Maud Debien

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my concern about the future of the CBC's news services. The Chairman of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, Mr. Keith Spicer, asked the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast news bulletins on both networks using simultaneous translation. Such a service will cost more than $15 million a year.

This new demand is being made in a context of cutbacks. Obviously, Mr. Spicer and the CRTC want to sacrifice the quality of the CBC's news on the altar of national unity.

Need I remind the commissioners of the CRTC and the Liberal government that there is still no all-news service in French? Need I recall that the CBC's French service can no longer afford to pay its correspondents abroad?

Mr. Speaker, we members of the Bloc Quebecois are opposed to any political interference in the internal affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member touched on many of the points I just made. I am not sure he understood very well what I said. As a matter of fact, I praised Canadian foreign policy in many areas without making any reservation or omission in that regard. I think I was fair in my remarks because I am here to speak in good faith of our foreign policy and tell the government what I think that policy should be. I will keep this same attitude for as long as I sit in this House.

There is another point on which I would like to comment. The hon. member seemed to imply that, among the very few reservations I had, I criticized the government for spending only a small percentage of our GNP for official development assistance. I was referring to a Liberal commitment in the red book saying that Canada would renew its promise to allocate 0.7 per cent of its GNP for ODA. That was the gist of my criticism: I simply said an election promise was broken. As to the rest, I feel I was very kind in my assessment of Canadian foreign policy.

As to what the hon. member labelled as the narrow nationalism of the Bloc Quebecois, I would say nationalism is not only a matter of language. He is the one who made a link between nationalism and language. I think nationalism is much more than that. It is a culture. The Leader of the Opposition was perfectly clear on that this morning. I will also point out to you that in his speech this morning, the minister of Foreign Affairs referred to nationalism, rather ultra-nationalism, which in my view is not consistent with the ideas of the Bloc.

If we look at globalization of trade and markets, despite this phenomenon of globalization, we still are confronted-the minister of Foreign Affairs said it this morning-by the nation-state, and you know that Quebec considers itself as a nation. It is in that sense that we talk about nationalism, because we consider ourselves as a nation, a nation with a culture, with a language, with a history which, from the outset, was different from that of English Canada.

It is in that sense that we feel that a nation-state may very well-and its has been clearly demonstrated recently-we feel, I repeat, that a nation-state, however small it may be, may very well survive among nations increasingly interdependent. This is, in my view, the idea that the Bloc has always been trying to defend. That does not mean a nation closed to the world, that does not mean that we are going to apply the geocentric theory which I mentioned earlier. On the contrary. In my view, Quebec has always been very open to the world, hoping to become a nation one day and to remain a nation.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether we should be happy today to debate a government motion to appoint a joint committee to consider Canada's foreign policy. On the one hand, we are happy to have the opportunity at last to discuss Canada's foreign policy in this House. We believe an exchange of ideas is necessary so that parliamentarians can express their views on the relevance of the Canadian government's past and future actions abroad.

We must look at the Canadian government's goals and policies on diplomacy, foreign aid, security and international trade, to name but a few. The Bloc Quebecois thinks that the time has come for a comprehensive review of Canada's foreign policy.

On the other hand, we are puzzled by the government's proposal to create a special joint committee. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade already seems to fulfil the role and mandate proposed for the new joint committee. The standing committee has the power to send for persons, papers and records, to retain the services of experts, to travel to gather the information it deems necessary, and to make recommendations on Canada's foreign policy.

Why create a joint committee with the same mandate as the standing committee? Does the government realize that it is hampering not only the decision-making process but also the implementation of its foreign policy, and that it might make the committee less efficient in the process?

As for the presence of senators in the foreign policy review committee, we believe, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, that major foreign policy directions must be defined by elected representatives. The members of the other place were not elected and do not represent anyone.

Of course, we could also talk about waste and duplication but I realize that one more committee will not shake the temple of bureaucracy and waste. No matter. In this period of budget restraints, the government could have avoided this duplication of committees.

Moreover, the Official Opposition wonders why the Canadian government has already undertaken a review of its national defence policy before even defining its policy of involvement on the international scene. The foreign and defence policies are too closely related to have committees work independently from one another. It is to be hoped that the two committees set up by the government will consult each other as soon as possible. But I am probably dreaming!

I could go on and on, but I will take this opportunity to discuss specific issues of Canadian foreign policy.

