[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 26, 1996
.0912 
[English]
The Chairman: We're waiting for Mr. LeBlanc's arrival. He is bringing with him the resolution that will serve as at least the basis of discussion. He's on his way, but if members agree, perhaps we can begin.
I propose that we begin by hearing from Mr. Paré, because he was actually in Haiti in the last week.
[Translation]
Would you please give us a brief report on your visit to Haiti, Mr. Paré? I think you are the only eyewitness we have among committee members. It would be interesting to hear what you think about the situation.
Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): When I was on the plane, I discovered that I was a very privileged person indeed, because I was the only member of Parliament, with the exception of the Minister of course, who took part in this brief mission. It was somewhat different from the trip in September, when Mr. Pettigrew came along accompanied by five or six members of Parliament. The group was larger and was sometimes split in two, so we did not always take part in the same activities as the Minister.
On this recent mission, since I was the only member of Parliament, I was involved in all the meetings the Minister held. There were basically two types of meetings. The first involved the renewal of the mandate. We had meetings with the United Nations representatives, Mr. Enrique ter Horst, General Daigle, the President of Haiti and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. All these people were unanimous in saying that the mandate must be renewed. They probably do not dare say that this would be the last time. However, they do say that the mandate of the multinational force in Haiti must be renewed.
This time, all the parties agreed they would like a longer mandate than last time, unless the circumstances become extremely unfavourable. It will probably be the last mandate, because internally, there is some resistance to the presence of foreign troops in Haiti. The president of the country said that a further renewal would cause problems, and he therefore hopes that the current renewal will be for eight to ten months. That would avoid another debate on the issue in five or six months.
Everything looks relatively good. China is much less reluctant than it was when the mandate was last renewed on June 30 of this year. Russia seems to favour a slight, fairly insignificant reduction in the number of troops.
.0915
Major Daigle and the United Nations representative in Haiti think - and this is doubtless the view of military personnel - that the number of troops (about 1,300) is really an absolute minimum. Of course, I don't think that the withdrawal of 50 or 100 soldiers would have any impact on the effectiveness of the mission. However, they maintain that reducing the number of troops significantly would make the presence of this force in Haiti very difficult, and perhaps pointless.
Our second activity was very interesting and consisted of visiting CIDA development and co-operation projects. On Thursday morning, we were present at the opening of a courthouse that had been built with money from CIDA. Thirteen others will follow. This is a $5 million program spread over two or three years. This is an initial attempt to try to make the current, totally ineffective court system more visible. The system requires huge reforms, and this will necessarily be the next step in the process.
We also visited some much smaller projects in the shantytowns in the heart of Port-au-Prince, where poverty is everywhere. My impression is that the situation looks absolutely desperate to North Americans, but that Haitians, both the people and their politicians, are extremely hopeful and see a way out after centuries of dictatorship. They have hope in a situation in which we would find it very difficult to be hopeful.
So I'm very pleased with my trip. I was very fortunate to take part in the mission. It was an extremely educational experience, and I will doubtless be able to comment further on it in the course of our discussion.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Paré. It is rare that one of our members has an opportunity to visit a country just at the time we are making a decision about it. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions for Mr. Paré? Mr. Flis.
[English]
Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): I think we should be doing more of this kind of exchange when someone from the committee visits a place to share the information. I was in that courthouse when it had no windows and no doors and the roof was leaking, but court was in session. So I'm pleased you were there for the opening.
You were saying the feeling is that the multinational force should be renewed for another eight to ten months. I'm wondering whether you got an update of how our RCMP is doing in training their police and so on. Was there any talk of extending their mandate or pulling out?
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: That's an interesting question, because it allows me to introduce some nuances about the situation that exists in Haiti.
At the end of the next renewal, in eight or ten months, the multinational force might leave the country. However, it is clear that the civilian police force will have to continue to train the national Haitian police force. It is in the process of establishing a sort of defence staff. The 5,000 or 6,000 police officers it has recruited began their duties at the same time and their average age is 23 or 24. Three hundred civilian police officers are currently taking training. The presence of the civilian police force should definitely be extended for one or two years. That is what the various people we spoke to told us.
[English]
Mr. Flis: If I have time for another question - I met a chap from Haiti who now has an office in Montreal. His whole mandate is to see if he can help the Haitian people start up small businesses in items they can export, be it local art or whatever. Rather than giving more aid, is there any movement there to get the Haitian people to stand on their own feet, to start their own enterprises, and to take the commercial and private life into their own hands?
.0920
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: There is no doubt that the next stage in the process will have to focus on economic development. President Préval is quite clear on this matter.
The current efforts are designed to stabilize security in the country. Apparently a great deal of stability is required in order to attract foreign capital; that's what we are told in Quebec. It is even more true in Haiti. That will be the next step. The country has great needs in the area of infrastructures. For example, the road from the airport to the city is in very poor condition; you almost need a 4 x 4 to travel on it. Everything is falling apart and in a state of utter disorganization.
Your question is so much to the point that the president is even asking the troops to do concrete, visible things during the next mandate. He wants the people of Haiti to make some material gain from the presence of the troops, so that they are seen as being useful, because they will have carried out some concrete projects. So the army engineers are working on the plans to rebuild a road. The needs are very great.
I don't know how to answer your question directly.
[English]
Mr. Flis: Can I continue, Mr. Chair?
I was there about a year and a half ago now, and we did visit health clinics and a school that CIDA is funding. When I visited the school, I guess I was a little disappointed, but we have to be realistic. The school was there but the children had hardly any books. The principal ran around the school trying to find a piece of chalk because I wanted to write a message on the chalkboard. There wasn't a piece of chalk in the entire school.
Were you able to visit schools and health clinics? Are they getting the materials that they need inside, as well as the physical buildings?
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: The needs are at all levels and of all types. We were told that in the schools, a room half as large as this one held 50 students of all ages and a single teacher who tried to do the best that he or she could. The needs are so huge. The day is broken down into two shifts: some children come to school from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., while others attend from 3:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. The needs are tremendous.
Mention should be made of the fact that 35 Canadian and Quebec NGOs are in Haiti and are doing everything they can, but the needs exist in all sectors. This country is coming out of a period of 150 years of dictatorship, during which the six or seven richest families literally exploited Haiti in every possible way, so everything has to be redone. The forests were destroyed, the mountains have been ravaged by erosion, the situation is desperate. From our point of view as North Americans, the situation is absolutely incredible. It is just scandalous that we allowed this to happen at our very doorway.
Mr. Bergeron (Verchères): If we didn't know about it, we actually encouraged it.
[English]
The Chairman: Is there anyone else who would like to make an observation or ask any questions about Mr. Paré's observations?
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): If I can make a suggestion, I think it was a very good idea that Mr. Paré went with the minister. I think it's an option that should be taken on a regular basis whenever a minister goes to somewhere where peacekeeping forces are involved. It might be advisable to take one or two members of this committee, and they could then come back to exchange some information. I think it's a very good idea that he went in order to bring us up to date for a decision we're supposed to make.
