Maud Debien

[Human Rights, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is as follows.

Since there will be a political meeting with Boris Yeltsin in attendance and in the light of the discussions there will be in this regard, does the Prime Minister intend to propose a joint statement by the heads of state to encourage Russia to respect human rights in Chechnya? In other words, does the Prime Minister intend to assume a leadership role among his colleagues with respect to human rights in Chechnya?

[Human Rights, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

We have learned on the eve of the G-7 Summit that Russian President Boris Yeltsin will be taking part in both political and economic discussions with the seven major industrialized nations-an indication that Russia is one step closer to membership in this exclusive group.

Given the many human rights violations in Chechnya and the attitude of the Russian President during the Prime Minister's visit to Russia last spring, what position does the Prime Minister intend to take on Russia's increased inclusion in the group of seven?

[Ethics, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during this past week, political events have shown how quickly ethical issues, so dear to the heart of the Liberal government, are being sidetracked.

When the members of the party in power formed the official opposition, they called for a stricter code of political conduct and an end to Conservative patronage. However, now that their party is in power, the government has been quick to adopt the system cherished with such enthusiasm by its predecessors. Unlike the Conservative government, however, the Prime Minister did not ask his Minister of Canadian Heritage to resign and he turned a blind eye to the minister's benefit dinners, attended by guests who a few months later just happened to be awarded major contracts.

The Prime Minister will not admit that the lobbyist and political organizer who made the arrangements was also awarded contracts and represents associations that receive money under government programs. This government's code of ethics is obviously just a smoke screen.

[International Trade, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the opening in Toronto of the first official round of negotiations on the inclusion of Chile in NAFTA, which, according to the Minister of International Trade, will make this agreement more vigorous, flexible and open. We are pleased to note this sudden conversion to free trade on the part of the Liberals, who so fiercely opposed the signing of the free trade agreement with the U.S.

Today, the federal government is in favour of every free trade initiative: free trade with Asia by 2025, free trade with Europe, free trade here, there and everywhere. That is Canada's new motto. A sovereign Quebec will make an economic association offer to Canada. Given our current commercial ties, this is an offer that can hardly be refused.

With a volume of trade with Canada 150 times that of Chile, Quebec certainly has at least equal merit.

[International Nurses Day, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the current economic situation places society before difficult choices, health services are about to undergo deep changes. In this context, it is with admiration and gratitude that the official opposition wishes to draw members' attention to the fact that today is International Nurses Day and to the key role played by these professionals. Nurses have always put themselves on the side of the patients and their families. Today more than yesterday, their competence and ability to listen guarantee quality care despite insufficient resources.

For their efforts, their creativity and the miracles they accomplish, we thank them from the bottom of our hearts. Thanks to these men and women, the values of compassion and respect for people will always hold an important place in Canada and Quebec.

[Immigration, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister. Now on to another scandal, because it is also a scandal for women.

All Canadians and Quebecers are going to look a little silly this week-end. The Minister of Immigration's stubbornness will prevent Ms. Hafsa Zinaï Koudil, a filmmaker of Algerian origin, from participating in the Montreal festival "Vues d'Afrique", which will feature her movie "Le Démon au féminin" decrying the violent way religious fundamentalists in Algeria treat women.

How can the acting Prime Minister justify the Minister of Immigration's obstinate refusal to grant a visitor's visa to filmmaker Koudil?

[Canadian Advisory Council On The Status Of Women, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a number of voices that speak for democracy and the arts community were raised in protest at the Department of Immigration's decision with respect to the visa application by filmmaker Hafsa Zinaï Koudil.

She had only one purpose in mind in applying. She wanted to denounce through film the muslim fundamentalist attitude to the wearing of the hijab and the oppression of Algerian women.

An important voice was missing in the chorus of protests, that of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. The council would surely have publicly criticized the unjust and unjustified decision by the department. This credible and respected voice was unfortunately silenced by an unreasonable decision of the Minister of Finance in his recent budget-another example of the government's insensitivity toward women.

[Peacekeeping Act, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-295. This bill provides for the control of

Canadian peacekeeping activities by Parliament and amends the National Defence Act in consequence thereof.

Bill C-295 has three main objectives: first, to enhance parliamentary control over the involvement of Canadian forces in international peacekeeping missions; second, to limit it to a neutral or non-combatant role; third, to control the placing of Canadian forces under UN or other non-Canadian command.

I would like to stress at the outset that the members of the official opposition are glad to have the opportunity to discuss such changes to the way the Canadian forces participate in peacekeeping missions. And we would like to thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for giving us the opportunity to express our opinion on these matters.

Much of the content of Bill C-295 is in step with the concerns already expressed by the Bloc Quebecois, as much in the debates in this House as in the dissenting report we submitted regarding the Canadian foreign policy review.

