Debates of March 10th, 2004

Fisheries

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada-U.S.)]

Mr. Speaker, as an Atlantic Canadian and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for Canada-U.S. relations, I welcome the opportunity to address the House today on this important issue. It is an issue of resource management, multilateralism, and international cooperation.

I reiterate that the government's commitment is to achieve lasting improvements in the way the fisheries are managed beyond Canada's 200 mile limit.

I would like to thank the hon. member for St. John's West for his ongoing interest in this issue. Beyond that, I want to thank the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for its recent reports and recommendations which have been given careful consideration by the government.

The motion before the House today asks that the Government of Canada take immediate action to extend custodial management over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

The Prime Minister and the Government of Canada recognize that foreign overfishing of straddling stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap is a serious issue and requires immediate action. That is why the government is working with our international partners to resolve this issue. We are committed to working cooperatively with other countries to manage our oceans and fisheries.

This approach has received an endorsement in fact from the former leader of the Alliance Party. The current leadership candidate for the Conservative Party and member for Calgary Southwest wrote just last month in the Moncton Times and Transcript that he would “endeavour to substantially reform the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization so that Canada's fish stocks would be better protected” and he would “reserve the right to take unilateral action to protect them if these international arrangements fail”.

Just to make it clear to our colleagues here today, the former leader of the Canadian Alliance and perhaps future leader of the Conservative Party is in complete agreement with the government's position, that we must work to make the existing multilateral approach under NAFO work before we take unilateral action.

Canadians want their government to be an effective advocate for conservation and sustainable use. To do so, we need to be at the decision making table. That is the only way we can bring a brighter future and a sustainable future for our fishing communities.

Canada continues bilateral consultations with our partners in NAFO to advance the case that there is an urgent need for vessels to follow NAFO's rules and for governments to take action when these rules are violated.

In November Canada ratified the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, an action which will allow us to claim international recognition of the limits of our continental shelf.

Canada is not alone in wanting to change the way fish stocks are managed on the high seas. In December the European Union signed on to the United Nations fish stocks agreement. We are confident that we can make NAFO more effective and that a change is imminent with the implementation of the UN fish stocks agreement.

We must continue to work with our international partners to achieve real and lasting change. However, we will be looking for results and all options will be considered in dealing with this.

In January the Prime Minister discussed the issue of overfishing in international waters at the world economic forum in Davos. The government has been sending a firm message to NAFO partners that there is an urgent need for vessels to comply with NAFO's rules and for governments to take responsibility and accountability when these rules are violated.

All NAFO parties share a responsibility to ensure the rules of the fishery are being followed. At the same time, we have a responsibility to ensure that those who do not follow the rules are sanctioned and a responsibility to make sustainable development our number one priority for the future.

Currently international leadership is in support of conservation and sustainability of fish stocks on the high seas. However, by acting unilaterally, as this motion suggests, we risk compromising our international alliances and reputation as a leader in the cooperative management of fisheries.

I have consulted with fisheries industry representatives who agree with this analysis. Canada, over a long period of time, has developed an enviable reputation in international affairs. In one fell swoop, this proposal, if implemented, could threaten that reputation. We need to be realistic about an action that would be viewed by the international community as contrary to customary international law and would be strongly resisted by countries that fish outside the 200 mile limit.

Custodial management would take us years to accomplish, and establishing control and authority over disputed areas could take even longer. In the meantime, our influence and our ability to achieve our objectives in NAFO as well as in other international organizations could seriously be diminished.

The government recognizes that the preservation and protection of fish stocks is a serious matter. It is an initiative that must be addressed in a manner that enhances rather than endangers Canada's enviable international reputation as a country that respects multilateralism and works within multilateral organizations to defend Canadian interests.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is currently developing a new strategic direction to make key changes and to put Canada in the best possible position to influence NAFO. A working group has been established with federal, provincial and industry advisers to examine options and develop a strategic direction forward.

I am confident that the new enforcement strategy will give Canada the tools it needs to significantly reduce foreign overfishing beyond our 200 mile limit. Armed with this strategy, Canada will act with strength without undermining our international relations or relinquishing our support of NAFO.

I can ensure all members that the Government of Canada is prepared to do whatever it takes to address the serious issue of foreign overfishing. Our first approach must be to build on some recent changes that bode well for Canada's ability to advance its interests within NAFO.

