FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 11, 1997

• 0911

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Order, please. Since I'm gavelless this morning, I wonder if I could have the indulgence of the members.

[Translation]

Today, we will hear the testimony of Mr. Bernier, who was recently appointed ambassador to the Republic of Haiti.

Good morning, Mr. Bernier, and welcome to the committee. I believe you have already distributed a comment, but perhaps you would like to take five or six minutes to talk about what's in the document. Then we'll go on to questions.

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the Republic of Haiti): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I was told to prepare a text of about 15 minutes in length to give you the essential points. Then I'll answer your questions.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, first I wish to thank you for inviting me before your committee to speak on Haiti, a subject of current interest. I'm even more comfortable with the knowledge that not long ago a number of you were among my colleagues.

[Translation]

I have been on duty in Haiti since mid-September, and have had the opportunity to gain some familiarity with this fascinating, captivating country, with the Canadian people there and with the operation of our embassy. Haiti is a country in which Canada has played an important role for a number of years. We were among the leading international stakeholders working toward a return to democracy there. We have participated in successive missions of the United Nations, both in the military component, which was led by a Canadian general, and in the police component, supplying it with some major contingents.

Here I would like to hail the work of Brigadier General Robin Gagnon, Colonel Gaston Côté and their predecessors, as well as police chiefs Gérald Chartier, Jacques Tanguay and other commanders.

We have a substantial development aid program in Haiti, and a large community of Haitian origin in Canada, numbering about 80,000 people, not to mention the 3,000 or so Canadians living in Haiti.

[English]

Haiti is currently in the midst of a period of transition. For the first time since 1994 there will no longer be any soldiers under an international mandate there. Our 600 or so soldiers will be returning to Canada, most of them on December 15 and most of the others around the end of January or the beginning of February.

The United Nations missions that have succeeded one another since March 1995 and in which Canada has participated significantly have played a key role in promoting stability in Haiti, recovered since the return of the constitutional president in 1994. With this stability, democracy has been able to take root slowly. Institutions have been strengthened and economic reform has been formulated. Some feel these developments are too slow, but we must not lose sight of the troubled history of this country, especially the ten years preceding the return to democracy.

• 0915

[Translation]

The excellent job done by our soldiers has helped to give Canada a positive image in Haiti. In addition to their military tasks, they have accomplished humanitarian work, assisting clinics, schools and orphanages in various ways, often during their spare time. The work done by our police has also been commended by all, and they have been a major force in promoting the concept of community police in Haiti.

We continue to be concerned over the political crisis that has persisted since the resignation of Prime Minister Rosny Smarth last June. President Préval's first prime ministerial choice was rejected last September by the Parliament. Currently the incumbency and government program of Hervé Denis, the new Prime Minister Designate, is before the Parliament for ratification. Despite criticisms levelled at the slow pace of this process, it must be borne in mind that the current political debate is taking place in a democratic context, even though the newness of Haitian democracy requires constant clarification of the rules and some confusion remains over their application.

[English]

The economic situation remains difficult in Haiti, where unfortunately must of the people have seen no improvement in their living conditions. As you know, Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. The unemployment rate is about 60%. The rate of growth of the country's economy should be about 2% in 1997 and the inflation rate 17%, with a population growth of about 3.5% yearly.

[Translation]

The Haitian government has acknowledged that a program of economic reform is essential to sustainable development. A number of such reforms have already been adopted, not without difficulty. Their application has been slow for a number of reasons, among them the institutional weakness of the Haitian state and opposition from vested interests. Another obstacle to development is the country's weak infrastructures.

With the support of the international community, the Haitian government is trying to slowly remedy this situation, among other things, by the construction or restoration of roads and privatization of public corporations. There has been a notable improvement in infrastructures in the past three years.

Thus Haiti is facing many challenges as it seeks to strengthen its institutions, develop its economy and improve the living conditions of its people. Through our aid program and our participation in the United Nations missions, we have supported the efforts of the Haitians in this area, and will continue to do so.

[English]

From the viewpoint of institutional enhancement, like the United Nations, we realize that the fledgling Haitian police force must become an effective, professional body, respectful of constitutional law and human rights. The new force was created in 1995 after the Haitian army was disbanded by former president Aristide.

Through our contribution to the United Nations civilian police, we have played a high-profile role in this area. Our CIVPOL contingent peaked at a full 100 members a year ago.

Although the police force has made significant progress, it continues to need international support, as indicated especially in the report of the United Nations Secretary General last October, leading to the adoption on November 28 of the Security Council resolution to create a new civilian police mission in Haiti for one year.

Canada will be supporting the development of the Haitian police in the future by two main channels. There will be a contribution of 24 police officers to the new United Nations civilian police mission to strengthen the intermediate command of the Haitian police, especially in the provinces. There is also a CIDA bilateral program, $15 million over 3 years, to provide some 20 technical advisers attached to the various divisions of the Haitian police. It will also strengthen the common structure.

[Translation]

Cases of abuse, corruption and mistreatment of suspects have been unearthed in Haiti and are related to the inexperience and institutional weakness of the police and the structural weakness of Haitian civil society. However, one should note that an understanding of responsibility, and the rejection of impunity, which Haiti has traditionally lacked, are now spreading. Thus the general inspection service has intervened in 400 cases of abuse by police officers; some 200 police officers have been dismissed as a result of these investigations; others are still under way.

• 0920

I would like to say that I lead a team of 15 rotational, Canada-based employees and 46 locally-engaged. They work under often difficult conditions, and I am very proud of them. The operating budget of the Embassy is about $2.5 million. There are four sections: one for political, economic, commerce, public affairs and cultural matters; one for the aid program; one for immigration; and one for administration and consular affairs.

[English]

Trade between our countries was about $33 million Canadian in 1996, including $29 million in Canadian exports. We are trying to stimulate trade and co-partnership, but current difficult economic and political conditions are limiting the efforts of the embassy and the private sector. There is interest, however, as attested by last November's Canadian visit by a mission of 12 Haitian business people in Montreal, Quebec and Ottawa.

[Translation]

Poverty reduction is the main objective of Canada's aid program in Haiti. To achieve our goal, we emphasize good governance and stimulate development, both economic and social, in order to help the people meet their basic human needs. Our annual budget has stood at around $40 to $45 million since October 1994, the date when bilateral aid was reinstituted after the return of a constitutional government.

To foster good governance, in addition to supporting police development, we have a support program for the judicial system. The judicial reform has stalled in Haiti and has hindered the country's development in a number of fields ranging from private investment to police. With other donor countries, we are looking at how we can promote this reform. Our good governance projects include institutional support for the Justice Ministry, rehabilitation of the courts, human rights advocacy, improvement of the customs system and support of the privatization program for government corporations.

[English]

Canada is fighting poverty by supporting the savings and loans banks and other grassroots organizations, and by rehabilitating economic infrastructure in the primary, secondary and environmental sectors. We are seeking to recover the jobs lost in industry by stimulating energy production. By way of Hydro-Québec International we are financing the supplying of equipment, the installation of electrical generators in Port-au-Prince, and technical assistance to improve the managerial capabilities of Électricité d'Haiti.

[Translation]

The fight against poverty also consists of improving access to basic social services. Dozens of Canada NGOs and hundreds of church people, both Catholic and Protestant, are working in education and health with the support of CIDA counterpart funding. The partnership program between Canadian and Haitian universities has introduced new areas of study. Food and emergency aid are being provided by the humanitarian programs. This kind of food aid not only helps to improve the nutritional situation, but leads to development projects as well. In addition to the rehabilitation of schools and clinics, bilateral projects are gradually being added to empower women and to improve the environment and the quality of education.

[English]

In terms of immigration, the Port-au-Prince office is responsible for Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Family members are the main group of immigrants from Haiti. The rate of rejection in Haiti is one of the highest because of the use of false documents and false family relationship claims. In the absence of acceptable documents, we often have to use DNA analyses to check the family relationship.

Our rate of visitor visa rejection is also high, but comparable to that of other western embassies. A number of tourist visa applicants find themselves unable to prove that their financial situation would enable them to visit Canada or that they would have an interest in returning to Haiti.

[Translation]

Nonetheless, the Port-au-Prince office issued more immigrant visas to Haitians during the first 11 months of 1997 than during the corresponding period in 1996. And in 1996, the office issued 3,856 visitor visas and rejected 2,860.

I have just completed a survey of Canadian activities in Haiti. I feel that so far, we have made a useful, much appreciated contribution to sustainable and democratic development in Haiti and to improved living conditions. I am convinced that we must continue these efforts, in concert with our international partners, and I plan to work with this in mind during my next term as Ambassador.

• 0925

[English]

On behalf of my wife and the staff of the embassy, I would be delighted to welcome you in Haiti this winter.

[Translation]

I will close by revealing to you that, as ambassador of my country, I remain a proud Beauce native, an ardent Quebecker and a passionate Canadian.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have at this time. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. We'll move on to the question period.

Mr. Mills.

[English]

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): I'm sure we'll all appreciate that offer, particularly in January and February.

I want to welcome the ambassador.

I guess I have a few questions I would like to have answers for. The first one, the most basic one, is this. The Haiti position has always come from out of the Department of Foreign Affairs because of the difficulties there. So the appointment has always been someone who has had a pretty senior understanding of foreign affairs issues, in contrast to places like Boston, in which they have always been political appointments. This obviously poses a question with your appointment there in terms of your background in foreign affairs and your ability to deal with some of the issues. I'd like to deal with the questions that come to mind in that regard in terms of the diplomatic posting.

First, I'd like to know your understanding of the China, Taiwan, and UN concerns when it comes to the negotiations such that a future UN decision might have to be made in regard to Haiti. It would seem to me that the difficulties we had last time getting UN action could in fact happen again. I want your comments on that as well.

I'd like to know what you think about how you could help as a Canadian to smooth those relations. As well, with the U.S. history of being there since the early 1900s, and having spent more than a decade there, U.S. relations become extremely significant. Obviously Haiti is a bigger problem to the U.S. than to most other OAS countries.

Third—and I guess I'm really concerned about this—we have spent over $500 million there, we have been there a long time, and we have 60,000 to 80,000 Canadians who are of Haitian origin, but my understanding is that we still have an 85% illiteracy rate and an 85% unemployment rate.

I went out on patrol with troops when we went to a Haitian barracks that had trained police. There were sixty police officers there, and we had to beg to get two of them to come with us on a night patrol. When we did go on that patrol, while we were in flak jackets and helmets, they stayed in the truck because they said it was too dangerous out there. I wonder how this police force can all of a sudden take over the policing in the country.

Again, the judicial system was corrupt. There hasn't been a lot of retraining of judges. As well as that infrastructure, I see Mr. Aristide surrounded by guards in his white palace with his paved road and his palm trees lining the entrance. This fellow came from Cité Soleil. He came out of that poorest of the poor areas and into his palace. I question whether he is not simply waiting for his future in Haiti, which may not be a democratic one.

I see not a lot of positive potential in Haiti. The prime minister and his cabinet resigned, of course. I assume the elections basically didn't work.

So with all of that background, I wonder if you could tell me what you think the future is and what you think your role will be in dealing with China, Taiwan, the U.S., and then potentially Mr. Aristide and infrastructure.

• 0930

The Chairman: Perhaps I could just remind both members and you, sir, as our witness that we're trying to keep these to ten-minute interventions by each one as we first go around. So there are about five minutes for your answer. I'm not saying I'll gavel it immediately, but if we could keep it within a ten-minute framework, I have quite a few other questions coming from other members.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Bernier: There are five or six questions there.

The Chairman: That's the problem. You have six questions and four minutes to answer them. It's not fair, but that's the system, which you know as well as I.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I'll answer them in order of importance. The first and no doubt the most important for the member is the one on my abilities and qualifications. I imagine that's what you will want me to answer best, but I can try to summarize the rest.

