Keith Martin

[Foreign Affairs, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its consideration. I very much appreciate entering into this debate on Haiti.

The people of Haiti have endured over 150 years of tyranny, bloodshed and destitution under successive dictators and bloody regimes. However, the Haiti we see today on the eve of the U.S. pull-out is not much different from the Haiti of the last 150 years. There is still a desperate population and an economy in ruins.

In this land that teeters between anarchy and hope we have been asked by the United Nations to take over from the United States in managing the peacekeeping force. However, the role the United Nations has completed there is far from complete.

I am very disappointed in the government for bringing this debate to the House in a less than meaningful fashion. If this debate is to be meaningful it has to be votable. The people of Canada through us as their elected representatives must have the right to have these issues debated and voted on so their democratic rights can be exercised. They must know when, if and how their sons, daughters, husbands and wives will be sent to far off lands to potentially lay their lives down in the name of peace.

There is no question in my mind that we should engage in this role for a number of reasons. It is our responsibility with Haiti lying within our sphere of geopolitical influence. The consequences of inaction are huge. As my colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia mentioned, if we do not act on this and Haiti descends into anarchy and bloodshed, there will be a mass migration of people to other shores, not to mention the basic humanitarian needs of these impoverished individuals for which we as Canadians are known to champion.

Conditional on our involvement is that a few questions must be answered: first, the length of stay; second, we must have parameters in terms of the cost of the involvement; third, we must have a well defined mandate. These three principles should be applied to any subsequent peacekeeping operation we as a country dare to entertain.

I have some suggestions for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. President René Préval cannot govern properly and bring peace to his country if he cannot govern safely. Therefore law and order must be restored to Haiti.

We must engage in training a constabulary in the form of a police force. The United States was engaging in training these individuals not as a police force but as a military force. That is a can of worms that will explode in its face.

There must be a stable judiciary in Haiti, and this is where Canada can involve the United Nations and the World Court in helping to train a fair, equitable and democratic judiciary in Haiti.

We must have a demilitarization of the army and paramilitary groups. As we look at the history of Haiti in the last 150 years, successive paramilitary/military groups have wreaked havoc in that country and have driven it repeatedly into a state of utter destitution and bloodshed.

We need the help of the United States. That is why we should take the request of President Préval and ask the United States to stay on for another six months. We will need it for that and also for a number of other interventions if peace is to take hold in Haiti for the long term.

We have to stop the shipments of arms that are clandestinely taking place into Haiti. This has a huge destabilizing effect on the country. We have to utilize international financial institutions, the World Bank and the IMF, to involve an integrated international approach for restructuring the economy in Haiti. If there is not a viable economy in Haiti, then there is a desperate people. If there is a desperate people, there is anarchy, bloodshed and it ends up exactly where it started.

One may argue this is a heavy handed approach but even with President Aristide before President Préval, moneys given to Haiti for aid and development went into the pockets of corrupt officials and were spent in a completely useless fashion. It will require very much an interventionist approach from the international financial institutions to make sure that economic restructuring and moneys designated for economic restructuring go where they are supposed to.

The restructuring of this land will be complex and will involve the multifactorial approach with the IFIs and the Organization of American States, as the secretary of state mentioned earlier. We need to take a leadership role in this because nobody is actually pushing these groups to take this multifactorial approach. We should be pushing these groups to do that for the long term.

This issue is too large for any one country to deal with, particularly ours. We must do our part because international security, our security, is intimately entwined with the ability of international structures to provide for umbrellas of international and regional security. We cannot provide this on our own.

I recommend again that the government involve the international financial institutions with a co-ordinated plan that involves economic restructuring, internal security and the construction of good governance and democratic institutions in Haiti if it is to get on its feet in the future. If we do not, it will again descend into a bloody mess.

All one has to do to see how unbalanced this situation is is to scratch the veneer on Haiti today and see that democracy is only skin deep.

As an extension of the problem in Haiti, I warn the Minister of Foreign Affairs of an impending problem in the Caribbean, particularly germane with the shooting down last week of the two planes from United States by Cuba. Cuba will be a huge security problem for Canada if we do not act in a preventative fashion. I urge the foreign affairs minister to do all he can to convince Mr. Clinton to defeat the xenophobic rhetoric forth by Jesse Helms and Mr. Burton in the United States.

Their mandate is driven by the rich Cuban expatriate groups in the United States trying to manipulate the situation in a presidential year. It is definitely the wrong thing for the people of Cuba and definitely the wrong thing for Canada. The implications of this bill will have a widespread effect also on our companies trying to operate in Cuba in a constructive way.