The Chairman: Anybody else?
.0925
Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): I just wondered if Mr. LeBlanc would like to comment on the very favourable comments we heard at the United Nations with regard to Canada's peacekeepers.
The Chairman: I was going to call on Mr. LeBlanc to set the framework for the discussion this morning and to find out what he had proposed for us. Since you brought that up though, Mrs. Gaffney, maybe it might be appropriate for you and Mr. LeBlanc to describe your trip to the UN. Are you comfortable doing that, or would you have Mr. LeBlanc do it?
Francis LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs): Last week, on behalf of the minister, I was at the United Nations with a small group of people from the House of Commons and the Senate. Basically, it was an opportunity for us to be brought up to date on some of the issues that were facing the UN at this point in time, and that of course includes Canada's initiative in Rwanda and Central Africa.
The point that is obvious, but which was reinforced to us at that meeting - and we met with a number of high-ranking officials, such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Under-Secretary-General for peacekeeping operations, the executive director of UNICEF, and others - was the tremendous amount of respect Canada has at the UN, and in particular the respect it has gained for the leadership it has taken in this particular area. Haiti was brought up sort of incidentally at those meetings, but I think it's fair to say the United Nations would be hoping that Canada would continue to participate in a major way in the mission that is currently under way in Haiti.
The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions on the UN experience of Mr. LeBlanc and Madam Gaffney? Mr. Mills, sir.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): I'm not surprised that they're anxious for us to stay in, seeing how we're paying a large percentage of the money and seeing how they're broke. I think it rather goes without saying that they'd be happy we're going to be there.
Mr. LeBlanc: The financial situation of the UN is not a secret to anyone. There's a problem with a number of countries not willing to pay their dues. If the work that the UN does can't be financed directly out of the contributions of the member states, the work remains necessary and the UN is seeking alternative ways to finance it. That includes leadership by countries that are willing to take on a more extensive role. Canada has been one of those, and I think it has gained enormous respect for being willing to do that.
Mr. Mills: Why are we supporting Boutros-Ghali when in effect one of the reasons people are not paying their fees is the lack of reforms that have occurred under his leadership? If you talk to these people, they'll tell you that. It would seem to me that if we're really serious about the UN, we would try to be involved in finding a Secretary General who might be more acceptable and might be prepared to do the necessary restructuring. But it seems to me that we're kind of rubber-stamping - like we rubber stamp a lot of things - Boutros-Ghali when he really hasn't done anything.
Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how deeply you want to get into the discussion of the issue at hand. It was quite by-the-by in terms of this discussion.
I don't really want to go into a long discussion of Boutros-Ghali except to say that Canada supports Boutros Boutros-Ghali and is not alone in that support. Fourteen of the fifteen members of the Security Council voted for him to continue.
On the question of whether or not he's proceeding fast enough with reforms, there are countries that would argue that he should be reforming more, more quickly and in a certain direction. But there are reforms taking place in the United Nations, and Canada has been at the forefront of urging the organization to make reforms to streamline its operations to be more cost-effective indeed. We are very much involved in measures to streamline the accountability; we sit on some of the committees that are involved in looking at the way in which the UN spends its money in order to ensure that it is more accountable.
.0930
So we could get into that discussion, but I think it would be off-topic today.
The Chairman: I think it would be helpful if we have time this morning. Maybe when we've dealt with Haiti, we can come back to general UN issues. I think this is sort of pertinent, but it's just not directly relevant.
I must say very quickly that after having met Joe Connor, the American in charge of the clean-up operation of the UN - if I may say that - he seemed to be fairly positive. You probably met with him when you were there, Mr. Mills. He didn't seem to be as negative as the U.S. government seems to be, but maybe that's because he's inside the organization.
An hon. member: There's a lot we don't know about.
Mr. Mills: I think the lightning rod is Boutros Boutros-Ghali. If you removed him, you might get more cooperation.
The Chairman: Well, that's for one country.
Mr. Morrison, Mr. Bergeron, and I think I'll then ask Mr. LeBlanc to sort of set the stage for the Haiti matter.
Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): With respect to the funding of the Haiti operation, Francis, we are ostensibly being reimbursed for the incremental costs of most of the troops that we have in Haiti. Unfortunately, all we're getting is an IOU. I am wondering if you know offhand, or does anyone here know offhand, how much arrears the UN owes us right now? We all know about the arrears the Americans owe to the UN, but what does the UN owe Canada? It's a lot of money.
Mr. LeBlanc: I didn't come here with that information in my back pocket, so I'm not in a position to answer that question precisely.
Mr. Morrison: Would it be over $100 million?
Mr. LeBlanc: We have an official from the Department of Foreign Affairs, but he doesn't have that information in his back pocket either.
An hon. member: Well, we pay 100% for 700.
Mr. LeBlanc: I'm sure that information would be easily obtained, and we could undertake to have that circulated for the members of the committee.
Mr. Morrison: Yes, but you see my point. We're being good guys to the world here. We're sending troops and in effect we're not being paid for it. Are we the world's boy scouts?
The Chairman: Or are we patsies?
Mr. Mills: We've committed to pay for 700, haven't we, Francis? We pay the 100% for 700 of those troops, and we don't get reimbursed for them.
Mr. Morrison: No, it's the other way around. The UN pays us for 700, and 250 are entirely ours. I think that's the way it works.
The Chairman: Could you repeat that? You asked that question of the minister last time, and you said it was the first time you got a straight answer to the question. What exactly is your understanding when you say we get reimbursed for the incremental cost?
Mr. Morrison: Well, I talked to the rear admiral after the meeting in order to get that spelled out. There is no accounting that says they will pay to Canada the extra cost of having our troops down there, whatever that may be. What there is is a fixed fee per head that the UN pays to the people who provide troops. In our case, it just happens to work out that this is the incremental cost, whereas Pakistan, for example, makes money out of having its troops there because the fee per head is so much greater than it costs them to run their military. In our case, it's just a coincidence - as I gathered from the admiral - that we get our incremental costs when we collect that per diem.
The Chairman: My understanding of the letter we received from the minister was that when we agreed to do this, the Americans had recognized that we were sort of doing it and that there was going to be some reimbursement to us if we had costs over and above what we normally would incur. Is that a misunderstanding?
Mr. LeBlanc: I think that's roughly correct.
The Chairman: Do we have any idea of what that number is? Could we get that, maybe? Would that be helpful?
.0935
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Chairman, that is contrary to what the minister said in committee. When I raised that question, he basically said the U.S. doesn't give us anything. Everything we get comes from the UN. Remember that? He said that.
The Chairman: Maybe the U.S. is giving it to the UN, but we'll get an actual statement on this. I think it would be helpful in order that all members understand it.
Mr. LeBlanc: I think that information can be clarified.
The Chairman: That would be great. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron.