[English]

I have demonstrated throughout my extensive life of service to the public, especially as a member of this Parliament for thirteen years, my dedication to the constituents I represent and to Canada. I took over my responsibilities in Haiti four months ago, and I can assure you that I have the full confidence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Government of Canada.

There are close and historic ties between Haiti and Canada, in particular Quebec. Prior to my posting I visited numerous Quebec companies and NGOs that have connections with Haiti. There is no doubt that I will promote the interests of all Canadians throughout my segment in Haiti.

I received extensive briefings before my departure. I have previously travelled to Haiti as a member of Parliament. I have demonstrated a keen interest in that country and in Canada's extensive efforts to engage and assist Haiti.

[Translation]

My role as ambassador is to defend and promote Canada's interests and to project an accurate image of our country. As regards my background, I'll tell you that I've been in the field of communications for 25 years. I was a radio host, journalist and public relations officer for a number of large companies. I have worked in public relations, in business for 12 years and in politics for 13 years. As for my previous experience with la Francophonie, as Vice-President of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association for many years and as a member of the AIPLF, I proved my marked interest in the field. Lastly, this position is consistent with my convictions.

I have supported federalism here. I have tried to project the best possible image of Canada, in Canada and in Quebec. I've tried to define our country. I have advocated its unity and I continue to advocate it outside the country. I promote it because that's my role. I've loved this country and I have appreciated it.

I believe I was prepared to occupy this prestigious position. I would simply like to tell you that I accepted the proposal to become ambassador so that I could project beyond our borders a true picture of Canada and the services that Canada can render to other countries. It is undoubtedly a disproportionately great honour to represent this prestigious country around the world. Canada is an open, generous country and Haiti is a strategic point for us.

I work with a great deal of passion to represent this country. This must come through in every way, through actions, words, signs of encouragement and an understanding of their problems.

So, with regard to what the member said, it is understood that I obviously am the Ambassador to Haiti, but I'm particularly interested in what is going on around the world. We know the histories of all the countries mentioned by the member, but I would like to pay particular attention to Haiti.

Four years ago, Haiti was living under a repressive, authoritarian regime headed by a dictatorship. There were no democratic institutions. The army was corrupt and violent and there were more than 500 assassinations a year. No legal remedies were available to anyone. There was an international embargo. There was no public or private investment, no private services, no electricity, no roads, no education and no health care.

• 0935

The country is now headed toward greater security. In 1994, there were 20,000 US military personnel in the country. In 1995, there were 6,000 UN military personnel. In 1996, there were 1,300 UN military personnel and, at this time, there is no longer any military presence in Haiti. That shows you the progress that has been made to date.

Today, I don't believe there are any coups or state violence. The police are generally respected. You referred to this a moment ago. International aid has resumed and will be accelerated. Services are gradually improving. There are democratic elections, a Parliament which will soon be operating, a titular prime minister and also a Senate.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, excuse me for interrupting, but time has almost elapsed. However, could you please answer the four specific questions that Mr. Mills asked regarding relations with China and the United States? Would you tell us whether your expertise qualifies you to comment on Security Council problems concerning China's position with regard to Haiti and, particularly, whether your relations with US politicians whom you have known since you were a member have afforded you a privileged relationship with the United States. I believe that was Mr. Mills' question.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I believe China and Russia have responded favourably to Mr. Préval's request. The Security Council vote was unanimous. So I don't see why I would debate here an issue that has already been resolved. China agreed, as did Russia. Last year or a little earlier, they may have refused to provide their support, but what is important is what has been decided.

[English]

Mr. Bob Mills: The issue really is Taiwan and Haiti's recognition of Taiwan. That's the issue China is upset about.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Bernier: That has absolutely nothing to do with my position. They have recognized Taiwan, but that doesn't mean that Canada is obliged to do the same. We must respect their decision. We must not interfere in a country's domestic policy, as we do not interfere in its legal system.

We must have an overview and know that particular action has been taken, but it is not for me to judge and to say here in public what I really think about the subject. That's not my role. That is not one of my duties. I don't see why we would go on about China, Russia and Taiwan, whereas I am the Canadian ambassador.

The Chairman: No, no, all right, but you were not exactly asked whether it was wise on Haiti's part to have recognized Taiwan. You were asked whether, in your opinion as Canada's Ambassador to Haiti, the fact that Haiti had recognized Taiwan was inflaming relations between Haiti and China in such a way as to prevent any settlement of the Haitian question within the United Nations. That's the question. However, I believe you already gave your answer last year.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: We could explain it, but there isn't enough time. We are at the end of the session and people have already packed their bags and are ready to leave. I've already been in that situation.

I could answer the member at greater length, but I respect your decision, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: All right. We'll now move on to Mr. Chrétien and perhaps we'll have another chance to come back to these issues if we have the time.

Mr. Chrétien.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my friend Daniel Turp for affording me the opportunity to sit in on your committee this morning, mainly because we are receiving the new Ambassador to Haiti, Mr. Gilles Bernier.

Mr. Bernier, I have before me a copy of the Privy Council order dated July 10, a little more than a month after the last election. I would like you to explain in a few seconds, because I am new here, the first paragraph where it states that the government "appoints Gilles Bernier as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the Republic of Haiti".

Would you please explain the meaning of those two words which I find intriguing?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Do you really find them intriguing?

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Well, it's the first time I've ever seen that.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: That's the usual designation of an ambassador who has full powers to represent his country in foreign countries. I am my government's spokesperson. I do not have to make political decisions, but I must apply the decisions that are made by the various departments concerned. "Plenipotentiary" means, if you will, that you have full powers.

• 0940

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: That's correct. Mr. Chairman...

The Chairman: You have full powers, but provided you seek the Minister's permission.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: If you want to do a good job, you always have to be well informed. If we had full power and authority, we wouldn't need government officials.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I know perfectly well, Mr. Bernier, that you served your apprenticeship in the House of Commons. You said so yourself. I remember that, when the time came to vote, you often said: "As Ambassador of the Republic of Beauce, I vote with the government."

Mr. Bernier, you spoke about your career and your experience in life. You were elected in 1984 as a candidate for the Progressive-Conservative Party, reelected in 1988 with the same political party and, lastly, for logistical problems—I wouldn't want to bring that up again—you ran as an independent candidate in 1993, fortunately for you, since that enabled you to get reelected.

The Liberal government did what it did with Léonel Beaudoin, who was the social credit member for the riding of Richmond at the time. It appointed him to the Canadian Wheat Board, called a bi-election and got Alain Tardif elected. No doubt you will remember him very clearly. Some said that, at the time that occurred, in 1973-1974, the government had bought the riding of Richmond by giving the member a job. Some malicious gossips...

The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien, you know as well as I do that Standing Order 110 states that the witness is here to talk first about Haiti and his qualifications for the position of ambassador. The other situations, which may be as you say, have nothing to do with his situation. I always try to give members a lot of freedom, but I believe you have crossed the line of good behaviour which we usually draw in this committee.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I was coming to my main question.

The Chairman: If you asked your question right off, you could ask other after it.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Bernier, did Mr. Jean Chrétien give you the opportunity to choose other countries than Haiti, or did you choose Haiti because it was the country you would have adopted if you had had the opportunity to have dual citizenship?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Are you talking about Mr. Chrétien, the Prime Minister?

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Absolutely and exactly. You've understood me correctly.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: It's quite unfortunate the Chairman won't allow me to answer the first question. May I? The Christmas holidays are coming, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I know and I respect your wishes, but I hope you will comply with the standing orders as well.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Will you give me a minute to answer the first question?

The Chairman: Absolutely not, because we are not here to talk about that. We are here to talk about your duties as Ambassador to Haiti, and only about that.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: The question is so complex. I would have liked to answer the first part because I am very comfortable with that. But what is your question that doesn't concern that?

The Chairman: You don't need to talk about your position, if I properly understood Mr. Chrétien's question. The question—and I'm not quite sure it's in order—was about the possibility that you might have had other duties than those of Ambassador to Haiti. Obviously, you are here to talk about your qualifications for the position you were offered, not about things that might have been possible in another world, and so on. There must be no speculation. Questions must concern your qualifications as Ambassador to Haiti.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I sat as a member for 13 years, through three terms: two as a Conservative and one as an independent. Last spring, after discussing the matter with my family, I decided not to run for a fourth term, even though four of the five parties represented around this table asked me to go to work for them. Would you like me to name them?

• 0945

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton-Centre, Lib.): Yes, go ahead.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bernier. I understand you.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Bernier: While people laugh, I'm losing time.

After that decision not to seek a fourth term, I received proposals from the business world, from prominent Canadian and Quebec companies which offered me positions. Following the election on June 2, I was a completely free man, and the Department of Foreign Affairs, no doubt because it had seen me in action during my years here and knew my background, asked me whether I wanted to stay in the job market or go on unemployment insurance. Are we entitled to it?

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: No.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: We're not entitled to unemployment insurance.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Employment insurance.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Employment insurance.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): You're not eligible for it.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I was asked whether I would like to hold the position of Ambassador to Haiti. That was obviously an extremely acceptable proposition and I answered yes, first of all to represent my country. I believe that, as a result of all the efforts I have made over the years to promote Canadian unity and Canada's image, they believed in me and that I had the necessary skills.

I should say to the member for Frontenac—and excuse me if I disturb you—that there was no deal to get me to leave politics, to come back to the public service as a representative of my country.

I have always supported the great causes of governments in power, both Conservative and Liberal. I've even taken the liberty of voting on a few occasions against my party and recently against the party in power, but I always explained my decisions. If perhaps I was seen to have the skills and judgment for this position, I thank the good Lord for giving them to me. I have no regrets. I realized at the time that some political opponents did not appreciate the fact I supported a federalist candidate in the last election, but I was completely free to do so.

I have to tell you that, in my view, there was continuity. The next member for the Republic of Beauce had to be a federalist, someone who believed in his country, someone who could love his country and defend the interests of Quebeckers here in Ottawa. The only person in the ranks who had all these qualifications and all these opportunities was the current member for Beauce.

I really don't hold it against those who claim I might have taken part in some sort of deal. In my mind, it's very clear: business is business. I decided to continue working and I was offered this position, and I am very glad of that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Brison.

[English]

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, Mr. Bernier, I'm a Conservative, and we actually have a member of our caucus who is also Gilles Bernier. I was a little concerned when I first read of this meeting, because I thought his appointment would be premature, and we can't afford to lose anyone.

The Chairman: Well, Mr. Chrétien was coming, but anyway....

Mr. Scott Brison: A funny member of caucus.

I do recognize you demonstrated significant political judgment very early in your career in running as a Progressive Conservative. We're all allowed a couple of lapses of judgment after that, I suppose. In fact my riding of Kings—Hants was represented by Pat Nowlan, who made a similar career path decision at about the same time. However, he wasn't positively rewarded.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: But he was elected independent.

Mr. Scott Brison: Yes, that's correct, absolutely.

• 0950

I'm a little wet behind the ears here, and being a humble Nova Scotian I work very hard to try to catch up as quickly as possible. One of the things I really have found very beneficial in Ottawa, as a member of Parliament, is that one can pursue activities at the committee level, which represent either your level of interest in those particular areas and/or expertise. In my case it's been interest, as opposed to expertise, but we're working on the latter.

Were you ever on the foreign affairs committee, or the defence committee, or immigration committee, for instance, when you were in Ottawa?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Bernier: In 1984, it was employment and immigration, and I was a member of the committee. As for the others you named, I wasn't a member. I was the chairman of my caucus. I sat on a number of other committees concerning my riding, such as the agriculture committee, but not those you mentioned, except the immigration committee in 1984, 1985 and 1986, I believe.

[English]

Mr. Scott Brison: I would have assumed that you would have had some interest at that point that would have been demonstrated at the committee level, but that's neither here nor there at this point.

