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-