Additionally, our government is developing a strategy that will address foreign overfishing, one that will go much further than the member's motion calling for custodial management. I think the hon. member will be pleased with that result and again, I commend him for his interest in this issue.

In particular, earlier this week we recognized overwhelmingly in the House Canada's support for multilateral approaches in defending Canada's interests when the Secretary-General of the United Nations was here in the House and when we had support from all political parties for that multilateral approach. It is important that we consider that consistency in terms of Canada's reputation as a country that does pursue its domestic and international goals through multilateral approaches when we are considering policies to protect our fisheries. Clearly, support for and negotiation within NAFO is consistent with that goal when we are defending Canadian interests in our fisheries.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on this motion which calls on Canada to assume custodial management over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. The real problem revolves around the fact that fish roam the entire expanse of the continental shelf, which is irregular in shape, while the laws of nations governing fisheries extend only out to 200 miles.

The nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap are outside the 200 mile limit and are subject to the laws of NAFO. Outside the 200 mile limit we are supposed to let fisheries violators be tried in their own courts. Foreign courts have been notoriously slack in punishing their nationals for rules broken off of our shores, an ocean away.

The Northwest Atlantic ground fishery was the greatest fishery in the world. For a long time this fishery fed the world. We brought this fishery into Confederation back in 1949. A combination of neglect by Ottawa and rampant foreign overfishing over the past few decades has led to the diminishing of the stocks. Not only are these stocks being diminished, but they are being devastated as well.

The northern cod has been pushed to the brink of extinction. This has been devastating to the economies of many coastal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador in particular and in Atlantic Canada in general. This is more than a local problem; it is a Canadian problem. These fisheries are a very important world food source that some nations and fishing interests have nearly destroyed. Canada has a duty not only to its own people but also to the people of the world to intercede before it is too late.

I said earlier that the failure of the northern cod fishery devastated many coastal communities. It and certain changes to the EI system were really responsible for about 50,000 people leaving my province over the last decade or so. It has had a very bad effect on us. Had Canada not blown our fisheries, many of those people would not have had to leave the many outport communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and settle in other parts of Canada, namely, Fort McMurray and many other places.

When we say that Canada should extend custodial management outside the 200 mile limit, that does not mean we are pleased with the management inside the 200 mile limit, because the management inside has been very bad as well. Ottawa has never taken the fishery seriously in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has never taken the fishery seriously in Atlantic Canada. It readily trades fish quotas in exchange for market access for the manufacturing concerns of central Canada. Fisheries management in the overall scheme of things in Ottawa is not even on the stove, let alone on the front burner.

Yes, we did win a share of the say in the management of offshore oil and gas, a non-renewable resource. We are grateful for the power, but we still receive very little in the way of royalties. The federal government is doing a very bad job on managing our fisheries. It has done a very bad job generally in managing offshore oil and gas revenues, to which we are certainly entitled in our province.

I think it will go down in history as a great miscarriage of justice that has been done to Newfoundland and Labrador because of the bad management at fisheries.

I know my time is up, so thank you, Mr. Speaker, for those few words.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for St. John's East for his cooperation because the Chair would want to safeguard the final five minutes under right of reply for the mover and sponsor of this motion, the hon. member for St. John's West.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleagues, the member for St. John's East, the member for Skeena, and the member for Scarborough Southwest, the chair of the committee on fisheries and oceans, who has done a tremendous job in that position and has been very strong on this issue.

I would also like to thank my good friend, the hon. member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, and my friend, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

These people have shown today their knowledge and support for what we are asking, that Canada take control, for a change, of a resource that is really ours, that swims on Canada's continental shelf and that has been abused for years.

I do not intend to omit the parliamentary secretary, my friend from Kings--Hants, who perhaps in his new life looks upon the world a bit differently than he did when he was over on this side of the House. It is amazing how one's vision of international cooperation changes when one crosses the floor. The member was very strong in his support of what we were doing and now we hear the government tune, “We are going to deal with this issue”.

I like country and western music. One of my old favourites is a fellow by the name of Johnny Horton, have mercy on him. One of the songs he used to sing was “It's the same old tale that the crow told me, way down yonder by the sycamore tree”.

I have heard for years and years, “We are going to do something”. I challenge the member and I challenge anybody to look at the correspondence that has taken place, to look at the initiatives that have been taken between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the government generally and NAFO in relation to overfishing. They will see about the same amount of activity as we have seen action taken on vessels that have been issued citations.