I have a couple of questions on specific issues and tools that can help Haiti. When you look at the economic situation in Haiti, it's particularly dire. Are you familiar with the economic tool of micro-credit? Are you familiar with the term “micro-credit”?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Yes, we had meetings here, while I was a member, with people who came to give me information.

[English]

Mr. Scott Brison: I would assert that it has a significant potential. One of the roles that Canada can play in the rebuilding process in Haiti, or any countries we're involved in, is actually helping develop through economic tools such as micro-credit a sound economy at the grassroots level. That's something I believe we should explore. Perhaps Canada and you, Mr. Ambassador, can be a vehicle for ideas like micro-credit in that area.

I see you've had some experience in media. Recently when we were in the former Yugoslavia, as part of the foreign affairs and defence committee trip to the former Yugoslavia, at the offices of the high representative we learned of the use of media, both in terms of dividing the country and creating conflict, but also now the positive use of media in trying to maintain peace. I would be interested in your opinion on the potential of media as a tool in Haiti. I would also suggest, if you haven't already, learning more about the use of media in the former Yugoslavia and what they're trying to achieve by using media. I would appreciate your feedback on how you feel media may be used, or at least feedback on what the current media situation is in Haiti.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Thank you, sir. You said yourself you are new here and very young, but I see there is much hope for you. You belong to a political party which...

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: A promise.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: ...has had success in the past, and I'm particularly pleased to see that there is another member who has the same name as I, Gilles Bernier. I hope he will take as great an interest as I did in the House of Commons and in the various committees.

You mentioned micro-credit. We have conferences planned for the month of February with people who want to come and meet Haitians and embassy people, but CIDA, through its economic development in Haiti, has an operational savings and credit system, an operational system of agricultural cooperatives and agro-forestry models. It's in the program. We have budgets for 1998, and I believe we can easily include the suggestion you're making. Perhaps I could also inform your committee as soon as we've had our meetings on this particular subject, on the developments that we can support in Haiti in particular.

• 0955

As for the media, in Haiti, there has only been a free press, a press that does its duty, in the past few years. All the media are well covered, radio, television and, in particular, newspapers. The newspapers are particularly interested in politics. They are also interested in all the countries helping Haiti and taking part in its development.

Personally, almost every day, I do interviews on radio stations there and television interviews to explain our programs. Previously, there was no free press. There was a dictatorship. That wasn't so long ago. So this phenomenon is quite new in Haiti. I believe they are learning to live with it and politicians, business people and the general public are cooperating with the media. I believe the press most often send out positive messages. Sometimes they are critical messages, but I believe that's normal in a democratic country. So Haiti is well represented as regards information by people from the country.

[English]

Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Ambassador, congratulations on your appointment. I believe that, in a previous life, you were an excellent ambassador for your riding, Beauce, here in Parliament. In any case, I think you'll be an excellent Canadian Ambassador to Haiti.

You are an experienced parliamentarian. When I presided over the fate of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association, I had occasion to see you at work in the context of la Francophonie and I must say you did a superb job.

You said you were a visible, available and accessible member. Those are three very useful qualities in an ambassador. I would like to hear you talk about those three qualities, visibility, availability and accessibility, which you had as a parliamentarian with respect to constituents in Beauce.

I don't know whether you have an example of the humanitarian efforts of our military personnel in Haiti.

Lastly, and perhaps I'm speaking here as a former head of the bar in Quebec, what progress has been made on justice in Haiti? Is there any collaboration or cooperation with the Barreau du Québec, for example? Should efforts be made to step up legal aid between our Canadian bar associations and Haiti?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Sir, you embarrass me a little when you ask me to repeat what you said about the good aspects of my personality, but I feel fairly comfortable talking about that.

When the Minister of Foreign Affairs asked me to be as effective in Haiti as I was in Quebec and in Canada in the public relations field, I said I would do my best and that I would be visible, available and accessible throughout my diplomatic career. That's extremely important. That's the basis of everything. You also have to be alert, vigilant and attentive to everything that can happen, while remaining an effective spokesperson for this country, Canada, in Haiti.

You spoke about the humanitarian efforts of our military personnel. There were 650 soldiers in recent months and now there are none. They have all left. Those 650 soldiers were true ambassadors for Canada. They were a credit to Canada everywhere, not only in ensuring stability or keeping the peace as part of the UN force because they were associated with the United Nations, but particularly during their free time. They took action everywhere in Haiti. You are undoubtedly familiar with Haiti's needs.

• 1000

They built schools and dispensaries and dug wells and irrigation ditches. These soldiers included people who had experience or expertise in a number of building trades. I visited all the projects and I even opened a few. There was financial cooperation from CIDA and the UN Development Program, UNDP, and from other countries, but very often it was Canada that made the main financial contribution, but particularly a material and physical contribution.

So these soldiers returned home saying they had done their duty in Haiti. When it was announced they were leaving, all the citizens I met, peasants, people in the street and business people, told me only good things about our military personnel. They did not invade the country when they arrived as part of the military force. They did not impose, but rather cooperated with the local population. They did nothing but good, and today we are paying tribute to them upon their return.

For these soldiers and police officers, who have families here in Canada, it's not easy to leave for three, four, five or six months and go to work in a country where the situation is particularly difficult in a number of ways.

They have no regrets, but on their left shoulder they always wore the Canadian flag, of which they were extremely proud, and they were recognized by other military personnel as a result of that flag. They had easy access to the local population. They took part in orphanage support programs. I personally saw some of them in the hospitals and orphanages, wearing their military uniforms, trying to comfort and support people. They were not there merely as military personnel to keep the peace or maintain stability.

This morning I take the liberty of congratulating them and wishing them a happy return home. If all foreign missions conducted themselves as this one did in Haiti, it would be fantastic.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Ambassador, I would like to hear you on this last point, justice and cooperation. Should we step up this cooperative effort between the Barreau du Québec, for example, and justice in Haiti?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: We have here in this room senior officials representing CIDA who could definitely respond to your proposal. From the standpoint of democracy and governance, we have programs already in place, effective organizations for defending human rights and promoting women's rights. We also have organizational structures and functional administrative systems which we are introducing, all with police cooperation.

We have helped establish a school for judges, where 60 judges are now studying. In Haiti, a judge is not appointed after so many years of service as a lawyer, after a solid career, but rather after leaving university. Judges are appointed and told: "You're qualified to become a judge." They're given a course. We are participating in this school.

We have also helped establish an information service and a law library with the help of the Canadian government and CIDA. It is called the information centre for lawyers and justice officials.

So we have a lot of programs to put in place and we have promising small budgets. I believe the organization you mentioned could undoubtedly make a contribution. Thank you for offering its services as former president of the bar.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: There were two questions, Mr. Ambassador, concerning the current state of justice in Haiti. Obviously, as you said in your introduction, justice is essential in establishing good governance. There is a certain amount of scepticism about the quality of justice. Even if a suitable justice system were never introduced in Haiti, a certain respect for institutions could be inculcated.

• 1005

In your view, is progress being made or does much remain to be done? Should Canada be doing more? The committee has already considered this subject on a number of occasions.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Mr. Chairman, you may have made a somewhat pessimistic remark in saying that it would never be introduced.

The Chairman: I shouldn't have said that; you're right. That was going a bit far, but let's say that the members of this committee may wish to take advantage... If the president of the bar wants to go there to plead a case, will he be heard or not?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I can state a wish: I hope that all the members around this table are still members when justice is well established.

The Chairman: You are the Santa Claus of all our hopes.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I agree that small steps have been taken since the countries that are friends of Haiti helped bolster the country's democratic, legal and police institutions. The task definitely requires time and a lot of patience and understanding. But progress will be made through the contributions not only of the United Nations, but also of all the countries that send experts to try to build a system similar to our own, which is an excellent system since it is cited as an example everywhere.

The crime rate is of course relatively high, but it is comparable to that of neighbouring countries. The police force is very young; there are nearly 6,000 police officers in a country of 7.5 million inhabitants. There is no longer an army to lead the country. This police force is making some progress, despite its organizational and material deficiencies. I believe it will always need our support.

As regards justice, this past year, we built 14 courthouses in the country, together with the judges school. These courthouses do not resemble the courthouses we see in Canada, but are very good places that were built with CIDA's participation and other contributions. I have opened seven to date. Twelve new courthouses have been built and two have been renovated. In material terms, this is already more acceptable than was previously the case. A good effort has been made.

The task is now to put in place structures that will foster respect for the rights of all citizens. The task is to train judges. This is a long-term effort requiring major investment. Canadians have already been delegated in the field by various organizations and have come to share their expertise and knowledge.

In Canada, we have people in the police field and legal field who have recognized qualifications and are capable of teaching the people there. Programs are already in place and Canadians are already working in the field. Of course there are irregularities, Mr. Chairman. There may be more of them than here in Canada. We're not used to it.

However, we have to understand that the country is recovering from a very difficult situation which it experienced over decades and decades. It is a new democracy, a very young democracy, a democracy that is learning. We have to pardon them many things and learn to understand them. Small steps are being taken every day. Over the years and with patience, we will definitely be able to make Haiti a fairly well organized country.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

We'll now move to the five-minute question period. We have Mr. Mills, Madam Folco, and Mr. Turp. Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I guess you've raised a lot more questions than you've answered.

Our soldiers did a great job while they were there. I think that all of us who watched them work can agree with that. But I think we have some problems with your comments about the mission having been a success.

• 1010

As I mentioned, the prime minister is not there, the cabinet resigned, and the parliament hasn't been working since June. We have Mr. Préval, who appears extremely weak; we have Mr. Aristide standing by; we have an education system that hasn't changed. As for the police system, to call it young is being very kind. We have all kinds of records in the last three or four months of police brutality.

We have a UN-sponsored, mostly Canadian human rights group of 64 people from which I asked for a report two years ago. I'm still waiting for that report. I don't know what they're doing there.

We have a situation where Mr. Clinton basically promised that he would have the U.S. forces out of there on February 28 and he delivered, and of course Canada picked up the ball and tried to run with it.

I wonder what sorts of talks you've had with the U.S. ambassador to understand what the U.S. position is going to be and what the OAS position is going to be if in fact Haiti blows up again. I know the long U.S. history. I wonder what the U.S. ambassador is telling you about their position if in fact problems arise in the new year.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Bernier: You mentioned that there was no prime minister, no cabinet, no government in power, no working senate, unlike what we have here. Our Senate works very well.

You referred to Mr. Préval and his weakness, and to Mr. Aristide who is standing in the wings. In spite of everything, you are trying to establish a relationship with our military personnel. Our military personnel did an exceptional job in maintaining stability; that was their role under the UN's auspices. However, I don't see what relationship our military personnel can have with all that you say is deficient in the country. Soldiers are not politicized people. They are there to provide their support to the population as a whole.

[English]

Mr. Bob Mills: The soldiers did a good job, but they're gone now, or they're leaving. Now what happens in Haiti? What do the U.S. and the OAS do about that? I know about the Argentinian force, the rapid reaction, the 22 RCMP, but what happens next?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Bernier: The UN Security Council passed a resolution that is effective immediately. Three hundred police officers will be in the field in various areas and various fields, depending on their qualifications and duties. One hundred and fifty-six Argentinian soldiers will maintain a force or presence prepared to go wherever their intervention proves necessary. The United States still has some 500 men in the field under a bilateral agreement between the United States and Haiti which is not part of the UN agreements.

As this time, as we speak, there is nevertheless a certain amount of stability. You may perhaps say that there is instability, but the instability is stable. There is nevertheless a certain amount of stability in the country.

