EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 20, 1996

.0905

[English]

The Chairman: I call this meeting of the committee to order to discuss Canada's role in Haiti.

.0910

Just as a matter of procedure, could I remind the members of how we had agreed to conduct this meeting.

We have with us four witnesses from the department: Kathryn McCallion, the assistant deputy minister responsible for Latin America and the Caribbean; Michel Duval, who actually goes to Haiti and accompanies her; Denis Beaudoin, from the Canadian International Development Agency; and Rear Admiral James King, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communication, Department of National Defence.

I'm informed by Ms McCallion that she does not have a long statement to make. We'll probably have very short statements from the witnesses and then go to questions immediately. We will conduct this session until 10 o'clock. We will then move to a period of debate.

You will recall that for the purpose of debate we agreed that everyone would be given an opportunity to speak for five minutes and then have five minutes of questions. So in that sense we will replicate the procedure we use in the House. Don't feel as if you have to speak for five minutes. There's no imperative for you to speak for five minutes.

[Translation]

At the close of this sitting, which will end at 11:30 a.m., we will take a moment to discuss some resolutions, one on Haiti, one on Nigeria that we had not finished with last time, and a very short one on the United Nations and the protection of human rights, pursuant to Mr. Walter McLean's appearance the other day.

I propose that at the beginning of the discussion period, at 10:00 a.m., Mr. LeBlanc introduce his resolution and that we discuss it. Has everyone understood what we are going to do?

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Chairman, I have a question before we begin. When were we informed of the list of witnesses who are appearing this morning? When was it made available? Yesterday, around 4:00 p.m., we telephoned Ms Hilchie's assistant to get the list of speakers and we were unable to obtain it. I would like to know at what time we knew who was to appear this morning.

The Chairman: Like you, I learned of the list when I arrived this morning. Mr. LeBlanc and Ms Hilchie might be able to answer this question, but I understand that the Department of Foreign Affairs was trying to identify who would be the best witnesses we could call.

Mr. Mills had requested that we call a representative of the private sector, but we were unable to find anyone who was available. We were determined to find qualified people and we tried up to the last moment. To my knowledge, we did not receive any confirmations until late last night. I'm sorry.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Francis LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs): Allow me to add a few brief comments. At the conclusion of our discussion last week, I had undertaken to find some witnesses. I had to identify, first, a representative of the Department who was able to explain the government's policy on the matter, then a representative of the Department of National Defence, and, finally, a representative of CIDA. We had asked our ambassador in Haiti to come and testify, but this was not possible. We had also asked a representative on location in Haiti to come and testify, but without success owing to the short notice period. So we decided instead to summon a representative of CIDA and a representative of the Department of National Defence, both from here, in Ottawa. That was the most practical way to satisfy this request.

In the present circumstances, it was not possible to expand the range of witnesses, from the private sector or elsewhere.

The Chairman: We were also told that it was not possible to bring in a representative of the RCMP who was up to date on the situation in Haiti. I believe that Ms McCallion and Mr. Duval are fully qualified to answer all the questions concerning the RCMP's role in Haiti.

.0915

[English]

I wonder then, Ms McCallion, if you'd be good enough to start. If any other members of the group wish to make short statements, we could then pass to questions. Thank you very much for coming.

Ms Kathryn E. McCallion (Assistant Deputy Minister, Latin America and Caribbean Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much,Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the members of the committee for listening to us this morning.

I don't have a prepared statement per se. I would like to give you a brief overview of the government's situation and position up till now. As explained by your chairman, we're here to answer your questions the best way we know how.

First and foremost I think you should think of Haiti as a work in progress. We should be very proud of that work in progress. Canada has been a major player in trying to bring democracy and stability to Haiti over the last five to ten years, but in a very concentrated way over the last three years.

The Canadian presence in Haiti has been more multifaceted, I think, than you are led to believe by the press. Primarily, we have had a long-term assistance program. We still have a very well-developed CIDA program in Haiti. We have the RCMP, which is doing a truly magnificent job helping to train a very new and undertrained police force in Haiti. We have the NGO communities that have been in Haiti for a long time and are still working very hard to change the situation of one of the poorest, most underdeveloped countries in the hemisphere. Finally, we have the Canadian military standing in as peacekeepers and support for the police work.

I should emphasize that when Aristide was returned to power after having been thrown out in a coup after he was democratically elected, he took a very innovative approach. It has been tried before, but it's risky. He fired the army. He disbanded the army of Haiti, which had caused a lot of the problems in the last two decades. As a result of that, they started to train a brand-new police force.

Now, if you think we can train a police force in three or four months, the answer is that you cannot have a working police force in that period of time. So the international community has been offering support both in the training of the police force and in hands-on support to them in the field. The Canadian RCMP are trainers, supported by the Canadian military. They accompany the junior Haitian police force on its rounds.

Haiti has two huge cities, quite large metropolitan areas with a lot of crime, economic crime and a tendency to urban violence that is traditional no matter where the city is. These are the areas of greater concentration of effort.

Préval, the present president who has visited Canada, has asked that the UN - and we are part of the UN presence in Haiti - continue its presence. They do not feel the country is sufficiently stable or the police sufficiently confident to continue their work at this time. So the effort the Canadian government is going through at the moment is to ensure a UN mandate to continue the international presence in Haiti, to continue supporting the police, a support role for the military in supporting the police and in providing security.

I believe this committee asked questions about the UN and its role to ter Horst two weeks ago, who came up from Haiti to give you his outline.

One of the difficulties we had was that the last time the resolution went before the United Nations, which I'm sure you understand is a multilateral institution... You don't walk in and necessarily get what you want. You have to negotiate with the members of the United Nations to a collective position. The last time, we had difficulties with the Chinese and the Russians in obtaining a six-month extension as requested by the Secretary General.

.0920

The Secretary General has released his latest report, in which he is requesting a continued presence. This resolution will be considered this week. The deadline is June 30. So we'll have to decide in the next week or so.

They will have to reach a resolution as to what is possible, and then the Canadian government will have to decide what is feasible for Canada.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms McCallion, I know you're going to pass this on to other members of the panel, but the purpose of our proceedings today, because we will not be having a debate in the House on this issue, is to debate this issue in this committee. I think the members would be most interested to know, if you can tell us, how much our presence in Haiti has cost to date. As well, can you possibly give an indication as to what it would cost in the event our presence there was expanded?

I'm not asking you to make inaccurate projections, but I think you should, at least in your introductory remarks, make it clear what the costs have been to date. That is certainly a factor the members of the committee are interested in in terms of making a decision to continue the mission.

Ms McCallion: On the RCMP component, which is one of the elements, it costs approximately $1 million a month for 100, plus ou moin, RCMP constables.

Admiral King is going to address the historic costs of the military aspect.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. That's helpful.

Admiral King.

Rear Admiral James King (Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can tell you that the incremental costs - that is, the costs that are extra to the salaries and the normal things we pay to our people there - total, in the two and a half months we've been there,$13 million actually spent, with another $5 million in capital procurement that we have committed but not actually spent yet. In other words, that was money we have set aside for expenditures we expected by this time we would have to make. We have not actually spent or committed that money yet.

So the short answer is $13 million.

The Chairman: Can you give the committee your perception of how effective this presence has been, or are we going to get that from CIDA? I suppose we will get that from CIDA, but you might describe it a bit.

RAdm King: I can give you a slight breakdown. It's about $8 million in preparation. The deployment cost is $2 million. Employment, the operating expenses in theatre, is thus far another $8 million. As I said, we've committed $5 million for capital procurement. In fact, I think of that we have set aside about $1 million, which is more or less committed but not actually disbursed.

We are a little bit under-budget overall, I think - or that's my understanding from talking to our costing people - on the basis that they've been fairly innovative in the way they've managed the contracts for the operating expenses in theatre. So they are a little bit under. But it's only two and a half months into the mission. They're not necessarily speculating on any improvement over that.

The Chairman: Can you tell us how many personnel are involved?

RAdm King: In personnel overall there are 750.

The Chairman: My understanding is that an additional 1,100 UN personnel are there under the command of the Canadians. Is that correct?

RAdm King: Approximately that number, yes, sir.

The Chairman: But we're not paying for those 1,100.

RAdm King: No. We're paying for our people there.

The Chairman: But I suppose we would be paying something toward that 1,100 through our normal contributions toward UN operations. Would that be correct?

RAdm King: I believe that's correct, but because of our participation, of course, we also are refunded some of those costs by the UN. Of the people we've sent, when we accepted the mandate we agreed that we needed 1,900 people - no less. The mandate, as Admiral McCallion has said, was to a maximum of 1,200. We agreed that we would put in the extra people at our expense.

.0925

So of the 750 - and it's approximately 750; it's been a little bit less at times but I don't think it's ever been more than 750 - a small number will in fact be paid by the UN, not by us. We are funding totally, though, the cost of the extra people.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Beaudoin, perhaps you could give us the CIDA point of view, tell us whether you think that the mission is achieving its objectives and inform us about both the problems and the optimistic perspectives that have characterized this operation?

Mr. Denis Beaudoin (Haiti Program Coordinator, Canadian International Development Agency): Thank you very much.

[English]

First, costs, since you have questions here. CIDA is spending approximately $40 million a year in Haiti. That includes the police component, about $10 million a year at an average of $1 million a month, and food aid, about $10 million a month, which is being sold there. We use the money to do local projects. The remaining $20 million is done mainly through Canadian partners.

Before this meeting, through the clerk, we gave you a copy of what we call ``Canadian Co-operation Program with Haiti'' and a list of the main partners delivering our aid program there.

Now, does it work?

The Chairman: Excuse me, but would it be safe to assume that this $40 million is part of CIDA's contribution to Haiti and would be spent in any event, that it is not necessarily tied to this particular mission or is not dependent upon this mission?

Mr. Beaudoin: Part of it. About $10 million is for the police component, RCMP-led, with local police officers from Montreal, Ottawa, Aylmer, Gatineau. About 45 RCMP officers and about 55 other officers from our cities have volunteered there.

Yes, the food aid component would be there. If there wasn't the police component, I would suggest $30 million would be the maximum CIDA would spend there. But this is the poorest country in the hemisphere. Our mission is really to target help to these poor people. That's our program there.

Our program has two specific objectives. The first one is to fight poverty and the second is to strengthen democracy. The second part, which I think is the most important priority now, is the work we do with the justice system and the police component.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We'll go to questions now. Mr. Mills.

Mr. Mills (Red Deer): My question is to the Admiral. Helicopters: I think there are seven of them there. We had to rent those helicopters from the U.S. Is that correct?

RAdm King: No, Mr. Mills. The seven helicopters are Canadian forces helicopters. They're part of the mission. The people who fly and maintain them are part of those 750 personnel. These are light-utility helicopters. They're good for carrying people but they have a limited range. In order to give us the capability to move large numbers of troops, in particular, to parts of the country, and to have the range to do that, we need medium-lift helicopters.

When the Americans were in they used Chinook helicopters. Those were kept in theatre and are being withdrawn as part of the agreement with the United States. Part of our agreement when we took the mandate was that we needed medium-lift helicopters.

After canvassing various troop-contributing nations, and not being able to get any directly, the United Nations put out a contract, which was awarded to a Russian company. They have sent two medium-lift helicopters. They're in Haiti now, but they are still undergoing certification for airworthiness and operations. I believe they've passed the first and they're still waiting for the second. Once we have those, we'll have the total capability.

The Chairman: Madam Beaumier.

Ms Beaumier (Brampton): I'm interested in CIDA's involvement in Haiti. After all, I don't know how long we're going to have to be there to train the police and to police the area ourselves, but certainly the only way you're going to maintain the democracy is through development and education.

.0930

Is CIDA itself undertaking any projects? You're funding some very worthwhile organizations here. I just returned from Bangladesh and was so impressed by the little education and self-help projects the Canadian government is doing there. I'm wondering if you could expand on or tell me what kinds of projects we're doing there.

[Translation]

Mr. Beaudoin: It should be explained, first, that the CIDA program in Haiti continues to be a program of this institution, although it is being implemented by non-governmental agencies. The agencies on this list have signed contracts with CIDA to forward the money from the Canadian government, using their expertise on the ground.

I could give you a number of examples of small projects we are implementing. Among others, in the context of the projects designed to fight poverty, we are doing some highly labour intensive projects, a little like what you no doubt saw in Bangladesh, in which we are leading canal-clearing operations, rebuilding schools and setting up health centres. The inhabitants of the village do the shovelling, while we provide a little equipment and some technical expertise. We are thus working from village to village. I think that over the last 18 months we have established more than 200 schools and health centres.

Many of our programs are focused on justice and respect for human rights in Haiti. For example, through the CCIC, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, we have a project in the order of 3 million dollars - these figures are approximate and might be verified - that employs about thirty national NGOs in Haiti, with the support of Canadian NGOs that are helping people carry out initiatives in their communities.

We are really talking about projects at the lowest level. We are not building highways or telecommunications systems. Haiti is a country where the priority must be on helping the poorest people. There are problems of malnutrition, 20 percent of the people are able to read and write, and the life expectancy is only 57 years.

I could provide a host of further examples of projects in one field or another that are being carried out almost entirely by Canadian NGOs, directly on the ground.

Why are they being carried out by Canadian NGOs and not by the government of Haiti? It is because we began in October 1994, when there was no government. When President Aristide arrived, the government was still too weak to manage Canadian taxpayers' money in Haiti. That is why, at President Aristide's request, we established a program to use the

[English]

partners, Canadian partners who know the country and who can make things happen with their local counterparts in their own villages.

Thank you.

