thank you for your
attention.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to be speaking today in support of the motion presented by
the hon. member for Wild Rose:
6342
That, in the opinion of this House, wheat and barley producers in western Canada
should be given greater flexibility and more choices by amending the Canadian Wheat
Board Act to include a special two year opting out provision for those farmers
interested in developing niche export markets.
I thank the hon. member for bringing this up. I am not saying this
is necessarily the only way we can deal with the end of the
Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, which is what many farmers are
asking for. But this certainly is one alternative that should be
debated. Before I get into that debate I will comment on some of
the comments by the hon. member from the Bloc who just spoke.
He asked why we were not debating something important. I have
barley in the bin and out in the filed to be sold right now. To me this
issue is important. I have neighbours who have barley in the field
and barley to be sold. To them this issue is very important. In fact,
to thousands and thousands of western Canadian farmers this issue
is very important.
I have come to know the hon. member from the Bloc and I have
gained some respect for him over the past three years, but I find it
absolutely unbelievable that he would brush this issue off as an
issue that is not important. It is important. It is important to many
western Canadian farmers.
Back to the motion at hand, I would like to ask some questions.
For example, why is the minister of agriculture denying farmers a
third option on the ballot that will give farmers a chance to speak in
the plebiscite promised by the minister?
In this plebiscite only two options are offered to farmers. I will
read the questions and make clear what these two options are. Then
I will talk about a third option which should be on the ballot. The
first option is the open market option which is stated as follows:
``Remove all barley, both feed and malting food, from the
Canadian Wheat Board and place it entirely on the open market for
all domestic and export sales''. That is the first option and that is
the wording the minister will use to present this option.
The second option is the single seller option: ``Maintain the
Canadian Wheat Board as a single desk seller for all barley, both
feed and malting food, with the continuing exception of feed barley
sold domestically''.
Those options are two out of the three options that should be on
this ballot. Unfortunately the minister has denied western Canadian
farmers the option that a vast majority of them would choose. I
know this not only from polling I have done on my own, not only
from the polling of other Reform members in their own
constituencies, but from other polls that have been commissioned
on this issue. Poll after poll has shown that a majority of Canadian
farmers if given the choice would choose the dual marketing option
or the voluntary board option, call it what you like.
In a plebiscite held in Alberta about a year ago, when the
question was put to western Canadian farmers, two-thirds of the
farmers in Alberta chose the voluntary board or the dual marketing
option.
(1145 )
This issue has been decided in Alberta already. It should be put
to plebiscite for the benefit of farmers in Saskatchewan and
Manitoba. However, let us present the option that farmers would
choose. What kind of nonsense is this, offering only two options
which will split western Canadian farmers and pit family against
family? Only asking the two questions will do that.
How will farmers handle having only the two options presented?
I cannot say for sure but I can make a pretty good guess. My guess
is that farmers, on recognizing that the dual marketing option is not
available, may choose the open market option. In that case the
wheat board will no longer be handling barley sales at all. That is
not what I want, that is not what other Reform MPs want and it is
not what farmers across western Canada want. They want the
freedom to choose to market their barley through the Canadian
Wheat Board, through a pooling system, or to market it on their
own or through a private grain company. That is the third option
which is not on the ballot of the minister of agriculture.
I am afraid, because that option is not on the ballot, that farmers
in western Canada might be denied the pooling option, an option
which I know some of them want. That is nonsense.
Why did the minister not put this third option on the ballot? I
cannot answer that question for sure but it concerns me greatly that
he did not offer it. Would not the proper way to handle this issue be
to present the three options? The reason the minister of agriculture
gives for not putting that voluntary board or dual marketing option
on the plebiscite is that it would not work. Would not the proper
way to handle this issue be to put it on the ballot and to have a
debate across western Canada? The minister, the wheat board and
other people who argue that a dual marketing system would not
work could debate that option. They could say: ``We do not think
that option would work for these reasons''. That is a point of
debate.
On the other hand, I could argue that it would work and that is
what I would do during the debate leading up to the plebiscite. I
would argue that in fact the Canadian Wheat Board, when it was set
up, was a voluntary board. The dual marketing system was in place
from the time the board was first set up in the twenties and
re-established in the thirties. The voluntary board or the dual
marketing option was only taken away from farmers under the War
Measures Act in 1943. That was done so the Canadian government
could obtain for the war effort grain at the lowest price possible.
Canadian farmers allowed that because they wanted to help with
6343
the war. They were promised compensation later which they never
received.
Why do we still have a monopoly situation today when it was
only put in place under the War Measures Act? It is to get cheap
grain. I would argue in the debate leading up to the plebiscite that
the dual market system worked well before the monopoly was put
in place and that it would work well now.
I want to make it as clear as I can that I favour keeping the
Canadian Wheat Board. It is very useful. However, I favour giving
farmers a choice. Surely in country like this no one could argue
seriously that farmers who put all of the money, the sweat and the
work into producing their grain should not have the freedom to
choose how to market that grain. Yet, that is what the government
and the minister are arguing against all common sense. It makes no
sense whatsoever.
(1150 )
I have so much that I want to say on this issue, but I see that my
time is coming to a close. However, if I may, I would like to again
make it clear what I am arguing for here.
The hon. member for Wild Rose is asking that farmers be given
the chance to opt out over a two-year period. It is one way of
ending the wheat board monopoly. But there are other ways the
monopoly could be ended and make it work effectively.
One way would be to offer deferred delivery contracts such as
that which grain companies now offer to farmers, unlike the
Canadian Wheat Board contracts that are in place now which do not
guarantee a price for the commodity and do not guarantee delivery
by a certain date. It is a one-sided contract.
The deferred delivery contract which farmers use for canola,
peas, or other crops of choice, stipulates that farmers will deliver a
certain number of bushels or tonnes of the commodity to a
specified delivery point for such a price on such a date. The grain
company promises to take delivery at the specified price,
destination and date. That is another way to end the monopoly of
the board.
A third way is by offering contracts, committing a certain
number of tonnes or bushels to the board so that the board would
know exactly what it will be working with before the actual
marketing. That commitment can be made some time in advance
and staged in. That is another way to deal with the issue. Give
farmers a choice. I cannot believe that the government in good
conscience can continue to deny farmers the choice on how to
market their grain.
In conclusion, I want to again thank the hon. member for Wild
Rose for his motion and say that I support it as one way to deal with
ending the monopoly of the wheat board. I also point out that there
are other ways of dealing with the situation. I say very clearly that
a voluntary board has worked before, a dual marketing system has
worked before, and it will work again. I ask the minister to examine
this again.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the context of
debating the motion before the House, it is worth remembering the
consultation process that preceded the report of the western grain
marketing panel.
The report was presented to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food on July 2, 1996 after much direct consultation,
independent research and careful deliberation. The panel produced
a brochure that described the current grain marketing system and
outlined some of the major related issues. This was distributed to
over 200,000 farmers, organizations and industry representatives in
December 1995. This information was only the first step in an
extensive dialogue.
The panel then provided a number of avenues for interested
individuals and groups to review the grain marketing system and
they were able able to put forward their views and offer suggestions
for changes in the marketing system. Clearly the panel made good
on its commitment to foster an atmosphere of fairness and
impartiality in which people could meet to discuss the future of the
grain marketing system.
As part of the consultation exercise that was the most extensive
in the history of the industry, a series of 15 town hall meetings was
held across Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I attended two of
those meetings in my home province of Manitoba, one in Brandon
and one in my home town of Grandview which is in my riding of
Dauphin-Swan River. It was in this kind of forum that farmers
and other concerned people gave their perspective on both the
current marketing system for western Canadian grain and
alternative arrangements. The panel also held hearings in
Winnipeg, Regina and Edmonton where individuals and
organizations made formal presentations. In 12 days of hearings
the panel heard 69 briefs. There were also 78 written submissions
from individuals and organizations that did not appear before the
panel during its hearings.
(1155)
As well, to help in its assessment of the grain marketing system,
its institutions and the economic environment in which this
important industry operates, the panel contracted consultants to
produce six major reports.
Clearly the western grain marketing panel made a valuable
contribution in facilitating an important debate concerning the
future of the Canadian Wheat Board and the grain marketing
system. Key issues were explored and the panel's recommenda-
6344
tions were added to the input received by the government from
producers and other interested parties. Taken together, this input
has helped the government chart its course concerning the future of
the board.
The government supports the way the Canadian Wheat Board
has evolved into a body where key decisions affecting farmers in
this industry have been made by the farmers themselves and are
based on a consensus which they themselves built. At the same
time the government is proposing to the future modernization of
the administrative structure of the board, to make its operations
more flexible and effective and to put more power in the hands of
primary producers.
The policy statement issued by the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food on October 7, 1996 calls for a board of directors for the
Canadian Wheat Board to be appointed by the government in 1997,
a board with a farmer majority. By 1998 directors will be directly
elected by farmers. This proposal reflects the common goal of both
the western grain marketing panel and the government, providing
western Canadian farmers with the best ways and means to achieve
the maximum possible benefits for their industry.
To help the board better serve its clients, new legislation to be
introduced shortly will also enable the board to use its financial
resources in a more business-like manner. This will permit the
board and farmers more flexibility in financial dealings.
Specifically, payments to farmers will be easier to make and
quicker to deliver. This promotes a better business environment for
the industry. Avoidable bottlenecks and other delays in doing
business with and on behalf of farmers can be removed to
everyone's benefit.
Once the new governance structure is in place, the government
will be able to look to the Canadian Wheat Board's board of
directors for guidance on issues regarding the industry. In the
meantime the government has committed itself to a producer vote
on the subject of the marketing system for barley.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has clearly said that
he has heard from farm groups on how to formulate the question
and a voter eligibility list. The aim is to ask farmers a clear
question on the marketing of barley. It will be an important choice
because the future of the industry will be shaped in this process.
Again, this follows the route of a broad consultation instead of
pre-empting debate.
During the western grain marketing panel consultations, farmers
demonstrated a strong desire to shape their industry themselves.
The motion before the House today proposes a different route, one
that I believe should be rejected. It pre-empts a wider consultation
on a very important issue and proposes to make an important
choice over the heads of farmers.
I strongly oppose this motion. It undercuts the strengths of the
Canadian Wheat Board as well as the credibility of prairie grain
farmers. This motion clearly illustrates the extremist views of the
third party of this House of Commons.
The Deputy Speaker: As there are no other members rising to
debate, the hon. member for Wild Rose is entitled to get up and
resume the debate if he so wishes. May we call it twelve o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6344
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved:
That this House take note of the evolving situation in the Great Lakes region of
Africa and of Canada's leadership role in the international community's efforts to
alleviate human suffering in the region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the
honourable Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Reform
Party, the leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the
Conservative Party for their co-operation during last week's
discussions on the urgency of the situation in Zaire. This is
certainly a great example of how the members of this Parliament
work together to ensure a unified position with respect to the very
serious crisis unfolding in that part of the world. We are certainly
most interested in the debates that will be held in the coming days
in order to determine the direction and the initiatives to be taken
with respect to the missions to Zaire, and also to ensure that the
voices of each party in this Parliament, which represents the
Canadian people, are heard.
[English]
The purpose of this is to bring before Parliament the resolution
seeking support for the Canadian initiative in eastern Zaire and the
surrounding regions.
It was about eight days ago when the entire world, including all
Canadians, recognized that we stood on the precipice of one of the
most tragic human disasters the world has ever faced. Millions of
people were sitting in eastern Zaire without any food, sustenance or
support. There was enormous potential for the whole crisis to
develop into a situation of huge significance, not just in the region
but for everyone. The prospect of a humanitarian disaster shook us
all.
In the circumstances, a week ago Saturday the Prime Minister,
consulting with a number of other world leaders, took an initiative
6345
in line with what we believe is the long Canadian tradition of
involvement as a major peacekeeper to stop the stalemate, to
change the inertia that was taking place at an international level.
There was a need for political will to take place.
We have learned, as we have gone through these new kinds of
crises in the last several years, that the resources are there, the
capacity is there and the institutions are there, but what is often
missing is the political will. Last weekend the Prime Minister
supplied that missing ingredient and took the initiative to begin
mobilizing the world community.
Since then, of course, events have taken place rapidly. We were
able to bring together a coalition of a number of countries prepared
to offer direct assistance for a multinational force which would
provide a secure environment within eastern Zaire to ensure that
any humanitarian aid could be effectively delivered and at the same
time to support and facilitate the voluntary repatriation and
movement of refugees back to their homes in Rwanda.
In addition to that, political support had to be mobilized at the
United Nations to get the right kind of resolution. Without going
into the long history, although it was just a short time ago, Canada
took the lead in this important international coalition building.
Canada was able to garner the support of a number of countries
which were prepared to commit and to mobilize political support at
the United Nations. On the weekend just past we were able to
obtain the full endorsement of the United Nations security council.
(1205)
I want to give my vote of appreciation to the leaders of each of
the respective other parties in the House. I spoke to them last week
to explain the kind of urgency and the quick changing
circumstances we faced. We received both their basic support and
willingness to wait until the House returned on Monday to have a
full debate which we are committed to. I want to thank them very
much for signifying and expressing their own commitment during
this very tumultuous period this past week.
We now see that the situation has changed. We should take
enormous satisfaction that one of the major objectives that was set
out just a short week ago was to ensure that the large masses of
refugees held in camps and who had been a part of that system for
the last two years are now on the move. The dramatic pictures we
see every night on television clearly demonstrate that one of the
major objectives has already in large part been achieved.
One of the contributing reasons, one of the factors that unlocked
or triggered that movement was that in the past week our own
country took on the responsibility of organizing the international
community. The international community's presence that would
soon be felt became a strong and compelling influence in terms of
that massive movement that we now witness daily. In part we can
take a certain amount of satisfaction that the job is already under
way, but we should also recognize the job is not yet over.
At last report there are still hundreds of thousands of refugees in
eastern Zaire. We hope that they will be able to join the movement
that was started on the weekend, but at this point in time there is no
way of knowing. We are still trying to assess the information
intelligence with regard to the refugees in the southern part of Zaire
around the area of Bukavu. The objectives still remain and they
have the UN security resolution force behind them to ensure that
humanitarian assistance is given. At the same time we are able to
support and facilitate the continual resettlement of refugees back
into their home communes.
In this case we still stay committed as the Canadian government
on behalf of the Canadian people to do whatever is necessary to
meet the current needs. We continue to support these developments
and provide any resource necessary to not only ensure the
application of humanitarian aid but to look at the broader question
of peace building in the region so that we will not have a
reoccurrence, that the same problems will not visit us again a year
or two down the road and to begin working for longer term
settlements of the root causes of the problems.
We seek the support of Parliament today for the initiative of
Canada as we seek to find the most effective and useful ways in
which we can respond to the humanitarian crisis in Rwanda and
Zaire.
To put this into context and why I think this is particularly
important as a juncture point in debate, we have witnessed since the
ending of the cold war several years ago the emergence of not
uniform global peace but a new kind of conflict, low intensity
conflicts, often internal conflicts, but which have a nasty way of
spilling over their boundaries, creating enormous repercussions in
their own regions around the world at great cost to life and
resources in those regions and for which we all bear the burden. It
is the new kind of world we live in.
As we begin to learn our lessons day by day, week by week, as
we go through each of these conflicts, we now begin to apply those
lessons in an effective way. If we do not do so we will see the
continuing cycles of violence, the targeting of whole communities
one against the another, the ugly words that appear in our
vocabulary, ethnic cleansing and genocide, that have become all
too common in our parlance.
We have to continue to be cognizant of the enormous despair of
hundreds of thousands of civilians who are the victims of these
conflicts, the women and children who bear the brunt and who
often are the most vulnerable and cannot protect themselves
against these kinds of internal conflicts, faction fights and the
enormous violence we have witnessed for so long.
6346
(1210 )
Clearly, traditional responses are not enough. The lessons we
acquired in our diplomatic, political and military textbooks on the
cold war do not apply to the new situations.
One of the first lessons we learned is that these internal conflicts
are ``not a family matter''. Given their effect on international
security as a whole, given the widespread consequences brought
about by these matters, as we have seen just in the past week, it is
incumbent on and the responsibility of the international community
to find the appropriate response.
We cannot use narrow national interests as an excuse for inaction
or delay. It is a matter for all common humanity. I believe that is
the will of Canadians to serve as a steward in that cause of
humanity.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister went to the core of the issue last week when
he said that no one can remain indifferent to the suffering in eastern
Zaire, no one can close his eyes to the consequences. If the world
community does not act, more than a million lives will be at stake.
[English]
I think that summarizes basically why we have taken the role and
the leadership that we have.
Third, we have learned that what is basically required is no
longer the singular responses of just military force or political
action. We now have to find an integrated, strategic,
comprehensive way of melding political, military and
humanitarian efforts so that there is a complete and total response,
that we are able to be flexible and provide adaptations, that we can
no longer simply go by the old guidebooks.
We now must find notions of combining peacekeeping in its
traditional form as established by Michael Pearson many years ago
but also with a new concept of peace building, how we work into
post-conflict situations to have stabilized communities.
The medical community has a good word for it, triage. If you are
a casualty in a traffic accident and you come to the hospital, they do
not immediately perform the operation. They stabilize the vital
signs. They make sure the blood is pumping. They make sure the
body is warm and things are stabilized before they can start the
treatment and the cure. One of the new lessons we have learned and
the required lessons is to begin seeing how we can provide that
triage in these new kinds of international conflicts.
Specifically as it applies to Zaire, we face a situation that
challenges all these lessons that we have learned in this new
conflict situation, how to provide innovative responses to the new
kinds of humanitarian crises. I think we have already shown one
important lesson and that is to quickly and effectively use political
will and mobilization to bring the international community toward
finding a solution.
I would recommend to all members, if they have the time, to
read a dramatic report that was issued after the Rwanda conflict
which stated that the missing link that led to the genocide was a
lack of political will at the international level. That will was
supplied over the past week. I am pleased to say that it was the
Canadian Prime Minister who provided that basic sense of
commitment and engagement to make it happen.
As a result, the scope of the disaster has been substantially
reduced. However, we now have to make adaptations. We are now
seeing the vast movement of refugees coming across the border as
a consequence of that galvanizing of the international area.
However, there is still an urgent need for humanitarian assistance
to sustainable solutions.
My colleague, the Minister for International Co-operation, will
be addressing in more detail how on the humanitarian side we can
begin to support work by the various international agencies and
care groups that are involved in that region.
We must be prepared to continue to do what we can to ensure
that there is continued security. At the present moment we are
gathering the information intelligence, working with our allies,
working with the African states, the Europeans and the Americans
to ensure that in eastern Zaire itself that as the problem begins to be
resolved, we also do not see remaining pockets where there is still
continued violence, insecurity or instability.
(1215 )
We are beginning to look at how we can meet the objectives but
perhaps use a different mix of tools. I hope members of Parliament
will be prepared to work with us in developing that ongoing
adaptation and adjustment as we move into new fields.
I welcome the response of members of Parliament on the
usefulness of setting up regular joint meetings of the defence and
foreign affairs committees. Then we can constantly brief members
of Parliament from all parties, get their responses and build them in
as part of our ongoing policy making and our response mechanism.
I put that proposal out and I hope the spokespersons for the
opposition parties will indicate whether they would be prepared to
engage in that kind of ongoing parliamentary dialogue.
To make sure we have it, Canadian military personnel are now in
Rwanda. General Baril will arrive there within hours to do the
major reconnaissance. They will help to give us a much better
understanding of the situation in the region and how that will affect
our deployment plans.
The consultations I talked about are intensifying. There will be a
major planning session in Stuttgart within two days which will
bring together all the donor nations. We are in constant contact and
have been over the weekend with a number of the key players, with
6347
those who are prepared to donate and contribute to the force and
with those who represent the African states.
I will be meeting with the ambassadors of the African states later
today to engage them in the same kind of consultation and response
so we can calibrate and tailor our responses to fit the needs,
because that is our primary objective. We have also asked our
Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa to visit Africa. She
is on her way now to visit certain African capitals, to consult again
with the key African states about what they think would be the
appropriate response.
It is a continuing involvement. We on behalf of Canadians want
to ensure we have the capacity and are in the position to offer the
leadership that was initiated last weekend by the Prime Minister.
We must now recognize that a conversion is taking place. The
movement of refugees in its own way is a source of enormous
satisfaction. It is beginning to deal with one of the root causes of
the problem, but there are still issues to face down the road. There
is the longer term question of the resettlement of the refugees back
into Rwanda. The millions of people now returning to their
homelands have to be given basic support and sustenance.
We have to ensure there is proper monitoring in that area so the
communities can come together, so there can be reconciliation and
development in those areas. That will also involve a continuing
ongoing commitment of the international community. We will do
our part and offer whatever leadership is required to help deal with
those kinds of issues and develop responses.
Last weekend in Paris during a meeting on Bosnia I engaged
several of my counterparts as foreign ministers about how we can
begin to think through those longer term responses and how we can
begin to develop an effective international response to that
changing condition.
The United Nations Security Council has also recognized very
clearly the need for a follow-up force. Planning is already under
way for a second phase as to how we should maintain a system of
stability to ensure the problems do not recur. There is a lesson out
of the past situations in Rwanda, Somalia and other areas. If we
simply say that the immediate crisis is over and that we can now
walk away, then we are bound to face a recurrence of the problem
within months or years.
For that reason the United Nations has special envoy
Ambassador Chrétien working in the region not only to deal with
the immediate questions of negotiation about the humanitarian
crisis but to make recommendations that will be used by the United
Nations, ourselves and other countries to begin planning that
longer term response. Again we can take some satisfaction in
having received a call from the United Nations with a request that
Canada find a proper envoy. We all admire enormously the work of
Ambassador Chrétien. There is no one better suited for the task in
the work he is doing there to provide international leadership at this
crucial time.
In addition to those direct initiatives, I put forward another idea
in a speech I gave about three weeks ago at York University. I am
sure all members read it as soon as it came off the press.
(1220 )
The need for a peace building strategy by Canada was put
forward. It is a need to begin to look differently at some of these
kinds of problems; that within our own resources and our own
political capacity, how we can provide support for countries
emerging out of conflict; how we can provide the ability to help
them stabilize so that the problems do not return with frequency.
The issue of Zaire is a good example of how peace building, a
rapid, integrated, multifaceted response on the civilian side is as
important as the rapid multifaceted response on the military side.
We now have to find a forum for the same kind of effectiveness by
the civilian peacekeeping side, which we now call peace building,
as we have had on the military side.
This means providing assistance to re-establish the rule of law. It
means supporting political reconciliation, including the issue of
human rights, particularly minority rights. It means developing
confidence building measures between the groups and factions that
have been in conflict, designed to defuse tensions on the borders,
across the borders and among people within those borders.
It means securing an environment so that the continued
humanitarian assistance and rebuilding can take place. People
cannot go about rebuilding their lives if they are worried that they
will be attacked at any moment. That is why one major
commitment we have made in places like Haiti is to provide
training and support for the establishment of national police forces
using public accountability and a sense of transparency so that
those countries can begin to acquire that sense of security.
It means the massive problem of resettlement and reintegration
of refugees and displaced persons and the reconstruction of a
political and civil society in many of these countries. That is the
new notion of peace building: how to use our own experiences as a
country which has learned how to build bridges across boundaries;
a country which has learned how to build a linkage between groups
with different languages and different backgrounds; how to use the
experiences we have gained internationally over the years to form
these kinds of coalitions and alliances; how we begin to work with
other like-minded countries so that we do not do it alone, but we
6348
work within the UN context as a coalition of countries dedicated to
the notion of peace building.
That is very much the challenge which now faces us. That is the
second track we must begin to follow. As we have begun to almost
see a certain resolution of the humanitarian crisis, we must now
make sure that a new crisis does not occur. Through the kinds of
initiatives of peace building that I talked about, I think we can
begin to help resolve those issues.
I know it has been the question and concern which was clearly
uppermost on the minds of members in terms of the briefing we
held this morning. That is why I want to underline and emphasize
the importance of being able to respond to these kinds of
international difficulties not in a singular way, not in an inflexible
way, not in a single dimension, but to provide a subtle, flexible
broad based response in which we can bring to bear the best
resources of this country to help solve the conflict.
In conclusion, I again ask members of the House for their
support in this initiative. It is not a support which is open ended.
We will come back to Parliament on a regular basis through the
committee system to ensure that it is constantly being referenced
and constantly asking for a response. We have to work together.
I believe this is in the vital interests of Canadians. Many out
there are asking why we are involved in Rwanda which is so far
away, why we are spending resources in a far off place. Every
Canadian has a vital interest. If we do not solve the problems, if we
do not help to make that kind of contribution, it will be on our
doorstep in a matter of time.
It is the underside of globalization. If we can gain from the
benefits of a global system in terms of trade, investment,
productivity and growth, we must also bear the responsibility of
ensuring the global system is stable, orderly, safe and secure. That
has been a long tradition of this country. It is in the tradition that
will allow us to continue not only to provide security for other
people but our own security as well, by making sure that the world
is secure.
I thank members of Parliament for their courtesy and
indulgence. I look forward to the ensuing debate and to their
continued support as Canada engages in a mission where we are
showing leadership in the world in representing the best values and
interests of the Canadian people.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is very meaningful for me to speak today in this debate
concerning a dramatic situation that is unfolding in the world. I will
begin by making it clear that we are faced with a very difficult
humanitarian situation on the international level.
(1225)
This current situation affects me personally, for there is a
nongovernmental organization in my riding, the Institut de
développement Nord-Sud, which ran a fairly extensive program in
Rwanda for several years. Hutus, Tutsis, people from Rwanda and
the region have come to my riding, and people from my riding have
gone over there, all of this on the interpersonal level.
In approaching a problem like this, I believe we must keep in
mind that, when all is said and done, we are dealing with human
beings, people, men and women, who have been experiencing very
difficult situations for some years, and continue to do so. What is
more, these situations are constantly changing.
We are faced with a complex and alarming human situation. I
think that it is worthwhile to point out, and very realistic as well,
that it was high time that someone took the initiative on this.
Canada, it must be noted, has been involved in the decision-making
process in recent weeks to ensure that there is the will for
international action to be carried out.
We are faced with a situation that is evolving with blinding
speed. This morning we had an information session on the situation
in Zaire, and the people briefing us were receiving hourly,
half-hourly updates on the changing situation. It is important that,
in approaching this matter, the Canadian government and the
international community keep in mind that the objectives are
sacred, but the means to attain them may change.
Last week, military intervention was really the main mission,
and it will remain essential in the future, but, as the Minister said,
there is more and more international action in quite distinct areas.
There is a case for military action in one area and humanitarian
action next door, while it is also necessary to project future
developments.
I think all these actions must be integrated. Experience is an
excellent teacher and today's experience is particularly significant
in that we have a living laboratory. We have a situation where
human lives are at stake, so we must be prepared to accept that
solutions that seemed relevant last week may have to be changed
and adjusted as events unfold.
In the end, in one or two or three or five years, we should be able
to reach a point where we can say: ``This part of the world, after
experiencing major upheavals, has been pacified. Its people are
living in satisfactory conditions, and they are happy in the place
where they live. They manage to deal with their problems and are
taking a new, more positive approach.''
Unfortunately, today the answer is not necessarily obvious. The
situation is extremely complex. Zaire is a country surrounded by 11
other African countries, with populations whose backgrounds vary
widely and where the European presence has had an enormous
impact. Even today, on the map of Africa, borders often are where
6349
they are as result of European intervention. All this means that we
have a situation where a country's borders do not necessarily
coincide with tribal borders.
So we have to consider all these factors. I would like to take this
opportunity to mention a major contribution being made by
Tanzania, a neighbouring country that has provided a buffer
solution, as it were, for at least part of the refugees. I think this is an
approach that could be a useful precedent. Other African countries
would do well to follow this example so that, in the medium term,
solutions will be increasingly African solutions, initiated by and
for Africans.
Today, in 72 hours, we have gone from a situation where we had
more than one million refugees outside Rwanda to a situation
where there are 400,000 or perhaps 500,000. It is hard to estimate
the exact figures, but in the past 72 hours there has been a major
population movement that has completely changed the situation.
(1230)
Between 400,000 and 500,000 people have become a new and
important challenge for the Government of Rwanda and the current
situation. It will be necessary to absorb these people who left the
country one or two years ago when the country went through a very
difficult time. Now they must be reintegrated. Can this be done
without strong international assistance, and I am thinking of shelter
facilities and food aid corridors? And there are also the
non-governmental organizations that are helping to feed and
resettle these people. We will have to consider very carefully where
the efforts the Government of Canada and of all the other countries
that are part of the current international action should be focused.
We must realize that although the situation has changed so
dramatically, the answer is certainly not to stop everything
tomorrow morning. Just because a lot of Rwandans are going back
to Rwanda does not mean that the problem is solved. And above
all, international public opinion must not be allowed to focus its
attention on other problems while forgetting to deal with the very
real problem that exists in this country.
The difficult situation remains and it is not going to be resolved
by the Rwandans' return home. It will be resolved once there is,
within the African communities concerned, a balance, a way for the
population to live in a democratic context and according to the
rules that govern peoples who live together and are concerned
about each other's growth and development.
The people are not being judged; the issue is simply to ensure
that long term solutions are put in place.
Here is an example of some of the information that must be
taken into consideration. We know that, at the moment, there may
be enough food to feed some 1.5 million people for about 50 days.
Therefore, in order to ensure that supplies reach the refugees in
time, without crises or panic arising from logistics problems, we
must ensure there is an infrastructure. I think the action the
government has undertaken that has mobilized the international
community must continue and will bring significant results in short
order.
I stress the aspect of continuing the action, because of all the
reactions we see today in the news. People are saying: ``We do not
know anymore whether the troops are really needed''. The
Americans, for example, may have doubts.
The movement of the refugees elicits a different response to the
problem among the Africans involved. However, the problem
remains. We have to look to the means and the types of action, but
we must never give up on the problem itself.