Mr. Bergeron: No, that's fine, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Before giving the floor to Mr. LeBlanc, I would like to ask Mr. Paré a question about the tolerance of the Haitians to the foreign troops in their country. You suggested that there was a political limit to what they are prepared to accept. Is this something you noticed among ordinary people or rather among the political classes? Can we differentiate between parliamentarians, the people, the opposition, the government, and so on? The perceptions must vary somewhat.
Mr. Paré: From what we heard, my impression that this feeling was expressed mainly by members of Parliament, who are seeking some power and who are discovering that in the future they will have some power. They are trying to find ways of expressing this power, and that is one of them.
Apparently in Haiti, rumours play an extremely important role. Former members of the military may well be among those who start the rumours. It seems that relations between Canadian and Quebec military personnel and the people in Port-au-Prince - because the troops are now located only in the capital, not outside it - are very positive. The relationship is much easier with our forces than with the Pakistanis. The language issue is obviously a very important one.
The Canadian military personnel travel during the day and get out of their vehicles carrying only a pistol. The Pakistani soldiers arrive with their weapons and their bullet proof vests, which is a different approach from the one taken by the Canadian soldiers. People don't seem to be intolerant about the presence of these soldiers. Rather, they are seen as a source of security and stability. I don't think that is a very significant problem.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[English]
With those introductory discussions, I wonder if I could turn to you, Mr. LeBlanc, to ask you to make a proposition. At least we could then get it formally on the table and could decide. We could then actually have a vote at the end of this session to decide what we would recommend to the government on how to proceed.
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Without wanting to prejudge what the committee would recommend on this matter, I thought a good basis for discussion would be the resolution we adopted on June 20 of this year. It contains essentially all of the elements of the mission in Haiti that the Government of Canada is being asked to continue. If we were to put this resolution on the table as a basis for discussion, only slightly modified, we could work from that. Perhaps some of the members of the committee would like to speak to that resolution, and they may want to make some amendments to it.
I would suggest a few quite obvious technical changes to the resolution for the purposes of discussion. I've also had it circulated to all members of the committee in English and in French, and I think it would serve as a basis for our discussion. The small technical changes that I would make would be, for starters, as follows: that instead of June 30, obviously it would be November 30, at the first preambular paragraph and in the main resolution; that instead of renewing the mission for a six-month period following November 30, 1996, I would suggest that it be for a six-month to ten-month period following June 30, 1996. There's some talk of it being on the order of eight months, which would bring it to the end of July 1997.
.0940
We're expecting a request from the Security Council or the Secretary General, so that part in the main paragraph might need to be changed. Certainly the specifics would need to be changed. But I think the structure of that resolution is a good basis from which to begin, with those obvious changes made.
The Chairman: Any comments, observations, questions? Mr. Flis.
Mr. Flis: I heard an amendment from across the floor that the timeline should be that we stay there indefinitely.
The Chairman: This is Mr. Morrison's proposition?
Mr. Flis: No, I just overheard it.
We heard this morning the multinational force would be expected to be there, or it would be helpful for it to be there, for anywhere from eight to ten months. Francis LeBlanc tried to address that in the motion. The UN, in reviewing its mandate - It's an automatic review every six months, is it not?
I guess I'm having problems with the six to ten months. We're going to have to deal in either six-month or twelve-month periods rather than eight to ten or six to - I wonder if we could have some clarification of that. If the UN automatically reviews every six months, how can we be talking about eight to ten months?
Mr. Mills: Maybe we should just say ``indefinitely''. Then we wouldn't have to keep having these meetings.
Mr. Flis: You missed my initial intervention, Bob.
The Chairman: Could you perhaps respond to that, Mr. LeBlanc - whether or not the UN mandate being a six-month one there would be no sense to this committee proposing a timeframe different from the one the Security Council invariably fixes, which is six months.
Mr. LeBlanc: I'm told it doesn't necessarily have to be six months. It could be for any number of months. The way in which this motion is formulated would be to allow the Canadian government some flexibility in the length of the mandate it would be accepting under the UN. We could be precise and come back if they want a longer mandate, but I'm suggesting a six-month to ten-month mandate as a window for the purposes of the guidance we provide to the government on this.
I might add one more point to the resolution itself. I have to apologize; I was not here when we had the initial discussion and the minister was here, so some of this is information I'm getting on the fly today. The ``June 5, 1996'' reference in that resolution can be substituted for by ``November 14, 1996'', which is the date of the most recent set of recommendations the Secretary General has made. Without altering the resolution any further, it can be made entirely current by substituting ``November 14, 1996'' for ``June 5, 1996''.
The Chairman: Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills: I'll make a statement first of all, Francis. Certainly this is a mission in our hemisphere and it does fit within the mandate. I have no doubt we're doing a good job; our troops and RCMP are doing a good job. We pretty much know we're going. It has been announced by two ministers. We know it's a go and we have agreed to it and so on.
.0945
I guess the nature of just presenting this, changing a few dates, takes the rubber stamp. This is just to be rubber-stamped here, and it will be. That doesn't lead to true debate, as we had in June, which I thought was more how the minister thought the committee should work, where we actually had input and discussed and so on. It seems we may have lapsed into just rubber-stamping because of all the announcements made ahead of time.
I have two questions other than the money one, which seems very cloudy. We don't seem to know who's paying what or what the U.S. is doing. It sounded as if in June they were going to pay money, but maybe they did and maybe they didn't. We don't really know the dollars there. We should know those dollars. I think Canadian taxpayers expect us to ask what the Haiti mission is costing Canadian taxpayers. That is a question that should be answered clearly, precisely, not clouded, not muddied by maybe they will, maybe they won't, maybe it's coming from here and so on.
Secondly, I wonder what progress has been made with getting the OAS involved. It is our hemisphere. There are 33 countries in the OAS and it's to their advantage to have a stable Haiti, not one starving and causing disruption. What progress has been made in getting the OAS onside and involved so that it isn't just Canada? If 33 countries were to chip in to make it work, it would certainly make a lot more sense.
Thirdly, I'd like to know what progress has been made with the 85 rich families in Haiti, with the 60,000 expatriates in Quebec, with any other expatriates in other parts of the world, in getting them to buy into the restoration of democracy or having democracy for the first time, and investing in their ex-country or their present country. We all have heard about those families that make a lot of money, live up on the hill, invest all their money in foreign investments, and yet make their money out of the country.
I pointed this out in June and I point it out again. I was talking to an official from Shell Oil, which I suggested would be a great witness for the committee, and he said that 15% of Haitians who are working, who have jobs, who are the middle-income earners of Haiti, were not registered to vote because they would have had to take days off work to register. The registration procedure to vote was so onerous that they did not vote.
Also, there is a very great feeling amongst some of those people that Mr. Aristide is either waiting until the UN and Canada leave or waiting until I believe the year 2000, when elections can be held, to literally take over. You see the guy's palace and his armed guard around it, with the palm-lined, paved driveway to his mansion, and you can't help but say that this guy came out of Cité Soleil and now is there. How did he go from poverty to being a multimillionaire? What are his plans for Haiti? Is there a long-term plan for Haiti?
