1994-09-21

Statements By Members
Government ServicesMr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr. Speaker, it was reported in the media Tuesday that the minister of supply and services has struck a committee of bureaucrats to find ways of moving supply and services jobs from Ottawa to Atlantic Canada.
I strongly disagree with the study and any decision to move public servants from the national capital region.
At the present time 31.7 per cent of federal public servants work in the national capital region, whereas in each province and territory the number is proportionate to population.
The minister has no intention of either pursuing Tory practices or, even worse, applying the Reform Party's right wing agenda vis-à-vis the public service. He informed me today that the study is just that, a study. I am confident that we will treat any suggestion of transferring public servants out of the capital as an ill advised, bad public policy.
Canadian EconomyMr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr. Speaker, the recent figures in the Work Competitiveness Report show that Canada is in a very bad position. In 1989 Canada had the fourth most competitive economy among OECD countries. Five years later, it stood fourteenth!
This drop is the predictable result of the federal government's inability to control its deficit. The government's stubborn insistence on using its spending power to intervene in provincial areas of jurisdiction is a waste of public funds and is slowing down job creation. Labour training, a tangle of federal-provincial overlap, as the Quebec manufacturers association pointed out yesterday, is a perfect example of the ineffectiveness of federal intervention. And who is paying for all this? Taxpayers and the unemployed.
AgricultureMr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to call upon the government to properly compensate my constituent, Mr. Walter Jerram.
His bull was seized because its only crime was being imported from the United Kingdom and just may have been exposed to BSE, mad cow disease.
Last Thursday Agriculture Canada and the RCMP seized the bull at 6.30 a.m. They cut through his chain fence, seized his bull and were gone in 20 minutes. No warrant was produced and a curt letter was left behind informing him that because he had resorted to legal recourse he would not be paid the routine, if low, $2,000 in compensation.
The handling of this case is despicable. They came as thieves in the night. Canadians deserve better from their government. I call upon the minister of agriculture to pay the compensation my constituent deserves and launch an inquiry into the handling of this case.
New DirectionsMrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago in my riding I had the privilege of attending the graduation ceremony of 14 young Vietnamese men who found an alternative to their lives. Of these young men two-thirds were on drugs and three were in jail. They were all part of gangs, did not have families and were all on social assistance.
These young people participated in a project called New Directions. For a year they were coached, taught, put through school, and they are now all free from drugs. They all have become part of society and some are continuing with school. It was an uplifting experience. Fourteen lives were saved. There is an alternative to crime but we must be proactive.
Congratulations to immigrant services societies and the agencies involved and to the instructors and young people who had the courage to complete the program.
RailwaysMr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, Canada's railway policy lacks a short line railway strategy. Several American states, our most important trading partners and stiffest competition, have dynamic, comprehensive plans to strengthen and expand their short lines.
In Canada, and particularly in the province of Ontario, CN and CP are abandoning their branch lines at an astonishing rate.
This includes Midland-Uhthoff subdivision which will be abandoned as of October 8, 1994 unless the petition to governor in council I presented on August 30 is successful in keeping the line open.
These closures are taking place at a time when Ontario's new labour legislation does not allow operators of secondary lines to buy and run abandoned lines at a profit.
Canada needs a strategy to address this grave situation before our short line network has been completely dismantled. I urge the Minister of Transport to come up with a plan quickly to save our short line network.
The EnvironmentMr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr. Speaker, on September 15, 1994 the Government of Canada entered into two administrative agreements with the province of Saskatchewan. These agreements provide for the more effective administration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the pollution provisions of the Fisheries Act and the complementary Saskatchewan legislation.
The agreements are among the first of their kind in Canada. They apply to the areas of environmental protection and are jointly regulated by federal and provincial groups. The agreements will lead to more effective environmental protection programs by reducing duplication. The agreements ensure co-operation and reduce duplication in areas of reporting spills, spill response, inspections, investigation and information gathering.
The agreements reflect the federal government's goal to effectively protect the environment through federal-provincial harmonization and to ensure wise use of our limited resources.
Manpower TrainingMr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, when the people of Quebec make a little noise and threaten to walk out, you can always find some well-intentioned English-speaking Canadians to tell them that their Canada includes Quebec. The fact of the matter is that the rest of Canada usually greets Quebec's claims with: "Your demands are inadmissible and unacceptable. But we really like you and would want you to remain within Canada."
That is precisely what happened yesterday at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce convention, where the delegates from English Canada rejected a resolution from the Sainte-Foy Chamber of Commerce asking that manpower training be transferred to the provinces. "Quebec, we love you", said the Premier of Alberta yesterday.
For an increasing number of Quebecers, the English Canadian mermaid's song is losing its appeal and fast.
Rod HayMr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, my very first member's statement in the House was about a young cowboy from the heart of Yellowhead country, Mayerthorpe, Alberta. I spoke about Rod Hay, a tough cowboy who has seen it all.
I am not talking about the beautiful countryside. I am talking about mud, dust and pain. In fact Rod walks around with plates, screws and wire holding his hip together because of a rodeo mishap three years ago.
He is almost in as bad shape as I am. All of the pain and hard work has paid off for this 25-year old cowboy. Today Rod is $50,000 richer thanks to the biggest rodeo win in his life, the saddle-bronc championship at the greatest outdoor show on earth, The Calgary Stampede.
The win puts an exclamation point on Rod's illustrious career as the best bronco buster in Canada. Rod is also the reigning Canadian saddle-bronc champion and he will represent Canada at the world championships this fall.
I ask all members to join me in cheering for Rod Hay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
CanadaMrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, during the first week in September I had the privilege of being part of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations conference on population and development in Cairo, Egypt.
There were many significant things to be learned. One of the most interesting was an understanding as to how the world community views Canada. Canada is nation to be trusted. It is a nation turned to when issues are polarized and emotions are frayed.
We are truly the honest broker on the global stage. This is important for us to understand right now because initiatives here at home threaten to tear our country apart. For Canadians that means risking the loss of the rich culture and heritage that is so much a part of Quebec and her people. For the world there is a risk of loss of a great partner, the likes of which could never be replaced.
1999 Pan-American GamesMr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I announce to the House that during the summer break the city of Winnipeg won the bid to host the 1999 Pan-American Games. We view the games as an opportunity to bring the world to our doorstep, to extend friendship and to exchange cultural traditions with our close cousins in the American hemisphere.
Indeed showcasing Canada to the world by hosting international games contributes immeasurably to forging international bonds. At the same time it instils in Canadians a sense of national pride and unity and a better understanding of the diversity of linguistic and cultural identities.
It will be a great celebration in 1999. Winnipeg has a long tradition of excellence in playing host to major events. I am proud to have had the opportunity to work with the excellent co-chairs Don Mackenzie and Barbara Huck, the mayor of the city of Winnipeg, the premier and the numerous volunteers to bring the games home again.
I would like to say a special thanks to the Prime Minister for supporting the bid to its success.
Michael StrangeMr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise in the House today to congratulate a constituent of mine, Michael Strange, the gold medalist in boxing, 60 kilograms class, at the 25th Commonwealth Games in Victoria, British Columbia, where Team Canada won 128 medals.
Michael's achievement was remarkable, given the many adversities that he and his team mates encountered outside the ring. His outstanding performance is testimony to his skills, hard work and commitment to excellence. The efforts, teamwork, sportsmanship and dedication of athletes like Mr. Strange constantly make Canada's sporting scene one of the best in the world.
If we are to enjoy a repeated performance by Team Canada at world events we must, as Canadians, continue to recognize the positive influence these young athletes have on Canadian youth and support the valuable contributions they make to the Canadian identity.
1992 ReferendumMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr. Speaker, as we know, Quebec spent $45 million in 1992 to organize its own referendum on federal offers. Yesterday, we learned that the federal government refused to refund the $26 million, or one quarter of the total costs, the people of Quebec have contributed toward the referendum held in the nine other provinces.
All told, the cost of the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord to the Quebec taxpayers was $70 million, as compared to $80 million for the rest of Canada. Moreover, the Deputy Prime Minister was pleased to hear this yesterday. She said that separation is expensive.
Unfortunately, Quebec is not a sovereign state yet and the Quebec taxpayers have paid three times as much as those from the other Canadian provinces for the referendum that buried any hope of federal renewal to be held. It was expensive indeed just to find out that federalism equals status quo.
The Reform PartyMr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that yesterday the Reform Party broke new ground in Ontario. Three Reform MPs, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, the member for Prince George-Peace River and I, participated in the international ploughing match special class competition for members of Parliament. This took place in Pembroke.
I am proud to say that we ploughed the competition under and left them in the dust. My colleague, the member for Prince George-Peace River, was straight and focused to the end. His winning performance proved that with hard work and perseverance we will be the voters' choice as well.
Give us a chance and we will plough under the national debt which today stands at $531,298,621,000.
Referendum On Quebec SovereigntyMr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, like millions of Quebecers, I understood that there was some confusion following a telephone conversation between Premier Parizeau and the Prime Minister of Canada. However, I clearly heard Mr. Parizeau make an election commitment to hold a referendum within 10 months. That statement is the only one that matters.
[English]
I say ignore the advice of the Leader of the Opposition to put off the referendum until the climate is more favourable. I can assure Mr. Parizeau that these are not the winds of change he hears from the Leader of the Opposition. It is simply hot air.
Mr. Parizeau, hold the referendum in 10 months as you had planned and promised Quebecers during the election campaign. It is time for the Leader of the Opposition to respect the democratic choice of Quebecers and the commitment made by Premier Parizeau, who stated that the referendum must be held quickly, that is, 8 to 10 months after the election.
HaitiMr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr. Speaker, Sunday night's agreement between Haiti's illegal president and Mr. Carter, which was drafted without consulting President Jean-Bertrand Aristide or the United Nations, is a tragic betrayal of the Haitian people. The hoodlum Raoul Cédras and his associates did not sign anything, do not have to leave the country and will even enjoy a general amnesty.
Last week, President Clinton strongly denounced Cédras and his army of thugs and condemned his reign of terror. Today, according to him, he is an honourable man. President Aristide has called for the implementation of Resolution 940 and of the Governors Island Accord, and I hope that the Government of Canada will support him while denouncing this repugnant agreement.
Terry Fox RunMs. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues in this House to the 14th Terry Fox Run which was held on Sunday, September 18.
At 3,400 different sites across Canada on Sunday, hundreds of thousands of people took part in the event which raised a total of $8.5 million in 40 countries worldwide last year and is expected to raise more this year.
These donations pay 20 per cent of all the cancer research in Canada.
Over half a million Canadians walked, ran, pedalled or skated in memory of Terry Fox, who died of cancer in June 1981. I would like to pay tribute to the Canadians who once again volunteered their time to promote this cause they care about. Volunteers are needed now more than ever.
Radio-Restigouche Community Radio StationMr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): Mr. Speaker, a dream came true in my constituency of Restigouche-Chaleur. Last Monday, Radio-Restigouche, a community radio station also known as CIMS-FM, went on the air.
For the last few years, a great number of volunteers and employees have been working relentlessly to reach this goal. This community radio station aims at promoting the Acadian and French culture and at providing high quality regional news. CIMS-FM will also give its many volunteers the opportunity to train in the communications sector.
I want to congratulate all the members of the Radio-Restigouche team for their hard work. Such commitment by volunteers is worth mentioning. Long live Radio-Restigouche.
Presence In GalleryThe Speaker: I like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery today of Major-General Roméo Dallaire, des forces armée canadiennes.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: It seems that his reputation has preceded him and rightly so for all members of the House. I welcome you home, Major-General Roméo Dallaire. This is your place and we are glad to have you here.

