House of Commons Hansard #94 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was world.

Topics

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, Question No. 42 will be answered today.

Question No. 42-

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

With respect to the cellular telephones in use in all government departments and agencies, ( a ) how many are in active use, ( b ) how many are not in active use, ( c ) are they leased or owned outright and in what proportions, ( d ) what are the costs involved in their lease or purchase, and ( e ) what are the total costs of use and communications?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

The information provided was obtained by soliciting 68 departments and agencies of which 61 had cellular telephones. The legislature (Parliament), the judiciary and crown corporations are not included.

Due to the large geographical area involved, the wide variety of leasing and usage costs, the means and time frames of billing procedures and availability of records, the figures provided are only good for the day they were collated by each government institution.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

The question enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Shall the remaining questions stand?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

I ask, Madam Speaker, that all notices of motions stand.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Shall all notices of motions stand?

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Michel Québec

Liberal

André Ouellet LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

moved:

That this House take note of Canada's current and future international peacekeeping commitments in this world, with particular reference to the former Yugoslavia, Haiti and Rwanda.

Madam Speaker, I want to address the House this afternoon about one of the strongest and most enduring traditions of Canadian foreign policy, our commitment to peacekeeping. Almost forty years ago, Lester B. Pearson first developed the modern concept of peacekeeping: a UN Force.

That idea defused an explosive international crisis and led to a peaceful disengagement of warring parties under the United Nations flag.

Today, I may recall that since the creation of the first United Nations Emergency Force in 1956, under the leadership of a Canadian, Lt. Gen. E.L.M. Burns, there have been 26 other UN peacekeeping missions. In every case, Canada has participated in some way. Canadians have served with distinction in all 16 peacekeeping operations currently under way in the UN.

More than 3,700 Canadians are currently deployed in eight international operations, while helping the UN secretary general with the planning of two other missions in which some 700 Canadians might eventually be called to serve. This is a unique record of achievement of which all Canadians should be proud.

A decade ago, the UN had only three active peacekeeping missions, but today, a number of important factors, including the end of the Cold War, the unfortunate outbreak of ethnic and nationalist conflict, and the new co-operation among the members of the Security Council, where veto rights are no longer used to paralyse the UN-have changed the peacekeeping equation.

The United Nations has been empowered to act where once there was a stalemate. As a result, the UN is now becoming the instrument of international co-operation which was the world community's hope in 1945. The fact that the Security Council is now using peacekeeping as a central instrument to bring about peaceful change is a development we should applaud and one we wholeheartedly support. There is no doubt that Canada is one of the UN's strongest supporters.

Next week at the United Nations, I will be putting forward suggestions for making the organization more responsive to a new era in which peacekeeping and related tasks will become even more central to its mandate.

But we have also recognized in recent months, pending the implementation of these vital reforms, that the UN has more peacekeeping mandates than it can realistically handle, involving a variety of tasks which the international community is ill-equipped to manage. It therefore seems a useful time to take stock of the situation and to ask ourselves a series of questions about peacekeeping. What are Canada's national interests in the new era of peacekeeping? How should we play a role in the more diverse and demanding era which is now confronting us? How should we deploy our very valuable resources abroad at a time of

fiscal constraint at home? How should we support the UN in a time of transition to new and more demanding tasks?

In the coming weeks, two parliamentary committees, one responsible for reviewing Canada's foreign policy and one responsible for reviewing our defence policy, will be asked to prepare a report by the end of October, and I am sure that both committees will have some very interesting recommendations to make, as they try to answer these questions.

I am also convinced that today's debate in the House will give many of us an opportunity to intervene and offer the government suggestions on the best way to answer the very fundamental questions I just formulated.

Allow me at this point in time to make a few personal comments.

My view is that peacekeeping is fundamental to Canadian foreign policy. It is not simply a question of continuing a tradition for which Canadians have a deserved international reputation. It is a question of making a concrete and key contribution to international security at a time of instability in many parts of the world. It is also a question of making the United Nations work in directions that are in Canada's interests and in the interests of virtually the entire global community.

In emphasizing the importance of peacekeeping, we have to recognize Canada's strong desire to help the UN whenever we can, but at the same time we have to acknowledge that Canada cannot be everywhere and do everything.

In my view, a number of factors should guide our future action. First of all, we should devote time, attention and resources to the planning and administrative functions at the UN which will enable the UN to function effectively in the future. This means developing ideas to make the UN secretariat more responsive to international developments, offering personnel to the UN for explicit planning functions, helping the UN plan and coordinate the initial phases of operations and, in certain cases, offering our leadership in operations, as we did in Rwanda. We had the pleasure earlier today to salute Major-General Dallaire, who was in the visitor gallery, and who so brilliantly served the UN in Rwanda.

This emphasis on the "front end", based on wide-ranging Canadian experience, will help to ensure that UN operations can function with a maximum of effectiveness. Second, Canada should focus on roles in UN missions involving what we do best. In Rwanda this has meant communications and logistics, the supply of fresh water, and the provision of medical field hospitals.

This is also what we have done with our civilian police contributions, through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in Namibia and the former Yugoslavia. This is what we intend to do shortly in Haiti.

Third, we should try, in thinking about our roles, to offer contributions which are not only useful in the peacekeeping phase, but which also make a contribution to the broader reconstruction of society-the "peacebuilding phase" which follows a peaceful settlement. In Kigali, for example, Canadian troops have opened the airports, and helped restore vital communications functions. In Haiti, the UN will use an international force of specially trained police officers, under the leadership of Superintendent Pouliot of the RCMP, to transform the Haitian police into a professional unit appropriate to a democratic society.