So, aid is still needed. It is hard to assess the impact of the
multinational force. Over time, however, a link may be established
between the point at which the international community decided to
act and the subsequent population movements.
This result alone is worth the effort of showing that action had to
be taken and that it must continue to be accorded the importance it
deserves.
In addition to acting in the short term, we must take the right
kind of action. There is a clear lesson for the international
community here. The many warning signals that preceded the
current crisis went unheeded. It was the resumption of an
unfinished war, which led to the massacre of more than one million
Rwandans in 1994.
(1235)
This situation, which has deteriorated over the years, should
have been anticipated. Solutions had been suggested. The situation
must be dealt with in the short term. For the long term, the French
government has suggested that an international conference be held
on the whole African great lakes issue, on this whole region of
Africa. This suggestion has been on the table for some time now,
and it was submitted to the Canadian foreign affairs minister by his
French counterpart. I think that beyond the logistics of the current
crisis, the international community should go one step further and
recognize that the problem is indeed serious and deep-rooted, and
that there should be an international conference on the subject.
We could ask ourselves the following question: Would this not
be the appropriate way to look for a permanent solution to the
problems that were encountered? All players would have to sit
around a table and develop comprehensive, long-term solutions to
ensure this kind of crisis will never happen again.
Action is said to be required. Why should it always be military
action? Non-governmental organizations involved in providing
humanitarian relief in the field feel that their work remains
6350
essential, that it is still important. I think we should trust their
experience.
Humanitarian organizations and the military should continue to
co-operate in creating corridors. If all the refugees that fled their
country return to Rwanda, there will be a significant increase in the
number of Rwandans who were no longer part of the country's
economy and now need to be integrated. This will involve
combining civilian and military protection to deal with very real
food supply problems. To achieve this goal, military supervision
will still be required to ensure that all operations are conducted in
relative safety.
We are confronted to a complex situation where action is
continuously needed. But we must ask ourselves what kind of
action is required. In itself, the refugees' return is good news. It
was one of the two objectives assigned to the international force.
The announcement of an international mission helped trigger off
the Rwandans' return. The decision made by Rwandese people to
return home poses a major challenge for the international
community.
These people are experiencing very special conditions. For
example, we know that trucks were put at their disposal to bring
them back home. However, these people are animated by some
kind of survival instinct and they want to walk back to their
communities together, collectively. Some negative thoughts may
be associated with the trucks. These people experienced genocide.
These are human beings in motion who, collectively, decided to
find a solution: to return to their villages and to try to rebuild the
relationship that existed between them in each of the villages.
We must help them do it by being present and by ensuring that
this process takes place in an appropriate framework. We must also
ensure that these people are properly looked after when they come
back. We were told this morning that, when a family arrives in the
village that it left two years earlier, they find their house occupied
by someone else. There is a whole way of life to re-establish and
redefine. This implies that some form of international assistance is
provided. Otherwise, chaos could resurface, and we would not be
able to resolve the new crisis.
We must not bury our heads in the sand. We must not forget that
the civil war has left open wounds. This is a country trying to get
back on its feet. This is a developing country facing a major
challenge. No one could have predicted, 72 hours ago, that some
400,000 or 500,000 people would head back home.
(1240)
Try to imagine, in Quebec or in Canada, a sudden movement of
500,000 people within a 72-hour period. Think of the impact it
could have on an economically developed country such as ours.
Now imagine the same situation in a country ravaged by a civil
war. This shows how international assistance is still needed.
We may ponder whether, for example, it is still as vital to ensure
the disarmament of the troops involved, and how this can be
concretely achieved. When refugees were concentrated in camps,
the logistics was easier to deal with. Now that refugees are
returning home all over the country, will it be possible to use the
same approach? Questions remain.
Another big question mark is the six months initially anticipated.
We have seen the situation, notably in Bosnia, where a mission was
supposed to last a few months and ended up going on for a year and
a half. Are we headed for the same sort of situation again? Could
the movement of refugees not reduce the length of the mission?
These are concerns that we will have to address.
Earlier, the minister was telling us that there will be follow-up.
He said that the situation will be referenced through the committee
system and in the House of Commons. The official opposition will
be watching closely to see, among other things, that our troops are
treated properly. Lessons must be learned from the past.
There was a recommendation to change the policy so that
soldiers spend at least 12 months in Canada between international
missions of this type. Will this policy apply in the present
situation? This is one of the factors underlying the malaise found
among troops on their return. When this interval is too short and
there is inadequate acclimatization and preparation, it shows up in
increased suicide rates, and personal and family problems. This is
another important concern.
Other questions must also be asked. In light of the unexpected
return of over half a million refugees to Rwanda-and the number
is increasing daily, if not hourly-will it be possible to meet the
goal of ensuring satisfactory humanitarian services in the future?
Another question is whether the Prime Minister intends to
require the agreement of all parties present before going ahead, or
does he plan to impose the multinational force? This is a good
question.
As of this morning, no confirmation has yet been received that
the governments of Rwanda and Zaire are prepared to formally
agree to the arrival of this force in their territory. Rwanda is
wondering whether there is still a need for this international force
in view of the changed situation.
Canada is assuming command of this force, an incredible
challenge for the armed forces. From the standpoint of political
analysis, the challenge will be a major one. Lieutenant-General
Baril, the commanding general, and all those assisting him must
have access to an accurate analysis of what is going on, be able to
react rapidly and have significant support from the Government of
Canada. The support of the entire diplomatic machinery will also
6351
be essential, because there is no denying that there is also the risk
of friction in an international force involving 15 or 16 countries.
The support of the entire Canadian government, including the
diplomatic network, will be required in order to ensure that the
action taken is appropriate and responsible, and that it takes
account of all the players in this situation.
(1245)
The armed forces are facing a major challenge as a result of the
Canadian government's decision to lead this mission. Canada is
already doing its share to a significant extent by sending soldiers
abroad on international missions. Consider Bosnia, for instance,
where we have about 2,000 soldiers on the ground. Will we be able
to continue our participation in missions abroad, and do so
satisfactorily, while leading the operation in the African great lakes
region?
There is a major point we must consider. Even when we manage
to bring in humanitarian aid and take care of the survivors, there is
no strategy for preventing a recurrence of the conflict if no long
term political solution is found. And this is where the concept of an
international conference could be useful.
Today, the initiatives taken by Canada are important to deal with
the crisis on a short term basis, but similar initiatives will be
necessary to provide a long term solution. Canada must look at the
broader picture to find long term solutions.
A concern was raised by families of soldiers who are part of
these missions, and past experience can teach us a useful lesson. It
is important to know exactly what instructions are given to soldiers
who may encounter resistance in the field. What are the rules of
engagement? Do those rules exist? Would it be possible to table
them so we will know exactly how much leeway the army has?
In addition to our short term strategy, we must have a long term
strategy as well. The proposal for an international conference on
the great lakes region sounds like an excellent idea. Perhaps we
could also learn from our experience in Bosnia with humanitarian
aid and the rebuilding of civilian institutions. If the military
mission takes less time than expected, perhaps we could consider
setting aside certain amounts for rebuilding civilian institutions
and include this as part of Canadian and international aid. We think
this is an important component of a long term solution.
The governments concerned must have solid roots. They must
have the requisite legitimacy and the right tools to build the
country. I think the Government of Canada would do well to
consider this.
In concluding, in this debate the opposition believes it is
important for the Canadian government to continue to take certain
initiatives, to do so after reflecting on the situation and to continue
to take the lead. We may make minor mistakes, but we must ensure
that Canada and the international community come out of this
operation with their reputation enhanced and that solutions will be
found to ensure that Rwanda has public institutions that work in the
years to come, and that Rwandans will see that international aid
provided on Canada's initiative has helped to restore the quality of
their lives. The next few days will be crucial in this respect.
We therefore urge the government to show good judgment and to
seek the support of the opposition parties, so that our position can
help the government make the best possible decisions, because in
this particular case, we are still talking about protecting hundreds
of thousands of human lives.
(1250)
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
talk about an issue that is of such great concern to all Canadians. I
am sure I speak for my colleagues and most Canadians who are
horrified by the humanitarian issues that we see on television on a
daily basis. The humanitarian tragedy in Rwanda touches all of us.
I cannot help thinking back to my visit to Rwanda. My wife and I
spent a month there. We trekked through the very area we are now
seeing pictures of. We stood beside Lac Kivu and took pictures of
the sunset. We were told that Egyptian folklore said that if you saw
a sunset over Lac Kivu you would live 10 years longer. In my office
I have a large picture of the sun setting on Lac Kivu.
I cannot help thinking of the people and the villages and the
fertile land which represents Rwanda. Rwanda is truly the
Switzerland of Africa. The valleys are full of tea. We were able to
see the fantastic growth on the volcanic soil. That probably makes
this issue even harder, to know the potential of that place and to see
what those people have done to themselves.
I cannot help thinking of my days as a university student reading
``Heart of Darkness'' by Joseph Conrad and being impressed by the
book and the way it presented the issue.
We are talking today about what we should do for Rwanda, for
Zaire and for the problems which are occurring in the area. To
address the issue I want to look back at the record of peacekeeping
and of the kinds of issues which we face today. Of course it all
comes down to accountability, to making promises and to
delivering on those promises.
Canada's role in peacekeeping goes back as far as the Suez
Canal. That was a different age. It was a different time. The world
was much simpler than the world in which we live today.
6352
We could talk about Cyprus and the six months that we were
going to be there. Of course we know what that turned into.
We could talk about Bosnia. In 1991 we committed to help there.
The Liberals were extremely concerned by the Progressive
Conservative decision to go to Bosnia without adequate
information, without adequate consultation and certainly without
the will of Parliament.
I can remember this time last year standing in the foyer of the
Parliament Buildings with Susan Harada, who was interviewing the
then defence minister. He said that the situation in Bosnia was
definitely under control and under the new NATO mission our
troops would definitely not be there this time next year. He said we
would not be there after December of 1996 and ``that is a promise
and I stand by it''.
We now know that IFOR II is being proposed. The Americans
are committed for another 18 months. Canada is probably going to
commit for another however many months.
We can talk about Somalia. It was a U.S. mission. We all saw the
photos of those dead marines being hauled through the streets. We
know how quickly that mission disintegrated and how we returned
with our tail between our legs.
We could talk about the tragedy that has already occurred in
Rwanda and the under-equipped and under-sized group of
peacekeepers who were there, again led by Canada. The genocide
continued. There was no hope for the peacekeepers. Of course there
was no order and again we withdrew.
We have known about this issue for a long time. Ten years ago
when I was there the NGOs were talking about it. It did not happen
last weekend, as the Prime Minister would like us to believe. The
issue has been there for a long time. It was there during the
colonization of this area when the Europeans treated these people
so badly.
(1255)
Then of course there is Haiti. Haiti has not moved a long way.
There is no education system. Unemployment stands at 85 per cent.
The quality of life has not really improved. This time last year this
very foreign affairs minister in the Charles Lynch Room downstairs
said that all would be in order by December 1996. Canada would
not have to renew its commitment or its mission because all would
be in order.
When I had the privilege of being in Haiti in June and really
seeing matters, it was obvious that promise would never be kept.
Haiti needs a 20-year plan to really get it up and functioning.
Now it is Zaire and we have a promise of four to six months. Is
that an honest promise? Is that the reality that we are facing in this
House today or is it more like so many examples we have had in the
past?
Then I would throw in the U.S. factor. The overriding concern of
the world seems to be that the U.S. is the only remaining
superpower and that we must do what the U.S. tells us. Of course,
during the election campaign it was very easy for Mr. Clinton to
say: ``We will be out of Haiti by end of February 1996'' and it was.
But we went in for the Americans. It was easy for him to say in
Bosnia: ``We will only be there until 1996'', but again the
credibility of the whole political system is at question when the
week after the election the Americans have now committed for 18
months more in Bosnia. I question how much longer it will be until
they are back in Haiti.
We can talk about Iraq and the bombings that went on there
which we just in a matter of minutes agreed to. We can talk about
Somalia and what the inquiry is showing, how U.S. diplomats, U.S.
intelligence agents, U.S. military personnel told our people what to
do.
The second in command in Zaire is going to be an American.
Canada has a great reputation around the world. It is a reputation
not tarnished by a colonial past, by aggressiveness to anyone. We
have a reputation that we care about people. How long can we keep
being the Joe boy for the U.S. and retain that neutral position that
we so value as Canadians? All of us in this Parliament should ask
that question.
What is the pattern that develops? The pattern is that problems
are identified by NGOs, by foreign affairs, by CNN. Occasionally
they are identified by the UN. Then a propaganda campaign is
started, never mentioning the real issues, never really talking about
all of the problems. Our new defence minister has a big problem in
that morale has slipped. He has a problem that the Somalia inquiry
has gone on much too long. He has a problem that his Prime
Minister is perceived in international affairs to simply be interested
in trade and that, after all, has not been the Liberal way.
The Liberals believe they have to get involved in something to
raise the profile of the Prime Minister, the party and certainly the
defence minister. Lo and behold an issue has come along. However,
that issue was there two years ago. It was there 10 years ago but
now it has become an urgent crisis.
The next step is to get the UN to rubber stamp it. Of course with
the U.S. superpower status that is not a problem.
Then we have to think back to what the Liberals said about Mr.
Mulroney being in the pocket of the Americans. With regard to Mr.
Mulroney's being there, where is Mr. Chrétien?
(1300)
Then we have to ask about the taxpayers and the cost of these
issues. It appears that we can never quite put our finger on what it is
going to cost. In fact, we can cover the costs up in normal
operation. In all the cases I have pointed out the protagonists
6353
simply wait until we tire of the mission and then they carry on from
where they were before.
What are the questions I believe Canadians and all members of
this House deserve answers to? The mission is changing, the
mandate is changing on an hourly basis. Is there still a need for the
mission? Can NGOs carry out this mission? Do we need soldiers on
the ground? We have to ask this question and it has to be displayed
to us that it is necessary.
We have to ask about the military capabilities, and my colleague
will be talking about that in detail. I was at a briefing where I was
told we could handle two missions but not three. The Canadian
public needs to know which one we are getting out of. Are we
going to stay in Bosnia where we are not part of decision making,
where we have been there longer than anybody else, more
committed than anybody else but have little say in what is going to
happen? Can that be handed off to someone else?
With respect to Haiti, it is in our hemisphere and we can hardly
give that one up as we took a lead role. How can we give Zaire up?
Our Prime Minister has said we are the world leaders, we want to
raise our profile and this is how we are going to do it.
We need to ask questions about what is happening and we need
to get Canadians and this House to focus on what is the mandate of
our military? For 20 years we have been cutting the military. It has
been the scapegoat for lowering budgets. When are we going to say
not only do we have the very best troops but we want to have the
best equipment, the best training and we want to have the very best
ability to do the jobs that we are going to be called on to do. What
about the families of the military? These are all questions I have
not heard addressed by anybody in this House.
Do the local governments want us? That is a pretty big question.
The prime minister of Rwanda has questions. Certainly Mr.
Mobutu who has been propped up in Zaire for so many years wants
to know more details about bringing in foreign troops. Are they
going to be on his side or not?
We need to find out what the exact mandate is. You do not go
into something without knowing the details of the mandate and the
risks you run. It is great if everything goes just fine and you come
out being the very best, but what if it does not go fine? There are
many potential dangers. It is a dangerous mission we are asking our
men and women to go on and so we have to clarify that mandate.
We have to know what it is like. that is jungle, after all, and I can
testify to that on a very personal basis.
We have to clarify the mandate. We have to know what the rules
of engagement are. We have to know what happens if rebels start
shooting at our troops. We have to know what happens if hostages
are taken. We have to know the answers. Canadians have a right to
know the answers to those questions before we send these people
off.
Of course I cannot help but mention the cost. We need to know
what the estimates are. After all, we have a $50 billion interest
payment every year that is crippling us and putting us behind the
rest of the world. We need to know where this money is coming
from and how much it is before we leave.
We need to know an exit strategy. I have given the examples of
all the times we have heard in this place ``we are there for six
months and I guarantee we will be out of there in six months''.
(1305 )
I heard that out in the foyer, I heard that down in the news
gallery. I have heard that over and over and we will hear it again.
Four to six months, what kind of a guarantee? How are we going to
measure how well we have done and how we are going to get out of
this mission? We need to know that.
We need to know how we get out of Haiti, out of Somalia, out of
Bosnia. We need to know we are training somebody to take our
place, and who better than the African forces themselves?
We cannot be the Canadian foreign legion. We cannot go
everywhere. We do have to pick and choose. We have to look at our
role in the international community. We have to make this
Parliament meaningful. This Parliament must be part of this. I
could just as easily say what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said
when he was in opposition, that Parliament has to be meaningful,
Parliament must have a say when the lives of our men and women
are at stake.
What should we be doing? We should let Parliament have a say.
We should make it a meaningful process. We should have briefings
from all the people involved, from the military, from the NGO
community, from foreign affairs, from all the people who know
what is happening there, from those who have been there, who have
spent years there. There are a lot of them. They could let this House
know before our troops are sent. We should have an opportunity to
question them, everybody on an equal basis. This should not be a
partisan issue.
We should have representative speakers of each party speak on
the issues. Those people could express the views that would have
been formulated with information obtained through questioning.
Everybody would have an opportunity to do that.
There should be a free vote in the House to make the decision on
this. It does not have to be a last minute thing like it always is.
None of these issues shows up overnight.
We need to train people to take care of themselves. We need to
be involved in the long term training of African countries to take
care of their many issues. These problems for the most part were
caused by colonization, by the European and American influence
6354
in so many of these countries. We need a workable plan. Maybe it
should be geographic.
Perhaps we need a Euro force. There is one in the planning
stages as part of the EU. It will handle European problems. We
need an Afro force to handle African problems. We need an
Americas force, an OAS force, to handle the Americas. Of course
Asia should be able to take some responsibility for itself. The point
is we will then create a solution, a hope for the future, a vision of
how this world can maintain peace.
We do care about the people. We want to help the people with all
these humanitarian problems, but we cannot give a blank cheque.
We must have these questions answered. Canadians want answers,
we want answers, and I am sure I speak for many parliamentarians
on all sides of this House.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
be participating in this important debate. I want to thank my hon.
colleagues for their participation to this point.
As members of the House are well aware, the situation in the
great lakes region of Africa remains extremely fluid. Indeed it
continues to evolve as we speak. We face a major humanitarian
crisis in eastern Zaire and in Rwanda.
Last week approximately one and a half million refugees were
either huddling in makeshift camps or fleeing from conflict. The
plight of these men, women and children is absolutely desperate.
(1310)
The efforts of international humanitarian agencies to reach those
in need were being impeded by warring factions. Hundreds of
thousands of lives are in jeopardy. Canada was not prepared to
stand by and watch another African tragedy unfold. We decided to
respond.
Canada took the lead in organizing a multinational approach to
ensure the safe delivery of humanitarian assistance in the region. I
am sure that all members of the House would agree with me that
the Prime Minister's initiative over the last 10 days has succeeded
beyond our wildest dreams because already the situation has
changed dramatically and for the better.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees have taken to the roads to
return to their communes in Rwanda. This exodus which all of us
are witnessing will go a long way toward resolving the
humanitarian crisis in eastern Zaire.
Surely we can all agree that it is much too early to say that the
crisis is over. For example, we believe there are still approximately
500,000 refugees in Zaire. There are people still in need. Those
who are the healthiest are the ones who were able to return to
Rwanda first. Yet it is impossible at this moment for anyone to
determine the true extent of the crisis.
So, faced with this uncertainty we continue to take the
preliminary steps with our coalition partners that are necessary to
mount a relief effort. We continue to examine every option as the
situation in the region evolves. To that end Canadian forces
continue to prepare for possible deployment. Over the coming days
as we assess the situation we want to make sure that they are
capable of acting if that is required.
[Translation]
That Canada should take a lead in this endeavour should come as
no surprise. Canada has a long and proud tradition of promoting
international stability and coming to the aid of those in need.
The Canadian Forces have the capability to make a real
difference. Canada has one of the most professional and respected
military organizations in the world. Our armed forces have what it
takes to lead a multinational relief effort.
We have participated in almost every peacekeeping mission
undertaken over the last 50 years, from traditional peacekeeping
and observer missions to the more complex operations of the
post-Cold War era, including humanitarian relief operations.
Of course, we have extensive military experience in Central
Africa itself. From the Congo operation of the early 1960s to more
recent operations in Somalia and Rwanda, we know the challenges:
inhospitable terrain, a harsh climate, armed and hostile rebel
groups.
We have already deployed an assessment team to the great lakes
region. This team will help assist ongoing multinational planning.
If necessary, we are prepared to contribute approximately 1,500
military personnel to a humanitarian relief force.
This contribution could include the core of a task force
headquarters responsible for command, control and
communications for a multinational force. We could also provide
the core of the air component headquarters, which would help
direct air operations for such a task force, as well as a DART
disaster assistance response team for humanitarian assistance to
refugees, including troops for protection. This team would include
a field hospital and a transportation element, Hercules transport
aircraft, and associated personnel to assist in the delivery of
humanitarian aid, and a national support element.
All of these elements could deploy quickly to staging bases in
the region. DART is a specialized military unit of highly trained
professionals. It includes medical personnel, engineers, a transport
and communications unit, and an infantry platoon for security.
DART can provide medical resources to treat up to 500 patients a
day, as well as electrical power and drinking water for up to 10,000
6355
people per day. It can also build temporary shelters and provide
communications and logistics support.
Some of the lead elements of DART are already in eastern Zaire.
(1315)
By the end of today, we will have almost 250 personnel in
theatre, with 4 Hercules and 1 Airbus aircraft, as well as some
DART equipment and vehicles. The balance of the DART
equipment and personnel is assembled in Trenton and ready to go.
Other augmentation personnel have been identified from across
the Canadian Forces. In short, the Canadian Forces are poised to do
what needs to be done. But any decision to participate in a
humanitarian relief effort in eastern Zaire will be based on specific
guidelines.
To begin with, all regional governments must acquiesce to the
presence of a multinational force.
[English]
In addition to the need to have the agreement of the governments
in that region before we move, we also of course need a clear and
achievable mandate. The security council mandate calls for the
establishment for humanitarian purposes of a temporary
multinational force to facilitate the immediate return of
humanitarian organizations and the effective delivery by civilian
relief organizations of humanitarian aid. It also calls for a force that
will facilitate the voluntary orderly repatriation of refugees by the
UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the voluntary return of
displaced persons.
Additionally, any mission must be of limited duration. The UN
Security Council resolution envisages a mission of four months,
but recent events may well indicate that this may be longer than is
necessary.
The multinational force called for by the security council
resolution would operate under chapter VII of the UN charter with
robust rules of engagement. These rules of engagement would
allow our troops for example to use deadly force to protect
themselves, relief personnel, and in certain situations, refugees.
We must have a clear and effective command and control
structure in place. Lieutenant-General Maurice Baril, commander,
land force command, will lead the force. General Baril is a perfect
fit for such a command. He was a battalion commander in Cyprus
and was special military adviser to the United Nations
Secretary-General from 1992 to 1995.
General Baril is now en route to the region and he will arrive
there today. Following discussions with Ambassador Chrétien,
representatives from various NGOs and local authorities, General
Baril will provide the Government of Canada with his strategic
assessment of the military situation. I am pleased to advise that
there will be a meeting in Stuttgart, Germany on Thursday at which
General Baril and representatives of the contributing nations will
make further decisions as to what type of force we should have in
place and how the humanitarian relief operation should be
conducted.
I have been telling the House what this multinational relief force
might do. Let me take a moment to tell the House what it will not
do. It will not conduct forced entry operations. It will not be
responsible for overall repatriation or integration of refugees. It
will not intervene in factional or local conflicts. It will not deal
with territorial disputes. It will not separate the intimidators from
the refugees, nor will it disarm the intimidators. It will not secure
the perimeter of refugee camps. It will not provide police functions
within the camps.
I am sure that all members in this House will agree that the
parties in the region must find their own solutions to the political
and social problems they face.
There is no doubt that over the years we have built a reputation
as a nation for being there when it counts. We believe it is critical
that we not only contribute but lead a force that would help
stabilize central Africa and save hundreds of thousands of lives.
I want to thank the American government and the military
leaders of the United States for their co-operation. Although we
have the lead and the command of this operation, we obviously do
not have all of the resources to be able to take on the logistics that
are required if we were to continue down the path that we have
chosen.
I want to repeat, because I have heard it said over and over again,
that we are monitoring the situation hour to hour, if not minute to
minute. We understand the changes that have already taken place.
Let me say that no one is enthusiastic about having to commit
Canadian men and women to a situation that is extremely volatile
and very complex. We are doing what we must do. We have moved
to this position as a result of a great deal of consensus in the
international community.
(1320 )
I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Canadian people,
that I know that as I have complete confidence in the men and
women of the Canadian forces, I have no doubt Canadians from
coast to coast to coast share that confidence. The skill of the
Canadian forces, their commitment, their experience, their
leadership qualities are second to none. The Canadian forces once
again are ready to do the job and I have every confidence they will
do it well.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in this debate on the peacekeeping missions Canada
has been involved in for many years, as the minister of defence has
6356
just mentioned. For some 50 years now, Canada has taken part in
almost every peacekeeping mission it has been asked to join.
As it has always done, the Bloc Quebecois supports the
government's humanitarian aid initiative. We recognize the
leadership shown by the current government in inviting the
international community to help bring an end to the slaughter and
resolve the current humanitarian problem at the border between
Rwanda and Zaire.
Debates have taken place in this House on earlier peacekeeping
missions. Certain discrepancies led to questions and requests for
clarification from the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition. Each
time there was a mission-be it in Bosnia or Haiti-we expected
Canada would go to the aid of countries facing problems, be they
wars, famine or disease. When the government decided to send
peacekeepers, we expected the role, mandate and length of the
missions would be clearly indicated.
The situation in Zaire is changing quickly. A couple of weeks
ago, more than half a million people fled to Zaire and now they are
returning to Rwanda. Obviously the planning and preparation of
the international mission under Canada's leadership will have to
change. Zaire has accepted and confirmed the presence of a
Canadian led multinational force, but Rwanda has not. If all the
refugees head to Rwanda, negotiations will be necessary.
There has been significant involvement by armed rebels in the
military conflict in Rwanda between the Tutsis and the Hutus,
which has been spilling over into Zaire and Uganda. As the
minister of defence has said, we want to send lightly armed
peacekeepers, who will intervene not as a UN force, but as a
multinational force approved by the UN with a more or less defined
mission.
Western countries like Canada, the United States and France
should intervene in the event of humanitarian problems, such as the
one in the great lakes region of Africa.
(1325)
I cannot help but wonder, as some of my hon. colleagues
probably wonder, how Canada will be able to cope with the various
military forces over there, when the role of our peacekeepers
remains to be defined.
We will recall that, several months ago, in Bosnia, Canadian
troops were taken hostage by Serbs. This incident held the
international community in suspense for several days. It is obvious
that the peacekeepers and UNPROFOR as a whole had neither the
mandate nor the capacity to protect themselves under such
circumstances.
What will happen in Zaire and Rwanda with the rebels and
armed militia? On what basis have the Canadian government,
National Defence, Foreign Affairs planned how our military are to
behave in various situations.
Without bringing back too many bad memories, I think we must
bear in mind that there were incidents involving peacekeepers in
Rwanda. Belgian troops under the command of a Canadian general
were murdered in Rwanda. All too often, in peacekeeping missions
such as those in Bosnia, Haiti and now Zaire, the Canadian
government sends out Canadian troops with a humanitarian
mission. Everyone agrees and realizes that Canada must act along
those lines.
In missions as important as these, where the political and
military stakes are critically high, it is nevertheless fair enough, in
my opinion, to say that preparation is critical. Every soldier and
officer participating in such missions must know exactly what is
expected of him or her, and they must also be able to protect
themselves.
In recent years, the practice has very often been to ignore to
some extent the families left behind by deployed troops. The troops
themselves know very little about the nature of the mission as they
fly out of Canada to trouble spots or other areas where they are
supposed to make a significant contribution. They are unsure of
how long they will be gone, and have little information regarding
the role they are expected to play in support of the local population
and how they should behave.
The defence and foreign affairs departments deserve to be
criticized for the lack of information they provide. Because of the
reputation and generosity of Canadians, they take it upon
themselves to help communities clearly experiencing major
problems. When it comes to missions of this type, the key players
are the troops and the officers who take part in it, those who will be
in the theatre of operations. Before they leave, military people
often tell their families, their loved ones, and sometimes the media,
that their mission is vague, that their role is not well defined. They
do not know which weapons they can use if they are surrounded by
militia troops or rebels out to capture them. They do not know if
they are allowed to defend themselves or if they must once again
put up with being humiliated? This is one of the problems
experienced by Canadian troops who took part in recent
peacekeeping missions.
It shows that the government is once again improvising
somewhat. The families of these troops feel it makes no sense to
send a son, a husband, a father, a wife, or a sister to such theatres of
operations, without knowing what is expected of them.
(1330)
There have been instances, but hopefully this will no longer be
the case, where Canadian troops may have lost their lives because
the instructions given to them were not clear. I am thinking of the
death of Corporal Gunther and others who took part in such
missions as proud members of our armed forces, proud Quebecers
and proud Canadians. These people provided humanitarian assis-
6357
tance, but their mission was not properly planned, which resulted in
mixed success and, in some cases, in extending our troops'
involvement.
It must also be pointed out that Canada has contributed very
large numbers of troops to international conflicts over the last three
years. Only recently, in 1993-94, Canadian troops in Bosnia
numbered almost 2,000. At that time, although Canada had a very
large contingent, it did not even have a decision making role in
diplomatic exchanges or peace negotiations. You will recall that
Canada was not then a member of the contact group and that it had
not taken part in the decisions surrounding negotiations to restore
peace to Bosnia. There are now almost 750 soldiers in Haiti; there
are still just over 1,000 in Bosnia, and the plan is to send another
1,000 to Zaire.