These are the kinds of in-depth questions that I think we should be asking and discussing, not just rubber-stamping that we'll go for another six months. We should be talking about these questions and getting answers, and we should be demanding that OAS countries and the U.S. come up with a long-term plan. This place needs education. This place needs a plan for infrastructure. This is going to take one or two generations.
.0950
We're talking 20 or 30 years to get this place on its feet functioning as a normal democratic country, and I don't see that in this plan. I see a band-aid on a ruptured artery and just more of the same. I don't know that we're doing anybody a favour by this kind of response to this kind of very serious problem.
Francis, there are some questions.
The Chairman: I would turn it over to you, Francis, but may I ask you a question? For the purpose of this debate, obviously the whole long-term evolution of Haiti relates to this debate, because why would we put the soldiers there if we didn't see any hope for that? So I perfectly understand where you're going with your later observations. I sort of got the impression from your comments, though, that we'll never solve those long-term problems if we don't at least do this first step, as I understand it. Is that your position?
Apart from your frustration about the fact that you feel the minister has gone ahead and said we're going to do it anyway, apart from that sort of procedural nature of the debate -
Mr. Mills: I guess my problem is that we're going to spend $80 million or whatever. At the end of six months, without that long-term plan, we're going to be faced with spending another whatever just to keep the place quiet. But we really haven't solved the education, the unemployment, the infrastructure problems. We really haven't done that and we can't do that. We don't have the money to do that.
We can't commit 30 years of Canadian taxpayer dollars to that project - I know that, too - but maybe if we had 33 countries committed to making it happen, it could happen. It would not be a drain on anybody and it would be a very positive kind of vision for a country like Haiti. The reason I would say that about Haiti is because I believe that's in our hemisphere and that's a responsibility Canadians would be prepared to take on.
If this were Bosnia, I would say to the Europeans, ``You have a problem here and you should have a 30-year plan to try to get Bosnia working.'' But that's not in our hemisphere. Haiti is. So what I would say about Haiti might be totally different from what I'd say about Bosnia or Rwanda and so on.
Do you get my picture? I feel it's very frustrating to simply be committing for six months with no - At least we've heard nothing about any kind of a long-term solution to this. We know the U.S. history and what they've tried to do in their 20 years there. It didn't work either, but maybe that was because there wasn't planning. It's a very complex problem. We do need a plan, and I don't see a plan.
The Chairman: Maybe I could just ask a further question so we have a better sense of where you're coming from.
Where do you see the constraints that national sovereignty places on this sort of scheme of yours? You talk about folks not paying their taxes, election registration. To some extent, to make this thing work the Haitians have to be able to run their own country. They're not going to accept a dictatorship from OAS or anybody else moving in and telling them we're pro-consuls and you're going to do it this way, because there's no framework in international law or international diplomacy where we can do that.
Mr. Mills: They have to buy into the plan as well. Democratically, they have to buy into the plan. One of the biggest things the parliamentarians wanted to know - and remember, the attendance of the members in their Parliament and so on is terrible - was whether we were going to build them a new Parliament building and when would they get the limousine and drivers. Those are the two things that were of interest to them.
The Chairman: Maybe they need them to get to work.
Mr. Mills: We have to build democracy there, and it's going to take a lot of time.
The Chairman: Mr. LeBlanc, your turn. You can't say, Mr. LeBlanc, that Mr. Aristide is benefiting from a Reform Party tax policy - no taxes or low taxes - and that's why he's doing so well.
Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Mills would like this committee or another agent of Parliament to carry out a detailed examination of the future prospects of Haiti and how those future prospects ought to be supported by Canada in the context of a long-term plan, that may be worth doing.
.0955
The purpose of the efforts we are making, the incremental efforts - and they are incremental in terms of the size of the problem, and we recognize that - is essentially, I think, speaking personally, only an attempt to get Haiti out of the long night it has been in with the dictatorship that has existed there and try to start the basics for some kind of democracy, rule of law, respect for justice and that kind of thing, which will enable all these other things to take place.
We are contributing a very modest effort to this big task. We are doing that at the same time as we are trying to promote democracy and human rights in many of the other countries in Latin America that are part of the OAS. So this is part of a bigger problem we are working at on many fronts. And for the purposes of this discussion today, the only decision this committee has to deal with today is whether or not this committee's going to recommend to the government that we go a little further or that we stop. That's really the decision this committee is being asked to make, not whether or not we address all these big issues or whether we commit ourselves as a country to the full democratization and full restoration of prosperity in Haiti in 30 years' time. We're not being asked to do that. We are simply being asked to say, given how far we've gone, is it worth while for this government to continue supporting Haiti a little bit further? That's what we're being asked.
Whatever resources are involved - and we can find out what those resources are quite precisely, if that's something that would be important - I don't think it fundamentally alters the decision that's before us, which is whether or not we want to continue to support this country in this process toward democratization, recognizing all the risks involved and all the uncertainties and all the possibilities that it may go wrong, but with some feeling that there is a basis for hope and Canadians want to believe and want to support the success of this poor country that is so close to ours, and which some of us here on this committee have had a chance to witness for themselves. That's really the only issue before us.
If we want to get into a long, thorough analysis of the prospects for Haiti, that is a separate issue that we can do as a committee, if we can find the time among all the other important things we are doing.
Mr. Assadourian: I have a couple of questions, but I have one quick procedural question. Six months extension from June 30 will be the end of December. Am I right? Why do you say November 30, then?
The Chairman: We changed the date to November, made it six months, so it would make it May -
Mr. Assadourian: So we start in May, is -
The Chairman: No, we'll end in May.
Mr. Assadourian: It says here six months after June 30.
The Chairman: That's the old resolution. So this would be six months after November 30, I think -
Mr. Assadourian: What I'm saying is six months after June 30 will be December 31, not November 30.
The Chairman: In other words, you're saying this should say six months from December 30, rather than -
Mr. Assadourian: Yes, because we have already permission to sit until December 31, I think, from what I read here.
The Chairman: Let's get clarification on that issue. How long does the present mandate last? This is Mr. Assadourian's question.
Mr. Assadourian: On December 31 -
Mr. LeBlanc: The current mandate ends on November 30. That was five months from the end of June.
Mr. Assadourian: Oh, it's not six months, it's five months.
Mr. LeBlanc: It was five months.
Mr. Assadourian: But it says six months here.
The Chairman: We authorized - So the confusion is that the Security Council authorized it to November 30. We're already one step ahead of the Security Council.
Mr. LeBlanc: We authorized it to the end of the year.
Mr. Assadourian: That's what I'm saying. This -
The Chairman: We've gone ahead to the end of December. We're already down the slippery slope.
Mr. LeBlanc: We are saying, Mr. Chairman, this motion does not specify exactly necessarily what will be worked out between the government and the Security Council. What it does is give it some parameters. In the motion in June we gave it a six-month parameter. They took five. Now, what I'm proposing is that we give it a six-month to ten-month parameter and they may take eight or nine -
The Chairman: Depending on what they work out with the UN.