The quickest way to end the destitution and the communist structure in Cuba is for Canada along with other countries in a constructive fashion to build up the economy of the middle class in Cuba. If they do not, when Mr. Castro dies there will be a power vacuum left in a country that is economically destitute, which will cause anarchy and bloodshed in exactly the same way as in Haiti.

I put that out as a warning for the minister. Again, I support what the government is doing in Haiti and I hope in future we will have further meaningful debates in the House.

[Canadian Unity, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the basic principle of any democratic society is equality for all its citizens. However, this principle has been abrogated by the government in giving a distinct society clause to Quebec.

The principle of equality is something that Canada stands for and is something Canadians have fought for and have died for. It is the basic tenant of our society, one Canadians hold in the highest esteem. The course the government has taken violates this principle of equality.

As we prepare to rise for the Christmas break, the message I would like to send to the people of Quebec and to the rest of Canada is this. We are a nation with a proud and diverse history, a

nation based on tolerance and respect. Our differences are not something that need to divide us but something that can bind us together. If we are to have unity we must think of ourselves as Canadians first and not as hyphenated Canadians.

A strong and united Canada is our destiny, something we must and can pursue. As we gather with family and friends during this holiday season I encourage all Canadians to reflect on how lucky we are to live in this beautiful country.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Skeena for actually standing up and saying what he wants to do to help those that the minister referred to as the poorest of the poor.

It is interesting to compare both speeches. The minister went on a 20-minute diatribe against the Reform Party instead of stating what he was going to do for the people who he claims are the poorest of the poor in our society.

While we stand in the House talking rhetoric among political parties, those aboriginal people who are on or off reserve that are suffering from sexual abuse, violence and the poverty that they endure, are still out there suffering. We should be ashamed in the House to be seeing that happening.

Previous governments have created for the aboriginal people an institutionalized welfare state. They have done this by giving money to people in the honest expectation that it would help them.

As my hon. colleague mentioned, one cannot keep giving things to people and expect them to have pride and self-respect. Pride and self-respect comes from within one's person and it is rooted in the ability of the person to take care of himself or herself.

Contrary to what the minister said, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Skeena, and for him to reiterate if he could, that the pursuit of the treaties is constitutionally and legally from the court's point of view, illegal.

What does he propose to help those people on or off reserve who are suffering from the terrible things that I mentioned previously? How is he going to help the poorest of the poor stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves? That is the root of the problem.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the goal is to help aboriginal people, working with them in a co-operative fashion. That is the goal of Reform members, many of whom have aboriginal people in our ridings. We work closely with them to resolve these difficulties.

I listened to the individual responsible for the B.C. treaty process on Vancouver Island. I listened for one hour on what they were going to do for the aboriginal people. I asked: "At the end of the day will the B.C. treaty process actually help the poorest of the poor, the people I mentioned earlier? Will it actually help them?" That individual said: "I do not know".

That is the basis on which we do not approve of this process. The process will not help the poorest of the poor in aboriginal communities. That is what we want and I know that is what the government wants. The course the government is pursuing will not help the poorest of the poor.

Other concerns we have are in the resource management. Who will ensure the resources are taken care of? As the minister knows, at Stony Creek we saw a terrible tragedy with the timber on that reserve. We are also concerned about where the money goes. The minister well knows that aboriginal leadership in many cases have been known to pocket vast sums of money that were supposed to be going to those people who are the poorest of the poor. Those are our concerns.

Does the minister think the B.C. treaty process will truly help those aboriginal people who are the poorest of the poor? Who will preserve and safeguard the resources in the areas they are asking for in terms of land? Does the minister not believe that the fundamental and most important part of developing self-respect and respect in one's community is the ability for an individual, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, to stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves and be gainfully employed?

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to get into a long diatribe of rhetoric as the hon. minister put forth today against the Reform Party. The Liberal government does not have a monopoly on caring and compassion nor a monopoly on stupidity.

The goal we have today is shared by the minister and by every person in the House. Each and every one of us wants to ensure aboriginal people, particularly those who as the minister referred to are the poorest of the poor, are able to stand on their own two feet, and that we are able to decrease the terrible parameters of rape, sexual abuse, crime and violence that occurs within their societies.

I was going to ask the hon. member a question, but he has departed.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a third petition which calls on Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from constituents of my riding that I would like to present which calls for the establishment of

peace tax legislation by passing into law a private member's bill entitled the conscientious objection act.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of people all over Canada, I would like to present a petition which calls on Parliament to enact legislation to prohibit Canadian involvement in the international proliferation of land mine production.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a basic principle in a democratic society is the principle of equality for all of its individuals. This principle is being abrogated and trashed by the motion the government is putting forth to give the distinct society clause to one province.

The principle of equality is something that Canada stands for, Canadians have fought for and Canadians have died for. It is the basic tenet of our country and one that this party and Canadians outside Quebec will not stand by and allow to be broken apart.