Lastly, I believe we should be open and responsive when needs arise quickly and when the international community requires an urgent response. But, to fulfil this fourth objective we will need the necessary resources. The Canadian Government and the Department of National Defence will have to plan, a bit ahead of time, to make available the human resources required to intervene, when the situation requires it, in an area of the world where our traditions or our interests might call us.

I am thinking in particular about the day when peace in the Middle East will finally have been achieved. As you know, Canada was part of the very first UN peace mission in the Middle East. Here is a part of the world where Canada can play a significant and useful role, and I am sure it will certainly be willing to help implement the peace process which seems to be taking shape and in which we are actively involved.

There are no hard and fast rules about Canadian participation. There should be no arbitrary limits to Canada's contributions. What we do in each situation must be judged in light of our interests, in light of the requirements, and in light of our ability to participate.

Resource constraints have become an obvious consideration. A decade ago our share of the total UN cost of peacekeeping was only $8 million. In this fiscal year the Canadian share will be in excess of $150 million.

Other issues need to be looked at. For example, there is the continued deployment of our peacekeepers and the capacity of other countries to participate in these types of operations. There is always value in reviewing our ongoing peacekeeping commitments.

In light of the conditions I have just outlined, the House knows that our future peacekeeping presence in the former Yugoslavia is up for renewal at the end of this month. As members will recall, last February the government held a debate on the same question. Today we are continuing this tradition. We

are looking for advice, suggestions and comments from members on both sides of the House before a final decision is reached by cabinet.

Canada has played a key role in the Balkans over the past three years. We joined the European Community monitoring mission in 1991, and committed forces to the UN protection force in the former Yugoslavia in 1992.

We are continuing the humanitarian airlift into Sarajevo in cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for refugees.

We have contributed funding to the investigation of violations of international humanitarian law and to the international tribunal for war crimes. We have some 45 RCMP officers in Bosnia to help in policing operations. Canadian Naval Forces are part of NATO's Adriatic Command. We have participated in CSCE investigative and monitoring missions, and we are about to support the monitoring of the border between the federal republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia.

I believe we have a moral obligation to continue to help. In the field of humanitarian assistance, the Sarajevo air bridge has proven indispensable and its work will continue.

Today I am pleased to announce in addition to what we have pledged already, an additional contribution of $1 million to the International Red Cross and $7 million to be divided among four United Nations agencies: the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the World Food Program; UNICEF; and the World Health Organization.

I also want to announce the extension of projects with Care Canada for the installation of water purification units in Sarajevo, and with Queen's University for developing a network of rehabilitation centres for the wounded and the handicapped. All of this is in Sarajevo. Canada will also contribute $500,000 to the special United Nations fund for the restoration of essential services in Sarajevo.

Having said that, I want the House to understand it is increasingly difficult to sustain all of these efforts. This is especially so at a time when the conflict still rages, when the parties are far from a peaceful settlement and when the prospect of lifting the arms embargo may compromise the UN's mandate and endanger all peacekeeping forces in the region.

I am happy to report that the contact group is making a significant contribution to the negotiating process, although the prospect for a settlement remains far from certain.

Canada fully expects to play a role in the diplomatic process commensurate with the size and importance of our peacekeeping contribution. We will obviously be very happy to know the views of all members of this House in regard to our involvement in the former Yugoslavia.

I believe it is possible to sustain our role in the UN protection force, at least in the short run. We need to give negotiations a chance to work. We need to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance while political pressure takes effect.

What may prove to be necessary are adjustments in the size or disposition of Canada's contribution at a time when there are other real demands on our peacekeeping forces. Whatever changes we may need to make in the months ahead, the first priority of Canadian policy must be the conclusion of a peace agreement among the parties.

Canada is also playing a key role in the efforts of the UN and the OAS to help in the restoration of democratic government in Haiti.

I think the House will share my relief at the last minute agreement reached between the American negotiators led by former president Carter and members of the de facto military regime. We look forward to an early return of Jean-Bertrand Aristide to his rightful place as democratically-elected president of Haiti.

I understand that meetings are taking place today in Washington between Secretary Perry and President Aristide. There is a full briefing on the activities of the multinational force in Haiti, how it has been deployed, what the mandate is of this force and how it intends to facilitate the speedy and safe return of President Aristide in his country.

I have a quote by President Aristide after his briefing. He compliments President Clinton for what has taken place, saying it was as a result of his leadership. There is no doubt that the operation to unsettle the military junta was and still is a difficult task. Many people have spoken out on it but it took decisive action by the United States of America to fulfil what was considered to be the first phase of an important process in bringing back democracy in Haiti.

Some countries were ready to intervene in the first phase; some were not ready to intervene in any phase. Canada has indicated clearly from the very beginning that we would not participate in the first phase in order to be able to play a greater and more substantive role in the long run. We will participate in the second phase and work side by side with President Aristide to rebuild his country and help its population.

Canada will, of course, play a prominent role in re-building democracy in that troubled country, when the time is right. We feel confident that, in a few weeks, we will be able to deploy the contingents we promised. One of their tasks will be to train Haiti's civilian police. Canadian troops would also be part of a UN peacekeeping mission to restore stability so that President Aristide can govern his country without interference from a military junta who did not, does not and will never believe in democracy.

There is much work to be done over a period of time and we are very confident that we can do it in a reasonable amount of time in accordance with the wishes and goals of President Aristide himself.