Oral Question Period
HaitiHon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the brutal repression which the Haitian police and army carry on is getting worse in Port-au-Prince, as the American soldiers watch impassively. For his part, exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has publicly repudiated the agreement reached between Washington and the military junta, referring back to the Governors Island Accord. The UN special envoy who was in charge of negotiating these accords has just resigned. His name is Dante Caputo.
I ask the minister who seems to be increasingly embarrassed by the growing confusion to tell us if negotiations are now going on in Washington to ensure the speedy and effective return of President Aristide.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes. As much as the Leader of the Opposition, I deplore this carnage that has followed the arrival of multinational troops in Haiti. These are certainly unacceptable actions which should have been expected from the military who are losing control of the country. I think that we must see what is happening there in that context and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition not to make a partisan issue of it but to accept that the Government of Canada is playing a very important and very useful role with President Aristide, who will return to his country very soon.
Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I always thought that Canada's policy was to support President Aristide. I wonder if President Aristide cannot rightly ask whether Canada did not support him by signing an agreement with an impostor president who has taken his place, without any reference to President Aristide's own legitimacy.
Did the minister intervene on behalf of Canada with Washington in order to ensure that the return of President Aristide takes place under conditions which respect the Governors Island agreement rather than according to the terms of agreement negotiated last Sunday with the U.S.?
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should know; if he does not, he should talk to President Aristide, who will confirm for him that he fully supports what the Canadian government is doing.
President Aristide has always shown himself to be very interested in and very close to the positions taken by Canada. He knows that the Canadian government is a dependable friend and ally.
So I do not accept the Leader of the Opposition trying for partisan reasons to create dissension between the Government of Canada and President Aristide when there is none at all.
Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, let us limit the debate to whether or not Canada is meeting its commitments to democracy and the support promised for President Aristide.
In this regard, if the government really played an important role, how could it let this agreement be reached with an impostor president, with no mention of President Aristide, who is supposed to be Canada's protégé?
In particular, I ask the minister whether he agrees with the clauses in the latest agreement that provide for amnesty, despite what was in the Governors Island Accord; according to our information, these clauses are the main obstacle to President Aristide's return.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I find it particularly interesting that the Leader of the Opposition is now second guessing the actions of President Carter and the emissaries who at the very last minute obtained capitulations from the military junta.
What took place there at the last minute was that decisions were made by the Haitian junta to accept that multinational forces would arrive in Haiti without any confrontation in order to ensure that there would not be any loss of lives. That is what took place. Nothing else.
All the elements of resolution 940 will be carried out and will be exercised by the military forces that are there. That will ensure the speedy and safe return of President Aristide.
Collection Of Unpaid TaxesMr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Denis Desautels, is understandably concerned by the problems experienced by the government in collecting unpaid taxes. In the last five years, the amount of taxes owed by Canadian taxpayers has nearly doubled, going from 3.7 to more than $6.2 billion.
Will the Minister of Finance recognize that, before targeting the poorest ones through a social reform, he should first set up a more efficient system to collect the more than six billion dollars owed in taxes?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I read the account by Norman Delisle in this morning's La Presse of the speech by the Auditor General, and I must say I was very encouraged and pleased by what I read. He has identified the close to doubling of the taxes owed during the last five years of the Tory administration of which my hon. friend has made mention.
He has made it perfectly clear that this is indeed an area which the Government of Canada must pursue vigorously to make sure that all Canadians pay their fair share of taxes and that the business community is faced with a level playing field so it does not have to compete for contracts against those who do not pay their share. It is clear that he has identified a problem which we have recognized.
I remind the hon. member that within three weeks of becoming minister I announced a major campaign in consultation with my friend the hon. Minister of Finance to make sure that we would be able to address these very problems that the Auditor General mentioned in Quebec City yesterday.
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, the results are yet to come. The minister and his government were elected a year ago. Will the minister tell us why his government did not make as much effort to collect taxes owed to the Treasury as it does to cut social benefits through its upcoming reform of those social programs designed to protect the poorest ones in our society? Why did the government not make as much effort to collect those unpaid taxes?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that within three weeks of becoming minister we launched a major campaign against the underground economy and against those who are not paying their fair share.
I pointed out that this was an important initiative of the government. The member seems to have overlooked the fact that revenues are up dramatically for this period over last year and that a considerable part of this, approximately $700 million, is due to improved efficiency of collection. He has overlooked the fact that we are doing much better.
He has also overlooked the fact that the Auditor General in this article to which I referred earlier said the following:
The Auditor was very pleased by the decision of the federal Revenue minister to intensify measures to collect amounts owed to the Treasury.
Had the hon. member bothered to read the story and the speech of the Auditor General, he would have noticed that the Auditor General is congratulating us for the actions we are taking.
The EconomyMr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal premier of New Brunswick has expressed the view that Canada will sink into a lower economic order if the federal government does not come to grips with the debt problem.
He says that the efforts of the provinces to control their spending are being held back by the federal government which has yet to show a clear demonstrable commitment to fiscal management that would inspire international investors.
The Prime Minister will not heed advice from members on this side with respect to this subject. He does not heed advice from the taxpayers and the investment community. Perhaps he will heed the words of his Liberal colleagues and provide a clear demonstrable commitment to sound fiscal management.
Will the Prime Minister publicly direct the finance minister to reduce the deficit, not by raising taxes but by further spending reductions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the Minister of Finance is doing.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister apparently has no idea of the uncertainty that these non-answers and political answers create with respect to investors and taxpayers.
Many resource companies, particularly in western Canada, are starting to make money for the first time in a number of years. They are in a position of trying to decide whether to invest those profits in Canada or take them elsewhere out of the reach of the government.
Since the Prime Minister, given his track record on this issue and the uncertainty, creates only more uncertainty by responding, will the finance minister clear the air by stating categorically that he is not planning any tax increases on the resource industry?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to know that the leader of the Reform Party is conceding that when we had a Conservative government even less right wing than his, business was not making money and with the Liberal government in power it is starting to make
money. It does not know where to invest it. It is better to have that problem than the problem it had with the Tories in government.
Talking about uncertainty I would like the leader of the Reform Party to be a bit objective. It is on TV every night and every morning that the Canadian dollar is going up. The interest rate is going down. The international community has more confidence in Canada than ever before. He should rejoice. That is simple.
Preston Manning: I read the papers, Mr. Speaker, but I am more conscious of the fact that the government is spending $110 million more per day than it takes in, and a lot of other people recognize that as well.
If the Prime Minister cannot answer this question with clarity and resolve uncertainty in the resource industry perhaps he can say something that would calm the uncertainty among RRSP investors.
Yesterday the Prime Minister would not give a straight answer on whether the government is contemplating a raid on RRSP contributions. These investors are already organizing themselves to oppose an expected tax grab while we wait for an answer from the government on how many more dollars will seek a safer haven elsewhere.
My question is for the finance minister if the Prime Minister cannot answer. Will he clear the air on this issue by stating categorically that he is not planning a tax raid on RRSP contributions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that we are about to embark on the most comprehensive, deep consultative process in the budget preparation that has ever been done. There will be extensive opportunity for debate. We welcome that opportunity.
The challenge I lay before the leader of the Reform Party is to rise to that opportunity. Or, is the Reform Party going to do what it did in the pre-budget debate, what it has done throughout the summer, and that is refuse to be constructive, refuse to tell us what it would do and refuse to face the fundamental challenges facing the country?
Duplication And OverlapMr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker, we now know that in five years, Canada has dropped from fourth to fourteenth place among the 24 OECD countries as far its competitive position is concerned, mainly because of the unprecedented extent of the federal debt, inefficient government policies that undermine job creation and, above all, the wasteful overlap in manpower training.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Considering this disastrous state of affairs, what more will it take for the Minister of Finance to decide to make a move, act responsibly, eliminate the inefficiencies in federal spending and at last do something about duplication and overlap?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have every intention of dealing with overlap. In fact, the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal has been given that role.
I may add that the problems are more fundamental and that we will have to deal with the loss of our technological edge, the manpower issue, and, of course, the issue of the debt. That is why the Minister of Human Resources Development is going to start on his program to restructure our social programs, why the Minister of Industry is going to start on his program to restructure industry, and why we intend to reach our objective of bringing the federal deficit down to 3 per cent of GNP.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, earlier I heard the Prime Minister refer to the Conservatives. I now hear the Minister of Finance saying exactly the same thing he said about a year ago.
Mr. Speaker, I will put the question to the minister: What has he done for the past year, aside from conducting some pretty useless consultations, to cut operating expenditures? What has he done to eliminate overlap and duplication? What has he done to help the government make a sensible decision, which would be to decentralize all authority over manpower training to Quebec?
Eight hundred thousand unemployed individuals are waiting for this to happen. They are waiting for the glimmer of hope that the Minister of Finance and the government are certainly not giving them. So what has he done? That is my question.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, what we did? Real growth was 6.4 per cent during the past quarter, the best performance of all our G-7 partners. Consumer spending was up 3.5 per cent during the first half of 1994. Exports were up 0.6 per cent in July, and I can go on.
The hon. member asked me what I did. Well, I am not entirely responsible for all this. The government is.
National UnityMr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, you will know there has been some debate outside the House this week concerning the date of a referendum in Quebec. You will also know that many Canadians, after 25 years, are sick and tired of this separatist merry-go-round.
I would like the Prime Minister to clarify for the House whether he has clearly communicated the position of his government, of the vast majority of members of the House and the vast majority of the population of Canada that the premier of Quebec should fulfil his commitment to have this referendum as soon as possible. What assurances has he received in that regard?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, and the commitment was not only in a private conversation. It was made public on the Wednesday afternoon during a press conference when Mr. Parizeau answered a question by a CBC radio reporter stating he was to fulfil his commitment. I took his word in the press as well as what he said privately.
I see that the Reform Party is trying to make money on that subject by having a 1-900 telephone number. It is pretty awkward for a political party to want people to express a view and pay money to the Reform Party on a divisive issue like this one.
It is unbelievable and not very ethical to take a controversial problem, one that is very divisive and ask the people to pay to make money for the Reform Party. I can understand why the Reform Party has problems with its funding at this time, if we judge it by its performance in the House of Commons.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
It is in the interests of this party and should be in the interests of the government to get the views of all Canadians on the unity of the country. I am surprised that the Prime Minister does not want that.
Here is my supplementary question: Does the Prime Minister intend to contact officially the new Quebec Government to urge it to respect its commitment and hold its referendum as quickly as possible, on the simple question of Quebec separation?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I already called them, as I mentioned before in this House, and I made a speech in Quebec City, before the Canadian Chamber of Commerce last Sunday, so my message is well known. We want this question to be resolved in a civilized manner and quickly, so we can turn our attention to the other problems facing this country.
I would like to tell the hon. member that his party should have subscribed to a 1-800 number, instead of trying to make money with a 1-900 number. This is quite inappropriate.
Francophones In KingstonMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Once again, this year, Kingston High School students went back to school in shacks without running water or bathrooms because Kingston city council still refuses to let the school board build a school on its land.
On May 31, the Prime Minister pledged to help francophones get their high school without delay. In his opinion, is it normal for the school board to have to resort to the courts to have this fundamental right upheld? Given that the school will not be built soon, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that his May 31 pledge was nothing but hogwash?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have asked ministers who have Crown lands in Kingston to make a site available to the Kingston French-Language School Board to build a school, if it cannot come to an agreement with the city council. The Solicitor General and the Minister of National Defence have been trying to resolve this issue and we will find a suitable site if no agreement is forthcoming.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister recognize that the systematic obstruction and the obvious bad faith of Kingston city council confirm what the Commissioner of Official Languages said, namely that it will be extremely difficult to turn Kingston into a bilingual place respectful of the fundamental rights of francophones in this country?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we intend to take the necessary steps to ensure that Kingston college provides services in both official languages to all its students.
I am surprised to see how emotional these people who want to split Quebec from Canada and have their own army and so on can be. We will do what is good for Canada. We will make sure that anyone attending the only military college this country needs since we reduced our troops to 60,000-will be able to attend a bilingual institution, as required by Canadian legislation.
Canadian Security Intelligence ServiceMs. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley): Mr. Speaker, the Security Intelligence Review Committee has publicly stated that the Solicitor General will have sole discretion in determining the openness of the SIRC report on the CSIS-Bristow affair.
Will the minister assure the House that he will make the entire report public, excluding the identification of confidential CSIS sources, other than Grant Bristow?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, it is my objective to make as much as possible of the report public. Once I receive the report I will review it. I will seek such legal advice as I need to make up my mind on how much I can make public.
It is my objective, as I said, to make as much as possible of the report public. If I can make the whole thing public I will certainly do so.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year SIRC tried to convince the justice committee that the fact that Canada was a world leader in the petroleum industry was a national secret.
Will the minister assure the House that he will provide a broader interpretation of what national security is?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the CSIS act adopted by the House provides a definition. It is a very broad definition.
I appreciate the hon. member's question. I look forward to receiving the SIRC report so that after receiving advice on my legal position I can proceed as quickly as possible to make as much of that report public as possible to help reassure the public about this important subject.
Tainted BloodMrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The minister said at a press conference on September 12 that the inspection carried out by the Food and Drug Administration resulted from a change in the American regulations.
How can the minister reconcile her statement with that made by Red Cross spokespersons who were saying exactly the opposite, namely that there had been no change in the American regulations.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that there has in fact been a change in the FDA policy. They have decided to require Canadian blood collection centres to have a licence. There was already a request for this licence in their system. The FDA had not required Canadian centres to have this licence for several years.
So, they suddenly changed their mind and now require us to licence these centres in order to meet the US regulations.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whom we should believe. In response to a question I asked at a press conference, she told us that the American regulations have been changed. Then the Red Cross looks into it and says that there has been no change. I am trying to sort this out. I never get a straight answer.
I ask her the same question again: Was there, yes or no, any change in the American regulations? And I expect a clear answer.
Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, there was a change in the policies of the FDA. Red Cross centres are now required to have a licence. That is all.
Gun ControlMr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On behalf of thousands of honest law-abiding gun owners in Canada and being one myself as a former president of the Dover Rod and Gun Club and with many legitimate target shooting clubs wondering about their future, will the minister clearly state the government's position on the banning of handguns?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the regulation of handguns is just one aspect of a comprehensive package this government is preparing in response to the Prime Minister's request last May.
I can tell the hon. member we are going to have to deal with handguns. A poll taken less than a year ago showed that 71 per cent of Canadians and a clear majority of firearms owners were in favour of an absolute ban on handguns. I am not suggesting the answer is that simple and no final decision has been made.
I spent the last three months speaking with dozens of pistol clubs, shooting clubs and handgun associations, among others. I am very sensitive to the interests they claim.
A study released yesterday by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force gave further reason to believe this subject needs attention. We already knew that 3,800 firearms are lost or stolen each year, about half of which are handguns. The study released yesterday demonstrated that about 30 per cent of the firearms
used in the commission of crimes in Toronto were originally legally registered handguns.
We will be turning our attention to this subject. We will do our best to find a solution that respects the legitimate interests of Canadians and at the same time enhances public safety.
ImmigrationMr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In 1981 Mr. Dudley Vincent Forbes was ordered deported to Jamaica for overstaying his visa. Four years later he was actually deported and the following year he returned. He was deported again and again he returned. Last Saturday Mr. Forbes allegedly walked into a Toronto establishment and opened fire on a crowd killing two and wounding several more.
After having been deported twice Forbes was recently granted permanent resident status. My question is why?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, this case is before the police. This individual came to Canada in 1981. He was asked to leave after overstaying and returned in 1986.
If the hon. member is questioning whether people who are deported should not be permitted to return and go through due process then why is it that his party is refusing to adopt Bill C-44? Those amendments would allow the individual to be turned around at the border without legal process. Why is his party saying no to that?
Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, this minister's record is not before the police; it is open for the public to look at. Bill C-44 would not have stopped Forbes from entering this country. We will not support the half measures the government proposes.
Will this minister agree today to put the protection of Canadian health and safety ahead of all other concerns in immigration, ahead of procedure, ahead of his friends in the immigration industry, ahead of his own personal ambitions?
The Speaker: My colleagues, we should not in any way impugn motives. That part of the question is out of order. I will allow the first part of the question to stand, if the minister would like to answer it.
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party does not like to deal with the facts, but it should get around to doing that.
The facts are that this individual came to Canada and left some 15 years ago. The police are looking for this individual. Charges are pending. The person is at large. There are deportations on the books of individuals who are convicted of crimes that we believe are due to deportation. Fifteen years after this individual has entered Canada, is charged by the police-not convicted, charged-and is at large, what does that member expect me as minister of immigration to do?
On July 7 this government made a very clear reorientation of how we remove individuals. We set up a joint task force made up of police, RCMP, provincial and federal immigration authorities.
The hon. member does not need to lecture this government about taking the appropriate action. However the member does need a lecture about how our judicial system works and that we cannot deport someone who is charged and at large.
Unemployment InsuranceMrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The latest figures from the finance department show a significant reduction in UI benefits from April to July. However, these numbers also show a significant increase in social assistance costs-and that applies only to the federal government's share and does not include the increased costs in the provinces.
Given these figures, how can the Prime Minister take pleasure, as he did last Sunday at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Quebec City, in saying that a growing number of Canadian households no longer need to rely on unemployment insurance or social assistance?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that there has been a significant decrease in the number of people who need UI benefits at this time and that the creation of 275,000 jobs allowed these people to return to the workforce. That is why I said that fewer people need to rely on unemployment insurance and social assistance, since many jobs have been created in the last 10 months.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the figures are higher, it is certainly not because there are fewer beneficiaries.
Does the Prime Minister not recognize that the reduction in UI benefits is due in very large part to the reforms, the exemptions voted not only by the former government but also by the current government, that this is a tragedy for individuals and that it simply means a heavier burden for the provinces?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, as far as the reduction is concerned, it is very clear. The figures are there. In Quebec alone, for example, the help wanted index is 10 per cent higher than in 1993. Since we were elected, Quebec's unemployment rate has fallen by more than 1 per cent. Again, in Quebec, 79,000 jobs were created, while 261,000 jobs were created in Canada. That is why the rates are down.
Dangerous OffendersMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows that Keith Legere is a reported pedophile just released from prison for the killing of a six-year old boy. His psychiatric assessment shows he is a pedophile with psychopathic tendencies. The protection of society has to be our number one priority yet there is no mechanism in our system to protect society against people like Keith Legere.
Will the minister take immediate steps to bring in legislation that will indefinitely incarcerate dangerous offenders?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, part XXIV of the Criminal Code calls for the indefinite incarceration of dangerous offenders. Part XXIV has been in place for decades. In the appropriate cases it permits the prosecuting attorney to bring to the attention of the court circumstances which would establish that the accused person is of sufficient danger to society that they should be locked up indefinitely. That happens weekly in the courts of the country.
The government has identified a gap in the system. It is that category of case in which no such application under part XXIV of the Criminal Code is brought. Such persons may be incarcerated for fixed periods but may arguably still be dangerous upon the expiration of those terms.
I am not speaking to the case of Legere but speaking generally when I say that for the past several months the Solicitor General, the Minister of Health and I have been working with our provincial counterparts toward the creation of a nationwide policy with changes to the provincial health acts, if necessary. This is to provide for the continued detention under the health regimes of persons who, upon the expiration of their criminal terms, may be dangerous to the public.
I will be happy to provide the hon. member with details of the state of those discussions. They continue and I remain optimistic as do my colleagues that we can make a significant improvement in the system in that way.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is good talk and I would like to see something really happen. However from what I have seen from the proposals and the talk I have heard their policies are going to be as useless as the immigration policies.
I will give another example. A convicted sexual predator, a pedophile named Galienne, will be released in October. Experts say he is not rehabilitated and will prey on young children again.
Washington State has successfully enacted legislation that locks up perverts indefinitely. Will the justice minister implement an immediate moratorium on the release of all dangerous offenders until such time as new effective legislation is in place?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern for the safety of the public, but I suggest that a different approach would be more effective and in the long run necessary as constitutional.
The hon. member may have noticed two weeks ago that an Ontario court upheld a ruling. It would keep in detention a person who had completed a prison term but who was taken into the Ontario health regime and held involuntarily for the protection of the public.
The person challenged that ruling and the ruling was upheld. I took that as very encouraging for the approach that the Solicitor General of Canada, the Minister of Health and I want to pursue, which is working with the health systems to fill that gap.
There cannot be a moratorium because that would not be lawful. It would not be constitutional.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Would it be safe?
Allan Rock: What is safe and expedient is not always what is lawful. The rule of law must govern. I can assure the hon. member that we will pursue the approach I have described. We are confident it will result in an enhancement of public safety.
Port Of Quebec CityMrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In 1985, UNESCO of the United Nations recognized the unsurpassed heritage value of the historic old port in Quebec City, placing it on the world list of heritage sites.
Will the government also recognize the heritage value of the old port of Quebec and monitor the encroachment of developers whose sole interests for prime real estate are for profit?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for her interest in the historic district of Quebec. Of course Canada played an important role in the development of the world heritage convention.
As minister responsible for heritage sites in Canada, I am always encouraging the very careful management of the lands in the old, historic district of Quebec and in adjacent areas.
To reassure her further, I am pleased to report that I was informed that the City of Quebec announced on June 23 that it was pulling out of a project to build parking spaces and, a few days later, the promoters of a Imax cinema project also abandoned their plans for that area.
This means that the district is indeed protected and I have no doubt that we will remain vigilant in the future.
Canada Labour CodeMr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources. The 128 workers of Ogilvie Mills, in Montreal, have been on strike for three and a half months now. And there is no hope of settlement in sight, as the company can hire scabs to remain in operation.
Considering that about 70 per cent of the Canadian workforce is already protected by provincial anti-strikebreaking legislation, does the minister intend to table in this House proposals to amend the Canada Labour Code by adding anti-strikebreaking provisions at the federal level?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the hon. member that the minister met on Monday with several CNTU officers representing Ogilvie Mills workers. He assured them that he was taking a close look at this whole issue of Canadian anti-strikebreaking legislation, an issue which will be considered as part of the in-depth reform of the Canada Labour Code, and that he will give this problem the urgent and serious attention it deserves.
HealthMr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, on February 18 in the House my colleague from Surrey North warned the Minister of Health about the differences between the Canadian blood supply and the U.S. blood supply. The minister's answer was do not worry. We are inspecting the blood supply and by March this will all be taken care of.
If those inspections had been done, we would not be in the pickle we are in today. Were those inspections done, or was this simply to cover the minister's gluteus maximus?
The Speaker: The question is out of order.
PrivilegeSvend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege, of which I had given notice, related to certain comments made during the course of debate yesterday by the member for Central Nova.
However, following consultation with the Clerk, I understand that this matter may be more appropriately addressed as a point of order. I will certainly pursue the matter at the earliest possible opportunity, after having given notice to the member for Central Nova.
Points Of OrderMiss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise on a point of order regarding question period yesterday afternoon. I asked the Prime Minister a question about an appointment of a lawyer.
I would like to draw your attention to Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 489 which states that the phrase "has not got the guts" is unparliamentary. That comes from Debates of May 27, 1959, page 4078.
I would like to draw your attention to Hansard of yesterday, page 5898 where the Prime Minister responded to me with the exact words ``if the member had any guts she would try to prove that the person is not competent''.
I think it is fairly clear that statement is out of order and I would like to ask that the Prime Minister either withdraw those comments or apologize.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in my capacity as government House leader.
With respect to the point of order just raised, I respectfully submit there are two problems with it. First, I am not aware whether the hon. member gave notice to the Prime Minister that she intended to raise it so that he could be present. More important, I understand that such matters are to be raised at the
first opportunity which should have been yesterday immediately after the end of the question period.
The time has passed for raising this point. However in saying that I am not in any way accepting the premise of the hon. member's point of order.
The Speaker: Many times in the course of debate when we take words out of context they do not always have the same connotation that they ordinarily would have.
Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member has rightly pointed out that the statement which she quotes as being used is out of order I would refer the hon. member to page 149 of Beauchesne's 6th edition, "unparliamentary language", where it says:

