Scott Brison

[The Armenian People, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member has attacked the reputation of our foreign service officials and in fact, with her pernicious and misinformed attack, has actually done more to hurt the morale of our foreign service than she realizes.

It is a misinformed attack because, first, we recognize the importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship as our most important external relationship and the complexity of that relationship. That is why we must ensure that the position of ambassador to the United States continues to be filled by a qualified individual. I can assure everyone that is indeed the case.

The position has been staffed, for instance, for the last three and a half years by a competent career diplomat with over 35 years of foreign service experience. She mentions that people with 30 to 35 years of experience in the foreign service are getting pushed aside. This is somebody with 35 years of foreign service experience representing the interests of Canada across the world and making a difference, and the hon. member has attacked and impugned his reputation.

I want to point out very clearly that the individual I mentioned is a career foreign service official who has defended the interests of Canadians valiantly over a career of 35 years, and his position did not expire in October. That is another piece of misinformation that the hon. member has come to the House unprepared to explain today.

As order in council appointments, ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, rather than for a fixed period of time. For administrative purposes, by and large, the heads of mission assignments are established for a period between two and four years, plus any extensions depending upon the location.

If we were to review the history of the ambassadors to the U.S., we would see that the position has been held for periods of anywhere from one year, in terms of John de Chastelain, to eight years for Allan Gottlieb from 1981 to 1989. Most ambassadors to the U.S., however, have a period of four years or more.

Our current ambassador presented his letters of credence to President Clinton on October 19, 2000. He has therefore yet to reach the three and a half year mark in his term. He has not even served four years.

While in Washington, I can tell everyone that our current ambassador, supported by a talented and dedicated group of officials, has and continues to work diligently to defend and promote Canadian political, economic and trade interests in the United States.

Here at home, as the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce recently said about our Prime Minister, “this Prime Minister gets it when it comes to Canada-U.S. relations”.

We are taking a more sophisticated approach to Canada-U.S. relations. In addition to my appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, we now have a cabinet committee on Canada-U.S. relations, a cabinet committee chaired by the Prime Minister that deals with, across departments and ministries, issues of relevance to Canada-U.S. relations.

Beyond that, through the enhanced representation initiative, we are increasing by 50% our missions and our representations in the U.S. over the next year. We are also setting up a secretariat in Washington that will help support the efforts of legislators, from both sides of the House and from all parties, in an effort to defend Canadian interests when they are building relationships with other legislators.

The fact is that we are strengthening our representation in the U.S. by 50% and we will be serving the interests of Canadians.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, April 2nd, 2004]

And a former NDP premier.

[Rotary Club of Wolfville, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Rotary Club of Wolfville is continuing its proud tradition of “service above self”.

This Saturday evening the club is holding its 20th annual gala night at the Old Orchard Inn. It is a fundraising event, complete with dinner, dancing and a silent auction. The proceeds of this event will go to local students pursuing a post-secondary education.

Last year, six students from Horton District High School and North East Kings Education Centre each received a $2,500 entrance scholarship to help them continue their education. These scholarships reward the very best in achievement as each student is chosen because of a strong commitment to academic excellence and community involvement.

Since the first gala night in 1985, the Rotary Club of Wolfville has given $140,000 in scholarships and bursaries to local students.

I applaud the members of the Rotary Club of Wolfville and its gala night committee for their dedication to the Wolfville community.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Softwood Lumber, March 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the maritime softwood lumber industry is unique in Canada. Seventy-five per cent of our softwood lumber production is generated from private lands, and there are no subsidy allegations from the United States against our product. There is no reason whatsoever that trade restrictions on maritime lumber should be included in any deal with the United States.

Recently the Minister of International Trade was in my riding of Kings--Hants to meet with local softwood lumber producers. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the president of Elmsdale Lumber Company, Robin Wilber, for hosting this important discussion.

Mr. Wilber said in the local Weekly Press newspaper after that meeting:

What we had was almost unheard of in this area. To have this much federal representation on the ground here in East Hants--it just doesn't happen every day. And what we accomplished was a much as we could have hoped for--assurance that the minister supports our position.

The Minister of International Trade has listened to, understands and is defending the interest of maritime softwood lumber producers, and no deal without a clear exit to free trade for individual Canadian provinces will be acceptable to--

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the hon. member's persistence on this point, but I think he ought to be, as every member of the House ought to be, focused on democratizing, stabilizing, rebuilding the lives of Haitians and moving forward. We have to put every ounce of our effort and resources behind that as a country and as part of our multilateral efforts.