I must say that we have no doubt that the Americans heading the multinational force in Haiti share our opinion that President Aristide must be reinstated. Never, in all the discussions I have had with American officials, have I doubted a single moment that they were as committed as we are to ensuring that democracy be restored in Haiti and that President Aristide be allowed to complete his mandate as president of his country with the full powers vested in him.

I wanted to clarify this point because my friend the Leader of the Opposition led me to believe, by certain comments and questions, that he assumed the Americans would not stand by President Aristide and would let him down. I can tell him that, as far as I am concerned, his doubts concerning the Americans are unfounded. The Clinton administration must not be imputed motives that it does not have in my view. Each within our own area of responsibility, we must believe in and support this process leading to the return of President Aristide in his country, with him being able to exercise full powers.

Allow me in closing to briefly recall the actions Canada has taken concerning Rwanda. I mentioned earlier the key role played by General Dallaire. I would like to say that, through his contribution and in many other ways, Canada has played a prominent role in restoring some peace to that country. Last May Canada called for a special session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Canada was also the first country to make funds available to send observers to assess the human rights situation. When the crisis escalated, Canada stood out among UN action supporters by providing substantial financial assistance to the UN mission in Rwanda, in support of General Dallaire as it were.

For a long time, we were the only country to provide air transport to the capital, Kigali, taking in food and medicine and bringing out the wounded or those in danger of dying. I say without hesitation that the Canadian effort to reinforce this UN mission helped to save thousands of lives, including that of the current Prime Minister.

We were also among the first to lend tangible support to the second element of our strategy, encouraging refugees to return to Rwanda, which we think is very important at this time. We sent a 200-person medical unit to Rwanda and we were the first to send experts to see what could be done to restore the infrastructure of the country, its water supply, electricity and telephone services.

But we must realize that this awful crisis is primarily and ultimately political. It is clear that any final agreement must have the support of all parties. That is why Canada will continue to increase its efforts in the UN mission in Rwanda and at other levels, to help stabilize the situation and prepare the ground for a peaceful settlement.

The Canadian Armed Forces may eventually be deployed in as many as ten UN operations, but even with this type of global involvement, Canada will also have the flexibility to respond rapidly in the event of humanitarian tragedies or if the conclusion of peace treaties results in a need for monitoring activities. I say these things because, again, we must consider the choices to be made. We want to make these choices after consulting Parliament, as we promised at the beginning of our mandate, after consulting the elected representatives in this Parliament who can help us forge a foreign policy that fully meets the objectives of the Canadian people and that is fully in keeping with Canada's tradition and interests.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Lac-Saint-Jean Québec

Bloc

Lucien Bouchard BlocLeader of the Opposition

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the government and the minister for providing us with an opportunity to discuss these very important issues today. I certainly agree with the minister that Canadians are very proud of their peacekeeping missions. In fact, if there is one initiative which gets the full support of the public in Canada, it is this collective commitment to peacekeeping missions.

It should also be pointed out that these peacekeeping missions were not an afterthought in the evolution of the Canadian society. They were, from the very beginning, an integral part of our diplomatic efforts as a sovereign state. They were an extension of co-operation efforts which soon led to interventions. Following the very appropriate comments made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I can only endorse the compliments made to the late Lester B. Pearson, who is among those responsible for building Canadian diplomacy, and for the prestige that this country now enjoys.

However, it must be said that while these missions proved very beneficial, albeit not easy, and were perceived as being effective in the first few years, they are now faced with new problems.

These problems are both enormous and very acute, and they could undermine the credibility of Canadian commitments to peacekeeping missions. This justified the setting up, by the House of Commons, of committees which are developing new policies in that sector and are trying to redefine commitments in a way that is more relevant to the current reality.

These problems are not necessarily all new ones but they have intensified and they are enormous. Take the cost issue. Canada is not as rich as it was in the fifties. In those days, the costs involved were probably not a major factor in determining whether or not to participate in a mission. I believe that Mr. Pearson was a happy political leader who did not have to worry too much about this aspect. Indeed, at the time, costs were not very high and, moreover, the Canadian government's debt was almost non existent and its financial stability was such that the public rarely opposed the allocation of monies to that purpose.

However, those costs have increased. Obviously, we need increasingly sophisticated equipment. Some belligerents use very modern equipment; consequently, we sometimes have to face them with inadequate material. And increasingly, we must deploy substantial contingents, so that cost becomes a very pressing issue. Even more so, now that every debate in this House and most of the concerns of the ministers and the Prime Minister focus on the crisis in our public finances, so that taxpayers, who are already taxed to the hilt as a result of our national debt, are starting to ask questions. They are starting to wonder how extensive this kind of international commitment should become.

There is another factor, and I am referring to the complex problems that create situations where intervention is necessary. Mostly, we are looking at conflicts arising from religious or ethnic differences or even worse, they may be connected with the imperialistic designs of those who want to expand their territory and engage in ethnic cleansing, and, of course, conflicts whose causes are rooted in the history of these peoples.

It is very difficult for us to go into these countries, as North Americans who may not have a European's sensitivity to this type of problem. It is very difficult to go in and quickly find a solution, a way to cut through the inextricable tangle of problems that are rooted so deeply in a country's history. I may recall what is happening now in Bosnia. The presence of different ethnic groups within the same territory, in a crazy patchwork of different communities is all due to the impact of historic events and a very complex sequence of developments that is practically impossible to reverse today.