I would briefly like to reiterate the Bloc Quebecois' position on the issue being discussed today. Firstly, I would like to stress that the official opposition believes that one of the most important roles of the Canadian forces on the international scene is to support peacekeeping operations and to take an active role in them. This is one of Canada's crowning achievements which has helped earn us our reputation.

Nevertheless, we believe that, in the future, Canada should select more carefully the operations in which it will participate. Recent peacekeeping missions have, as you recall, had their difficulties, of which Canada should take note. Examples are the missions to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, or even the situation in Haiti, which reminded us of the need to ensure that our operations serve to further legitimate democratic causes and are meticulously planned.

The conflicts I just cited as examples clearly show how important it is to define, under the auspices of the United Nations, specific objectives and mandates for each mission beforehand. The Bloc Quebecois also recognizes that we need to give the Canadian forces special status, in order to maintain the credibility of our operations.

At the same time, Canada should review its current military alliances and adapt them to strategic missions in accordance with the needs of the United Nations. This approach would inject new life into these organizations and would make them more effective in protecting safety and in resolving conflicts. It would also make it possible for Canada to meet its public security objectives, which are crucial to its own domestic security.

Furthermore the official opposition feels that Canada should encourage the creation of a permanent contingent that would be at the disposal of the UN to carry out its peacekeeping missions abroad. The number of personnel assigned by Canada to these peacekeeping missions should be limited. Unfortunately, Bill C-295 is silent on this point.

Finally, as we have said many times before, for instance in our dissenting opinion, we believe that Canada should put its decisions to participate in peacekeeping missions to a vote in the House of Commons, and do so as soon as possible, if there is enough time. We are of course delighted to see some of our suggestions reflected in the bill before the House today. However, some sections raise a number of problems, and we would like to suggest some improvements.

For instance, in clause 4 of Bill C-295, there seems to be no provision for the eventuality that Canadian forces might be asked to take part in peacekeeping operations at a time when parliamentarians are not sitting in this House. On the other hand, with respect to the order that would place the officer in command of the Canadian forces under the command of the United Nations or an international organization represented by an officer of another state, in subclause 6(3), the bill provides that the order would be laid before the House of Commons on any of the first three days on which the House sits following the day the order is made. Perhaps the same provisions could be included in clause 4?

Furthermore, clause 4 makes no provision for renewing the mandate given to Canadian forces. Perhaps it would be advisable to add a provision to that effect. Still in clause 4, and more specifically in subparagraph 4(1)(v), the Minister of Defence is asked to specify a maximum planned expenditure for the mission.

We realize such provisions are necessary. Canada's financial situation demands that we act responsibly. However, instead of immediately patriating military personnel once the expenditure limit previously approved by the House has been exceeded, this clause should provide for increasing, always by a resolution of the House of Commons, the resources allocated for an operation in exceptional cases, such as emergency humanitarian aid.

We also have some questions about the scope of subclause 5(3). This subclause mentions three circumstances in which Canadian forces would be allowed to use deadly force. We must ensure that Canadian military personnel take part in peacekeeping rather than peacemaking missions. Would it not be more prudent to make the rules specifying the circumstances in which force may be used subject to criteria set by the UN? Otherwise, we might have a situation where the participation of Canadian military personnel in peacekeeping missions would be subject to criteria that are different from those for other national contin-

gents. These questions show how important it is to specify the scope of subclause 5(3).

As for clause 6, I have two comments. First, in clause 6(3), we want all references to the other place deleted. As you know, the Bloc Quebecois considers it a waste of public funds to maintain the other house, which should be abolished as quickly as possible.

As our final amendment, to clause 6(4), we believe that the renewal should be submitted to the House of Commons and not to the Governor in Council. This amendment is in keeping with the spirit of the bill, which attempts to involve Parliamentarians more in decisions pertaining to peacekeeping activities.

In closing, I would once again like to thank my colleague for Fraser Valley East for allowing us to debate this important question. I assure him that the Bloc Quebecois supports the principles underlying Bill C-295. For this reason, we support the bill in second reading.

We would like the questions raised by the opposition to be given serious consideration so improvements may be made to the bill before its passage at third reading.

[Burundi, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister already told us about his information, his concerns, his representations and his hopes. However, my question is: How can Canada remain unconcerned by the plea for help made yesterday by the UN special envoy in Burundi? What is Canada waiting for to act, to show some leadership and to help a fellow member of the Francophonie? After all, Canada has displayed such leadership in the past.

[Burundi, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The UN special envoy to Burundi accused the international community of pushing that country toward a genocide. Yesterday, in Bujumbura, that official denounced the international community's inconsistency and irresponsibility regarding the crisis in Burundi, where two million people may have to leave their homes, thus creating the world's largest concentration of refugees, according to the British Red Cross.

Will the minister once again remain insensitive to the increasing number of calls for help in Burundi?