Ms McCallion: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could supplement that for the hon. member. In addition, we're very much aware that CIDA alone can't resurrect a country. The government is working with our partners in the international institutions to encourage the aid flows and the balance of payment supports through the IMF and the World Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank, all the institutions that require money for the larger infrastructure projects that will bring economic prosperity, growth, and the capacity of the Haitian government to take charge of their own lives.

At the other end of the spectrum, there is the Canadian fund for local initiatives, which is a fund that's usually given to the embassy to use the best way it knows how. One of the things the military has asked for is to have some measure of support in local projects. When they're off duty, they would like to clean up prisons, paint schools, and just help the citizenry. The largest component of the military are French-speaking and they're turning out to be very effective ambassadors in the local communities, because the Haitians are completely surprised when they see someone in a uniform who wants to help them and who actually speaks their language. It's another way of reaching the people.

.0935

One other element we're very concerned about in the longer term is the justice system. There's no sense having a police force if once you're arrested there is no system of justice or perception of justice. The Canadians, rather than fixing the highest level of justice, are working with our partners at the first tier, the local...

[Translation]

Mr. Beaudoin: The trial courts.

[English]

the first place you go.

Ms McCallion: Yes, thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron, do you have a point of order?

Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to express my surprise. We had agreed initially that there was to be a one hour presentation by the witnesses. From what Mr. LeBlanc was telling us a few minutes ago, you worked very hard until late last night to come up with the best witnesses. I don't doubt that the people who are here are fully competent and well informed concerning the situation in Haiti, but I am somewhat surprised that the presentations have been relatively short and that not all the witnesses have spoken. Am I to understand that they preferred to shorten their presentation to enable us to ask further questions?

The Chairman: If I understood correctly, the idea was to let us ask as many questions as possible. The witnesses were made available to us on the assumption that we were already knowledgeable on the subject and wanted to canvass fully the questions that concerned us, not only the Department's version. That being said, Ms McCallion,

[English]

I hope that in the course of the questions...

Today we're going to be called upon to debate whether or not we should continue our operation in Haiti. I do hope that you at least, as the senior government representative, in concluding will give us your opinion as to whether we should be there and continue to be there, and whether or not our presence there is effective. If we don't get that from you, we will have a great deal of difficulty trying to make up our own minds. So far, I would say we haven't yet got that sense of commitment. But this will hopefully come out in the questions.

Madame Debien.

[Translation]

Ms Debien (Laval East): I would like to ask Mr. King a question.

Mr. King, earlier, you gave an assessment of the total complement and costs involved in the RCMP operations. Are you in a position to provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the RCMP presence in Haiti?

RAdm King: I couldn't answer for the RCMP, but perhaps Mr. Duval or Ms McCallion could.

The Chairman: Mr. Duval.

Mr. Michel Duval (Haiti Coordinator, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): I should say that the Canadian presence is making a huge difference in Haiti. Ms McCallion, in her presentation, focused on the technical and political nature of our presence. But we haven't said much about effectiveness, and I sense, from your question and the comments by Mr. Bergeron, that it is necessary to come back to the effectiveness of the Canadian presence. It should be said that the Canadian police and military presence is within the United Nations framework.

Our presence was discussed in terms of development assistance, which has been quite substantial in Haiti for many years. We can speak of a 50-year presence on a voluntary basis, in terms of the non-governmental organizations, as well as a very prominent presence by CIDA, which focuses on all aspects of development.

Mr. Beaudoin spoke of small projects and somewhat bigger projects, and Ms McCallion emphasized, quite rightly, the cooperation with the international agencies. But the United Nations presence is aimed at helping to some degree to inoculate democracy in Haiti.

On February 7, when President Préval took office as president of Haiti, it was the first time in 200 years of history that a democratically elected president was replaced by another democratically elected president. So the general feeling was that, without the presence of the United Nations and the international forces, Haiti would have succumbed to its old demons and they would have had some coups d'état fomented by the army. Moreover, the coup by the generals, the de facto government that had overthrown Aristide, clearly demonstrated the fragility of democracy in Haiti.

.0940

With the disappearance of the army, it was necessary to create a police force to stabilize the state. As the special representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations told you during his visit, without the United Nations presence, they would be unable to stabilize the situation, to bring the crime rate under control and to create a community-based police force that is close to the people.

There is a very long row to hoe, because the police are still perceived in Haiti, even now, after nearly a two-year international presence, as a threat. There is a long tradition. The police have always been there to monitor deviations by the people. Under the previous regimes, they used terror as a method.

The general feeling is that if the United Nations were to leave Haiti at present, the level of training of the police and the level of control by the government would not be sufficient to ensure continuity. We would lose two years of substantial investments in police training.

The RCMP's role is essential because they bring a police training philosophy that is the training of community-based police. We Canadians are so used to living in this kind of environment that we are unaware of it. The police, in Canada, are part of the community. What it is important to develop in Haiti is a police that are close to the population, that are recruited within the population and close to the population. This requires considerable effort.

The RCMP provides simultaneously this approach, this training philosophy and on-the-ground supervision. It is supported by Canadian soldiers. Some of you, around this table, have participated in a tour by night of Port-au-Prince, with a police patrol, that illustrates clearly the type of effective involvement on the ground.

If we were to cease this activity now, at a very low level of training of the police, those police, which the United Nations and Canada have helped to train, might very well be transformed into a threat to the Haitian government, if we abandoned it to its fate, because they would be poorly supervised and poorly trained.

I therefore think, and I say this with great conviction, that Canada's presence in Haiti is making a substantial difference. As Ms McCallion pointed out, the Canadian troops, both the Francophones and the Anglophones, bring a different way of dealing with the people. It shows the people that the law enforcement agencies, both military and police, can be on their side.

[English]

Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleagueMr. Bergeron...I think by now he knows if we want excellent witnesses, the best witnesses usually come from CIDA and from our defence department. So I welcome their presence here today.

I have witnessed with my own eyes some of the projects we heard about this morning. I visited two health clinics. I visited a school CIDA has helped build. I visited a court session in action. I saw the Mennonites helping them and teaching them to build secondary roads. My question is, would all of this not carry on if we do not renew the UN mandate for another period?

One thing I see lacking here in our resolutions and discussions, Mr. Chairman, is we're not putting a time line on the extension. The resolution speaks of it being past June 30, 1996. That leaves it wide open. Is it for the next 12 months, 24 months? I assumed in our previous discussions we were talking about an extension for 6 months, period. I'd like to hear from our witnesses on what time line they feel... because we are serving a country that's the poorest of the poorest. We are serving people who are the poorest of the poorest. I think that is what our foreign aid is all about.

What time line do you need for the police and the peacekeeping force still to be there so we can continue the kind of excellent work we're doing?

Ms McCallion: Thank you, Mr. Flis.

First and foremost, maybe I should respond a bit more clearly to the challenge of the chair. I'm always willing to respond to challenge.

.0945

Canada has been extremely effective in Haiti. We are needed and we need to stay. We can sit here and argue what the components are, but I'm not here trying to be wishy-washy. I'm here telling you that we have been extremely effective.

As my colleague, Mr. Duval, has said, they're poor, they're struggling, they're struggling with a concept. If you understand the history of Haiti, these people are mostly illiterate. They are struggling with a concept of democracy that would challenge most Canadians and they're trying to put democracy in place in about six months, a very short time.

They're in our hemisphere. They're in the Caribbean. They are one of the forgotten places in the Caribbean. We have a long historical tradition with the Caribbean. The Caribbean expects us to take leadership in Haiti. They want to know we're there as a participant in their region. I think it's clear that this is in our backyard. You have to jump over the United States to get there, but it's still in our backyard.

The hemisphere is important to us. Destabilizing the hemisphere, which is perfectly possible if they sink into anarchy...and it really is a case of anarchy. It's no longer the fear of another organized military coup as much as the disintegration of a society. The CIDA money is being used to give them the instruments to grow as a society in their own context.

Now, to answer the direct question of the hon. member, normal UN mandates are six months. What we accepted the last time... The Chinese were very concerned that this was no longer an issue of global security; it was a regional issue and the world was not going to be brought to the brink of nuclear war because of Haiti. What we would go back for at the UN this week is a six-month extension, period. That's what we would be looking for.

The extent to which we need to stay on the island forever, I think, is a philosophical debate. At what point do you leave people in charge of their own destiny, having launched them?

Mr. Flis: I have another brief question for Admiral King, Mr. Chairman. In the report of the Secretary General on the United Nations mission in Haiti, dated June 5, 1996 - and his recommendations are well known now - he states:

Nevertheless, the Haitian National Police continues to suffer from a serious lack of equipment, despite significant donations from the international community. Its headquarters does not even have the means to communicate directly with police headquarters in the Departments and it lacks a reliable system for the routine distribution of documents. A number of police stations have no vehicles, electricity, or water and lack secure detention facilities.

Admiral King, you mentioned that $5 million in capital procurement has not been spent yet. Can that or part of that money be used for purchasing some of this equipment that's so sadly needed?

RAdm King: As far as I am aware, that money is earmarked for other purchases in support of the operation itself.

My understanding is that a fairly significant amount of equipment has been provided by the United States during the last mandate. General equipment has been provided in support of the operation through the assistance of the various police forces that have been there. The biggest problem is really the management of this.

There are something like only 24 police stations, none of which are adequately equipped. Some of them don't have furniture. As you say, they don't have radios, telephones, that sort of thing, but a lot of that type of equipment has been provided, a lot of vehicles provided. They lack a means of managing the infrastructure, just a basic maintenance schedule, basic procedures, rules, regulations, that sort of thing - a lot of which has been passed to them in their police training, I understand. Again, it's a matter of putting it into practice and having the leadership from their supervisors, who themselves lack this sort of experience. There is a certain amount of wastage going on.

My understanding is that there is a gradual program to furnish them with the material they need. It's just a matter of time to get them used to managing it, looking after it, using it, maintaining it, that sort of thing.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): Ms McCallion, you stated that the presence of the Canadians in Haiti is helping to keep the country from re-descending into anarchy.

.0950

I hope and presume that order has been established in some fashion in places like Port-au-Prince and Cap-Haïtien, but what about out in the hinterlands where the vast number of people live? Do the police or the troops venture out there? Are they doing anything at all to try to maintain order where the people are and where they're defenceless against gangs of thugs? Are we doing any good anywhere except right in the capital?

Ms McCallion: The short answer is yes, we are. There are police patrols that go out there. Regrettably, the island doesn't have a superhighway, so it takes quite some time to get out there, but the RCMP who have been out in the hinterlands report that the people have accepted the police. This is general stability. This is not preventing every single crime everywhere in the country. This is just policing in the hinterland. My understanding is that it has been effective. The evaluation of the RCMP is that they need to focus on the urban gangs that are starting to collect in the streets of Port-au-Prince and Cap-Haïtien.

I think we can say the experts on the ground do feel they have been effective, although communications and travel times are still difficult. One of my personal projects has been to bug CIDA to see if we can't get some mountain bicycles. Rather than trying to send them very expensive jeeps that go off the road because there isn't a road, why don't we send them a few mountain bicycles?

Supplementary to Mr. Flis' question, our military has helped to actually repair motorcycles that have crash-landed. They've formed a small unit to help put twenty motorbikes into ten, in their free time.

I think the other part of what we're trying to do in terms of equipment availability and in terms of managing it, as Admiral King has said... The latest request through the UN to the Canadians is for us to now provide a cadre of fifteen administrators. Mr. Denizé, the chief of police, is quite clear about the fact that he needs people to manage the equipment and to manage the police in networking, and he's asked for the Canadian support there, where people can actually procure things and look after it once they have it.

Our Admiral would like to -

Mr. Morrison: I was going to ask the Admiral something directly. We've had a bit of an explanation here of what the police officers are doing. It sounds quite good, although there are very few of them. What about the military, both the Canadian military and the military of other countries? For example, do they make regular patrols into the countryside or do they hunker down in the large centres?

RAdm King: I think you have to understand that there are really two components to the military presence, both of which are seen as vital to supporting the work of the police. First and foremost is deterrence. It's difficult to measure, but there's no doubt that the presence of a military force that is able to respond quickly to an emergency or to something that's getting out of hand and that is available to support the police, does have a deterrent effect on the rise in crime and that sort of thing.

In looking at the type of force we would put in to replace the one there now, we have said we could do with a smaller force on the basis that we've in fact been able to withdraw troops and police from some of the outlying districts.

As Ms McCallion said, the problem is more an urban one, but, for instance, we did at one time have a presence in the third-largest city, Gonaïves. We've withdrawn from that city. At one time we were very concerned about it. We were able to withdraw and in fact it's proven to be a sound decision.

The deterrent effect is very important, and we believe that as the police develop themselves better, the importance of that deterrent effect...people looking out and seeing armed soldiers...that will go down.

The second component is the security effect, and that's simply the importance of having soldiers who understand how to do competent patrols, particularly at night in an urban situation, and who can protect those police people, can show them the ropes and how to deal with particularly difficult situations.

.0955

There again, over time, as the police become more competent in handling their weapons, learning how to deal with situations, and recognizing the problems that may arise, we believe that security presence will also be able to go down.

There is another component of the security presence, and that is that it also does act as a protection for the President and key areas. If there is a requirement to look after something, the military can certainly place themselves in a situation to be able to offer that sort of support. They're not hunkered down at all; they're out there patrolling and, as Monsieur Duval said, the fact that all of our people are French-speaking has made a terrific difference in their effectiveness in actually speaking to the people in the streets and getting their cooperation and confidence.