I really do not believe it is constructive or helpful for us to be focusing any of those efforts on investigative work when in fact there are people dying or whose lives are torn apart. We can be part of the solution as opposed to navel gazing and trying to find sources of problems in the last several weeks. In fact, we can be part of a brighter future, a more democratic and stable future for the people of Haiti.

I know the hon. member shares those Canadian values of democracy, rule of law and equality. Since he shares those values and treasures them as a Canadian, he ought to, as a Canadian legislator, be working to help the people of Haiti such that they can take for granted in many ways as we do those fundamental values. I would ask that he support the efforts, which I know he would, of the Canadian government to try to work with other countries who share those values, to help the people of Haiti achieve that stability and democracy.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I can tell the hon. member that I disagree and find almost ludicrous the allegation that the governments of France and the United States told President Aristide that if he were not to voluntarily resign, he and his family would be killed. I do not believe that was the case. Although that may be what he is saying, I do not believe that the governments of France and the United States would be involved in that type of thuggery.

My understanding is that Mr. Aristide had difficulties in terms of his own security forces that effectively melted around him and he did not have the ability to protect himself against his own people. When a democracy fails or there is a crumbling democracy as in the situation that has evolved in Haiti, to maintain power he actually required physical security that simply was not there. That is what I understand to be a contributing factor to his reasoning that he and his family may not have been safe, but that was not instigated by either the United States or France.

As such, I would reject the premise of the member's question that President Aristide was threatened by France and the U.S. and forced to resign based on those threats because I do not believe those threats occurred.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, first, our understanding is Mr. Aristide voluntarily resigned. Part of his decision making would have been from the collapse of his own security which was not a situation to which Canada contributed. It is not a situation that we were directly involved in. It is my understanding that in fact his own security forces had weakened to the extent that he was willing to resign voluntarily and that it was certainly not a coup d'état engineered by the U.S. or anyone else.

In terms of the 2000 election results, as the hon. member knows, the results may have been overwhelming, but there were significant questions around the legitimacy of the elections from that time. Part of the issue we have been facing ever since has been based on some of the questions around those elections.

I thought it was curious that the hon. member referred to France as acting to mollify the Americans. It would be one of the first times that France has been in a hurry to mollify the Americans in terms of foreign policy. I would be greatly surprised if in fact France acted in a way in Haiti, a country with which we share an interest as another member of the Francophonie, to mollify the Americans. That would not make a lot of sense based on what I understand to be the traditional foreign policy of France.

The real focus here is not in the short term necessarily focusing on how we arrived in the last several days and weeks in our current situation, but in focusing on the democratization, stabilization and reconstruction of Haiti. The people of Haiti deserve that. If we are to have a foreign policy as a country based on Canadian values, those values being democracy, rule of law and equality, it is in our interests to be working toward that.

There is a lot of work that has to be done. By working with the OAS and CARICOM and others multilaterally, we can achieve a great deal. The real focus in the coming days, weeks, months and in fact years needs to be on that very positive, forward thinking focused effort to provide a more stable, peaceful and democratic Haiti.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, as already noted by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the current political situation in Haiti, punctuated by events of the last few weeks, has its roots in the seriously flawed legislative and municipal elections of May 2000. The resulting polarization of the government in opposition, compounded with weak institutions and severe economic and social challenges in the country, have led us to the situation today where strong participation by the international community is required to accompany Haiti in changing direction and moving forward to a more positive future.

Canada has been intimately involved in Haiti for many years, perhaps most profoundly since 1994 when we began supporting training and development of the newly constituted Haitian national police. Since that time, the bulk of Canada's $45 million in development assistance to Haiti has gone to support the security sector, in particular Canadian policing contributions and police related activities.

Our engagement in Haiti has been one of our largest international missions, with a total of 685 officers deployed at different times from October 1993 through to the end of March 2001. Canadian personnel participated in the various UN policing missions in Haiti as members of the police civile and providing training at the police academy. Canada also bilaterally provided institutional support for the Haitian national police.

Despite our ongoing commitment to Haiti, Canada decided to terminate our police engagement in that country in March 2001, due to the worsening political insecurity context more broadly, and more directly as a result of the politicization, corruption and lack of administrative and management capacity and experience within the Haitian national police. Nevertheless, our efforts internationally to work toward a better future for Haiti has continued.