I have discussed this point with a number of soldiers and even
with certain officers. The rotation of assignments to peacekeeping
missions is leading to a certain fatigue among the troops. Far be it
from me to turn the knife in the wound, but in the present context
we are only too aware that the army has had its internal problems
that, up to a point, can be linked to this accumulation of
peacekeeping missions and to the fact that soldiers have always
been sent back into the theatre of operations, very often with
insufficient time to catch their psychological and even their
physical breath. Some have experienced serious family,
psychological and other problems.
Once again, I do not think these soldiers are being allowed
sufficient recovery time. Although there are almost 65,000 soldiers
in the Canadian army, including all ranks and levels, with rare
exceptions that portion of the Canadian army used in peacekeeping
missions is generally and almost always limited to the ground
forces. As for the navy and the air force, their participation in the
various missions is much more restricted.
So it is almost always the same land army personnel who are
used to help out various nations in the world, one might say, for in
the last ten years Canada has been to just about all of the theaters of
international conflict on this planet.
I feel that these individuals have reached a degree of overload,
which might even explain the problems experienced by the
army-more so than by the navy or the air force, although they too
have been involved in these humanitarian operations or these
conflicts-which are psychologically and physically stressful and
demand virtually superhuman efforts, particularly when soldiers
must do the same thing over and over again.
(1335)
I know soldiers who were in Bosnia for six months, then back to
Canada for a little less than a year, then back to Bosnia. They then
returned to Canada for a little less than a year before being sent to
Haiti. As for the Calgary regiment, they have been to Bosnia twice
and now it will be Zaire.
If, over a period of barely 36 months, soldiers have to spend, in
six-month chunks, more than 12 months in a conflict situation
away from their loved ones and from the security of their home
environments, I imagine that what can happen is a sort of
overloading, an inability to bounce back either psychologically or
physically.
I point this out because all Canadians, all Quebecers, and I think
all parliamentarians here agree that Canada has a duty to take part
in this type of mission and, for once, we salute Canadian leadership
in the current situation in Zaire.
We must be aware, however, that our human resources within the
armed forces, as well as our financial resources, are in what I
would call a precarious condition. Despite the good will and
compassion of all parliamentarians, of all members here in this
House and of the entire public, we must realize that considering its
human and financial resources, Canada cannot afford to be the 911
of the planet. Every time a conflict erupts somewhere, Canada is
called and everything is taken care of. Canada is always ready to
go.
This is not the first time it was mentioned in debate that Canada
should have an established and definitive policy. I even remember
that, in a speech he gave at the UN in New York, former Minister of
Foreign Affairs André Ouellet mentioned that in the not too distant
future, the UN, and I think that is where we are now, should have a
permanent force, staffed by various countries, that would intervene
in certain conflicts in certain locations.
This would make it possible for all countries, including Canada,
to plan for the number of soldiers it could make available, while
maintaining sufficient rotation so that individuals who take part in
these missions are able to have a family life and engage in some
psychological and physical recuperation. At the same time, it
would also be possible to budget for this kind of mission.
Unfortunately, in spite of all the good intentions and
praiseworthy proposals, it became clear in recent budgets that the
government was cutting back severely on humanitarian aid,
including medical assistance, food and the like, and had increased
the military component in various peacekeeping missions, which
produces results.
We may occasionally wonder whether these results are truly
positive, but the fact remains that this money will occasionally be
used preventively, as many representatives of NGOs providing
humanitarian assistance have mentioned, instead of always putting
out the fires of a conflict that in many cases will rekindle as soon as
the peacekeepers leave the theatre of operations.
(1340)
In concluding, I must say that the government's initiative has
been approved and is supported by all members here in this House,
but nevertheless, various factors must be considered and there must
6358
be a certain degree of planning. The government must consider our
human resources, meaning our military, who will need certain rest
periods, etc. We must establish very strict guidelines on the amount
of money we want to invest in these activities instead of budgeting
piecemeal and often cutting somewhere else.
Finally, I would like to point out that many people in Quebec and
Canada find it hard understand why the government is deploying
humanitarian aid when in a number of provinces, people have
trouble keeping body and soul together.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for Charlesbourg for his remarks.
A debate like this is a time when all members of the House of
Commons can express our feelings about a very serious situation
regardless of our party affiliations, whether we are on the
government or the opposition benches.
In reviewing the situation this past week I would like to draw the
government's attention to the possibility that the Hutu refugees
who are arriving on the Rwandan borders, hundreds of thousands
right now, may be part of something that has been instigated by the
Hutu militias themselves.
I am afraid of this. Two years ago in 1994 during the genocide in
Rwanda, the Hutus fled. When they fled they left their homes and
villages empty. In the intervening two years a great number of
exiled Tutsis have returned to those villages in Rwanda. There is a
situation in Rwanda right now where hundreds of thousands of
Hutus are returning to their homeland and there are Tutsis
occupying many of those villages.
I suggest this is the classic formula for additional conflict, for
additional fighting among the local populations. I noticed that the
Minister of National Defence made it very clear that in committing
troops to Rwanda and Zaire they are being given the robust rules of
engagement. That means they can defend themselves with deadly
force or defend aid workers with deadly force. While one regrets
that very possibility I still applaud the minister of defence for
giving the troops that authorization.
However, we must remember another spectre will present itself
to our soldiers over there, or there is a very good chance of it. The
Minister of National Defence also made it very clear that Canadian
troops were not to intervene in local or factional fighting. And so
we in this House, Canadians and possibly the world have to be
prepared for the possibility that we will have troops and aid
workers on the ground, that we will see surrounding them a
resumption of the mindless killing we saw two years ago.
I bring to the attention of the House and to all Canadians that
while we do engage in a humanitarian effort which is absolutely
vital, and I am very proud of Canada and my Prime Minister for
initiating this, we as Canadians must be prepared to see on
television in the days to come some very appalling scenes. We have
to understand that we are faced with a very difficult situation, a
very difficult matter of choices. I am afraid that we have to steel
ourselves as Canadians and citizens of the world for the scenes we
are going to see in the days to come.
I would be very interested in the remarks of the member for
Charlesbourg on this.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my hon.
colleague. Certainly no one can have anything against pride. It is
easy for the government to decide that Canada will take part in a
particular mission.
(1345)
What I wanted to point out was the number of servicemen in the
army. While, as I mentioned, few servicemen in the air force and
the navy take part in these activities, there are some 12,000 to
15,000 servicemen in the army involved. Over the past eight or ten
years, Canada has regularly been asked to be part of various
humanitarian missions, and, as I said, there has often been little
planning and even a certain amount of improvisation.
We in Parliament do not give much thought to those who make
up these resources. We say we are proud to send them, but we must
have some feeling for those who take on the role and those who pay
to send them. Everyone is agreed on taking part, but we do have to
have a clearer policy, that is all.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the government, the Prime Minister, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence for
providing us with this opportunity to speak on this very important
issue.
This is the third or fourth debate we have had on such an
important issue since the beginning of this Parliament almost three
years ago. I also have to mention that this is probably the only
Parliament in western civilization which provides an opportunity
for its members of Parliament, the backbenchers and the critics
from the opposition parties to speak individually on such issues of
importance as this one.
Over the past 30 or 40 years we have engaged in peacekeeping in
maybe 2,000 locations. Each one has different characteristics, a
different perspective and each one calls for a different mission.
With respect to this mission the situation is changing every hour.
The situation was different last week from the situation we are now
in and the situation tomorrow will probably be a different one
again. Nobody knows. There is a massive migration of population
6359
from one country to another. We cannot stop it but we can be there
to help them out to achieve that goal.
On April 23, a few months ago, the House passed a motion
recognizing the tragedy which fell upon the Armenian people in
1915. At that time we adopted a motion that each year, April 22 to
27 would be a week of remembrance regarding the inhumanity of
people toward one another. This is a perfect occasion to use that
motion to promote a common understanding among mankind and
to make sure that what happened in the past does not repeat itself.
We can do our best to prevent that situation and this is one such
situation.
The whole western civilization responded positively to the Prime
Minister's message to help the people in Rwanda and Zaire to make
sure they get back to their communities and villages so that they
can start to live in peace and prosperity as they did many many
years before.
This morning, foreign affairs, CIDA and national defence
provided us with a very important briefing at which members of the
opposition party were also present. The Reform and the Bloc
Quebecois representatives were there. In that briefing they
discussed three situations: NGO aid to the people in the central
African nation; the military operations that are taking place now to
prepare for a continuation of the mission; and our own foreign aid
to the region so we can help build the communities so people can
live in peace and harmony.
Last week I was in Germany with colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois and Reform. I discussed this issue with my Reform
Party friend from Red Deer. He agrees basically with everybody
else that this mission has to take place. He agrees also that we have
to make sure we do our bit to help civilization overcome this
difficulty.
What we do not agree upon, and I respect his point view, is that
we have to get ready, to prepare ourselves. How long do these
people have to wait for Canada, for the United States, for Germany
and for France to get ready? If they have to wait for us to get ready,
there will be a long wait. I am sure my colleague agrees with me it
would be a long and difficult wait. By then probably half the people
would be dead and we would not be able to help them.
Remember that in April 1995 we saw bodies floating in the river
and the lake. We had to do something then. The mission was not
complete. I am sorry it did not come to a satisfactory end.
(1350 )
This is the opportunity for us to do the best we can. I am sure at
the end of the day the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois will
agree that this mission must go forward. It may not be perfect but
nothing and nobody is perfect. However, we cannot afford to wait
any longer.
Again I thank all members and especially the government for
giving us the opportunity to speak on this issue. I hope that at the
end of the day we are much wiser when we go forward with this
mission to protect innocent human lives so they can build their
lives in peace and harmony.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this morning my colleague mentioned the briefing we
had with the three departments. It was a very interesting briefing.
I believe it was Mr. Buckley from foreign affairs who mentioned
that Canada has spent close to $50 million in help so far in that area
of the African continent. Does my colleague think the $50 million
was well spent? Does he think we should increase or decrease this
amount? Where should this money go?
Mr. Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear during the
briefing that after 1994 we saw on TV the Government of Canada
responded generously with a $50 million contribution to the
situation there. Of that, $27 million has already been spent mostly
on NGOs and humanitarian institutions like the Red Cross,
Canadian or international.
We also spent quite a bit of money to provide them with a legal
system so that those who commit genocide and crimes against
humanity can be prosecuted. That is important. Those who commit
crimes should know there are consequences to it. They cannot have
a free lunch if they commit genocide or other crimes. That is a very
important point and it is money very well spent. I am happy the
government spent that kind of money for this purpose so we can
prevent this from happening again in the future.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made
some reference to the fact that this is an emergency and that it is
suddenly urgent that foreign troops be sent into central Africa.
There have been massacres of great magnitude in that area since
1959. There was one in 1959, another one in 1972, another one in
1994 and the world essentially yawned and closed its eyes.
Suddenly, it becomes urgent.
Why is the current situation of greater importance to the hon.
member than the previous massacres?
Mr. Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting
question.
I am sure the hon. member knows that the world ignored many
genocides before, including the 1915 genocide of Armenians which
I just mentioned. Just because we did not react then or in 1959,
1965 or 1975, two wrongs do not make a right. It is time we took a
stand.
6360
At that time of course the hon. member was not a member of
Parliament and could not speak up. I was not a member of
Parliament and could not speak up. It is good that both of us are
here today so we can react to this situation and make sure that
what happened in the past as a wrong does not occur again.
My best message to the hon. member is that two wrongs do not
make a right.
(1355)
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my fullest support to the decision
made by the government to alleviate human suffering in the great
lakes region of central Africa.
It is right to do all we can to help fight disease, death and cruelty
whenever we can. We owe it to ourselves and to our neighbours to
recognize that our responsibilities extend beyond Canada's
boundaries. As a CBC commentator suggested last week, referring
to this issue: ``It is a noble deed to transcend our own personal
concerns''.
Canada has a longstanding commitment to the rest of the world.
We have fought tyranny in both world wars. Canada was a founding
member of the League of Nations and the United Nations, and since
the end of the second world war, we have participated in many
international ventures from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
to the Francophonie.
We Canadians have such strong immigration, economic, cultural
and personal ties with the international community that we
instinctively realize that we must know the people out there in
order to know ourselves.
[English]
Forty years ago almost to the day, a Canadian was in the
forefront of another global effort to restore stability to an
apparently faraway region. The Suez crisis had erupted and the
Middle East was in flames. Foreign affairs minister Lester Pearson,
horrified by a conflict that threatened international peace and split
even Canada's friends, hurried to New York and immediately set to
work with his colleagues from the Department of External Affairs
to find the solution.
The answer lay in an innovative application of a relatively new
concept, United Nations peacekeeping, an expedient which had
been used since the end of the second world war to concoct small
observer forces in the Middle East and on the India-Pakistan
border.
Mr. Pearson's cool and flexible diplomacy in 1956 led to the
establishment against all odds of the United Nations emergency
force in the Middle East, a large multinational UN team whose role
was to police a ceasefire and interpose itself between the
combatants. The idea was a simple but powerful one, to create a
breathing space so that there was a real opportunity for peace to be
grasped if the parties wanted it sufficiently.
The peacekeepers could not make peace. They had-
The Speaker: I know that the hon. member has just started his
speech but I propose at this time to proceed with Statements by
Members. I am sure the whips are going to sort everything out
before we get too much farther down the road. I leave it in the
hands of our very able whips. I am sure they are going to decide
your fate quite well.
[Translation]
We will now move on to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
6360
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to honour two constituents who through their actions have
enriched the lives of many others both in Canada and abroad.
The first is Ms. Julie Huish, who was awarded a Canada
Volunteer Award Certificate of Merit. Julie has been a volunteer
physiotherapist with the Manitoba Riding for the Disabled
Association for the past eight years.
The second is Mr. Tony Wagemaker, who has been recognized by
CESO, Canadian Executive Services Overseas, for his volunteer
efforts working with the Government of Thailand at its health
system research institute. He has brought many delegates from
Thailand to study hospitals and the health care system here in
Canada as they attempt to model their health care system on our
very excellent one.
Congratulations to both of them. They are enriching the lives of
many people through their volunteer efforts.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Ordre des infirmières et des infirmiers du Québec held
its annual convention in Montreal on November 4 and 5. Under the
theme ``Daring to Provide Care in a Uncaring Society'', more than
1,200 nurses from across Quebec gathered to discuss the future of
their profession.
6361
On behalf of my colleagues of the official opposition, I want
to acknowledge the work and dedication of these women and men
whose working conditions are becoming increasingly difficult.
While skill and expertise is required from these health
professionals to rapidly adjust to the move toward ambulatory care,
we recognize that they play a unique role in maintaining values that
our society cherishes as regards the health and well-being of
Quebecers.
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
exciting news-exciting news. We have found the 10 most
important ethical guidelines for the Liberal government.
No. 10. When in doubt call Paul Desmarais.
No. 9. Little white fibs do not count.
No. 8. Whatever you do, do not get caught.
No. 7. You can fool some of the people some of the time, and all
of the people some of the time. And remember, you should
certainly try to fool all of the people all of the time.
No. 6. Remember, there is a sucker born every minute.
No. 5. For ethical advice after office hours call JoJo.
No. 4. If JoJo does not answer, call the Prime Minister's
imaginary friend.
No. 3. When asked to produce or follow an actual set of
guidelines, look either stunned or puzzled or act offended and
indignant.
No. 2. Government credit cards, don't leave home without them.
The most important ethical guideline of the entire Liberal
Government, No. 1. Remember, when dealing with Liberal
contributors or family members, there are no rules.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the new
employment insurance legislation requires 26 weeks of insurable
employment in the case of workers who did not claim benefits in
the past two years. This is unfair.
The construction industry, among others, has experienced
particularly difficult years, and workers who were not able to
qualify last year because they had not worked long enough will be
even less able to do so this year, since they will be deemed to have
been out of the workforce for two years. In other words, they will
need 26 weeks of insurable employment in the past year.
Their only option is to go on welfare. The situation is urgent. A
solution must be found to avoid penalizing even more an industry
which, in Quebec, has had more than its share of problems in recent
years.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs.
Marjorie Lavallee, my constituent, an astounding volunteer who
recently travelled to Bolivia on an assignment with the Canadian
Executive Services Organization.
CESO volunteer advisers are professionally skilled men and
women, usually retired, who willingly share their years of
experience with needy businesses and organizations in developing
nations.
Mrs. Lavallee's job was to assess the Bolivian government's
indigenous peoples education review program. She used her own
experience as an active participant in reforming Canada's
aboriginal educational system.
I am proud to have a constituent who takes an active part in
Canada's efforts to stimulate development in disadvantaged
economies.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is
great value to community action at a national level. In Edmonton
East we developed an effective partnership between residents,
students, agencies, police and yes, even our justice minister. By
working together we have made great gains in creating safer streets
and safer neighbourhoods.
There is cause for celebration, taking and sharing credit. Our
powerful partnership has eliminated the legal use of a deadly
weapon intended for use by violent, aggressive youth against
others. This weapon, marketed as a comb, is 8 1/2 inches long and
splits open in the middle. Once opened, the handle has an attached
4-inch steel knife blade.
Thanks to Partners for Youth, for working together, to staff and
students at Eastglen High School, to Constables Rick Cooper and
Aaron Nichols for identifying the weapon and bringing it to our
attention. And of course, to the Minister of Justice for his efforts in
making changes to section 84 of the Criminal Code.
Because this dangerous weapon is now out of the hands of youth,
we are preventing crime and violence.
6362
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last
12 months in Ontario alone 18 women have been killed by their
partners. Along with those women three other victims, including
two children, lost their lives. In the last 12 months in the Halton
region 2,000 telephone calls were received on the wife assault help
line and countless families sought shelter at Halton Women's
Place.
November is wife assault prevention month, an opportunity to
reflect on these lives and to refocus Canadians on the issue of
domestic violence. Communities, schools, service clubs,
individuals and governments must dedicate resources to ensure that
women and their children are safe from violence. It is especially
important to break the cycle and allow young Canadians the chance
to grow up to be healthy, non-violent adults. Cutbacks to social
services in favour of short term tax breaks are not the answer.
Violence costs all of us in the long run.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs asked Ontario to
help him have Quebec recognized as a distinct society. The
minister seems to have forgotten that, as long as Ontario will not
respect its French speaking minority, that province cannot be a
credible voice in the constitutional debate.
Ontario still refuses to comply with section 23 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, thus denying the educational
rights of its minority. Moreover, the Harris government made deep
cuts in services to francophones. It reduced by 27 per cent the
budget of the Office of Francophone Affairs. It also eliminated the
Council for Franco-Ontarian Education and a number of other
services provided in French.
Ontario has become an anglicizing ground for francophones: 38
per cent of Franco-Ontarians speak English at home. This figure
says it all about the assimilation of Franco-Ontarians.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Wednesday is national child day and there is no better gift
to give children than literacy.
Canada's children are among the most fortunate of the world and
yet they may be facing an ever-increasingly complex world with a
false sense of security. More than 40 per cent of Canada's current
adult population do not have the literacy skills for today's
information based economy and worse, many of these Canadians
do not recognize that this is a problem. Young people are getting
mixed messages on the home front about the value of education and
may not understand that high level literacy skills can bring a
personal joy as well as economic prosperity.
Although it is a life-long process, literacy begins at birth and
flourishes, we know, when reading is encouraged in the early years
by parents in the home. It certainly does not help that the
government is still forcing Canadian consumers to pay high GST
on books for the family.
We cannot change attitudes but we can change circumstances.
Children are the key to this country's future and right now parents
need to purchase books for their homes without punitive taxes. We
can give the gift of literacy, the best tool for our future prosperity, a
fresh start by helping parents read to their children.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 1989 the
House unanimously voted to end child poverty by the year 2000.
Today's report card shows that not only is the government not
keeping to its commitment, it is making the situation worse. Since
1989 the child poverty rate has increased by 46 per cent, bringing
Canada's total of poverty-stricken children to 1.4 million, the
second highest rate in the industrialized world.
Clearly the Liberal government is not providing the solutions
that Canadians need and want. Poor Canadians need jobs that pay a
fair wage. They need universal child care and other resources to
help them break free of the dependence cycle. Canadians need
adequate and affordable housing and educational opportunities that
are not biased against the poor.
In 1993 the Liberals said they wanted to give children the best
possible start in life. Why have they not done so?
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government recognizes the importance of small businesses in our
economy.
Over 660,000 jobs have been created since October 1993. Small
businesses have created 88 per cent of these new jobs. As a
responsible government we have dedicated ourselves to creating a
healthy economic environment which fosters jobs and economic
6363
growth. Deficit reduction targets have been met consistently,
interest rates have declined and inflation is under control.
Red tape has been cut, administrative burdens have been reduced
and government programs have been simplified and focused so that
they serve the clients efficiently and effectively. This type of
partnership is the reason why Canada is projected to rank first in
economic growth among the G-7 countries.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
infrastructure program has been a great success in the riding of
Peterborough. In the city and county it helped fund almost 100
valuable projects.
I urge the government to build on the experience of the first
program to design another even better one.
For example, the new one might deliberately set out to bring in
private sector funds. Or it might be designed differently in different
parts of the country to meet special regional needs. Or again,
special priority could be given to projects which create jobs for
young people. Yet again, a portion of the funds could be reserved
for special national projects such as research and development.
(1410)
We need a new redesigned program that builds on the strengths
of the national infrastructure program, and we need it soon. If
provinces such as Ontario do not support it, the federal government
and the municipalities should continue without them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the governments of Canada and Quebec have decided
to coordinate their efforts to help Montreal's economic recovery.
A new organization will be set up today to coordinate efforts to
promote Greater Montreal's international development. This
organization, which will be called Montreal International, will
welcome foreign investors, provide information to them, and also
seek foreign investments.
It will have a budget of $10 million. The governments of Canada
and Quebec will provide $4 million, while $5 million will come
from the private sector and $1 million from the municipalities that
are part of Greater Montreal.
Montreal International is proof that we can accomplish great
things when the various levels of government and the private sector
work in close co-operation.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to welcome the President
of Chile, Eduardo Frei.
It has been over 50 years since a leader of the Chilean
government visited Canada. This is therefore a landmark occasion.
I am delighted that negotiations for a bilateral trade agreement
between Canada and Chile have been successful and that President
Frei has just signed the agreement. This will make it easier for
Chile to join NAFTA. This is a very important step in the process of
continental economic integration.
I hope that this visit by the Chilean president will enhance the
already excellent relations Chile has with Canada and with Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is time for a
fresh start for the next tiger on the Pacific rim, British Columbia.
But predicted growth for B.C. this year is a sum total of zero. This
can be directly attributed to the Liberals' high tax, high regulation
and big government attitude toward one of Canada's most
economically successful provinces.
The government is choking one of the strongest regional
economies in this country due to its unwillingness to listen and
respond to the concerns of British Columbians. Generations of
Liberals and Tories have sought to deny British Columbia its
rightful status as an international trading power. They view B.C. as
a hinterland which must fend for itself during the bad times and be
exploited during the good times. Take from British Columbia and
spend somewhere else.
British Columbians know that electing Reformers to the House
of Commons in the next election is in their best interests: people
who are committed to delivering tax relief and who have a vision of
British Columbia as Canada's economic tiger, the next tiger of the
Pacific rim.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have reason to be confident about the future. Last week,
the OECD and the Royal Bank of Canada issued their economic
forecasts for Canada.
According to the OECD, Canadian economic growth should rise
to and hold at 3.25 per cent annually, compared to 2.5 per cent for
all other industrialized countries. In addition, experts predict that
the unemployment rate will drop to 8.7 per cent over the next six
6364
years, while inflation will continue at approximately 1.5 per cent
annually.
For its part, the Royal Bank of Canada is not hesitating to predict
that Canada's economic growth will exceed that of all other G7
nations in the years to come.
These forecasts and numerous others made public recently
confirm that our government has made the right decisions to set
Canada back on the road to prosperity.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the largest employers in Truro is Crossley Carpet
Mills. Last Friday I attended the official celebration of Crossley
Carpet Mills receiving certification of its ISO 9002 registration.
Crossley is the first carpet mill in Canada to receive this
international quality standard certification. Indeed, Crossley is
only one of two carpet mills in all of North America to be
registered.
With hard work and funding support from ACOA, this 100 per
cent Canadian and Nova Scotia owned company is now uniquely
positioned to compete in international markets where ISO
registration is becoming a prerequisite for contract bidding.
(1415 )
Enabling local businesses to stay competitive is just one way that
the government is helping to sustain and create jobs in every region
across Canada. I extend my best wishes for continued success to
Les Single's management and staff at Crossley Carpet Mills.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to draw to members' attention the
presence in the gallery of two members from the United Republic
of Tanzania. I refer specifically to the Hon. Matheo T. Qares and
the Hon. Bakari Mbonde, ministers of state in the Prime Minister's
office.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
6364
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the members of the board of directors of Canadian
Airlines resigned en masse on Friday, for fear of being held
financially responsible in the event of a bankruptcy.
The crisis at Canadian is blatant proof of the government's
mistake in maintaining two international carriers in Canada with
public funds. The Bloc Quebecois, it will be remembered, proposed
the amalgamation of Air Canada and Canadian to ensure we would
have a solid air carrier in Canada and to save as many jobs as
possible.
Can the Prime Minister assure us today that his government is
not intending to inject more money in Canadian, as his Minister of
Transport has said on several occasions in recent weeks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of Transport
has said in the House. He is following the situation at the moment.
The company, the union and other groups have held negotiations.
The government is watching the situation, but I have nothing to add
to what the Minister of Transport had to say ten days ago.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Transport had a bit more to say. I see that
things are changing perhaps somewhat. The Minister of Transport
told us that there was no question of more money being injected in
the current situation. To my knowledge, the situation has worsened
with the resignation of the board of directors.
The Globe and Mail also pointed out on the weekend that the
government was prepared to help Canadian if employees agreed to
the company's restructuring plan, which included a salary cut of 10
per cent.
Could the Prime Minister also assure us that his government is
not getting ready to provide renewed assistance to Canadian should
the employees agree to the restructuring plan?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, the government has no
intention of putting money into Canadian in this particular
situation.
The hon. member opposite spoke of the employees at Canadian.
I think it is important for the House to know that the Minister of
Transport had this to say to the Air Transportation Association of
Canada in Montreal just a couple of hours ago. He said:
I know it requires very difficult decisions from the employees-employees who
have sacrificed much already. I have always been impressed by the dedication of
Canadian Airlines employees, their commitment to quality, their commitment to
service, and their belief in their airline. That dedication, and that spirit, will be just as
crucial to Canadian's future as to its past.
Structural problems require structural solutions. The president of
Canadian Airlines has brought them forward. We hope that Cana-
6365
dian Airlines is successful and remains another one of our proud
airlines in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we have to assume that there is some slight problem, since
the entire board of directors resigned. I would assume something is
awry.
The federal government has also, we think, made a mistake in
allowing American Airlines to acquire a significant number of
Canadian shares. This did not enable Canadian to become cost
effective, as we have seen. On the contrary, this decision gives rise
to concerns over American control of the air transportation
industry.
Would the Prime Minister make a commitment to not change the
legislation and the regulations in the air transportation sector,
which would have the effect of allowing greater foreign, especially
American, involvement in this sector?
(1420)
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian Airlines has not come
forward to this government with any proposal to increase foreign
investment.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In the event that Canadian, a major air carrier in Canada, goes
bankrupt, the government would havet to decide on the
redistribution of the international routes it currently holds.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee today that he will not allow
foreign companies to get hold of these international routes and that
he will preserve the Canadian character of this industry?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, this
government is not going to practise the politics of division. We are
going to hope that Canadian Airlines is successful. We do not want
to look at the glass half empty, as the hon. member does so well.
Canadian is doing the best job it can. Right now it is trying to
restructure to ensure that it is a viable airline in this country, and
that is what we are hoping for. We are not looking down the road at
the failure that this hon. member hopes to see, obviously, in the
way he has been questioning this government.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, by not being forward looking to the future, this
government is going to ensure that Canadian has no future
whatsoever.
Canadian's financial difficulties also directly affect the public
purse, for the company has to repay loans from the federal
government.
Can the Prime Minister commit to bring pressure to bear on
Canadian as a debtor in order to encourage the only possible
solution, namely amalgamation of Canadian and Air Canada, the
only way to ensure the future of this industry and the only way to
save thousands of jobs?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian Airlines, again we say,
has brought forward a plan to restructure its airline. Let us have a
look at the plan that President Kevin Benson has brought forward.
Let us hope that the plan, in concert with the contributions that
would be made by the employees of Canadian, would help to see
this airline get back on its feet and be a viable competitor in the
airline industry in this country.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since
national child day is on Wednesday, the government should take a
look at a recent Angus Reid survey. It shows that 57 per cent of
parents with young children work simply to make ends meet. A
majority of those same people would like to have the freedom to
have one parent stay at home with their kids if they could afford to
do that.
This government needs to make Canadian families a priority. It
needs to lesson their tax burden and give parents back some choice
in how they raise their own children.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why will the government
not convert the child care deduction into a tax credit and extend it
to all parents with children 12 years or younger, including those
parents who choose to raise their kids at home?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reality of child poverty in
this country, which is a rich country, is of course of major concern
to the Government of Canada.
Last week the Canadian Council on Social Development
reported that most children in Canada are doing well. That is partly
good news. However, we cannot ignore those children who actually
live in poverty. This is why campaign 2000 recognized that the
major reason for children not doing well is unemployment. For this
reason, this government is insisting a great deal on improving the
economic climate in this country. That is the way we will be able to
do more.