The United States is Haiti's next door neighbour. It has interests to protect, something that everyone knows. Ambassador Swing, who will be leaving his position at the end of his year, has spoken to us about this very openly. The United States is as interested as we are in having this country work. There are bilateral agreements between the United States and Mr. Préval's Haitian government concerning security, including the airport. It should not be forgotten that they have graciously built a hospital on site, which is obviously always important and that it will continue to exist.

We have helicopters in the field, including five Griffons which will return to Canada this week since they belong to us. However, we still have material there, not necessarily in case of a revolution or uprising, but simply to continue helping this country should the need arise in various sectors.

• 1015

I see nothing embarrassing about the United States going about its business. We are going about our business regardless of the United States; our government is making careful, well thought-out decisions and providing us with necessary support. The departure of the troops is perhaps a good sign, since there were no riots following their departure or great celebrations either. Many people will miss our troops, not because they were there to protect them, but mainly because of the humanitarian aid that Canada provided.

So I don't see what could be the subject of any further questions this morning. There may be minor fits and starts somewhere. That's normal. That happens around the world, even in countries where you least expect it. I believe we are close enough to Haiti to be able to protect our Canadians who are there if need be. We have made all the necessary arrangements for that.

At the start of your remarks, sir, you said you had requested a report in Haiti and that you never received an answer. That was definitely not during my term. I don't know whether you contacted the Canadian Embassy. But if I can be of help to you and send you the report you wish, please let me know.

That's my answer.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Ambassador, allow me to congratulate you on your recent appointment.

Like many people around this table, I went to Haiti not long ago for professional reasons, in fact to represent the Government of Canada. What I saw was a country that had been levelled both economically and from the standpoint of justice. I won't go on about that; you made a complete presentation about it earlier.

I would like to tell you that I see an important element in Canada's participation, cooperation and assistance in Haiti because I feel that aid must continue. I'll ask a question about that in a moment. This aid should continue because, if we don't continue to help Haiti, we will increasingly have immigrants coming from that country who, because of the great social and economic disparities between their country and ours, will be difficult to integrate into Canada. We have to be frank about this.

As part of your term and responsibility, how do you view Canada's role in the immediate future, from the moment you were appointed, in reestablishing Haiti's economy and social life which, in my view, were completely destroyed? How can we help the country get back on its feet and continue helping it and ensure that immigration between the two countries amounts to a normal flow and not a flood?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Thank you, Madam. CIDA has undertaken to allocate a budget of CAN$43 to $45 million over the next three years to help and continue supporting this country through our development programs.

We want to improve living conditions; that is the goal of our government. We are providing food aid and support for basic needs. We have a literacy support program which is extremely important; we know that 65 percent of Haitians are illiterate. We are offering support for adults and young people alike in the schools. Small community development projects will continue. When I return next week, I will be opening a number of dispensaries that were built with CIDA funding.

I should say that, when we talk about construction, we're not talking about excessive outlays. We're talking about basic construction: a concrete building or a shelter that may sometimes prove extremely useful to Haitians. Last week, together with Canadian soldiers and members of CIDA, I opened a small school on the top of a mountain that will be attended by some 200 students.

• 1020

Before we built that school, the children had to walk three hours in the morning to get to school and three hours in the evening to go home, not on paved roads, but on tortuous mountain paths. They walked six hours a day. The children want to learn and the parents want at least to give them some education, even if they can't afford to give them everything. Canadian nuns are teaching at that school. Two hours have been cut off their travel time. They only have to walk an hour in the morning and an hour at night as a result of this building, which cost us only CAN $8,500. Without the participation of the soldiers that built it, we would have had to pay for labour. The soldiers built the school on a volunteer basis and it will be there for a long time since it is well and solidly built.

The nuns asked us for a Canadian flag so they could display it. I would be very pleased if the member for Frontenac passed over it and saw the Canadian flag when he came to visit.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: We'll take a picture.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: And if you think it's a little tattered, I'll give you another one and you can raise it there.

These are the programs we have set up there. We also have an agricultural production support program, which is extremely important, and an environmental protection program. This is a country that had nothing of any kind. It was a country where everything had to be done. In a few years, with the aid of foreign countries, of the international community, particularly Canada, we will be able to say that we have achieved tangible results that will serve this people.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Bernier, if there's one qualification that you have and that I believe we should all recognize, it is that you express yourself well in our language, in the beautiful French language which the Haitians share. It's quite an honour that an extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassador should express himself so well in the language of Molière or Michel Tremblay. I believe we should acknowledge this and that you are demonstrating it here today.

I nevertheless find a few things surprising. Our Reform colleague said that this decision to appoint you Ambassador to Haiti signalled a fairly important change in Canada's foreign policy. A career diplomat has usually been appointed to this position, someone fully conversant in the arcana of Haitian politics and in the arcana of UN and inter-American politics, a person with these qualifications to hold this fairly important position in Canadian diplomacy.

The Bloc Québécois expresses the same surprise and, to a certain degree, the same concern over this change which, despite what you may think of it, suggests that it was a political appointment, perhaps not as partisan as that of Ms. Clancy who appeared here, since you have no Liberal background as such, but nevertheless a political appointment.

Having said that, we share the concerns of our colleagues on this issue. I believe it is important that the Department of Foreign Affairs know that this is a concern that we are entitled to have and that we will continue to have throughout this Parliament. I would not really like to question you about that, but rather about your federalist convictions, which you have spoken about at length during this interview with the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. You spoke about your role in the promotion of Canadian unity in Haiti.

I have two questions on this subject and I would like to have clear and sincere answers. Do you believe your role is indeed to promote Canadian unity in Haiti?

• 1025

Do you believe your role is also to inform Haitians and the Haitian government about the actual political situation as it is presented in Canada and Quebec, in particular the existence of a significant sovereigntist movement in Quebec?

I would especially like to know whether you believe, as Canada's Ambassador to France, Mr. Jacques Roy, has written and repeated on numerous occasions, that you even have a responsibility to return here to Canada as part of your duties as ambassador and to organize conferences, if you are asked to do so and wish to do so on the promotion of Canadian unity?

You are undoubtedly aware that Mr. Roy came here in recent weeks and gave a series of talks in which he often promoted national unity here in Canada, which we criticized him for. I would like to know whether you would do the same and whether you feel that would be appropriate.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: You've included a number of questions in one. Thank you for your kind words in the first part of your remarks. Perhaps I could answer you in Creole:

[Editor's Note—The witness spoke in Creole]

Make friends where you can, for who knows what tomorrow may bring. Perhaps that will meet your expectations. But there's another Creole expression that I like:

[Editor's Note—The witness spoke in Creole]

If you dry your corn in the sun, watch out for rain. In other words, we must all look to our own interests.

So much for the promotion of Canada. I won't hide and I won't conceal my feelings as a Canadian; I've always been very proud to be a Canadian. I know that we, Anglophones and Francophones, have helped build this country. If we have the international reputation we have, it's because we have developed programs that meet the public's expectations. We live in a country that is extremely rich in all respects and very open. Why not say so outside our borders and cite ourselves as an example?

If you believe you should not be a supporter of your country, I don't see what I'm doing as ambassador. I accepted the position because I believe in this country. I love this country and I love saying so, not only in Canada, but also there, in the course of my duties. Of course, I don't get up every morning saying: "I'm Canadian and proud of it." It's through our acts that we prove we're proud of our country.

In Haiti, I'm inspired by the fact that Canada has given a number of its missionary sons and daughters, who have been working there for more than 60 years in a spirit of self-abnegation, intense dedication and sacrifice. These people inspire us and they are proud to be Canadian. And we are proud to see that, over the past 40, 50 or 55 years, there have been missionaries posted or training there—permanent trainees, perhaps—providing consolidation to this people.

My role is the same. They have proven their selflessness. I'm not prepared to show this kind of selflessness because I am too old, but I believe that this is the kind of language that must be used. The promotion or a very acceptable promotion of our country means that we are proud and that we live well here. The proof that we live well in Canada is that people from countries all around the world want to come here, legally or illegally, and Lord knows we see cases of this kind.

I believe we must use the language of peace rather than the language of discord, aggressiveness or violence. I'm not claiming to come and speechify here in Canada, in any case, not in the coming weeks and months. I'm very comfortable saying in Haiti that I'm Canadian, that we have a good country, that everything works quite well and that we have parliaments, both federal and provincial, that are well structured, and more.

I don't want to go any further. I have a role to play there. No one can prevent me from saying that I love my country and from citing it fairly often as an example.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I understand why you feel it would not be appropriate to give talks on national unity here in Canada as part of your duties as ambassador.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: That's not quite what I said.

Mr. Daniel Turp: No, but I would like you to clarify what you think on that point.

• 1030

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I never said that.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I want to understand what you said on this question.

The Chairman: You can't ask him questions on the Minister's policy; you have to put that question to the Minister. If the Minister asks an ambassador to come and speak in Canada, the ambassador cannot say that he won't adhere to the department's policy. You have to put that question to the Minister, not to the ambassador, who must obey the Minister's order.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Doesn't the ambassador have an opinion on this?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I currently support the policy of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of National Defence and CIDA, as well as all the other Canadian government organizations with which we deal in Haiti.

I accept that policy and I defend it there. When we talk about national politics and Canadian unity, I certainly can't hope that the country will fall apart and break up. I've lived in this country and I expect to live here for a long time yet. However, I am prepared to say that we have every opportunity to tell Haitians to observe what we do. If there are examples that we can give them to improve their fate or situation, so much the better. I'm not there to discuss Quebec sovereignty. Canadian unity is enough for me. And that's already a lot.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Do you inform the Haitians about the existence of a sovereigntist movement in Quebec?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: No one asked me any questions about that.

The Chairman: I give the floor to Mr. Assadourian, after which we will adjourn.

[English]

Very quickly, Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes.

Welcome to this committee. I really congratulate your appointment. It's a fine appointment, as far as I'm concerned.

Mr. Ambassador, I wonder if the Government of Haiti is not the enemy of the people itself. The reason I say that is because if you know the history, and I'm sure you do, there used to be a guy named Papa Doc and then the Baby Doc, then Mama Doc. They robbed the country in daylight. They robbed the country to the last penny. Now my colleague there mentioned Aristide living in a mansion and everything else. If these guys were living on an ordinary salary, how would they get in this position?

If it is going to be a bottomless pit for us to send the money there and these guys rob their own people and the foreign aid, wherever it might be coming from, where is the end to this thing? That's the question we have to ask. Is the government there the public enemy number one, or are they sincerely trying to help their own people to come up from this poverty? I am confused.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Bernier: You're referring to Haiti's ancient history in talking about Duvalier's dictatorial regime. Today we are facing a much different situation.

The current president, René Garcia Préval, is definitely not an enemy of the people. He is very close to the people. He is sometimes criticized for withdrawing and waiting for events to happen, but I know perfectly well, having associated with him fairly regularly, that he is close to his people and that he is all for the public good.

Préval is not a rich man. He is not a millionaire. Préval is currently president and is trying to find a solution to the political crisis. A few months ago, he named a prime minister in waiting; the Cabinet rejected his choice. Mr. Hervé Denis was nominated and his case is currently being reviewed. We hope that the Parliament and Senate will be able to make a decision in the coming weeks.

Since you refer to the president, I will tell you that he is very concerned about the fate of his fellow citizens. He notes, however, that progress is gradually being made as a result of international aid and support.

You spoke about poor Haitians, who have no money and come to Canada. It should not be forgotten that there are more than 80,000 Haitians in Canada, particularly in Quebec. A number of members of the Haitian diaspora have settled here in the Outaouais region, in Vancouver, in Toronto and, more particularly, in Montreal. A number can afford to help their families or fellow citizens from Haiti. They visit Haiti regularly and provide financial support.

• 1035

This may also help the gradual reconstruction, the idea that we can help relieve their impoverishment and give them some consolation.

Of course, the dictatorship Haitians have experienced for decades has left its mark. But at least there is a will to escape from their situation, among elected senators and members and among the people in the president's circle in the national palace.