The Chairman: I think Mr. Beaudoin wanted to add something to that.

Mr. Beaudoin: There are two things, Mr. Morrison.

First, about 70 of the police officers are spread throughout the country, two and three together, all over the country, in 19 locations, and that's why they need the army. If there's a problem out there in Les Cayes and there is no army, they could not be there. The army is necessary for their security - to get them out, to protect them. They're not there with rifles and so on; they're doing community policing and they walk and work, because there are no cars there, with the local policemen, doing their work with them.

Secondly, Mr. Flis asked what would happen if there were no army. Would there be a CIDA program? Yes, there would be a CIDA program, as before, but only for humanitarian assistance. Sustainable development is our job, sir. Our job is to get out of there as soon as possible. If there are no good police, if there is no justice system, if there are no economic reforms, our money wouldn't be well spent because we'd have to be there forever. If there is democracy, if there is a parliament, if there is a justice system, if there is a police system, sir - maybe 20 years down the road - we will import bananas and other goods from there and we will sell them our telecommunications systems, our energy systems, and so on.

I personally think that if we don't remain there until December we are taking a big risk. That would cost us much more money in the years to come, first, and secondly, it would not help these people. We're tired of feeding people; we would like them to get on the road to building their own country. They need us for that now.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Beaudoin.

Mr. Paré.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): Earlier, Mr. Beaudoin referred to the two objectives being pursued by CIDA in Haiti. I refer to them because they are important and I fully adhere to them. They are to fight poverty and to strengthen democracy.

However, I understand that conducting an election is no guarantee that democracy will have very deep roots. Could you describe for us very briefly the state of the civil society, the trade unions, the chambers of commerce, the NGOs - you referred to them a little earlier - the citizens' groups, and tell us, secondly, how CIDA's aid is structured to establish and support civil society?

Mr. Beaudoin: That's a big question, but I will try to be specific. We are working, through all the programs you have seen, with the local organizations. For example, there is no law society in Haiti. With the federal Department of Justice and some colleagues from Quebec, we are trying to build a law society. In Haiti, we help the members of the organizations to defend human rights, for those who had not been assassinated before Aristide came to power, to coordinate themselves in order to defend the rights of the people. There are some places to which people who have problems, who have been beaten or robbed, can go. We have some local lawyers, supported by some Canadians down there, to help them fight.

.1000

We funded what was called the Commission on Truth, with other funding sources. A comprehensive investigation was conducted and a report was issued on all the senseless things that were done to the common people and their property. This report was tabled last February, and we believe that the Haitian government, relying on this report, will be able to take some action and restore their rights to people.

What is the status of civil society? It is slowly being built.

What is the status of the unions? Many union members left the country for the United States, Canada and France. Over the last year or year and a half, they have been coming back. However, most of the ministers that we now have were not in Haiti in the years of crisis, in the Cédras years. They are gradually returning, and we are helping them via the CCIC, the CECI and the Mennonites, village by village, to try to rebuild. We don't come in there with partners who are already functioning well. We have to help them from start to finish.

How do we fit into this? We fit in because we are present at the level of the grass roots, the people who make up the base of the civil society that has been under construction since October 1994. We have just begun and the people are just coming back. But I can tell you that we are seeing some change. We see real change, sir.

Secondly, it is perhaps important for Parliament, and I know you have discussed this in committee, to know that we have got into some very interesting discussions with the Parliament of Haiti, with the two Houses, to try to make that parliament a more effective parliament. All the deputies are new, of course. The majority of the senators are new. I know there are some exchanges of delegations. There are some people here who have gone there and there are some from there who will be coming here to try to make that parliament a much more effective parliament that is genuinely responsive to the aspirations of the people whom they represent.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Beaudoin, that's very helpful.

With the permission of the committee, I'd like to suggest we might prolong the questioning of the witnesses a little bit longer. I think we're getting important information, and there are a few other questioners here.

I draw to the attention of the committee that we'll be voting at 10:30 a.m., so there will be an interruption anyway, but if we could keep this session going a little bit longer, then we will move to the procedure of the debate.

Mr. English.

Mr. English (Kitchener): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The proposed resolution that we have before us talks about our ``commitment to the hemisphere'' and our ``unwavering friendship with the people of Haiti''. The document that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, whose members - Mr. Flis left them out - also contribute so much to our understanding of these questions, indicates that Haiti is a country with a GDP of $1.7 billion in 1994. The amount of Canadian aid under CIDA to Haiti is $42.2 million. I don't know what the figure for the military and other spending is, and you can include, in terms of the injection to the economy, the spending by Canadian military there, but let's double it. If you do double it, it works out that about 4.5% to 5% of the total GDP of Haiti is Canadian-generated. If you take the aid itself, it's almost 3%. It's a very significant commitment.

On the next page, if you look under Haiti's major exports, the U.S.A. receives 76.7% of all their exports; under major imports to Haiti, the U.S.A. is 56.3%, and Canada is listed in neither item. In terms of trade, we're not a significant player, in fact. In 1992 Germany, Italy and France were larger players in exports, and in terms of imports, the EU and the Dutch West Indies were larger players as well.

The question I have is that in terms of Canada's interest, which we're involved in as parliamentarians, this is obviously a country to which we are making a significant commitment, and as the resolution says, it reflects our unwavering friendship with the people of Haiti. In our terms, clearly the interest doesn't seem to be trade, but is this one of those cases where Canada has a kind of special interest and where its particular role is, to use a classic term, ``making a difference''? When we did our foreign policy review, we talked about the possibility of concentrating on countries where we can play a particular role, and it doesn't seem - I ask this to all of you, of course - in this particular case that Canadian aid and Canadian presence in the form of peacekeepers are particularly apt, because we have particular advantages in relationship to other countries that obviously are not participating.

.1005

Ms McCallion: First and foremost, you're not the first to recognize this. We have a trade commissioner, Mr. Roy, who is not in Haiti; he is actually in Canada. He works in my branch and he's specific to doing trade with Haiti, to enhancing our trade. One of the reasons he was not assigned to Port-au-Prince per se, for the first part of it, was so he could access the moneys that were available through the international institutions to make sure that Canadian companies got those contracts, which are very large ones.

We've had several discussions with Préval, with the government, on privatizing some of their publicly held institutions, which will enhance investment in and out of Haiti, primarily in the sectors in which we are very good, such as energy development and telecommunications. So we are conscious of it. Yes, we're working at enhancing our advantage, if you will.

Some of the imports in the figures are also sheer energy import figures. Haiti does not supply its own energy; it imports it, primarily from Venezuela. It's closer and it's cheaper. The United States is closer and it's cheaper. They don't have a lot of money. The very rich have a lot of money and historically they buy French products. We are conscious that we're there to work with them to enhance our trade.

Mr. English: There's another part of the question, though. The United States was there and left. This was a major activity in terms of American foreign policy during a certain period. One of the criticisms one hears is that Canada is called in to do the duty for the Americans where they can't do it because of domestic political concerns. How do we answer when our constituents ask that question?

Ms McCallion: We were there with the Americans and we were there before the Americans in the CIDA sense. Under the previous minister of foreign affairs, we made a policy that we would not be part of the multilateral force, that we would preserve our money and our support for police training and for the rehabilitation of the society, and we stuck to it. We were there immediately thereafter.

During the time of the first UN mandate, the Canadians were in charge of the police. It was Neil Pouliot. He was on the front of Maclean's magazine. That was a very strong commitment. We have a very large contingent of police. We trained some of the junior recruits in Regina.

One of the ways we helped other countries was that it was considered that the Canadians were the best to take charge of the second phase of the military component. So we are number two to the French, who are in charge of the police. You can confidently say we've been there from the start, but we've been there on our terms.

Mr. English: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Just to follow that up, I understood Mr. English's question to be about whether we have some comparative advantage with respect to other countries. From what we've heard from other witnesses, my understanding is that there's been a religious presence from Quebec in the communities there, educating in Haiti, for almost 100 years and that there have been tremendous links with Haiti because of the Quebec presence, etc. Is that a factor that makes us particularly more appropriate to be there than another country? I think that was Mr. English's question.

Ms McCallion: The answer is yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mills, can you be fairly brief? We are running out of time.

Mr. Mills: I'll just make a few comments and then ask your opinion. I have no question that the troops, the NGOs, and the police are making a difference and are doing a good job. But we have a country with 70% unemployment. We have a country that's 85% illiterate. We have a middle class and an upper class, a rich class, that are not participating within the country in terms of investment; they're not part of that whole thing. We have former President Aristide, who came from Cité Soleil, now living in a mansion with a paved driveway, servants, etc.

Half of the police force were paid for April and the other half haven't been paid. They have destroyed many of their vehicles in the process, as mentioned. I watched a fire truck arrive. There were five fire trucks and one didn't have water and one didn't have gas. When one did arrive, they had to unpack the helmets. They put the helmets on backwards and then sat and watched the fire. There are a lot of problems there.

.1010

The Chairman: It sounds like the House of Commons on some good days.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mills: What I am asking on behalf of taxpayers... We want this country to prosper in the future, but it seems to me we are looking at a very long long-term plan. We need education. We need all of these things. I'm not saying we shouldn't participate. I'm asking why we don't come up with this long-term plan and be honest and say that it's going to be 20 or 30 years or whatever. That's what I observed to be the reality of the place. Can any of you comment on that?

Ms McCallion: First and foremost, I think you're correct in both your evaluation and your requirement for a long-term plan. On the specific details, we pressured the Haitian government and they have now paid the police. These things come up. We go to the government and say it cannot have a police force if it doesn't pay for it, and we say, ``Get going and pay them''. We ask what the problem is, if there is no money, etc. We take an active interest in solving the little day-to-day problems that we think are solvable in the sense of keeping the police force on the streets actively engaged, etc.

In terms of transforming a society from one kind of living to another kind of living, it takes two to three generations. I can only tell you that we have to take it a step at a time. We have budgetary constraints in government. We do the CIDA plan for five years. We change it based on decisions by Parliament and government.

Clearly, we do not expect the UN component to be there much longer than another six months. We think we're at the cut. We think it's been almost a miracle in Haiti.

We think if they are confident enough to take charge, we can continue through the CIDA budgets with education and helping NGO communities with community development, but there are many poor places in the world where we need to do it and where we need to have a long-term plan.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Bergeron: At the Chairman's request, and unlike some of my colleagues, I will confine myself to questions of clarification. I will avoid getting immediately into the debate. I have two very specific questions to ask.

The first has to do with the funding of the mission. If we had to extend it beyond the six months now being requested of us, could we not anticipate, in the event there was still some opposition on the part of some countries in the United Nations to the funding of this mission by the United Nations, some funding by the Organization of American States or in part by the Organization of American States and in part by the group of countries that are Friends of Haiti?

The second question has to do with Haitians' trust in the justice system. I know that great efforts are being made by the international community to ensure that the Haitians develop some confidence in the justice system, given that in the past the justice system was not a justice system and there was no reason to have any confidence in it.

Wouldn't one of the factors that could enable the Haitians to have confidence in the justice system be that the justice system could effectively bring to justice those individuals who were responsible for the abuses committed against the Haitian people in the past and, if so, how can this actually be done? During a visit I was able to make to Haiti, I saw that they were having great difficulty in doing this. How might they manage to do it?

[English]

Ms McCallion: When it comes to your first question, at the general assembly two weeks ago in Panama we got a resolution of the OAS in full support of the continued international presence in Haiti. Regrettably, the OAS itself does not have the same funding mechanisms that are available in the UN system. We have requested support from many of our players and colleagues, from the Friends of Haiti... Clearly, if it is necessary to have voluntary contributions, we have every intention of lobbying intensively to ask for people's support. We are aware of the problem and we will make every effort to do that.

.1015

On your second question, Mr. Broadbent and his centre in Montreal have already established a truth commission. It was funded privately and partially by the government. It's been somewhat in abeyance because it was part and parcel of an arrangement with Mr. Aristide. To my knowledge it still exists in a formal sense, but we haven't seen much activity.

[Translation]

Mr. Beaudoin: The commission tabled its report on February 7, the day when Mr. Préval became President. Mr. Préval received the report, which he forwarded to the Minister of Justice, who is now analyzing it.

There are three parts to the report. I say that from memory. The first part of the report deals with the abuses and with what happened during the Cédras years, the second deals with a reform of the justice system, with what might be done to improve it, and the third deals with funding and sovereignty.

It is very complicated for foreigners such as ourselves, guests such as ourselves, to get directly involved in prosecutions based on allegations concerning what happened between these people when they were there.

Concerning the first part, Canada has delegated a technical advisor to the Minister of Justice, who has been there since February and who, on behalf of all of us, is supporting the Minister of Justice in his efforts. This advisor also works with the Minister of Justice.

If you want a summary of the report, we have some copies in our office in Port-au-Prince. We would be pleased to send it to you. There is a summary of about 100 pages. The work that was done was extraordinary.

However, it will be a long, a very long process, since there are no structures, since there are no courts, since there is no civil code, since some judges are being changed for reasons that you will appreciate. It would be very complicated. But yes, we will be there.

If there is no justice, there will be no rule of law and if there is no rule of law, what we do there will not really be useful.

The Chairman: The work of the legal experts always takes a long time and sometimes, given these delays, the fees are substantial, aren't they?

Mr. Beaudoin: We have a contractual agreement with them, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Being a legal scholar myself, I know the system.

That is the end of the question period. I have no more names on the list. I would like to thank the witnesses on behalf of the members of the committee. Thank you very much for coming this morning. You have been of great assistance in contributing to our understanding of Haiti's problems.