The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary.

I would say the point has been made. I would rule that it should have been brought up probably at the instant when it occurred rather than a day later. I am hopeful the hon. member will accept it is on the record that these words are indeed unparliamentary. My ruling for now would simply be that I hope the use of these words would not occur again in the near future.
Is this on the same point of order?
Deborah Grey: Yes.
The Speaker: Unless it adds something new I would prefer just to lay this aside. Thank you very much.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, my question was ruled out of order and I would like to request a ruling on that please.
The Speaker: The ruling is simply that it is out of order in the context in which it was made. I think that this kind of language in certain circumstances could be very inflammatory and I would ask the hon. member that in future when he is putting questions that they not in any way stoop to even a hint of vulgarity.
That is not by way of explanation so much as it is by way of asking the hon. member to please refrain from language which could be judged to be inflammatory.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, and pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to five petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsMr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the Third Annual Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe held in Vienna, Austria, from July 4 to July 8, 1994.
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House the third report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning the North Atlantic Assembly's spring session which was held in Oslo, Norway, May 26 to May 30, 1994.
Canada Elections ActMr. Ted White (North Vancouver): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-267, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses).

Madam Speaker, with the permission of the House, may I make a short statement on each bill.
The purpose of the bill covering election expenses is to eliminate any reimbursement by taxpayers of election expenses incurred by candidates and political parties.
The Canada Elections Act presently obliges taxpayers to reimburse 50 per cent of election expenses of candidates and political parties if they achieve set percentages of the vote.
Such reimbursement is actually a taxpayer funded grant to a special interest group which should be raising the money from the people it purports to represent. Passage of the bill would ensure that they would have to do exactly that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Plain Language ActTed White: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-268, an act to promote the use of plain language in federal statutes and regulations.

Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill regarding plain language is to ensure that plain language is used in federal legislation so that legislation may be clearly and readily understood by non-lawyers. Some of the bills the House has passed and no doubt will pass in the future are so legally complex that it takes a gaggle of lawyers to interpret and explain the legislation. Even then it is not unusual for the original intent of the bill to end up being lost in legal challenges.
This bill if passed would ensure that the final language of a bill is straightforward enough and in simple enough language that its intent could not be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Canada Pension PlanMr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-269, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (income transferred to spouse).

Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Canada pension plan to permit income transferred to a spouse to qualify as pensionable and thereby extend CPP benefits to stay at home parents.
The bill is a follow-up to my, Bill C-256, introduced on June 7, 1994 which proposed to amend the Income Tax Act to allow one spouse to pay or split income up to $25,000 to the other spouse who is managing the family home and caring for at least one dependent child who has not commenced full time attendance at school.
This new bill would give further recognition to the principle that caring for children is an important job to be fairly compensated including the extension of pension benefits to a parent working in the home.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActMr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (money purchase pension).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce a private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (money purchase pension).
The bill if passed will significantly change the MPs pension plan. It is designed to reduce the burden significantly taken on by taxpayers under the current member of Parliament pension plan.
Currently members of Parliament contribute $1 for $7 of taxpayers' money to the existing plan. This new plan is $1 for $1, taxpayer by member. It will reduce the cost to taxpayers of the pension plan for members of Parliament by approximately $11.7 million per year.
This is a plan that is endorsed by the Saskatchewan Taxpayers Association, the Canadian Taxpayers Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It is a plan that is modelled after the Saskatchewan MLAs plan which has been in place for over 15 years and works very well for both taxpayers and members.
It will end unfunded future liabilities of MPs pensions. It will also reduce overall pension payout and set a higher age limit for qualifying for a pension.
I hope to gain support from all sides of the House on this very important bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActMr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act to amend the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act (Interpretation).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce an act to amend the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act.
One of the more serious flaws in Bill C-33 allows the agreements of the Yukon First Nations to take precedence over Canadian laws. The bill would amend Bill C-33, the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, so that federal or territorial law will prevail where there is an inconsistency or conflict with any final agreement or transboundary agreement.
We are all Canadians and the laws of the land should apply equally to all.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Membership Of CommitteePeter Milliken: Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move:

That the order of the House of Wednesday, February 23, 1994 respecting the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy be amended by adding thereto the following:
That, not withstanding the usual practices of this House substitution in the membership of the Committee shall be in accordance with Standing Order 114(2),
and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours thereof.