As I pointed out earlier, we feel that an in-depth review of that policy is in order. Over the years, Canada has made a reputation for itself which, we are told, is envied by many. We have to ask ourselves why this is the case and try to see if we can be as successful in the future by pursuing the same direction, or if we should change our way of doing things.

Three activities have enabled Canada to gain this enviable reputation on the international scene: the participation of Canadian troops in peacekeeping missions, Canada's aid to development and, more recently, our efforts regarding human and democratic rights.

However, Canada's reputation in these sectors could be in jeopardy. For example, we were supposed to allocate 0.7 per cent of our gross domestic product to development assistance programs. The fact is that successive cuts were made by the government, so that this aid now represents only 0.4 per cent of the GDP. As soon as it took office, the Liberal government started implementing the same policy as the Conservatives, proposing an additional cut of 2 per cent in the budget for international assistance in the coming year.

At the rate things are going, Canada's reputation as a generous country with poorer nations could be a thing of the past, or at least somewhat tarnished. In spite of its enormous problem with public finances, Canada remains one the richest countries. The Bloc Quebecois does not believe that we will solve our current problems by penalizing the poorest people in the world. In the context of this review, the Canadian government should ensure that the money allocated to international assistance is really used to help the poorest.

As the Auditor General indicated in his recent report, Canadian assistance is neither very efficient, nor very effective. Canada must define its objectives and its priorities regarding

this aid, and it must ensure that these objectives are reached at the best possible cost.

We, on this side of the House, do not believe that the waste of public money is a justification for withdrawing our assistance. The process must be maintained and improved, and we should even increase aid to poor countries because their needs are as pressing as ever. Indeed, in spite of the efforts made, the situation of the poorest countries has not really improved.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned this morning, the gap between rich countries of the North and poor countries of the South is even wider now. Excessive debt, overpopulation, poverty, abusive development of natural resources, inadequate education, high infant mortality rates, as well as reduced life expectancy, are all part of daily life in these countries.

For example, the World Bank has indicated that the external debt of all developing countries has increased from $62 billion in 1970 to $1,703 billion in 1992. Moguls and multinational corporations are often the ones to benefit the most from such a situation. These businesses can take advantage of the extremely difficult situation in the poorer countries by overusing human and natural resources. In the meantime, the poor countries are getting poorer and poorer.

One of the most dramatic problems caused by such extreme poverty is one of overpopulation. The annual rate of population growth reached 2.9 per cent in Africa, compared to 1.1 per cent in North America and 0.3 per cent in Europe. This means that the fertility rate is higher in Africa than in North America and Europe. Developing countries account for 95 per cent of the overall growth of the world's population.

There are 1.18 billion people living in the industrialized world, compared to 4.3 billion in developing countries.

Estimates show that the population in developing countries will have increased by 3 billion to reach more than 7 billion by the year 2025, compared to an increase of 0.15 billion people in the rich countries which would then have a population of 1.35 billion.

Sub-Saharan Africa, already one of the poorest regions of the world, will have posted the highest growth rate. A demographic explosion is also expected in Islamic countries where it could intensify the problems linked to political and economic restructuring.

Too often, such rapid population growth in the poor countries leads to more poverty and overuse of natural resources. If projections prove to be accurate, and the world population doubles half-way through the 21st century to reach ten billion, economic development will need to increase anywhere from fivefold to tenfold to satisfy needs. That would have tragic implications for the global environment.

Health conditions in poor countries are also disturbing. In spite of all efforts, a young North American can expect to live 23 years longer than a young African. In 1970, the difference in terms of life expectancy was 25 years.

Moreover, 14 million children die each year from poverty, sickness and malnutrition. AIDS could also affect development and cancel out the effects of several years of assistance. Of the estimated 10 million cases of HIV in the world, more than 65 per cent are in Africa. Without our assistance, developing countries will not be able to stop the spread of the virus, or deal with the consequences of this terrible sickness. Canada must be a leader in the strategy to solve the problem.

We should also mention that the development of poor countries is highly desirable, for the welfare of the countries of the South as well as our own. We benefit a great deal when these countries increase their revenues. The North-South Institute estimates that, during the 1980s, the sharp decline in the purchasing power of developing countries was responsible for the loss of 180,000 jobs in Canada. Development assistance cannot be viewed simply as an expenditure. It must also be seen as an investment.