There are also some new questions and principles being formulated, in a debate that would have been unthinkable before. People are now asking: Is it legitimate to violate the sovereignty of foreign peoples? There used to be fundamental principles that were never challenged, at least not until now. A country's sovereignty was inviolable, period. No one would dream of challenging this principle, and those who did were condemned by the entire community.

Anyone who dared to break treaties, invade territory and undue challenge the sovereignty of foreign countries was ostracized by the rest of the world, while today, in democratic societies like ours, at international venues as distinguished as the UN and UNESCO, and elsewhere, we hear sensible people who respect the rights of others asking whether we should not intervene in such and such a country, irrespective of that country's sovereign rights, to impose peace and to neutralize situations that are a threat to human rights.

So we have these new fundamental questions and a new debate. There is a new culture, and there is a new kind of action that countries are being requested to take. And I am afraid that people are starting to wonder more and more about the effectiveness of these interventions. This is of course due to the fact that interventions are taking place in increasingly difficult situations, with fewer chances of being successful, but there is also the issue of modern technology.

Let us take Rwanda for example. I entirely agree with what the minister just said about the outstanding Canadian contribution in that part of the world, starting with Major-General Roméo Dallaire, whom we had the pleasure of welcoming today.

We know that there were outstanding acts of personal bravery, that all the troops we have dispatched did their utmost and that Canada made as much resources available as it could under extremely difficult circumstances. Yet, we realize this is but a drop in the ocean in the context of this conflict and that our efforts, however laudable, had little effect on the magnitude of the horrible massacres that have taken place over there.

Our limited capacity for intervention in any conflict or situation of this sort is reflected most clearly by television, as we can witness these horrible scenes broadcasted live night after night. We will never be able to make everything right. There will always be massacres. There will always be parts of operations that will prove impossible to carry out. Mistakes will be made and be caught on camera. Television crews in the field will faithfully report them for us to see in our living rooms.

People can see for themselves, in their daily life, from their own homes, how difficult any action is and how little we were able to accomplish. That is why they have questions, and some pretty relevant ones at that.

I imagine we will soon take stock of the operations in Bosnia and determine how useful our action was over there. We know about what went wrong in Somalia. As for Rwanda, I think we all saw what happened in terms of the consequences and the acts of cruelty.

There are also aspects of a more political nature that we need to look at. Take the events in Iraq for example. We went over there to free Koweit which had been the victim of an intolerable act of aggression. I remember the rationale for intervention, a legitimate one at that, was to restore democracy. At the time, the government of Kuwait had promised to put in place a more democratic regime. We know full well that these promises were not kept and the bottom line is that the billions of dollars invested by many countries to free Kuwait and put Iraq in its place had very little impact in terms of promoting democracy either in Iraq or in Koweit.

Some may wonder if the intervention was not motivated by more pragmatic considerations. The cause for such a rapid, concerted and efficient action was the petroleum found under the desert sand, was it not? Canadians are asking themselves a lot of questions. I think we must be careful because if we do not answer these questions adequately, we will hurt the credibility of peacekeeping missions. On the day when Canadians no longer support the government's efforts in this area, we will lose that ability.

Again, I am happy to have the possibility in this House to address this issue. It is very important to ask ourselves questions and try to see where we are going. What path should we take? There are no easy answers. We could perhaps take one case-Haiti's case-and see if there are lessons to be learned regarding the approaches and criteria we could adopt in the future. So what is happening in Haiti?

I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister that I never questioned the Americans' motives, but I did question his. Of course, everyone knows that the Americans are really eager to restore peace and democracy in Haiti and that they are the only ones making a real sacrifice. Despite the minister's heavy rhetoric, despite his lyrical statements, he did nothing. He simply watched the Americans, as we all did. I certainly am not blaming the Americans for anything in this matter, on the contrary. It is the minister I blame for his powerlessness and his sugary speeches. He tells us: "I met with President Aristide, I called him, I talked with him, I like him, he likes me and we will protect him." Yet, President Aristide is still in Washington and it is not the minister who will arrange his return to Haiti. So please, let us not engage in petty politics. Do not attribute to myself, my party and the Official Opposition the slightest intention of undermining the honesty and selflessness of American motives.

That said, it is not because we agree with the approach, because we are satisfied with the first results of this approach that we cannot be concerned about what is coming. There is cause for concern; I am sure that the minister himself is concerned and that it is only through considerable self-control that he manages to hide his anxiety. Because the minister knows full well that Mr. Aristide is now in Washington, that he denounced the agreement that was reached, that American soldiers are now in Haiti, powerless, their hands tied by an agreement they signed with a presidential impostor.

I come from the legal world but I am still surprised to see that this approach, this American operation in Haiti was based above all on the need to restore the legitimate president, the first president to be democratically elected in Haiti, that this was the real approach, the real objective, the basic justification. So I am surprised. The minister himself must have been surprised as a lawyer whose legal knowledge I had a chance to appreciate back in my university days. The minister must have been surprised as I was to see that the first page of the agreement contains only the name of the current president, the disgraced president, the puppet president appointed by the military junta despite President Aristide who was elected democratically a few years ago. So that is rather surprising. It is dangerous to recognize a usurper. The issue arises.

A practical question also arises. The Americans are now there. President Cédras is the one who really controls the situation, who is the trouble maker, the man who has denied all democratic freedoms, who is ultimately responsible for the massacres that we see on television. He has not signed the agreement. He has incurred no obligation. He walks around the streets of Haiti and continues to lead the military junta. On television last night, we saw someone being killed as an American soldier watched horrified, wondering what he was doing there unable to intervene.