6366
This government has already done quite a lot in the last few
years. This government has doubled the working income
supplement provided to low income families. The Canadian
government spends more than $5 billion a year on child tax
benefits that has been paid to three million Canadian families
already.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
the minister talks about campaign 2000, we have our own plan for
that as well, and that is that every Canadian family would have a
tax break of $2,000 by the year 2000. I think that would be far more
practical.
The Reform's fresh start platform makes Canadian families a
priority. It will increase the spousal exemption by over $2,500 and
extend child care deductions to all parents, including those who
choose to raise their kids at home. That was my initial question and
I did not hear anything like an answer for that, and so I will just ask
it again.
What sort of specific tax relief does the minister have to offer
Canadian families?
(1425)
First, why will he not consider raising the spousal exemption,
which would be a fairly simple thing to do, and second, to extend
the child care deduction to all parents?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member cares to take a look at the existing provisions for
married families, as my colleague has said, first of all in the last
budget we doubled the working income supplement for families
with four children by $1,000. At the same time the married credit
exists which reduces income taxes by as much as $1,500 a year.
There is a special supplement out of the child tax benefit for
parents who care for preschool children at home.
The fact is if one takes a look at the vast range of policies
introduced by this government and by previous Liberal
governments, the hon. member will see that it is concern for
children that has been upper most in the government's mind. If one
would like to compare that to the vast majority of
recommendations from the Reform Party, which would maintain
the level of poverty as opposed to alleviating it, one would begin to
understand that the line in the sand has been drawn and no amount
of camouflage by the Reform Party will hide that.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, our
recommendation is that parents who choose to raise their kids at
home up to age 12 should be celebrated, not just the preschool ones
he talks about.
The average Canadian family pays a staggering 46 per cent of its
income in taxes. Children across the country are living in families
where both parents are stressed out from having to work nights and
weekends to pay for this Liberal government's spending habits.
Canadians have suffered a $3,000 pay cut since this government
took office in 1993, and the finance minister knows that.
Instead of being satisfied with the status quo of high taxes, why
will the minister not simply balance the budget and then give
Canadian families some much deserved, much needed tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
why does the hon. member not admit where she and her party are
going to find the money to provide the tax cut for the rich? The first
area in which they will find it is by abolishing the Canada pension
plan which is very crucial for Canadian families. It is the principal
source of support. Under the Reform Party the Canada pension plan
will disappear.
The second thing they will do is eliminate equalization for a
number of provinces. Is she saying that people who live in
Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia do not have families and are not
entitled to the same level of public services as Canadians in other
provinces?
The Reform Party would eliminate the maternal benefits under
the employment insurance program. Is the hon. member in the
process of saying that people who are on employment insurance are
not entitled to maternal benefits?
Let us understand that what the Reform Party is suggesting is
that in fact those programs which go to help low income families,
families on welfare and middle income families would be gutted
and eviscerated by the Reform Party in order to take care of the
richer people in this country. This government will never accept
that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Before the House adjourned, probably looking for an excuse to
extol the virtues of the employment insurance reform, the Minister
of Human Resources Development stated, and I quote: ``Five
hundred thousand Canadians who were not previously covered by
unemployment insurance will now qualify''.
Will the minister confirm that, instead of more Canadian
workers being covered, starting on January 1, 1997, some 500,000
workers, mainly very low wage earners working fewer than 15
hours per week, will start paying premiums they are not required to
pay at present, while the vast majority of them will never receive
benefits because they will not qualify?
6367
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not a new issue. It has
been raised time and time again. I must emphasize that the
employment insurance reform promotes active measures, in
contrast to the previous system, which was universally condemned
as inefficient and encouraging people to stay at home.
(1430)
We now have a system ensuring that, by the year 2000 or 2001,
the $800 million investment fund we are creating will be the sole
source of funding. Those who work part time may of course pay
premiums, but they will also be covered by the employment
insurance system to the extent that they pay premiums.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government has given workers earning between $39,000 and
$42,500 and the businesses they work for a break on premium
payments. The truth is that an additional 500,000 people will have
to pay premiums.
I would like the minister to tell me if he has read his
department's paper on this and if he can confirm that only 45,000
of these 500,000 new contributors, very low wage earners, will be
eligible, as indicated in a paper released by his own department on
January 23, 1996. Is that how the Liberals intend to fight poverty?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will confirm this: Starting
January 1, 1997, an additional 500,000 Canadians will be covered
by unemployment insurance, while they were not previously,
because they will now qualify for coverage under this system.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister often brags that Canadians are benefiting from lower
interest rates. He claims that Canadians will buy more houses and
more new cars, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars due to
lower interest rates.
My question for the Prime Minister is what about those
Canadians who cannot afford to buy a home or a new car and who
work two or three jobs to feed their kids. What is the government
going to do for those children who do without so much, including
time with their parents who have to work so hard and so long to
feed this hungry government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the fact is if the members of the Reform Party will take a look at
what has happened over the course of the last three months in terms
of the benefits of the reduction in interest rates, what they would
see is that housing starts are up. They would see that the
announcement came out today that manufacturing shipments are
up. They would see that the basis of the economy is becoming
stronger and stronger. And as a result of that, thousands of
Canadians are going back to work and it is the families of those
Canadians that are going to benefit.
Over 700,000 new jobs have been created by the private sector;
46,000 jobs were created last month alone by the private sector.
The fact is these people who are going back to work will be able to
provide for their families as a result of the economic conditions set
in place by this government.
The members of the Reform Party, they who have no policy to
increase employment, no economic philosophy designed to help
the middle class in this country, should not stand up in the House
and essentially say that we will live with the dual economy, that we
will live with an economy that benefits the rich and ignores the
poor.
Canadians will not put up with it and neither will we.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find it sad
and unbelievable that this finance minister will stand up and brag
about an unemployment rate of 10 per cent when the United States
has an unemployment rate of 5 per cent.
The Reform Party has brought forth a tax relief plan that will
completely eliminate the tax burden of over 1 million Canadians.
Our plan will leave more money in the pockets of these families to
spend on groceries, rent and clothing.
My question for the prime minister is specifically how and when
will his government provide tax relief for Canadian families.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is quite the opposite. The Reform plan will not leave more money
in the hands of average Canadians.
(1435 )
The Reform plan will take away their pensions, it will take away
their health care, it will take away welfare benefits for those who
are at the lowest end. The fact is that what the Reform Party will do
will gut the Canadian dream for the vast majority of those who
depend on government for help.
There is one other thing. The Reform Party ought to understand
that what it is in fact advocating is a tax cut now and a massive tax
increase for the next generation of Canadians. What it would do is
impose on young Canadians a burden of deficit reduction, and we
will not do that.
6368
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister, who is bent on implementing a new tariff structure,
will release this week an impact study on the fee structure for
services provided by the coast guard to commercial shipping.
However, we have serious reservations about the credibility of this
study, which we have with us, since it seems to have been drafted
specifically to support the minister's intentions.
Will the minister admit that the study, which he commissioned,
is nothing but a report to accommodate him, since it does not take
into account several essential parameters, such as the increase in
the price of oil in the east that will result from the new tariff
structure, and the jobs that will be lost because of increased
competition from American ports?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee that asked for the
study, I am sure the hon. member is very much aware that the study
is a very objective study. In fact, it is so objective that it has looked
at seven of all the activities that impinge on ports and indeed the
whole business of shipping.
I will go a little further. This report looks at 1,200 critical
movements of commodities in the Canadian shipping business and
has examined a dozen or so of them in particular. It has consulted
from coast to coast, many meetings in this country. I have met with
the marine advisory board. I met with certain other sectors of the
shipping industry to discuss the progress of this report.
I have to tell the hon. member that despite his misgivings it is a
very objective report carried out by a very credible third party with
no connections to the government. It was done at the behest of the
committee on which the hon. member serves. He will be apprised
of the results when it is completed in the very near future.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
minister accept a study which says the impact of its tariff structure
will be negligible, considering that, for example, this new tax will
reduce by 15 per cent the profits of iron ore companies on the north
shore and will result in the closure of the Port-Cartier mine two or
three years earlier than expected, thus worsening the
unemployment situation in a region that is already hard hit?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will say it in another manner. The hon.
member is aware of the objectivity of this study. It has examined
seven aspects that impact on the marine transportation business in
this country and on the commodities. In fact, the 1,200 runs I talked
about cover almost 90 per cent of all the commodity runs by
shipping in this country.
I see the hon. member smiling. I do not know where he is getting
his figures with respect to Port Cartier and its closing down, but it
is impossible to measure every single aspect. I remind him that the
study that was done was done at the request, in fact at the
insistence, of the committee on which he serves.
We are responding to the request of the committee, of which he
is a member. The results are objective and the study will show that
there are some conclusions that he will be able to study in the very
near future.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government saw fit to open the borders to American
competition against Canada's air carrier industry through the open
skies policy. While I did not object to having a more open and
competitive industry, I do question why the minister did this
without first levelling the playing field on federal fuel taxes.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Given that these
American competitors have significantly lower fuel taxes and that
fuel costs are a major component of an airline's operating expense,
will the minister take immediate steps to lower the tax on aviation
fuel in order to permit Canadian aviation companies to compete
equally?
(1440 )
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we in this government, and in
particular the Minister of Transport, pride ourselves in listening to
any suggestions being brought forward by the members opposite.
The member also spoke of the open skies agreement that has
taken place between Canada and the U.S. Let us look at what it has
done. It has created 100 new scheduled transborder routes, 24 new
routes by Canadian air carriers, 33 Canadian air carrier flights
which are now scheduled flights, 54 new U.S.-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Keyes: I guess they do not want to hear the good news.
6369
It has created 54 new U.S. destinations non-stop from nine
Canadian cities. For Air Canada there are 1,000 new jobs. For
Canadian Airlines there are 700 new jobs. It is a good news
scenario.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very interesting that the parliamentary secretary talks
about 700 new jobs at Canadian when 16,000 are in jeopardy
through its policies.
This government supported free trade with the U.S.A. and open
skies with American airline companies, both of which have
increased competition against Canadian companies. Airport and air
navigation service deficits are now nearing full elimination.
Given the government's agenda to open the borders to American
competition and the removal of many aviation oriented expenses to
the government, can the minister advise this House why he
continues to allow aviation companies to be charged an unfair level
of special taxes, taxes that are destroying Canadian Airlines and
putting 16,000 jobs at risk?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking a
question that deals with two subject matters.
Quite frankly, when he talks about 16,000 jobs being at risk, this
has to do with an airline called Canadian that is trying to restructure
its organization, trying to make a viable airline of itself.
I am surprised by the remarks from the Reform Party because it
is the Reform Party itself, the member for Calgary Centre who said
that there is no viability in making cash flow from the government
to Canadian Airlines. That is not what Canadian Airlines is asking
for. It is not asking for anything more than the time it needs to
restructure its organization in order to save those 16,500 jobs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general.
Last November 13, Marcel Audet, an RCMP informant, revealed
that he had arranged, on behalf of the RCMP, to buy cases of
machine guns, explosives, grenades and even rocket launchers with
arms traffickers associated with the Akwesasne reserve.
Since it is worrisome, to say the least, to know that an individual
can purchase rocket launchers in Canada, can the minister confirm
whether the Akwesasne reserve is still an important point of entry
for arms traffic and can he tell us what his services have done to
stop these illegal activities?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am unable to give such a confirmation. The problem is not
confined to one location, but police forces, both federal and
provincial, are working jointly to tackle this situation. They are
making extraordinary efforts to limit this situation.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
a supplementary.
Still according to Marcel Audet, ``senior officials'' in the RCMP
put a stop to his mission and blocked the arrest of kingpins in the
trafficking network.
Can the minister explain to us why the RCMP did not arrest such
dangerous traffickers when it was possible to do so?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not agree with the premise of my hon. friend's question. I
cannot confirm these allegations, but I can add that Mr. Audet's
complaints are subject to investigation by the RCMP's Public
Complaints Commission, and I think that we should wait for the
result of that investigation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister for International Trade.
Today we will be signing a free trade agreement with Chile in
Ottawa. When we look at the profile of trade and investment
between Canada and Chile, it looks pretty positive already. Could
the minister please tell the House what additional advantages we
will be achieving from this agreement?
(1445 )
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning President Frei of Chile and our
Prime Minister signed a protocol on a free trade agreement that
will bring about tremendous new momentum in terms of trade and
investment between our two countries. That will lead to jobs and
economic growth for both Chile and Canada.
Immediately, Canadian exporters will no longer face an 11 per
cent duty when their goods and services go over the border. This
will give them a considerable cost advantage. More secure
investment can now be obtained in Chile for Canadians.
All of this will be in advance of when Chile comes into the
NAFTA, giving Canada a head start on our friends in the United
States who hopefully will now come to the table to bring Chile into
the NAFTA and complete the arrangement the Prime Minister was
a part of just four years ago. This will lead to hemispheric free
trade and again, more jobs and economic productivity.
6370
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Liberals have
stalled, blocked and gagged the Krever inquiry so that families will
not find out the reasons for tainted blood. Their lawyers say that
cabinet secrecy prevents the release of vital documents to Krever in
the interest of national security.
What possible public interest is this weak health minister
protecting?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): None, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these secret
cabinet documents bracket the time when the Liberals were taken
out of government by the Tories. It looks very much like health
scientists had told cabinet far more than previously had been
thought.
Which administration is at fault: the Liberals under the current
Prime Minister or the Tories under Mulroney?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member opposite is obviously reading a lot of spy novels
and has a collection of conspiracies which he wishes to put forward
from time to time.
The hon. member ought to be aware the decision was reached not
by Health Canada but by the Privy Council Office that certain
information would not be forthcoming. That goes back well before
we became part of this particular government.
If the hon. member has a specific question on a specific point in
terms of the evidence act or anything connected thereto, he should
pose that question, put it in writing, and I am certain the clerk of the
Privy Council will provide all of the necessary information.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Last week we learned that the government has once again
refused to provide documents vital to the needs of the Krever
inquiry. These documents, which date back to 1984, could provide
details to the commissioners on the circumstances underlying the
crisis.
Would the minister tell us why the government is refusing to
provide the Krever commission with the documents requested of
it?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think we ought to be clear here. This government has provided
literally hundreds and hundreds of documents to the Krever
inquiry. Numerous individuals from various departments have
provided testimony under oath to the Krever inquiry.
I believe the documents in question go back to 1984-85. If there
are specific concerns or requests that the hon. member has, as I
indicated in my previous answer, the clerk of the Privy Council,
where the decision has been made-it was not by the Minister of
Health-will provide the necessary information to the hon.
member.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would
the minister agree that it is up to Mr. Justice Krever and not the
minister to decide whether these documents are useful? Will the
minister agree to leave the decision up to Mr. Justice Krever and to
provide him with what he has asked for?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I certainly disagree with the premise of the hon. member's
question.
First and foremost, the Government of Canada has provided a
great deal of information. All of the information that I have within
my purview I believe has been provided. However, if there is a
specific request, the decision has been made by the clerk of the
Privy Council and that is where the question should be posed. That
is where the written question should be posed. I am sure the clerk
will provide the information to the hon. member.
* * *
(1450 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week it was full page newspaper ads. Tomorrow, the premiers of
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will be in Toronto basically to do
an infomercial for the harmonized GST. Stay tuned while they
claim that it will slice and dice and leave you with abs of steel and
even grow hair. They can spin it any way they want but businesses
and consumers in Atlantic Canada have very serious concerns
about the harmonized GST.
My question is for the finance minister. Is this infomercial and
all this propaganda all that Canadians can expect for their billion
dollars?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is very clear that underlying the hon. member's question is a deep
feeling of resentment that Atlantic Canada is getting its act
together.
What is very clear is that the hon. member simply cannot stand
to see those provincial governments on behalf of their populations
in co-operation with the federal government providing a base for
sound taxation and competitiveness of their small and medium size
businesses.
6371
I would have thought that the hon. member, in support of
Atlantic Canadians, would have stood up here and congratulated
those provincial governments because what they are doing is
saying they do not want dependence. What they really want to do
is to be able to govern for the benefit of their own populations.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
a lot of resentment out there but it comes from all the other
provinces that are footing the bill for the billion dollar payoff to
Atlantic Canada, especially to the premiers.
The Halifax chamber of commerce is also resentful. So is the
Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Real Estate
Association. They all have grave concerns with this deal. It is
complicated, confusing and a killer of jobs.
Even those groups who before were supportive of the
harmonization deal now have grave reservations about this
particular brand of snake oil. Will the minister scrap it and go back
to the drawing board?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member ought to know, the fact is that we have told the
retail council that we will sit down and work out any administrative
glitches. In fact, we are in the process of doing that.
That again is not what the hon. member is really driving at. What
he stood up and said was why should Atlantic Canada be able to
benefit when the rest of the country does not in this particular deal.
The fact is that Atlantic Canadians did not stand up and complain
when the minister of energy dealt with the tarsands in Alberta.
Atlantic Canada did not stand up and complain when Ontario was
provided with stabilization payments.
What we are really dealing with here is a rump of a party that
refuses to take a pan-Canadian view of what the nation is all about.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
In view of the recently announced unemployment rate of 10 per
cent, can the President of the Treasury Board inform this House
whether the government intends to launch a new infrastructure
program this winter?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
unemployment rate at 10 per cent is too high, but I think we should
remember that since we have come into office we have helped to
create about 700,000 jobs. The unemployment rate has decreased
from 11.4 per cent to the present 10 per cent.
The best way in which a government can help to decrease that
unemployment rate is obviously by helping to decrease interest
rates. We now have the lowest interest rates in 30 years which of
course helps investment and creates jobs.
The infrastructure program has created jobs, probably more than
110,000. We are still in the process of considering the pros and
cons and the decision should be made within a few weeks.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
This coming November 23 to 25, the 18 heads of state who are
members of APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation
Forum, will be meeting in Manila, the Philippines. José Ramos
Horta, Nobel Peace Prize winner and human rights activist in East
Timor, has been denied access to the Philippines at the time of the
summit, however.
Does Canada intend to make protests to the government of the
Philippines for reversal of this decision and for José Ramos Horta
to be allowed onto its territory?
(1455)
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decision as to who is allowed into the Philippines is
one to be taken by the Government of the Philippines alone.
During the meeting of the Asia-Pacific group, I will certainly be
meeting on a number of occasions with other ministers of foreign
affairs to discuss human rights issues in that region of the
Asia-Pacific. As I have already said, it is very important to have
direct and constructive commitments with other countries. This is,
unfortunately, a decision for the Government of the Philippines and
there is nothing Canada can do about it.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not acknowledge that such treatment of a Nobel Peace
Prize Winner is truly unacceptable, and that Canada ought to react
vigorously?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly support the whole notion of having NGOs
and a wide variety of people meeting in a parallel fashion during
the APEC meetings. We have pioneered in those areas and I hope
that during the course of the meetings there is the opportunity to
visit the NGO groups and an opportunity to have exchanges with
them.
However in this kind of case I do not think it would be proper for
us to interfere in the decisions of another government when it has
made a decision based on whatever the situation is there. I can
6372
certainly assure the hon. member that we will be continuing our
own dialogue with the NGOs about the situation in the
Asia-Pacific.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans defends his decision to open up the food
fishery this year saying that it is based on scientific evidence.
However, I have in my hand an internal DFO document written by
the minister's own bureaucrat responsible for counting fish in
Newfoundland. It reads: ``I know of no subsequent scientific
analysis that has updated the assessment of 2J-3KL stocks. I was
therefore quite dismayed that a recreational food fishery will be
allowed''.
Now that we know that no scientific evidence exists to justify the
food fishery in the largest fishing areas surrounding
Newfoundland, why does the minister continue the crime of
ravaging what is left of the Atlantic stocks simply to buy votes?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question, although I certainly do not
accept the premise.
I would advise the hon. member that he should stick to the
subjects he is aware of and knows. I make many decisions.
Mr. Morrison: Why? You do not.
Mr. Mifflin: The member has asked a question, he should please
listen for the answer.
All scientific decisions like any other decisions are made on
different pieces of advice. I have to tell the hon. member that this
particular memo which I have not read because it was not
addressed to me was addressed internally.
I went ahead with the food fishery on the basis of the advice
from my senior scientist. The advice was that a closely controlled
food fishery like the one which was implemented and executed
with lots of surveillance would not impede recovery of the cod
stock. That came from my senior scientist and it was on that basis
that I went ahead.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister said
that the food fishery was opened up based on scientific evidence
and analysis. The conclusion of this letter is: ``I am disappointed
and disheartened that important decisions are being made that
disregard the scientific advice from this region''.
Canadians and Atlantic Canadians want to know why the
minister went ahead and opened up the fishery against the advice of
his own scientists?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member one more time and
more forcefully that the advice I got from my scientist was that a
closely controlled food fishery executed the way it was would not
impede the recovery of the cod stocks.
The food fishery was done for the right reasons; 94,000 Atlantic
Canadians had the advantage to engage in the food fishery like
other people in the gulf area; 5,000 checks were made; 1,200
tonnes were caught all within the parameters of the advice given by
the senior scientist.
What does the Reform Party have against Atlantic Canadians?
Once again it is fighting the last war on the wrong information.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Vancouver
accountant Mr. Robert Morrow has produced some figures which
assume the loss of 16,400 direct jobs and 54,000 indirect jobs if
Canadian Airlines International hits the wall. And assuming that
one-third of those people are re-employed afterward, it estimates a
net loss to the Canadian treasury of $2.5 billion.
(1500)
Has the federal government done any substantial analysis on the
same situation and what changes, regulatory or financial, is the
government prepared to make in the face of these potential losses?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have said time and time again in
this House today, and on previous days from the Minister of
Transport, that the entrepreneurial spirit which gave birth to
Canadian Airlines in western Canada is alive and well in western
Canada, especially in Alberta and B.C.
We think on this side of the House that this airline has a bright
future if it can take the difficult steps to reorganize. That future is
based on hard work, good business and not on government
handouts to fund losses.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the Right Hon. Hubert Alexander
Ingraham, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas,
and accompanying Parliamentary delegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to inform
the House that Thursday, November 21 shall be an allotted day.
The Speaker: We will now proceed to tributes, first for the Hon.
Joe Ghiz, former premier of Prince Edward Island, and then for Mr.
Tom Bell, a former member of Parliament.
6373
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to pay tribute to a great Canadian, a former provincial
premier, an eminent jurist and a dear friend.
Joe Ghiz was born in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island in
January 1945. He was educated at Dalhousie University where he
obtained degrees in commerce and law, and thereafter obtained a
master's law from Harvard University in Boston.
Each of us will hold a different memory of Joe Ghiz. We might
recall his passion for this country and his devotion to keeping it
united and strong. We will think of how a premier from Canada's
smallest province contributed in such a way, a significant way if
you will, to the public policy process of the country.
We might recall how his father was a shopkeeper, an immigrant
from Lebanon. We might also think of his passion for
constitutional reform and how he pursued that goal so fervently;
how his love for his country characterized both his private and, yes,
his public life.
Or we might think of the islanders he represented as premier,
constituents who knew that when Premier Ghiz went to Ottawa he
was there to fight on their behalf.
Our individual memories of this remarkable man reflect the
depth of this contributions to our country. His ability to balance
regional interests with the good of the country was not only
remarkable, it was refreshing.
At 51 years of age the contributions of Joseph Ghiz far
outstripped his years. We cannot help but pause and regret that he
has passed at such a young age.
As a friend he was generous with his kindnesses and generous
with his time.
(1505)
He was acclaimed as one of Canada's greatest orators but he was
also a great listener. He was a serious man who believed very
strongly in his views. He never took himself seriously. His sense of
humour was engaging and it was genuine. He has left with us a
marker for our identity as a nation, the duality of interest that pulls
a British Columbian out of B.C., a Manitoban out of Manitoba, a
Quebecer out of Quebec and, yes, an islander out of Prince Edward
Island.
Joseph Ghiz will always be remembered as an islander, but it is
for his contribution to Canada and to the unity of our country that
we stand in tribute for him today.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to join with
many Canadians and members in this House in offering my deepest
condolences to his wife Rose Ellen, his daughter Joanne and his son
Robert, and to assure them that he will be remembered and be
remembered with great affection.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I want to pay
tribute to Joe Ghiz, Premier of Prince Edward Island from 1986 to
1992, who passed away recently.
Born in 1945 to parents of modest means, he was the eldest of
five children. He was a law student at Dalhousie University, where
he graduated with top honours.
This Premier was particularly well-known for his work on
constitutional matters and his defence of the rights of francophones
when he improved the francophone school system in his province.
He had also hoped to conclude a treaty of reconciliation with the
native people. Under his government, the smallest province in
Confederation enjoyed exceptional visibility.
More than anyone else in English Canada, he defended special
status for Quebec. In January 1995 at McGill University, at a
seminar on the future of Canada, he said that since the quiet
revolution, English Canada had not understood the legitimacy of
the aspirations of the people and the government of Quebec, hence
the failure of Meech and Charlottetown. People criticized Quebec's
veto, although the accord granted the same privilege to Prince
Edward Island. People criticized the concept of Quebec as a
distinct society but there was no objection to his province having
special status regarding the number of members of Parliament it
could elect, irrespective of its population. When Quebec got
something from the federal government, it made the headlines in
English Canada, but there were no headlines in the Globe and Mail
when the federal government moved 2,000 jobs from Ottawa to
Summerside and Charlottetown.
Mr. Ghiz understood Quebec. Unfortunately, his premature
decease has bereft English Canada of a voice for moderation, of a
man who understood the Quebec people and their political
aspirations.
Speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the official opposition, I
wish to extend my sincere condolences to the family and relatives
of Mr. Ghiz.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Reform Party I would like to join with other members of this
House of Commons in paying tribute to a friend and certainly a
leading Canadian, the Hon. Joe Ghiz.
Other speakers, certainly the Minister of Health, have already
mentioned some of Mr. Ghiz's political aspects and aspects of his
legal career. What I would like to do is just make a few personal
comments in terms of my association with Mr. Ghiz on more than
one occasion.
I had the opportunity work with Mr. Ghiz specifically during the
Meech Lake negotiations in 1990. I found that in the formal and
informal associations that we had and the conversations at that
time I came to understand his political objectives, his concern for
6374
Canada and certainly his own personal story which was often
brought into a variety of situations and discussions at a time when
we were negotiating the future of Canada.
I remember that one day after a lot of meetings and discussion,
some of us were together to talk informally and sat together to
unwind. In that conversation I remember Mr. Ghiz in an informal,
interesting and entertaining way telling of his father's corner
grocery store and how the son of a Lebanese immigrant could grow
up, receive a law degree and become premier in this country of ours
that he so lovingly and compassionately called Canada.
(1510 )
For Mr. Ghiz, Joe, Canada was a land of freedom and
opportunity where everybody had a chance to achieve their own
personal dreams just like he was able to during his short period of
time on this earth.
I know many people, and in our personal conversations I found
him to be a warm, considerate, down to earth person who genuinely
cared about other people's families, their communities and
certainly their personal concerns. In his own humble way he
wanted to build a nation and find a place in that nation for Prince
Edward Island.
Today we offer the sympathies and prayers of all of us in Canada
to his wife and children at his home. He will be long remembered,
and his contribution will be remembered specifically by those in
Prince Edward Island, but all other Canadians who associated with
him will never forget Mr. Joe Ghiz.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I permit myself a few words on your
behalf. I too knew Joe Ghiz personally. When you are in opposition
and you travel around the country, it is not always that a premier
receives you in his office. But he did that for me on a visit to his
island.
Reference has been made by other parliamentarians to the fact
that he came from Prince Edward Island, undoubtedly the smallest
province in Canada. But on your behalf I note that not only did he
come from our smallest province but our smallest province gave us
one of our biggest Canadians.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, and the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I would like to extend
our sincere condolences to the family of the late Tom Bell. His
passing is a great loss for New Brunswickers and all Canadians. He
suffered for a long time with his debilitating disease and he is now
at rest.
Tom Bell was a quiet, gentle, caring man who touched the lives
of all those who knew him. He left an indelible mark on the hearts
of many of us. He was a personal friend. Tom always had a smile
on his face. Tom left us with his distinguished record of service and
many fond memories of the times we shared with him. The judge
with the big heart will not easily be forgotten.
Tom's career began in my home city of Saint John where he was
born in 1923. He grew up in the city, married his wife Patricia, and
attended the University of New Brunswick. During the second
world war Tom served in the merchant navy and always remained
deeply committed to the welfare of our veterans. The merchant
navy men had an honour guard for him at his funeral which I had
the honour to attend. He was a long time member of the Royal
Canadian Legion as well.
Tom was called to the New Brunswick bar in 1951 and began his
law practice in Saint John. In 1953 his career took a turn and he
decided to follow in the footsteps of his grandfather, who had
represented Saint John in Parliament for 10 years, from 1925 to
1935.
Tom ran for the Progressive Conservative nomination in 1953 in
the federal riding of Saint John-Albert, as it was known then. He
was elected to the House of Commons in 1953 and was re-elected
seven times, in 1957, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1968 and 1972.
During his distinguished 20 year parliamentary career he served as
parliamentary assistant to the minister of trade and commerce,
parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, opposition House
leader and party whip.
From 1956 to 1958 Tom was president of the Young Progressive
Conservatives. His parliamentary career lasted through the terms
of four Prime Minister, Louis St-Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Lester
Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.
(1515 )
I remember a conversation I had with a senior Liberal senator
last year who talked about Tom Bell. He said: ``Politics is not like it
used to be during our time, Elsie''. The senator said that he and
Tom would stand in the House, point fingers and debate, but at the
end of the day they would sit down over coffee and discuss together
how they could help their people in the region.
In 1974 Tom Bell left federal politics. He was appointed to the
provincial court where he presided over the family, youth and
traffic courts for 20 years. The people of Saint John lost a great
member of Parliament, but gained an honest and fair judge. Despite
his career change, he remained as deeply committed to his
constituents and to his community as the day he was first elected.