We go now to the second phase of our deliberations, a debate on the appropriateness of maintaining our presence in Haiti and on what terms. I will ask Mr. LeBlanc to begin by presenting his resolution on behalf of the government.

Before we begin, may I have some indication of who would like to ask questions in due course?

[English]

Mr. LeBlanc will be starting. Mr. Dupuy, Mr. Flis, Madame Debien, Mr. Bergeron andMr. Mills have indicated. That gives us a good idea of the timing. For now there's no indication as to the vote, so I'll keep you up on that.

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Translation]

Mr. LeBlanc: I have distributed to all the members of the committee the draft of a resolution on Haiti and our commitment in that country. I would like to speak forthwith on this resolution.

When I distributed it, I indicated to some members that I was doing so primarily for the sake of form. I would now like to speak about the content of the resolution and about each of its components. I am tabling it with the committee for the purposes of debate.

The resolution deals directly with the continuation of a multinational mission funded by the United Nations and mandated by the UN Security Council, particularly oriented to assistance to the police after June 30, to ensure that democracy continues to develop in that country.

.1020

This is the context within which the government must consider whether or not Canada should continue its commitment in Haiti. It would be in the context of a mission mandated by the Security Council, approved by the latter and funded by the United Nations within the framework of an international presence.

The reasons for envisaging this extension of the Canadian mission in Haiti or the renewal of this mission are listed in the first four paragraphs of the resolution, which state:

Whereas the President of Haiti, who is making every effort to develop democracy in Haiti, has requested to the UN Secretary-General the continuation of the United Nations presence in Haiti past June 30th, 1996,

I might table with the committee a letter of May 31 from the President of the Republic of Haiti, Mr. Préval, in which he makes the request to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and I quote:

Indeed, given the present context in Haiti's social environment, the Government must have at its disposal a public force that is sufficient to maintain order and security. Unfortunately, our new Police Nationale are not fully able to assume such a responsibility.

I am therefore asking that you request the Security Council to be so kind as to authorize the presence of a multinational force in Haiti for an additional period of six (6) months. This extension would have the dual merit of supporting the maintenance of public order and strengthening the Police Nationale.

That is excerpted from a letter from the President of Haiti to His Excellency Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the UN Secretary-General. So, the request was made to the Secretary-General by the President of Haiti.

I will continue reading the resolution:

Whereas Canada is strongly committed to the hemisphere and entertains unwavering friendship with the people of Haiti,

This goes without saying, in view of the testimony we heard this morning from our witnesses from the Department of Foreign Affairs, CIDA and the Department of National Defence.

I and two other members of this committee, on a recent visit to Haiti, were direct witnesses to the Canadian presence in Haiti and our extraordinary contribution both in terms of economic development assistance and in terms of the maintenance of security in the country and the training of the Haitian police.

Whereas Canada's police officers and peacekeepers are playing an extraordinary role in maintaining peace, in building a civil society and in restoring human dignity for the people of Haiti,

Again, it is obvious that Canada is playing an extraordinary role. I think that everyone who has been able to see it has observed that Canada is playing an outstanding role in this process.

We have observed today that the maintenance of democracy goes hand in hand with economic and social progress in Haiti. Both these things are closely linked. Canada's work in this mission in Haiti takes the form of developing the conditions for the economic and social restructuring of Haiti.

.1025

Before closing, I would like to make one last short comment, Mr. Chairman.

I think the government should make a decision concerning the sending of a new mission within the United Nations framework.

I should say that this decision has not yet been taken by the government because we have not yet received a formal request from the Secretary-General, and the Security Council is still weighing the matter. Should the Security Council decide to prolong its presence in Haiti, it will be asking its Canadian friends whether they wish to participate in this mission. It is quite possible that we will be asked to participate in it, in view of our commitment, but such a request has not yet been received. So the current debate concerns Canada's participation in the event of a possible request from the Secretary-General, mandated by the UN Security Council.

Should the Security Council refuse to authorize the extension of this mission, we would then be faced with another set of contingencies. I don't think we are yet in a position to weigh this possibility within the framework of our resolution, although it is a matter that it would be useful to discuss with the members of the committee.

We should, and I am speaking in my capacity as the parliamentary secretary, take into account the fact that, at present, we want the next mission to Haiti to be a mission of the Security Council and to be funded by the United Nations.

At this time, the government is not weighing the possibility of becoming involved in a context other than that of the Security Council. That is why the resolution that we have before us is presented in the context of a potential request by the UN Security Council. I think, therefore, that it is important that the debate occur in this context, because we do not want to give the impression that Canada, while very involved in Haiti, thinks this is not a United Nations problem. That is why the Security Council should take the responsibility of declaring where it stands on this point.

After those comments, I would like to formally present the resolution that I would ask the committee to debate and adopt.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc. Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Mills may ask their questions.

Mr. Bergeron: I would like to begin by thanking the parliamentary secretary for his excellent resolution. I should say that I fully subscribe to the spirit of the resolution, and I will soon have occasion to say why.

I wish to say forthwith to the parliamentary secretary that, even should the United Nations pull back and not agree, the four whereases would remain valid and, consequently, we should still continue under other auspices the Canadian participation in this United Nations mission.

Having said that, I would like to ask the mover of the resolution whether he would agree to make an amendment to it. The amendment is explained simply by the fact that we ought to be discussing today not the relevance or irrelevance of a United Nations mission but the relevance of the Canadian participation in that mission.

.1030

Accordingly, I would make the following amendment: I would replace the word "endorses" with "recommends" and I would add the following words: "Canada's continued participation in a«multinational...mission".

The amended paragraph would thereby read:

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade strongly recommends Canada's continued participation in a UN-funded, multinational, UN Security Council-mandated mission--

Thus, if the mover of the resolution agrees, we could incorporate this amendment immediately without having to proceed to the vote. The purpose of the amendment is to demonstrate clearly that this committee is in favour of continuing the Canadian participation in this mission.

The Chairman: I will give Mr. LeBlanc a few minutes to think about it.

Mr. LeBlanc: Could Mr. Bergeron's wording be reread?

Mr. Bergeron: Gladly.

The Chairman: We will now go to questions directed to Mr. LeBlanc.

[English]

I'd like to suggest we not actually deal with this right now but let Mr. Mills at least have an opportunity to ask his question. Then it will be the turn of somebody else to speak and you could discuss that.

Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, I just want to study the exact text of Mr. Bergeron's amendment.

The Chairman: Right, I appreciate that.

Mr. LeBlanc: I think it's a very legitimate amendment inside the resolution -

The Chairman: Certainly it's within the spirit of the resolution.

Mr. LeBlanc: - in the spirit of the debate. I think we should accept the amendment for the purposes of debate. I may, when I study the details, have some finer modifications to suggest later on in the debate.

How's that?

The Chairman: Spoken like a lawyer. We might show it to Mr. Morrison and Mr. Mills.Mr. Mills wanted to ask a question, so why don't we go to that?

Mr. LeBlanc: In the process we may end up voting this resolution through in a series of amendments.

The Chairman: It may well be we don't have to take formal votes on the amendments if we can get consensus.

Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, we may get consensus.

The Chairman: Right.

Mr. Mills, sir.

Mr. Mills: Francis, basically what we're dealing with here is in a perfect world, where we have a strong UN, where we have multinational support, where we have all those things going, this would be great. But let's just look at some of the facts, if I can address it all to your motion here.

First of all, we're saying we want a UN-funded mission. The UN is bankrupt. The U.S., because of a political commitment...because of their election and their knowing it's not popular in the States, Clinton pulled out on February 29 and is not prepared to commit until at least after the election. We have the OAS saying they support it but do not have funding or troops. We have the China-Taiwan situation, which could conceivably block the UN; what could happen? We have the rich and the middle class in Haiti not investing in their own country. Funding becomes a problem, then.

Secondly, multinational: ideal, but the OAS is not going to provide troops. They are the Friends of Haiti. The U.S. aren't going to provide troops, and they are adjacent to this problem.

The mandate on item 34 of the general's report obviously doesn't really spell out what the mandate is.

Democracy. We're dealing with people who are illiterate. We're dealing with a parliament that's inexperienced, has no staff, no offices; it has high absenteeism and a history in which they don't even understand the word ``democracy''.

We have a police force where on night patrol you and I saw sixty police and only two of them would join the force to go out on patrol. They're not even close to being ready to administer it themselves.

.1035

So the question obviously is, after six months what will happen? My question to our witnesses is, where is the long-term plan? We're just putting on another band-aid.

I think Canadian taxpayers are asking where the plan is. I don't see a plan in this motion. I see a band-aid saying UN support, multinational, focusing on democracy - but that's not reality because none of the items in that motion are even possible. There's the problem.

Mr. LeBlanc: We all heard this morning that there are two elements to the reconstruction of Haiti.

One is the reconstruction of the Haitian economy and civil society in Haiti. Canada is involved in that, has been involved in that for some time, and will likely continue to be involved in that in one way or another, regardless of whether we have a democratic framework within which to participate in that development.

The purpose of this resolution and the purpose of Canada's involvement and interest in the training police force in Haiti, in supporting some kind of democratic institutions and institution-building in Haiti, is that we will have a chance at succeeding in rebuilding the economic and social framework of the country.

If we look at it in the long term, there are no cost-less options for any country that's interested in Haiti. Either we are involved in Haiti under a military regime or in a situation of anarchy, which has its own costs for Haiti, for Canada, and for the world, or we are involved in one way or another in Haiti as part of an international community, in a country that is trying, albeit against very difficult odds - and you and I both know what those odds are - to create a kind of civil framework to better ensure the possibility that eventually there will be an economy and a society in Haiti that resemble something that is developed. We know that's not going to happen tomorrow or next week.

The purpose of this resolution today addresses a very small but very important and fundamental stepping-stone towards creating the conditions for the kind of development that we all hope will happen in Haiti. We're not dealing with the larger picture of how we're going to produce development in Haiti; we're trying to put in place, hopefully within the international community with whatever international support can be mustered, ideally within the context of the Security Council, the conditions for peace and security and the elements of a framework for law and order in Haiti so all that other stuff can develop.

That's the only way in which I can answer the question.

Mr. Mills: But we have only one week left and we don't seem to have been able to interest anybody else.

The Chairman: Mr. Mills, why don't we reserve that for debate, because this period has run well beyond what was foreseen.

I'm going to propose that we go to Mr. Bergeron and then to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron, I will give the floor first to Mr. Mills, then it will be your turn. Do you agree?

Mr. Bergeron: Agreed.

[English]

Mr. Mills: A lot of this is going to come out, Mr. Chairman, but let me repeat a few things.

I will say first that I believe our troops and our police are making a difference. As long as they're there they will make a difference, but that's not the question.

The question really comes down to what are the reasons we should stay and what are the reasons we should consider leaving, and then what are the other options we might look at and what our motion should be.

Among the reasons to stay are, obviously, the humanitarian ones. There is a huge population of young people. We have a UN profile to maintain. Being in Haiti raises our profile as a country. It's in our hemisphere. There's a strong Quebec connection, which goes back 100 years. There is a democracy of some form. They could become a threat to us by immigration, the CNN factor, or all of those things. These are things we would talk about for these countries.

.1040

We can give them a chance. There's the police force, justice, and the power system. We saw a project by a Quebec company that was fantastic in terms of rebuilding the power grid of that country. As for agriculture, they could get back to growing sugar cane and actually harvesting it. So there are a lot of reasons why we could stay.

The reasons we might leave would include a limited chance of success and a decline to a dictatorship, which is certainly a reality. Some would even question the former president and say that he is grooming himself for that position. There's the cost of the seemingly possible bottomless pit of us being there for 20 years, or however long, to maintain or try to develop this democracy. Remember that the Americans tried it for 20 years and failed.

I believe there's a need for a long-term commitment and plan. It's too bad the UN isn't in a position to provide that. The UN, in my opinion, is not able to function. We've discussed that before. Organizationally and financially, it is a failure.

I believe that this sort of mission is not as popular as we might like it to be in Canada. Certainly the number of letters and comments I've received... I can't help but go back to a town hall meeting where I had over 300 people and only two supported this mission. The history doesn't bode well for success.

So what do I think the motion should include, then? Basically, it would have four factors. I'll try to summarize them. There is a whole bunch of detail. I have a proposal for a long-term plan as well, but we don't have time to talk about that, and that's not within the parameters today. But,Mr. LeBlanc, if you want to sit down and talk about a long-term plan for Haiti -

Mr. LeBlanc: Perhaps you could table your long-term plan.

Mr. Mills: Sure. I have a framework that I'd be happy to discuss. I've discussed that with the minister as well, so it's not like we're not trying to come up with something positive.

But there are four factors. First, there's the cost of participating. I do not believe that Canada can totally fund this for another six months or another year or 20 years. I don't believe that will be acceptable. I don't think that Canadians would feel it would be acceptable to fund this 100%. We must have the participation of other countries. We need to possibly even strong-arm the Americans and say that they're on their border; they have a very direct interest in funding this.

Second, I believe that we should be looking at only a multinational force. It is not acceptable to have Canada running the show totally. It's fine for us to take the lead. We have all kinds of reasons why we should do that, but we do need the participation of other countries. That, if nothing else, shows support of the whole concept of what we're trying to do in Haiti.

Third, the mandate must be much clearer than what we see in front of us. We have to determine what that mandate is specifically.

Fourth, I think that part of our agreement to get involved must include the tabling by the UN, in cooperation with us, the Friends of Haiti, and the OAS, of a long-term plan. Without a long-term plan, you're going nowhere, except that you're throwing money down a hole and you're just going to keep the cycle going.