Foreign PolicyPeter Milliken: moved:

That the Order of the House of March 16, 1994, respecting the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Foreign Policy be amended by adding thereto the following:
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, substitution in the membership of the Committee shall be in accordance with Standing Order 114(2), and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours thereof.

(Motion agreed to.)
PetitionsMr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, these petitioners are concerned as are all Canadians that abuse and violence are real concerns throughout the whole nation.
The petitioners want all forms of abuse and violence controlled and preferably to cease; that is, those forms of abuse and violence that we hear on radio and see on television. They request that the government ask the CRTC to regulate forms of abuse and violence that are contrary to what they are trying to do to raise their families.
These parents point out that their efforts to raise and educate their children are often counteracted by what happens on radio and television.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise today to present three petitions signed by my constituents in Capilano-Howe Sound.
The first petition calls on Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Herb Grubel: Madam Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child.
Herb Grubel: Madam Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament to prohibit assisted suicide and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Madam Speaker, I am presenting petitions today on behalf of members of the Kaska Dena Council of Yukon and B.C. These members are from diverse points, Watson Lake, Fort Nelson, including Good Hope.
The Kaska Dena Council requests that Parliament ensure that its fiduciary rights as related to the federal government are respected, particularly in relation to land claims issues in Yukon and B.C. in which its territory spans both that province and territory.
The Kaska Dena Council seeks the support of the minister of Indian affairs to ensure that he carries out this responsibility and former agreements with the Kaska Dena Council.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition to the House signed by a number of my constituents as well as Canadians throughout southwestern Ontario.
These petitioners call on Parliament to vigorously enforce the Criminal Code of Canada to prohibit assisted suicide and they further call on Parliament to make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
I present this and most heartily concur with these petitioners.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Madam Speaker, I am privileged to table in the House today duly certified petitions on behalf of the constituents of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
The first two petitions ask Parliament to enforce the present provisions of the Criminal Code respecting assisted suicides and that no changes in the law be contemplated by Parliament.
Allan Kerpan: Madam Speaker, I table the wishes of persons in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who humbly pray that Parliament not amend the human rights code concerning the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I concur wholeheartedly with each of these petitions of my constituents.
Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition which is signed by residents across Canada, including from the cities of Calgary, Moose Jaw and Mill Bay.
These petitioners draw to the attention of the House the fact that the current Criminal Code denies people who are suffering from terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with the assistance of a physician.
Therefore the petitions call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with dignity by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and debilitating illnesses the right to the assistance of a physician in ending their lives at a time of their choice subject to strict safeguards to prevent abuse and to ensure that the decision is free, informed, competent and voluntary.
John Solomon: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure on behalf of constituents and other Canadians in Saskatchewan to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition is signed by people from Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Pangman, Ogema, Minton, Oungre, Kenora and Nipawin, all in Saskatchewan.
The petitioners are extremely worried about the impact of Bill C-91 which was passed in the last Parliament extending the patent on some prescription drugs for up to 20 years and guaranteeing drug manufacturers monopoly prices and substantial profits at Canadians' expense.
Prescription drug prices in Canada are the most expensive in the world as a result of the bill. The petitioners are calling for the repeal of Bill C-91. The Liberals in opposition supported the repealing of Bill C-91. The petitioners are asking the government to repeal the bill as quickly as possible to reduce the pressure on drug plans and health care plans across the country.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide a petition to the House today from constituents in Fraser Valley West and Langley, Aldergrove and Matsqui.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the human right code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Madam Speaker, I have a petition from more than 60 people in the riding of Peterborough. These are people concerned about child abuse. They point out that babies and young children lack the ability to defend themselves and they fall victim to sexual abuse and serious physical and psychological abuse each year.
They urge that Parliament amend the Criminal Code to ensure stiffer sentences and mandatory treatment for all child abusers.
Peter Adams: I have a second petition, Madam Speaker, prompted by the recent death of Debra Redhead and it is presented by people from the Native Friendship Centre in Peterborough. They point out that the existing judicial system continues to fail and in some cases participates in the deaths of incarcerated First Nations peoples. The group Cries to the Spirits is urging the federal government to recognize and act on this.
They petition Parliament to accept and respect First Nations people's right to reintroduce their traditional judicial system which promotes healing as opposed to punishment.
Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, I have four petitions to present today, two that relate to opposition to same sex couples, homosexuality and sexual orientation.
Grant Hill: The second petition asks Parliament not to change any legislation relating to euthanasia.
Grant Hill: The final petition asks for protection of the unborn child.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present petitions on behalf of my constituents to request Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Daphne Jennings: The second petition is presented on behalf of Canadian grandparents asking Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to assure grandparents of continuous access to grandchildren and to inquire as to the health, education and welfare of their grandchildren.
It is the hope of this member that all members of the House will support our grandparents and realize the needs of our grandchildren have got to be addressed. By addressing their needs we also address the needs of grandparents.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present two petitions today pursuant to Standing Order 36, the first signed by 238 constituents of Oxford County who pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by human beings to unborn human beings.
John Finlay: The second petition requests that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of petitions on behalf of constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands, Victoria and Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people, binding upon Parliament, to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have three petitions I would like to present today on behalf of my constituents in Simcoe Centre.
The first deals with euthanasia. The petitioners request that the current laws regarding active euthanasia be enforced.
Ed Harper: Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with abortion. The petitioners request that Parliament reconsider amendments to the Criminal Code.
Ed Harper: Madam Speaker, the third petition deals with sexual orientation.
I wish to present a petition requesting that the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion would lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as married people.
Dale Johnston: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present a petition duly signed by constituents of Wetaskiwin who humbly pray that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code on the grounds that this could include discrimination.
I present the petition on behalf of the constituents of Wetaskiwin.
Private Members' BillsTed White: Madam Speaker, unfortunately during introduction of my private members' bills the seconders of the two bills were rotated. I would like to correct that for the records of the House.
The seconder for the bill entitled an act to amend the Canada Elections Act was Grant Hill. The seconder for the act to promote the use of plain language in federal statutes and regulations was Bob Ringma.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): That is fine. I will make sure the corrections are made.
Questions On The Order PaperPeter Milliken: Madam Speaker, Question No. 42 will be answered today.
Question No. 42-
Mrs. Guay: 
With respect to the cellular telephones in use in all government departments and agencies, ( a ) how many are in active use, ( b ) how many are not in active use, ( c ) are they leased or owned outright and in what proportions, ( d ) what are the costs involved in their lease or purchase, and ( e ) what are the total costs of use and communications?

Peter Milliken: The information provided was obtained by soliciting 68 departments and agencies of which 61 had cellular telephones. The legislature (Parliament), the judiciary and crown corporations are not included.
Due to the large geographical area involved, the wide variety of leasing and usage costs, the means and time frames of billing procedures and availability of records, the figures provided are only good for the day they were collated by each government institution.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Peter Milliken: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining questions stand?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motions For PapersPeter Milliken: I ask, Madam Speaker, that all notices of motions stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall all notices of motions stand?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders
PeacekeepingAndré Ouellet: moved:

That this House take note of Canada's current and future international peacekeeping commitments in this world, with particular reference to the former Yugoslavia, Haiti and Rwanda.