Moreover, in 1986, the Winegard report reminded us that Canadian aid is too closely linked to diplomatic and trade interests and not concerned enough with the effective development of poor countries. This same report also indicated that the primary goal of public aid to development should be the development of human resources in poorer countries and that this aid must be concentrated in countries which need it the most. In fact, it recommended in particular that this goal be part of a legislative mandate.

The 1988 Canadian policy paper entitled Sharing Our Future attempted to answer the concerns expressed in the Winegard report, but without achieving the fundamental redirecting which had been recommended. The main reason for this failure, we were told, were the budget cuts that were applied at that time and the fact that CIDA was unable to truly become an organization dedicated to help the poor because it was too preoccupied with its political and bureaucratic influence.

In spite of all the government's speeches and papers, public assistance still does not get to the poorest countries, regions and people. It is estimated that less than 10 per cent of the Canadian budget for development assistance is directed to priority areas like medical care, basic education, water systems and public health. Compare that with the 62 per cent of development aid money spent right here in Canada.

In tabling its last budget, the Liberal government which talked of greater openness in the development and implementation of the new Canadian foreign policy, presented us with a fait accompli. Indeed, on February 22, the Minister of Finance

announced that Canadian assistance would be reduced by $400 million over the next three years.

Quebecers and Canadians will have to ask themselves an important question: "Do we want to continue enjoying our excellent reputation in the world? Have we become so obsessed with our problems that we have lost all compassion for the most deprived people in the world?"

The geocentrism that seems to appeal to some ignores the dependency existing between rich and poor nations. This interdependency is particularly noticeable in matters of peace, environment and population explosion. If today we stop showing human solidarity and gradually withdraw our aid, we might well have to face much more serious problems tomorrow.

I would like to elaborate further on the thorny issue of world environment. In 1972, environmental issues were raised on the world stage in Stockholm on the occasion of the United Nations Conference on Human Environment. In 1983, the UN General Assembly established the World Commission on Environment and Development to investigate major environmental and developmental problems and to formulate proposals for better international co-operation in that area.

The Brundtland Commission, as it is called, tabled its report entitled Our Common Future in 1987. This report emphasized how urgent it was to act on a global scale. It reminded us that desertification was increasing at the rate of 6 million acres a year, that 11 million acres of rain forest were destroyed annually, that global warming might have been as considerable during the last fifty years as it had been in the preceding 10,000 years, and that fuel consumption has increased more than 30-fold over the course of the last century.

This report came to the conclusion that human progress had to be promoted in a durable and sustainable way. That is where the concept of what we now call sustainable development comes from; it means meeting present needs without jeopardizing those of the future.

Since then, Canada signed five international environmental agreements, during the Earth Summit held in Rio in June 1992. Canada must continue its efforts to promote sustainable development internationally.

In closing, I would like to talk briefly on another subject which is closely related to all the previous ones. It is the protection of human rights in poor and developing countries where Canana is involved through aid or trade. Human rights are multi-faceted, the main ones being related to basic needs like food, housing, health and education. Several countries are way off the mark.

Canada is among the very active countries in the field of human rights, and we hope that it will remain so.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs this morning shared a beautiful dream with us. He dreamed of a world, and I quote him almost verbatim, "where there will be no more arsenals, no more famine, no more economic plundering, where children would go to school, have a roof over their heads and enough to eat".

I would like to share the minister's dream, but unfortunately the means announced in the Main Estimates quickly brought me back down to earth.

[Centre Of Excellence For Women's Health, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The government has announced on several occasions-in the red book, in statements by the minister and in the budget speech-the creation of a centre of excellence for women's health, without giving further details. A short while ago, she was asked about this centre, but she could not provide a satisfactory answer.

If the minister cannot talk about the mandate and priorities of such a centre, could she tell us what its budget will be?

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to wish a wonderful International Women's Day to all my female colleagues in this House.

I am proud of the solidarity which unites us today, in this House, where we wanted to be elected because we believed we could influence political decisions and protect the interest of the population of Canada and of Quebec.

Women make up 52 per cent of our population. I firmly believe that it is the duty of a responsible government and members who were elected to represent their constituency to respect and guarantee equal opportunities and equal rights for men and women. The fact that there are not as many women in this House as there could be, shows how difficult it is for women to get into politics.

I am also very pleased to make my first speech during a debate held on the International Women's Day. The status of women has always been a main concern of mine and my involvement as a founding member of the Centre des femmes de Laval gave me the opportunity to better understand the daily problems and the dramas some women have to deal with. Often, these women can only rely on the community resources made available to them by the women's groups to help them to take charge of their life to become independent and more aware of their own situation.