There are four things, then: the cost, a multinational force, a clear mandate, and a long-term plan. These should be in place if we as Canadians are going to participate after June 30 of this year.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mills. Excellently done and within time.

Mr. Mills: Thank you.

.1045

The Chairman: We have five minutes now for questions or observations. Are there comments or questions?

Mr. English.

Mr. English: This is just a comment on Mr. Mills' presentation, which I thought was very good. Of course there may be an amendment, but as I read it, the motion before us on the question of costs does list four points. On costs it says it's UN-funded, so that would seem to answer your comment. You called for multinational and it says multinational, so that would seem to do it as well.

On the third point, the clearer mandate, we talk about focus on policing, which in some sense does define a mandate. But judging by Mr. LeBlanc's comment, that is something that essentially will be the product of what we refer to here, which is what's established as the UN Security Council's mandate. It can't be done by Canada alone and of course we're not on the Security Council.

Finally, I agree with you on the fourth point. I guess my previous question to Ms McCallion reflected that. Reading Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's comment here, he seems to agree as well. I'm not sure whether that's possible in terms of the Security Council, particularly with the Chinese and Russian attitudes towards this. To put the question back to you, your points don't seem to me to differ very much from what we're suggesting here.

Mr. Mills: I guess what I'm asking is that Mr. LeBlanc clearly outline what the possibilities of UN funding are. I don't know the answer to that, except I understand that at this point China has not agreed. They cut it down to four months instead of six. They cut down the number of troops and nothing has been resolved in terms of Haiti's recognition of Taiwan. Therefore, I would suggest that says we're back where we were four months ago in negotiating with the UN.

In terms of the multinational question, again, I've heard nothing to date to say that there is anybody volunteering to get involved multinationally.

We are putting forward a resolution to the government that appears at this point to be not even a possibility. In one week's time, what does the government do with this resolution? I assume it ignores it and renews the mandate for six months. I think we need to get on the record the fact that we, the UN, should be out there shopping for partners, shopping for funding, and making sure that on June 30 we're not caught in that spiral again. That's my concern.

So, Mr. English, I agree that these don't differ, but in terms of the reality of actually coming up with that, I don't see it happening.

The Chairman: Could you quickly answer that?

Mr. LeBlanc: First of all, Mr. Mills should remember that we are not the Security Council. We are a committee providing advice to the Government of Canada on how and under what conditions it ought to accept to continue its involvement in this process in Haiti.

Second, this issue is before the Security Council, where it should be. The Secretary General has submitted a report to the Security Council, which we all have copies of. In that report, the Secretary General recommends a specific form of mission in Haiti to succeed the one that terminates at the end of June. That mission has very precise parameters and it's stated in his report.

Before we consider anything else we have to let this process run its course. The committee is being asked by the government first and foremost to support or consider supporting a resolution that engages the government to the point that's specified in the resolution we have before us or in any other way we choose to agree on as a committee, just so we make sure that we confine our focus -

Mr. Mills: Francis, maybe the question is wrong, though. If these things don't come about, are we going to not go to Haiti? That's what the question should be.

The Chairman: Yes, there's the nub.

Maybe I'll pass to Madame Debien.

[Translation]

Ms Debien, do you wish to comment?

.1050

Ms Debien: Mr. Mills, I have just one observation concerning the three points you have raised with respect to the long-term plan, concerning the clear mandate and concerning Canada's participation in a multinational force.

On the long-term plan, I fully agree with you that the United Nations will have to elaborate a long-term development plan insofar as the Haitian problem is concerned. However, I would like you to be clear on my position. For example, when a fire breaks out on my stove top, I first use a chemical extinguisher before calling the firefighters. There is an image that illustrates my position. So you think about developing some safety factors in the home.

Concerning the clear mandate, I think Mr. LeBlanc alluded to this. I think, in fact, that it is the Security Council that should define this mandate. Furthermore, on page 9 of the Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission, you have, in paragraph 34, in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c), a very clear definition of what the Security Council mandate should be. I think Canada will participate in this as it always has up to now.

Concerning Canada's presence within a multinational force, we discussed this earlier and the resolution that is now before us states it clearly: Canada should participate within a multinational presence.

Concerning Canada's possible and hypothetical participation alone in a mission, I think that would be the topic of another debate if ever the situation were to arise.

Those are the three observations that I wanted to make pursuant to the three points you raised in your statement.

[English]

The Chairman: I think Madam Debien has put it well. There are three observations rather than questions. So rather than asking for a response, which will no doubt take place during the course of debate -

[Translation]

Ms Debien: I have no problem if Mr. Mills replies to my observations.

[English]

The Chairman: Unless there's some specific question there, because your time is now up and we should be moving on.

Mr. Mills: All I would say is that I think it ultimately comes down to this. If in one week's time we don't have the things that are in our resolution, does that mean we say no? That's the question we should be answering today, because that's really the critical one.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Bergeron: Before beginning, I will respond immediately to the question Mr. Mills just asked.

If the conditions set out in the resolution and in the whereases were to be altered, should we continue our participation? If it was absolutely necessary to answer that question, I think the reply I would give would be "yes". I think we should, whatever the conditions, continue our participation in Haiti.

Ms Debien suggested that this was the topic for another debate. It would of course be desirable, if the conditions were to be altered, that we go ahead with another debate. But for the time being, I think it is important to establish clearly that Canada's participation and the solidarity Canada is showing to the people of Haiti are too important for us to try to find some means to pick up our marbles and withdraw from Haiti, on the basis of completely trivial consideratins.

In the first place, it might be asked why there is such insistence on participating in a mission in Haiti. There are several reasons that militate in favour of our participation in a mission in Haiti. First, it must be said that Haiti is part of the same hemisphere as we are. Furthermore, we have had a special relationship with Haiti for a great many years.

The chairman rightly pointed out earlier the very long-standing presence of the Quebec religious missions in Haiti. There is also, of course, a common language that unites us: French. There is as well the fact that we have in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, in Montréal, the presence of a very large Haitian community.

.1055

I have described the major reasons why we are inclined to be sensitive to the situation that exists at present in Haiti.

There are other reasons why we may be inclined to be sensitive to the situation in Haiti, and these flow directly from the choices and conclusions arrived at by the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy concerning the new concept of security.

This new concept of security, as we defined it in the report of the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy, need not be some sort of hollow word. We defined security in much broader terms. We spoke of population movements and also of drug trafficking.

We must understand that if we were to leave the Haitian people to themselves, in the state of total anarchy they were in a few months ago, and from which they are attempting to extricate themselves with the help of the international community, Haiti would become - make no mistake about it - a clearing house for the drug trade in the western hemisphere, and we would suffer directly the backlash from the anarchy that would then obtain in Haiti.

So it is absolutely necessary to maintain our participation in Haiti, unconditionally. We can of course hope that the international community will participate, not only because Canada and Quebec are directly affected or directly concerned by the situation that exists in Haiti, but also because the international community as a whole, and particularly the states in this hemisphere, ought to consider themselves affected by the situation that exists in Haiti.

You have a number of concerns in terms of costs, and these concerns are legitimate. To that I will simply say that we also wrote, in the report of the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy, that we should stop spreading ourselves thin in our interventions around the world and put greater emphasis on missions of a regional nature.

Here we have a very clear and very obvious case of a regional intervention, in our hemisphere, in which our participation is absolutely essential. Canada's direct intervention in some peacekeeping missions elsewhere in the world becomes not less important but perhaps less relevant. Perhaps we should be thinking how more effectively to orient, more effectively to focus and more effectively to prioritize our participation in peacekeeping missions and consequently think about withdrawing from some missions in favour of others, the first of which should be the mission in Haiti. That is my opinion.

We also talked about the fact that the Americans had instead elected to withdraw. Of course, but it must be understood that the Americans are participating in another way in this mission, whether in terms of training judges or in terms of training police officers. The United States is continuing its participation in this mission and you should not believe those who claim that the United States has withdrawn.

They have, of course, withdrawn their troops, and this reflects a number of factors. First, participation in peacekeeping missions is not really part of the U.S. military philosophy. Accordingly, we should not be surprised that the United States acted as they did in Somalia. They intervened rapidly to restore some basic conditions that could, first, allow the intervention of a United Nations mission and, secondly, enable countries more accustomed to this kind of mission, such as Canada, to relieve them and do their work as on-site peacekeepers.

There is also the issue of language. The United States does not have that facility to communicate with the Haitians that the Canadian soldiers on the spot in Haiti have; they are, for the most part, Quebec soldiers. This, to my way of thinking, explains the success of the Canadian soldiers in Haiti.

.1100

Mr. Mills expressed a very legitimate wish when he said other countries should participate and send troops to Haiti. However, it should be noted that among the Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Canadian contingents now in Haiti, it is the Canadian troops who are the most successful on the ground and who are perceived most favourably by the Haitian population. Why? It is because we have a very open-minded philosophy. We were talking earlier about the philosophy of community-based policing. That is more or less what is involved to some degree in Haiti, since outside their regular hours of work our troops go into the field to help the Haitian communities with some very down-to-earth projects, which are often administered or coordinated by CIDA.

I will wind up soon, Mr. Chairman. The language factor is also very important and enables our troops to be very close to the population on the ground.

I subscribe straight away to the four principles touched on by Mr. Mills and, like Mr. English, I think these four principles do not offend the resolution that is before us. I want to point out, however, that when we speak of a clear United Nations mandate, I, for one, am of the humble opinion that it is very clear. The problem is that the prevailing conditions on the ground are constantly being altered. Simply put, they complicate the participation of the United Nations, but I would say that it is a process that is in constant evolution. There are always some modifications to make to the participation and it is in light of the situation that exists at present in Haiti, and as a result of our participation in this mission for six months now, that we ought to conclude that it is absolutely necessary to continue it.

We were talking about hard choices that had to be made in the interest of the Canadian taxpayers. It is in their interest that I make this recommendation, since if we were now to pick up our marbles from Haiti, all the money, all the efforts and all the energy that Canadians have invested there so far would have come to naught; the taxpayers' money would have been completely wasted.

I would argue strongly and insistently, therefore, in favour of continued Canadian participation in the United Nations mission in Haiti.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

[English]

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Mills: We agree on an awful lot of things, I think, in terms of what's happening, and I think Stéphane would agree.

We have the Prime Minister saying we will not participate if it's not a multinational effort, if it's not UN-funded. He's pretty much made that clear. I wonder if we can introduce that as an amendment. We're just working on the details that then could be added to the amendment. I wonder what Stéphane's opinion of that is.

Secondly, he says that we have invested so much money. We did hear from CIDA that we would continue there no matter what the structure is. If it's a dictatorship, we have been participating. You know the problems with Cédras and the deal that was made. You know the bitterness in the country toward the deal that was engineered by whomever to give Cédras a golden handshake. If we just go for another six months, we might be throwing away even more money if we don't try to build something more than that. That's a concern.

The Chairman: Could I clarify your question for all of the committee? The resolution currently reads that the standing committee strongly - even as amended by Mr. Bergeron - ``recommends Canada's continued participation in a UN-funded, multinational, UN Security Council-mandated mission...''. What greater guarantee than that do you want? What could we put into this?

Mr. Mills: I'm suggesting we extend that motion - leave the motion the way it is and extend it to say that we will not proceed unilaterally. I'm working on that amendment and I'll have it for you in a second to give to Mr. LeBlanc.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Bergeron.

.1105

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: I'm not sure I clearly grasped Mr. Mills' last argument.

The Chairman: If I understood correctly, Mr. Mills was suggesting that we complete the wording by saying that if these conditions are not fulfilled, we will no longer be there.

Mr. Bergeron: I would say, to start with, that I tend to agree on what you are saying; that is, that the resolution speaks for itself.

If the conditions were to be altered, as I pointed out earlier, they would certainly be a subject for another debate. However, I do not think we can at this point go so far as to say that if the conditions defined in the whereases of this resolution and in the resolution itself were not fulfilled, we would not participate in a particular mission. I think we cannot go that far.

However, without including it in the resolution, I think we can say that if the conditions were not fulfilled, we should very definitely ask ourselves some questions about the Canadian participation and then hold another debate. I will gladly participate in it and will repeat that we should maintain our presence in Haiti, no matter what the conditions are. I think I have explained why.

What was the other question asked by Mr. Mills?

[English]

Mr. Mills: No, I think it was more of a comment about getting all of the ducks in a row, that we need to do that and have a long-term plan. I think you agree with me on that. We need a long-term plan, rather than just sort of dealing in six months. We might end up by just throwing more money away.

The Chairman: Excuse me for interrupting, but Mr. Morrison has either a question or a comment. Maybe you could deal with both at once.

Then we'll have to pass to the next speaker.

Mr. Morrison: I think what Stéphane doesn't understand here is that it is one thing to approve a certain course of action, which one would do by approving this motion, but it's quite another to state that you will not approve a totally different course of action. This is common in contractual law. You lawyers over there know that. You don't say just what you would do; you also say what you would not do.

Perhaps they're two unrelated concepts, but I think you should make it clear to the government that, although we as a committee might be willing to go ahead and back a multinational thing, under no circumstances would we approve Canadian unilateral action. That should be in there.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: I repeat that I am prepared to define what we are prepared to do within the parameters defined in the resolution. However, I am not prepared to go so far as to say that we will do nothing if the parameters are not adhered to. That is my position on this point.