Mr. LeBlanc: Then they may come back to us, depending on what they work out with the UN.
.1000
This is a general motion that gives guidance to the government without specifying precisely what the terms of our involvement would be. That's not our job.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bergeron.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: I would just like to support what Mr. LeBlanc just said. We cannot confuse everything just to try to oppose the resolution before us. There is a big difference between the current mission, which involves stabilizing the country and allowing the government to consolidate its control, and the question of Haiti's long-term prosperity.
Is it our job to ensure Haiti's long-term prosperity? Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. I don't think that is what we're being asked to do at the moment. Should there be a concerted effort on the part of the international community, particularly the Organization of American States on the issue of the long-term prosperity of Haiti? Perhaps. Some day we will have to deal with this issue.
But we must start by ensuring that the country does not sink back into a dictatorship, instability and darkness. That is what we're being asked to do at the moment.
Personally, I have seen what is probably a unique hope in the history of the people of Haiti, the hope for genuine democratic development, for a real chance for democratic development and respect for human rights on the part of the Haitian government. In order to achieve this, we have to allow the government of Haiti to maintain its authority over the country, first by developing an independent police force, something that is not yet complete, and second by establishing a number of legal institutions, something which is not complete yet either.
Of course, we can engage in demagogy and talk about limousines, chauffeurs and Parliament. Personally, I never heard about limousines or chauffeurs, and as far as Parliament goes, I think the request is legitimate. Canada has already announced that it did not plan to respond to this request. It is not up to Canada to respond to a request to renovate or build a new Parliament building.
However, just as it is important symbolically for Haitians to see in their communities court houses which show the strength and credibility of the new justice system, I think we must also ensure we have symbol that show the credibility of Haitian democracy. The request to build a new Parliament building is entirely justified in my view.
However, and I agree fully on this point, it is not up to Canada to respond to this request. I think that at this point, we are getting into demagogy by raising the issue of the Parliament building and limousines in an effort to sidetrack our discussions, because these issues really have nothing to do with what we are talking about today.
[English]
The Chairman: Madame Gaffney.
Mrs. Gaffney: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
In some ways, I believe the resolution is a wee bit vague here. We've talked all around what's happening in Haiti. I've never been to Haiti, and I've never sat in on a very extensive discussion on Haiti, yet I really understand what Mr. Mills is saying with regard to the vagueness, the costs and the stability of the country.
I have a very close acquaintance in the RCMP who has served two terms in Haiti. His indication to me is that all that's happening is that we are preventing the violence from occurring. That in itself is a good indication that they are doing a very responsible duty. But I think Mr. Mills is saying we need to know what is going to be the long-term benefit. How are we moving along towards democratization in Haiti? These people at the upper level have siphoned off from the poor people in Haiti forever. If we don't get some kind of indication that we are moving towards democratization, then what are we doing there?
.1005
I think we do need a special session on Haiti. I agree with Mr. LeBlanc that maybe right here today is not the time to do it, but having just come from the UN - and maybe I'm sticking my neck out on this, Mr. Chair - I think we need to get a commitment from the UN that they're going to pay up. We know they owe Canada a lot of money. We don't know how much that is, but we know that they do. And this was confirmed to me at the UN.
I think that needs to be taken into account. When we say other countries must share this responsibility, what does that mean? I need to have something more specific on how they're going to share this responsibility. For example, we know the UN has played a major role in the democratization of El Salvador and Guatemala. We know what the UN has done. I think the UN needs to take a stronger role and show a stronger face in the democratization of Haiti.
Canada has played a major role. I really think we have a lot of clout at the UN. Canada is well respected at the UN, and I think Canada has that strength in itself to make strong recommendations to the UN and say you must do this and you must do that.
We know the United States is supposed to pay 25% of the bill at the UN. They've been paying 13% and 14% over the years, so they have a huge bill. It's $1 billion or so, but $1 billion is nothing to the United States of America. It's nothing to them, yet as Canadians, $1 billion would kill us. We couldn't afford to have that kind of money owing to us. And they certainly don't owe us that amount of money.
My only purpose in speaking here is to say that we should not ignore what Mr. Mills is saying. I think what he's saying has a lot of merit. We should listen to that and we should maybe have another separate meeting with regard to addressing those kinds of issues, like the costs and where we're moving and what the benefit is for Haitians in all of this.
The Chairman: But in terms of this motion, do I understand you to be saying, given the fact November 30 is the deadline at the UN, that you would put off voting on this motion until such time -
Mrs. Gaffney: No, I would not. I might alter it slightly.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mrs. Gaffney: I think we could do a six month - I think we need to maybe - On item number two -
The Chairman: I understand that. Maybe you could discuss that with Mr. LeBlanc if you want to try -
Mrs. Gaffney: Yes. It could be clearer.
The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LeBlanc.
Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, I have a small point of clarification on this matter. We could entertain, before the committee, any language that would make the motion a little clearer and give a greater comfort level to some of the members around the table, if that would help ensure greater support for the motion.
I proposed this as a basis, as a model, which covers most of the items in our discussion, but if there are areas in this motion that can be improved upon, I'm open to improvements being made to it. That's one of the ways we can deal with this motion if it's not entirely to the comfort of everyone in this room.
The Chairman: May I? Just as a procedural way, you will recall that when we originally did this, we had the same problem with Nigeria. It's sort of hard for us to renegotiate the wording of a motion with all of us sitting around this table.
If it looks like we're getting close to something where we could get some necessary wording change, I suggest we take a ten-minute break from the formal proceedings and sit down with the three representatives of the parties and see if we can work it out. I think that might be a very helpful way of doing it rather than trying to do it at the table.
Maybe I could suggest that we might just express our personal opinions about the matter here, and as we're going to have the time this morning we might take a ten-minute break to actually tighten the wording. We might put in something along Mr. Mills' idea about the need to strengthen the understanding that the fundamental reforms will be followed up, if that's the will of the committee.
I find that's appealing to me as well, because there are so many countries where in fact this is true. The elites take their money out of their own country and put it in Miami bank accounts instead of investing in their own country. I don't see us being able to deal with that in relation to this resolution, but I certainly see it as a problem. I agree with that.
But yours is more like a point of order, isn't it, Mr. Mills?
.1010
Mr. Mills: My only question is this. For Francis to come to us to prove this motion without any dollar figures is a little tough too. I don't want to make it just money, but that is certainly what people out on the street are going to be asking. To me it's a critical issue too; and there are no answers.
The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: Francis, I will just clarify and reiterate the questions to which I would like the committee to have some answers. What is the net cost to Canada of participating in this venture? How much does the UN owe us for peacekeeping over the last several months, on the cuff, not just in Haiti but overall? How much is the UN indebted to us for peacekeeping duties for which we have not been reimbursed?