Madam Speaker, I want to address the House this afternoon about one of the strongest and most enduring traditions of Canadian foreign policy, our commitment to peacekeeping. Almost forty years ago, Lester B. Pearson first developed the modern concept of peacekeeping: a UN Force.
That idea defused an explosive international crisis and led to a peaceful disengagement of warring parties under the United Nations flag.
Today, I may recall that since the creation of the first United Nations Emergency Force in 1956, under the leadership of a Canadian, Lt. Gen. E.L.M. Burns, there have been 26 other UN peacekeeping missions. In every case, Canada has participated in some way. Canadians have served with distinction in all 16 peacekeeping operations currently under way in the UN.
More than 3,700 Canadians are currently deployed in eight international operations, while helping the UN secretary general with the planning of two other missions in which some 700 Canadians might eventually be called to serve. This is a unique record of achievement of which all Canadians should be proud.
A decade ago, the UN had only three active peacekeeping missions, but today, a number of important factors, including the end of the Cold War, the unfortunate outbreak of ethnic and nationalist conflict, and the new co-operation among the members of the Security Council, where veto rights are no longer used to paralyse the UN-have changed the peacekeeping equation.
The United Nations has been empowered to act where once there was a stalemate. As a result, the UN is now becoming the instrument of international co-operation which was the world community's hope in 1945. The fact that the Security Council is now using peacekeeping as a central instrument to bring about peaceful change is a development we should applaud and one we wholeheartedly support. There is no doubt that Canada is one of the UN's strongest supporters.
Next week at the United Nations, I will be putting forward suggestions for making the organization more responsive to a new era in which peacekeeping and related tasks will become even more central to its mandate.
But we have also recognized in recent months, pending the implementation of these vital reforms, that the UN has more peacekeeping mandates than it can realistically handle, involving a variety of tasks which the international community is ill-equipped to manage. It therefore seems a useful time to take stock of the situation and to ask ourselves a series of questions about peacekeeping. What are Canada's national interests in the new era of peacekeeping? How should we play a role in the more diverse and demanding era which is now confronting us? How should we deploy our very valuable resources abroad at a time of
fiscal constraint at home? How should we support the UN in a time of transition to new and more demanding tasks?
In the coming weeks, two parliamentary committees, one responsible for reviewing Canada's foreign policy and one responsible for reviewing our defence policy, will be asked to prepare a report by the end of October, and I am sure that both committees will have some very interesting recommendations to make, as they try to answer these questions.
I am also convinced that today's debate in the House will give many of us an opportunity to intervene and offer the government suggestions on the best way to answer the very fundamental questions I just formulated.
Allow me at this point in time to make a few personal comments.
My view is that peacekeeping is fundamental to Canadian foreign policy. It is not simply a question of continuing a tradition for which Canadians have a deserved international reputation. It is a question of making a concrete and key contribution to international security at a time of instability in many parts of the world. It is also a question of making the United Nations work in directions that are in Canada's interests and in the interests of virtually the entire global community.
In emphasizing the importance of peacekeeping, we have to recognize Canada's strong desire to help the UN whenever we can, but at the same time we have to acknowledge that Canada cannot be everywhere and do everything.
In my view, a number of factors should guide our future action. First of all, we should devote time, attention and resources to the planning and administrative functions at the UN which will enable the UN to function effectively in the future. This means developing ideas to make the UN secretariat more responsive to international developments, offering personnel to the UN for explicit planning functions, helping the UN plan and coordinate the initial phases of operations and, in certain cases, offering our leadership in operations, as we did in Rwanda. We had the pleasure earlier today to salute Major-General Dallaire, who was in the visitor gallery, and who so brilliantly served the UN in Rwanda.
This emphasis on the "front end", based on wide-ranging Canadian experience, will help to ensure that UN operations can function with a maximum of effectiveness. Second, Canada should focus on roles in UN missions involving what we do best. In Rwanda this has meant communications and logistics, the supply of fresh water, and the provision of medical field hospitals.
This is also what we have done with our civilian police contributions, through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in Namibia and the former Yugoslavia. This is what we intend to do shortly in Haiti.
Third, we should try, in thinking about our roles, to offer contributions which are not only useful in the peacekeeping phase, but which also make a contribution to the broader reconstruction of society-the "peacebuilding phase" which follows a peaceful settlement. In Kigali, for example, Canadian troops have opened the airports, and helped restore vital communications functions. In Haiti, the UN will use an international force of specially trained police officers, under the leadership of Superintendent Pouliot of the RCMP, to transform the Haitian police into a professional unit appropriate to a democratic society.
Lastly, I believe we should be open and responsive when needs arise quickly and when the international community requires an urgent response. But, to fulfil this fourth objective we will need the necessary resources. The Canadian Government and the Department of National Defence will have to plan, a bit ahead of time, to make available the human resources required to intervene, when the situation requires it, in an area of the world where our traditions or our interests might call us.
I am thinking in particular about the day when peace in the Middle East will finally have been achieved. As you know, Canada was part of the very first UN peace mission in the Middle East. Here is a part of the world where Canada can play a significant and useful role, and I am sure it will certainly be willing to help implement the peace process which seems to be taking shape and in which we are actively involved.
There are no hard and fast rules about Canadian participation. There should be no arbitrary limits to Canada's contributions. What we do in each situation must be judged in light of our interests, in light of the requirements, and in light of our ability to participate.
Resource constraints have become an obvious consideration. A decade ago our share of the total UN cost of peacekeeping was only $8 million. In this fiscal year the Canadian share will be in excess of $150 million.
Other issues need to be looked at. For example, there is the continued deployment of our peacekeepers and the capacity of other countries to participate in these types of operations. There is always value in reviewing our ongoing peacekeeping commitments.
In light of the conditions I have just outlined, the House knows that our future peacekeeping presence in the former Yugoslavia is up for renewal at the end of this month. As members will recall, last February the government held a debate on the same question. Today we are continuing this tradition. We
are looking for advice, suggestions and comments from members on both sides of the House before a final decision is reached by cabinet.
Canada has played a key role in the Balkans over the past three years. We joined the European Community monitoring mission in 1991, and committed forces to the UN protection force in the former Yugoslavia in 1992.
We are continuing the humanitarian airlift into Sarajevo in cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for refugees.
We have contributed funding to the investigation of violations of international humanitarian law and to the international tribunal for war crimes. We have some 45 RCMP officers in Bosnia to help in policing operations. Canadian Naval Forces are part of NATO's Adriatic Command. We have participated in CSCE investigative and monitoring missions, and we are about to support the monitoring of the border between the federal republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia.
I believe we have a moral obligation to continue to help. In the field of humanitarian assistance, the Sarajevo air bridge has proven indispensable and its work will continue.
Today I am pleased to announce in addition to what we have pledged already, an additional contribution of $1 million to the International Red Cross and $7 million to be divided among four United Nations agencies: the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the World Food Program; UNICEF; and the World Health Organization.
I also want to announce the extension of projects with Care Canada for the installation of water purification units in Sarajevo, and with Queen's University for developing a network of rehabilitation centres for the wounded and the handicapped. All of this is in Sarajevo. Canada will also contribute $500,000 to the special United Nations fund for the restoration of essential services in Sarajevo.
Having said that, I want the House to understand it is increasingly difficult to sustain all of these efforts. This is especially so at a time when the conflict still rages, when the parties are far from a peaceful settlement and when the prospect of lifting the arms embargo may compromise the UN's mandate and endanger all peacekeeping forces in the region.
I am happy to report that the contact group is making a significant contribution to the negotiating process, although the prospect for a settlement remains far from certain.
Canada fully expects to play a role in the diplomatic process commensurate with the size and importance of our peacekeeping contribution. We will obviously be very happy to know the views of all members of this House in regard to our involvement in the former Yugoslavia.
I believe it is possible to sustain our role in the UN protection force, at least in the short run. We need to give negotiations a chance to work. We need to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance while political pressure takes effect.
What may prove to be necessary are adjustments in the size or disposition of Canada's contribution at a time when there are other real demands on our peacekeeping forces. Whatever changes we may need to make in the months ahead, the first priority of Canadian policy must be the conclusion of a peace agreement among the parties.
Canada is also playing a key role in the efforts of the UN and the OAS to help in the restoration of democratic government in Haiti.
I think the House will share my relief at the last minute agreement reached between the American negotiators led by former president Carter and members of the de facto military regime. We look forward to an early return of Jean-Bertrand Aristide to his rightful place as democratically-elected president of Haiti.
I understand that meetings are taking place today in Washington between Secretary Perry and President Aristide. There is a full briefing on the activities of the multinational force in Haiti, how it has been deployed, what the mandate is of this force and how it intends to facilitate the speedy and safe return of President Aristide in his country.
I have a quote by President Aristide after his briefing. He compliments President Clinton for what has taken place, saying it was as a result of his leadership. There is no doubt that the operation to unsettle the military junta was and still is a difficult task. Many people have spoken out on it but it took decisive action by the United States of America to fulfil what was considered to be the first phase of an important process in bringing back democracy in Haiti.
Some countries were ready to intervene in the first phase; some were not ready to intervene in any phase. Canada has indicated clearly from the very beginning that we would not participate in the first phase in order to be able to play a greater and more substantive role in the long run. We will participate in the second phase and work side by side with President Aristide to rebuild his country and help its population.
Canada will, of course, play a prominent role in re-building democracy in that troubled country, when the time is right. We feel confident that, in a few weeks, we will be able to deploy the contingents we promised. One of their tasks will be to train Haiti's civilian police. Canadian troops would also be part of a UN peacekeeping mission to restore stability so that President Aristide can govern his country without interference from a military junta who did not, does not and will never believe in democracy.
There is much work to be done over a period of time and we are very confident that we can do it in a reasonable amount of time in accordance with the wishes and goals of President Aristide himself.
I must say that we have no doubt that the Americans heading the multinational force in Haiti share our opinion that President Aristide must be reinstated. Never, in all the discussions I have had with American officials, have I doubted a single moment that they were as committed as we are to ensuring that democracy be restored in Haiti and that President Aristide be allowed to complete his mandate as president of his country with the full powers vested in him.
I wanted to clarify this point because my friend the Leader of the Opposition led me to believe, by certain comments and questions, that he assumed the Americans would not stand by President Aristide and would let him down. I can tell him that, as far as I am concerned, his doubts concerning the Americans are unfounded. The Clinton administration must not be imputed motives that it does not have in my view. Each within our own area of responsibility, we must believe in and support this process leading to the return of President Aristide in his country, with him being able to exercise full powers.
Allow me in closing to briefly recall the actions Canada has taken concerning Rwanda. I mentioned earlier the key role played by General Dallaire. I would like to say that, through his contribution and in many other ways, Canada has played a prominent role in restoring some peace to that country. Last May Canada called for a special session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Canada was also the first country to make funds available to send observers to assess the human rights situation. When the crisis escalated, Canada stood out among UN action supporters by providing substantial financial assistance to the UN mission in Rwanda, in support of General Dallaire as it were.
For a long time, we were the only country to provide air transport to the capital, Kigali, taking in food and medicine and bringing out the wounded or those in danger of dying. I say without hesitation that the Canadian effort to reinforce this UN mission helped to save thousands of lives, including that of the current Prime Minister.
We were also among the first to lend tangible support to the second element of our strategy, encouraging refugees to return to Rwanda, which we think is very important at this time. We sent a 200-person medical unit to Rwanda and we were the first to send experts to see what could be done to restore the infrastructure of the country, its water supply, electricity and telephone services.
But we must realize that this awful crisis is primarily and ultimately political. It is clear that any final agreement must have the support of all parties. That is why Canada will continue to increase its efforts in the UN mission in Rwanda and at other levels, to help stabilize the situation and prepare the ground for a peaceful settlement.
The Canadian Armed Forces may eventually be deployed in as many as ten UN operations, but even with this type of global involvement, Canada will also have the flexibility to respond rapidly in the event of humanitarian tragedies or if the conclusion of peace treaties results in a need for monitoring activities. I say these things because, again, we must consider the choices to be made. We want to make these choices after consulting Parliament, as we promised at the beginning of our mandate, after consulting the elected representatives in this Parliament who can help us forge a foreign policy that fully meets the objectives of the Canadian people and that is fully in keeping with Canada's tradition and interests.
Lucien Bouchard: Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the government and the minister for providing us with an opportunity to discuss these very important issues today. I certainly agree with the minister that Canadians are very proud of their peacekeeping missions. In fact, if there is one initiative which gets the full support of the public in Canada, it is this collective commitment to peacekeeping missions.
It should also be pointed out that these peacekeeping missions were not an afterthought in the evolution of the Canadian society. They were, from the very beginning, an integral part of our diplomatic efforts as a sovereign state. They were an extension of co-operation efforts which soon led to interventions. Following the very appropriate comments made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I can only endorse the compliments made to the late Lester B. Pearson, who is among those responsible for building Canadian diplomacy, and for the prestige that this country now enjoys.