In conclusion, I will give a couple of reasons that we need to take some action in relation to our policing and control of the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap. I refer to two boats.

The Olga was arrested and brought into Newfoundland port. They found in the hold of that boat tonnes of cod, a species under moratorium. The boat was sent back home. Somebody was supposed to deal with the boat. The standing committee, when visiting Norway and Iceland last year, found the boat tied up in Iceland. When asked what action had been taken with the boat, with the skipper and with the company, the government's response was, “We do not know. We have done a search. We do not know what action has been taken”. The Olga was also charged with polluting our waters.

The case will go to court. Millions of dollars, perhaps, will be spent and what are we going to get? Nothing, because the company has gone bankrupt, the boat is up for sale and of course our waters are polluted and our fish are gone.

The other boat is the Santa Mafalda . Four times in the last couple of years that boat has been issued citations. One was for fishing inside our 200 mile limit, not on the nose and tail but inside the 200 mile limit. What happened? The boat was sent back home and a warrant was issued for the captain's arrest. Following that incident inside our waters, the boat was stopped again and was issued a citation. They could not arrest the captain because even though the original offence had occurred months before, the documentation had not yet come before the courts. Four times, four citations and nothing was done. The boat continues to fish in our waters.

Three hundred citations have been issued in the last 10 years, 30 a year and no action. Why are we asking Canada to do something? Because nothing has been done. The government does not intend to do anything unless we force it into action. That is what it is all about.

There are the unanimous reports from the standing committee and the unanimous report from the all party committee. Everybody says to do something, except a few key people in government. Of course, they are the ones who will make the decision, but let me just remind them, that the people might make the decision for them.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 4:58 p.m., the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 24, 2004, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

Pursuant to order made Monday, March 8, the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Government Business No. 4. I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 4, Mr. Kilger in the chair)

Haiti

[Bill Graham, Liberal, for the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That this Committee take note of the situation in Haiti.

Mr. Chair, during these very difficult times for the Haitian people, Canadians have been anxiously watching events there unfold while sharing in the concerns of our important Haitian community here at home. It was therefore important for us to discuss these matters in the House tonight.

Although the situation in Haiti is stabilizing and the appointment of a prime minister yesterday is a positive step forward, it remains fragile. Ultimately, Haitians themselves must determine the way forward by working together to restore democratic governance, the rule of law and the protection of human rights and freedoms.

However the Haitian people are not alone in facing this challenge, not today and not in the months and years to come. As the Prime Minister has affirmed, Canada is committed to working with the international community in helping Haiti to restore public order and to succeed over the long term to achieve democratic institutions and sustainable development.

Of course, the recent events in Haiti are not ones that Canada or any other country wish to see happen. As this crisis developed we worked actively with others in the international community to defuse it.

At the special summit of the Americas in Monterrey, the Prime Minister and I met with CARICOM leaders and discussed the situation in Haiti. At that time the Prime Minister made a commitment that Canada would be there with them to help the Haitian people out of their desperate situation.

Over the next weeks, as the crisis intensified, I spoke very often to the CARICOM foreign ministers, as well as to Colin Powell, Dominique de Villepin and César Gaviria. The Prime Minister actively engaged his counterparts in the region as well.

Our friends in CARICOM worked intensively to develop their plan toward a political solution. Their plan was endorsed by ourselves, by the OAS and then by the Francophonie through the assistance of my colleague, the Minister Responsible for the Francophonie and President of the Privy Council, by the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly, and by the United States.

However in Haiti itself, unfortunately, all sides resisted accepting the plan and when President Aristide was won over, the negotiated political solution envisaged by CARICOM could not be obtained.

We followed events closely. We used all our diplomatic efforts to promote the CARICOM plan. When it broke down, some urged a military intervention at that time. However all concerned parties were agreed that any intervention in Haiti required a broad coalition of forces with the necessary capacity and acting with international legitimacy.

No country with military capacity was willing to act or, I put it to you, Mr. Chair, should have acted, in the absence of political conditions in Haiti that would have both ensured the success of the mission and reduced the risks that we were asking of the brave men and women of our armed forces.

Today in retrospect, certain voices speak of the circumstances of Mr. Aristide's departure as constituting a form of coup d'état. Of course, his decision was the result of the deteriorating security situation in his country and he was motivated, as he said in his resignation letter, by a desire to avoid a potentially bloody civil war. That letter clearly indicates that it was his decision to leave and, to his credit, it was a decision that spared his nation worse violence, indeed the possibility of a humanitarian catastrophe.