He was a member of the Carleton and York Club and an active
member of the Trinity Anglican Church. He was a former member
of the Kiwanis Club, the Byng Boys Club of Saint John, the 26th
Battalion Overseas Association and chairman of the board of the
6375
New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island division of the Canadian
Corps of Commissioners.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was honoured to
be represented by such a great man. Tom Bell set an example not
just for our party, but for all politicians, personally and
professionally. He was a man of integrity.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to Tom's family, his wife
Patricia, his sons Michael, Andrew and James, his daughter
Melanie, his brothers Robert and Lawrence and his many nieces,
nephews and cousins.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week, like all Canadians, I was deeply saddened to learn that Judge
Tom Bell, a fellow New Brunswicker, had passed away.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences
and the condolences of the Liberal Party and of all of our Liberal
colleagues to his wife Patricia and to their four children, Michael,
Andrew, James and Melanie, whom I have known for many years
and have had the pleasure to teach, and to his brothers, Robert and
Lawrence.
Tom Bell was elected in 1953 to represent the riding of Saint
John-Albert, which is now part of my riding of Fundy-Royal,
where, as my hon. colleague from Saint John has just said, he went
on to serve seven consecutive terms as the member of Parliament,
spanning more than 20 years.
During his political career he served in numerous positions. He
was the opposition House leader, the party whip and the
parliamentary secretary to the ministers of industry and justice.
We younger members of Parliament are sometimes told that
things were different in the old days. We are told that, even when
debate in the Chamber became heated, outside it was civility and
courtesy that prevailed. Often when we are told this, we are told
that the reason for this was that there were leading members like
Tom Bell.
Tom Bell was that kind of member who could be vigorous with
his advocates, vigorous on behalf of his constituency and vigorous
on behalf of his region and his party in this House. Harsh things
could be said in debate, but afterward they were not only fully
prepared to relax and talk things over with colleagues and
adversaries alike, if they were like Tom Bell they sought out their
fellow members, regardless of their political affiliation.
It was for that reason that Tom Bell had only friends here. A
tough partisan in the House, outside he was a convivial and wise
friend and counsellor to all.
On leaving politics he was appointed a provincial court judge,
where he served the people of Saint John for 20 or more years,
presiding over family, youth and traffic courts, as well as carrying
out general provincial court work.
He is remembered as the gentle judge, as someone who always
maintained a positive demeanour and who took an avid interest in
those who came before him. Many will remember him fondly for
his humour, his wit, his enthusiasm and his positive outlook.
(1520 )
Judge Bell had strong ties to his community. He was a lifelong
member of branch 14 of the Royal Canadian Legion. He belonged
to the Carleton and York Club and he was a former member of the
Kiwanis Club. He was the former chairman of the 26th Battalion
Overseas Association, president of the Byng Boys Club of Saint
John and chairman of the board of the New Brunswick and Prince
Edward Island division of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires.
I first became interested in politics in my early teens and it was
Tom Bell, his stature and his integrity, that inspired me to look on
politics as an honourable profession. I know that even members of
my family supported Tom Bell, the man, in spite of political
affiliation.
I knew Tom Bell and of his commitment to his family, his God
and his country which is unrivalled and unsurpassed in Saint John.
I am proud and honoured to have known him and our community is
richer for his life which lives on in a better New Brunswick.
Perhaps Dennis Boyle, a Saint John lawyer, summed it up best
when he said that the community will be a poor place because of
this loss, but it will be a better place because he was in it. With his
passing last week, our country has lost a great public servant and
we will all miss him.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
my colleagues of the Reform Party and all parliamentarians, I
would like to join in the tribute to Thomas Miller Bell.
Mr. Bell passed away after a long illness on Tuesday, November
12, 1996 at the age of 73. Thomas Bell was born in Saint John, New
Brunswick on January 11, 1923. He served in the merchant navy in
World War II, sailing in the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean and
in the Far East. After the war, he played an active role in the
welfare of veterans and was a long-time member of the Royal
Canadian Legion, branch No. 14. He received his law degree from
the University of New Brunswick at Saint John in 1951 and worked
as a barrister at law for several years.
Tom Bell had a long and distinguished career in this House. He
was first elected in 1953 in the riding of Saint John-Albert. He
was re-elected seven times. He was appointed to several positions
both in opposition and the government such as the parliamentary
secretary to the minister of trade and commerce in August 1957
and parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice in 1959. He
6376
also served as the opposition whip from 1968 to 1973 and as the
opposition House leader from 1973 to 1974.
After his service in this House, he was appointed to the bench in
1974 where he was known as the gentle judge. He presided over
family, youth and traffic courts as well as general provincial court
work.
Everyone who knew Tom Bell has fond memories of this
outstanding individual. He was best known for his sense of humour
and his unwavering commitment to the community.
As a member of Parliament, he modestly and quietly supported
his constituents, whether it was representing them here in Ottawa
or meeting with them in his riding.
As a judge, he upheld the spirit of the law, never losing sight of
what was best for the individual or the community. He was known
for saying: ``Do what is proper and people will acknowledge it''. I
am certain that those who knew him have acknowledged all that he
did for the people he served.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Reform Party, I would like to
extend our deepest sympathies to his wife Patricia, his sons
Michael, Andrew and James, his daughter Melanie, his brothers
Robert and Lawrence and other members of his family. His
presence will be sadly missed.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I inadvertently did not see one of our
colleagues who wanted to pay tribute to Joe Ghiz. Would you give
me permission to re-open tributes to Mr. Ghiz?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, and
the Progressive Conservative Party to pay tribute to the late Joe
Ghiz.
We wish to extend our heartfelt condolences to Mr. Ghiz's wife
Rose Ellen, his mother Marguerite and his children Robert and
Joanne.
(1525 )
The nation shares in their grief. Canadians strongly admired Mr.
Ghiz's commitment to the people of Prince Edward Island and the
people of Canada. Canada has lost one of our strongest defenders.
Mr. Ghiz became leader of the official opposition in 1982 and
premier from 1986 to 1993. Following his departure from public
politics, he was appointed as a provincial supreme court judge.
He will be remembered in Prince Edward Island as the man who
signed the deal that built a bridge from the island to the mainland.
It was one of Mr. Ghiz's dreams but he built many bridges in our
Canada of today.
Across Canada he will be remembered for his tireless support of
the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords and his support of a
united Canada. The failure of both accords was a severe blow to
him. Yet despite these setbacks he was always viewed by islanders
and Canadians from coast to coast as a winner.
It is always tragic when someone leaves us so young. This
country has lost a great Canadian too soon.
Members of the Progressive Conservative Party extend their
prayers to the family of Joe Ghiz. He was a great man and he will
be greatly missed.
_____________________________________________
6376
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I am honoured to table in both
official languages the government's response to 16 petitions.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to
amend the Income Tax Act. I am also tabling explanatory notes and
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of this
motion.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
entitled ``Streamlining Environmental Regulation for Mining:
Final Report'', an interim report having been tabled in December
1995.
The report reiterates the government's commitment to protection
of the environment and suggests a number of initiatives to
encourage mining investment through greater regulatory clarity,
certainty and efficiency.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response thereto within 150
days.
6377
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-349, an act to provide for parliamentary scrutiny
and approval of user fees set by federal authority and to require
public disclosure of the amount collected as user fees.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to introduce
my private member's bill, the user fee act. In the last 10 years user
fees have doubled in the amount the government collects.
Many people are concerned that in the last several years as the
public service has come under increased scrutiny, many
government agencies are using their abilities to increase user fees
to become profit centres for the government. In doing that they
avoid being chopped. This is a big concern of many people and
myself.
In the 1993 auditor general's report it is stated: ``We are
concerned that Parliament cannot readily scrutinize the user fees
established by contracts and other non-regulatory means. There
does not exist a government-wide summary of the fees being
charged, the revenues raised and the authorities under which they
are established''.
(1530 )
Probably the best example of how user pay without user say has
gone awry is the case of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
Its budget has gone from $14.2 million in 1994 to $34 million in
1996, chiefly because there has not been parliamentary scrutiny of
what is going on in bodies like this.
I would urge my fellow colleagues to read the legislation and if
they have questions to contact me and hopefully they will
ultimately support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present today.
The first is from Saint John, New Brunswick. The petitioners
would like to draw to the attention of the House that police and
firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they serve the
emergency needs of all Canadians.
They also state that in many cases the families are left without
sufficient financial means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Oshawa, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged of the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition comes from Mount Albert, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability, and specifically, that fetal alcohol
syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the
following petition from my constituents of Comox-Alberni.
There are 4,028 signatures here for a total of 5,528 signatures of
petitioners from my riding. That represents 10 per cent of the
voters in my riding, a significant number.
The petitioners request that Parliament allow Canadian citizens
to vote directly in a national binding referendum on the restoration
of the death penalty for first degree murder.
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition that has been
certified correct in form and content.
The petitioners, residents of Niagara Falls and the Niagara
peninsula, are calling on Parliament to urge the federal government
to join with the provincial government to make the operation of a
national highway system possible.
6378
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by more than 1,700 citizens of Peterborough
county, mainly residents of the townships of Belmont-Methuen and
Asphodel and the villages of Havelock and Norwood.
These are quite isolated communities which tend to fall between
the cracks in terms of police and telephone services. A pedophile
was recently released into one of these communities.
The petitions ask that the legislation be changed so that repeat
sex offenders are never released from any correctional facility.
Changing the legislation would prevent a repeat offender from
moving into any neighbourhood.
I urge the government to move forward with Bill C-55.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
The first one is that the petitioners are concerned about the 7 per
cent GST, that it is an unjust taxation of reading materials. They
urge all levels of government to demonstrate their support of
education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax from reading
materials. That is from petitioners in British Columbia.
(1535)
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is pursuant to Standing Order 36. It
asks Parliament to proceed immediately with amendments to the
Criminal Code that will ensure that the sentence given to anyone
convicted of causing death by driving while impaired carries a
minimum sentence of seven years and a maximum of 14 years as
outlined in the private member's Bill C-201 sponsored by the
Reform member from Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the petition has been
certified correct as to form and content.
The petitioners ask and call on Parliament to refrain from
implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and to put a hold
on any future consideration of such a tax until a complete review of
the tax system and how it impacts on the health of Canadians has
been undertaken.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today. The first
petition deals with a request to Parliament to increase the penalty
for drinking and driving.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition asks Parliament to pass legislation to
ensure that no criminal can profit from their criminal activity.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition from Thunder Bay, Ontario. The petitioners would
like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family
home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession
which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist those who choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 72 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 72-Mr. Morrison:
Regarding the results based reporting using CIDA's program priorities: (a) what
methodology is used in reporting the results by program priority of CIDA's bilateral
disbursements in the 1996-97 main estimates part III, (b) how does CIDA decide
how much to allocate to each priority, (c) how will the results from last year's
expenditures affect next year's disbursements, (d) how can the 21.4 per cent of
bilateral disbursements that went to meeting basic human needs, according to the
estimates, be traced back to the actual contributions, service contracts, et cetera in
order to utilize lessons learned over the years, and (e) why are CIDA's program
priorities not applied in the countries in transition program?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): a) CIDA has
set up a system to track disbursements for the six program
priorities identified in the government's 1995 policy statement,
``Canada in the World.'' CIDA officers code projects according to
these priorities; if a project addresses more than one, percentages
of the project according disbursements are allocated to each of the
priorities it addresses. At the end of each year, this weighting is
used to measure disbursements for each priority. In sum, CIDA is
collecting data on the disbursement of aid by priority, at both the
branch and agency levels.
A bilateral project performance review system is also being
established to assist managers and staff with managing for results,
learning from experience and reporting on achievements. Two
6379
components of this new system are a framework of results and key
success factors, which will be used to assess project performance,
and a set of assessment tools. This new system will also allow
CIDA to report on the results of its bilateral activities by program
priority.
b) The government has set a target of 25 per cent of official
development assistance, ODA, to be channelled to basic human
needs. CIDA programming is being monitored to ensure that we
continue to make progress toward meeting this target. Allocation
targets have not been set for the remaining priorities. Rather, funds
are allocated on a geographic basis, with increasing emphasis on
selected low income countries. Country and regional programs are
being designed or modified in view of CIDA's six program
priorities, with consideration to the development needs and
priorities of the country or countries involved.
c) Most projects are implemented over a three to five year
period. In the shorter term, however, project audits, evaluations,
and ongoing monitoring provide feedback which is used to adjust
projects where necessary.
d) CIDA codes its projects according to its six program
priorities. Monitoring, audits and evaluations are carried out on
projects to identify lessons which are related to these priorities.
CIDA has also begun a performance review of its programming in
basic human needs which will bring together lessons from a wide
range of projects and programs.
e) The six program priorities set out in ``Canada in the World''
apply to the ODA program. ODA is defined by the development
assistance committee of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, OECD, as funding transferred ``to
developing countries and multilateral institutions provided by
official (government) agencies-which meets the following tests:
(i) it is administered with the promotion of the economic
development and welfare of developing countries as its main
objective; and (ii) it is concessional in character and conveys a
grant element of at least 25 per cent.
Most of the assistance provided to the countries of central and
eastern Europe-countries in transition-is not ODA. Only a few
countries in the former Soviet bloc are classified as ``developing''.
It is therefore not subject to the six ODA priorities established by
``Canada in the World.'' Nevertheless, the program integrates
many of CIDA's priorities, including governance, human rights and
democratic development, the environment and women in
development.
It should be noted, that, although responsibility for delivering
the program for central and eastern Europe was transferred to
CIDA by ``Canada in the World'', the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade continues to be responsible for its
overall policy direction.
[Translation]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 39 could be made an order for return, that return
would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 39-Mr. Adams:
Have there been any government implementations with regard to the
recommendations numbered 104 to 110 inclusive, Chapter 13, ``The North'', from
the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development's Report ``It's About Our Health. Towards Pollution Protection. CEPA
Revisited'', June 1995?
Return tabled.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I request leave for an
emergency debate on the future of Canadian Airlines International.
As you probably know, this company is facing a major crisis.
Last Friday, November 15, the board of directors announced that
they were all resigning, because they feared they might be held
financially responsible in case of a bankruptcy.
These last few years, significant efforts have been made by
employees, governments and investors to try and save the
company. In 1992, a major $1.6 billion restructuring plan was
implemented, which included the conversion of $800 million in
debt into capital stock, a $246 million investment from American
Airlines, a $200 million contribution by the employees, $120
million in government loans, the buy-back of three Airbus planes
by the federal government for some $150 million when their
market value was less than half that amount, a $40 million service
contract for these three planes, the federal government's
commitment to protect Canadian Airlines' monopoly over the most
profitable routes in Asia, et cetera.
6380
However, we have to acknowledge that the company still
continues to be buried under huge debts, and financial assistance
from the federal government will not help the airlines out of this
fix. Despite all the favours granted and efforts made by the
government, profits still seem out of Canadian Airlines' reach.
The federal government cannot witness this disaster and do
nothing. Bankruptcy would mean the loss of more than 16,400 jobs
throughout Canada and the transfer of thousands of jobs from
Canada to the United States, for instance.
(1540)
So, consideration of the future of Canadian Airlines
International is urgently required. Such an emergency debate
would emphasize the opportunities provided to both Canadian and
Quebec parliamentarians and make public the government
guidelines in order to avoid a major upheaval in the Canadian air
transport industry.
I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, that you consider favourably my
request for an emergency debate.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, I did receive the notice you
sent me earlier today. Although this is a very important matter, I do
not think it meets the requirements for the House to hold an
emergency debate for the time being.
_____________________________________________
6380
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to report to you and the House the remarkable
events of the last week and the reasons that Canada decided to take
the lead in putting together a mission to bring aid to the starving
masses of refugees in central Africa.
As everyone knows, the situation on the ground has improved
dramatically since our initiative was launched last week. Refugees
in the hundreds of thousands have crossed the border back to
Rwanda. This change is due in large part to the resolve shown by
the international community under the leadership of Canada.
Much has been written and said about the actions of our
government, about our decision to try to break the logjam at the
United Nations, to galvanize the international community into
action and to offer Canadian leadership for a dangerous but
essential international mission.
[Translation]
But when all is said and done, the basic fact is that Canada acted
because it was the decent, human thing to do. We acted because two
world wars and forty years of peace keeping have taught us that the
world cannot turn its back on turmoil and disaster.
We acted because deeply ingrained in our very being as
Canadians is a very clear and basic understanding that we are
citizens of the world, that we take that citizenship very seriously,
and that when it is time to stand up and be counted, Canada is there.
[English]
That is the way it was through two world wars and 40 years of
peacekeeping. As the most privileged of nations we have
understood and valued the responsibility of world citizenship.
There is no mystery to this impulse, no calculation, no posturing.
The government felt it. The leaders of the four opposition parties,
whom we consulted, felt it. The men and women of our armed
forces, who without hesitation stood ready to take the lead, felt it.
Our diplomats in posts around the world and public servants in
foreign affairs, national defence and CIDA, who helped plan and
organize this initiative, felt it. People across the country felt it.
Therefore, the government decision to act, to appeal to the
international community, was not a difficult one. It was not taken
lightly. Committing men and women to dangerous situations, even
as part of a large international force, can never be taken lightly. It
was the natural thing to do. It was arrived at without fanfare,
without drama and breast beating, but in the typical, understated,
matter of fact Canadian way. There was a job to be done and we
were ready to do it.
(1545)
[Translation]
So in itself, our decision was not remarkable. What was
remarkable was the reaction of the international community. I wish
every Canadian could have listened into the telephone
conversations I had last week with the leaders of other nations.
From the leaders of the wealthiest, most powerful countries to
the leaders of small, developing nations, including United Nations
Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the reaction was
consistent and powerful: Canada's identity as a peacekeeper, as an
honest broker, as a force for decency and humanity around the
world-again and again this is what the world's leaders told me.
Sometimes it is useful to raise our heads, clear our minds, and
see ourselves as the world sees us. Last week, in our appeals to the
nations of the world, in our presence at the United Nations, in the
quick and responsive moves of General Baril and his colleagues,
the world saw a voice for reason and compassion. A new world
nation, without the burdens of history that weigh so many nations
6381
down. A diverse, bilingual country that knows the importance of
accommodation and understanding.
[English]
They saw a country that had no self-interest in its call for action,
that had a proven record in peacekeeping and sensitive military
operations, that had the credibility to pull together an international
effort and the ability to execute it.
They understand that our history, our experience, our reality
made us uniquely suited to this urgent task, a country without
colonial past in Africa, a bilingual country with links to and an
ability to operate in this French speaking corner of the world, an
international player that is at once a G-7 nation and a middle power.
These are the reasons we launched our initiative last week and
why we succeeded in convincing the international community to
join us. However, it is only a prologue to the actual humanitarian
operation. Canadians deserve to know what we are getting into and
what we can reasonably expect.
As I speak, more than 400,000 refugees have crossed back into
Rwanda and the Goma area. Another 150,000 are expected to cross
over in the next few days. These developments are all very good
news, but let us not forget that fighting continues in the region and
the situation is very fluid.
[Translation]
We know the changes on the ground will affect the mission. Let
me tell you what is being done to address this changing situation.
Yesterday, we announced new humanitarian aid to respond to
changing needs on the ground. And we dispatched General Baril to
assess the situation in the region.
Canada and all nations involved in this humanitarian effort are in
close contact. We will be meeting with other countries in Stuttgart
on Thursday to discuss the impact of these events on the proposed
military mission. The Secretary of State for Africa will be on that
continent later this week, consulting with governments there. And
in the coming days, Canada will be convening a meeting of aid
donors to mobilize support for the resettlement of those returning.
(1550 )
[English]
But the international community must continue its effort to
facilitate delivery of humanitarian aid by civilian relief
organizations to alleviate the immediate suffering we have all seen
in our homes on our televisions every night and to facilitate the
return to their homes in Rwanda of those refugees who want to
return.
Canada will continue to take the lead in working with the
international community. We are all committed to ending the
suffering.
[Translation]
For Canada, the last week has been a special moment, a moment
of which we can all be proud. We do not know now exactly what
the coming days and weeks will bring. And in those difficult
moments we must remember what this mission is all about. In a
century ravaged by war and aggression, we have called for a
commitment that has nothing to do with conquest or glory.
[English]
We are not entering into combat with an enemy. Our only enemy
is human suffering. Our only foe is hunger and disease. Our only
adversary is pain and misery.
We have already won an early battle against moral blindness and
self-interest by galvanizing the world community into action. Let
us now do what is required to complete the work.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately for the Leader of the
Opposition, a member of the Reform Party has the floor.
Mr. Gauthier: You are not going to recognize me, Mr. Speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: It seems that, before the Prime Minister
made his speech, it was agreed that each party would speak in turn,
and it is now the Reform Party's turn.
Mr. Gauthier: We each have our turn, but it is not my turn.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to speak to the motion before
the House today, this take note debate we have before us on
Canada's current and future commitments in Zaire.
Canada has apparently agreed to take command of the mission in
Zaire. The intentions of the government are noble. However, it has
proceeded carelessly and without clear goals. For this reason the
Reform Party cannot yet support the mission to Zaire.
My colleague from Red Deer, the Reform Party critic for foreign
affairs, outlined the Reform's position with a particular focus on
the foreign affairs perspective. Now I will provide a military
assessment of the mission.
To me and other members of the House this take note debate is
purely smoke and mirrors. Although we would like to see pure
consultation with members of the House of Commons, we recog-
6382
nize that there will be no vote with respect to this information that
comes out of this debate today.
For more than a week now the media has been reporting that the
government has decided to commit troops to Zaire. Senior defence
officials have advised the cabinet that we have the capability to
participate in this force. Military preparations have been under way
for some time now.
The Reform Party does not yet have sufficient information to
support the government's decision to lead the mission to Zaire.
Canadians recognize the importance of stability in Zaire, Rwanda,
Burundi and the area, repatriating the refugees to their countries of
origin and relieving the malnourished and starving. This mission
will be extremely dangerous and Canadians should be fully aware
of that fact.
It is dangerous and this is not a peacekeeping mission. Combat
capable troops are required for this mission to Zaire. We will not be
monitoring opposing armies but playing a role in providing
humanitarian aid to refugees in the area and providing them with a
safe corridor through which they can move to their countries of
origin.
(1555)
Only three days prior to announcing this mission I sat in a
briefing by senior military officials and they confirmed for me then
and there that Canada was not capable of supporting three large
scale missions at the same time. We are already in Haiti, we are
already in Bosnia, and Zaire will make our third large scale
mission.
Only three days after defence officials confirmed we cannot
handle three missions we hear from the Prime Minister that indeed
we can. We wish we could support this mission but the government
has not proven that it can complete the mission, although not
through any fault of the troops or the military itself. They are
among the best in the world when they are allowed to be, when they
have the equipment that will allow them to be the best. We often
hear when cabinet ministers talk about missions like this ``I talked
to the troops and the troops say they are ready to go and they are
capable of going''.
I was in the Canadian Armed Forces and in 1974 when my ship,
the HMCS Gatineau, was asked to go to Vietnam to participate in
the withdrawal of American troops I was ready, willing and able. I
wanted to go. Unfortunately I was on training in Halifax at the time
in fleet school. The commandant called me into the office and said:
``Hart, would you like to go on this mission with your ship? It
would mean you would have to come off training prior to
completion of your course''. I said: ``Sir, I am ready, willing and
able and I want to be on that mission''. Unfortunately the decision
was made that I would stay back and stay on training and I did not
proceed with my ship to patrol the coast of Vietnam.
That is the response that we will get from every man and woman
in the Canadian Armed Forces. Of course they are ready, willing
and able and they want to participate in the missions because that is
what they are trained to do. That has nothing to do with the
responsibility of this government, to make sure that they are
properly equipped to do the job and that there are enough people to
make sure they can complete their missions.
The Reform Party is concerned about the government's handling
of Canada's defence policy. One of the most important tasks of any
national government is to support the existence of sufficient
combat troops, capable armed forces, to match the nation's defence
policy. This is not something that is only desirable, this is a
responsibility and a requirement of any sound national
government. It would be an abdication of the government's
responsibility to fail in this regard.
Not long ago the Liberal government changed 50 years of
Canadian defence policy by saying that Canada does not have nor
does it need to maintain combat capable land forces. In fact, it was
the Minister of Foreign Affairs who told Canadians that he does not
believe Canada has combat capable forces. Now he is sending that
same military, the one he said is not combat capable, into the line
of fire.
The former chief of defence staff told Canadians that land forces
are unfit to fight a serious war. These are his words: ``If the
government asked me to go into a high intensity theatre with the
equipment I have today I would have to say I can't do it''. This is a
quote from the last chief of defence staff, one who has never lost
the support of this government. Its former hand picked chief of
defence staff does not think that we can handle this mission.
The former minister of national defence, contradicting his own
white paper, said that General Boyle's comments were pretty fair.
He added that General Boyle's comments reflected the 1994 white
paper on defence.
Then the Minister of Foreign Affairs went even further in
reversing the defence policy of the government: ``A lot of the
defence purchases have been geared toward the peacekeeping
effort because that is the changing nature of the world. The notion
that we might re-engage in a major conflict like the second world
war does not seem to be there''.
Our armed forces personnel must be first and foremost combat
capable professionals which then and only then enables them to be
finest peacekeepers or humanitarian aid providers in the world. If
the Minister of National Defence or anyone in the cabinet would
listen today I would tell the government to do four things.
The first is stabilize the size of the Canadian Armed Forces. I
would urge them to review the work of the special joint
commission, which said that the size of 60,000 troops, which we
are now
6383
headed toward, is too small given the international commitments
that we have facing us today.
(1600 )
Second, ensure that our land, sea and air troops are combat
capable. Third, provide the adequate equipment and training.
Fourth, I would ask the government to clearly establish a fixed
number of troops which can be utilized on international
peacekeeping missions, and also to establish how many missions
can be supported at any one time. I will tell the House why this is
important.
For each mission of 1,000 troops we have committed to a foreign
country, that ties up 3,000 troops because there will also be 1,000
who will be training for the mission, waiting for their next rotation.
There are the 1,000 in theatre and there are also 1,000 who have
also come out of theatre and are waiting for 18 months before they
can be put into service in an international peacekeeping role again.
It can be seen that 1,000 troops commits 3,000 troops in actual
numbers to an international commitment. Therefore with Bosnia,
with Haiti and now with Zaire we will have some 3,300 troops in
international theatre. That ties up almost 10,000 of our land forces
of an army of approximately 24,000. That is putting an
unprecedented amount of stress on our Canadian Armed Forces.
However, there has been no move by the government or the
defence minister to look at the things I have mentioned. We are still
waiting to hear about the purchase of submarines for the navy to
make sure that our navy is combat capable. We are still waiting for
word on the replacement of the Sea King helicopters. In fact,
another Sea King crashed last Thursday.
We keep hearing from the government how great everything is
but in the meantime our Sea Kings are falling out of the sky. Our
engineers, pilots and our maintenance crews can keep them flying
with gun tape, chewing gum and baler twine for only so long. It is a
testimonial to our Canadian ingenuity and skill that our men and
women were able to win the William Tell competition and become
top guns.
The government should live up to the combat capability to which
was committed an entire chapter in the 1994 white paper. It is fine
and dandy for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to commit our armed
forces to Liberal government foreign policy objectives. However,
they must not be trained only for peacekeeping. They must remain
combat capable professionals. That is how our Canadian troops
earned their well deserved reputation in the first and second world
wars, the Korean war, the Gulf war and peacekeeping missions
over the last 50 years. They must be given the proper tools. They
must be given the proper mandate and the rules of engagement so
that they can get the job done properly with minimal risk to
themselves.
We have two primary concerns, saving lives in Zaire and keeping
our own Canadian Armed Forces troops alive. The Liberals can use
these vain ploys to garner peacenik votes but they must remember
that the lives of Canadian troops are at stake. Our men and women
are not going out on a picnic in Zaire. They will be going into one
of the most ruthless war ravaged areas in the world where hundreds
of thousands if not millions of people are very desperate. This is a
very dangerous situation and we should not be going into it lightly.
There is always a human price that will be paid and it will not be
paid by these fat cat Liberal ministers who sit back and suck
cappuccinos while our men and women put their lives on the line
for the Liberals' half baked political decisions.
How many members of the House know the actual human toll for
our mission in Bosnia? Forget for a moment the suicides, the
broken families, post traumatic stress disorder. Do the Liberals
actually know how many Canadian casualties there were for
Bosnia? I bet few of them know. There were 120 Canadian
casualties, including 12 deaths. I do not know about anyone else in
the House, but when it comes to senior military personnel's telling
members of the House of Commons that we cannot support three
major international contributions at one time and when the former
chief of defence staff and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have
questioned the combat capability of our military, I must doubt our
abilities to support this third large scale engagement.
(1605 )
With all this information, I am not as quick as my Liberal friends
to send our men and women to Zaire. Let me be perfectly clear. I
believe that in principle we should be able to go to Zaire. However,
to ensure that Zaire is a success and to take some stress off our
troops possibly we should look at pulling out of Bosnia.
It is time to completely turn over all peacekeeping
responsibilities in Bosnia to the European countries. Let me say
that again. The Reform Party supports in principle taking command
of the multinational mission in Zaire. However, from the
perspective of military and human resources we may have to leave
Bosnia and the IFOR mission to do so. There is nothing wrong with
admitting that we cannot do all things for all people.
We must establish clear priorities. We are faced with Bosnia,
Haiti and now Zaire. Canadians would like to know from this
government are these missions in Canada's national interest and, in
particular, if they are how do we deal with these missions with our
small army and our limited resources.
Canada has performed yeoman service in the former Yugoslavia
and it is time to pass the baton to other countries.
6384
The defence minister says the mission to Zaire will last only six
months. I think this is grossly naive. Income tax, as we all
remember, was meant to be a temporary measure, and look where
that got us. We were told in 1991 that Bosnia would be short term.