However, it must be said that while these missions proved very beneficial, albeit not easy, and were perceived as being effective in the first few years, they are now faced with new problems.
These problems are both enormous and very acute, and they could undermine the credibility of Canadian commitments to peacekeeping missions. This justified the setting up, by the House of Commons, of committees which are developing new policies in that sector and are trying to redefine commitments in a way that is more relevant to the current reality.
These problems are not necessarily all new ones but they have intensified and they are enormous. Take the cost issue. Canada is not as rich as it was in the fifties. In those days, the costs involved were probably not a major factor in determining whether or not to participate in a mission. I believe that Mr. Pearson was a happy political leader who did not have to worry too much about this aspect. Indeed, at the time, costs were not very high and, moreover, the Canadian government's debt was almost non existent and its financial stability was such that the public rarely opposed the allocation of monies to that purpose.
However, those costs have increased. Obviously, we need increasingly sophisticated equipment. Some belligerents use very modern equipment; consequently, we sometimes have to face them with inadequate material. And increasingly, we must deploy substantial contingents, so that cost becomes a very pressing issue. Even more so, now that every debate in this House and most of the concerns of the ministers and the Prime Minister focus on the crisis in our public finances, so that taxpayers, who are already taxed to the hilt as a result of our national debt, are starting to ask questions. They are starting to wonder how extensive this kind of international commitment should become.
There is another factor, and I am referring to the complex problems that create situations where intervention is necessary. Mostly, we are looking at conflicts arising from religious or ethnic differences or even worse, they may be connected with the imperialistic designs of those who want to expand their territory and engage in ethnic cleansing, and, of course, conflicts whose causes are rooted in the history of these peoples.
It is very difficult for us to go into these countries, as North Americans who may not have a European's sensitivity to this type of problem. It is very difficult to go in and quickly find a solution, a way to cut through the inextricable tangle of problems that are rooted so deeply in a country's history. I may recall what is happening now in Bosnia. The presence of different ethnic groups within the same territory, in a crazy patchwork of different communities is all due to the impact of historic events and a very complex sequence of developments that is practically impossible to reverse today.
There are also some new questions and principles being formulated, in a debate that would have been unthinkable before. People are now asking: Is it legitimate to violate the sovereignty of foreign peoples? There used to be fundamental principles that were never challenged, at least not until now. A country's sovereignty was inviolable, period. No one would dream of challenging this principle, and those who did were condemned by the entire community.
Anyone who dared to break treaties, invade territory and undue challenge the sovereignty of foreign countries was ostracized by the rest of the world, while today, in democratic societies like ours, at international venues as distinguished as the UN and UNESCO, and elsewhere, we hear sensible people who respect the rights of others asking whether we should not intervene in such and such a country, irrespective of that country's sovereign rights, to impose peace and to neutralize situations that are a threat to human rights.
So we have these new fundamental questions and a new debate. There is a new culture, and there is a new kind of action that countries are being requested to take. And I am afraid that people are starting to wonder more and more about the effectiveness of these interventions. This is of course due to the fact that interventions are taking place in increasingly difficult situations, with fewer chances of being successful, but there is also the issue of modern technology.
Let us take Rwanda for example. I entirely agree with what the minister just said about the outstanding Canadian contribution in that part of the world, starting with Major-General Roméo Dallaire, whom we had the pleasure of welcoming today.
We know that there were outstanding acts of personal bravery, that all the troops we have dispatched did their utmost and that Canada made as much resources available as it could under extremely difficult circumstances. Yet, we realize this is but a drop in the ocean in the context of this conflict and that our efforts, however laudable, had little effect on the magnitude of the horrible massacres that have taken place over there.
Our limited capacity for intervention in any conflict or situation of this sort is reflected most clearly by television, as we can witness these horrible scenes broadcasted live night after night. We will never be able to make everything right. There will always be massacres. There will always be parts of operations that will prove impossible to carry out. Mistakes will be made and be caught on camera. Television crews in the field will faithfully report them for us to see in our living rooms.
People can see for themselves, in their daily life, from their own homes, how difficult any action is and how little we were able to accomplish. That is why they have questions, and some pretty relevant ones at that.
I imagine we will soon take stock of the operations in Bosnia and determine how useful our action was over there. We know about what went wrong in Somalia. As for Rwanda, I think we all saw what happened in terms of the consequences and the acts of cruelty.
There are also aspects of a more political nature that we need to look at. Take the events in Iraq for example. We went over there to free Koweit which had been the victim of an intolerable act of aggression. I remember the rationale for intervention, a legitimate one at that, was to restore democracy. At the time, the government of Kuwait had promised to put in place a more democratic regime. We know full well that these promises were not kept and the bottom line is that the billions of dollars invested by many countries to free Kuwait and put Iraq in its place had very little impact in terms of promoting democracy either in Iraq or in Koweit.
Some may wonder if the intervention was not motivated by more pragmatic considerations. The cause for such a rapid, concerted and efficient action was the petroleum found under the desert sand, was it not? Canadians are asking themselves a lot of questions. I think we must be careful because if we do not answer these questions adequately, we will hurt the credibility of peacekeeping missions. On the day when Canadians no longer support the government's efforts in this area, we will lose that ability.
Again, I am happy to have the possibility in this House to address this issue. It is very important to ask ourselves questions and try to see where we are going. What path should we take? There are no easy answers. We could perhaps take one case-Haiti's case-and see if there are lessons to be learned regarding the approaches and criteria we could adopt in the future. So what is happening in Haiti?
I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister that I never questioned the Americans' motives, but I did question his. Of course, everyone knows that the Americans are really eager to restore peace and democracy in Haiti and that they are the only ones making a real sacrifice. Despite the minister's heavy rhetoric, despite his lyrical statements, he did nothing. He simply watched the Americans, as we all did. I certainly am not blaming the Americans for anything in this matter, on the contrary. It is the minister I blame for his powerlessness and his sugary speeches. He tells us: "I met with President Aristide, I called him, I talked with him, I like him, he likes me and we will protect him." Yet, President Aristide is still in Washington and it is not the minister who will arrange his return to Haiti. So please, let us not engage in petty politics. Do not attribute to myself, my party and the Official Opposition the slightest intention of undermining the honesty and selflessness of American motives.
That said, it is not because we agree with the approach, because we are satisfied with the first results of this approach that we cannot be concerned about what is coming. There is cause for concern; I am sure that the minister himself is concerned and that it is only through considerable self-control that he manages to hide his anxiety. Because the minister knows full well that Mr. Aristide is now in Washington, that he denounced the agreement that was reached, that American soldiers are now in Haiti, powerless, their hands tied by an agreement they signed with a presidential impostor.
I come from the legal world but I am still surprised to see that this approach, this American operation in Haiti was based above all on the need to restore the legitimate president, the first president to be democratically elected in Haiti, that this was the real approach, the real objective, the basic justification. So I am surprised. The minister himself must have been surprised as a lawyer whose legal knowledge I had a chance to appreciate back in my university days. The minister must have been surprised as I was to see that the first page of the agreement contains only the name of the current president, the disgraced president, the puppet president appointed by the military junta despite President Aristide who was elected democratically a few years ago. So that is rather surprising. It is dangerous to recognize a usurper. The issue arises.
A practical question also arises. The Americans are now there. President Cédras is the one who really controls the situation, who is the trouble maker, the man who has denied all democratic freedoms, who is ultimately responsible for the massacres that we see on television. He has not signed the agreement. He has incurred no obligation. He walks around the streets of Haiti and continues to lead the military junta. On television last night, we saw someone being killed as an American soldier watched horrified, wondering what he was doing there unable to intervene.
There is a problem, basically. The minister is surely concerned about it. I am sure that once he is back in his department with his senior officials, he will continue to express his concern and call Washington and try to use Canada's diplomatic efforts to bring about a quick settlement of the situation, because it is disturbing.
October 15 is mentioned, but it is far off. How many more people will die in the streets of Port-au-Prince? How many will be beaten by the police, by those thugs in the streets of Port-au-Prince who hit unarmed people? How much more will the people have to suffer while the Americans look on powerless? They will not stand for it either. If we Canadians do not like to see that, imagine what the Americans think. What would we say if we saw armed soldiers wearing the Canadian uniform who had gone there from all over Canada and did not say a word but
watched powerless as those whom they had gone to fight strike helpless victims? What would we say? We would not be pleased.
The Americans are not pleased either, I am sure. We must push forward. The minister must intervene, he must speak publicly and tell it like it is; he must stop giving us syrupy speeches on his feelings for President Aristide, on the telephone call he made to him yesterday and Mr. Aristide's call back to him. That is not really serious. That is not the real issue. That is not what a government is responsible for.
The Canadian government must intervene forcefully, speak up and demand that President Aristide return there, and insist that the Haitian army be dismembered and dismantled, because what is going on? The Haitian army is still there, in control. But it has no more structure, no more effectiveness, no more operational integrity. How can President Aristide return under such conditions?
How can we imagine that President Aristide will return to Haiti in a few weeks and that the army, his enemy which fought him and kills and tortures people, will now work hand in hand with him and take his orders, and that General Cédras will go to salute President Aristide every day in his office?
No one can think that. What will happen? Are necessary measures being taken to control the Haitian army? As far as we know, this is not the case. We do not know anything. All we know is that poor President Aristide, who denounced the accord a few days ago, today congratulated President Clinton, even though nothing had changed.
In conclusion, the government has the support of the official opposition to find a solution to this issue. We will not play politics with that issue. There are no votes to be won or lost. We are well aware that this is a matter of honour, a matter of respect for mankind, a matter of democracy. In fact, it is a matter of preserving the credibility of our peacekeeping missions and our role in this type of situation.
We have to intervene and we have to be credible. We have to act in an efficient and pragmatic way, taking our means into account, and our role must be redefined. How do we do that?
The first lesson to be learned from the Haiti operation is that we cannot intervene elsewhere if such a measure is not based on democratic legitimacy. We must not look to General Cedras but to President Aristide. We must not look to the impostor but to the real president. In our reviews, as well as in the criteria to be defined, we should include a requirement to justify any intervention on a democratic legitimacy in those countries. Secondly, and more importantly, we must not compromise with the enemies of democracy. In the case of Haiti, one cannot help but wonder if we made a move to protect the Haitian army rather than the population. Indeed, the Haitian army and police continue to commit abuse.
Thirdly, I think that these interventions should be rigorously planned in a concerted fashion. What does that mean? It means that we should first clearly define the objectives and the tasking orders. What happened in the case of Haiti is that a response force showed up and, at the last minute, in extremely difficult conditions, I agree, an agreement was hurriedly negotiated. However, these people had no framework. No clear objective had been defined at the outset. A compromise was negotiated in the heat of the action, and that can sometime lead to an arrangement that does not take all the relevant factors into account. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case here.
I also said that these interventions should be planned in a concerted fashion. Indeed, even though resolution 940 was passed by the UN, the fact remains that there is only a national force over there, namely the Americans; this is certainly not what you would call a multinational intervention. I heard the Minister use the word "multilateral" several times in his remarks. This does not change the fact that the troops which are there are strictly American. Some will say that this is because the others were not brave enough to go. That may be so, but it is still the case that it is a national force.
What we must hope for the future-and it cannot be done right now, of course-is that the forces there will be more diversified and put under UN command. This is easier said than done. The UN must have the means to do it; we must redefine "peacekeeping"; we must find a new framework for UN missions. This is something we can do. It is better than the minister's speeches; it is a job for Canadians; it is a job for our diplomats.
We should be in New York right now, putting forward proposals to revamp UN mechanisms defining peacekeepers' mandates and mission objectives. This is a job for the minister, a job for his colleagues. Instead of crying on President Aristide's shoulder, let him do something constructive! Let them go to New York! Let them come up with a plan, present it and advise our friends to broaden the forces and to place them under the auspices of the UN, whose main role it is anyway. As long as we are relying on national policing forces-
André Ouellet: It has been done already.
Lucien Bouchard: Did you present a proposal?
André Ouellet: Yes, we did.
Lucien Bouchard: Well then, what are we doing to do now? What is the existing commission doing right now? We need much more than pious hope, we need proposals on how to share the financial burden. Countries should tax themselves, Canada should be a leader in that respect. If we do not take the lead in that matter, let us do it with others. It must be done.
As long as we depend on one national force, we will have complicated situations like the one we have now.
I would like to say a few words about that. Of course we fully support the maintenance of Canada's commitment in terms of peace missions. A basic creed of Canada is to be present all over the place when it is appropriate to do so. At the same time we have to improve the way it is done, not only by us but the rest of the world. We have to make sure that the credibility of our interventions is maintained. If we do not do anything now we will undermine the support this and other governments have been given by the public in terms of tax money and different interventions.