As to the point raised by Mr. Mills on long-term planning, I think I addressed this question during my presentation when I said that we were dealing with a process that is constantly evolving. We are not in a position to say where democracy or justice will be in Haiti in six months. We could try to predict or to take some measures with a view to attaining a certain objective at a certain time. We are now in a position to see what has been accomplished in six months, which in my opinion is quite substantial. I do not think we could say that up to now we have been spending money to no purpose.

I will comment on another issue raised by Mr. Mills in his presentation. The issue is not simply the money that CIDA invests and would invest in any event, no matter what the existing regime. The issue is the money that we are investing in addition to the money paid by CIDA so that the conditions that are necessary for the restoration of democracy and justice in Haiti can be implemented.

The investment that we have been making for a number of months would end up as a dead loss if we were to withdraw now. I agree that we should ensure we don't continue to invest unnecessarily, without knowing whether that money will or will not have a positive effect in that country. I have discussed with some people in the country, as you have, Mr. Mills, in particular with Quebec nuns who have been working at the grass roots for some 30 or 40 years now, and who told me that for the first time they felt that something was happening and that the conditions needed for the restoration of a real democracy and real development were there in embryo.

.1110

If we were to withdraw, we would be aborting this embryo of hope that now exists in Haiti.

Thank you.

The Chairman: I will now give the floor to Mr. Dupuy.

Your time has run out, Mr. Bergeron, but I am sure that we will have an opportunity to re-examine the replies on the replies to the replies. Mr. Dupuy.

Mr. Dupuy (Laval West): Thank you very much. We have a rather well defined problem to discuss. We have to make some recommendations concerning the extension of a certain mandate of the United Nations mission to Haiti. That is the first issue.

The second issue is Canada's participation in this mission. Those are the two subjects we are addressing today.

If I begin by saying these things, it is because we can talk about Haiti in general, its future, its past, its economic development, all sorts of circumstances that could occur. But that is not the object of our discussion. The object of our discussion is the United Nations mission in Haiti and Canada's participation in that mission.

I think we all agree that Canada has a responsibility in Haiti. I need not allude to many of the aspects that link us to Haiti's history. We sent missionaries to Haiti, of course. There is a very large Haitian immigrant population in Canada. We have supported Haiti's economic development through bilateral and multilateral programs. And, more recently, we have vigorously supported the return of democracy to Haiti.

This is a multipartite policy. It has never divided the parties in Canada's Parliament in recent years. I would like to mention this; there is the linguistic fellowship that we have with the Haitian people. We are Francophones. It is natural, therefore, that we would try to help Haiti. That is the first point. We agree that Canada has a responsibility toward Haiti.

I understand very well the observations that Mr. Mills and Mr. Morrison have made on the sharing of responsibilities. We are not the only ones who are responsible in Haiti. Interestingly, the government of Haiti does not want to have only one international partner. That was their experience in the past, and they suffered from it. Thus, even from their own government's standpoint, the Haitians do not want to have only one country with them. They want to have the international community.

What is the current situation in Haiti? This is another point we have debated. Is it so desperate that we must throw up our hands and tell ourselves there is no longer any use being there? Or should we, instead, tell ourselves that, having made some substantial investments there, now is the chance, the first one in the history of this country which has experienced many trials and tribulations, to establish democracy. There is a good beginning.

I would say that, in the circumstances, at this time, yes, we ought to help Haiti enable democracy to develop and become rooted. Are there some plans? Yes, there are plans. If you look at the economic aspect of things, there are economic, social and financial policies that are being implemented with the active assistance of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Friends of Haiti. There is a vision and a development plan for Haiti that is hard to implement, to be sure, but it exists.

If you think about domestic policy, yes, there is a plan. It is national reconciliation. This is not an intention that we are trying to maintain in Haiti. There is more than an intention; there are policies and a plan. Insofar as security is concerned, yes, there is a plan and it is being carried out. Not only is it being carried out, but the most important stage has been accomplished: the dissolution of the army and its replacement by police forces.

.1115

So I don't think we can say there is no plan for Haiti and that the country is in the midst of anarchy. Yes, there are some extremely difficult circumstances, that may sometimes appear anarchistic, but there is an orientation, some policies and a plan.

I think that the United Nations mission should be maintained, since the situation is still very critical and very fragile in Haiti. I will have no hesitation, therefore, in supporting this resolution that we are being asked to approve, which proposes the continued presence of the United Nations.

I would like to propose an amendment which, I think, reflects Mr. Flis's thinking. I think, in accordance with what is happening in the United Nations, that we ought to indicate that this renewal is for six months. That is what will be before the Security Council. I fully agree with those who say that we cannot recommend a mandate without at the same time specifying a definite period. So I propose to move an amendment including the idea that the renewal of the presence of the United Nations forces shall be for six months.

The other thing I would like to add, to strengthen the resolution...

[English]

I think this goes in the sense of Mr. Morrison's and Mr. Mills'... We can strengthen the idea that this is a multinational responsibility. The very fact that we're turning ourselves to the UN and equipping the government with our recommendations to deal with the Security Council of the UN - that's the object we're pursuing - indicates that we want to remain within the multinational framework.

It is referred to in the last paragraph of the introduction, before the resolution is formulated, and I wish, Mr. Chairman, to introduce some language that would make it even more clear that we are committed to multilateral action.

[Translation]

Would you like me to present these amendments now?

The Chairman: Yes, unless you would prefer to discuss with Mr. LeBlanc to see if there is a consensus.

Mr. Dupuy: I have already had occasion to speak to Mr. LeBlanc.

The Chairman: All right. Give us the text so the other members of the committee can make their comments. It might help us.

Mr. Dupuy: Essentially, I am quite close to Mr. LeBlanc's draft resolution, but I am incorporating some proposals that Mr. Bergeron made to us. The resolution would read as follows:

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade strongly recommends the renewal for six months of a multinational mission in Haiti...

[English]

That's the first issue before us. It extends the mission of the UN, placing a date on it.

[Translation]

The remainder of the resolution reads as it is presently drafted by Mr. LeBlanc, and I would add an item on Canada's participation, given that other countries should share this responsibility.

[English]

It simply repeats in the resolution what is contained in the last paragraph of the introductory paragraphs. It says we believe other countries should also participate in this responsibility.

Perhaps, just as a concluding comment, if it can help my Reform colleagues, I remember having to deal with these situations when I was Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, where I participated in the debate on the extension of a mandate to Cyprus.

.1120

I think it is extremely difficult to go there and say, ``If you, the Security Council, do something that is unwise, then we will not act unilaterally''. I think you have to indicate what you do and the circumstances in which you are going to do it, but not issue this kind of warning, which is basically another situation.

If, indeed, the Security Council discussion came to the conclusion that there would be no renewed mandate and that no one in the United Nations would wish to discuss Haiti any more, of course it would be the duty of the Canadian government to examine the new situation. I think this is the context in which the very relevant arguments made by our colleagues should be taken into account.

But I would plead with them not to introduce this in a formal resolution of this committee. At this stage we have some time before us, and I'm sure the Canadian government would not decide to go unilaterally into an operation in Haiti without some consultation of parliamentarians.

The Chairman: We have a very short time for questions and comments.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: I will make a short comment. Simply in the interests of comprehension and the quality of the French, I would amend the end of the first part of the resolution, as amended byMr. Dupuy if, of course, this amendment is acceptable to the mover of the resolution. For my part, I am prepared to drop my proposed amendment and to adopt Mr. Dupuy's.

However, I would add the following correction. The end of the initial sentence reads: "afin d'assurer que la démocratie va continuer de se développer dans ce pays", which is a bit clumsy in terms of French, in my view. It would therefore be replaced by: "afin d'assurer la consolidation de la démocratie dans ce pays".

The Chairman: A short question, Mr. Dupuy. Mr. Bergeron referred, as you did, to the place of the Haitian community in Canada and thus to the importance of our role within this mission. In your opinion, are we making appropriate use of the presence of our Haitian community and are we helping it through our action in Haiti?

Mr. Dupuy: I have some very cordial contacts with the Haitian community, particularly in Montreal, and I think this community has always supported the government's policy, regardless of the government's party affiliation, since the Conservatives had the same policy of support for democracy. This support for democracy now takes the form of maintaining security and order in Haiti in a way that is cordial, discreet and effective.

I think that if we had some representatives of the Haitian community with us, they would be pleased to see that, through our resolution, we are confirming our desire to continue contributing to the orderly development and establishment of democracy throughout their country.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Ms Debien.

Ms Debien: Canada's assistance in Haiti is significant, as was said earlier, because the difference between the situation that previously existed and the situation now is verifiable. And that is one of the fundamental aspects in the statement of Canada's foreign policy, that is, intervening in countries in which Canada's presence can make a difference.

As to the feeling of security that the Haitian people now have, I was able to observe it and share it when, during the legislative and senatorial elections in June 1995, I was assigned to the area of Hinche, on the Lascahobas tableland, for 10 days.

.1125

Perhaps I can respond to one of the questions raised earlier by Mr. Morrison concerning the situation in the hinterland.

Lascahobas-Hinche is a mountainous region located six hours from Port-au-Prince, and thus quite distant from the major centres. As I just mentioned, I was able to observe on the spot how great this feeling of security was in the community, thanks to the presence, albeit quite small in number, of police and military forces in this country.

This feeling of security also, to some degree, promoted the assumption by these small local communities and small villages of responsibility for their own security. It took such forms as informal networks of citizens, unorganized networks for the conveyance of information on what was happening and what was going to happen during the election.

Here in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, which I am more acquainted with, we have a community-based policing system. Down there, informal citizens' community networks were already promoting this attitude of personal accountability for maintaining security in the tiny communities. This was happening because they knew that in a particular village there was a small military or police detachment.

I participated in a very down-to-earth experiment that continued subsequently. This is one of the things I wanted to say in reply to Mr. Morrison's question, in order to reassure him.

A strong Haitian community lives in my riding of Laval East and I often encounter its members. For a year and a half or two, many Haitians in the exile community have been returning to their country to see what is going on, which they were previously afraid to do.

Last week, a very happy grandmother came to show me her plane ticket. She was leaving to go and see her grandchildren this week, without fear because she was certain that down there, both her own security and that of her grandchildren would be guaranteed.

That is what the Canadian and Quebec police forces are now doing in Haiti. The Haitian people can now go out without fear, speak freely, sing, dance and resume normal life. I think they should be given every opportunity to continue doing so. I think the resolution that is before us fills this need and I fervently hope that the committee will adopt it, in the interest of consolidating democracy in Haiti.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Mr. Flis, then Mr. Mills.

Mr. Flis: Am I on for my presentation or for questioning?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): No, it's questions first.

Mr. Flis: I have a question on what Madame Debien mentioned. I wonder if she can give us some facts and figures. Since 1994, has there been an increased movement of people from Canada to Haiti? What's the purpose of their visits? Are they investing in Haiti? Is it just to visit relatives? Someone mentioned earlier that maybe we haven't approached, or haven't done enough promotion through, the Haitian community in Canada, and I think the hon. member has more Canadians of Haitian descent there than I do in Toronto. Maybe she could share that with us.

.1130

[Translation]

Ms Debien: I haven't compiled any statistics to that effect, but I am relying on my perception of the facts. The people now in the Haitian exile community initially seem to go and see what is happening and verify whether the situation has actually improved and is safer that it was. In that sense, I think the grandma who is leaving this week to see her grandchildren, and who wants to satisfy herself that they are indeed safe, is very courageous. This is the first time she could do this for many years.

It is through perceptions and the observation of small concrete facts such as this that I can personally verify whether there has been some progress.

Other members of the Haitian community who have gone and verified on the spot tell me they want to return to their country for a few years in order to help out. I know a doctor and some lawyers who, confronted with the situation in Haiti, have an inclination to help out. It remains to determine how they might do so. You sense an excitement about what is happening in their country.

I am not saying, however, that these people are prepared to leave Quebec and Canada tomorrow morning. That is not what I mean. But there is a real attraction now. People want to go and verify whether things have really changed, if only to satisfy themselves that the members of their family, whom they have not seen for many years, are safe and sound.

This is what I find and what I perceive at present. The Department, through CIDA and the NGOs that are on the spot, could perhaps give us some reports or details on the flow of the Haitian community to and from Haiti.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Debien.

[English]

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Mills: I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask about your presentation.

First of all, one of the witnesses I'd hoped we might get was someone from business in Haiti who employs people. The people who employ people there... If they're employed, they become the middle class. I was told many of these people are not able to vote, because the registration process to vote - and I know you were involved with this - took one or two days of work time in order for one to get registered. Therefore if you're unemployed you have no problem with one or two days to register, but if you're employed you're disenfranchised, because of the length of time it takes to register.

Secondly, there are 75 rich families and there are a great many expatriates. You described some of them from your riding. Again, I was told - and I can't verify this; I wish I could; I wish we had experts who could do this - these people are not investing in the country of Haiti. They may go there to visit, but they're not investing their money. They can get a better and safer guarantee of return if they invest in Canada or France or the U.S. or whatever.

It's a major concern. If they're not investing in their own country even when their families are there, that's a concern. Then, of course, there's this disenfranchisement of the middle class.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms Debien.

Ms Debien: If I correctly understood your question, you are talking about voter registration, a process that takes a lot of time for workers.

You may have noticed, in reading the materials we were given, how complicated the Haitian electoral process was.

.1135

In 1995 this population, which is 75 percent illiterate, had to vote for members of parliament, senators, mayors and deputy mayors on a single ballot. Personally, I think this electoral process is incredibly complex.

Despite everything, despite the complexity of this system and despite the problems that developed in some areas, a very large section of the population managed to vote in these legislative, senatorial and municipal elections.

In the absence of communications media and technical support, the registration process proved to be very complicated, as well.