We have been there for five years. The mission in Haiti goes on and
on. Just last week the UN was asked to extend its mandate for
another nine months, until the end of July 1997.
On the topic of mission extensions, when the Minister for
Foreign Affairs was asked how long our stay would be in Zaire he
stated the Liberal line four to six months. However, he has already
intimated that he expects there will be a need for a force to stay on
for a new phase after the first six month deployment expires.
The government intends for our troops to remain there for
possibly years. It just will not admit it at this point to Canadians. It
refuses to be honest with Canadians about what it is really
committing to. How long does it really plan to stay in Zaire? If the
first six months are projected to cost $100 million, how much will
the extended complete mission cost?
The defence minister said he can find the $100 million in his
budget. Liberal math never ceases to amaze me. The minister has a
budget for which money has been allocated. I do not remember
seeing any line items in estimates or the budget for a mission in
Zaire or for a $100 million peacekeeping slush fund. So where is
the money coming from? I am not saying do not go, I just want to
know specifically where the money is coming from.
I know the budget accounted for acquisitions of submarines and
it also accounted for helicopters, replacements for the Sea King
helicopters, but are they going to be the cost of the mission to
Zaire? It is most unfortunate that this Liberal government would
steal money from a much needed procurement to pay for this
mission.
The new defence minister says he wants to institute a morale
building attitude. I will congratulate the new minister on his
issuing of the Somalia medals, which was long overdue, and also
on the purchase of flak jackets and helmets, which in a small way
goes toward building morale as well. However, robbing from the
submarine program or the helicopter procurement program is not
going to help morale. It is going to hurt morale in the Canadian
Armed Forces.
The minister has a responsibility to properly equip our troops.
That includes giving the navy its submarines and the air force its
helicopters. He should not abdicate his responsibility because his
buddy in foreign affairs wants to use the military to help in a
Liberal leadership race.
Canadians are confident in the ability of our armed forces.
However, Canadians are not as confident in the Liberal
government's ability to lead a military. Canadians call on the
government to stop abdicating responsibility. We have reached the
critical mass where further cuts and reductions to our armed forces
will make them an impotent marching band.
(1610)
Events over the weekend have dramatically overtaken the
mandate of the mission and this Liberal government. The initial
mission was to establish a safe corridor and to provide
humanitarian relief to refugees in the camps. The refugees are now
on the move. They are going home. Now the Minister of Foreign
Affairs wants our troops to wander through Zaire for some 700,000
other refugees wandering the countryside. The Liberals are
struggling to find a reason to be there and they cannot find one.
Even the host countries do not want us there. In fact, Canadian
troops were required to deplane without their weapons because
Rwanda does not want them there. Is this the kind of situation our
people can expect?
The defence minister promised robust rules of engagement. Do
these robust rules include sending our troops in without their
weapons?
This mission is falling apart. The government should just admit
it and keep our people out of harm's way until we can clearly define
a mission for them to accomplish.
Our peacekeepers served for a quarter of a century in Cyprus.
Today, only a few years after their departure, Greek and Turkish
Cypriots are again killing each other.
In conclusion, I would like to quote the past president of the
Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion: ``The army
cannot field a properly equipped division or even a full
independent brigade. It would be difficult to man and supply. Still
our loyal men and women of the forces continue to serve, many
under more extreme conditions short of war than one can imagine.
With a targeted military of 60,000 we have less fighting personnel
to defend our interests than the number of lawyers in this country''.
We want our troops to know we support their collaborative
efforts in any regard wherever they are in the world. Whatever
mission this government sends them on, the Reform Party will
always press the government to ensure there are the proper
numbers, to ensure they are properly equipped and to ensure that
they are properly supported.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I want to applaud the government's decision to take the
initiative in the matter before us today because on eight occasions
over the past three weeks the official opposition had asked the
government to take a leadership role in this matter. We thought it
was essential for Canadians to work together and make a contribu-
6385
tion to help improve the situation in that part of the world, which,
obviously, is experiencing great difficulties at the present time.
We are happy with the leadership shown by Canada and that is
why, on behalf of my party, I was pleased to tell the foreign affairs
minister that we are supporting this initiative.
Things are moving fast. As the Prime Minister said, the situation
is evolving hourly in that part of the world. Let us not forget that, at
the beginning, there were 1.2 million refugees stuck in Zaire. All of
sudden, to everybody's surprise, 400,000 of them went back to
Rwanda; apparently 100,000 more are on the way at this very
moment, and these figures are changing constantly as the situation
evolves; it also appears that 100,000 refugees are fleeing to the
western part of Zaire because of the fighting and that 500,000 to
600,000 people are still stuck in refugee camps.
If there are situations where political parties have to show
altruism and to set aside the daily interests of the House of
Commons to take joint action, this is definitely one of them.
(1615)
The Prime Minister should shortly receive a report by
Lieutenant-General Maurice Baril who left yesterday on a
reconnaissance mission.
This whole situation has led to a number of conclusions. First,
we all know that Canada cannot act alone. This is clear both to the
government and to the opposition. We do not have the physical
means to act alone in an effective manner.
But Canada has an essential role to play in the sense that we can
use our international prestige to convince the international
community. It is important that Canada plays a leadership role to
maintain dialogue and facilitate a consensus on the best way to put
an end to the tragic situation faced by these people.
We can convince the governments concerned to accept the
presence of multinational troops on their territory. Some work is
being done on the diplomatic front. We are involved. We want all
solutions to be found and agreements to be reached so that the
situation can evolve as it must. It is important, as the Prime
Minister said, that Thursday, in Stuttgart, Canada show leadership
so that a consensus can be reached on the adjustments to be made to
the UN mandate and so that things are clear. We need a crystal clear
mandate.
However, I would like to give some advice to the government.
The official opposition would like the government to follow some
advice that we will give from now on.
For the people who have returned to Rwanda, the people who
have already decided to go back home, our troops must ensure
their safety. These people must be able to go back without
apprehensiveness. A massacre must be avoided, and the mandate of
the Canadian troops will surely be to ensure the safety of those who
have returned to Rwanda.
Canada must also give absolute priority, and I believe the Prime
Minister was of the same opinion, to providing humanitarian
assistance all along the way home for those who are unfortunately
still on the road. In the case of those who are back home, and who
will certainly go through days of anguish, it must also ensure that
water, food and medication can be provided to everyone. Above all,
Canada must ensure that there is no repeat of the tragic events we
witnessed before in that part of the world.
For the large number of people still stuck in Zaire, and there are
700,000 of them, it is important that Canada help create
humanitarian corridors so that help can be provided to them. I think
each and everyone of us, in this House but also in this country, was
deeply moved by the terrible plight of these people, particularly the
thousands of children. We cannot remain insensitive to their
situation and the support of our armed forces, our peacekeepers is
essential to help create these corridors to send water, food and
medication.
Finally, the Canadian army will be able to step in, to work to
ensure the safe return of these people, even though their return is a
voluntarily one. It goes without saying that our troops will be
extremely useful.
However, the rules of engagement of Canadian troops must be
very clear. They must be defined, because, unless I am mistaken,
the mandate was given under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
(1620)
This chapter allows the use of force and weapons, should the
situation require it. It is extremely important that our government
clearly define the rules governing the use of such force or weapons.
We will have to make sure our troops are prepared for this mission,
which means they will have to receive very clear instructions.
There is no margin for error in that region, where the situation is
explosive. Of course, our troops did not have time to get prepared.
This is an urgent mission and an extremely important one.
Consequently, they must get their orders as directly as possible,
and their instructions must be clear, so as to avoid anything
untoward.
Canadians soldiers must understand the social and political
implications of their involvement. They are in a region where, once
again, everything is fragile and they will have to show a lot of tact,
diplomacy and understanding for their mission to be successful.
Our soldiers, and their leaders of course, will then have to ensure
that the conditions for a durable solution to the conflict can be put
in place. We will have to act as advisors while we are there.
6386
Canada's advice will be most important to everyone. That is why
we will humbly submit certain ideas to the government.
We have already suggested that an international conference on
the African great lakes region be held as soon as possible. It is
important for global partners to discuss the volatile political
situation in that region. In the longer term, we must also ensure that
all refugees can go back to their country, to the place they came
from. I think this is essential if we want to resolve this conflict.
We will have to find ways to disarm the warring factions and to
eliminate the causes of war in the area. The international
community will have to take action, to do whatever it can to bring
about a change of mentality. We can no longer accept situations
like the one we saw some time ago and the one we are seeing now.
We have to neutralize those who played a leading role in the 1994
genocide. We really have to be on the alert to prevent such
barbarities from reoccurring.
Finally, we can negotiate and encourage peaceful relations
between the Tutsi minority and the Hutu majority in Rwanda and in
Burundi. There is much to do. This is an extremely serious matter
for our soldiers, but we are proud to see that Canada will be making
its contribution in this part of the world.
We will have done everything possible, as human beings, to end
the atrocities that have been brought to our attention and the misery
we saw, and I am certain that the intervention of Canadian soldiers
will help save thousands of lives. That is why we are proud to
contribute to this operation.
In closing, I would like to remind members very briefly that
1,500 soldiers will be sent to Zaire ultimately. These are the figures
we have. We have asked much of our troops since 1992. There are
still 1,000 soldiers in Bosnia, 750 in Haiti, 187 in the Golan
Heights, 28 in the Sinai, in addition to a number elsewhere. A total
of 2,059 Canadian soldiers are or will be on tour of duty in the
coming days. This is extremely important. They have our
confidence.
(1625)
We know that despite certain mistakes that may have been made
in certain places in the past, the great majority of Canadian soldiers
are able to make an appropriate and significant contribution to the
world peace process. And it is in this spirit that I would like to join
with all members of my party, and all members in this House, I am
sure, in thanking Canadian soldiers for the work they are doing all
around the world, in thanking the Canadian soldiers who are going
to intervene in a situation that is extremely delicate but that does
require intervention. We are behind them all the way. We also thank
their families for the enormous sacrifice they are making in letting
one of their own leave them so that we can play this role in the
great lakes region of Africa.
I would also like to thank the government for giving us the
opportunity to discuss this issue here in the House. It is important
that these things be said. Once again, I would like to reiterate our
wholehearted support for this operation. It was necessary for us to
show leadership. As the official opposition, we were certain that we
could play such a role, and we have full confidence in those who
will be called upon over there to carry out these extraordinary
duties.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the United Nations emergency force inaugurated the
era of modern peacekeeping. Canada has been in the forefront with
its patient explorations, its practical ideas, and its pragmatic
compromises.
This has been Canada's trademark, and this same power of
persuasion and tenacity which has always characterized Canada,
sometimes under difficult circumstances, has been manifested in
recent days and recent hours, while the government was dealing
with this current crisis.
The Canadian forces have provided the United Nations
emergency force with the logistical support that is the backbone of
any military undertaking. Over the years, this service has become
Canada's specialty, a known quantity, a support on which our
international friends have been able to depend to insure the
necessary stability and continuity of other peacekeeping missions,
for other missions were not long in coming.
In the ten years that followed, two other important peacekeeping
missions took place, the United Nations operation in the Congo
between 1960 and 1964, and the United Nations peacekeeping
mission in Cyprus starting in 1964.
The operation in the Congo, now Zaire, was particularly difficult
and somewhat controversial. Many lives were lost and much
money was poured into it. As well, we had to resort to force and to
interfere in the internal affairs of the Congo. This led eventually to
deep divisions between the member states, which threatened the
future of the United Nations. There was great danger, and
Canadians were responsible for a number of acts of bravery. Two
hundred and thirty-four members of the United Nations force lost
their lives during this operation.
[English]
Canadians again had special skills to bring to bear. Our primary
contribution was in the area of signals and communications. It also
helped enormously that so many members of the Canadian forces
could speak the common Congolese language of French. There was
a humanitarian aspect to the mission to which Canadians
contributed foodstuffs.
Canada was in the lead in Cyprus, with Secretary of State for
External Affairs Paul Martin Senior providing the crucial diplo-
6387
matic impetus to get UN members behind the idea of a
peacekeeping force. Canadian troops were on the island 24 hours
after the force was authorized. ``You will never know what this may
have prevented'', American President Lyndon Johnson told Mr.
Pearson, then our Prime Minister.
There have been moments of discouragement as peacekeeping
evolved, warts and all, but as this House's Standing Committee on
External Affairs and National Defence reminded Canadians in
1970: ``For Canadians now to lose heart and reduce its interest in
peacekeeping would be an abdication of responsibility. No other
country could fill the gap thus opened-and the development of
effective peacekeeping would be set back with incalculable but
certainly disastrous effect''. The committee added: ``The work of
peacekeeping is not glamorous. It is frustrating. It does not inspire
gratitude. It does not directly assist narrow Canadian interests. But
it is an essential service-and one for which Canada has special
qualifications because of her reputation for fairness and because of
her technical skills''.
(1630)
[Translation]
Canadians listened to that advice. Canada's commitment toward
peace keeping has never faltered. By the end of the Cold War,
80,000 Canadian soldiers had taken part in peacekeeping and it was
hard to name a peacekeeping mission under UN or other auspices
in which Canada had not played a lead role.
We were the leading world peace keepers, well intentioned, well
equipped, well trained. Empirical studies, however, indicate that
the funds allocated to peacekeeping were only a tiny fraction of
total defence budgets.
At the end of the cold war, peacekeeping expanded and changed
dramatically, if we consider the type, form and general nature of
these operations. Both Conservatives and Liberals sent 20,000
peacekeepers to the borders of Iraq, to the UN Commission in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, to Mozambique, Namibia, Angola, the
Western Sahara, to Rwanda and Somalia, to Salvador and Haiti, to
Cambodia and the Balkans.
At one point in the early 90s, more than 4,000 Canadian
peacekeepers were deployed in various parts of the world.
During those years, mandates remained vague. The risks were
greater. Inevitably, the risk of controversy, error and abuse had
increased, compared with the time when missions were
straightforward peacekeeping operations.
But the challenges were also more numerous. Humanitarian aid
and the defence of human rights were very likely to be a major
factor in these new operations which, in turn, could act as a catalyst
for putting in place democratic institutions.
[English]
In the former Yugoslavia under General Lewis MacKenzie,
Canadians got aid to the besieged capital of Sarajevo and
elsewhere. They repaired schools, hospitals, roads and they
provided medical care. They gave of their own time to the aged and
to the young.
In an even more desperate situation in Rwanda, under Generals
Roméo Dallaire and Guy Tousignant the Canadian forces cleared
mines, delivered aid, purified water and brought critical medical
assistance.
[Translation]
We cannot ignore the assistance so many other Canadians have
provided and continue to provide daily to those who need it
throughout the world. I am referring to the NGOs and Canadian
religious orders in Rwanda who were the first to draw our attention
to the crisis which had developed in that country.
General Dallaire said one day he had seen too many bodies, too
many tears, too much human suffering and too much destruction in
Rwanda to let us, the international community, go about our
business without a care in the world.
We clearly need mechanisms in order to be able to react quickly
and effectively to international disasters. Examples of typically
Canadian initiatives intended to help deal with international crises
are the rapid reaction force proposed by the government, which
made its way at the UN, and the Disaster Assistance Relief Team,
also known as DART.
[English]
Over the last few minutes I have attempted to sketch the context
in which the government motion under consideration by this House
is set: a Canadian peacekeeping and humanitarian experience,
expertise and excellence built up over many years and tested in a
wide variety of circumstances; a longstanding Canadian
commitment to international co-operation which is very much in
our interests and deeply embedded in our tradition; a Canadian
leadership role in the international community which is more usual
than unusual.
[Translation]
And so we come to the obvious conclusion that the world is too
small for us to turn our backs on the African continent and all its
problems.
I fully support the leadership role assumed by Canada within the
international community, as it seeks ways to deal directly and
fearlessly with the crisis in Africa.
I would also ask that we intervene in a way that leaves no doubt
as to the generosity and firm resolve of this House.
6388
(1635 )
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
events have unfolded rapidly in central Africa in recent days. Even
before our troops touched central African soil, their positive impact
was being felt. Fear of the extremist militias, a fear which had held
more than one million refugees in squalid camps in Zaire for two
years, was suddenly lifted. I am convinced that this happened at
least in part because of the imminent arrival of the international
force put together under the leadership of our Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's decision to offer Canadian leadership for
this mission is in keeping with an honourable Canadian tradition, a
tradition of unparalleled expertise in peacekeeping and of
dedicated humanitarian assistance.
[Translation]
We must credit the activism of the Prime Minister, who reacted
vigorously out of frustration with the international community's
lack of action. As it was never a colonial power, Canada is in a
good position to head the multinational force.
As a member country in the francophonie, which is my
responsibility in cabinet, Canada has long had close ties with the
countries in that region. In taking the initiative of heading the
multinational intervention, the Prime Minister mobilized the
international community.
The hope created by the imminent arrival of thousands of troops
on a humanitarian mission, one of peace and aid, gave pause for
thought to the extremists and hope to the victims, most of whom,
need I add, are women and children. Since Friday morning, and
therefore over the weekend, a flood of people have crossed the
border.
[English]
We must not lose the momentum prompted by the sudden mass
movement of people back to Rwanda. Some have suggested that
because the terror in which the Interhamwe militias held the
refugees has now been broken, there is no need for international
intervention. According to them the problem is solved; of course,
we know that this is not the case.
Let us not forget that only four weeks ago all aid agencies had
pulled their personnel out of Zaire. There was no help, no food and
no medicine. Yes, we have all seen the thousands of people
flooding across the border, but let us not forget the hundreds of
thousands of victims still in Zaire. We need to find these people.
We need to bring them food and water and to give them shelter. We
also need to support their voluntary return to Rwanda. Over 60 per
cent of the refugees are women and children. They need immediate
relief.
[Translation]
It is vital that we continue to provide aid to the refugees. Their
need for food and medicine is urgent as they leave transit camps to
return to their communities. Once we have looked after these
needs, we must help them resettle quickly and safely in their
respective communities.
[English]
The situation is urgent and the needs are great. This is why the
Prime Minister announced that the Canadian International
Development Agency, for which I am responsible, is setting aside
some $15 million for new emergency humanitarian aid for the
victims of the conflict, those coming back to Rwanda and of course
those remaining in Zaire.
This morning I held a press conference to outline the details of
the aid package. I was accompanied by representatives of the
Canadian Red Cross and CARE Canada. With CIDA's support,
these two organizations are mobilizing teams of highly skilled
Canadians who will go to the region as soon as possible to bring
much needed help. They are doctors, nurses, logistics experts and
engineers. They will help fulfil the basic needs of the victims,
particularly with respect to clean water and medical help.
Canadian NGOs have a long history and much experience in
central Africa. They have faced danger to bring help to others.
Their actions and commitments are a source of pride to all of us. I
want to take this opportunity to congratulate them for all their
work, past, present and future.
(1640)
[Translation]
I would also like to draw your attention to the hard work done in
Africa by the Red Cross and UN agencies such as the high
commissioner for refugees and the world food program. The
thousands of tonnes of food, medical and material aid collected in
the region show how seriously they take their role. They are
prepared to respond to the vital needs of over a million people.
Canadian NGOs I have talked to on three occasions in recent days
have expressed support for Canada's leadership in this
humanitarian mission. In their view, deploying an international
force is the only way emergency relief can be provided to
vulnerable populations.
Since 1994, Canadian NGOs have joined forces with the
Canadian International Development Agency to mitigate the
effects of genocide. Our program in Rwanda is twofold. First, to
provide humanitarian assistance to alleviate in the short term the
suffering of the Rwandan population. This assistance will consist in
providing medical care, shelters, a clean water supply, food, and
means of transport through international organizations and
Canadian NGOs. The critical situation of children has been the
primary focus of
6389
CIDA, which directed a large part of its humanitarian assistance to
children.
Second, Canada wanted to help Rwanda find a long term
solution. To this end, we support the work of the International
Criminal Tribunal, as well as the establishment of a criminal
justice system, the training of judges and the protection of human
rights. At the same time, we are in favour of reuniting children with
their families and communities. We have also provided assistance
to the Rwandan women who, following the genocide, found
themselves in charge of large families. We are helping them
support themselves through housing, low-level credit financing and
job creation projects.
[English]
Our efforts to deal with the long term effects of central Africa's
conflicts cannot be limited to Rwanda. For this reason I am calling
a high level meeting of the heads of national aid agencies and
international aid organizations to help mobilize the donor
community to ensure the safe and peaceful reintegration of
returnees to their communities.
We must deal most urgently with the problems of Rwanda but we
must also address the special needs of Zaire, Burundi and Tanzania.
We need to work together as donors to help develop carefully
measured responses to the situation in central Africa while we keep
in mind the complexity of relationships among the region's
governments, refugees and rebel groups.
This meeting will be held as soon as possible, hopefully as soon
as this weekend. It is intended to mobilize international and
bilateral donors to provide assistance to the region's repatriated
refugees in a quick and co-operative fashion. It is not intended to
replace the co-ordinating mechanisms that already exist on the
ground but to reinforce them.
We want to reassure Rwandans as they return to their communes
that they will have the support they need to reintegrate peacefully
into their society. At the same time we must reassure current
residents of Rwanda's villages that we support the needs of
communities as a whole. Our goal needs to be to find a lasting
solution to the problems of that region and to help the refugees in
their plight in the immediate days ahead.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time
with the member for Fraser Valley East.
I have lost track of the number of times in the last three decades
that tribalism or ethnic nationalism, whatever we want to call it,
has led to widespread violence and suffering on the African
continent. This is one of the most unhappy legacies of colonialism
on the continent when Africa was artificially divided up into
countries in a way which had no bearing whatsoever upon their
ethnic make-up. Within the borders of those colonies the
colonizing powers practised the policy of divide and rule. Some
tribes would be favoured to the detriment of others, thus
accentuating pre-existing ethnic divisions.
(1645)
The Belgians in Rwanda and Burundi were especially good at
this. They set up an administration completely staffed by the
minority Tutsi tribe and these people, in turn, lorded it over their
Hutu majority and they have subsequently paid a very high price.
Most politicians in Africa publicly deplore tribalism but to
consolidate their power almost all of them continue to pander to it.
Civil services, armies and educational institutions have all been
essentially staffed by members of whatever tribe happens to be
ascendant in a given country at a given time.
It is said that the current Government of Rwanda is making an
honest attempt to break this pattern in the interests of national
reconciliation. We shall see.
In any event, the outside world will not settle the problems of
Central Africa with a four to six month military mission. This
mission may offer a bit of breathing space, but the underlying
problems can be solved only by Africans themselves.
The Tutsis originally arrived in Central Africa in the 17th
century, migrating in from somewhere in the area of Ethiopia.
Nobody knows exactly where they came from. They subjugated the
indigenous Hutus and they set up a feudal system with a Tutsi
aristocracy. This arrangement was continued with, as I have said,
the official sanction of the governments during the colonial era. It
led to the first massacres in Rwanda, which actually took place in
1959, prior to the end of colonial rule. The Hutus rose up,
overthrew their Tutsi masters and killed about 100,000 people.
Nobody seems to remember this anymore.
Pogroms of the Tutsi minority continued until 1964, two years
after independence. Hundreds of thousands of Tutsis fled the
country, many of them into Uganda. All this was 30 years ago.
Taking a lesson from the events in Rwanda, the ruling Tutsi
minority in neighbouring Burundi launched a pre-emptive strike
against the Hutus. Any Hutu who was well educated, who had
acquired any degree of wealth was summarily executed. About
200,000 people were killed in 1972.
The world, including Canada, yawned and looked the other way.
The conscience of the world was finally aroused by the largest
massacre of all, the slaughter of the Rwandan Tutsis in 1994, but
nobody except the NGOs actually tried to do anything until the
Tutsi rebellion in eastern Zaire brought violence to the refugee
camps there.
6390
All of a sudden somebody dialled 911 and Canada, as usual,
said ``ready, aye ready''. As the hon. member for Don Valley
North has already stated, there is indeed a certain urgency to the
present situation but surely it pales compared to the situation in
1994 and the one in Burundi in 1972 when the world just closed
its eyes until the killing was nearly over.
I smell a very large political rat in the government's anxiety to
get troops into Zaire and Rwanda right now. Sometimes
governments do the right thing for opportunistic motives.
(1650 )
I support this humanitarian initiative but with grave misgivings.
I do wonder how this government, having continued the 20 year
process of eviscerating our armed forces, proposes to support three
simultaneous peacekeeping efforts. This is a government which
likes to have its cake while continuing to eat it in great gobs. It
makes public brownie points by cutting the defence budget and
then makes more points by calling on our undermanned, poorly
equipped forces to polish the Prime Minister's image in Canada's
perpetual role of policemen for the world.
We have these take note debates time after time. Sometimes I
wonder why when the decisions have already been made. However,
I guess we are on course. The Hercules are already landing in
Kigali. I only hope that our troops are not going to be put to any
large degree into harm's way in order to give a bit of political
polish to the government across the way.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Cumberland-Colchester, land mines; the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake, endangered species.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
thank you for recognizing me and for the opportunity to speak for a
few moments perhaps on a little different angle on this take note
debate on the desperate situation in Rwanda and Zaire. I would just
like to raise a few issues here in the time allotted to me.
Our common humanity or our love of humanity requires us in
one way to go to Africa, whether we want to or not. We see the
pictures and the problems and we want to help. That is a common
Canadian response and it is something that on one level is to be
respected.
However, our own safety and our own cognizance of the
difficulties also requires us to be wise about the form that this
assistance should take in this difficult area. I do not question the
principle of helping nations and I do not question the need to help
the helpless and especially the poorest of the poor and so on. They
are good phrases. They sound good over here where we are well
fed, safe and warm. On the broader level I accept that.
However, I do have many questions about how we decide who to
help and where we should go. Two years ago, in the wake of the
holocaust in Rwanda, while sitting on the foreign affairs committee
I called publicly for some sort of a rapid reaction force to make
sure we had some capacity to respond in a more effective way; not
a UN rapid reaction force but some sort of team in Canada so we
could say ``we need to send some help, we have the facilities and
we have it in place''.
I am pleased to see that this spring the government set up DART,
the disaster assistance response team, which has improved our
capacity to respond quickly to difficult situations.
In 1995 the House of Commons voted on my bill, the
peacekeeping bill, in which I argued that Parliament should have
the right to pass a resolution and have a debate such as this on each
and every peacekeeping mission. My bill would not have stopped
the Prime Minister from sending a reconnaissance team to the area
in advance of any parliamentary approval, since the bill made
allocations for a short term intervention such as this to take place
without calling Parliament together just for that reason.
The resolution that I think should have come before the House
would have laid out the parameters of the mission beforehand, the
size, the cost and duration of the mission and the rules of
engagement. The criteria for peacekeeping missions are important.
For instance, on the rules of engagement, think back two short
years ago. United Nations troops had to stand by and we all saw
pictures of it on TV where they had to stand by and watch people
being butchered with machetes because the terms of engagement
were not to intervene.
(1655)
I can think of nothing worse than to be told to stand back and not
intervene when women and children are being slaughtered in front
of you. That must have been a horrible thing for those troops. The
question still arises for me. Will the same thing happen again?
There are problems too with the overall priorities of the
government. I note that today in Bosnia NATO announced that it
needs 30,000 troops to keep the peace in Bosnia. Our current
commitment is 1,000 troops in Bosnia right now. I am not sure
what the request will be of Canada in the days ahead. It may be
more than 1,000. It may be 2,000 or maybe none. We are not sure
because there is no organized overall effort to know where we
should send our troops and where the priorities should be.
There are other peacekeeping missions ongoing at the moment.
We are stretched thin in Bosnia, in Haiti, in the Golan, the Sinai,
Mozambique, Angola and Cambodia. We are here, there and
everywhere.
6391
As for priorities there are other crises in the world as well.
There are refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq. The problems in
the entire Sudan are enormous. They are tragic and they are
longstanding.
Why do we decide now to help Rwanda? Why is Rwanda and the
crisis there, a crisis which appears to be thankfully abating
somewhat, suddenly at the top of the list? I am not sure of the
answer but I will let people read into it what they will.
I am here to make a case for a more orderly approach to
important overseas commitments on behalf of Canada. On the
weekend we saw the situation change drastically. The Rwandan
government says it no longer wants help, it no longer wants the
intervention of Canadians on its soil.
Of course, the job of feeding people and saving lives, giving
medical assistance in the area continues to haunt us, so we want to
participate. Again though, the question is do we participate best
with troops. Is the $100 million that it will cost us in troops
allocation the best $100 million or could it be best channelled
through NGOs or other agencies? I hope those other options are
still being investigated even at this late hour.
I would like to suggest a few principles by which we should
conduct ourselves in Africa. This is where I would like to take a
little different tact perhaps. The hon. member from Maple Creek
went through some of the longstanding problems, but in the
solutions to Africa the first principle should be that we need a long
term solution. Four to six months is not going to fix anything in
Africa, I do not believe. The solution must be long term.
All other problems pale in the shadow of the great problem that
still exists in Africa. The genocide that occurred in Rwanda and
which still threatens millions today in the sub-Saharan area is as a
result of a much deeper problem. In a sense Africa is still the dark
continent today when it comes to this deep problem of tribalism. In
Rwanda, the crisis we are talking about today, one's loyalty is
primarily to one's own tribe or ethnic group. The loyalty to the
principles of truth, love, justice or any of the things that we have
come to accept as due course in Canada, there is not that loyalty
there.
I believe we cannot solve this problem in Rwanda with military
force. After we go in with the guns, and after we go in with the
protective unit of whatever kind, the moral problem will still exist.
It will be the same thing all over again. It has been going on, as my
hon. colleague mentioned, for 300 years. It bubbled up two years
ago. It is still there. It will still be there two, three, four or five
years down the road. Perhaps two months after we leave it will still
be there unless the people in Rwanda have a change of heart. It is
deeper than a military problem. It is actually a moral problem.