It should be one of the fundamental tasks of the committees now working to define and shape new objectives and missions and to make sure that many countries will share the burden if it cannot be achieved through United Nations activities. We have to be very active at the UN and a strong supporter. We have to stop making empty speeches. We have to make sure the next mission will not be conducted by national forces like the Americans, but that many countries will work together efficiently in harmony so as to achieve clearly defined objectives.
I do not accept the accusation from the minister that we suspect the motives of the American administration. We agree they were courageous. They were the only ones to do it. They had the means to do it and they did it. They had the guts to do it and now they are there. It was possible for them to land on Haiti without any bloodshed. The problem is that now we have to go further because blood is being shed in Haiti every day, the poor people victims, and still the same people are hitting and killing them, those against whom the Americans decided to intervene.
That is why I strongly urge the minister to work closely with the Americans to make sure the commitment toward President Aristide will be fully respected.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Fraser Valley West-Immigration.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for having the opportunity to talk on this most important subject. This certainly is an example to Canadians when Parliament is allowed to speak on a subject of such national interest. I go along with the other speakers in terms of our reputation and the pride we have as Canadians in our peacekeepers.
Since the first peacekeeping mission in 1956 tens of thousands of Canadians have been involved in these missions. Some of them have made the ultimate sacrifice with their lives. We want to thank those people for what they have done; it is certainly appreciated. The millions of people around the world they have helped certainly know what we as Canadians have done. On behalf of the Reform Party and Canadians in general I would like to pay tribute to those people and say: Job well done.
As the House is aware since early this year the special joint committee reviewing Canadian foreign affairs, of which I am a member, has been travelling across the country to find out from Canadians what they think about foreign affairs and our international commitments for the coming decades. It has become very clear to me and to many members on the committee just how deeply concerned Canadians are with events around the world.
We want to stand up and be part of the missions that occur. We do not want to bury our heads in the sand and not take part in all of those things that affect our world.
Canadians are not prepared to give up on their proud tradition of caring and intervention for the sake of peace. These times however cannot be seen from a purely international perspective. Our foreign commitments must be in harmony with our domestic needs. Therefore we must be sure when we do support peacekeeping that we are operating in Canada's best interests and within the very real financial constraints that must be the primary concern of any good government. We must pick our spots and we must choose wisely.
Today's debate is an example of trying to choose those spots and pick the ones that are of most interest. One thing we must make clear is that Canada cannot become the 911 phone number for the world. As much as we want to help others, this desire is tempered by the fact that we cannot be all things to all people. It is better that we help effectively in a few cases rather than spreading ourselves too thin. In this way Canada can protect its own vital interests and provide the most effective help for the international community.
As we examine the issue of peacekeeping it is worthy to note that since the end of the cold war the demand for peacekeepers around the world has skyrocketed. If the past few years has taught us any lesson it is that instability will continue. New hot spots will continue to crop up and Canada must be ready. If more requests come from Africa, southeast Asia or the former Soviet republics how will Canada respond?
Clearly, Canada must establish criteria to test the importance of each request for our help. While this is a sensitive issue and I do not claim to have all the answers, I would argue that the following should be considered by Parliament when deciding whether to approve peacekeeping missions.
First, Canada's economic ties are an extremely important factor when we determine how willing Canadians would be to commit our resources.
Second, the conflict's impact on the state of international stability is another obvious test of whether Canada should get involved. If the conflict has a serious potential to escalate or destabilize the whole region, we should consider this seriously when making our decision.
Third, geographic ties are important. For reasons of regional stability, the world would be a better place if countries co-operated to make sure that their own part of the world remains stable. Where peace does break down, regional organizations should co-operate to make things right. After all it will be the member nations of such regional groups that have the greatest interest in restoring stability. For logistical reasons as well, proximity is an important factor in determining whether a country can respond to a crisis in a timely and effective manner.
Fourth, humanitarian considerations must also be taken into account. While Canadians want bang for their buck, they also want Canada to maintain its tradition for compassion. While I could say more on this item, one of my colleagues will talk on that subject later on this evening.
Fifth, our prior commitments must be given more weight than is the current practice when determining what else we are going to do. We only have so many troops and a limited amount of high quality equipment. Therefore we owe it to our troops to be fair in our decisions where we send them and to make sure that we do not overcommit our forces. My fellow Reformer, the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, will talk on that issue.
Another very important consideration which must be taken into account is that our judgment should not be clouded by the media spin in each crisis, the so-called CNN factor. There are many conflicts in this world which could use the assistance of Canadian peacekeepers however the media does not treat them equally.
The usual process involves one crisis headline becoming really big and bouncing everything else from the front pages. The media raises a hue and cry to be heard throughout the world: Why is the world not helping to do more? Then two weeks or a month later the media drops that story and picks up on something new. That is just the way it works and we have to be conscious of that. Just because the media likes this approach does not mean their priorities are always correct; nor do they always reflect Canadian interests.
To the extent that Canadians do care about what they see in the media, we have to acknowledge the media will always be a factor. However, we must not let the headline du jour drive us into unwise or hasty action. Whether it is a sexy headline or not Parliament should do the right thing, period.
Now that I have outlined some of the basic criteria on which we should be judging our participation in peacekeeping, I would like to move on to two specific cases which we are discussing today, Rwanda and Haiti.
According to the six criteria which I have listed, I do not believe that Rwanda was a fully appropriate peacekeeping initiative for Canada.
First, Rwanda and Canada have virtually no trade ties. Therefore we certainly could not argue that our economic interests were at stake. Other central African countries are Rwanda's main trading partners and they are the ones who are having their trade disrupted.
While the massacres in Rwanda have had an impact on the neighbouring countries, especially in terms of creating large flows of refugees, I do not believe the crisis there represents a threat to regional or world stability.
In terms of my third criteria, geographic ties, Canada is neither close to Rwanda nor do we have a tradition of dealing with that country or its people. Therefore there was a long delay before the majority of our peacekeepers could even get there.
In the future Canada should encourage regional organizations such as the Organization of African Unity to build up their capacity to respond when a local crisis arises. Beyond this Europe has many more ties to central Africa than we do. This tradition makes it more natural for them to adopt a leadership role there just as France did.
When taking humanitarian considerations into account, clearly Rwanda is a case which required the world's attention and help. While Canadians will always help in such circumstances, do we always have to send in the troops to show we care? I do not think so.
Many thousands of Canadians spoke with their wallets and donated money to Canadian and international NGOs that were helping with humanitarian relief. This was an appropriate reaction. We would like to do more, but quite frankly others were better placed to provide the peacekeeping in Rwanda.
One of the main reasons that our reaction to the Rwandan disaster was so limited relates to my fifth criteria: our prior peacekeeping commitments. No other country has given more in the cause of peacekeeping or has been on more missions, but our forces are stretched to the limit. It simply is not fair to keep asking our soldiers to go on so many endless peacekeeping missions. They are the Canadian forces, not the Canadian foreign legion. If we scale back or shut down other missions, then perhaps we will have some reserve forces to be deployed upon need, but right now we do not.
According to the last factor, the CNN factor, it is beyond doubt that the extensive media treatment of the Rwandan disaster initiated the response from this and many other governments. Let us not forget that about two years before in neighbouring Burundi many thousands were slaughtered for the third
or fourth time since the 1970s but there was no media reaction, no hue and cry, and no peacekeepers.
In the future, Parliament must do a better job in assessing the seriousness of a crisis. An international crisis is more than the sum of the media coverage it receives.
Before I move on from the topic of Rwanda, I will talk about my experience with Rwanda. In 1971 I read an article in National Geographic about the mountain gorillas and the country of Rwanda. I decided I had to go there and 15 years later I managed to complete that dream.
My wife and I experienced a country with beautiful green covered hills and mountains and fertile volcanic soil. There were friendly people who were smiling and happy. I will always remember the markets we visited with the children playing and the people doing their weekly shopping. How can a country change so dramatically? We were aware of the two tribes but not of the hatred. What happened? NGOs and missionaries warned of impending problems but nobody listened. Nobody took the leadership to try to prevent the carnage which was to follow.
If we wanted to get involved in Rwanda it should have been then, when our diplomatic negotiations and leadership could have been more effective. Instead the international community failed to act proactively and went to its old standby: when the damage was already done they called in the peacekeepers, Canadians included.
We must learn from this experience. Proactive measures through diplomatic channels or through international organizations are not only more effective and cheaper than expensive peacekeeping missions but they can save a lot of lives.
Let me go on to Haiti. Once again we have a situation which is seemingly thrust on us, a crisis that requires our immediate attention. However, on closer inspection a very different picture appears.
First, we have virtually no economic interests in Haiti. Neither is international stability threatened. In terms of geographic ties Haiti is certainly in our hemisphere, therefore we should have an active interest. But if we are going to get involved it should be under the auspices of the Organization of American States, not as part of the U.S. led adventure that may be opening a Pandora's box into which peacekeeping nations may enter, never to withdraw.
If Canada is going to Haiti, let us make sure that we know what we are getting into. How much will it cost? When do we get to leave? What are we trying to accomplish? Is Cedras a diabolical murderer yesterday and our partner for the reform of Haiti today? Not in my books he is not. I would gladly kick his butt but I would not shake his hand.
Clearly things are not going as the Americans first planned. Haitians are still being beaten and killed by thugs. Aristide is clearly unhappy. Haitians in Canada are unhappy. The American soldiers are unhappy. In fact the only ones with smiles on their faces are the coup leaders. If this is not a clear warning sign I do not know what is.
On the humanitarian side, there is no doubt that Canada can be of assistance to the poorest and most desperate people of Haiti. Once again, I argue that it is our NGOs that are best equipped to do this; not our soldiers who are already stretched to the maximum when it comes to peacekeeping around the world.
The Haiti crisis is a hot item today in the media. It may be hot tomorrow. However let us not forget that Jean-Bertrand Aristide was thrown out in 1991. This is not a new issue. Haiti's problems were not even new in 1915 when the Americans invaded the last time. Back then they stayed for a generation. Let us make sure that this time next year we are not watching the American troops pull out only to leave our Canadian servicemen and women there for the next generation.
Canada can be an effective world player and peacemaker. Canadians are proud of this and we do not have to prove it to anyone. If we decide not to go to Haiti the world will not hold it against us.
Let us do Canadians a favour and give the Canadian forces a break for once. We will keep our troops at home and instead take a leadership role in the OAS. If we build the strength and credibility of this and other regional organizations then maybe we can really solve the problems of countries like Haiti.
It is in this precise role that Canada excels. While other countries may be known for their strength or guile, Canada has worked long and hard to develop its image as an honest broker and leading middle power. We are a member of all of the strongest clubs, NATO, G-7, UN, OAS, et cetera, and yet we do not have the historical baggage of the world's great military powers. Therefore others look to us and trust in our ability to build up international institutions like the UN and the OAS. Canada will do a great favour for the world if we take this role to heart and help to bring about constructive change.
On a visit to Washington last week I asked the OAS and State Department the same question: Do you feel Canada has played a
strong leadership role in trying to solve the Haiti problems diplomatically? I got a negative response from both. Instead I was told that Canada is very timid and suffers from an inferiority complex when it comes to dealing with foreigners.
We can play a strong middle power role and become a world leader in brokering peaceful solutions to international crises. However first we need government leadership to show the way, to demonstrate a commitment to diplomacy and playing a more active role. We have the education, the foreign staff and most of all a reputation as a reasonable, democratic society that can be trusted.
What we have been lacking is the political will to succeed. Such change would not only be good for the international community but would be good for Canadians, since affected international organizations could go a long way in preventing any future problems. Without a crisis there is no need to spend more money or risk the lives of members of the armed forces.
In conclusion, we should not enter Haiti or any other area until we establish, first, the criteria; second, the cost; third, a plan including the logistics, our specific job, how and when we will get out. We must be sure that Canadians support our actions and that we always debate this issue in the House of Commons.
The time has come for us to take a step back. Before we send our troops on yet another indefinite mission with uncertain dangers and an unknown cost, let us establish a credible set of criteria on which we can depend to make sure that we pick our spots wisely. Canada can make a difference in this world. Canada can still be an innovator and a leader in the area of peacekeeping but we have to make a choice. Any foolish government can say: "Yes, we will help", and it will think it is doing the best thing. It takes a strong government to say: "Meet me half way and then I will help; otherwise you are on your own".
Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, I understood there was a brief question and comment period. If so, I have a question for the hon. member.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that Liberal members from here on will be using the 10-minute and 5-minute provision; in other words, sharing the time as opposed to the usual format.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There are no questions and comments for the first three speakers.
Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek clarification with respect to the rules. My understanding was that there were no questions and comments following the initial speaker and then the speaker immediately following the minister. Certainly my understanding is that the rules do provide for a period of questions or comments after that.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): On your copy of the Projected Order of Business for today you will read:

Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Minister moving the motion and Member replying immediately after the motion-unlimited time.
All other Members-20 minute maximum and speeches are subject to a 10 minute question and comment period.

I would also refer you to Standing Order 43(1):

Unless otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, when the Speaker is in the Chair, no Member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a Minister moving a government order and the Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister, shall speak for more than twenty minutes-

In this case orders of the day read that the first two speakers have unlimited time. As a member responding for the Reform Party he had unlimited time with no questions and no comments.
Because the wording reads "only a member replying immediately after the minister", we will allow the usual question and comment period for the member for Red Deer.
Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, I am not sure my question is that desperately important. However I do appreciate the opportunity put a question and make a comment with respect to the comments of the member for Red Deer as the official spokesperson for the Reform Party.
Certainly I share the deep concern that has been raised, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to this issue. In fact earlier during question period I spoke myself-
I pointed out that Sunday night's agreement between an illegitimate president, a straw man, Mr. Jonassaint, and Mr. Carter, an agreement made without consulting President Aristide or the United Nations, was in fact a tragic betrayal of the Haitian people.
I pointed out as well that President Carter just last week referred to General Cedras and his armed thugs as conducting a reign of terror, executing children, raping women, killing priests. As the dictators have grown more desperate the atrocities have grown ever more brutal.
Certainly many of us are deeply disturbed and angered by this deal which in effect refers to the great honour and integrity of these same people. There is talk of mutual respect. There is talk of a general amnesty, of honourable retirement and appealing to their sense of honour.
I want to ask the member for Red Deer for clarification. As I understand it, the position of his leader, the member for Calgary Southwest, was that Canada should be joining in the military invasion with the United States. In fact the member for Calgary Southwest said, and I quote that member from yesterday: "We can only play this game so long. We do not get our hands dirty at the front end. But we come in after". He suggested we should be going in with the Americans.
I have listened with care to the comments of the member for Red Deer who suggested that we should not be going in at all and
that the OAS was the body that should have accepted responsibility here.
I would like the member for Red Deer to clarify the position of the Reform Party. Who speaks for the Reform Party? Is it the leader of the Reform Party or is it the member for Red Deer?
Finally, I wonder if the member could clarify as well his position with respect to the issue of prevention. Certainly in the context of Rwanda, many of us believe that had the world acted earlier to prevent the genocide that much of the subsequent tragedy could have been averted.
Bob Mills: Madam Speaker, I really welcome the opportunity to answer that question. I would have thought that a member of such senior rank would know not to believe everything he reads in the press.
To clarify, it is great that I have that opportunity. What my leader did say in response to the reporter's question was that Canada should have played a role in leadership in the OAS and in the United Nations and that if we were to be involved and entered the country we should be entering with an OAS force, not a U.S. force.
That makes a major difference because going in with the OAS and the United Nations is the big problem that we have. I welcome the opportunity to clarify that and to make very clear that the leader and I are speaking from exactly the same song book.
Regarding the preventive measures, I hope I have made that clear as well. In 1985 when I spent a month visiting Rwanda, the country was not in turmoil. Shortly after that and with the underlying problems, there were many NGOs and many government people warning that there was an impending problem.
It was at that point that we had to get in there and negotiate a settlement between those two tribes. When it comes to prevention, that is how one prevents those kinds of things, not waiting until they start killing each other because emotions take over as they did in Yugoslavia and as they do anywhere in the world when one has a problem like that.
Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I would note that until 1992 the previous government was providing substantial government to government aid to the brutal regime in Rwanda. We allowed into Quebec City as a visiting professor one of the people who had been most vigorous in his incitement of genocide when he was living in Rwanda.
Mr. Flis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We do need clarification. My interpretation of the standing orders is that when we divide a 20-minute period into 10 and 10, it is 10 minutes plus 5 minutes for comments and questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. We have not yet started to divide our time. We will be dividing it after the defence minister's speech. Questions and comment for 10 minutes for the hon. member for Red Deer.
Svend Robinson: Nice try, Jesse. Madam Speaker, the member for Red Deer in his comments did not make any reference to the situation of Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia. Obviously this is one of the important elements that the House is addressing.
I personally had the opportunity to visit our troops in Gradacac in Croatia. Certainly the men and women there were doing a very fine job under very difficult circumstances.
Could the hon. member for Red Deer clarify what his position and the position of the Reform Party is with respect to the role of Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia and in Croatia? The hon. member is doubtless aware of the recent concerns.
Just today there was a report that some 750,000 Muslims and Croats have fled from Serbian held areas of northern and eastern Bosnia over the past two and a half years. According to the representative of the United Nations, hundreds of thousands of them are victims of ethnic cleansing.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the hon. member for Red Deer has 30 seconds left in his questions and comments. Would you like him to respond to your question?
Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, I await with great interest the response to the question.
Bob Mills: Madam Speaker, some of the money that is being sent out there is a major concern. We have to tidy up the whole CIDA program, that whole area. In answer to the very first question, that would be my answer. Yes, we have to improve on that.
Second, in terms of Bosnia and Yugoslavia, the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt will be speaking on the subject of divided countries. The hon. member will hear the answer. He will have to wait.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to remind hon. members that the government has decided to divide its time with 10 minutes each. There will be 5 minutes for questions and comments after each speaker.
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Madam Speaker, I will take 10 minutes. I will be succinct.
I had some comments planned but I am absolutely shocked at what I have been hearing this afternoon, the cynicism of the member for Red Deer who just spoke on behalf of the Reform Party dealing with our engagement in Rwanda and Haiti. I understand my colleague, the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, will deal with that in her speech following me.
However I am even more shocked at the belligerent tone of the Leader of the Opposition both in question period and this afternoon in what had been until now really rational and well ordered debate. His belligerent criticism of what happened on the weekend, the agreement that former President Jimmy Carter ironed out in Port au Prince, is beyond belief. His shooting from the hip is incredible. If he conducts the affairs of his party that way then I do not know what the rest of this parliamentary session is going to be in for.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition should have reflected and been a bit more statesmanlike. He perhaps would have found that the deal that was made on the weekend had to be explained to all the parties and indeed has been explained. Shortly after three o'clock this afternoon, President Aristide issued a statement in Washington. I quote: "In the past three days something has happened in Haiti to uphold democracy which was the result of President Clinton's decision for the commitment to lead a multinational effort in carrying out the will of the United Nations to help restore democracy in Haiti".
He has thanked the United States for its military intervention to restore him to power. He said he will be back within 24 days. He also said that to help foster the environment of civil liberties and political stability he has asked his minister of defence, General Jean Beliotte, to head a transition team and recommend the next steps to be taken in order to ensure the quick restoration of constitutional order.
To listen to the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon one would have thought that he did not want President Carter to avert the disaster that would have occurred with a military invasion. I think the statement that President Aristide has just issued should calm everyone and help bring some rationality to the debate. President Aristide declared this afternoon that he will be back within 24 days. After he is restored to power, as we have said publicly on a number of occasions, we will take part in any effort to help reconstruct Haiti, certainly using the Canadian Armed Forces.
I will not give any details on what we will actually be doing because we will be part of an international reconnaissance team. In fact a Canadian colonel will be leading as chief of staff that team in the days immediately following President Aristide's return and stability being established there to determine what requirements will be necessary of a UN peacekeeping engagement. Canada will be happy to take part in helping with the reconstruction of Haiti wearing blue berets.
I want to talk for a few minutes, since we have not got much time and have divided our time on this side, about the changing nature of peacekeeping in the world. We are seeing that the peacekeeping that was enunciated by former Prime Minister Pearson and the peacekeeping tradition that was established in the post Second World War era has drastically changed over the last number of years. We are facing situations around the world which are vastly more complex. They require a multiplicity of responses. In some cases, as we have seen in Bosnia and Croatia, the circumstances are incredibly dangerous.
In the past five years international operations have involved three or four different types of peacekeeping arrangements: humanitarian work in Ethiopia, Somalia and Bosnia. Let us not forget that our troops have been in Bosnia as a humanitarian effort under the auspices of the United Nations to bring relief and supplies. I think our men and women have done a remarkable job in the last two years in bringing that kind of humanitarian relief to Bosnia. They are still there as we debate this issue today.
We have been involved in demining and reconstruction in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Kuwait, Iraq and Haiti. We have been involved in nation building. We have been involved in embargo enforcement such as in the Persian gulf, the Adriatic and the waters off Haiti, and we have been involved in confidence building through arms control and verification.
When we talk about peacekeeping we do not just talk about the strict conflict resolution and patrolling the line as we did in Cyprus for many, many years in a very civilized fashion. We use the word peacekeeping in a much wider context. For Canada to take part in the world governance through the United Nations requires a multifaceted capability on the part of our armed forces to try to discharge the missions that come forward.
One of the points I want to raise today is that there is an ongoing commitment of the armed forces. We have about 3,400 people actually deployed, not counting what we perhaps send to Haiti and which we can discuss in the next few weeks. With a whole group of people waiting to go, a whole group of people just coming back, and those who are being deployed at the moment, we are getting somewhat stretched. We have about 10,000 peacekeepers involved in this kind of rotation. One of the concerns the government has at the moment is how much of our resources should we continue to devote to these peacekeeping missions.
In particular I want to talk about the commitment concerning Yugoslavia, Croatia and Bosnia.
I will outline our contribution to the United Nations force deployed in the former Yugoslavia, which is our main commitment at present. The mandate of the UNPROFOR expires on September 30 this year, and will likely be extended.
Canada's commitment towards the force also ends on September 30, and it has not yet been decided whether to extend it.
In other words, we have not made the decision in fact to let the members of the House know. We do have about 1,500 to 1,600 personnel ready to go to Croatia and Bosnia starting in the early part of October, which is only about 10 or 15 days away. These are the Royal Canadian Regiment that will be going to Croatia and the Royal Canadian Dragoons that will be going to Bosnia. They have both been training in the last little while at CFB Petawawa.
This training is worth noting as more and more, because of the engagements that we are taking on, we are having to deploy reservists. This summer I spoke at a function in St. Thomas, Ontario, one of the constituency functions of my colleague, the member for Elgin. I was really quite touched by the fact that the members of the Elgin Regiment, a reserve regiment, will be offering nine people for this next engagement as part of the Royal Canadian Regiment to go to Bosnia and Croatia.
We may well ask why is he saying that they are ready to go? What is this debate all about? We want to know before we actually send our people that the members of the House of Commons are comfortable with a continuation of this arrangement. The purpose of the debate is to get the views of the men and women in the House who have been talking with their constituents over the summer to see if we should continue this engagement, how long, should we pull back a battalion or should we cut it in half? We have 750 people in Croatia and 750 people in Bosnia. The balance is near Split as a supply unit. We want to know whether or not we should continue that operation for the next engagement. As I said earlier, the engagement ends September 30.
While no decision has been taken, the government is very cognizant of the depletion of our resources. We are cognizant of the fact that the armed forces budget is under pressure. We are trying to find other, more effective, cheaper ways of discharging our duties in terms of peacekeeping. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, this government remains totally and absolutely committed to the concept of peacekeeping, of Canada playing a role as a bridge between other nations, whether it be at the sharp end, as we see it in Bosnia and Croatia, or whether we see it in terms of reconstruction as we have seen it in Rwanda and as we may see it in Haiti. The Canadian Armed Forces has the most enviable reputation. When the Prime Minister was in Bosnia this summer the Prime Minister of Bosnia said we have outstanding troops and he wanted us to stay and be part of the effort to help bring peace to the area.
We had the Serbian leader, General Karadzic, who said the same when we were faced with the problem of how we would relieve our forces in Srebrenica.
We have the best armed forces in the world. They have suffered as a result of some of the deployments. We have lost 10 people in the former Yugoslavia. We have about 50 wounded but those men and women are prepared to continue to discharge any obligations that the government will seek to discharge and those obligations will be determined by consultation with members of the House of Commons and that is why we are very interested in having the views of the members today.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's comments and I too travelled to the former Yugoslavia and found there that our troops indeed are doing a magnificent job under extremely difficult circumstances and we should all be very proud.
As the minister mentioned, peacekeeping is not the only issue that the Canadian Armed Forces has to deal with and because the resources are very thin and we are downsizing the Canadian Armed Forces we have to look at the possibility of internal conflicts here on our shores in Canada.
You might say that Canada never has to worry about things like that but even in my own riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt this summer we had a forest fire in that region and had to call out the Canadian troops and we had people from Calgary come in and do a job there. That was a very small contingent and just a small example.
We do not have to go back too far. We had a situation in Oka where we had great demands put on the situation there as well.
How can the minister or the ministry deal with ensuring that we keep our role in the world as a peacekeeper but also ensure that we have enough resources to ensure we have the people here to do the job as well?
David Collenette: Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. I thought I did address it although I am not used to having to speak in 10-minute periods. Perhaps I did not have the time to enunciate it.
More and more we discharge our obligations whether it be peacekeeping or whether in aid to the civil power, domestic crises such as the ones we saw this year. We helped in the search for a young Saskatchewan girl. We helped with the forest fires in B.C. We helped last winter with the floods in Quebec. We are going to have to turn more and more to reservists, those men and
women who train part time, on the weekends, the unsung heroes of the Canadian military tradition.
It costs money and to continue to do this we have to reorder our priorities, reshape our budgetary priorities.
I want to assure the hon. member that we will not be so stretched that we will not be able to discharge those very emergencies of which he speaks. That is why I have raised the subject of our future continued engagement in Bosnia and Croatia. We are getting not to the breaking point but to the stretching point. If we are to continue the multiplicity of peacekeeping engagements, and they have been coming fast and furious, we are now talking about the possibilities of Haiti and we have been in Rwanda, which was unforeseen certainly when I became minister, obviously we are going to have to redirect more and more of our budget to this. This could mean that we will have to take it from other very deserving components of the military budget.
I want to assure the member that when we have disasters such as the ones of which he spoke a little earlier we will be there. We will not let the Canadian people down.
Bob Mills: Madam Speaker, I guess what I am concerned about is that there are so many areas that are going to erupt and I do not see us developing any criteria as to what our guidelines are going to be in the future.
We are getting more and more letters telling us about the quality of our equipment. More and more letters are coming back home saying our equipment is not adequate. Could the hon. minister respond to that, please?
David Collenette: Madam Speaker, we would not send people outside of the country to do this work if the equipment were not good. I can assure you and all Canadians the equipment is good.
However, we do have some needs to replace various components of armed forces equipment. Those questions will be addressed in the context of the defence review. I know one of the points that the hon. member made for which he should be commended is he is trying to put our peacekeeping engagements in some kind of conceptual framework in terms of the priorities.
I do not particularly agree with the conclusions that he drew with respect to Rwanda and Haiti, but the fact is the defence review and the foreign policy review will I hope help set those criteria so that we will be able to answer the hon. member and the UN when it comes knocking on our door for future commitments.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)): Madam Speaker, it is frustrating to hear some of the debate going around the House and have inadequate time to respond today. I was most disturbed by the comments made by the Reform Party with regard to Rwanda and Haiti. For a party that is supposed to represent the interests of the Canadian people it is no wonder it is plunging in the polls today.
If the Reform Party had looked carefully it would understand from polls that have been done recently moral and ethical considerations are considered by Canadians the way that they would judge priorities in the world. They put Rwanda and Haiti at the top of the list. At the bottom of the list they put self-interest. I am quite appalled that the Reform Party bases its foreign policy on self-interest.
Canada's support to the United Nations and our commitment to peacekeeping remain strong. Our reputation worldwide for balanced and fair diplomacy, humanitarian and determined confidence building initiatives such as peacekeeping and our commitment to global peace and development all give Canada influence much beyond what our economy and population size would suggest is possible.
Canada must not squander the opportunities our reputation presents both for our own good and the good of the world. Canada does not earn this reputation through playing the role of the belligerent, unfortunately necessary as this role might seem to be from time to time. It is peacekeeping, the role so strongly associated with Canada, that earns us our enviable reputation and thus influence in the world.
However important peacekeeping is to Canada's foreign policy and defence policy, it is costly. We must continue in our role as peacekeepers but constantly look at less costly alternatives such as early warning systems, conflict prevention, management and resolution.
Granted, important initiatives are already being taken in this area by Canada and others around the world, thereby warding off the crises the public never hears about.
The government will continue to follow up good ideas and recommendations with diplomatic initiatives. An example of Canada's initiatives in this area of policy is our decision to send Bernard Dussault to consult in and around Rwanda not only to find appropriate and timely solutions to the crisis situation in Rwanda but also to address the political difficulties in Burundi, Zaire and the refugee problems in other countries in the region.
In the development of our strategy for Haiti Canada has been fully conscious of the need for a long term strategy to not only return democracy to Haiti through peacekeeping but to build and strengthen the institutions needed to support and sustain it in the long run.
I would wish that all members in this House had been able to accompany me to visit President Aristide in Washington last week to see the very warm reception that he gave to our Minister of Foreign Affairs and his effusive thanks for the leadership role that Canada has taken on the issue of Haiti and his return to Haiti to head a democratically elected government there which he represents.
Our role fits into a broad historic approach that Canada has taken to peacekeeping and emphasizes the contribution to be made to that category of international peace operations that the Secretary General of the United Nations has characterized as peace building.
Once President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is returned to power in Haiti, under the terms of Governors Island agreement and UN resolution 940, Canada will participate in the United Nations mission in Haiti, UNMIH, by providing up to 600 military and 100 police personnel. Canada will assume a particular responsibility in police training and supervision.
Altogether UNMIH will assume the task of maintaining a secure environment which will provide the necessary foundation upon which to begin efforts aimed at establishing a durable and lasting democratic system in Haiti.
These are daunting objectives that will require a long term commitment. It is important to remember that we will remain in Haiti for the long haul. Establishing the foundations of a civil society in a country whose population has been numbed by years of desperate poverty, brutal violence and repression is an enormous challenge.
We have to build from the bottom up by providing assistance with basic education and literacy training, agriculture and health care and by creating employment opportunities that will put in motion the wheels of a healthy economy. The success of these initiatives is only possible when the political environment is secure and stable.
Our aid program has and will continue to reinforce these objectives through the provision of assistance to the development of civil society and good governance, including the respect for human rights in Haiti.
Our contribution to Rwanda has also been significant, initiated well before the conflict escalated in April. Canada provided the chief military observer to the first UN mission on the Uganda-Rwanda border. We fully supported the Arusha peace agreement providing for power sharing and integration of the armed forces.
The force commander for the UN mission assigned to oversee the implementation of this agreement was our Canadian hero Major General Romeo Dallaire. Through a coherent strategy formulated by the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Defence and the Canadian International Development Agency, Canada has also made a significant contribution to the peacekeeping and humanitarian relief effort in Rwanda through the provision of medical experts, engineers and the ongoing airborne delivery of essential supplies. Assistance from multilateral and non-governmental aid organizations working on the ground has been invaluable.
In taking these initiatives to establish lasting peace and stability in Rwanda Canada is clearly focused on the task. Rwanda must have an acceptable, broad based government in power. It badly needs a functioning infrastructure, basic services such as water and electricity. The thousands of displaced refugees must return to their homes as soon a possible. These are all objectives of our peacekeeping mission in Rwanda.
Given the difficult circumstances peacekeepers have played an indisputably critical role under the steady and courageous leadership of Major General Romeo Dallaire and now Major General Tousignant. Peacekeeping must be broadened by committed political activities that do more than keep the warring factions apart. We must be proactive to build the institutional pillars of a peaceful and secure society and to assist Rwandan citizens to experience their fullest human capacities.
In our debate today we have to address the important issues of our extended peacekeeping role throughout the world in light of limited resources for peacekeeping. I am attempting to convey that despite our limited capacity to continue to respond to every crisis in the world Canada can continue to have an effective voice through concerted efforts to not only prevent conflict from erupting but in maintaining our commitment to fragile states once the peacekeeping phase is over. Peace building and conflict prevention are much less costly than war and crisis responses.
I cannot finish these remarks without a particular acknowledgement of the basic component of our peacekeeping effort, our peacekeepers, our Canadian Blue Berets. Canada would not have the enviable reputation for peacekeeping it has were it not for the professionalism, skill and discipline of our peacekeepers. Canada cannot take part in peacekeeping without our soldiers having the best training and adequate equipment and material support meeting the best standards for the protection of our soldiers and assuring that they have all the necessary tools to succeed in the task.
We must be grateful, as I am, for the women and men who volunteer to serve Canada as part of our important peacekeeping missions; grateful to them and their families for their sacrifice in helping to bring about global peace and security, to bring dignity and freedom to innocent men, women and children, the victims of conflict.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper. The question and comment period of the secretary of state will have to take
place at 6.30 p.m. when we resume after Private Members' Business.