Maud Debien

[Foreign Affairs, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the motion introduced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, providing that Canada assume control of the UN Mission in Haiti shows, first of all, that the United Nations Organization has a great trust in Canada and its peacekeeping missions.

I would like to stress that the Bloc Quebecois is pleased to see that the new Minister of Foreign Affairs is willing to consult members of Parliament regarding the Canada's involvement in this mission. The goal is to continue the peace mission already in progress in Haiti. As I said previously, Canada shows a great deal of openness towards countries in need of humanitarian help, or support in re-establishing democracy and respect for human rights, or help in maintaining a stable and peaceful society, in short, help in their peacebuilding efforts.

We are currently living in a world where a country cannot ignore what other countries are doing or experiencing, and even more so when such a country is a friend and almost a neighbour. The need to live in peace in the world requires actions and initiatives which promote better conditions. Some would tell us, wrongly, that we should take care of our deficit and our own problems before giving any help to foreign countries. This would be a shortsighted view when faced with a problem which might endanger our own security.

To get a better understanding of the context which led to the motion we are debating today, I would like to review briefly the various interventions of the UN in Haiti. In December 1990 the long awaited first democratic election brought President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. The success of that election was in part the result of the good work of an international mission of observers under the direction of Pierre F. Côté, director general of elections in Quebec.

Less than a year later, a coup perpetrated by the Haitian army forced the new president into exile. Following the coup of September 30, 1991 and until the President's return, the people of Haiti were under a military regime that scorned the fundamental principles of democracy. During those three years, more than 3,000 people were killed by putschists in summary executions, over and above others acts of torture. In the absence of any willingness on the part of the military to restore democracy, severe economic sanctions were imposed on the country by UN and OAS members.

Quebecers and Canadians were among the first to call upon their elected representatives to make major efforts in order to restore democracy and ensure President Aristide's return. Canada also took part in several humanitarian missions under the UN and the OAS.

Furthermore, more than 500 police officers and peacekeepers from Canada and Quebec were involved in the UN mission to Haiti, known as UNMIH. That mission was launched pursuant to Resolution 867 of the Security Council. It was aimed at implementing the Governors Island agreement in order to ensure the President's return as soon as possible. In July 1994, just a year and a half ago, the UN mission to Haiti being unable to give effect to that agreement, Canada took part in setting up a multinational force under U.S. command, in order to hasten the departure of the Haitian military leaders.

The UN Security Council then gave increased capabilities to the multinational force, which would give over these powers to the UN mission to Haiti once the situation had been stabilized. As of March 31, 1995, Canada had provided 100 RCMP officers and 500 members of its armed forces to the UN mission. Since then, the UN mission has taken over from the multinational military implementation force. It includes a military contingent of 6,000 soldiers and a police component of 800 officers from 30 countries.

The Haitian people gave a warm welcome to the troops and police officers, and there has been a substantial drop in the crime rate over the past 12 months. Peaceful demonstrations are now allowed. Journalists are free to do their job. The international community, however, still has one concern: the mandate of UNMIH expires tomorrow.

Since the situation in Haiti is still precarious, the Secretary General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, recently indicated that a smaller transition mission would be desirable in order to strengthen the young Haitian democracy. This mission would focus on

supervising the new Haitian police and supporting the civilian institutions. The military aspects of its mandate would be reduced.

We must be assured that this new national police force, which would be trained by Canadian instructors among others, will be able to maintain order after the peacekeepers leave. The newly elected President of Haiti, Mr. Préval, has already stated his intention to ask the Security Council to extend the mission.

The challenge of democratization has not been won yet. It seems that the disarming of the former supporters of the putschists is far from over, and that there is still a risk that hostilities will resume after the international forces leave.

Despite its reservations, the Bloc Quebecois feels that the presence of UN troops, which will be under the direction of Canada for a while, will undoubtedly be a great help in rebuilding Haiti. Maintaining foreign troops is desirable until we have more evidence that democracy prevails in that country. However, before committing Canadian Forces any further and responding to the UN's request, we wish to express certain reservations.

First of all, the government must set the rules and criteria governing its intervention and assess the resources needed to carry out this mission. The minister seemed prepared earlier to take into account what his colleagues were saying, and I hope it was not idle talk.

The government must immediately specify what the mandate of our troops will be in Haiti, to avoid repeating the ad-libbing that has taken place during other missions. We believe that their primary task should be to consolidate democracy by supervising and training local forces and reinforcing civilian institutions.

Since the American troops are scheduled to leave next month, the Bloc Quebecois questions whether this new mission will be able to keep the peace in Haiti. We think that the Canadian government should negotiate with the UN and the U.S. government the withdrawal, possibly over a six-month period, of the American and Pakistani troops currently deployed.