Allow me, on this special day, to reiterate my support and send my best wishes to all women in Laval, and especially to my female constituents in Laval East. I would also like to mention the wonderful work done by women organizations in Laval and all the volunteers who care for the well-being of women in Laval.

Like several other organizations, women's groups play a primary role by advocating changes to improve the standards of living of women.

I was able to appreciate the quality of services provided to women in need, such as crisis centres, counselling services, referral services, shelters, health services, training, emergency services, and the list could go on and on.

It is also the first time in federal political history, that Laval has female MPs. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those women who work with such dedication at La Maison Le Prélude, Le Centre des femmes, Le Centre d'accueil pour les femmes victimes de violence, the AFEAS, Le Cercle des fer-

mières, Le Club des femmes d'aujourd'hui, Laval au féminin, Pause Carrefour-Santé, and other centres.

I want to thank the volunteers and the workers of those various organizations which offer women a place where they can feel a sense of belonging and solidarity.

The active contribution made by women to improve the quality of life for Canadian and Quebec societies takes many dimensions. In the past, women have shaped Quebec and Canadian societies, whether by making an economic and social contribution with their work at home or in the workplace, or through their entrepreneurship, their initiative, their dedication and their skills. Today, women are increasingly more present in all sectors, thereby continuing to play a major and active role to ensure the collective prosperity of our societies.

Throughout history, the movement to promote women's status has always sought a greater recognition of the principle of equality between men and women. If the status of women has improved over the years, although a lot remains to be done, it is because of the efforts and initiative of women's groups. Let us not forget that women fought hard to have their rights recognized.

Women often had to fight powerful religious and political institutions, as well as the press of the time.

Women's groups have been the driving force behind change in the area of social, political and economic justice in our societies.

The first women's organizations called for basic rights: the right to a higher education, the right to equality before the law, the right to vote. Great Canadian and Quebec women laid the groundwork for equality and for the right of women to participate in all spheres of activity. Their tenacity, commitment and determination gave rise to new hopes, struggles and victories. While some of these women's names are inscribed in the history books, others still echo in this noble House, reminding us of the ideal to uphold and encouraging us to continue following in their footsteps.

At this time, I would like to recall several of the women's groups and pioneers who, through their dedication, sense of justice and fairness, were responsible for the emergence of important women's rights movements. They include Thérèse Casgrain of the League for Women's Rights, Marie Gérin-Lajoie of the Provincial Franchise Committee for Women's Suffrage, Carrie Derrik of the Montreal Suffrage Association, Grace Ritchie England of the Local Council of Women of Montreal, Idola Saint-Jean of the Alliance canadienne pour le vote des femmes, Laura Sabia of the Voice of Women, Léo Roback, the well-known feminist and activist, Laurette Slone of the League of Women, Madeleine Parent of the textile union, Azilda Marchand of AFEAS, the women's association for education and social action, Nellie McClung who fought for women's suffrage in Western Canada, Bessie Starr and Emily Stowe who, as early as 1888, spearheaded the drive for the recognition of women's rights, and, last but by no means least, the celebrated Agnes Macphail.

However, the history of women quickly brings us back to reality. Despite the major gains made, women's groups still must fight today, in 1994, to maintain what they have achieved and to have their rights recognized. Indeed, in the past few years, under the guise of deficit and debt reduction, we have witnessed an unprecedented conservative backlash and a move to push women back, whereas they still have substantial gains to make.

In their day-to-day lives, women are still confined to job ghettos where, of course, they earn lower wages. According to the report of the Canadian committee on the status of women, one in seven women, or 71 per cent-works in one of five professional categories: teaching, nursing and other health care professions, office work, retail and the services sector. The percentage of women working in non-traditional sectors such as manufacturing, construction trades, transportation and communications and handling in fact dropped from 13 per cent in 1981 to 10 per cent in 1991.

This same report also mentions that 85 per cent of salaried women work in service industries, as compared to 62 per cent of men. Moreover, 14.8 per cent of the female labour force works in production sectors. Not only are women confined to job ghettos, but in cases where they perform similar work of equal value to the work done by men, they are paid far less.

Another example of disparity is access to the job market. If accessing the job market is difficult for men, it is even more so for women. Among other things, the provisions aimed at facilitating the entry of women into the labour force are inadequate. For example, daycare services are inadequate and there is a lack of alternative measures such as more flexible work schedules, adapted career paths and family leave.