The preparation that the election officials were given by the ICIVMIH before the 1995 elections was really very elementary. The registration process was therefore very lengthy and, in some cases, the make-up of the voters list was rather complicated. But despite everything, democratic elections were held in 1995.

Some improvements will of course have to be made in the registration process for the next parliamentary elections. And that is one of the recommendations that we, as observers, made in the wake of the 1995 election.

As to the expatriates in the Haitian exile community and the investments they might make in the country, it must be conceded that before investing in any country, any investor will ascertain the security of his investments in the country in question. Such security is not firmly established at present in Haiti, and that is why the investors in the Haitian exile community are not investing there. That is precisely why we are discussing here this morning how to consolidate democracy and guarantee security in that country.

We must take that step first before we can encourage investors in the Haitian community to invest. This preliminary step is the basis for our resolution this morning in committee; we have to guarantee this security and this consolidation of democracy before we tell investors to go ahead. This applies to any country, and not only Haiti. I don't really see why we would expect investors in the Haitian exile community to react any differently from those in other countries; regardless of the country he is interested in, an investor remains an investor.

Let us re-establish democracy and guarantee that security is maintained. Some people in the Haitian exile community may then decide to return to their country and the investors may also return to invest there. I think there is a preliminary step that we must take, and that is what we have to do this morning.

[English]

The Chairman: Before we go to Mr. Flis, several resolutions out there are wordings of the main resolution. Perhaps when Mr. Flis is speaking the various parties could discuss those. If we have to take a short break, we will; otherwise, we'll try to pass to the vote right away. But it would be helpful if we didn't have to vote on about six amendments. It would just take a lot of time.

Mr. Flis: If I hear what you're saying, while I make my presentation the other members don't have to listen. They can study the other resolutions.

The Chairman: No, Mr. Flis. Of course, our members, being as clever as they are, will both listen to you and work on their resolutions.

Mr. Flis: I shan't be long, Mr. Chairman.

I think what today's debate is all about...and I'm glad we are having this debate in public and parallel with the sitting of the House of Commons. I think it shows the maximum use of members' time, in having public debates on something as important as this issue.

.1140

The pin I'm wearing was presented to me during the first anniversary of former President Aristide's return to power, The pin says, «Rebâtir Haïti», ``Rebuild Haiti'', and I think that's what this resolution that we're going to vote on is all about.

Canada has been doing this for many years, not alone but with other countries.

This debate is also about what Canada, with all its rich resources and everything else, is all about. Canadians are well known for their philosophy, their identity, and going on record as saying, ``We want to help those who need help the most''. We put that into our foreign policy: providing aid to the poorest of the poor. I think we're doing that in Haiti.

So here's an excellent example of where Canada shows not only its short-term assistance but also long-term assistance.

Mr. Mills had concern about what our long-term program in Haiti is. I refer Mr. Mills and all members to the hand-out that the clerk sent to us, entitled ``CIDA Program in Haiti'', with the two main objectives: one, to fight poverty and, two, to strengthen democracy. Those are the two objectives.

Then CIDA lists nine different areas and how these objectives are met, how poverty is fought through job creation in the rural and the poor areas, in strengthening civil society, in the reform of the police and the justice system, in technical assistance, in energy, in food aid, in industrial cooperation, in cooperation with NGOs - $3 million a year and 20 NGOs are now receiving CIDA funding to work in Haiti - and with multilateral programs, funded to the tune of $3.2 million in humanitarian assistance to Haiti and delivered by UNICEF.

CIDA says they will review the program for the long term after June 1996. It will include long-term development activities while continuing to offer decreasing emergency aid.

New initiatives, more oriented toward the protection of the environment and promotion of women, shall be launched. The programming strategy will continue to focus on priorities such as the legal system, the training of police and legal personnel, economic reform, job reform, energy, and technical assistance.

There's the long-term plan, but it cannot be implemented if we don't have the police security there. Our two-year investment, the investment of Canadian taxpayers, can go down the drain if we don't protect that investment. I ask what better protection there could be than extending our peacekeepers' services and training of the police for another six months.

That's why I was insisting that that six-month clause be in our resolution, because it is normal for the United Nations to review its programs after six months. I'm glad that Mr. Dupuy put that in as an amendment.

I think the amendment also covers the Reform Party's concern about Canada not doing it alone. We want other countries to be participating.

I had a few concerns about the original resolution, but with the amendments suggested by the Bloc and Mr. Dupuy incorporating the Reform concerns, I think we have an excellent resolution here that we can be proud to support.

The Chairman: So the full committee will understand, Mr. Flis, in terms of positive and negative, your view is that if we make these amendments it will make it very clear that these are the conditions under which we are endorsing this initiative and that we don't have to go on and speculate as to what other conditions we wouldn't endorse.

Mr. Flis: We're making a recommendation to the government. Then it's up to the government. If the government decides not to go beyond June 30, then the government must put a plan in. But if it accepts our resolution to go beyond, then the government would negotiate multilaterally and with the United Nations.

The Chairman: Thank you. I've understood.

.1145

That brings to an end the period of discussion and debate. The bell started at 11:40 a.m. That means the vote will take place at 11:55 a.m. It's a 15-minute bell.

We have another question to put, too, which is Nigeria. We have to deal with that resolution as well.

While that resolution is being discussed, I have a very short resolution here arising out ofMr. Walter McLean's appearance before the committee the day before yesterday. Perhaps I could read it to the members and see whether there's general agreement.

[Translation]

I don't have the translation of this resolution and I will therefore ask the interpreters to translate it as I read it.

[English]

It's been suggested that we adopt a resolution as follows:

That given the high-profile role played by Canada in the drafting of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as by the continuing relevance of the Declaration as underlined by the committee's resolutions on Nigeria and Haiti, the committee supports the initiative of the United Nations Association in Canada to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration in 1998 in a high-profile and cost-effective way.

If the members feel they don't have enough notice of it or were not persuaded by Mr. McLean's appearance that we should support the United Nations Association's activity in respect of the universal declaration, we don't have to adopt it.

Mr. English.

Mr. English: I'll just say a few words because I was here when you made the presentation. There wasn't a large crowd in the committee at that time.

What Mr. McLean was asking for was a fairly detailed series of recommendations that Canada honour the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration. He's met with all provincial governments and he's also met with the relevant departments of the federal government. Several of the items he set out did not require any financing at all. They were simply declarations of one kind or another that he was asking groups to make.

The second thing he was asking for was some particular activities, which would be funded in part by the private sector and by other governments. What he argued fundamentally was that Canada had played a very large role in the drafting of the universal declaration 49 years ago and that this fact should be recognized.

The 50th anniversary of the UN was recognized last year and it seemed appropriate to move forward with this particular item. Many Canadians participated last year in that recognition, and this would recognize a very important component of Canada's foreign policy and the basis of many of the human rights declarations that Canada has made as a country and that the provinces have made individually.

The Chairman: May I take it that you have just moved the resolution I read?

Mr. English: Sure.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dupuy: I'm prepared to support it.

The Chairman: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Paré.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré: Mr. Chairman, I support this motion, but since I was absent during Mr. McLean's appearance on Tuesday, I would hope that the meetings are not limited to congratulations and that we take advantage of this important moment to continue the promotion of human rights, to demonstrate Canadians' attachment to this value and increase public awareness.

.1150

The Chairman: Mr. McLean presented us with a wide array of proposals pertaining to the United Nations Organization; the role of our committee was to provide moral support to the latter's work. I am obviously in agreement with you that the issue of human rights is of overriding importance to us and that is why I proposed our support.

[English]

Mr. Morrison, you had an observation.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I'd like a little clarification of what is meant in the motion by the words ``cost-effective participation''. What are we participating in and what does ``cost-effective'' mean?

The Chairman: We are suggesting that the United Nations Association celebrate the50th anniversary in a high-profile and cost-effective way. It will be up to them to decide. We're not suggesting by this resolution that the government spend money. This is merely a resolution to support the United Nations Association in the proposition brought by Mr. McLean.

The reason we put ``cost-effective'' in there, as I understand it, is that the drafters wanted to make sure it's clear that this is a type of activity, while extremely meritorious, for which there are limited funds. That was the intention of putting that in. It will really be up to the United Nations Association to raise the moneys necessary to do this.

Mr. Morrison: Okay, as long as there's no implication of a federal subsidy, I have no problem.

The Chairman: It's up to the United Nations Association. I don't know what their exact attempts are. They raise money from all sorts of sectors.

Can I take it that this has the general consensus of everyone?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Are we at a point where we can deal with the resolution on Haiti, or would you prefer that we go to Nigeria and come back to Haiti?

Mr. LeBlanc: I think we're close to agreement on a text for a resolution. Mr. Mills is discussing this with his colleague. If they are willing to consider the Nigerian resolution at the same time, maybe we can dispose of that while they're conferring on the Haitian resolution. You'll have to ask them.

The Chairman: Let me remind members that it's a 30-minute bell, so we have until 12:10 p.m. I apologize to members for doing it this way, but we're under pressure for time and I appreciate everybody's cooperation.

You'll recall that we did hear the evidence on Tuesday with respect to Nigeria. I think it's very important that we adopt a resolution and not just leave our work without any conclusion.Mr. LeBlanc has submitted a resolution that in essence recommends that we pursue the matter somewhat as suggested by the minister, which is to say pursue all options and ultimately come back to the issue of an oil embargo if that's the only possibility. Is that a correct way of summarizing your resolution, Mr. LeBlanc?

Mr. LeBlanc: In fact, it's a little stronger than that, Mr. Chairman. We reaffirm our endorsement of an international oil embargo against Nigeria as long as that embargo is effective and enforceable. So we are still supporting an international oil embargo provided it's effective and enforceable. That is something the CMAG and the other international groups would attempt to ascertain.

The Chairman: It's also my understanding that the committee is supporting the other initiatives the minister referred to: blocking funds of leaders, suppressing visas, generally seeking to deny access of the leadership of the country to the funds that enable them to carry on.

Mr. LeBlanc: That's right. That's stated in the third last paragraph.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Bergeron: I would just like to make an observation as to form, Mr. Chairman. It has been pointed out to me that we should be referring not to the Abache regime but rather to the Abacha regime.

The Chairman: Yes, I agree; you are right. We have already made the correction in the English version.

Mr. Bergeron: That's all.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. LeBlanc: There is a small drafting point with the second last paragraph. It's just been pointed out to me that there's an unnecessary ``and''. After ``April 18, 1996'', the ``and'' should be suppressed.

[Translation]

In French, it is "et".

The Chairman: At least that was translated correctly. We are fortunate to have you here,Mr. LeBlanc. Our parliamentary secretary has more than one hat to wear in this committee, does he not?

.1155

[English]

I will call for a vote on the Nigerian resolution.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Morrison: On the Nigerian resolution, I find most of it is quite acceptable to me, but on the second-last paragraph, where we would support an international oil embargo, I would think with the immediate history we've seen of the terrible human cost of the oil embargo on Iraq, also the ineffectiveness and the human cost of the UN total embargo, basically, on Haiti, this is not at all the direction this committee would want to move in. We are not here to recommend hurting people; we're here to recommend helping people.

We all know what has happened on the Iraq scene. The representatives who were here discussing this with us, even those who said they wanted an oil embargo, made it very clear the Nigerian economy has become oil dependent. In other words, you put this oil embargo on and you will have the same situation you had in Iraq, of people being unable to feed themselves. This is bloody wrong. You don't play politics with human lives.

For that reason I would strongly urge the committee to reconsider this international oil embargo clause.

The Chairman: Of course that was clearly the debate that took place before us. Professor Nossal was of that position. So were various others. Clearly the Nigerian people here expressed the opposite point of view, the one we're asking for.

Since that's a clear line that has been drawn, did you want to seek formally to amend the resolution by striking out that paragraph? We could then vote on that amendment and that would deal with that issue, and then we could vote on the amendment as a whole. Would that be an appropriate way to deal with your objection, Mr. Morrison?

Mr. Morrison: Yes. I would formally move, and although he's busy over there I suspectMr. Mills would second it, that we strike the second-to-last paragraph from the resolution.

In support of my motion, I reiterate that it was the people who were here favouring the embargo who did say, and they have more knowledge of it than we have, I would think, that the economy has become oil dependent. They made that very clear. If the economy is oil dependent, that means any embargo you put on is going to impact not just on the elites, not just on the army - in fact, probably not on the elites and the army. They're doing all right. They have reserves. They will find ways to go around an oil embargo, just as the Iraqis have. So the army won't suffer, the government won't suffer, but the people at the bottom of the pyramid sure as hell will suffer, if you put on a comprehensive oil embargo. On that basis, I move we strike that paragraph.

The Chairman: I think we've heard the discussion on this issue as to the merits of embargos. You'll recall this was a last resort, not the first measure to be taken, from what the minister said.

In that context, I will put the question. Those in favour of the amendment amending the resolution by striking out the reference to the embargo... I take it, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Mills, you are in favour of that. So I would say two people are in favour. Those against?

Motion negatived

Mr. Morrison: On behalf of all the dead babies, thanks a lot.

The Chairman: Those in favour of the resolution as originally proposed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Did you wish to have a recorded vote?

Mr. Morrison: You bet.

The Chairman: That vote will be recorded. [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Why don't we have, say, a three-minute recess. We have only two minutes to pass the resolution and then go to the vote.

.1200

We're going to take an informal three-minute break, so please don't leave the room.Mr. LeBlanc promises he will have our resolution ready. We'll pass it within two minutes and then we'll go and vote. Thank you for your patience.