Secretary General Annan answered a question here yesterday about the circumstances of Aristide's departure. He said:

--the Security Council when it met had been given a letter that Aristide had resigned.... So the council acted on the basis of a letter of resignation and the transfer of power to the Chief Justice, and determined that because of the volatile environment, a multi-national force should go in and help stabilize the situation.... I don't think there was anyone in the room who supported a coup d'état.

This was not a coup d'état. This was the Security Council of the United Nations acting with the highest authority of the charter to restore order in the area.

Today the door has been opened to a new determination by the international community to work with Haitians in developing their country's potential.

When the situation deteriorated across the island at the height of the crisis, Canadian diplomats and military personnel assisted Canadian and other civilian nationals desiring to leave Haiti. More than 100 Canadian forces personnel and four CC-130 Hercules aircraft evacuated about 350 people, including approximately 235 Canadian citizens.

Today some 450 of our armed personnel are joining the force that has been authorized by the Security Council to bring order to the island. We congratulate our troops on their brave and successful actions to date and wish them well as they work with others to restore order in Haiti. We look forward to hearing what the Minister of National Defence will be telling us this evening in this debate about their important actions in that field.

As this country is going through very difficult times in its history, I would like to reiterate that Canada will maintain its support to Haiti in the long term, to help rebuild that country. In light of the long-standing cooperation between Canada and Haiti, of the responsibility that we have in our own hemisphere, of our ties with Haiti through the Francophonie, and of the existence of a strong Haitian community here in Canada, I am convinced that all the members who are here want our country to play a leadership role to solve the current crisis and ease the transition towards democracy.

I would like to remind the House of all that our country has already done for Haiti. For over 50 years, Canada has been cooperating with Haiti through religious communities and non-governmental organizations, through its official development assistance program and through its efforts to promote security and justice. We were also actively involved in the Organization of American States to solve the political crisis and to establish the conditions that will ensure good democratic governance on the island.

I would also like to point out that, during the recent crisis, Canada played a key role in ensuring the well-being of people, particularly civilians, in Haiti. We provided close to $2 million in humanitarian and food aid through UN institutions, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Pan American Health Organization. The Canadian Forces also helped the Red Cross deliver medical supplies from Saint-Domingue to Port-au-Prince. As recently as yesterday, we announced $5 million in humanitarian assistance.

Canada will also play a significant role in the stabilization force that the Security Council will establish in three months to replace the current multinational force. We will also continue to support the Organization of American States in its special mission for Haiti, and CARICOM in its efforts to ensure a peaceful and democratic future in that country. I want to assure the House and all Canadians that we will help the Haitian people by working with our partners from the Caribbean, the Americas, the Francophonie, the United Nations and the international financial institutions.

In addition, we will be there, on site, to help form a viable provisional government and organize the honest election that will follow. We will be there to ensure that human rights are respected and that a fair and efficient legal and criminal justice system is restored. We will be there to help restore free media and a democratic civil society. We will, of course, be there to respond to fundamental human needs such as food, health care and education. Agriculture, the energy sector, the financial system and the other foundations for economic development need to be promoted in the long term.

Of course, this will be no easy task. As we have learned from Canadian participation in Bosnia and Afghanistan, there is no instant solution for states in distress, or for assistance. The only solution for the Haitians themselves is to renounce violence for political and democratic cooperation. The only solution for the international community is to make a long term commitment to rebuild the institutions of a peaceful and efficient civil society. We Canadians are aware of how essential it is to succeed this time. We are going to do everything in our power to enable the Haitian people to build the democratic and prosperous country that they deserve and that Canadians want to see sharing our beloved hemisphere.

[The Chair]

I would remind members participating in this debate that this format allows for members to sit wherever they choose. The Chair will recognize anyone notwithstanding whether he or she is in the usual seat in the House.

There is now a period of 10 minutes for questions or comments. To the extent that questions and answers can be relatively brief it will allow for more members to participate in this important dialogue.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the remarks by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I will keep my question quite short out of respect for other members. I am sure they would like to address questions to him as well.

The minister briefly touched on a concern of mine at the end of his remarks: the need for a longer term commitment. My understanding, vague as it is, is that according to what the government has stated, the deployment of the troops phase of our assistance to the Haitians is to be 90 days, a three month deployment.