What we have observed, and what the Canadian government has also observed through its agencies is that we have taken action and do not regret it. We have not squandered funds. The funds we have invested in the past three or four years have never been paid directly to individuals; they went directly to the public and that is an observed fact. We have very experienced officials in the field to monitor the situation. We know that, in other countries, dictators used to receive large amounts of international assistance and squandered those funds without the public being able to benefit from them. I must assure you that, in all our programs, there have been absolutely no misappropriations of funds and that no one in any political or other position will be able to benefit directly from our contributions or money.

The Chairman: A question from Ms. Debien for information not political purposes.

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval-Est, BQ): Good morning, Mr. Ambassador. In the last paragraph of page 4 of your presentation, you raised the question of immigration between Canada and Haiti. My question goes beyond Canada-Haiti relations strictly speaking and concerns the migratory flow between Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

You know as well as I that there have been serious migratory problems between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Since I'm particularly interested in the issue of human rights, I would like you to give us an update on this Haiti-Dominican Republic human rights issue, more particularly as regards the rights of Haitians in the Dominican Republic. We know that there have been serious problems. Do they still exist? I would like you to update us on that.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: The two governments have agreed on a number of points and we can say that the tension has been vastly reduced. It should not be forgotten that this is a neighbouring country situated on the same island and that there is easy access to it. The Dominican Republic is a well-organized country, better organized than Haiti. It has not been through the same difficulties as Haiti, but immigration there must be controlled, which is entirely normal; that is what Canada and the United States do. This country cannot afford to be invaded and must be able to meet the needs of its people.

Ms. Maud Debien: I'm not questioning the appropriateness of the control the Dominican Republic exercises over immigration, but rather the human rights situation of the Haitian population living in the Dominican Republic.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: The Haitians have had a difficult time in that area, but these problems are now much less acute. There's a chance of finding a solution that will please everyone.

However, there are still problems with respect to the protection of human rights, both in Haiti and perhaps the Dominican Republic. But this is increasingly being monitored. As a result of all the systems we are putting in place with the aid of other countries, we will one day achieve a more acceptable solution than that seen in recent years regarding human rights in general, which you are speaking of, but also women's rights, which are also extremely important there.

Ms. Maud Debien: In your opinion, the living conditions of Haitians who are living in the Dominican Republic have improved.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: They are improving. Relations between political leaders are a little better. It is in their interests to protect the populations. Haitians try to make Dominicans understand that they have rights, but human rights are attacked in all countries and we have to be vigilant.

• 1040

The Chairman: Mr. Ambassador, on behalf of the members of this committee, I would like to thank you very much for appearing before us this morning. I am certain that all committee members would like to wish you every success in your new duties. It is perhaps with some jealousy that we will be thinking of you in February, when we return to Ottawa.

Good luck and a safe journey to Haiti. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Bravo!

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Mr. Chairman, committee members, if your committee wishes to take a delegation of parliamentarians to Haiti, we will move heaven and earth to give you the warmest of welcomes. In particular, though, we will move heaven and earth to show you, in the field, what Haiti is really like, what its inhabitants have been through and the gradual changes that can now be observed.

Thank you for inviting me. I wish you a happy holiday and I'm persuaded that, with the number of political parties in Parliament, everyone is on virtually the same wavelength. I wish you all every success and thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

We're working hard with Mr. McWhinney to see whether a resolution can be worked out on Algeria. Could we pass to that now, Mr. Turp? Are you ready to do that, or do you want to stand it down so we can discuss it later?

Mr. Daniel Turp: No, but I want to do this before we adjourn.

The Chairman: We have another hour. Mr. Turp and Mr. McWhinney are working to save us all time, so why don't we pass, then?

The next business, while it's shown as being in camera, we don't have to do in camera. The next business of the day would be the third report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. The clerk is distributing it. We need your approval of it. Members, you have before you the third report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Why are you presenting another motion? You know we presented a motion this morning.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Is that a crime against the nation? Don't I have the right to present a motion?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but we presented a motion too.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: The people in my riding asked me to do it, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In the same meeting, like us?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: We had a meeting on this last session, remember?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but in the last meeting we said to the chairman and the committee that we wanted to present a motion.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I had this last week.

An hon. member: Bill, we've started now, okay?

The Chairman: Yes, we've started. As for the report on the agenda, I want the approval of this from the members, if I could, please.

You'll notice that as for the situation in Algeria, which is the first item, we're going to do that, so I don't think there's any need to discuss it.

Members will note that it was requested that we ask the new ambassador appointed to Myanmar, formerly Burma, to appear before the committee. Do I have the agreement of the members of the committee as a whole to—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Where are we now?

The Chairman: We're now looking at the third report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. We're at the third paragraph. We were to ask the ambassador from Burma to appear before the committee so we could learn more about Burma. That was a request, I believe, from Mr. Robinson.

• 1045

Do I have agreement? Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, we raised a matter of consideration by a joint subcommittee—

The Chairman: Is this on the point of bringing the ambassador from Myanmar before the committee?

Mr. Charlie Penson: No.

The Chairman: Could we then hold that down for a moment?

Mr. Charlie Penson: Okay.

The Chairman: Is there any problem with bringing the ambassador from Myanmar before the committee? Fine. That's agreed.

We come now to the work plan. You've all seen the work plan on nuclear disarmament.

[Translation]

Yes, absolutely, we will summon him to come and testify.

Do you all approve of our considering Canada's nuclear non-proliferation policy?

[English]

Approved? There's a sort of a—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Christmas mood.

The Chairman: Members, Mr. Assadourian reminds me of Christmas. Christmas is coming and the goose is getting fat, but we better move on here or we'll never get the penny into the old man's hat, as the statement goes. Let's move on here.

Then it's agreed that we'll consider the issue of the Sudan at a future meeting? That was put forward in the agenda. I hope I have an approval for that.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Yes, Sudan.

The Chairman: Finally, we agreed earlier that we were to convene a hearing on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. While we can't do it this term, we're reminded by the members that we should pursue that as early as possible in the new year, possibly with the fisheries committee, because they're also looking at that. I take that as an instruction to work on that issue.

Finally, Mr. Penson, you wanted to draw to our attention the issue of the agriculture matter.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Yes. I think it comes into the context of the work plan of the bigger committee as well, Mr. Chairman.

I'm proposing that we have possibly a joint subcommittee of trade and agriculture to look at the whole area of what's hurting our Canadian dairy farmers' ability to export into countries like the United States. We know there are significant subsidies, lunch programs, and all of that. We always hear the negative side, such as how high our tariffs are, but we don't have a look at what's hurting our ability to export. As there's more movement at the World Trade Organization and more pressure on dairy, I think it's something we should consider.

I'm not sure how we handle this matter, because we have a very ambitious work program of the main committee. I wouldn't like to see us sort of lose this to lack of time as a result of putting it to the other committee.

I think it should have been considered in the context of the work plan of our main committee, whether it's done by the subcommittee or not, because if we're busy working on all these items, there's really a lack of time. So it's a problem I'm addressing. If we want to handle it in the subcommittee, that's where I would like to spend a considerable amount of time.

When the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is planning future work, we'd better take into account what the subcommittees might consider on their own; otherwise, this is not going to work very well.

The Chairman: That's true. That's why the subcommittee chairs do sit on the planning committee. You're right that we do have to coordinate that. It's particularly complicated to coordinate it when it comes to these joint committee meetings if we get fisheries and agriculture.

I will say, however, that I spoke to the Minister of Agriculture last night about your idea. I think there's a general agreement among everybody that this is an important issue for us as Canadians. I don't think we would have any trouble putting something together, but certainly we'll put it together.

It's your view that it should be in the trade subcommittee and we could try to work out something with the agriculture committee and maybe do a sort of a joint subcommittee. Is that what you're thinking?

Mr. Charlie Penson: That's exactly right. This is the difficulty I have. Look at the agenda for the main committee here. As individual members, we don't know what the agenda is for the subcommittee on human rights. Possibly a lot of members didn't know that this was going to be one of the things the trade committee would be addressing, so as a committee of the whole we'd better discuss these things in terms of the context of how much we're taking on as a group.

• 1050

The Chairman: Yes, otherwise we'd run out of time. I agree with you.

Mr. Sauvageau, then Mr. Brison.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In response to what Charlie is suggesting, I confirm that we have in fact completed our report on the MIA, the Multilateral Investment Agreement, and that we submitted it this morning. We also discussed this issue with Bob, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, and we concluded that this was probably one of the most important subjects we could consider in the subcommittee. We even had a tacit agreement around the table to discuss it in the subcommittee upon the resumption of proceedings in February. This problem is very important for the entire Canadian dairy industry and even for the agricultural industry in Canada.

We know that Americans often wriggle out of things. Even when a decision is made at the NAFTA level, they refer it to the WTO or try to wriggle out of it another way. This would be an interesting subject and we will definitely suggest it as the first subject for consideration by the subcommittee. Perhaps we can report to the main committee more regularly on the subcommittee's progress.

The Chairman: If I understood you correctly, the focus is more on non-tariff barriers in the United States, not in the entire world. You're not concerned with Europe.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, no. It's mainly Canada and the United States: the entire problem of butter oil and those problems.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, that will be worked out at the subcommittee. That's helpful, but I think we all have to bear Mr. Penson's observation in mind. We've often said we don't want to get involved in huge programs, but everybody has their own idea of what they'd like to do, and then we undertake too much. That we then don't do it well or don't have the time to do it is your concern, so we have to bear that in mind.

Mr. Brison, and then Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Scott Brison: Further to Charlie's comments, I agree that the whole subsidy issue has to be looked at closely relative to U.S. trade. But perhaps we should look at the issue of managed trade as opposed to....

I just want to clarify this, Charlie. You're not speaking specifically about dairy in this case, are you? One of the issues in Canada, for instance, is the degree to which the sugar industry feels its interests have been traded off against the interests of the dairy industry. I think we should take a serious look at managed trade, and perhaps choose a couple of specific sectors and look at the impact of managed trade on them, because there are issues greater than just specifically dairy.

The Chairman: I don't think Mr. Penson was limiting it to dairy. We all agree sugar is a big issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In response to Scott, I would like to say that, during the last parliament, when Michel Dupuy was chairman of the subcommittee, we conducted a review of trade disputes in general, of all the trade disputes and their settlement.

Second, we should be sure that our reach does not exceed our grasp. If we try to study everything, we may wind up studying nothing.

The Chairman: That's true and that's also what Mr. Penson thought.

[English]

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to flag another item that I would ask the steering committee to deal with at the first meeting in the new year. It's a very serious matter.

This morning members may have heard the news concerning the alleged interference by the Prime Minister's Office in an agreement that had been arrived at for the APEC leaders summit. That agreement was between the University of British Columbia and the RCMP with respect to the location of protests. And we've also heard allegations that the Prime Minister's Office was interfering in speeches of some delegates, including that of an aboriginal leader, the chief of the Musqueam Nation.

There will be an inquiry into the role of the RCMP, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that it would be very important for this committee, as the foreign affairs committee, to look into these very serious allegations that have been made concerning the role of the Prime Minister's Office in attempting to stifle any dissent at the APEC leaders summit.

I recognize that we are in the final day before the House rises, but I wanted to just register my concern, Mr. Chairman, and give notice to members of the committee that at the first steering committee when the House is back in February, I will be seeking agreement that this committee will in fact look into these very serious allegations.

• 1055

The Chairman: Well, you can certainly bring it up at the next meeting. The clerk will note that. But I hope you're not suggesting by your statement here that there's necessarily proof or otherwise of those allegations.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I'm saying these are serious allegations and this committee should be looking into them.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): I'll respond to a couple of things, and I'll start with Mr. Brison.