.1201

.1203

The Chairman: Members, we have about six and a half minutes before the vote. If we can deal with this in this time we won't have to return. If we don't, we'll have to return after the vote.

Mr. LeBlanc, please quickly read the resolution as revised.

Mr. LeBlanc: I'm going to read it in English. It's the agreement with the three parties as far as I think we have it, but I understand the Reform Party may introduce a subsequent resolution.

Mr. Bergeron: Do we have an agreement on that?

Mr. LeBlanc: We don't have an agreement on the subsequent resolution but we have an agreement on some aspects of the resolution as far as the Reform Party is concerned, I think.

The resolution, in English again, is first paragraph no change, second paragraph no change, third paragraph no change. The fourth paragraph reads:

Whereas efforts to develop democracy must receive the largest possible international support for them to be effective...

I don't have an exact text for this, but we would expand that phrase to express the sentiment that has been expressed by Bob Mills, that we incorporate the need for a long-term plan for the democratic reform and building of institutions in Haiti. Perhaps after the vote we could work on the precise language of that particular sentiment in there.

.1205

The main operative paragraph would stay:

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade strongly recommends

- ``strongly recommends'' replaces ``endorses''.

This is Mr. Dupuy's formulation:

(1) A sufficiently UN funded

- ``sufficiently'' is added there to accommodate Mr. Mills -

multinational, UN Security Council mandated mission...

Wait a minute.

...strongly supports (1) the renewal for six months of a sufficiently UN funded, multinational, UN Security Council mandated mission in Haiti along the lines recommended by the Secretary General in his report of June 5, 1996; i.e., with a focus on policing in Haiti after June 30, 1996...

In other words, ``along the lines'' responds to Mr. Mills' concern that the mandate be a clear one, and the mandate we're endorsing is the one that is specified in the Secretary General's report, which we all have, in paragraph 34.

Sub-item (2) again is a translation of Mr. Dupuy's formulation:

(2) The participation of Canada in this mission, taking account of the fact that other countries must share this responsibility.

That's the approximate text of the revised resolution.

The Chairman: Are the members content to vote on that resolution as it is? We have one minute to decide. Otherwise, we can break and come back here afterwards. They can clear up the exact language during the vote. But if members are content, we can vote and go on.

[Translation]

Are you...?

Mr. Bergeron: No, it is not at all clear.

[English]

The Chairman: If there doesn't seem to be an agreement, I think I'll have to adjourn. We tried our best. We'll suspend the session until immediately after the vote.

Mr. Mills: I have an appointment from 12 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.

The Chairman: I'm not going to be here... I think we have to suspend until after the vote.

Can Mr. Morrison represent you?

Mr. Mills: Yes.

Mr. Morrison: Sure.

The Chairman: We will suspend. Please return immediately after the vote. It shouldn't take very long and we can get the language cleared up then. Thank you very much.

.1208

.1232

The Chairman: We are back in session.

While Mr. LeBlanc's discussing, Mr. Morrison, sir, you wished to make an opening comment.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, but it's to Mr. LeBlanc and he's occupied, so I'll refrain until he's ready.

The Chairman: Oh, sorry. Okay, I thought we could...

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that adding the word "sufficiently" before the word "funded", pursuant to Mr. Mills' suggestion, directly contradicts what he is trying to do. The word "funded" by itself, without being accompanied by "sufficiently", suggests that the United Nations could perhaps handle the entire funding of the mission.

By putting "sufficiently" in front of it, I think we are giving a more limited connotation to "funded", since it is then clear that the United Nations would not be funding the entire mission, in line with the spirit of the resolution.

In order to reflect Mr. Mills' point of view, I would strongly suggest that we strike out the word "sufficiently", especially since "suffisamment" is very poor French. I don't know what it sounds like in English, but the expression "sufficiently funded" does not mean much.

The Chairman: We'll see if the Reform Party will accept your helping hand, Mr. Bergeron.

[English]

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I agree with Mr. Bergeron's interpretation. That's quite correct.

When I wanted to address Mr. LeBlanc a couple of minutes ago, I wanted to find out if he has now completed the wording for the last paragraph of the preamble so that if we were to vote on this motion, we would know really what we're voting on. Have you completed that?

Mr. LeBlanc: I have a proposal for the last paragraph of the preamble in English, which I'll read now if it's in order.

Mr. Morrison: I'd like to have it written out, too, even if it's just in longhand.

Mr. LeBlanc: I can show you it in longhand, if you want.

Mr. Morrison: Well, give it.

.1235

Mr. LeBlanc: I'm going to read the last paragraph of the preamble, as I've modified it to take account of Mr. Mills' concerns.

Whereas in order to be effective, efforts to develop democracy must receive the largest possible international support and be implemented within the context of a long-term plan -

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: No, I haven't translated this wording yet.

[English]

Mr. Morrison: They must be effective within the context of a long-term plan. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. LeBlanc: That's right. I moved the last phrase, ``to be effective'', put it up front and changed the rest of the paragraph that way.

Mr. Morrison: I just don't see why we have to be so pedantic about the translations. You and I have sat on committee together where all the briefs were presented in French and nobody asked to have them translated. Why do we have to make the exception here?

Mr. Bergeron: I didn't ask that. I just asked if he has it. I didn't ask -

Mr. Morrison: No, but he wouldn't give it to me.

Mr. LeBlanc: You can have it if you want - here. It's only handwritten.

The Chairman: As chair, I will reread the proposal.

[Translation]

We will do the translation now, all right?

[English]

Whereas in order to be effective, efforts to develop democracy must receive the largest possible international support and be implemented within the context of a long-term plan...

Is that correct?

May I suggest, so that we can move things along quickly, that we vote on the preamble first and then move to the main resolution? Are there any problems with the preamble? Could I take it that this preamble is accepted unanimously by the committee?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Fine. The preamble, as amended, is accepted.

[Translation]

Mr. LeBlanc: I could read the French version of the resolution, which I have reformulated. I'll swap my Shakespearian hat for that of Molière, an Acadian Molière.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade strongly recommends:

(1) the renewal for six months, after June 30, of a multinational mission funded by the United Nations and mandated by the UN Security Council, along the lines recommended by the Secretary General in his report of June 5, 1996, i.e., with a focus on assistance to the police to guarantee the consolidation of democracy in that country;

[English]

Mr. Bergeron: That's it.

[Translation]

Mr. LeBlanc:

(2) the participation of Canada in this mission, taking account of the fact that other countries must share this responsibility.

.1240

Mr. Bergeron: "Tenant compte du fait que d'autres pays doivent..."

The Chairman: "Tenant compte du fait..."

Mr. Bergeron: "Tenant compte du fait que d'autres pays doivent partager cette responsabilité".

The Chairman: That's it.

[English]

Mr. LeBlanc: Is that clear in English? We are basically endorsing the participation of Canada in a mission of this kind, taking into account the fact that other countries will share the responsibility for that participation.

The Chairman: That's certainly the thrust of the resolution.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron, you had a comment?

Mr. Bergeron: Could we replace the expression "l'assistance à la police" with "l'assistance aux forces de police" or "l'assistance aux forces policières"?

Mr. LeBlanc: The "forces policières".

The Chairman: The "forces policières", yes, that's better.

Mr. Dupuy: It's better French.

[English]

The Chairman: In the English it will be ``police forces''.

[Translation]

Voice: Aux forces, in the plural.

Mr. Bergeron: Aux forces policières.

Voice: Yes, but aux forces, in the plural.

Mr. Bergeron: Yes, of course.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Morrison: I think we may be going to hit a wall on this particular point. Mr. LeBlanc is aware of our position that after the word ``responsibility'' we should add words to the effect that Canada's degree of participation will not exceed 25% of the whole. In other words, let's put some numbers on this. Let's have some parameters so that we're not just writing a blank cheque to the world, so to speak.

The Chairman: That's a helpful commentary.

Since you are really basically suggesting an amendment to the second paragraph, I would propose that we deal with the first subparagraph of the resolution first. I take it that a general agreement has been reached on the terminology in the first subparagraph. Mr. Morrison,Mr. Bergeron and Mr. LeBlanc are in agreement with that. Are there any objections from anyone?

We have adopted the first subparagraph, so let us pass to the second subparagraph then.

Mr. Morrison, if I can put words into your mouth, which I hesitate to do because they might be perceived as becoming evil, I understand that you are proposing an amendment to add the words ``Canada's participation not to exceed 25%''.

Mr. Morrison: That's correct, yes.

The Chairman: I suggest that we have discussion on Mr. Morrison's proposed amendment and then decide whether we wish to adopt that amendment. We can go back to the original wording if that's not adopted.

Mr. Flis.

Mr. Flis: The resolution is developing into part one and part two. I would suggest thatMr. Morrison's amendment become part three so that we can clearly vote on each item separately. Instead of trying to change the wording in part two, could that be recommended as item three?

Mr. Morrison: I think it would be difficult because if we go ahead and approve part two and we didn't approve part three, I'd be skewered on precisely what we do not want.

Mr. Flis: That's what we want.

Mr. Morrison: I wouldn't be able to support number two unless that was added.

Mr. Flis: Okay.

The Chairman: So you've proposed the amendment.

Are there any comments on the amendment or the wisdom of adopting it? Mr. Dupuy.

Mr. Dupuy: It's just a very brief comment. The figure of 25% comes out of the blue. How can we make it a cut-off when we do not even know what others would contribute and whether it would make sense or not? If I were sitting on the Security Council with this kind of proposal, I would be in a very awkward position. I think these things usually flow from the debates of the Security Council. Obviously a government has to make its own judgment, but to take a figure out of the blue like this doesn't seem to me a very appropriate way of determining the degree of Canadian participation.

We have the general principles laid down and they are well covered in the resolution. I think being specific is not adding to the resolution but rather detracting from it.

.1245

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Dupuy, I think you misheard me. I did not say ``would be 25%''. I said ``would not exceed 25%''. In other words, what I'm saying is that Canadians should make Canadian policy; the UN shouldn't make Canadian policy. If we put a ceiling on it, it could be anything from 1% up to 25%, inside that parameter. That was what I meant.

The Chairman: If I may, Mr. Dupuy's point is what happens if we need 27.5%? The whole thing would fall or something. I think he understands the nature of the debate and the purpose of your amendment, unless, Mr. Bergeron, you have...

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to what Mr. Dupuy said and follow up on the comments made to me by my colleagues. In the first place, we are talking about 25 percent of what? Twenty-five percent of the costs? Twenty-five percent of the troops? That's the first thing.

Secondly, if we announce in advance that we are prepared to make a contribution of up to25 percent, it is clear that when the Security Council has achieved the 75 percent quota, it need look no further; it will demand that we assume 25 percent of the participation. I think it is not completely appropriate to specify this proportion in the resolution.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any other comments on the proposed amendment?

Those in favour of Mr. Morrison's amendment?

Mr. Morrison, would you like a roll call vote on this issue?

Mr. Morrison: I'd like my own position recorded.

The Chairman: Absolutely. Quite appropriate.

Amendment negatived

The Chairman: Those in favour of the original proposed paragraph that was read out, as amended by Mr. LeBlanc?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I would like to conclude this session. We've adopted the three resolutions we had to adopt.

I want to thank all the members for their helpful cooperation. I think it would be worth terminating, if I may, by saying that I feel - I don't know how the other members feel - that by replacing debate in the House on an issue of this nature by debate in our committee...while we perhaps lost some of the formal nature of the debates in the House, we've had an opportunity for a better exchange of views.

I hope the members will agree with me that this has been a successful way to approach this type of issue. Perhaps we should pursue it on other occasions. It gives us an opportunity to have a frank exchange of views. We get a deeper appreciation by hearing the witnesses and conducting the debate immediately.

For myself - and I'm saying this to some extent for the benefit of those who are watching this on television - I think that one must appreciate this is a committee. We therefore must work as a committee. We must negotiate amongst ourselves and come to conclusions.

I want to thank all the members of the committee for working hard to produce a useful recommendation to the government to enable them to carry out this important foreign policy initiative.

Thank you all very much.

Yes, Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. You lost me there. I didn't hear you call for a vote on the resolution as a whole.

The Chairman: I thought we adopted -

Mr. Morrison: You just go piece by piece.

The Chairman: Having gone piece by piece...but if you have a problem with that... I understood all pieces to be adopted.

Mr. Morrison: In other words, anyone who voted against any part of it voted against the whole damn resolution.

The Chairman: Absolutely. Yes. Your objections -

Mr. Morrison: That's too bad. I would have supported it.

The Chairman: Is there a point of order?

I'm sorry. The clerk tells me Mr. Morrison's point is perfectly legitimate.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. LeBlanc: To Mr. Morrison's point of order, if Mr. Morrison would like to adhere to a portion of the resolution that has been adopted, even if he doesn't want to adhere to all of it, I think we ought to allow Mr. Morrison to adhere to that portion of the resolution that he is willing to adhere to. As far as he's willing to adhere to it, that strengthens the consensus of the committee.

So if you could be clear about what portion of the resolution you adhere to, please, we would like to -

Mr. Morrison: I adhere to it all except item two in the recommendation on the extent of this participation, wherein I proposed that there be a ceiling.

The Chairman: Fair enough.

So the entire motion is carried and Mr. Morrison's position is clear on the record that he's adhered to it all except the last paragraph, and he would have adhered to it if the limit had been put at 25%.

.1250

Mr. Morrison: If there had been a ceiling, I would have adhered to the entire resolution.

The Chairman: Thank you once again for all your cooperation.

We are adjourned until September.

Return to Committee Home Page