Given his remarks, I wonder what the minister envisions beyond those 90 days from a military perspective, and I also wonder if he could add any specifics in the way of requests of Canada that have come from the Haitians or the Americans or French who are involved there. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was just here for a visit and he may have suggested to our government or the minister or the Prime Minister what he is looking for in the way of specifics beyond the 90 days.

If the minister does have some of that information, I think it would certainly be incumbent upon him to enlighten Canadians, particularly the men and women of our military, as to what the likely commitment would be beyond three months.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member for Prince George--Peace River for an excellent question. This is certainly an issue that we have been considering. This morning I was discussing this very matter with the secretary of state of the United States. The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and I had a long conversation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations yesterday. We are all concerned about precisely these issues.

Members will recall that Canada was in Haiti for a long time the last time. It took several years. It is clear that this mandate of the United Nations, this force, is for three months. I am sure the minister of defence could speak more to that issue, but my understanding of the international community with which we are having a conversation at this time is that the expectation is that we will move to a chapter 6 authorization for a follow-on force, or what the Secretary-General has called a pull-out force, after the end of the three month period. That force will be composed of more civilian types of police activities and will be less heavy on the military end.

I think that has a good possibility of being successful this time, because members will have noticed that the colonel in charge of the American forces was quoted this morning as saying that they have been given instructions to disarm people. One of the problems last time was that vast amounts of arms were allowed to collect there. I think there is going to be an effort by the international community for disarming.

That is not going to be all, the member will appreciate. I spoke in my speech not only of the military and peacekeeping dimension of what we are trying to do; there will be a lot of focus on institution building in Haiti. The problem is with the democratic institutions, which have broken down. Clearly there is going to have to be a considerable focus on rebuilding the judiciary and rebuilding the democratic institutions. We intend to do that by working with our colleagues in CARICOM. Being on the neighbouring islands, they tend to be the ones who know the political situation best.

There are two dimensions to this issue. There is a peace and security side, which will be a chapter 7 resolution for three months--

[The Chair]

I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but time is of the essence.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the minister say that Canada's commitment will be long term. However, I want the minister to be a bit more committal in terms of the level and importance of this commitment.

The minister has specific information, but I read the newspapers and obtained additional information later. The minister knows as I do that, in 2003-04, Canada's aid to Haiti dropped from $22 million last year to $17 million this year. That is $10 million less than in 2000-01.

I think it is extremely important to make a significant effort. I am going to focus on this. Currently, in addition to being the poorest country in our hemisphere, Haiti has just suffered looting that destroyed some of its community infrastructure.

Therefore, an effort that is properly managed and properly administered, naturally, but still a significant effort that could be sustained for a long time will be essential. The Secretary-General of the United Nations invited countries able to invest, the rich countries, to do so.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I believe that is normal. The hon. member for Mercier is very well aware of the conditions we are talking about. I think that she understands that Canada had to reduce slightly its aid to Haiti in recent years, because of that country's lack of ability to absorb the aid. It was a governance problem.

For example, we have tried to train the police. We found that the money earmarked for the police did not go to the police. Thus, there was some question about how money was being spent.

We have supported NGOs and other agencies. The fact is that Haiti is our number one priority in the hemisphere. That said, it is obvious that it is difficult now to predict exactly what should be done. That is why we discussed with the Secretary-General yesterday and with Mr. Powell this morning, and with others as well to figure out what to do. I am sure we will also be talking with the financial institutions. Perhaps my colleague will be able to elaborate on that.

If conditions in Haiti are favourable, if there are conditions of governance that allow aid to reach the people and society to rebuild, as I said in my speech, the international community is prepared to act. Mr. Iglesias is prepared to act in behalf of the InterAmerican Development Bank. The Americans are prepared to act.

Still, before we spend our taxpayers' money, we must have the right conditions, and that is our priority right now.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Chair, the minister has made reference to trying to cooperate with CARICOM, which yesterday or on the weekend, I believe, along with the government of South Africa, called for an international investigation as to the manner, methodology and circumstances in which President Aristide was ousted.