There is a problem, basically. The minister is surely concerned about it. I am sure that once he is back in his department with his senior officials, he will continue to express his concern and call Washington and try to use Canada's diplomatic efforts to bring about a quick settlement of the situation, because it is disturbing.

October 15 is mentioned, but it is far off. How many more people will die in the streets of Port-au-Prince? How many will be beaten by the police, by those thugs in the streets of Port-au-Prince who hit unarmed people? How much more will the people have to suffer while the Americans look on powerless? They will not stand for it either. If we Canadians do not like to see that, imagine what the Americans think. What would we say if we saw armed soldiers wearing the Canadian uniform who had gone there from all over Canada and did not say a word but

watched powerless as those whom they had gone to fight strike helpless victims? What would we say? We would not be pleased.

The Americans are not pleased either, I am sure. We must push forward. The minister must intervene, he must speak publicly and tell it like it is; he must stop giving us syrupy speeches on his feelings for President Aristide, on the telephone call he made to him yesterday and Mr. Aristide's call back to him. That is not really serious. That is not the real issue. That is not what a government is responsible for.

The Canadian government must intervene forcefully, speak up and demand that President Aristide return there, and insist that the Haitian army be dismembered and dismantled, because what is going on? The Haitian army is still there, in control. But it has no more structure, no more effectiveness, no more operational integrity. How can President Aristide return under such conditions?

How can we imagine that President Aristide will return to Haiti in a few weeks and that the army, his enemy which fought him and kills and tortures people, will now work hand in hand with him and take his orders, and that General Cédras will go to salute President Aristide every day in his office?

No one can think that. What will happen? Are necessary measures being taken to control the Haitian army? As far as we know, this is not the case. We do not know anything. All we know is that poor President Aristide, who denounced the accord a few days ago, today congratulated President Clinton, even though nothing had changed.

In conclusion, the government has the support of the official opposition to find a solution to this issue. We will not play politics with that issue. There are no votes to be won or lost. We are well aware that this is a matter of honour, a matter of respect for mankind, a matter of democracy. In fact, it is a matter of preserving the credibility of our peacekeeping missions and our role in this type of situation.

We have to intervene and we have to be credible. We have to act in an efficient and pragmatic way, taking our means into account, and our role must be redefined. How do we do that?

The first lesson to be learned from the Haiti operation is that we cannot intervene elsewhere if such a measure is not based on democratic legitimacy. We must not look to General Cedras but to President Aristide. We must not look to the impostor but to the real president. In our reviews, as well as in the criteria to be defined, we should include a requirement to justify any intervention on a democratic legitimacy in those countries. Secondly, and more importantly, we must not compromise with the enemies of democracy. In the case of Haiti, one cannot help but wonder if we made a move to protect the Haitian army rather than the population. Indeed, the Haitian army and police continue to commit abuse.

Thirdly, I think that these interventions should be rigorously planned in a concerted fashion. What does that mean? It means that we should first clearly define the objectives and the tasking orders. What happened in the case of Haiti is that a response force showed up and, at the last minute, in extremely difficult conditions, I agree, an agreement was hurriedly negotiated. However, these people had no framework. No clear objective had been defined at the outset. A compromise was negotiated in the heat of the action, and that can sometime lead to an arrangement that does not take all the relevant factors into account. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case here.

I also said that these interventions should be planned in a concerted fashion. Indeed, even though resolution 940 was passed by the UN, the fact remains that there is only a national force over there, namely the Americans; this is certainly not what you would call a multinational intervention. I heard the Minister use the word "multilateral" several times in his remarks. This does not change the fact that the troops which are there are strictly American. Some will say that this is because the others were not brave enough to go. That may be so, but it is still the case that it is a national force.

What we must hope for the future-and it cannot be done right now, of course-is that the forces there will be more diversified and put under UN command. This is easier said than done. The UN must have the means to do it; we must redefine "peacekeeping"; we must find a new framework for UN missions. This is something we can do. It is better than the minister's speeches; it is a job for Canadians; it is a job for our diplomats.

We should be in New York right now, putting forward proposals to revamp UN mechanisms defining peacekeepers' mandates and mission objectives. This is a job for the minister, a job for his colleagues. Instead of crying on President Aristide's shoulder, let him do something constructive! Let them go to New York! Let them come up with a plan, present it and advise our friends to broaden the forces and to place them under the auspices of the UN, whose main role it is anyway. As long as we are relying on national policing forces-

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

André Ouellet Liberal Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC

It has been done already.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Lucien Bouchard Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Did you present a proposal?

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

André Ouellet Liberal Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC

Yes, we did.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Lucien Bouchard Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Well then, what are we doing to do now? What is the existing commission doing right now? We need much more than pious hope, we need proposals on how to share the financial burden. Countries should tax themselves, Canada should be a leader in that respect. If we do not take the lead in that matter, let us do it with others. It must be done.

As long as we depend on one national force, we will have complicated situations like the one we have now.

I would like to say a few words about that. Of course we fully support the maintenance of Canada's commitment in terms of peace missions. A basic creed of Canada is to be present all over the place when it is appropriate to do so. At the same time we have to improve the way it is done, not only by us but the rest of the world. We have to make sure that the credibility of our interventions is maintained. If we do not do anything now we will undermine the support this and other governments have been given by the public in terms of tax money and different interventions.