The result of the difficulty for women to access the labour market is dramatic: 55 per cent of the poor are women and, among them, the poorest are single mothers. Statistics show that one Canadian family in five is a single-parent family, 82 per cent of which are headed by a woman and 61.9 per cent are living under the poverty line.

Do you know, Madam Speaker, what the annual income of unemployed single parents was in 1991? Scarcely $12,000, which puts them well below the poverty line. These are generally women like those you will find in shelters and transition centres, who have to rely on support agencies.

Here is another fact. Our seniors who, through their hard work, sacrifices and generosity, have helped build this country find themselves in a similar situation. The report I quoted earlier

indicates that nearly 50 per cent of women 65 years old and over have less than minimum subsistence income. While 85 per cent of older men receive pension benefits, only 50 per cent of women in the same age group do.

The list of cases where women invariably come off the losers is long: violence, inadequate job training, social housing shortage, unfair taxation. Allow me to say just a few words on the subject of taxation, as it speaks volumes.

We all know that actions are planned regarding tax women have to pay on support payments which, sadly, they all too often do not receive. On the other hand, their estranged spouses can claim a deduction for all amounts paid in alimony. How can such inequity be justified? We often hear that it is intended for men, to induce them to obey alimony orders. I would like to remind this House that about 75 per cent of estranged spouses still do not pay.

With the recession, deficit and debt always looming in the background, the dominant economic discourse would have us believe that excessive costs associated with social needs are the cause of all our problems. But this premise is incorrect. The cost of our social programs has not increased in over ten years. Social programs are not responsible for the skyrocketing deficit and debt. The Canadian debt crisis was brought about by government mismanagement. The deficit is growing because the government refuses to put in place a fair taxation system, because its monetary policy maintains interest rates artificially high, thus making the debt service charges increase and creating more unemployment, and because the government refuses to reduce waste and overlap.

The women and women's groups mentioned earlier decided to get organized and to act to get equal rights. They showed the way. If women have been able to find help, comfort and justice, it is thanks to other community groups that have since joined in. As I said earlier, in 1994, women's groups still have to fight for their survival. The budgets and attitudes of the previous government, which seems to be the source of inspiration for this Liberal government, jeopardize the very existence of such groups. We have as evidence the 5 per cent cut announced by the finance minister in various support programs, in addition to the 25 per cent reduction these groups have sustained since 1989. Their budget was slashed from $12.5 million in 1985-86 to $10 million in 1993-94, and it will be even less if we believe the Minister of Finance. This is unacceptable, as the initial funds provided to these groups were already clearly insufficient.

The 400-odd women's groups are active in many areas-including physical and mental health, employment, single parenthood, violence, and aging-which would cost a lot more to manage if the government was directly responsible.

By pulling out and encouraging groups to get funding from other groups, the government shows its ignorance of the realities in these organizations. Most of the time, this forces women to spend a lot of time and energy on fund-raising, when this time and energy would be better spent on improving women's living conditions and, in the end, the well-being and quality of life of all Canadians and Quebecers.

True, the private sector sometimes supports women's groups and associations, but only as long as they provide direct assistance services to the population. But what about awareness groups demanding economic equality, equity in employment and wages, parental leave, preventative withdrawals, child care services, in short, better living conditions for families? The private sector rarely subsidizes lobby groups. By gradually withdrawing their financing, the government once again penalizes the most disadvantaged, a group where women are in the majority.

Is it not important to question the cuts introduced by the previous government, that the current government apparently wants to maintain and even deepen? Is this not a disguised way of muzzling women's groups that make claims and exert pressure? Should we not question the gag method designed to prevent them from criticizing government policies?

I would now like to make a comment about interest groups. Contrary to what some people think, women's groups are not interest groups. As the National Action Committee on the Status of Women rightly stated, the interests of 52 per cent of the population are not special interests but public interests. The promotion of social, political and economic justice does not have anything to do with the lobby for multinationals, banks, family trusts and businesses that do not pay taxes.

In its throne speech of January 18, the government expressed its intention to change its relations with lobbyists. Canadian and Quebec women would like the government to clarify what is a lobby and what is an interest group and who are their members.

Finally, I would like to say that the involvement of both levels of government in the area of subsidies to women's groups and organizations in Quebec, like in many other sectors affecting women's lives, creates overlap and duplication in programs and structures, leading to a waste of public funds.