The Chairman: May I interrupt you? What I don't understand about that is if they owe us money, wouldn't that act as a set-off? The next time -
Mr. Morrison: No, I raised that -
The Chairman: - we would say, well, you guys owe us $100 million; we won't send you a cheque, or we'll sit down and you give us your cheque and we'll give you ours.
Mr. Morrison: I raised that very question in the House some months ago, and Axworthy had apoplexy. I was accused of being anti-UN, anti-God's mother, the whole thing.
The Chairman: We all know that about you. You shouldn't be hurt by that. That's the persona.
Mr. Morrison: No, they are not offset, and they bloody well should be.
The Chairman: I shouldn't interrupt.
Mr. Morrison: The final thing I was going to ask before I got off on a tangent was whether the timing Mr. LeBlanc has in here, six to ten months, signifies that we can count on a spring election.
An hon. member: That's confidential.
Mr. Morrison: I want these cost numbers, really. I want to know where we stand with the UN.
Oh, the other cost one is this. Like Mr. Graham, I was suffering from this delusion that the U.S. - not the UN but the U.S. - was putting in some funds towards this Haiti project as a side contribution, not channelling it directly through their UN fee.
An hon. member: That's what we were told in June.
Mr. Morrison: Now we were told at the last committee meeting that's not true. Either Axworthy himself doesn't know what is going on or we were misinformed several months ago. I would like to know which.
The Chairman: Since there might be other observations, Mr. LeBlanc, I might suggest you hold your reaction to that and we'll go around the -
Mr. Morrison: They are just questions for which I want answers at our next assembly or whenever.
Mr. LeBlanc: You're not asking those questions as a condition for whether or not you want to vote on this resolution; you want that information for your own enlightenment.
Mr. Morrison: I gather we're not going to have a choice whether or not we vote on the resolution today. We're going to have to make up our minds without this information.
Mr. LeBlanc: I might add a little on that. It doesn't answer all the questions, but -
I might refer Mr. Morrison to the exchange he had with Mr. Axworthy when he appeared before the committee on the question of renewing this mandate of Haiti. I wasn't at that meeting, but this is what Mr. Axworthy said - and I'm just quoting from the transcript. Mr. Morrison asked questions about costs and specifically whether the U.S. is putting up the money. You asked him that.
Mr. Morrison: Yes.
Mr. LeBlanc: Here's what Mr. Axworthy said:
No, I'm sorry. We all put up the money for the peacekeeping fund of the United Nations. In fact the United States is substantially in arrears in its contributions to the peacekeeping fund. All the countries are assessed by the United Nations to support peacekeeping missions sponsored by the United Nations around different parts of the world.
I think about 550 Pakistani soldiers who are there who are also part of the United Nations force, and the United States is making a direct contribution for the support of the Pakistanis who are there. They are not supporting Canadians. We are covering the extra costs for the additional 200-odd Canadian forces members.
I think, Rear Admiral King, you said the United States is contributing about $11 million.
.1015
Mr. Morrison: This is contrary to what we were told six months ago.
Mr. LeBlanc: Rear Admiral King, who was at the meeting, said it was $8 million U.S.
A voice: Canada is contributing $8 million and the U.S. is contributing $11 million.
Mr. LeBlanc: So the U.S. is contributing $11 million and Canada is contributing $8 million.
Mr. Morrison: But this contradicts what we were told six months ago. That's why I'd like to get some numbers from the department rather than from the minister.
Mr. Mills: Francis, when the Minister of Defence came back in the House, after we asked that question in June we got the figure - and I don't remember the exact figure - of around $35 million for the six-month mission. It was $35 million or $45 million, somewhere in that ballpark. Now we're down to $8 million? I sure don't understand that.
Mr. LeBlanc: I'm quoting to you from the minister's testimony at the meeting prior to this one, where these questions were actually asked. We can go back and get more detail on those numbers, but you had a chance to ask the question of the minister, and the minister responded in that way.
Mr. Morrison: What I'm suggesting is that his response was off the cuff, and I don't have any confidence in his answer. I want to hear the answer from the department officials who know.
The Chairman: Okay. We'll see what we can do to get more figures.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré.
Mr. Paré: I would like to come back to the substance of the resolution we are considering. Since the mandates have been for short periods, it always seems like we're talking about the same issues. Perhaps if we had started by having longer mandates, we'd at least not have the impression that we are always going over the same ground.
However, I would like to point out that when Mr. Aristide came back in October 1994, 20,000 troops were present. After a few months, the number of troops had dropped to 6,000, and now there are 1,300 of them there. So there has been progress in the peacemaking efforts, and that is the phase we are carrying out at the moment. Of course, we will have to move on to the next stage, which is rebuilding the country. That is a different matter, and we will not be discussing that here this morning.
Another important point was clear. Earlier, I mentioned briefly that the former members of the military had not been disarmed, or had been disarmed only partially. As time goes on, there is no doubt that the former members of the military will be less and less able to take action in the country, because the national Haitian police force is continuing to find and sometimes seize caches of arms, and this was something it did not dare do at the beginning.
Recently, there was an attack by former members of the military, and it was found that their weapons were all rusty, because they had been buried in the ground. They could not even fire them. General Daigle told us that as time goes on, the less likely it will be that the former military will reappear. It is therefore important in our discussions about the mandate, to consider extending it for a little longer than six months - we have spoken about a period from eight to ten months - because that would contribute to stabilizing the country.
I would like to add one final point. The Haitian Parliament finally adopted the requirements of the International Monetary Fund and of the World Bank with respect to structural adjustment programs. Apparently, the programs this time are a little less severe than they were in the past, so the Haitian government is satisfied with the requirements of these programs. This is to be the first step, the one that had to be taken, in order to begin the economic reconstruction of the country.
So all the elements are in place. Now we have to ensure that the progress made in the last two years is not stupidly lost because we withdraw too hastily. That is the main point contained in the resolution we are considering. I understand that when it refers to a period between six and ten months, it could just as well speak about and eight-month period.
I'm somewhat concerned about mentioning six months. I would have preferred the resolution to refer to a period between eight and ten months, to ensure that no one thinks that the mandate will be for six months only. If we mention six months, we are suggesting that this might be enough time. Everyone we met with in Haiti told us they were afraid of a six-month period, because we might have to open the whole discussion again in six months.
.1020
There is a danger that the debate might move to Parliament next time, and that would make for a very difficult situation. I'm wondering whether we could replace the figure six with the figure eight. That is my only comment.
Mr. LeBlanc: Are you referring to our Parliament or to the Haitian Parliament?
Mr. Paré: To the Haitian Parliament.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Chairman, I would like to be on record as being in concurrence with Mrs. Gaffney's intervention.
The Chairman: Mr. Flis.
Mr. Flis: I'd like to be on record as being in concurrence with Bob Mills' intervention. I think Bob Mills' concerns and other concerns expressed around this table are with the last ``whereas'':
- 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 -
My concern about all of this is that we know what's going to happen: six months from now it's another renewal, six months another renewal. We are not giving the Haitians a clear message that 12 months from now we're pulling out or 18 months from now we're pulling out. What we're doing is pulling another Cyprus. We kept doing this for 29 years. Maybe this isn't the time or the resolution to do it, but somehow we have to give the Haitians a timeframe. You can't just keep renewing every six months. You can't plan that way.