It should be one of the fundamental tasks of the committees now working to define and shape new objectives and missions and to make sure that many countries will share the burden if it cannot be achieved through United Nations activities. We have to be very active at the UN and a strong supporter. We have to stop making empty speeches. We have to make sure the next mission will not be conducted by national forces like the Americans, but that many countries will work together efficiently in harmony so as to achieve clearly defined objectives.

I do not accept the accusation from the minister that we suspect the motives of the American administration. We agree they were courageous. They were the only ones to do it. They had the means to do it and they did it. They had the guts to do it and now they are there. It was possible for them to land on Haiti without any bloodshed. The problem is that now we have to go further because blood is being shed in Haiti every day, the poor people victims, and still the same people are hitting and killing them, those against whom the Americans decided to intervene.

That is why I strongly urge the minister to work closely with the Americans to make sure the commitment toward President Aristide will be fully respected.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Fraser Valley West-Immigration.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Reform

Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for having the opportunity to talk on this most important subject. This certainly is an example to Canadians when Parliament is allowed to speak on a subject of such national interest. I go along with the other speakers in terms of our reputation and the pride we have as Canadians in our peacekeepers.

Since the first peacekeeping mission in 1956 tens of thousands of Canadians have been involved in these missions. Some of them have made the ultimate sacrifice with their lives. We want to thank those people for what they have done; it is certainly appreciated. The millions of people around the world they have helped certainly know what we as Canadians have done. On behalf of the Reform Party and Canadians in general I would like to pay tribute to those people and say: Job well done.

As the House is aware since early this year the special joint committee reviewing Canadian foreign affairs, of which I am a member, has been travelling across the country to find out from Canadians what they think about foreign affairs and our international commitments for the coming decades. It has become very clear to me and to many members on the committee just how deeply concerned Canadians are with events around the world.

We want to stand up and be part of the missions that occur. We do not want to bury our heads in the sand and not take part in all of those things that affect our world.

Canadians are not prepared to give up on their proud tradition of caring and intervention for the sake of peace. These times however cannot be seen from a purely international perspective. Our foreign commitments must be in harmony with our domestic needs. Therefore we must be sure when we do support peacekeeping that we are operating in Canada's best interests and within the very real financial constraints that must be the primary concern of any good government. We must pick our spots and we must choose wisely.

Today's debate is an example of trying to choose those spots and pick the ones that are of most interest. One thing we must make clear is that Canada cannot become the 911 phone number for the world. As much as we want to help others, this desire is tempered by the fact that we cannot be all things to all people. It is better that we help effectively in a few cases rather than spreading ourselves too thin. In this way Canada can protect its own vital interests and provide the most effective help for the international community.

As we examine the issue of peacekeeping it is worthy to note that since the end of the cold war the demand for peacekeepers around the world has skyrocketed. If the past few years has taught us any lesson it is that instability will continue. New hot spots will continue to crop up and Canada must be ready. If more requests come from Africa, southeast Asia or the former Soviet republics how will Canada respond?

Clearly, Canada must establish criteria to test the importance of each request for our help. While this is a sensitive issue and I do not claim to have all the answers, I would argue that the following should be considered by Parliament when deciding whether to approve peacekeeping missions.

First, Canada's economic ties are an extremely important factor when we determine how willing Canadians would be to commit our resources.

Second, the conflict's impact on the state of international stability is another obvious test of whether Canada should get involved. If the conflict has a serious potential to escalate or destabilize the whole region, we should consider this seriously when making our decision.

Third, geographic ties are important. For reasons of regional stability, the world would be a better place if countries co-operated to make sure that their own part of the world remains stable. Where peace does break down, regional organizations should co-operate to make things right. After all it will be the member nations of such regional groups that have the greatest interest in restoring stability. For logistical reasons as well, proximity is an important factor in determining whether a country can respond to a crisis in a timely and effective manner.

Fourth, humanitarian considerations must also be taken into account. While Canadians want bang for their buck, they also want Canada to maintain its tradition for compassion. While I could say more on this item, one of my colleagues will talk on that subject later on this evening.

Fifth, our prior commitments must be given more weight than is the current practice when determining what else we are going to do. We only have so many troops and a limited amount of high quality equipment. Therefore we owe it to our troops to be fair in our decisions where we send them and to make sure that we do not overcommit our forces. My fellow Reformer, the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, will talk on that issue.

Another very important consideration which must be taken into account is that our judgment should not be clouded by the media spin in each crisis, the so-called CNN factor. There are many conflicts in this world which could use the assistance of Canadian peacekeepers however the media does not treat them equally.

The usual process involves one crisis headline becoming really big and bouncing everything else from the front pages. The media raises a hue and cry to be heard throughout the world: Why is the world not helping to do more? Then two weeks or a month later the media drops that story and picks up on something new. That is just the way it works and we have to be conscious of that. Just because the media likes this approach does not mean their priorities are always correct; nor do they always reflect Canadian interests.

To the extent that Canadians do care about what they see in the media, we have to acknowledge the media will always be a factor. However, we must not let the headline du jour drive us into unwise or hasty action. Whether it is a sexy headline or not Parliament should do the right thing, period.

Now that I have outlined some of the basic criteria on which we should be judging our participation in peacekeeping, I would like to move on to two specific cases which we are discussing today, Rwanda and Haiti.

According to the six criteria which I have listed, I do not believe that Rwanda was a fully appropriate peacekeeping initiative for Canada.

First, Rwanda and Canada have virtually no trade ties. Therefore we certainly could not argue that our economic interests were at stake. Other central African countries are Rwanda's main trading partners and they are the ones who are having their trade disrupted.