I personally think that Quebec women's interests would be better served if there were only one level making decisions and distributing funds. It also makes it impossible for Quebec to develop a consistent policy on the status of women.

For example, the dual jurisdiction in family law often leads to inconsistencies. The federal Parliament has jurisdiction in marriage and divorce matters, while Quebec can legislate on solemnization of marriage and on property and civil rights. Quebec cannot in these conditions initiate a reform process that could give it a unified family court.

In closing, I hope that this day of reflection and debate on the status of women will allow women to continue their long march towards equality and independence.

[Myriam Bédard, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is now the Prime Minister's turn to take credit for Myriam Bédard's wins, and in a political debate no less. He says that the Canadian Forces made a positive contribution. Mr. Speaker, some contribution!

The large number of Canadian military personnel in Biathlon Canada were ready to do anything to control her, even if it meant destroying her, according to a journalist from the Gazette daily newspaper. These are the same people who draft her contracts in English only. That is the Prime Minister's brand of bilingualism!

These are the same people who put roadblocks in the path of this athlete from Quebec and damaged her skis in Albertville. Does the Prime Minister know about this?

Does the Prime Minister want other examples of this positive contribution? Why does he not consult with his minister before saying such things?

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on January 21 I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs several questions regarding his government's position on the violation of human rights in Mexico.

At the time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered that his government would listen to suggestions and discuss the matter with the Mexican authorities.

We were surprised at the minister's comments. When one realizes that Canada has a long tradition of defending democracy and human rights, the government's silence was cause for concern. Considering also that the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade publicly announced there was no connection between our trade agreements with Mexico and respect for human rights in that country, we started asking some serious questions. On the other hand, the Secretary of State responsible for Africa and Latin America made it clear that Canada was always concerned about human rights issues among its trading partners.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment intervened on January 24 to establish clearly a link between our trade agreements and environmental protection. Are we to understand that the government sees human rights as being less important than the environment?

Quebecers and Canadians want to know once and for all whether Canada sees a link between respect for human rights and the signing of trade agreements and establishing close trading relationships.

If the answer is yes, why was the government not more energetic in its representations to the Mexican government following the brutal repression of the people of Chiapas, shortly after NAFTA was signed? And how do we justify the privileged business relationship Canada has with China, although human rights are still being violated in that country?

If, on the other hand, the new government does not see a direct link between respect for human rights and its trading relationships, how does it justify Canada's retaliatory measures against Haiti, for instance? Quebecers and Canadians want to know what the present government's position is and they want that

position to be consistent. How can we explain the fact that the government has a double standard?

Canada and Quebec enjoy an excellent reputation for development assistance and respect for democracy and human rights. The Bloc Quebecois also feels that the resulting economic space and reciprocal trade are very important for our economy. Finally, we ask the government to clearly establish consistent criteria for all these countries tp be applied consistently to problems concerning human rights and democracy.

[Palestinian Autonomy, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Quebecers and Canadians, I want to congratulate the PLO representatives and the delegates from Israel and Egypt, for their successful negotiations at the economic summit held in Davos during the week-end.

A permanent agreement regarding Palestinian autonomy in Jericho and the Gaza Strip appears imminent. Both parties agreed on the deployment of Israeli border guards at the international crossings linking Jericho and Jordan on one hand, and the Gaza Strip and Egypt, on the other.

We all hope that the Cairo meeting will allow both parties to reach a compromise regarding the territory of Jericho and the security of Jewish settlers.

We must applaud the efforts made by both nations for peace and hope, as Mr. Peres said, comparing his experience to climbing a magical peace mountain.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Does the Canadian government intend, as it has repeatedly said, to help train Haitian police forces whose mandate it would be to restore the country's democratic institutions? Did the minister make any formal commitments in this respect in the course of his talks with Mr. Aristide?

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

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

The Minister of Foreign Affairs announced yesterday after meeting with the elected President of Haiti, Mr. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, that the federal government is committed to supporting a total embargo against Haiti and its military regime.

The present military and oil embargo against Haiti which is viewed as inadequate by President Aristide will be extended to include all areas, with the exception of international aid, of course.

My question is as follows: what concrete steps does the government intend to take in co-operation with Haiti's allies to ensure that the international community, including Haiti's neighbours, comply with the embargo, and to strengthen the commercial blockade, thus helping to bring about the return of the duly elected president, Mr. Aristide?