The multinational force under U.S. command included 6,000 troops. Canada should know from the start how many troops we will be able to count on when we will take over command, and make sure that the UN will provide all the resources we will need to fulfil our mandate properly.

As for the Canadian troops in the field, the Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that no more than 750 peacekeepers should be sent to Haiti, as my colleague, the defence critic, indicated. More than 1,000 Canadian military have already been assigned various tasks with regard to the implementation of the Dayton accords in Bosnia. While being generous and compassionate, Canada must also take into account what if any resources are available.

So far, the government has not told us much about the costs involved in this mission. Again, the minister seemed to take that aspect into consideration. For the sake of transparency and integrity, taxpayers in Quebec and Canada must know what expenses the government will incur during this mission.

In June 1995, I took part in an observer mission for the verification of parliamentary and senatorial elections in Haiti. I saw for myself that the presence of foreign forces was absolutely necessary if an atmosphere of detente and security was to prevail over there. For far too long, the people of Haiti have been afraid of walking in the streets, of speaking, singing and expressing themselves freely.

Democracy is a wonderful means of integrating citizens in the society to which they belong. This can take place provided that citizens can play an active and responsible role in society. The democracy emerging in Haiti deserves to survive, if only it will be given a chance.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are rushing through debate on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.

I say rushing, because, as you know, the Liberal government has been attempting in the last few days to speed up the political process to ensure speedy passage of Bill C-110.

Let us first take a look at the general context of this real crab trap the Prime Minister got himself caught in, according to some analysts, and we certainly agree with them.

A few days before the October 30 Quebec referendum, the federal Prime Minister, driven by panic, made an about-face and promised major changes to Canadian federalism. So, in early November, he created two committees made up of federal ministers in order to examine the issue of constitutional and administrative changes. I want to point out that, since then, we never heard anything more about those committees.

Then, on November 27, two weeks ago, even before knowing what these committees werre going to propose, the Canadian government announced its intentions on constitutional matters: first, a resolution symbolically recognizing the distinct nature of Quebec, then a bill where the federal government committed itself to never adopt constitutional amendments to which one of the four regions of Canada, namely, Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes and the West, were opposed.

Finally, the third measure expressed Ottawa's intention to partially withdraw from manpower training programs, while, of course, maintaining control over funds and national standards. One can understand the government for trying to gag any opponent of its constitutional reform package. The utter mess it has created and cannot get itself out of verges on the most grotesque cynicism.

Quebecers have nevertheless seen through its scheme. The results of a SOM poll which was released last Friday show that 53 per cent of Quebecers find the federal proposals inadequate, and a meagre 24 per cent find them adequate.

Interviews for the poll were conducted between December 2 and December 5, two days before the last episode of government bungling over the veto for B.C. and Alberta. Results would be even more critical if the poll were taken today.

As far as improvisation and inconsistency go, in an area as fundamental as constitutional changes, the federal government takes the cake. Even before Quebecers had a chance to say these proposals were unacceptable, the federal government yielded to pressure from the west and granted a veto to B.C. and a veto by default to Alberta.

But the show did not end there. Last week, federal Liberals fell all over themselves to tell us Quebec does not have a distinct culture and there is only one Canadian culture from coast to coast.

We have a government that claims to be willing to grant symbolic recognition of Quebec's distinctive character, but says at the same time that this does not mean anything and that Quebecers do not have a distinct culture. As I already said, these intellectual flip-flops are tragically funny and deceptive.

With Bill C-110, the roundabout ways of the government are just as difficult to follow. First of all, we are told that this bill gives Quebec a veto power, which Quebec thought it had until the Supreme Court stated otherwise in 1982. Since it is one of the two founding nations, Quebecers had always thought that, in order to maintain a good relationship, both partners had to agree before major changes could be made. However, Bill C-110 does the exact opposite and achieves an incredible feat by annoying all Canadians from sea to sea to sea.

Quebecers have always considered the veto power as, by definition, a kind of constitutional protection, because they did not want to relive the events of 1982 and be excluded from the constitutional amendment and reform process. But Bill C-110 is only a bill. All it will take is a majority of members in this House and Quebec can say goodbye to its veto power.

We are far from entrenching this power in the fundamental law of Canada. This unconstitutionalized veto will not be granted only to the two founding nations.

At first, besides Quebec, Bill C-110 was to grant this veto power to Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and the Western provinces. A week later, after a press conference given by the premiers of B.C. and Alberta, these two provinces also got the veto power. By the end of my speech, the federal government may have granted a veto to Nova Scotia and Manitoba.

As my colleague from Bellechasse put it, in his colourful language, this is the Colonel Sanders' veto power, a big chicken with legs for everybody.