I know Mr. Brison is a new member here, but I think the government has made it perfectly clear time and time again that it never trades off the interests of one commodity against another. These trade agreements and trade disputes are dealt with on a commodity by commodity basis—and certainly there is no proof anywhere, Mr. Chair, that the interests of our sugar industry have been traded off for the interests of dairy farmers.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Robinson, I know Mr. Robinson wouldn't like this committee to get political at all. I know that, in his words, we're taking it in that vein. I see this large agenda before us, and we're dealing with a number of issues that Mr. Robinson in fact wanted on the agenda, including nuclear non-proliferation. I would assume that if we had to spend time looking into all these political views that he has, we might not have time to do some of this other very important work. I would suggest it's right for him to bring these subjects up at the steering committee, but if he wants to start to get political with some of these comments, then we might not have time to do some of these other very important issues.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, God forbid that a politician should get political. The fact of the matter is that these are serious allegations and this committee should be looking into them, and the committee has agreed. I think Mr. Mills made a suggestion early on that the committee should have the flexibility to deal with serious issues that arise. We've built that into the work plan for the new year. For example, I know Mr. McWhinney, in whose constituency these matters took place, would share the concern—at least I hope he would—that this committee should attempt to get to the bottom of these allegations of direct political interference by the Prime Minister's Office in freedom of speech in Canada.

Mr. Bob Speller: But if this committee is going to start looking at—

The Chairman: Gentlemen, I think all of the committee will agree that nobody would ever be foolish enough to suggest that Mr. Robinson isn't entirely political. His skills in that area are recognized by us all. But I think Mr. Speller is calling for a little statesmanship.

Mr. Bob Speller: But certainly we shouldn't be spending time looking into how the Prime Minister's Office organizes or doesn't organize international events. I don't think this committee has time to hear that.

The Chairman: This is something we'll have to deal with at the steering committee, because we have a busy schedule here.

Mr. McWhinney, and then we'll move on.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I'll just take a minute.

I am obviously very concerned about anything that occurs within my constituency and anything that occurs in Canada, so I have been discussing this matter at some length with the president and the faculty at the University of British Columbia. Not in my present parliamentary capacity, but as an MP, I have suggested that the Solicitor General institute an inquiry, and that is being pursued.

Svend, I wonder if your suggestion wouldn't better be directed to the justice committee.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's the role of the Prime Minister that we're looking at, not the role of the RCMP.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Those statements, as I say, surprise me. I'd be very surprised if the Prime Minister's Office has been involved.

I agree with you, there are matters of great concern here, to me as a member and to you as a member, but I wonder if this is the right forum. Nevertheless, we are exploring it in various arenas.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chairman, a totally non-political comment would be that if you were having a somewhat controversial conference, why would you hold it on a university campus?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: We haven't held any university conference. One aspect of it on one day was held at the university.

Mr. Bob Mills: I'd stay right away from universities if I were dealing with something controversial.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Rightly or wrongly, the Yeltsin-Clinton summit was held there, and so on.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. We are debating a question that is not on the agenda.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Paradis.

[English]

Well now, look, gentlemen. I don't think we want to pursue this any further, because we could spend all day on it. We have two very important issues to deal with in the half an hour that remains. That's all we have, members, because this is the last day of the session and members have a lot to do. Let's try to get both the issue of Mr. Turp's motion on Algeria and the two motions that are before us on Hong Kong dealt with in the next half hour.

Mr. Turp, are you ready to proceed now with your motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes.

The Chairman: All right, go ahead, Mr. Turp.

• 1100

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, last week, we tabled...

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I understand that you have a new motion. Am I right, or is this the one you have?

Mr. Daniel Turp: I'll explain.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Last week, we tabled a motion on the situation in Algeria following testimony that we heard from non-governmental organizations.

You have in hand a motion which we have discussed these past few days with the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. McWhinney, who himself met with the Algerian ambassador. I believe that was yesterday. The motion as presented, except for two recitals and the operative provision, could form the subject of a consensus. The two recitals that pose a problem for the Parliamentary Secretary are the fifth and sixth. I would like us to discuss them and debate them to see whether we can reach a compromise.

The operative provision would now read as follows. Instead of "Be it moved that Canada take on an energetic leadership role...", the proposed wording would be:

Be it recommended that the Minister of Foreign Affairs exhort the Secretary General of the United Nations to use his special powers under the UN Charter to resolve the ongoing crisis in Algeria; and that the Minister seek to reach the same goals by other means, in particular by sending a Canadian parliamentary delegation under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and possibly convening an extraordinary session of the UN Human Rights Commission or another form of international commission of inquiry.

This wording was accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary, by the Bloc Québécois and by Mr. Robinson. I have not yet had the opportunity to show it to Mr. Brison, but a consensus could be formed on this wording.

The problem is the two recitals. I would like us to debate this problem because we think it would be useful to keep them, whereas it appears there is an objection by the Parliamentary Secretary.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Chair, I'd like to thank the members of the committee, Mr. Turp as the porte-parole of the Bloc, Mr. Robinson and members of the government side of the committee.

As you know, for the last several weeks the minister has been engaged in the landmines issue, but he is seriously concerned about this issue and is already taking initiatives that involve these inherent powers in the United Nations charter.

Mr. Kofi Annan gained his own epaulets as a national diplomat as a special envoy for Boutros Boutros-Ghali in Bosnia. The Secretary General's powers under the charter are very vague, but custom has developed using what are called “inherent powers” and the sending of special missions. That is the matter we are looking to.

The United Nations General Assembly will adjourn within a week, so you will get a suspension of activity. The possibilities of a parliamentary visit and the possibilities of a special session of the United Nations commission involve time, but the next few weeks are very important.

I can tell you that the foreign minister is in direct communication with the Secretary General of the United Nations and with the Algerian government. If there were, for example, to be a special mission to Algeria by the Secretary General, it would require the cooperation of the Algerian government. We are dealing with a situation where inherent powers are used, but on a sort of trilateral basis. I think it would assist the acceptance by the Algerian government of any such initiative if these two recitations, which do go to issues of fact and which might be contested, could be removed.

• 1105

There is nothing here, though, assuming these efforts should fail, to prevent the other sorts of action being taken that were, I think, at the core of Mr. Turp's motion. So it is inclusive in that sense. I think we all want to resolve this problem and resolve it quickly, ideally during the next few weeks, if that's possible. But the Secretary General can act at any time, and that's the core of the suggestion.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

I'm in agreement with most of the items raised in this motion, but I have a concern. In the Ottawa Citizen of December 7, the ambassador for Algeria says that parliamentarians can go to Algeria and meet their counterparts. And that's it, period. That would be like playing tourist there. I don't think we should spend the money to go there as tourists.

If in your motion you add the words “to meet all interested parties of the conflict”, that would be a worthwhile trip. Otherwise, if you're going to go there to meet the members of parliament, the members of parliament are going to tell you what the president wants them to tell you. What's the point of meeting only the members of parliament? My point is that if it's going to be a trip, it has to be productive. It can't be a trip just to go there to meet our counterparts in Algeria, because that would not be a productive exercise. If we go there to meet factions, religious leaders, community leaders and everybody else, then I'm 100% for it.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: How would you word your amendment? I believe we are prepared to accept an amendment of that kind.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: In your motion you said two delegations were to go to Algeria. I would add the specific words “to meet interested parties in the conflict”, not only MPs. Do you see what I'm saying?

An hon. member: No.

An hon. member: Where does it say “visiting Algeria”?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Chair, you're then into a commission of inquiry, and no sovereign state accepts that—including Canada—from another. The whole purpose of adding “Inter-Parliamentary Union” is that Algeria is a member and could be expelled, for example, or disciplined within that body, so there's a change in attitude here. But the Algerian party does have two religious parties in it. There are apparently four or five parties. There would be the ordinary opportunity any parliamentarian has visiting another country to make contacts, and I've seen several of the members of this committee.... Svend, you had no trouble in China, I think, when you visited.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: After what I read in the paper here, I'm not sure that will be done. That's my concern.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. McWhinney, are you suggesting that if we do in fact travel to Algeria, we will be strictly on the agenda that the Algerian government has?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: You negotiate it in advance, and if it's not acceptable you don't accept it. But the moment you get the other body, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of which we and other countries are members, you've gone beyond a bilateral deal with the foreign government.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Again, for some of you I'll repeat what I said in the steering committee. As I pointed out, I met with the foreign service of France. In particular, I was asking them questions about the visit of the members of the European Parliament to Algeria, and they made it very clear that the only agreement they had with Algeria was that they could go on an MP-to-MP basis and that they would have to stay in the capital. They could not go outside of the capital and they would not be allowed to do any investigation. It was strictly an interparliamentary visit. And he made it clear that if we were to try to piggyback on that, as we suggested, it would be no more than simply meeting parliamentarians. And to do that sort of thing will accomplish absolutely nothing. So certainly our position is that there is no point in going for that sort of arrangement.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: That wouldn't arise unless and until it becomes a concrete proposition, and then this committee would decide whether to send the committee or not. But it's one of the means included in Mr. Turp's motion, and if it turns out that it's a fantasy visit, then the committee presumably decides it won't take it.

Mr. Bob Mills: We haven't seen that proposal yet. We're waiting for it.

Mr. Daniel Turp: There was a French version that was translated and I'm making an English version for you now.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you just said.

• 1110

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: For our Reform colleagues, I am preparing an English version of this motion which was just stated by the Parliamentary Secretary. With you permission, on this question, we know perfectly well, after discussions with the Algerian ambassador here and with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that the Algerians are very reluctant to have a commission or parliamentary delegation meet with anyone but parliamentarians, but they would agree for us to meet opposition parliamentarians.

The resolution as moved does not bind us to the idea of sending a mission if we do not think such a mission is appropriate because we would not be free to meet the people we would want to meet. The purpose of this motion is for us to put pressure on Algeria. And when the time comes to consider establishing a Canadian parliamentary mission, they may have changed their point of view because of this pressure.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: Our party is supportive of the motion.

I share your concern, Mr. Assadourian, relative to simply a parliamentary visit and dealing strictly with parliamentarians, because we could potentially exacerbate the situation by lending support to one side or the other. Our presence could be used and the image of us being there could be manipulated appropriately to support one group or the other. I think that would be diametrically opposite to what we are trying to achieve.

I would like to see as part of this motion an amendment that gives more guidelines or recommendations on the type of visit. It has to be a consultative and more broadly based mission. My concern is that we need to make this a little more substantial in terms of the type of visit.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: On a point of order, Madam Chair, I think before we go any further on this discussion we have to see the motion that's being proposed. Until that happens we should set this aside and go on to the next issue.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Turp, are you preparing an amendment to this motion or a new motion?

Mr. Daniel Turp: How fast can it be done? Should I prepare it or should the translators just give us the text of it?

Mr. Charlie Penson: I don't know, but we need to see it before we can discuss this any further.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I need two minutes to translate it.

The Chairman: Everyone feels they must have the motion in front of them, so I'm going to propose that we stand it down for a few minutes. We can move on to the Hong Kong issue and see if we can deal with that. We only have 50 minutes left, and both of these could take time.

We're now moving from Algeria to Hong Kong. I apologize, members, but just get your minds around that.

Hold your motion down until Mr. Turp kindly works out the English translation of the proposition he and Mr. McWhinney have worked on. I think it will give us a solution that will enable us to adopt it quickly.

I suggest we move to the Hong Kong issue. Let me make an introductory observation. We have two motions before us in respect of Hong Kong veterans. We have one that the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Sauvageau, put before us and gave notice of motion the other day. Mr. Assadourian as well has given notice of motion that he wishes to move on behalf of the government side.