I do not want to pick exclusively on the Rwandans but they need
more than just military intervention. They need a change of heart
and a change of mind.
If it is a military mission alone that we are embarking on,
military intervention alone is doomed to failure. So why should
Canada be involved at all? We are involved because of our own
commitment to those principles that I mentioned earlier.
(1700 )
Our belief in the principles of justice, of love, of esteeming your
neighbour as yourself are principles that we gloss over in the
House. We take it for granted that tonight when we go home we
give vehicles that have the right of way the right of way. We hold
the door for others. We understand that someone's home is to be
respected and we do not intrude. We understand that someone's
choice for an occupation or political party to belong to are choices
that we respect.
We have a need to be involved because we take those principles
without forcing any cultural principles, any cultural nuances on the
Rwanda people. We need to try to somehow impart to them the
need for these principles of love, justice, understanding and
esteeming your neighbour as yourself. You do not have to get into
the religious side of that to know that is the principle on which
democracy rides. If we do not impart that somehow in our journeys
in Rwanda, it will not be a lasting peace and we will be back. It will
be another tragedy.
The second principle is to find a solution that involves justice in
the whole sub-Saharan part of Africa. The renewal strategy in
Rwanda must reflect Canada's own commitment to justice. If there
is ever to be lasting peace in Rwanda, or Zaire, or the Sudan or any
area that is undergoing these tragic ethnic wars, the world
community must one day come to grips with the idea that there are
murderers in Rwanda, there are people who practice genocide and
ethnic cleansing and one day they must be brought to justice.
It is not enough just to feed people in a camp or even when they
return to their villages. One day justice must be served and it must
be seen to be served. To this day we are still trying to bring justice
to those people who were involved in the holocaust. Fifty years
after the war, we understand it is so important that justice be served
and be seen to be served that if a murderer or someone involved in
genocide is found, we as an international community and as a
nation do not tolerate it.
If this short term intervention in Rwanda is just that and no
justice is served then I fear in two, three, four or ten years from
now it will erupt again in another holocaust. That is why justice
must be served.
Over the last couple of years no one wanted to get involved. The
groups who are involved in the refugee camps are known. It is
known that they use the refugees as shelter and as a human shield.
We all know it is happening. I am not saying it is an easy solution
but unless justice is done one day that cancer will come back and
6392
there will be another holocaust. You can count on it and 300 years
of history show that to be true.
The third principle is that although we are there and the world is
going there in some pretty good healthy numbers, well armed men
and women are going to go over to Africa to help deliver aid. It
must be a made in Africa solution to this made in Africa problem.
The four to six month intervention is to give breathing room. That
is a good idea. It has some value. Obviously we cannot allow
another holocaust so we are trying to do our bit. However, in the
long run it has to be a made in Africa solution.
In some ways I fear that we still have a bit of ``this is the white
man's burden'' in Africa attitude. We are going over there and
teach these guys how to do it. In the long term it will not work. We
have to do more than that.
I think of the example of South Africa. I heard an interesting
speaker a couple of weeks ago and I believe, Mr. Speaker, you did
as well, talk about some of the principles that brought about the
peaceful change from apartheid to a democratic, one person, one
vote rule in South Africa.
(1705 )
The national committee for reconciliation was formed. That is a
South African phrase which means that we have to come together
and find a solution together because we have to live together. An
all-party committee came together to write a new constitution. All
parties, all ethnics, all colours, all groups came together to solve
the problems in South Africa.
If I could encourage one last thing it would be a just and peaceful
Rwanda. It would be a society where all ethnicities, all races are
accepted in peaceful co-existence. But that must come from the
Rwandan people themselves. While we are there I hope we work to
bring about a national reconciliation or whatever name they want to
call it so they too can experience what South Africa has, which is a
modern day miracle. It is a peaceful solution to a seemingly
impossible situation.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Rosedale.
I am honoured to speak in this special parliamentary debate on
the Zaire mission, and Canada's strong guidance and direction at
the United Nations through the compassionate leadership of the
Prime Minister. Along with other members of Parliament, I support
our efforts 100 per cent and I am pleased that the foreign affairs
minister and the Minister of National Defence with the cabinet are
leading the way.
I quote from the a November 14 Chatham Daily News editorial:
``Canada's willingness to come to the aid of starving refugees in
Zaire once again demonstrates the outstanding leadership our
nation enjoys in international affairs''.
While the rest of the world responded slowly to the crisis,
Canada took a moral leadership role in generating international
military support for the refugees. By authorizing a mission to send
as many as 1,600 Canadian troops into what even United Nations'
officials have called a no man's land, Canada is spearheading this
multinational effort.
As members will agree, this is no exercise in public relations. In
addition to the formidable geographical problems, the interior of
Africa is quite possibly the most politically unstable place on earth.
Canada has a long and distinguished history as the world's
foremost peacekeeper. If our troops are effective in Zaire, it will
restore some of that respect we remembered and honoured during
last week's Remembrance Day ceremonies across the country. We
must remember this mission is different from most of Canada's
previous peacekeeping operations. Our soldiers' job will be
ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid.
There still remain more than 600,000 Hutu refugees in Zaire and
another 700,000 in Tanzania. I am pleased that the government is
identifying this as a humanitarian crisis, as it puts its hopes into
deeds. We cannot remain comfortable in the face of hunger and
injustice. I am proud of Canada's leading role in peacekeeping and
the fact that Chatham and Kent county in southwestern Ontario, the
real bread basket of our nation, are leading the way in this
humanitarian mission.
As Heather Bondy told me, maybe the only way we can come
close to understanding the suffering is to actively hope, then put
our hope into action and actually do something. Heather has been
involved in nearly a dozen third world projects, for example,
building bridges in the Dominican Republic and she started the first
food bank in the city of Chatham.
More than 22 tonnes of food has been committed to the effort in
Chatham. Eight area nurses and doctors are getting immunized in
preparation for the work overseas. Those donations are in addition
to 10 tonnes of wheat committed last week by W.G. Thompson &
Sons of Blenheim, one of the largest grain facilities in Canada. It
will be milled into flour by Dover Flour Mills of Chatham. The
company will donate soybean meal that can be mixed with canola
oil to make a protein rich nutritious meal. The canola oil has
already been donated by western Canada.
(1710)
Among other gifts committed to the group from Kent are
enormous beer tent style canopies that can serve as a shelter for a
medical mission; a tentative promise of enough grain to fill several
rail cars; small farm implements and seeds for planting quick
harvest grain; medical supplies from the Chatham hospitals and
6393
medical community and suitcase sized water purifiers from the
MIOX Corporation of New Mexico.
The Prime Minister's announcement yesterday about sending
Lieutenant-General Maurice Baril to Kigali is welcomed news
indeed. The $15 million in emergency aid to the refugees will also
help. The humanitarian aid financed by the Canadian International
Development Agency includes support for Canadian doctors,
nurses, water sanitation engineers and logistic experts organized by
the Canadian Red Cross, CARE Canada and Canadian Lutheran
World Relief. Canadian aid channelled through these and other
agencies as well as the United Nations will help immensely.
The Kent county group is hoping for a plane to carry its
equipment and supplies to Zaire. The Chatham airport has been
approved for landing by the city officials. Ten local citizens are
waiting to hear from the military on the ground and are ready to
move in as part of the national humanitarian effort.
I have contacted the Minister of National Defence and his
parliamentary secretary to inquire about the availability of a plane
for the huge number of items destined for Africa.
Those involved with the group in my riding include Dr. Eric
Williams of Lethbridge, Alberta who has lived in Tanzania for
many years and speaks several languages; nurse Candice Barlow,
currently the AIDS spokesperson for Kent county and head of the
public health department; nurse Kathy Van Basler a
medical-surgical nurse who has lived in the Middle East for several
years; nurse Joanne Gamble, wife of Dr. Brian Gamble, chief of
staff at the Chatham-Kent Health Alliance; health care worker John
Canna, a former U.S. marine; Marie-France Wilkinson, a French
teacher for 25 years. Her talents are crucial in this francophone
area.
Also involved is Steve Bradley, president and general manager
of the Best Western Wheel's Inn, who has been a board member of
the Chatham Food Bank and brings a farming background to help
in the sowing of seeds; Andy Morrissey, writer/reporter for the
Chatham Daily News. He has been asked to be the Canadian
correspondent and is young and willing to do what is needed to
help; Father Matthew George of Our Lady of Help Christian
Church in Wallaceburg. The priest has been collecting donations of
money and goods through the London Catholic Diocese. Since
Zaire and Rwanda are 90 per cent Catholic, he will offer much hope
to the people he will meet.
As well, Barry Fraser, the Kent county representative for the
Ontario ministry of agriculture has researched what seeds will be
appropriate in the troubled region.
Right now in Chatham a local businessman has donated the use
of an empty store for people to drop off donated items. A church in
Windsor has put the local group on the Internet so that they can
quickly access what information and items will be further needed.
I hope that a plane can land in Chatham to transport these caring
people and their supplies to help the multinational mission. We
know that more than one million refugees, of whom 60 per cent are
women and children, have been caught between warring parties.
Starting last week, large numbers have been crossing the boarder
from Zaire into Rwanda and urgently need food, medicine and
shelter. I support and applaud the efforts of my constituents and
those of all Canadians in this effort. Heather Bondy and I agree that
as Canadians we are a people that believe life is either a daring
adventure of hope or it is nothing.
(1715 )
I strongly urge the Minister of National Defence and military
officials to work with the Kent County group to transport supplies
to the war torn region. They are ready. They are working hard.
They care.
Donations from churches, business and area residents have been
pouring in from the city of Chatham, as well as Sarnia, London,
Watforth, Petrolia and other areas. People are responding to the
terrible ordeal being experienced by the people in Zaire.
In conclusion, my constituents and I salute Heather Bondy and
her team for bringing this humanitarian effort together in my
riding. I also salute our troops and their leaders, who will help to
stabilize the ground so that aid efforts can begin successfully. I also
praise the work of our Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, indeed the cabinet and
our caucus for leading the way in the world once again. Together
we can make it happen.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today to support the government's
initiative to enter into the Rwanda crisis and the Zaire crisis in such
a positive and constructive manner.
We heard the Prime Minister's statement in the House today.
From that we clearly understood the background to the taking of
this initiative. We also understood that this initiative is being taken
in circumstances of the utmost responsibility and of the utmost
gravity, both with respect to the nature of the situation and the
remedies that are being called upon to address it.
We are told that this will be a multilateral force commanded by
Canadians. We are told that it is supported by a United Nations
resolution. We are told that it falls under article 7 of the United
Nations charter, which gives the largest possible mandate to those
forces intervening in Rwanda to act in a way which will ensure the
success of their mission.
We are told that there are clear rules of engagement and clear
rules of command. Even the Americans, who are often hesitant to
be involved in this type of situation, have accepted that this is the
6394
type of situation in which they must participate, and participate in
collaboration with our Canadian forces.
We are told that there will be no action without the security of
understanding the reaction of the countries involved on the ground.
It seems to me, therefore, when we consider the situation in the
House today that the questions we must ask ourselves are is it in
Canada's interest to undertake this mission? Has the changed
situation on the ground made the whole idea irrelevant? Do we
have the resources, both human and materiel, to accomplish this
undertaking?
In speaking of Canada's interest, or our interest in Canadians
undertaking this mission, I first would like to dwell on the Prime
Minister's comments about the humanitarian background for this
mission. It seems to me that we, as Canadians, who are fortunate
enough to live in this country, recognize the nature of the
interdependent world in which we live. We owe it to ourselves to
recognize the need to act in circumstances which require a
humanitarian response to tragedies of the magnitude and of the
type which we are facing.
I can remember some time ago in my riding of Rosedale
speaking to some young Rwandan refugees who had come to
Canada. They were living in Montreal but they had come down to
speak to some disadvantaged youths in Rosedale. We were working
together on a common project. We had young people working
together under a group called the Environmental Video Exchange.
These youths were putting together a very interesting international
community response to a lot of our international problems. The
interaction of these youth from Rwanda with our own young men
and women in Rosedale was very instructive. It was very clear
from talking to them that if they were here in the House today they
would be reacting much like the majority of the members of the
House. That is to say, they would be supporting the government in
this initiative.
Canadians at every level, in every walk of life, I believe
sincerely want to be of constructive help in circumstances where
they are able to do so.
(1720 )
I strongly believe, from having listened to the Prime Minister
today and the minister's statements and having had an opportunity
to review with some of the officials the circumstances of this
mission, that this is an appropriate time to do exactly what the
immediate initial response of the Canadians would be, which
would be to stand up and say ``let us take this, let us run with it and
let us make it count in the world''.
I listened with great pride to what the Prime Minister said about
the reaction of the international community and the reaction he
received from around the world, from small nations, great nations
and the United Nations.
I had the opportunity to travel to Europe last week with a group
of other members of Parliament from all parties. We happened to
be in Germany and had breakfast with a group of German
parliamentarians, members of their defence committee. They told
us: ``Do you know what our television is telling us here in
Germany? Canada is doing what we in Europe should be doing.
Canada is taking the lead in a way that we should be taking the lead
and are not able to take the lead''. Perhaps it is for the reason the
Prime Minister mentioned in his speech that there were problems
with the Europeans because of a colonial past or otherwise.
However, the fact of the matter is people in other countries are
seeing that this country is willing to take the lead in a humanitarian
response but also in another manner that is very important to us in
terms of our vital strategic interest in this country. We are taking a
lead in supporting and reinforcing the effectiveness of the United
Nations as an instrument to ensure that problems like this cannot
develop in the future.
We have often debated both in the foreign affairs committee and
in the defence committee the need for this country to be a strong
supporter of the United Nations system not just because of a
humanitarian interest but because of the vital interest of ourselves
as Canadians to have a strong, international, multilateral capacity
to respond to problems of this nature. Unfortunately they are not
becoming less frequent in the world but in today's world for
reasons which relate to the end of the cold war and shifting
alliances and, in some ways, to the insecurity that is building in
various parts of the world they risk becoming more frequent.
The need for a strong multilateral United Nations system which
can respond to this type of situation is more important than ever
before. What this initiative by the government is doing today is
strengthening that system and sending a signal to the world that
yes, the UN can work, yes there are countries that are willing to
work within the UN system and make it work. That is a very
important matter in the interests of all Canadians. I think we have
to recognize the need for that.
I would like to point out that in so doing we are addressing the
problems of a changing situation. We recognize that this situation
is changing but it is very clear from the consultations with our
authorities that General Baril will be able to deal with that and
recognize that this is a new situation that has to be addressed hour
by hour, but that it is not the time now, merely because there is a
change in the situation, to back down.
When we are considering this matter in the House as members of
Parliament, we obviously have to take the responsibility of asking
whether we have the resources to enable us to do the job. As
members of Parliament, we have consulted and have been informed
by officials of the defence department and the foreign affairs
department that we do have the necessary resources and that this is
not some mission that we are undertaking in any irresponsible
manner. On the contrary, it is something which we have the
6395
capacity to do, the ability to deliver and we will ensure that we are
able to do the job.
Those are the conditions which, united, make me believe that it
is important for us to participate in this mission.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I would like to say something which has no direct
impact on this mission but which, I believe, has to do with its
importance. This is the third time we are debating the idea of a
similar mission in this House. We have troops in Bosnia, we have
troops in Haiti, and now we will have troops in Rwanda. Why are
we there?
The Prime Minister referred to the reason in his speech before
the House this afternoon. One of the reasons we are there is that we
are a bilingual country.
We are a country of diversity with a tradition of tolerance, with a
tradition in the world which, based on our own Canadian
experience, makes ours a country particularly suited to undertaking
this kind of mission.
(1725)
I think that we can be proud, as members of Parliament, of the
fact that our government has decided to undertake this mission. I
think that we can be proud, as Canadian citizens, of the fact that our
society allows us to undertake such a mission.
In conclusion, I think that, when the history of the development
of international co-operation is told, this mission will be an
example of the beginning of new form of international
co-operation, and Canada will be the country that will have set the
example of this new form of co-operation.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member for Rosedale a question after this brief
commentary.
He indicates he would support UN participation and he supports
this peacekeeping mission to Zaire. I commend him for that and I
have no problem with that. My question is related to the armed
forces we have, the role they play and how it just seems to be
always a shifting and moving target. It is almost like how the
finance minister talks about his deficit elimination tactics.
If we are to support peacekeeping efforts, if we are to support a
military, why did the Liberal government, of which he is a member,
reduce the defence budget and continue to support peacekeeping
missions around the world? As my colleague from Red Deer said in
the first speech on this issue today, every foreign affairs minister in
the House of Commons says this is for a set period of time and we
will have that problem solved. Why was the budget cut? What
criterion does the member from Rosedale feel the government
should set out for itself to define the role of this humanitarian
mission? Under what terms and conditions will this member then
feel it has been a success or a failure? If we do not know as
members of Parliament what the terms are, how do we know if it is
a success or not?
Mr. Graham: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question and I would like to go back to the point that the hon.
member for Red Deer often makes about the requirement for a set
period of time for these missions. I have heard the member refer to
that in our committee and I respect the member's opinion on these
issues a great deal.
The hon. member also made a very valid point in saying these
are shifting times. One of the things you have to have in these
circumstances is a certain amount of flexibility, as we have seen in
the United States. In Bosnia we set a time for a certain period of
time and we are willing to stay for another year. One does not say
we are willing to stay for a longer period of time because the
mission is a total failure. One is staying because the mission is a
success and it is important that we give the flexibility to be able to
stay.
I think where this mission will be different from other missions
is that there will be a clear ability to say when this mission has been
successful when in fact the majority of the population has been able
to move out of Zaire back into Rwanda, and in circumstances
where it can be settled in Rwanda and the militia in Zaire is not able
to harass the population or prevent it from returning to its homes.
That is a very much more settled form of a framework it seems to
me of a problem, and one which can reasonably be dealt with in a
short period of time than the much more complicated case of
re-establishing a civil society in a country like the former
Yugoslavia. But that is not to say that the establishment of a civil
society in Rwanda will not be an important issue for ensuring that
this type of situation does not repeat itself in the future.
In that area I would suggest that there is where we again as
Canadians have very responsible programs in place. We have the
Canadian International Development Agency. One of the things we
are doing in Rwanda is financing a reinvigoration of its justice
system. We are trying to give its people and help them develop
themselves the basis of a civil society. It is clearly not something
which we can do for them. That would be another form of new
colonialism. It is something that we have to enable them to do
through help in education, by providing to them judicial instruction
and other instruments that Canadian society values and enabling
them to choose for themselves and apply it. I personally am not
one of those who believes that after the end of this mission there
will be the possibility of an eruption of civil violence in the
communities of Rwanda. There is a civil authority in Rwanda. It
needs beefing up. It can be made better and we can help them in
doing that.
6396
(1730)
That will not require troops. That will not require the
continuation of this mission. It will require continued Canadian
aid. I am glad to hear from the government that it intends to do that.
Third, let me say that the member points out the reduction in the
defence budget. I will not dwell long on the seeming inconsistency
in his position on this, given the fact that his party has strongly
advocated greater reductions in government expenditures.
It is true we have had to reduce the defence budget. We have
reduced the aid budget. We have reduced the budgets of every
department in the country. I believe we are reducing them
responsibly. We have reduced them in a way that enables our
military to come to us and say: ``Yes, we can do this mission. Yes,
we have the capacity to do it properly''. That is why I am willing to
support it today.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
want to tell you first that I will share my time with the member for
Verchères. It is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate on the
deployment of a UN multinational force. As my colleagues who
spoke before me told the House, the Bloc Quebecois supports and
welcomes this Canadian initiative.
My colleague from Rosedale told us that it is the third or fourth
time we hold such a debate. Every time there is a debate about
sending Canadian troops to hot spots, we are always confronted to
the same question: Are Canadians and Quebecers in favour of
sending these Canadian troops abroad?
In our ridings, opinions are divided. Some people are radically
opposed, most often for financial reasons, while others strongly
defend the idea, usually on humanitarian grounds.
In the February 1995 budget, the Canadian government cut all
subsidies to non-governmental organizations specifically set up to
show Canadians and Quebecers how important international
co-operation is. I think that, in doing so, the government has made
things much harder to understand. People see that the government
is making decisions it should explain, but that it has stopped
providing information.
I think it is essential that Canada be present in these disaster
areas, for they are indeed disaster areas. Everybody agrees that the
fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR have changed
the world. It is one thing to recognize that the world has changed,
but it is another to realize that the notion of security contains
elements we had been previously unaware of.
Nowadays, when we talk about security, our security, the
security of Quebecers and Canadians, is at stake every time some
disaster occurs. I will list a few, such as population migrations
caused by all kinds of situations.
(1735)
It is estimated that 50 million men, women and children are
displaced, have left their home, their homeland, their town or city
due to tensions, wars, etc.
At the recent FAO summit on food, it was said that 800 million
people are undernourished. The summit made the long term
commitment of reducing world hunger by half within 20 years.
Underdevelopment, ethnic wars, overpopulation are issues of
concern to us. Is the planet going to be able to sustain continuing
demographic growth? I say that all these issues concern us because
now and again our constituents ask us: ``Do you not think that too
many immigrants and refugees are allowed into Canada?''
If we refuse to do something about these problems, if Canada
does not intervene in disaster areas, Canadians and Quebecers will
not be able to use the same logic and say: ``We should not let
refugees in''. Refugees are the immediate product of these events
and we are all concerned.
We are so concerned that increasingly, within the international
community, it is recognized that ethnic wars, civil wars within a
country's boundaries, give rise to an obligation to interfere. Ten or
fifteen years ago, this would have been unthinkable. Now
international law is starting to say that whenever there are civil
wars where the most fundamental rights of people are denied, it is
the duty, not only the right, but the duty of the international
community to take action.
Let us go back to the situation in Rwanda. How did the
international community address this problem? As early as 1992 or
1993, following some missions in the great lakes region, the
International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic
Development, based in Montreal, had warned the secretary general
of the United Nations that something was brewing that had all the
characteristics of a genocide.
The international community did nothing. It waited for the crisis
to explode in 1994. What happened of course is that between
500,000 and 1,000,000 people were killed. Naturally, what
followed was the exodus of refugees, and bordering countries, like
Zaire and Burundi, suffered the consequences.
Two years after the end of the genocide, we now realize that the
international community was not very active in implementing
solutions. The refugee situation in Zaire had to become explosive
before the international community started to wonder if it should
6397
act, and I want to commend the Canadian initiative, which finally
stirred the international community to action.
However, we are always putting out fires. Instead of preventing,
instead of making sure the developing countries get out of their
underdevelopment, instead of investing in durable human
development, education, health, democratisation, democratic
governments, human rights and civilian societies, the international
community continues to invest billions of dollars in defense
budgets and merely tosses crumbs to help developing countries.
(1740)
Let us take Canada, for example, because it is the same as in the
other countries. Canada allocates about $2 billion to its official
development assistance and a budget of about $10 billion to
defence, as if nothing had happened in the early 1990s, as if the
concept of security had remained the same and was only related to
a military aspect.
So, the international community must get out of its torpor.
Permanent mechanisms must be put in place, not to impose peace,
but to ensure that, in countries where these tensions exist, people
can gradually regain hope and can develop in a framework that
respects them. At that time, we will stop putting out fires, because
we will have put a stop, perhaps, to underdevelopment.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker,
since this aspect will not be covered in any great depth in my
speech, allow me to commend the expertise of my hon. colleague
from Louis-Hébert in international affairs.
I completely agree with the last part of his remarks, which I
caught and which dealt with prevention. The image was quite
forceful. When $2 billion is spent on international assistance, while
national defence is funded to the tune of $10 billion, this clearly
indicates that, in this area as in many others, a more curative than
preventive approach is being favoured. In the end, the cost is
higher, and, in this case, we are not talking about money, but
human lives.
I would like to say a few words about this multinational force
Canada will be leading and which will be deployed. In Zaire, it has
already started providing assistance to refugees, many of whom are
now returning to Rwanda, which is a major development that has
taken place since the creation of a multinational force was
announced.
The Bloc's position, as stated earlier by our leader, is clear: We
support this mission designed to allow refugees to safely return
from Zaire and ensure that assistance will be provided to these
people. Over the weekend, some very poignant images were
broadcast. Some I saw myself, but one in particular was described
to me; I did not actually see it. Just imagining the scene makes us
realize how terrible a tragedy this is. Following an attack, a portion
of the slaughter was shown, and there was this little child looking
around him, but all he could see was dead bodies. There were not
many people on hand to provide assistance to the child, who was
apparently rescued later. Such pictures cannot leave us indifferent.
At some point, someone had to take the initiative so that
something could be done in Zaire, because everyone was leaving it
up to the others. Everyone was waiting for everyone, including
France and the United States. No intervention was being made and
we were faced with a situation that could still get worse, because
even the presence of a multinational force will not eliminate the
causes of the conflict. Far from it. This is a potentially explosive
situation and there could be a great deal of damage.
One only needs to remember what happened in Rwanda not too
long ago to realize that the situation is very complex and is far from
being resolved as regards the cohabitation of the Tutsis and Hutus.
So, we congratulate Canada for taking the initiative regarding
this issue by getting together a multinational force and sending it
with a UN supported mandate. Of course, some adjustment will
have to be made. It will be made on Thursday, at an important
meeting, because the population that was living further north in
Zaire is now in motion. It is believed that 400,000 Hutus are
already back in Rwanda and that another 100,000 will have made it
to that country over the next few hours.
(1745)
However, according to estimates made by NGO observers over
there, some 700,000 refugees are still scattered, including more
than 100,000 who are headed to western Zaire, who may have to
quickly go to Rwanda. These people often find themselves in zones
that are much less safe. A humanitarian corridor will have to be
provided for them also. The mandate provides for the creation of a
safety corridor for these people, and for bringing them the basics,
such as food and medication.
In spite of the fact that 500,000 people are about to go back to
Rwanda, the mandate remains. The intervention is still justified.
Even though it is difficult to negotiate with the authorities of Zaire
and Rwanda, as it is always complex, there will nevertheless be
observers on the ground, especially NGOs that are there to help the
people who still need help. Those observers know how to deal with
the real situation and can make very specific observations.
Of course, there will be complex things to settle to ensure rapid
intervention. In spite of Canada's commitment to send a force,
there are still a few obstacles to overcome that will need to be dealt
with at an important meeting on Thursday.
Whereas we can deplore somewhat how slow the process is,
things do not always move as fast as we would like them to in this
kind of intervention. A further step has already been made at least,
since observers are already on site. More specifically, General
6398
Baril is there with a team that will grow in the days and weeks to
come.
There is no ambiguity about our support. It is there, even though
we, as well as the government, might have questions on the
duration of the operations. There is some question about a more
permanent solution, because obviously nobody expects the
political problem there to be settled in four months. We know that
we are getting involved in a very complex mission that might
certainly last longer than the four months contemplated. The
United Nations could then take over. We will see.
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has already stated that there will be a
report. It has been agreed that a report will be submitted in early
January. We will see what comes out of it.
I want to mention it, because it deals with a question often asked
by some of our constituents. True, this type of mission costs
money. However, as citizens of a relatively rich country, living in a
very different context, we have the duty to show solidarity with the
people who are living in utterly unacceptable conditions and facing
a human drama which is really out of the ordinary, compared to
what we see in our everyday lives.
The $100 million contribution that was mentioned comes to a
mere $4 a year per capita. On a daily basis, it does not represent
such a huge contribution, such a huge sacrifice to make in order to
help those people and to take part in this operation, which will
hopefully, because of the troops we are sending over there, make
for an international perspective a lot closer to the real situation.
I think everybody, including the Government of Canada, wishes
for an international conference on the situation in the great lakes
region of Africa. Such a conference could be another step in the
right direction. Meanwhile, in the sort term, there are some needs
to be met, especially in terms of humanitarian aid. Safe corridors
have to be established for the people returning back home.
There is one more thing I want to mention. I want to salute our
people and our soldiers sent over there. When people enlist in the
armed forces, they expect one day to be called to take part in such a
mission. Today, in the case of Canada, it is well known that when
you enlist in the armed forces, you will probably take part in
peacekeeping missions because, to our great fortune, we are not
directly involved in domestic or foreign conflicts.
(1750)
This means that our interventions are primarily civilian in nature
or part of UN operations or other types of intervention by a
multinational force led by Canada. We pay tribute to those who
take part in such missions. It will be difficult for them and for their
families, but such is reality. This is a choice they have made.
We pay tribute to their courage and hope that this operation will
allow the Canadian armed forces to restore their reputation, which
was tarnished by events, however isolated, in Somalia. I think that
this will be an opportunity to point up the fact that the very great
majority of our soldiers are doing extraordinary work and that they
are deserving of greater attention.
This will provide an opportunity to realize that they are making a
contribution that they will remember all their lives, just as those
they help will remember it. We support them and we wish them the
best of luck.
I repeat that we support this mission. Certain questions have
been raised by colleagues during debate, but I do not think that this
level of detail is appropriate when operations on this scale are
involved. We wish our troops the best of luck and we hope that the
government will keep us informed of developments, should there
be any change of mandate. I am certain that the ministers involved
and the government will do so.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with
the hon. member for Ottawa West.
I want to speak in favour of the mission to Rwanda, Zaire and the
rest of central Africa. The world is watching the situation on the
African continent. In the last number of days over 400,000 refugees
have crossed back into Rwanda in the Goma area. In the next few
days over 150,000 will return to Rwanda.
Fighting, starvation, dehydration and disease are running
rampant. The situation must be addressed. Canada has taken the
position that it must step forward to help in a humanitarian fashion.
Our history in peacekeeping puts us in a good position to be the
leader, with the world showing its confidence in Canada to lead the
way.
We must remember what this mission encompasses. As the
Prime Minister indicated earlier, the enemies are suffering, pain,
disease and hunger. We need to offer aid.