This morning's debate has been very good, and I think we're doing excellent work and we have to continue for democracy to survive. But somehow I would like it registered that there's a timeframe during which the people of Haiti have to get on their own feet and get the ball rolling.
The Chairman: Mr. Flis, may I suggest purely technical wording? I'm violating my own suggestion that we break up to do wording, but you drew attention to that ``whereas'' clause. If we left that sentence as it is, ``Whereas, in order to be effective, efforts to develop - '' and added to it that the continued support of the Canadian Parliament and people for peacekeeping efforts in Haiti depends upon regular demonstrations of progress in this respect, it would indicate that this is an important part of the decision-making process built into that ``whereas'' clause. We can tinker with the wording, but I think it would be the appropriate place for a statement of that nature.
Mr. Flis: Absolutely.
The Chairman: The consensus of the committee is clearly developing around two elements as I read it. The committee's will is that (a) as in Mr. Paré's point, we can't pull out now because it would be irresponsible, but (b) we don't want a Cyprus situation either where there's no solution in sight. We have to clearly indicate to other members of the world community and to Haitians themselves that the long-term issues have to be addressed in a responsible and continuous way if we're going to stay there. Is that what you're -
Mr. Flis: Yes, I think that would be perfect. I would agree with your suggestion of leaving that ``whereas'' and adding another one to address that.
The Chairman: Okay, then add another ``whereas'' to that effect.
Mr. Flis: These are taxpayers' moneys. I haven't received any complaints from my constituents or anyone about our continued involvement, but there comes a point when you're talking about $100 million here, $80 million there, where you have to say, okay, there's a timeframe and at that point we're out.
The Chairman: People are willing to support something that's working, and they're not willing to support something that's just totally goofy.
Mrs. Gaffney: There has to be an accounting that the thing is working.
The Chairman: That's right.
I don't have anybody else on my list. Do we want to take a five-minute break to work on the language and then come back? Or would the suggestion already made satisfy most of the members?
.1025
Mr. Flis: We're in agreement to the intent of that ``whereas''. Maybe the drafters can work on it.
Mr. Assadourian: Can I ask you a question? If we put the limitations, say one or two years, or four or five years, what happens if you don't accomplish what you want in that time? Do we just pack up and go, and leave everything behind? Is that what we're suggesting, or am I wrong in assuming that?
The Chairman: My understanding of the will of the committee is that any decision to pack up and go would obviously be made at that time, and you'd have to re-evaluate the situation in the light of the conditions prevalent at that time. But what's wanted by the committee now is at least to send a strong signal that we expect that progress is being made. If it comes back to us six months from now and everybody says it's still the same, then there would be a lot more reticence to commit -
Mr. Assadourian: Wouldn't the same thing be achieved if you say that after six or eight or ten months we're going to review, rather than say - We are investing so much money, and then one day it doesn't work and we're going to pack up and come home. We're wasting everybody's money, I think, and the goodwill we have in Haiti, especially the Haitian people we want to help. If we turn our back all of a sudden, overnight, I don't think we'll accomplish much there.
If we put a signal, what we should probably ask is update reports. Maybe a delegation can go to Haiti, assess the situation and come back with the report, rather than us saying it has been two years, bang - it's 12:01 a.m. and we are gone. Personally, I don't think it's going to work that way.
The Chairman: No, of course nothing is ever going to be that black and white; I agree with you. It's going to be shaded. But within the shading context we want to see some movement in the right direction.
Mrs. Gaffney: Reporting on the progress made could happen at the end of each time, could it not?
Mr. Assadourian: That's what I say; we can have a report on the situation.
Mrs. Gaffney: That's right.
Mr. Flis: It was not my intention that at point A we pull out. My intention was as expressed by others. We want to see an international commitment; we want to see OAS commitment; we want to see progress.
If there's no progress, we're giving warning that there may not be an extension. That may take a period of another six months or something, but at least there will be a clear signal that because we're not seeing progress we're giving notice that we'll be pulling out.
Mr. Assadourian: So in order to assess the progress, we have to have people reporting to us as to whether there's progress or not.
Mr. Flis: I think we have that now on a daily basis.
The Chairman: May I suggest this wording, Mr. LeBlanc; it's along your lines, Mr. Flis:
- and whereas the continued support of the Canadian people and Parliament depend upon a
positive demonstration that progress in Haiti in solving the long-term structural problems is
being made with the support of regional and multilateral institutions
Mr. LeBlanc: I have no trouble with that personally.
The Chairman: I don't think that's a problem for anybody.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré, don't you think that -
Mr. Paré: Since we will probably be rewording the last paragraph, I am going to be a little insistent about this. In addition to describing the contribution of the UN mission, namely:
- - a focus on policing assistance, to ensure that democracy will continue to be strengthened in
Haiti;
- would it be possible to make an addition?
A member: What do you mean?
Mr. Paré: I am talking about roads, bridges and things that the people will see, so that they will appreciate the importance of having the armed forces because they are building concrete things for the people.
.1030
[English]
The Chairman: So Mr. Paré's suggestion in English would be, in the resolution clause in number one, a focus on policing assistance to ensure that democracy will continue to be strengthened in Haiti and the establishment of infrastructures that are visible to the population. There will have to be concrete programs there that people can see.
[Translation]
Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Paré, are you referring to infrastructure related to the strengthening of democracy or to infrastructure in general?
Mr. Paré: Here I'm really talking about physical infrastructure as opposed to social infrastructure. For instance, Canadian soldiers rebuilt a fence surrounding the international airport. It is hoped that they will build roads. They already have all the equipment they need to do this. The engineers are there already. All we have to do is ensure that their last mandate stipulates this responsibility, as requested by the United Nations representative, Mr. ter Horst and others as well.
The Chairman: By adding too many details, I'm afraid that things will get too complicated.
[English]
The Chairman: Mrs. Gaffney.
Mrs. Gaffney: I'm almost afraid to make this suggestion. I didn't see this until -
The Chairman: You've never shown that fear before, Mrs. Gaffney.
Mrs. Gaffney: If I were in opposition I would make it readily, but I'm not.
I think we all saw this just this morning. I think it's very difficult for us to make a decision. Could we not reflect upon this? We're meeting again this afternoon and on Thursday. Is it not something we can make suggestions on to the clerk of the committee, or is that dangerous?
The Chairman: We do have an enormously charged agenda. Speaking personally, we have half an hour left, and if possible we should get this matter dealt with. NATO is going to be very complicated and in many ways IFOR is more troublesome. As Mr. Mills says, this is at least a lot closer to us. There's going to be a lot to discuss in both NATO and IFOR, so if there's any way the committee could deal with this matter this morning, I would encourage it to do so. But as always, I'm in your hands.
Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills: I certainly appreciate the concerns other members have. I'm sure other members would like to see a much better plan and a score card of how we are doing. Instead of just renewing, we should be evaluating what's happening. What about the investment? What about the different classes within its society? What is the progress?
We went to see a bridge that was in the middle of nowhere. I guess we all had a vision of what a bridge was, but when we arrived at the bridge it was a culvert. There's a culvert there that wasn't there before, but it's in the middle of a field. It's hard to imagine that's progress, as Mr. Paré said. But a little thing, I guess, is progress.
It's very difficult for us to support this, having gone back and reflected on the discussions of June, when again we were under pressure to make the decision in x number of hours. We did make statements about the mandate, what had to be accomplished, the cost, and all of those concerns. To come today without any of those answers, other than just changing a couple of dates and so on, I feel there's been a lack of preparation for this meeting.
While we would, in principle, support this mission - because we can't just drop it, it's in our hemisphere and there's a responsibility - I don't think you have time to give us what we need in order to support this. A bit of a wording change is not going to do it. I really think we have to say no - not against the mission so much as against the procedure that has been followed.
.1035
Take that as you will, but I think we should proceed. You need to get this stamped and approved, and we will record our votes as they may be, but don't come back in six months with the same sorts of things without answers to all of the questions. We'll have our opportunity to ask these questions publicly.
Mr. Flis: As the motion stands, we are talking about a UN-funded multinational UN Security Council mandate mission. We're not talking about the additional forces Canada sent and is paying for. We're just talking about what is being funded by the United Nations. If that's the case, then let's keep our troops employed. They're doing excellent work.
I think the other thing we should remember is whatever happens with this resolution, the excellent work of CIDA will continue over the years, I hope. So let's be very specific here.
The Chairman: Mr. Paré's point comes back again, from a procedural point of view. If the UN mandate is six months, do we want to send a signal that we're willing to look at even eight or ten months, but, subject to the proviso earlier, we're not going to look any further unless we can get some serious answers to our other concerns, which we've now dealt with in our whereas clause?
Mr. Mills: I think it should be the same as the UN timeframe.
The Chairman: That's the question. I understand where Mr. Paré is coming from and what he's telling us because he's come from fresh on the ground and he's saying the people on the ground are saying six more months won't do it, and maybe eight or ten will.
It would be nice to give that flexibility, but I just don't know enough about the UN system and our system. When we're recommending a UN multilateral force here, does it make sense for us to go outside of the UN mandate itself?
Mr. LeBlanc, since you have spoken to the UN and been a prominent feature of the UN system, you'll have to advise us on this.
Mr. LeBlanc: I'm not an expert yet, but I understand it is a UN-funded multinational Security Council mandated mission. It's a mission that is under the auspices of the UN and funded by the UN and countries such as Canada and the United States, which are contributing to the costs of the mission out of their own resources, in addition to the moneys being provided through the UN. That is the nature of the mission.
It's under the auspices of the UN. It's financed in part by the UN and supplements to that funding are being sought from countries that are in a position to provide that additional funding, including the United States and Canada.
Mr. Flis: Sorry, I'm still not clear. The UN is paying for a certain mission composed of troops from various countries, but in addition to that Canada made an additional contribution. Does the resolution cover that additional contribution? We can allow the UN-funded portion there but withdraw the additional portion.
Mr. LeBlanc: The last line of the resolution says that Canada's participation in this mission takes account of the fact that other countries must share this responsibility.
Mr. Flis: That still doesn't answer my question.
In all due respect, I think this should go back to the drawing board - I'm as guilty probably as anyone - together with consultation with the department and everyone else, and bring it back in a finalized version. I think there have been enough concerns raised that we really can't just rubber-stamp it as a committee, as it is.
Mr. LeBlanc: I'll undertake to do that.
The Chairman: I see support from Mrs. Gaffney. I would suggest, however, that we take advantage of this afternoon. Is that too quickly, Mr. LeBlanc, or would you rather have until Thursday morning?
Mr. LeBlanc: We'll see what we can do.
.1040
The Chairman: We'll try to get this dealt with this afternoon, though.
Mr. LeBlanc: I will try to rewrite this resolution to take the concerns here into account. As far as possible, and in a precise form, I will try to provide the answers to the questions that have been raised this morning, the financing questions and specific questions regarding the nature of the mandate. I will try to provide the answers in a form that will accompany the resolution so that you will have those answers alongside the resolution when you consider it. How would that be?
The Chairman: That would be helpful.
And maybe the department could make the November 14 report of the Secretary General that's referred to here available to the members. That seems to be the document we're basing things on. That would be helpful.
Mr. LeBlanc: I would be happy to do that.
The Chairman: You might have a look at the minister's June letter to us when we did this, because it seems to me that's where the confusion about the financing is.
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Since that's the case, unless somebody else has any observations about this matter, we'll come back with a refined resolution for further consideration.
Mr. Morrison, sir.
Mr. Morrison: Before we adjourn, I just want to grumble a little bit for the record.
There is no reason why this had to be brought to us in a panic. The government has known for six months that they were probably going to be faced with doing this. We could have been facing this a month ago. There could have been some detail and some numbers attached instead of one little piece of paper. I think this is an abuse of the committee, frankly, and I hope we won't see it done this way again.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, sir.
We're here until 3:15 this afternoon, but I remind members of the steering committee that we have a fairly heavy steering committee agenda to get through. I recommend that we go immediately to Room 307 in the West Block, which is where the steering committee is meeting. We might get started a few minutes early and get through that.
Before I do, I wonder if I could put to the committee a housekeeping motion, which is before you:
[Translation]
That the committee authorize the Chair to make the necessary arrangements with the assistance of the Clerk, to order meals, on occasion, for the requirements of the work of the committee and subcommittees, and that the expenses be charged to the committee budget.
Just a comment. I noticed the other evening, that the subcommittee chaired by Mr. English had to sit a bit longer and ordered sandwiches. Perhaps this was not authorized by the committee; authorization is required. This was for the children, but even so, we still need to obtain authorization from Parliament, don't we? This all has to be done properly.
Mr. Bergeron.
Mr. Bergeron: I would like to make an observation and a suggestion. My observation is that we could have perhaps first of all discussed this issue at the program and procedure subcommittee level.
My recommendation is that I have no objection in principle with respect to this resolution, except that I would add the following statement: That the committee authorizes the Chairman, in consultation with the political parties sitting on a committee, to make the necessary arrangements, with the assistance of the Clerk -
The Chairman: So, if we want to have sandwiches, I have to consult everyone.
Mr. Bergeron: No, not everyone, but representatives from the parties.
The Chairman: You mean the two other parties?
Mr. Bergeron: Right.
The Chairman: I don't see any problems with that. We will include your addition.
[English]
Does everybody else agree? Okay.
We are adjourned until 3:15 p.m., but I suggest that the steering committee members go straight up to Room 307 so we can get going earlier. Thank you very much.