• 1115

Members should bear in mind that we should have some general debate on the issue and then we can quickly move, if possible, to a vote. We can vote on Mr. Sauvageau's motion first. If it is not passed, then presumably one would move to Mr. Assadourian's motion, which would either be accepted or not accepted. We might try to get that done in about ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau, it's your motion that is before us. Perhaps you would like to begin the debate?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: First, the ending is fixed, like in an American film. This whole thing has been fixed up with the movie guys.

Second, as regards the recitals in Mr. Assadourian's motion, I believe the copy of our recommendation is relatively well done and faithful. In other words, we copied what the Bloc Québécois moved a year ago. However, if you say "that Canada examine the possibility of recovering compensation and making payments to veterans and their widows", that means that Canada will consider that as of today and that it has never considered it since the end of World War II.

I told you the last time we debated this recommendation that the Liberals were in a very poor position and that they even should have been ashamed to have voted against it. That we should propose that Canada begin examining this possibility today, 50 years later, is doubly shameful, doubly scandalous.

The person who wrote this probably did it the morning after a party and didn't think about it two minutes. Reread it carefully and think about it and you'll withdraw it and apologize because the Canadian government is considering the possibility of recovering reparations as of today and of making ex gratia payments as of today. That's shameful.

We heard witnesses here, we saw a film, we saw all that, and we know the situation is urgent. Think, for example, of Singer's retirees. The Canadian government is examining the possibility of paying them when they're all dead. If that's what you mean, be frank and write it down. We're waiting for them all to die and then we'll try to reach some settlement because it won't cost anything.

We have been aware of the situation since World War II. We heard witnesses and you've come back to us with a shortened, shameful and scandalous motion. If the Liberals want to vote on it, I'm sorry but it will come back to haunt them.

I believe our recommendation, as presented a year ago and as you see it here, is clear. First, we recognize the validity of the claims; second, we pay them; and third, we ask Japan for money. We can afford to wait because the Canadian government—perhaps not the way it is today—will likely live a little longer than the veterans.

Mr. Assadourian, reread it properly. If you think it's credible, I wonder what planet you're living on. The recommendation presented by the Bloc is clear. Vote on it. If not, you will have to live with the consequences of your actions.

The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I'm not going to judge how everybody is going to be voting on this issue. I think everybody must have the freedom to express their own feelings. I don't think it should be dictated as to who is going to vote how.

I was insulted when the honourable member said we had a party before we drafted this bill. That's not for him to say. That loses respect for his motion now.

I mean, he didn't even say what he opposes in this motion. It's just rhetoric—

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'm not—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Let me finish. You spoke, and I didn't interrupt you. Please don't interrupt me when I speak.

The system is such that we vote on his motion. If it passes, we support it. If it doesn't, then we vote on this motion. I hope he'll be gentleman enough to support this motion when it passes. When it does, it does. This is the system. You can't take criticism and make it personal.

The Chairman: Thank you. This issue we've discussed quite a bit, obviously, but are there any other members who wish to make any comments before I go back to—

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, a question has been put to me.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll come back to you. I just want to see if any other members wish to speak on this issue.

Mr. Speller and then Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Chairman, I was one of the members who was here and actually sat through all the testimony of the Hong Kong vets. Given the nature of their situation and given the sensitivities of the two sides I see here, isn't there any room for a joint resolution coming out of the Bloc and the Liberals on this? I think we all agree on the direction in which we should be going.

• 1120

If I'm correct in what I'm hearing, I think the Liberal side doesn't want to have some of the criticisms of the government that may be in the Bloc motion. Given the non-political nature—I'm sure Svend will agree with this—of this committee in these sorts of situations, isn't there room for agreement? I can clearly see room for agreement on most of what's in your amendment and on what's in yours.

I particularly don't want to vote against any amendment dealing with the Hong Kong vets. I think you should take the time to sit down and come forward with a joint amendment. That will be a lot more powerful voice, rather than this committee having to show the government that it disagrees in some way.

Why don't you sit down and get together, agree to what you can agree to, and put it in one motion so we can show as a committee that we unanimously support the government doing something on this?

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Robinson, Mr. Mills, and then Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Sauvageau wants to answer Mr. Speller, I'll wait for his answer.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have nothing against agreeing on a joint motion and, to answer Mr. Assadourian, I'll never agree on your wishful thinking. I hope that Canada will then consider striking a committee to see what we can do about this situation in a year or two.

If we request concrete action, if we write verbs with actions and consequences, I won't have any problem. But if we recommend "that Canada examine the possibility", I won't ever, ever, ever accept that.

What's required is a little bit of memory. I've been told the reasons why you voted against it. You have to find other excuses when ours are used up. First, we had no legal opinions and, second, we had not met the Japanese ambassador. It wasn't for other reasons. Today, these reasons are no longer valid and we're inventing others. There are different excuses, but they shouldn't be used too soon.

If you want to change the recitals... What is important, Mr. Speller, if you agree on that, is that the veterans, the prisoners, be compensated by the Canadian government. Second, the Canadian government must institute proceedings against the Japanese government. In this way, if it takes 25 years for the Canadian government to recover payment, it won't be as serious as if we have to wait 25 years to pay the prisoners of war. By then, they'll all be dead. If you don't understand that, tell me what it is I don't understand.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Robinson, Mr. Mills, and then Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I want to follow up on Mr. Speller's comments and perhaps suggest a compromise that might meet with the concerns of both Mr. Assadourian and Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

I completely agree that we owe this to the veterans and if we can then get the Japanese government to pay compensation, that will be good. But first, we have to pay them.

[English]

I want to appeal to Mr. Assadourian. If the critical reference to the history—in other words, the penultimate paragraph that reads “Whereas the Canadian government has never demonstrated the necessary will to support its veterans until now”—were removed from Mr. Sauvageau's motion, instead of attacking the government we would set out the very powerful circumstances the committee heard. We could then proceed with the recommendations.

Mr. Assadourian, I appeal to you that with that compromise and with the support of Mr. Sauvageau, the committee could unite around this motion.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: May I have the exact wording of the recommendation?

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Bélair.

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Why can't the steering committee deal with this and come back with a recommendation?

The Chairman: Mr. Bélair, this has been raised in the steering committee and there has not yet been an agreement. The members want to deal with this before the Christmas break.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: There seems to be a consensus now.

The Chairman: If you want to put it over we might be able to work something out, but it's a time issue.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: There is a consensus that it be studied further.

• 1125

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That we proceed with the recommendation.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Yours?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, as corrected by the Journals Division.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Sauvageau.

In bringing their motion today, I think the purpose of the Bloc was to make sure that it's dealt with before the Christmas break, if I can say that.

Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: Further to Mr. Robinson's comment, it's rare that we suffer from dissension over so many good ideas or resolutions, but I would support Mr. Robinson's intervention. The only part of the resolution I had a difficulty with was the unnecessarily incendiary blaming of the Canadian government. I don't think that was necessary.

I do like the strong recommendations to pay the veterans up front. I think it represents a very good compromise, and I would be supportive of that.

The Chairman: Thank you for your observations.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Just to state our position, I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing about. It seems to me we're all in agreement that what we want to do is pay the veterans, but we should clearly state who gets what and so on. We should then worry about trying to collect this from the Japanese later, if that's possible. I think we're all agreed to that. I really don't know why we need to put in a lot of rhetoric and political statements and so on. I mean, if that's the bottom line, let's put it down clearly and vote to approve it. Let's get it done and move on to the next issue.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, sir.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I have discussed the proposal for amendment with Mr. Assadourian. There's one further slight refinement that I believe would result in Mr. Assadourian's agreement, and that would be that instead of saying “recommends that the Canadian government”, it should say “recommends that the Minister of Finance”. Certainly I would have no objection to that; I think that just clarifies it.

We would delete the penultimate reference to the Canadian government never demonstrating the necessary will, and we would substitute “Minister of Finance” for “Canadian government”. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that would meet with the consent of all members of the committee.

The Chairman: That's helpful, but I have some other speakers first: Mr. McWhinney, then Mr. Reed, and then we'll see if we can work something out.

Mr. McWhinney, sir, you had some observations.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Chairman, I would commend to you what has been commended at a previous meeting—and you yourself in fact suggested that it should be done. You badly need a permanent committee on drafting. You get motions with lots of good ideas, but with unpolarized good intentions floating around. A good drafting committee charged with this permanent technical role could tidy these things up in a couple of hours at most.

By the way, I have been working for four years on the Chinese-Canadian claims. It's hard going, but you recognize confidences and all that. For example, I have trouble with this resolution “Whereas the 1952 peace treaty”. Then there's a statement about “customary international humanitarian law”. There are probably only three and a half people here who are in a position to say whether that's sound or not. You and I, Mr. Chairman, agreed that if we were taking a brief for the veterans, we would make this argument, but I would certainly not suggest that it is a correct statement of international law. In fact the principle of jus cogens referred to in general papers was not recognized in treaty form until 1969, seventeen years after the treaty referred to. In my view, this recital is therefore highly questionable, and I think it weakens the motion.

I also wonder about “recommends to the Minister of Finance”, because we're getting into an issue beyond our special competence as a committee, but I think these together could be made into a very nice motion. I think the advantage of the Assadourian one is that it gets over these highly colourable and contestable assertions on law, which, as I say, weaken the motion, because anybody can point to the contingent nature of them.

• 1130

Perhaps we could drop that “Whereas the 1952 peace treaty”. Mr. Assadourian correctly puts it that “the veterans argue, the veterans argue”, and I think that's acceptable. In terms of responsibility, though—is it moral or otherwise—the solution here is obviously going to be a decision, if it's made, by the Canadian government on compensation, and possibly the approach by the Canadian government to officers of the Japanese government. Without being able to compel them, the situation.... They've already made, gratuitously, without accepting legal obligation, payments to other citizens in Japan.

The Chairman: I take it, then, Mr. McWhinney, you're in favour of the formulation in Mr. Assadourian's resolution in terms of the operative part of the resolution rather than—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Yes. I think it could be put together with Mr. Sauvageau's motion.

The Chairman: Mr. Reed and then Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): I wonder if a motion stating an amount of money is not out of order in the first place, because it's having a committee make a recommendation regarding budget. It seems to me that when you talk about specifying an amount of money it puts the whole motion out of order. It's beyond our purview.

The Chairman: The clerk is advising me that she tends to agree with you. That is, I think, precisely why Mr. Assadourian's message says that it's urging upon the government to look favourably upon making a payment, as opposed to saying that this committee says that the government should pay a certain amount, which is virtually scooping the authority of setting the budget in terms of a recommendation.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can I make a point, Mr. Chairman? I think everybody agrees here, basically, that we want to do something to address this issue. That's point one.

Second, we don't want to approach this with a political, partisan point of view. We have basically come to an understanding of where we're coming from, both sides. It is possible to ask the steering committee to draft a motion and to bring it back here?

The Chairman: For this afternoon?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes. We could meet this afternoon for half an hour. We want to solve the problem, right?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I don't believe we'll have any problem doing that right away, Mr. Chairman. I entirely agree with Svend and I think we'll vote right away. I want to vote immediately. Mr. Assadourian, tell me whether you agree that we should remove the last two recitals. One reads: "Whereas the Canadian government...". In answer to Mr. McWhinney's concerns, I'm prepared to remove the second last paragraph on the peace treaty between Japan and the Allies, the one that reads: "Whereas the 1952 Peace Treaty between Japan and the Allies...".

What I would like us to vote on is recommendations 1, 2 and 3. With respect to the amount of money, to answer Mr. Reed, we checked it when we introduced this resolution a year ago. We were even asked how we had come up with this amount of $23,940. We were asked if we had picked it out of thin air.

We showed where it came from. It wasn't a random figure; it was an amount determined on the basis of the number of days they were held prisoner, etc. We're entitled to recommend that to the government. What I would like us to vote on is mainly the three recommendations. I believe everyone agrees on that. As a concession, we would remove the last two recitals. It seems to me that, in this way, we are meeting everyone's demands. Do you agree on that, Mr. Assadourian?