While the massacres in Rwanda have had an impact on the neighbouring countries, especially in terms of creating large flows of refugees, I do not believe the crisis there represents a threat to regional or world stability.

In terms of my third criteria, geographic ties, Canada is neither close to Rwanda nor do we have a tradition of dealing with that country or its people. Therefore there was a long delay before the majority of our peacekeepers could even get there.

In the future Canada should encourage regional organizations such as the Organization of African Unity to build up their capacity to respond when a local crisis arises. Beyond this Europe has many more ties to central Africa than we do. This tradition makes it more natural for them to adopt a leadership role there just as France did.

When taking humanitarian considerations into account, clearly Rwanda is a case which required the world's attention and help. While Canadians will always help in such circumstances, do we always have to send in the troops to show we care? I do not think so.

Many thousands of Canadians spoke with their wallets and donated money to Canadian and international NGOs that were helping with humanitarian relief. This was an appropriate reaction. We would like to do more, but quite frankly others were better placed to provide the peacekeeping in Rwanda.

One of the main reasons that our reaction to the Rwandan disaster was so limited relates to my fifth criteria: our prior peacekeeping commitments. No other country has given more in the cause of peacekeeping or has been on more missions, but our forces are stretched to the limit. It simply is not fair to keep asking our soldiers to go on so many endless peacekeeping missions. They are the Canadian forces, not the Canadian foreign legion. If we scale back or shut down other missions, then perhaps we will have some reserve forces to be deployed upon need, but right now we do not.

According to the last factor, the CNN factor, it is beyond doubt that the extensive media treatment of the Rwandan disaster initiated the response from this and many other governments. Let us not forget that about two years before in neighbouring Burundi many thousands were slaughtered for the third

or fourth time since the 1970s but there was no media reaction, no hue and cry, and no peacekeepers.

In the future, Parliament must do a better job in assessing the seriousness of a crisis. An international crisis is more than the sum of the media coverage it receives.

Before I move on from the topic of Rwanda, I will talk about my experience with Rwanda. In 1971 I read an article in National Geographic about the mountain gorillas and the country of Rwanda. I decided I had to go there and 15 years later I managed to complete that dream.

My wife and I experienced a country with beautiful green covered hills and mountains and fertile volcanic soil. There were friendly people who were smiling and happy. I will always remember the markets we visited with the children playing and the people doing their weekly shopping. How can a country change so dramatically? We were aware of the two tribes but not of the hatred. What happened? NGOs and missionaries warned of impending problems but nobody listened. Nobody took the leadership to try to prevent the carnage which was to follow.

If we wanted to get involved in Rwanda it should have been then, when our diplomatic negotiations and leadership could have been more effective. Instead the international community failed to act proactively and went to its old standby: when the damage was already done they called in the peacekeepers, Canadians included.

We must learn from this experience. Proactive measures through diplomatic channels or through international organizations are not only more effective and cheaper than expensive peacekeeping missions but they can save a lot of lives.

Let me go on to Haiti. Once again we have a situation which is seemingly thrust on us, a crisis that requires our immediate attention. However, on closer inspection a very different picture appears.

First, we have virtually no economic interests in Haiti. Neither is international stability threatened. In terms of geographic ties Haiti is certainly in our hemisphere, therefore we should have an active interest. But if we are going to get involved it should be under the auspices of the Organization of American States, not as part of the U.S. led adventure that may be opening a Pandora's box into which peacekeeping nations may enter, never to withdraw.

If Canada is going to Haiti, let us make sure that we know what we are getting into. How much will it cost? When do we get to leave? What are we trying to accomplish? Is Cedras a diabolical murderer yesterday and our partner for the reform of Haiti today? Not in my books he is not. I would gladly kick his butt but I would not shake his hand.

Clearly things are not going as the Americans first planned. Haitians are still being beaten and killed by thugs. Aristide is clearly unhappy. Haitians in Canada are unhappy. The American soldiers are unhappy. In fact the only ones with smiles on their faces are the coup leaders. If this is not a clear warning sign I do not know what is.

On the humanitarian side, there is no doubt that Canada can be of assistance to the poorest and most desperate people of Haiti. Once again, I argue that it is our NGOs that are best equipped to do this; not our soldiers who are already stretched to the maximum when it comes to peacekeeping around the world.

The Haiti crisis is a hot item today in the media. It may be hot tomorrow. However let us not forget that Jean-Bertrand Aristide was thrown out in 1991. This is not a new issue. Haiti's problems were not even new in 1915 when the Americans invaded the last time. Back then they stayed for a generation. Let us make sure that this time next year we are not watching the American troops pull out only to leave our Canadian servicemen and women there for the next generation.

Canada can be an effective world player and peacemaker. Canadians are proud of this and we do not have to prove it to anyone. If we decide not to go to Haiti the world will not hold it against us.

Let us do Canadians a favour and give the Canadian forces a break for once. We will keep our troops at home and instead take a leadership role in the OAS. If we build the strength and credibility of this and other regional organizations then maybe we can really solve the problems of countries like Haiti.

It is in this precise role that Canada excels. While other countries may be known for their strength or guile, Canada has worked long and hard to develop its image as an honest broker and leading middle power. We are a member of all of the strongest clubs, NATO, G-7, UN, OAS, et cetera, and yet we do not have the historical baggage of the world's great military powers. Therefore others look to us and trust in our ability to build up international institutions like the UN and the OAS. Canada will do a great favour for the world if we take this role to heart and help to bring about constructive change.