Although I have heard the minister talk this evening about the president's resignation, there of course is a major dispute over just how that came about. I am wondering if the minister could address whether Canada would be prepared to encourage that type of international investigation as to how President Aristide came to be out of office.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, this morning I discussed this matter with my colleague from Jamaica, K.D. Knight. This is a preoccupation of many countries, but I have to frankly tell the hon. member that our preoccupation at this time is rebuilding Haiti. I am not convinced that a lot of focusing on past problems, on who did what to whom in the past, is going to advance what we have to do in Haiti, which surely is to rebuild the political climate in Haiti to enable us to have a rebuilding of the country.

It is a fragile democracy. It is a democracy that works with a lot of difficulty. It is clear that there are going to be proponents of President Aristide. There are going to be proponents of those who took up arms against him. Our desire at this time is to avoid replicating the conditions that led to Mr. Aristide's departure by encouraging that debate at this time in Haiti. Our efforts will be to say to the people of Haiti, “Put aside past quarrels. Let us build Haiti. Let us look to the future for the children, for the prospects of a decent society and a decent life”.

If we focus on the past quarrels, we will not move forward into the future. I understand the hon. member's preoccupation with this issue, but I would advise and suggest that we should focus on the future rather than on the past. There are huge problems out there for us, the international community as a whole. If we focus on the past, if we get engaged and ground down in that, we might find that the international community will not be willing to come up with the money or put it into a situation which they do not believe is moving in a positive direction. That is the way in which I personally would advise the government to move.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have just a brief supplemental for the minister. Obviously one of the great concerns the Conservative Party has is about our already overstretched military, especially in light of its budget. I just wonder if the minister would answer this question: Whatever it is going to cost the Canadian taxpayers to assist Haiti, specifically the military component over the next 90 days, will the money be coming out of the existing Department of National Defence budget to cover it, or will it be coming from other funds made available from the government?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, if the hon. member would permit me, I could suggest that the Minister of National Defence, who will be speaking later in the debate, will be able to answer that question better than I can in terms of the actual budget of the military. I appreciate his concern about where the money is going to come from. I quite agree that this is an issue which we have to look at. We are very proud of what we are doing there and what we are achieving there, but we have to look at how that is done in the context of our resources as well.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, first I have some overriding comments related to what is happening with Haiti and to some things on which we should be focused. Then I would like to present some concerns. I have some questions, some of which will be rhetorical. I would suggest that this whole conflict has raised some questions in terms of Canadian foreign policy and how it is constructed and implemented.

First, we all agree and we say wholeheartedly that we want to see things in Haiti settled peacefully, as we do wherever there are places of conflict. If we can play a part in that, good.

Also, we want to recognize our troops who are there. As usual, whenever Canadian troops are abroad they distinguish themselves in terms of their courage, their bravery and their training and in how they conduct themselves. They are in fact ambassadors for Canada in very dangerous situations. Therefore we want to acknowledge our troops and commit to them our full support in every way we can.

We also acknowledge the benefits of Canada being involved in diplomatic processes in terms of trying to bring a settlement in that particular area.

We acknowledge the importance of protecting our citizens who are in Haiti, the many who are still there and those who needed to be safely evacuated.

I also have concerns, not just from people across Canada but even from my own constituency, related to children who right now are in orphanages in Haiti. There are families whose adoption processes have already gone through and have been approved, yet it seems to be difficult. These children are in a dangerous situation. Adoption processes have been approved, but they are still waiting for their passports. There should be some way, whether it is through our armed forces or our diplomats, in which we can recognize the danger that is involved. Is there some manner in which those children can be safely taken from a somewhat tenuous situation and joined with their soon to be adoptive parents? That would be those for whom the processes have gone through and everything has been approved.

Those are some of my overriding comments.

What the situation in Haiti has done is once again show the result of more than 10 years of reduction of resources to our armed forces. Though the commitment level and the training level of our forces are I think the highest in the world, our forces are limited in what they can do and in how long they can be maintained in another theatre of activity.

We raise this constantly in the House. We are raising it again today. We need this government to begin to replace and to put back. Our forces have been subjected to a drastic reduction of resources for over more than 10 years. I will even say that a government previous to this one actually began that reduction process, so I am not saying in a partisan way that it is just this government that has done it, but this has to be addressed. It affects how long we can have troops in an area. It shows how thinly they are spread out. We already have an incredible commitment in Afghanistan, where we should be. The whole problem of underfunding by the federal government is exacerbated every time a conflict comes up. We need to address that.

A fascinating question has arisen in this conflict in regard to Canada's involvement. Here is the question that it begs: What criteria do we as a nation use when we make a decision to send in armed forces, and armed forces that are prepared to use those arms? The minister has already said that there could be situations in which they have to literally disarm people in another nation. We have made a decision to send in troops and it begs that question: on what criteria?