The sub-Saharan region is in great need of help on a long term
basis. There are some non-government agencies in my riding of
Victoria-Haliburton similar to a small group of Christians who
run HAVE, which stands for Help A Village Effort, that operate out
of the county of Haliburton.
This group sends money and people every year to help people to
obtain clean water by drilling wells. They supply clean drinking
water and all that goes with it: sanitation, hygiene, nutrition and a
different way of life. They teach how to treat sickness and how to
avoid disease. They teach people to read the instructions on a
simple water pump. This is a major problem in an area with little or
no educational system. These people will continue to try to help in
the sub-Sahara region.
6399
I had the honour to attend a conference in 1996 in Washington.
It was called ``A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the
Environment''. The major sponsor was the National Geographic
Society. This conference, ironically enough, pinpointed the exact
problem we are dealing with today.
The most successful missions to the sub-Sahara are small and
include, first, a banking system that lends small amounts to farmers
in Africa. The majority are women by the way. They have a huge
success rate, with a 99 per cent payback record.
Second is a seed program for farmers, with training by the
Canadian agricultural community, to help the African communities
obtain knowledge in modern agricultural techniques.
Third is programs in education on basic reading for instructions
in order to read labels and symbols, or language training for
sanitation and attending to basic human needs.
(1755 )
We must take this opportunity to step in and lead the way. The
world is not only watching with hope, it is counting on Canada to
show the United Nations' countries that our intervention is for the
long term building of a self-sustaining country in Africa.
There are many reasons to send aid to the sub-Sahara. There is
only one, fear of the unknown, that holds other people back. Some
countries, because of their colonial history, are unable to help.
Canada is able to help.
In conclusion, I wish to offer my support to this mission and
hope it is the first step in helping the sub-Sahara and all of Africa to
become self-sustaining.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I know
why the hon. member supports this mission and I accept that.
However, I would like to know how it is that our peacekeeping
forces can be sent all around the world, ad infinitum, without a
finite end to these efforts? I am talking about the bigger picture.
I suggest that our troops are only able, by their own admission,
to take on two peacekeeping ventures at a time. This is a third one.
They have two other commitments in Haiti and Bosnia. Are we not
stretching these troops out too much? Are we not imposing a
greater burden on them than we should be? How sensitive are we to
their needs? We were told by the military that it only has the
capacity, the money, the troops and the equipment to handle two
peacekeeping missions at a time.
How does the member balance the military's admission of that
fact with his support for this humanitarian effort? It will have to be
measured on what criterion we think is just to make sure that the
refugees are safe, have food and the basic necessities and that the
rebels will not fire on them? How does the member rationalize us
supporting this in light of the fact that our troops are being
stretched to the limit right now?
Mr. O'Reilly: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary
Centre on his intervention. He has allowed me to speak a little
longer about the strength that I have and feel as a member of the
defence committee. I know that the Canadian troops are the best
trained in the world, have the best attitude and have the highest
degree of commitment to anything that they are assigned to do.
I believe our troops can handle this as they have handled other
missions and as they continue to handle missions in places like
Haiti, an area where bilingualism is a great asset. Our peacekeepers
are well trained and well equipped. They are able to handle the
missions that they are assigned. They handle them with the honour
and dignity that comes with the strong history of the Canadian
peacekeeping force.
The Canadian peacekeeping forces are known worldwide for
their generosity, their support and their humanitarian ways. I think
they will continue to do that. I would like to think that there is
money in the defence budget to be able to handle that. I put my
trust in the minister of defence that we have the capacity to do that.
I put my confidence in the fact that the military has indicated to me
that it is able to handle this mission. It has the money, the
resources, the know-how and the ability. It is very anxious to treat
this problem where it is. It does not want to let it spread to other
areas.
The members of the armed forces do not want only to be
peacekeepers, they want to teach people how to live a better life
and how to sustain themselves for the long term. That in kind helps
Canada sustain itself by not having these people on the shores of
other nations in boat loads and so forth. I think that is very
important. I believe our peacekeepers are able to handle this and
that there is a budget available or we would not be sending them.
However, it is necessary, even if we have to scrape and scrounge
somewhere, to ensure that this mission is carried out to the
betterment of the whole world.
(1800 )
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I would like to pursue this a little
further. We were told when troops were sent to Haiti that they
would be there for six months. An extension would be asked for.
We do not know how long the troops are going on this
humanitarian effort. So when I say ad infinitum, I want to know
why parliamentarians are not given more information and why the
government or the minister of defence does not establish what our
role is in terms of the military and defence. Are we peacekeepers or
are we more than that? Let us tool ourselves up for that.
It is very frustrating in my opinion to see us committing and
stretching ourselves out and not really getting the recognition and
6400
the credit that we could still be getting even though we do have the
best troops in Canada.
How long will this be for now? Why are the troops not out of
Haiti?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member has 30 seconds.
Mr. O'Reilly: Madam Speaker, I obviously cannot answer the
question in 30 seconds because I would have to go into such detail.
No one plans a war. No one plans to have 400,000 people cross a
border in one day. Nobody plans on training people and how long
that will take. That is something we react to.
I am sure the member for Calgary Centre was very supportive of
our rapid deployment capabilities, as he supports this mission
which he has indicated. He knows that no conflict can have a time
limit. It depends on the need of the people at the time.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak on this motion. No
matter how many times we are confronted with the armed conflicts
of the world, the decision to send Canadian forces into the dangers
of civil strife is a most difficult one to make.
Many Canadians are rightfully concerned about the risks of
peacekeeping in this particular situation. But I believe that as
Canadians we must remember how fortunate we are to live in the
country we do, that the majority of citizens of this planet are not so
fortunate. The decisions we make today affect our constituents, our
fellow Canadians as well as people beyond our borders around the
world.
The age old question is am I my brother's keeper? I am very
proud of my country, that we have decided yes we are.
Globalization is much more than a question of using the resources
of developing countries, the poorest areas of the world, and seeing
them as customers for our trade.
Globalization also recognizes that the deprivation of the
majority of the world's population is not only their problem but our
problem. Causes of strife like starvation, lack of basic health care,
lack of the ability to grow, produce, consume and distribute your
own food are problems for the entire world and not only for the
people who suffer from them.
We know that around the world at any time there are a million
people who want to come to Canada. One of our biggest obligations
in the world is to help make it possible for people to live safely
with some basic standard of living in their own country as well.
The question we are debating today goes to the very heart of
whether a country like Canada, which has been chosen several
times by the United Nations as the best country in the world in
which to live, should have set an example for the world to follow or
should have turned its back.
As in the past, we have to decide whether to act to stop the
suffering in the great lakes region of Africa or to ignore the cry for
help. I am immensely proud that we decided not to walk away and
that our Prime Minister and our government recognized the unique
leadership role that Canada could play in this. I am extremely
proud that we played that role very well. Generations of Canadians
have worked to build in this part of the world a prosperous and just
society based on fundamental democratic principles. We also have
built a reputation as being one of the foremost promoters of these
values around the world. And the way that we have responded to
this crisis I believe has sent a clear message to the world about the
kind of country Canada is and why we are looked up to as an
example of a responsible international country.
(1805)
[Translation]
In so doing, we will be showing the refugees in the great lakes
region of Africa that we are concerned about what happens to them.
We will reaffirm Canada's lead role as an intermediary, and will be
maintaining our country's reputation as a negotiator and
peacemaker.
Given the region's history, clear and prompt action by the
international community is necessary, if we are to avoid the
situation in the great lakes deteriorating into a repeat of the bloody
massacres in Rwanda two years ago.
[English]
In recent years Canada has called on the international
community to work together to deploy peacekeeping forces more
rapidly. A couple of weeks ago the Minister of Foreign Affairs
spoke of the need for increased peace building and reconciliation in
the relations between countries.
Canada's leading an active role in this mission will ensure that
the plea for help from the displaced people of this region will not
go unanswered.
Our involvement will open critical lifelines of food and
medicine to the refugees and the injured civilians. It will help
people return to their homes and settle in some measure of safety
and security.
Our mission is clear. It is to ensure that much needed aid reaches
the afflicted civilians of the region and to provide safe passage to
those refugees returning to their communities.
In taking the leadership in both the establishment and the
mandate of the multinational troops, Canada will once again set an
example to the world that as a nation we will not shirk from our
duty in this world. We will help restore peace to a region that has
suffered for too long and we will continue to fight for the dignity
and safety of the less fortunate citizens of our world.
6401
This is an evolving situation. None of us can predict exactly
how it will evolve. But I am confident that we have sent troops
who are trained, capable and who will for the first time be able
to use their specialized training for this kind of situation.
The member for Calgary spoke about how often we do this
without getting recognition or credit. That is one strengths of our
country, to do what is right and to do it in the most difficult of
situations. We have demonstrated time and time again that for a
country of our size, with our resources, we are able to make a
global contribution far beyond what could reasonably be expected
of us.
I say again I am very proud of what the government and the
Prime Minister have done. I know we all wish those troops being
sent to this very troubled part of the world our best wishes for a
successful and safe mission.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member a question which arose today when I
spoke to a group of over 100 university students in the West Block.
They were here viewing Parliament and how it works. In the
question and answer session one asked me: ``How come we are
spending so much money in other countries when we have such a
high level of child poverty here in Canada and when we have our
own problems here in Canada? Yet it seems we send more money
elsewhere and do not look after our own here in Canada''. I gave
my answer and I would like to know how the member would have
answered that question.
(1810)
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, my answer to that frankly is
that tonight in Canada there are not hundreds of thousands of
children in danger of dying. That is what is happening in the great
lakes region of Africa. We are dealing with poverty of children at
home. It is a desperate situation in our country and it is getting
worse, not better.
I think the meeting which our minister is going to have with
provincial ministers in the very near future is going to bear results
along those lines.
However, there is no such thing as problems that belong to only
one country anymore. A problem of this magnitude, of this
severity, affects Canada and affects the developed and rich
countries of the world. That is why we have an obligation to be
there and to prevent the kind of suffering and death that would
happen without our being there.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, does the hon. member know what
the exact mandate is in Zaire? Does the member know how long the
troops are going to be there? Does the member know what the
ultimate costs are going to be? Under what terms and conditions
will she consider this mission to be a success?
I understand the humanitarian aspect of it, but now there seems
to be a lot of controversy over whether we should even be going.
This was a Canadian initiative by the Canadian government, by the
Prime Minister himself, and all of a sudden the borders were
opened and a lot of the prisoners were let go. Now they are on hold
and there was the big debate on Thursday.
It is nice and wonderful to be saying that we care and we want to
help, which we do, but on what basis will the member consider this
a success and still in light of the problems we have here at home,
why do we not address some of those?
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, I could read the member a long
list if I had several hours of what we are accomplishing here at
home. Those university students the member spoke to earlier today
are a very good example of how well we are managing to educate
our young people. It is just one small example.
Obviously the situation in the great lakes region is evolving by
the hour. That is why it is so important that we have people there on
the ground who can keep us apprised of the changing situation.
Even when the Prime Minister took his initiative last week I do not
think any of us could have predicted the massive movement of
refugees that has happened since then.
Has that return of people to their homes out of the refugee
camps, has the break-up of the domination and terrorization of
those refugees by forces ended as a result of Canada's initiative? I
hope so. I would love to take credit for it.
I do not think any of us know how that situation is going to
evolve in the next 24 hours, much less in the next week. If the
member from Calgary wants a guarantee every time he takes a step
out of his front door on what is going to happen to him on that day,
I think he is living in the wrong world.
We are there to do something extremely important, to adapt with
our allies as the situation develops and to make the best possible
use of our resources without undue risk to our personnel.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the House in the debate on the motion presented by the Liberal government. It is vitally important, given the situation that exists in the great lakes region of
The situation in eastern Zaire and on the border with Rwanda
changes hourly and it is now important to act with great speed in
order to save lives, while ensuring that our soldiers will be able to
work within the safest framework possible.
6402
(1815)
At this point, I would like to state that it was normal for us to
decide to become involved. I feel somewhat the same as the United
Nations special envoy to the region, Raymond Chrétien. We could
not have remained insensitive, inactive, watching all of this
barbarity without taking action, without losing part of our souls in
the process.
Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois applauds the motion finally
presented to us today. The media has been giving us daily reports
on the deterioration of the situation in eastern Zaire. Since then, the
Bloc Quebecois has asked many questions of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs in order to encourage him to take the initiative at
the international level, but all of the responses came back to the
idea that Canada was prepared to offer its assistance, but refused
further involvement.
It may be that the internal situation currently prevailing in
Quebec and in Canada, in which the Liberal government is actually
already fully launched into its pre-election campaign, could
explain why, finally, the government has decided to go ahead on
this.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to believe that current initiatives
are being taken for humanitarian reasons and to promote
international peace, not for the kind of petty political motives that
we have come to expect from the federal Liberals.
We must point out that Canada did not acquire its reputation on
the international scene by simply engaging in trade, as the Liberal
government keeps suggesting.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested earlier that the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be
given daily progress reports on the situation. How can we believe
him, since this is the same minister who took advantage of the fact
that members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade were away on a mission in Europe to sneak
legislation through the House, Bill C-61 which implements a free
trade agreement between Canada and Israel?
How can we believe the minister, since the Government of
Canada took this initiative regarding Zaire without even taking the
trouble to reach members of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade abroad? And now the government
would have us believe it is interested in their views and in
providing information for committee members. This is outright
hypocrisy. In its famous red book, the Liberal Party said, however,
that: ``A Liberal government will also expand the rights of
Parliament to debate major Canadian foreign policy initiatives,
such as the deployment of peacekeeping forces, and the rights of
Canadians to regular and serious consultations on foreign policy
issues''.
To some extent, the debate we are having today in this House is a
farce, since obviously one cannot disagree with this kind of
initiative or mission.
In fact, is the government really concerned about the opinion of
this Parliament? Unlike what happens in Europe, the government is
under no obligation to take into consideration the views of
parliamentarians. And even if it were, considering the British
parliamentary system, it is clear that the government is formed by
the majority in Parliament, which means that consulting Parliament
to give some democratic legitimacy to these international
initiatives is just window dressing.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs also said that Canada had
shown political initiative by mobilizing the international
community around the problem in the great lakes region.
I would ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to be a little more
modest, because the initiative did not come from the Canadian
government, as he claims, but from France, which for many days
had tried to pressure the international community to set up this
intervention force. However, France was disqualified from the start
by its colonial past, and that is when the Canadian government took
the initiative to lead the current mission to Zaire.
And this is par for the course. We warned the government in
recent months that the situation was deteriorating in Burundi. And
the government replied: ``Of course we take note of your comments
and we are very concerned, but we want the community of African
countries to deal with the situation that is now developing in
Burundi'', with predictable results, which means it is always more
costly to intervene after the fact than to take preventive action.
(1820)
But the government did not understand that. It waited until the
situation deteriorated to take the ``initiative'', as the Minister of
Foreign Affairs said this morning. It is too late. Many people have
already died in the region of the African great lakes, a situation
which we could probably have prevented if we had acted earlier, as
the Bloc Quebecois has already been suggesting for several
months.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois believes it was high time the
Canadian government finally took the decision to adopt France's
position and unite the international community so that it would not
ignore the situation in central Africa. Let us not forget that since
the assassination, in 1994, of the presidents of Rwanda and
Burundi, we have witnessed, dumbfounded, petrified, helpless and
paralysed, the massacres of civilian populations so huge that it
defies the imagination.
In the last two years, the international community has not really
done anything to find a durable solution to the situation which now
prevails in central Africa. Yet, the massacres were only the
beginning of the plight of those civilian populations who had to
flee to neighbouring countries and were crammed into refugee
6403
camps, some of which held hundreds of thousands of people.
Mugunga, the largest refugee camp in the world, had more than
400,000 refugees.
A representative of the Department of National Defence told us
this morning that the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees has estimated that 500,000 refugees
are headed back to Rwanda. You will certainly admit that this
situation is very alarming and precarious. If you add to this number
the 12,000 to 15,000 people who have been entering Rwanda every
hour for the last several days, it is obvious that we must help
Rwanda to absorb and receive this flood of people.
It must be pointed out that the current crisis in the Great Lakes
regions is essentially a political one. Many dictators, like Mobutu
Sese Seko, who is now estimated to be worth more than $10 billion,
contributed nothing to the development and stabilization of their
country and area in general.
When you look at events in this region, perhaps the most
deplorable is the fact that these dictators have often had the support
of western countries, which, in the pursuit of their own interests,
have allowed them to do whatever they liked. Now the leaders of
the various factions within the central African countries of
Rwanda, Zaire, Uganda, Burundi and Tanzania have to try to set
aside their claims and particular interests in favour of humanitarian
considerations.
We have already heard the statements of the main leaders in the
area. The leader of the Zairian rebels, Laurent Désiré Kabila, has
already said that there is no justification for this international
intervention. Zaire has denied landing rights to Canadian planes.
Rwanda has tried to restrict the movements of the Canadian
troops that arrived in Kigali yesterday. The President of Rwanda,
Pastor Bizimungu, has said he did not consider this operation
relevant.
With the latest developments in the region, some countries
taking part in the mission, including the United States and Great
Britain, are now having doubts about its relevance. As we can see,
General Baril, who will be leading the international force, will have
no easy task of bringing all those involved together, especially
since events are moving very quickly.
Most of the refugees have already moved from eastern Zaire to
Rwanda. The international force will therefore have to refocus its
mission in order to adapt to the continually changing situation, to
the point where some members of the coalition question its
relevance.
I see you are smiling, Madam Speaker, and I wonder why,
because the current situation is serious, and there is no reason to
smile at the events unfolding.
One important point: the mission is to end no later than March
31, 1997, in four and one half months, approximately. This short
time frame will severely limit medium and long term approaches to
lessening the suffering of the people and stabilizing the situation
throughout the region.
The new minister of defence expects this operation to cost about
$100 million.
(1825)
As regards this significant amount of money, allow me, Madam
Speaker, and I hope you are not smiling at this again, to make a
suggestion. Since-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I hope the hon.
member will stop attacking the Chair in his comments to the
House.
Mr. Bergeron: May I continue, Madam Speaker? Since this
humanitarian mission comes under the responsibility of the
department of defence, would it not make sense for all the amounts
necessary for this mission in the great lakes region of Africa to
come out of that department's budget?
Given that the Canadian International Development Agency is
already operating with a very modest budget, because of the
successive cuts it has suffered at the hands of the Liberal
government in recent years, surely it would be appropriate for the
department of defence, which, let it not be forgotten, has an annual
budget of $10 billion, to defray the total cost of the operation.
With respect to what needs to be done, short term measures are
already clearly laid out in the resolution. Soldiers in the
multinational force already have a very clear mandate. They are to
facilitate the return of humanitarian organizations, assist with the
distribution of food and help refugees return to their homes.
How will Canada contribute to the implementation of a lasting
peace after March 31, 1997? Will action be taken to help these
people return to normal life? The Canadian command in place
should seize the opportunity to try to rally all parties involved in
order to try to find possible solutions to the problems that will
arise, and there will be problems.
Let us not forget that there is a very strong likelihood of conflict
when refugees who left their country months ago try to recover
their land and homes. There is a risk of violence in the villages, and
the manner in which refugees return to their villages must be
monitored.
At first, the role of the multinational force will be to find and
distribute food and drinking water. But for the time being, one of
the priorities will be to help local men and women farm land they
have been away from for more than two years. Communications,
roads, airports and transportation systems will have to be restored.
This means that, in all likelihood, the civilian population will need
the support of the international community.
6404
Of course, financial means remain limited, but the international
force's action could focus exclusively on implementing these
specific projects. We know that the Liberal government is already
on the campaign trail across Canada. We hope that the proposals
before us are not merely smoke and mirrors directed at voters in
Quebec and Canada.
At a time when our armed forces need to regain confidence and
prove their effectiveness, we must be careful not to make the same
mistakes as in 1994. We are greatly concerned that this operation
might be a ploy to make us forget the flop in Somalia.
Major-General Dallaire did a great job there but, unfortunately,
he did not have the necessary resources. This time, the situation is
totally different and we are convinced that our troops will do an
excellent job.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the men and women who will have
to work in conditions that could be extremely difficult. It goes
without saying that it also supports this mission, even though some
questions remain, and we pointed them out.
In conclusion, and given that the holiday season is just around
the corner, we should congratulate and thank the men and women
who will leave their homes to help the needy populations in
Africa's great lakes region.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I was embarrassed to see my hon. colleague take
advantage of this situation to make a personal attack on the Chair
which was not called for.
I have a question for the hon. member. This morning at ten
o'clock in Room 209 of the West Block a briefing was held. The
member was not there. If he had been there he would have known
the kind of support we are providing to the army, how many aircraft
we are shipping there and what kind of aircraft we are shipping. He
would have received all the information he asked for in his
questions today when he was addressing the issue.
The member mentioned the red book commitment to consult
Parliament. We have been doing that. I believe this is the fourth
time we have consulted Parliament on important issues,
specifically on human rights and peacekeeping issues.
Can he name any other institution in the world in any country
which provides a peacekeeping force where they consult the
opposition members before they send in the troops? I urge him to
elaborate on that so we can be informed of his point of view and
can carry on the discussion of this issue in a similar fashion.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The time
provided for consideration of the motion has now expired. It being
6.30 p.m.-
Mr. Bergeron: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for Verchères on a point of order.
Mr. Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of
the House to have at least the opportunity to answer the question
that the hon. member was kind enough to ask me.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There is no
unanimous consent.
* * *
The House resumed from November 8, 1996 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family
Orders and Agreements and Enforcement Assistance Act, the
Garnishment Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the
Canada Shipping Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 6.30
p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the third reading motion of Bill C-41.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 167)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guay
Harb
6405
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mercier
Mifflin
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
Young
Zed-136
NAYS
Members
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Morrison
Ramsay
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-22
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Daviault
Debien
DeVillers
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Goodale
Guimond
Iftody
Irwin
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
McGuire
McWhinney
Ménard
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Parrish
Patry
Phinney
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Rock
Sauvageau
Sheridan
Speller
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wells
Wood
(1855)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
_____________________________________________
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, land mines are an inexpensive, easy way to
terrorize enemies, as they cost less than $3 each and can be dropped
by the millions from helicopters.
There are more than 110 million land mines scattered throughout
some 69 countries and about as many in stockpiles around the
world. In addition, another five million are sold each year.
(1900)
It is an estimated 25,000 people who are maimed or killed by
land mines each year. Nearly one-third of these people lose one or
two legs in the accidents. Land mines have also turned huge areas
of agricultural land into no man's land in Cambodia, Angola,
Mozambique, Bosnia, Croatia and many other countries throughout
the globe.
International Red Cross officials also point out that land mines
increase the cost of delivering food and medical aid by hundreds of
thousands of dollars than ordinarily would be necessary.
We had parliamentarians from South Africa in this House
visiting this government a few weeks ago. Those parliamentarians
told us that in the little country of Mozambique alone at least one
child every day is maimed or killed by a land mine while they are
walking to school. The cost to the health care system and the cost to
children is abhorrent.
Our Minister for Foreign Affairs held a summit in this country a
few weeks ago. What did that summit conclude that Canada and the
whole world could do to eliminate this human tragedy of killing
children inadvertently?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for her question.
The Ottawa conference brought together 50 states and numerous
international organizations and non-governmental organizations.
6406
They were willing to meet in Ottawa because they shared the
common objective of achieving a global ban on anti-personnel
mines.
The Ottawa conference was highly successful and will have a
concrete impact. The aim of the conference was to develop a
strategy to achieve a global ban on anti-personnel mines. We now
have such a strategy in place in the form of an action plan which
outlines numerous concrete activities which states, international
organizations and NGOs are willing to undertake to build the
necessary political will to achieve a ban.
We were also successful in achieving an agreement on a
conference declaration which represents the views of 50 countries
on how best to work toward an international ban. One of the most
important elements of this declaration was the obligation it placed
on state participants to seek the earliest possible conclusion of a
legally binding agreement to ban these mines.
In his closing speech to the conference, the foreign affairs
minister invited the international community to return to Canada to
sign such an agreement by the end of 1997. The timeframe will
ensure that the unprecedented international momentum behind the
movement to ban mines will be maintained and effectively focused
on building the political will necessary to sign such a treaty.
The minister's initiative to achieve such a treaty by the end of
1997 enjoys the support of numerous states and international
organizations as well as the secretary general of the United Nations
and the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Our initiative is also fully supported by a wide number of NGOs,
including the international campaign to ban land mines and Mines
Action Canada.
I would like to point out that Canada is leading by example. Last
week the Minister of National Defence announced that we now
have in place a plan for the complete elimination of our stockpiles
of anti-personnel mines beginning with the immediate destruction
of two-thirds of our stocks, the remaining one-third to be
eliminated in the context of international negotiations which, as the
minister has stated, will conclude by the end of 1997.
We believe that establishing the end of 1997 as a deadline for
such an agreement is realistic and necessary, particularly given the
horrible social and economic costs associated with inaction on the
part of the international community.
Canada is willing to work with each and every other like minded
country to move the process forward.
Every week over 500 people are killed or maimed by land mines
around the world. Canada has taken the lead in calling upon the
world to stop the carnage caused by anti-personnel mines.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has tabled
legislation which puts in front of all Canadians this government's
plan to protect endangered species and habitat in Canada.
(1905 )
To his credit, the minister has made some significant changes to
the proposals which were circulated for discussion last year. I have
to thank all the groups, organizations and individuals who
responded to those proposals. Without their input the legislation in
front of us now would have been laughable.
But the bottom line today is that while no longer laughable, the
legislation is still inadequate. For me the trouble lies in the simple
fact that for effectiveness the federal government will continue to
rely on the willingness of the provinces to co-operate.
When I asked the minister a question relating to this on October
31, he chose to ignore the specifics and instead concentrated on the
generalities. Therefore I am trying once again to secure a more
specific answer. Today I am looking for a hint that the Liberals are
even considering the subject matter of my question in two parts.
The first part of the question dealt with the idea of a habitat
inventory for species currently on the list. I acknowledge that
habitat protection is the most critical part of the legislation. We
have a list of species considered endangered at this moment but we
do not have a specific list of their habitats.
There is a legitimate fear out there expressed by workers in
resource companies, by farmers and ranchers and by people living
and working in rural communities that this legislation is one day
going to jump up and steal away their incomes. We can best deal
with protecting critical habitat as well as these fears by doing an
inventory of the habitat specific to the species on the endangered
list. We can best devise and structure recovery and management
plans if we have an inventory. I want to know if the minister is
giving any consideration to this matter.
I am also concerned that without an inventory the only way we
will know that habitat protection needs to be undertaken is if an
environmental assessment on some project tells us that something
needs to be done. We should not need to be always reacting to
project proposals in these matters. We should be acting in advance
of proposals being considered and an inventory will aid in this
process.
The second part of my question dealt with the effectiveness of
enforcement mechanisms. As I have already said, the legislation
recognizes the national accord for the protection of species at risk
signed by the provinces in which each of the provinces agrees to
establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for
6407
its effective protection of species at risk and for the protection of
their habitat.
However, there is no clear understanding of what happens should
one or more provinces fail to provide adequate protection. If this
were health care and the federal government truly cared about
health, the Canada Health Act provides for penalties when the
provinces do not live up to the standards set at the national level.
Those penalties are financial penalties but on environmental
matters, in particular the protection of endangered species, there is
no similar penalty. There does not appear to be even the threat of a
penalty that the federal government can make.
My question was for the minister to tell us what enforcement
powers he has at his disposal to ensure the provinces establish
adequate companion protection.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to
point out to the constituents of the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake that he works very hard on
environmental initiatives in this House. In responding to his
questions I would like to say that Bill C-65, the Canadian
Endangered Species Protection Act, is the first ever federal
legislation to protect endangered species in Canada.
The purpose of this act is to prevent Canadian wildlife species
from becoming extinct as a result of human activity and to secure
their recovery. This act along with provincial and territorial
co-operation in ensuring complementary legislation and programs
will afford protection to endangered species across the country.
The provinces and the territories have agreed to a national
accord for the protection of species at risk. Under the terms of the
accord the provinces and the territories are co-operating with the
federal government to ensure that complementary legislation and
programs are put into place.
The act formalizes the existing process by which we identify
those species that are endangered. The committee on the status of
endangered wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, comprises a group of
independent scientific experts who review and report on the status
of wildlife species in Canada.
The bill now provides a legal basis for the committee and
formalizes its work under Canadian law. This bill recognizes that
habitat is fundamental to the protection of species. On the official
listing of an endangered species, activities causing damage or
destruction to its residence, such as its den, nest or burrow, will be
prohibited. We also recognize that we need to go beyond the
immediate residence of a given species in order to protect its
critical habitat.
The mandatory recovery plans will address the threats to the
survival of the species, including threats to critical habitat as
defined by the scientific experts. As far as federal lands are
concerned, the minister and his colleagues will be made aware of
species listed annually by COSEWIC.
This bill gives the federal government the authority to create
regulations needed to regulate or prohibit activities that will
adversely affect the species or its critical habitat. The act also
enables regulations prohibiting activities that wilfully harm species
at risk that cross Canada's international boundaries in the absence
of equivalent action by the provinces.
It also provides for emergency orders in the event that immediate
action is required for the protection of a species. Where loss of
habitat is identified as an imminent threat, emergency orders will
include measures for its protection.
Under the national accord with the provinces and territories, all
jurisdictions are publicly accountable for their actions and
decisions. If a province chooses not to provide species protection,
that decision will be on the public record. Further, the accord
provides for a mechanism to address any such disputes that may
arise.
Governments have a duty and a responsibility to work in
partnership with one another, and with concerned citizens across
the country and around the world, to prevent species from
becoming extinct.
This act, along with complementary provincial and territorial
legislation and programs, does just that by putting the needs of
nature first.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.)