On a visit to Washington last week I asked the OAS and State Department the same question: Do you feel Canada has played a

strong leadership role in trying to solve the Haiti problems diplomatically? I got a negative response from both. Instead I was told that Canada is very timid and suffers from an inferiority complex when it comes to dealing with foreigners.

We can play a strong middle power role and become a world leader in brokering peaceful solutions to international crises. However first we need government leadership to show the way, to demonstrate a commitment to diplomacy and playing a more active role. We have the education, the foreign staff and most of all a reputation as a reasonable, democratic society that can be trusted.

What we have been lacking is the political will to succeed. Such change would not only be good for the international community but would be good for Canadians, since affected international organizations could go a long way in preventing any future problems. Without a crisis there is no need to spend more money or risk the lives of members of the armed forces.

In conclusion, we should not enter Haiti or any other area until we establish, first, the criteria; second, the cost; third, a plan including the logistics, our specific job, how and when we will get out. We must be sure that Canadians support our actions and that we always debate this issue in the House of Commons.

The time has come for us to take a step back. Before we send our troops on yet another indefinite mission with uncertain dangers and an unknown cost, let us establish a credible set of criteria on which we can depend to make sure that we pick our spots wisely. Canada can make a difference in this world. Canada can still be an innovator and a leader in the area of peacekeeping but we have to make a choice. Any foolish government can say: "Yes, we will help", and it will think it is doing the best thing. It takes a strong government to say: "Meet me half way and then I will help; otherwise you are on your own".

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I understood there was a brief question and comment period. If so, I have a question for the hon. member.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that Liberal members from here on will be using the 10-minute and 5-minute provision; in other words, sharing the time as opposed to the usual format.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

There are no questions and comments for the first three speakers.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek clarification with respect to the rules. My understanding was that there were no questions and comments following the initial speaker and then the speaker immediately following the minister. Certainly my understanding is that the rules do provide for a period of questions or comments after that.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

On your copy of the Projected Order of Business for today you will read:

Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Minister moving the motion and Member replying immediately after the motion-unlimited time.

All other Members-20 minute maximum and speeches are subject to a 10 minute question and comment period.

I would also refer you to Standing Order 43(1):

Unless otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, when the Speaker is in the Chair, no Member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a Minister moving a government order and the Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister, shall speak for more than twenty minutes-

In this case orders of the day read that the first two speakers have unlimited time. As a member responding for the Reform Party he had unlimited time with no questions and no comments.

Because the wording reads "only a member replying immediately after the minister", we will allow the usual question and comment period for the member for Red Deer.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I am not sure my question is that desperately important. However I do appreciate the opportunity put a question and make a comment with respect to the comments of the member for Red Deer as the official spokesperson for the Reform Party.

Certainly I share the deep concern that has been raised, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to this issue. In fact earlier during question period I spoke myself-

I pointed out that Sunday night's agreement between an illegitimate president, a straw man, Mr. Jonassaint, and Mr. Carter, an agreement made without consulting President Aristide or the United Nations, was in fact a tragic betrayal of the Haitian people.

I pointed out as well that President Carter just last week referred to General Cedras and his armed thugs as conducting a reign of terror, executing children, raping women, killing priests. As the dictators have grown more desperate the atrocities have grown ever more brutal.

Certainly many of us are deeply disturbed and angered by this deal which in effect refers to the great honour and integrity of these same people. There is talk of mutual respect. There is talk of a general amnesty, of honourable retirement and appealing to their sense of honour.

I want to ask the member for Red Deer for clarification. As I understand it, the position of his leader, the member for Calgary Southwest, was that Canada should be joining in the military invasion with the United States. In fact the member for Calgary Southwest said, and I quote that member from yesterday: "We can only play this game so long. We do not get our hands dirty at the front end. But we come in after". He suggested we should be going in with the Americans.

I have listened with care to the comments of the member for Red Deer who suggested that we should not be going in at all and

that the OAS was the body that should have accepted responsibility here.

I would like the member for Red Deer to clarify the position of the Reform Party. Who speaks for the Reform Party? Is it the leader of the Reform Party or is it the member for Red Deer?

Finally, I wonder if the member could clarify as well his position with respect to the issue of prevention. Certainly in the context of Rwanda, many of us believe that had the world acted earlier to prevent the genocide that much of the subsequent tragedy could have been averted.

PeacekeepingGovernment Orders

September 21st, 1994 / 4:55 p.m.

Reform

Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB

Madam Speaker, I really welcome the opportunity to answer that question. I would have thought that a member of such senior rank would know not to believe everything he reads in the press.

To clarify, it is great that I have that opportunity. What my leader did say in response to the reporter's question was that Canada should have played a role in leadership in the OAS and in the United Nations and that if we were to be involved and entered the country we should be entering with an OAS force, not a U.S. force.

That makes a major difference because going in with the OAS and the United Nations is the big problem that we have. I welcome the opportunity to clarify that and to make very clear that the leader and I are speaking from exactly the same song book.

Regarding the preventive measures, I hope I have made that clear as well. In 1985 when I spent a month visiting Rwanda, the country was not in turmoil. Shortly after that and with the underlying problems, there were many NGOs and many government people warning that there was an impending problem.

It was at that point that we had to get in there and negotiate a settlement between those two tribes. When it comes to prevention, that is how one prevents those kinds of things, not waiting until they start killing each other because emotions take over as they did in Yugoslavia and as they do anywhere in the world when one has a problem like that.