The message the Liberal government is conveying is pretty simple: Quebec is a province like any other and only gets a veto because of the size of its population. With the recent presents offered to us by our federal Santa Claus in this Christmas season, any change will require the support of at least seven provinces representing at least 91.8 per cent of the Canadian population.

In other words, Quebec is not getting a veto, but rather a guarantee that all future constitutional negotiations will have the same fate as Meech or Charlottetown. We have reached a constitutional dead end and there is virtually no way of getting out.

One has to be particularly out of touch-and we thought we had seen the worst of it with the Charlottetown Accord-to add insult to injury.

In a press release dated November 27 of this year, the Liberal government said, and I quote: "Now is not the time to hold a round of constitutional talks since the Government of Quebec is completely dedicated to the secessionist option. If conditions changed, that is if Quebec and the other regions agreed, the veto proposal contained in this bill could be enshrined in the Constitution".

So the federal government is imposing its own constitutional rules without seeking the approval of Canada's four or five regions-the number varies from one day to the next. Already the government is not respecting the principles of Bill C-110 in its current approach. Like Trudeau in 1982, this Liberal government is trying to impose a formula for amending the Constitution through a process that goes against the very principle underlying the proposed formulas.

In closing, I urge Liberal members to oppose Bill C-110-I know I am dreaming but one more nightmare will not make a difference-for the simple reason that if Liberal members love Quebec so much, as they came to tell us before the referendum, they should understand that Quebecers will never be satisfied with empty shells and constitutional footballs that have no more credibility that the rhetoric that comes with them. The least we can say is that, in the best country in the world, even crabs are laughing their heads off.

[Children As War Victims, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, two million children have been killed, between four and five children crippled, and ten million psychologically scarred by the ravages of war over the past ten years.

That is what UNICEF says in its 1996 report released yesterday. Various conflicts around the world have left in their wake some horrifying and monstrous scenes in which children are all too often the victims.

Confronted with this sad finding, Western countries, including Canada, are forced to give serious thought to their moral obligations. For example, UNICEF does not hesitate to blame this sad situation in part on antipersonnel mines.

Yet Canada remains reluctant to dispose of its own mines as long as the other countries have not done so.

In the name of these children who are war victims, Canada should lead the way in eliminating these weapons of suffering.

[Quebec Culture, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are now used to the minister's contorted answers, but I must say this last one was a real humdinger.

In refusing today to amend his legislation, is the minister not proving the emptiness of his government's motion on the distinct society and the fact that it is worth less than the paper it is written on?

[Quebec Culture, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Canadian Heritage changed the legislation governing

his department. It now denies the existence of Quebec culture. Section 4(1) describes the minister's powers and clearly talks of a single Canadian identity and culture.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Given the government's claims that its resolution on Quebec's distinct nature will guide its actions, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend amending his department's legislation to contain reference to Quebec's culture?

[Indian Affairs, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has fiduciary obligations toward aboriginal people; he grants major subsidies to the various band councils. Therefore, he is duty-bound to take his responsibilities instead of throwing this kind of red herring at us.

Does the minister support the Kahnawake band council's decision and does he intend to take action to prevent Mr. Jacobs' expulsion, yes or no?

[Indian Affairs, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.

The Kahnawake band council has passed a resolution to expel Peter Jacobs, a resident of the reserve, simply because he is not of Indian blood, discriminating against him on essentially ethnic grounds. Mr. Jacobs was adopted when he was three weeks old and has been living on the reserve for 40 years.

Does the minister support the decision made by the Kahnawake band council to expel Mr. Jacobs for ethnic reasons?

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party was already profoundly divided on the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Faced with the Prime Minister's phoney proposals, which are worse than those of Meech and Charlottetown in terms of Quebec's expectations, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would like us to believe that everything is sweetness and light with the Liberal Party. Give us a break!

Given the fact that both the caucus and the phoney committee are profoundly divided, and that the proposals are being met with negative reactions throughout western Canada, Ontario, the maritimes, and Quebec, is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs aware that the Prime Minister-

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Given the last minute commitment made by the Prime Minister a few days before the referendum with a view to swaying Quebecers, followed by the striking of a phoney committee with a foggy mandate, and by the hasty announcement on Monday of his proposals, it appears increasingly obvious that the Prime Minister is improvising on his own.

Given the general outcry in response to the Prime Minister's proposals across Canada, will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit that the Prime Minister, faced with a profoundly divided Liberal Party, is acting alone on this issue to save his skin?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 24th, 1995]

Since Radio Canada International is Canada's international showcase and helps promote Canadian culture abroad, does the minister not feel that it would be irresponsible to stop funding this service, and can he give us advance notice of his intentions in this regard?