Let us look back at very recent international history and another country, another leader, this time by the name of Milosevic, who had embarked on a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Some 8,000 people had been slaughtered under his direct command when Canada, along with some other nations and without UN Security Council approval, moved in there in a military way to stop what was happening.

Using a more recent and tragic example, our government determined not to have anything to do in the Iraq theatre, saying that we were opposed to regime change. I may have differences of opinion with that, but I accept that the government said that it was opposed to a regime change in Iraq, where there was a non-elected leader who was well on the way to setting the all-time record for mass slaughtering, abuse that went beyond description, attacking other countries, and gassing thousands of his own people to death. The coalition forces and the Red Crescent have discovered massive graves that go into the tens if not the hundreds of thousands.

Here we have Saddam Hussein, a non-elected monster of untold proportions in the Iraq situation. Our government stated that we were opposed to any regime change. All right, I accept that. I still do not know what the criteria were, but I accept that.

Now, we have an elected leader Aristide. We may not have wanted to vote for him. He may not be the type of person we would vote for. But the government makes a decision that there should be a regime change.

It is a serious question that we need to address. That decision was based on what criteria? We must have this discussion.

This leads right into my next point. Any time we are talking about troops being deployed, other than emergency action where there is no time to convene Parliament, these types of questions must be debated, must be looked into by members of Parliament, and consensus from Parliament must be achieved. When do we move into a country, when are we party to regime charge--which we have been now, we are party to regime change in Haiti--and to what degree do we involve ourselves? These are the questions that this whole operation begs.

I say that recognizing that we had to send troops there. We had to protect Canadians; we had to evacuate Canadians. However, we actively have supported a regime change of an elected leader.

Yes, there have been some killings going on. It does not even touch the order of magnitude of what Milosevic or Saddam Hussein were doing.

It leads us to the other question, how much influence does Canada really have and how much can it have? Secretary-General Kofi Annan was just here addressing this, asking Canada to do more.

A two-year operational base corps operational budget of the UN runs about $3.1 billion, almost $4 billion U.S. We contribute about $53 million of that, about 1%. In terms of costs, Canada has contributed about 2.2% in peacekeeping operations that have been ongoing in the last year.

I would like to suggest that we can have influence if we are willing to articulate certain principles. When the Secretary-General was here and said Canada had to do more, he talked about poverty, for instance. There is poverty in Haiti. There is poverty, unfortunately and tragically, in many parts of the world. Do we just do more? Does that mean just more dollar dumping? Does that mean we take more Canadian taxpayer dollars and dump it into a situation often in which, and possibly in this case, a leader absconds with those funds, or banks them in Switzerland, or does something and it never gets to the people who really need it?

We support urgent humanitarian needs. We support the use of NGOs, in terms of money having a better chance of flowing to the people who really need it.

I would like to suggest that Canada could be very effective at the United Nations, and in these discussions, if we talked about the principles that lead to a have nation or a have not nation.

Have nations do not just happen and have not nations do not become impoverished just by the luck of the draw. The last century is filled with classic textbook cases of nations that became have nations because they established certain principles. I would suggest those principles would be individual freedoms: the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom to be enterprising, and the freedom to own private property.

How often at the United Nations, or when we were in discussions with the Secretary-General or other countries, did we say and did we bring influence and even pressure on other regimes, other nations, whose elitist leaders did not want to put these principles in place?

We know they work if we look at the last century. North Korea and South Korea are an example. Here we have a population, obviously genetically and ethnically the same, with the same thousands of years of past history. One implements a regime which is not democratic and does not promote these principles; the others does. What do we have? Generally speaking, a higher standard of living.

The same comparison can be done with West Germany and East Germany, Taiwan and mainland China. The same comparison can be done with democratic Israel and its surrounding undemocratic neighbours. Here is one country with a relatively high quality of living and around it there are nations awash in oil but brimming in poverty.

I would like to encourage our minister and our government, not in a tangential reflective way, but in very clear ways at every opportunity at the United Nations, to challenge those nations which do not allow these individual freedoms to exist. That is the principal reason we have these crises of poverty. That is the way that in the mid and long term these crises can be avoided, if they would start to move on those principles with the encouragement of Canada. That is the way Canada could have a great influence at the United Nations.