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I have a further concern. What happens if the amount is $25,940? What happens? Do we say no, we're going to pay you $23,940? I think we have to leave that out. Let's see how they work it out. It could be more, it could be less.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: First, it's the amount they requested and, second, we could say that it's the amount that is owed them.

Perhaps we could make an exception and vote on parts. Do we all agree, first, that the Canadian government should pay compensation to the prisoners of war and, second, that the Canadian government should recover those amounts from the Japanese government? It's they who requested this amount. So we have no problem with that.

• 1135

[English]

The Chairman: Members, I think we're at this position. Let me draw it to your attention.

It is now 11.35, so we're five minutes past when we were going to break anyway. It's the last day of the session and we have to deal with the Algerian issue.

It seems to me that unless you can come to a pretty quick agreement on an amalgam of these, bearing in mind Mr. Reed's very important point, and I think, at least for me, the recommendation in Mr. Assadourian's resolution, which recommends to the government that it examine this but the possibility of making this payment is not the same as saying we're going to reach into the budget and grab a certain amount of money, which is your point and which would be stepping outside the bounds of what the committee could do.... Unless we can come to an agreement on that very quickly, what I would propose is I will put Mr. Sauvageau's motion, and if it passes, it passes. If it fails, I'll then put Mr. Assadourian's. That would be the procedure, because otherwise I'm quite happy to try to accommodate an agreement as we try to usually in the committee, but you're all aware of the time constraints we're operating under.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, if I could make one more effort, I would appeal to Mr. Assadourian and Mr. Reed for passage, because I think we should try to pass this before the House rises. I've listened to Mr. Reed's point, and we're very close.

If we take out the two penultimate whereas clauses, which Mr. Sauvageau has agreed to, and we include the Minister of Finance, as Mr. Assadourian has suggested, instead of the Canadian government.... Then in item two we say “pay the amount owing”, which would—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Equitable compensation.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Pay equitable compensation—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Equitable would be better.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: According to the international rules, Svend.

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson: “Pay equitable compensation according to international humanitarian rules”.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: You don't even need that. That would be implicit in it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay, say “Pay equitable compensation”.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: But I also would suggest you cut out number three. You're into another—

An hon. member: I think number three is important.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I think we leave number three. We try to claim from the Japanese. If we can't get it from them—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: That's another issue of foreign policy. Why not leave it this way. The minister will obviously be speaking to the Japanese government and to the Japanese ambassador. You're not concerned whether it comes from—

Mr. Svend Robinson: We want them to be compensated. If we can get them compensated and if number three said to explore all possible avenues to claim the total amount, explore all possible avenues....

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Do you even need to get into that if the Canadian government—

Mr. Svend Robinson: We can explore all possible avenues, Ted. Surely that's not unreasonable.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Leaving out a foreign government? Explore all possible avenues for—

Mr. Svend Robinson: To claim the total amount from the Japanese government. Explore that. Why not?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: You're into différends internationaux with dispute settlement.

The Chairman: Explore the possibility of claiming the amount is basically what is said in the other resolution, which is examine the possibility of recovering from Japan.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: If somebody is obtaining reimbursement from the Japanese government, leave it then as to whether it's an issue of international law or anything else.

The Chairman: It says “a claim that explored the possibility of claiming the total amount from the Japanese government according to international law”. If the international law doesn't allow it they won't give it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's Mr. Assadourian's wording.

Mr. Chairman, I would propose that as an amendment to both resolutions. If you could put that amended form forward, hopefully that would meet with the consent of the committee.

The Chairman: For three, we're talking about paragraph three now.

Mr. Robinson, let me do this, because I think I could move it a little quicker. The resolution of Mr. Assadourian states: “The committee recommends that the Government of Canada examine the possibility of recovering from Japan such compensation as is possible under international law...”. This is wording that would go in paragraph three. This paragraph three now reads: “The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommends that the Minister of Finance...”. Now obviously we'll have to change that, because paragraph three doesn't fit in with this, or we're going to get Mr. Martin going to Japan. It would read “Examine the possibility of claiming the total amount from the Japanese government according to international law.”

Mr. Svend Robinson: Exactly.

The Chairman: That is not, in my view—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: That excludes the possibility of an ex gratia offer. Why not say “possibility of obtaining reimbursement from the Japanese government”, or whatever it is. Do you need the other one?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I think we need to leave that. That's what Mr. Assadourian proposes. I think we should leave it.

• 1140

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I think your biggest chance is that they'll do it like the comfort women settlement, which was an ex gratia, non-remissionable liability situation.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But that's part of the exploration.

Mr. Denis Paradis: This is just an observation. Say we took the term “equitable compensation” and the third “whereas”. Where we say $18 per day, do we leave it like this, or do we—

An hon. member: No, that has to qualify it.

Mr. Denis Paradis: It goes with the other notion of equitable compensation.

The Chairman: So do you agree to take that out?

[Translation]

You are prepared to remove the reference to the specific amount of $18 a day?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: If you agree, it's complete.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That doesn't bother me, but how will the compensation be calculated?

Mr. Denis Paradis: Based on the notion of fairness.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Based on the notion of fairness. All right. I believe we're ready to vote, but first, I would like someone to read to me what we're going to vote on because there have been a lot of amendments.

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, just to summarize then, if I may, the proposed amendments would delete the third paragraph, which has the specific amounts, since we said we wouldn't include a specific amount. It would delete the third one that refers to $18 per day.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Oh, okay.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay? It would delete that. It would delete the paragraph that refers to the 1952 peace treaty. It would delete the next paragraph that refers to the will of the Canadian government. We would have to leave “Canadian government” instead of “Minister of Finance” because the third “whereas” now talks about exploring compensation, so we'd have to leave “Canadian government”.

Paragraph two would read “pay equitable compensation”, and paragraph three would read, in Mr. Assadourian's wording, “explore the possibility of recovering from Japan such compensation as is possible under international law”. Okay?

An hon. member: Good

Mr. Denis Paradis: Yes.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Assadourian made some suggestion that we make a joint motion.

The Chairman: Yes, I think there's a consensus. If all members are agreed—I'm sure Mr. Sauvageau would agree that it has now been sufficiently amended—this would be a unanimous recommendation by the committee. I would therefore suggest that it come from all members, and it wouldn't be necessarily a Bloc resolution.

[Translation]

It was moved by Mr. Sauvageau, seconded by Mr. Assadourian and unanimously agreed to by the committee.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's it.

The Chairman: And everyone agrees on the proposed amendments. Thank you very much.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you for your cooperation, everyone.

Madame Beaumier, could you take the chair for the Algerian part again? I have to go chair another committee.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Has everyone had the opportunity to look at this amendment? I'll give everybody a minute or so to read it.

Do you have a comment?

Mr. Bob Mills: Regarding this amendment, I think again that it's the sort of thing where we could get into just what we've been in, whereby we agree that there's a problem in Algeria, we should address that problem, and we should encourage by a motion that the Minister of Foreign Affairs deal with this in whatever way possible. He should deal with the UN and encourage the UN to send a special mission to Algeria to study this, much as we heard Kofi Annan did with Bosnia. We should have that same sort of emphasis put on it and we should encourage the Minister of Foreign Affairs to do that.

• 1145

However, we are getting into a motion that starts talking about MPs' trips to Algeria when we already know what the Europeans are faced with. They're telling us first-hand they probably won't even go if the circumstances stay the way they are. There's the difficulty of getting special committees of the UN set up. Everybody works on their sovereignty and there are certain sovereign issues they can protect themselves from.

Telling the Minister of Foreign Affairs what to do is much less desirable than telling him we believe there is a real issue here. This is an issue we're all concerned about unanimously. We encourage him to take all actions possible. If we can be of any help in collecting material and information, we'll do that. But when you start telling him he should do this and set up this committee and so on, I don't think we've studied that enough and I don't think that's the direction in which we should be going.

Our position is pretty tough when you start saying we're going to take an MP trip there, because we know all of those problems already. Hopefully I've made that clear, and we can get unanimous agreement that Algeria is a problem, the minister should work on it, and we're behind him 100%.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: First the reason why we are bringing a motion of this kind is that we were concerned—perhaps we are a little less concerned now—by the fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had said this question could not really be addressed by him because it had been recommended that he not touch it. But the pressure we are exerting through our questions in the House of Commons and elsewhere is forcing him to take an interest in it.

Words have a meaning and procedures have a meaning. If this committee is referring to the Secretary General and to the mission he may choose to establish, that will help the Minister continue his proposals in this direction. I think it is worth the trouble to enumerate a certain number of measures, and in particular to take into account the fact that the non-governmental organizations have insisted that we talk about the UN Human Rights Commission and an international commission of inquiry.

It is my opinion that the Minister of Foreign Affairs must be given a certain amount of flexibility. This resolution gives him that flexibility, while clearly stating a certain number of measures, and I believe the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to accept the wording of this operative provision.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I support the motion. I think it's important that the committee recognize that this represents a spirit of compromise. The situation in Algeria is a human rights disaster and calls out for strong action by the United Nations. It seems to me this parliamentary committee is making a number of specific recommendations to the foreign minister as to possible action.

I agree completely with the point Mr. Mills made earlier, and I underscore it myself, that a parliamentary delegation that is only able to meet with other parliamentarians as dictated by the Algerian government is clearly unacceptable. As I read this motion, it deals with that concern, because it states: “the sending of a parliamentary delegation (with a mandate approved by the committee of foreign affairs)”.

I'm confident that no member of this committee will agree to go into Algeria for some sort of government-sponsored parliamentary junket. That would be totally unacceptable and repugnant. But that's dealt with in this motion already by those words. We won't send any delegation unless we approve the terms of reference. So with those conditions I hope we, as a committee, can send this strong signal to the foreign minister and adopt the resolution as proposed by Mr. Turp.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. McWhinney.

• 1150

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Chair, the government is engaged in an activist foreign policy, with the great support, I think, of the Canadian public. We're also engaged in what I would call an all-party approach. We're trying to get all-party support on our initiatives on foreign policy. And I think members of this committee on the opposition side will note the approach has already been made and under operation since the new government, since July, to effect cooperation.

Obviously the classic view of a foreign minister is he would like a general mandate, without limitations of the sort Mr. Mills suggested. But in the new approach to foreign policy, the minister is capable of working with, and happily working with, a committee, and the concrete suggestions made are fully acceptable.

I think the key thing here is getting action quickly, and that gets us into the area of inherent powers of the Secretary General of the United Nations. But that requires cooperation from the host government; in this case it would be Algeria. If those measures fail, then other actions can be taken. I think the specification of these various measures, including the change made in relation to parliamentary committee, recognizes this fact.

Listen, the thing is in motion. It's law in the making, and a parliamentary delegation such as proposed a week ago would clearly be unacceptable to all of us. But it will be March before a committee could go, and you have to allow time for the situation to evolve. It would be a waste of time for any of us to go if nothing is to be learned. But look, it's open to negotiation, and I think we can do as well as or better than the European Parliament in this.

You have a situation where the minister has been talking to the Algerian foreign minister, the Algerian Ambassador to the United Nations, for a considerable period of time. He has spoken intensively in the last week, and he is in direct communication. I think this is a motion that we're very happy to accept as an all-party motion.

Some hon. members: Call it.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Assadourian, you have 30 seconds.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: My point is, when you read the second item, which says an estimated 80,000 people have died, when you have these facts and figures and you go there and you can't meet the orphan, the mother, the father, or the refugees, what's the point of going there? That's what I want to know.

An hon. member: That's the reason for this.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If you agree that we are going to have a mandate by the foreign affairs committee, and that if we don't agree, we don't go, then it's fine with me. That's saying specifically, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if we don't agree on the mandate, the committee doesn't go.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): We're ready for the question.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): The meeting is adjourned.