Canada stands as a beacon of hope on the planet. It stands as a beacon of hope in the global community, a hope for equality, peace and tolerance. That is what Canada stands for. Yet the course the government is taking is abrogating that and violates the very principle of equality we stand for.

Rather than leading us down the road of unity, it is leading us down the road to disunity. The government is balkanizing the very country that stands as a beacon of hope for unity and tolerance that is held up by the rest of the world.

The recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is not a benign statement. Rather, it enables one province to have special status over others. It is first step toward including it in the Constitution. Some may argue that it is benign and necessary, but that flies in the face of equality for all Canadians.

It enhances Quebec's group rights as opposed to the individual rights of Quebecers. It would enable an aggressive Quebec provincial government to abrogate its responsibilities and trample the rights of the minorities within Quebec. Statements by various

separatist leaders after the referendum led us to believe nothing else than the fact that some of them were racist.

Furthermore, the province of Quebec with the distinct society could supplant federal policies by using the argument that Quebec is one half of Canada and the remainder is the other half. It could manipulate federal policies based on that. It is highly iniquitous because Canada is made up of ten provinces, not two groups.

Unfortunately this and previous governments have not engaged in the process of trying to bring Canada together. They have engaged in the process of appeasement. There are some glaring examples.

The federal government gives Quebec $7 billion a year. In fact, Ottawa has transferred $160 billion to Quebec over the last 30 years.

Quebec has three seats on the Supreme Court of Canada.

Quebec has been allowed to use the notwithstanding clause to step on the rights of anglophones within that province. Would Quebec tolerate the rest of Canada using the notwithstanding clause to do the same thing? I do not think so. Neither would the rest of Canada.

The rest of Canada has not been trampling on the rights of Quebecers. Rather, it has been engaging in the process of appeasement. Quite frankly the people in the rest of Canada are fed up and will simply not tolerate this any longer. That is why a distinct society with a veto is intolerable to the rest of Canada. We are hearing, sadly, the nascency of separation in the rest of Canada. That is not something about which we should be proud.

We are witnessing a tragedy. Canada is being fractured into many different groups. People are talking about Canada in a defeatist fashion. They are saying we have no vision, no direction, no identity and no culture. Some would say that Canada is like a rudderless boat in the ocean, buffeted around by circumstances beyond her control.

I do not accept that. Canada has an identity. Canada has a soul. Canada is strong. Canada has courage as we see in our peacekeepers. Canada has culture as we see in Celine Dion and the Group of Seven. Canada has made scientific contributions through Dr. Fraser Mustard.

Canada has strength in its people, in their everyday actions. That is what has made Canada the great country it is today. They are the heroes of Canada. That is the identity of Canada and that is why it is held in such high esteem throughout the world. It is our identity. It is very clear to those who have travelled to other parts of the world. We are not some benign, opaque country without an identity. We are a great country.

Essential to the unity of a country is the concept that every citizen is equal. We are not first anglophones or francophones, Quebecers or British Columbians, Afro-Canadians or Indo-Canadians. Above all else we are simply Canadians. The hyphenated Canadianism we have pursued does not bring us together with our differences; it divides us. Our differences, whether they be language or culture, do not need to ghettoize us. Rather, our differences are something we can cherish. Our differences bind us together as citizens and as human beings in a common humanity.

It irritates me to no end and gets me very angry and also saddens me to see our differences used as a way of separating us instead of bringing us together. We need to change that now. It requires strong leadership for us to do this.

To the Prime Minister, stop negotiating with the separatist leaders because you will not win. It is a futile action. Bring your principles of equality, your principles of understanding and tolerance, directly to the people on the ground in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Both need to heal. Both need to come together and both need to understand each other. You must have again as the basis of your decisions equality for all.

Constitutional changes must not go to the politicians. They must not go to the provinces. They must go directly to the people. Constitutional changes must go to a binding national referendum, to all Canadians, as it affects us all. It seems the government lacks the belief in the people of this country that they would uphold tolerance and respect for each other in the decisions they make.

The rest of Canada and I am sure the people of Quebec want nothing more than to be treated as equals. They want nothing more than to live their culture and their language. If we give culture and language directly to the provinces, as we must, the people of Quebec would be the masters of their own cultural and linguistic destinies.

That is what they ask for. That is what they must have. That is also what the rest of Canada must have. The message we send to the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada is this. We stand here today simply as proud Canadians with a history, Canadians with a future based on our differences, based on what binds us together, based on respect and tolerance for each other.

It is not a fantasy. It is something we can pursue and achieve. All it requires is leadership from here, leadership in the community and for all of us to work together to raise Canada to the truly great height it can reach.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Not seeing the clock is fine.