Along with ongoing Canadian development assistance to Haiti, we have also become the largest contributor to the OAS special mission in Haiti, led by Canadian David Lee, which has been on the ground for the last two years. It has acquired experience and developed expertise in supporting a process of democratic strengthening in Haiti.

With the events of the past month, we are now facing a new era for Haiti and the opportunity for a new beginning. The challenges are great and this time we must be sure not to underestimate the commitment required to overcome them. Canada has been there before and will be there for Haiti in the future.

Canada believes it is crucial that the efforts of the international community in Haiti be coordinated effectively. We can play a strong advocacy role in ensuring that the efforts of all agencies, particularly the United Nations and the OAS, are complementary and well coordinated.

The OAS special mission can play an important role in reducing the level of tension in Haiti, working toward building a social consensus and supporting good governance efforts. Its contribution is valuable and is to be encouraged as we look forward to building a viable democracy. Canada can play a leadership role in increasing the capacity of the mission to facilitate consensus building, monitor human rights, reinforce the justice system and improve policing. This is why Canada has recently pledged a further $5 million to the OAS special mission in addition to our previous support.

All the international communities, including Canada, stand ready to provide support. It is ultimately up to the people of Haiti to find the way forward.The earlier work of CARICOM and the OAS serve as the foundations for the current efforts to rebuild Haitian institutions that will provide a better future for Haiti. The process of political reform is already underway, following those steps outlined in the transition plan originally proposed by CARICOM that remain relevant. For this to be a success, there must be a firm commitment for reform on the part of the new interim government.

The first step of this of course, following the resignation of former President Aristide, was the swearing in of the new president in accordance with the Haitian constitution. While the constitution clearly states that the head of the supreme court is the next in line, it is silent on how this appointment should be confirmed without a sitting national assembly. However, this issue is being addressed through the newly formed tripartite council, composed of one representative each from the government, the opposition and the international community. The council has now named a seven member Counseil de sages which will be working at naming a new prime minister who will in turn nominate a national unity cabinet.

Accompanied by the international community, a provisional electoral council will be looking to organize elections, hopefully before the end of 2004, in order to ensure a smooth and timely return to true democracy.

The task ahead is enormous. In order for the political process to move forward, the international community is committed in the immediate term to provide security and work with the Haitian national police to restore order. The UN multinational interim force, or MIF, including Canadian participation, is assisting in bringing stability and security to Haiti.

Over the medium term, a continued military presence coupled with ongoing humanitarian assistance and a civilian mission to help rebuild Haiti's democratic institutions most particularly its civilian police will be critical to help Haiti move forward.

Planning is currently underway for this UN stabilization force which would take over from the MIF in three months' time. The role and mandate of this stabilization force are still to be determined and must be approved by the Security Council, but it will play a critical role in restoring essential governance and security institutions, the rule of law, and set the stage for long term development programming.

There is now an opportunity for Haiti to fully embrace democracy. Addressing the key issue of impunity is essential for the re-establishment of rule of law in democracy. Our shared goals need to ensure a brighter future for all Haitians, a future in which they can rebuild their lives and follow their dreams in a secure environment.

Governance is key, and building strong institutions and a democratic culture cannot be done overnight. What really is required in Haiti is long term institution building from the judiciary, to the police, to parliament to the education, health and agricultural systems. We have already learned hard lessons about the effectiveness of our assistance if the governance framework is flawed for instance. As our Prime Minister has said on several occasions, we will not make that mistake again.

We must evaluate the situation rationally, identify needs and priorities, and respond to the needs of the Haitian people. We must also be realistic in our expectations. Haiti is a long term project and will require long term international donor support.

It is important to note that an important byproduct of this current crisis in Haiti is the close collaboration that has developed between Canada and the United States. Equally important is that our partnership with the United States is being pursued under the auspices of the OAS and the UN.

We have worked closely within these multilateral institutions, with the U.S. and our CARICOM partners, to work toward solutions to the political crisis in Haiti. Canada will do its part in building a new and better future for all Haitians. I believe that Canadians will be increasingly proud of the important role that Canada is playing in building a better world and defending not only Canadian interests, but also the Canadian values of equality, democracy, and rule of law.

[Fisheries, March 10th, 2004]

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.