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, June 4, 1998

• 1129

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): I would like to call this meeting of the committee to order.

[Translation]

We are missing one of our most important participants, Mr. Saada. The purpose of our committee meeting is to hear our parliamentary colleagues who were able to visit Chiapas recently.

• 1130

I would like to welcome Mr. Turp, who is sitting in the prisoner's dock rather than with us. Mr. Saada, Ms. St-Jacques, Mr. Iftody and Mr. Proctor are also here as witnesses.

If I understood correctly, Mr. Saada will begin by saying a few introductory remarks and he will be followed by his colleagues, who will intervene whenever they feel it is necessary in order to add certain aspects. Thank you for coming today, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, allow me to thank the committee for inviting us to appear in order to discuss a topic that is fascinating, essential and important, not only for the Mexicans, but also for Canadian tradition.

You were kind enough to introduce the members of my delegation. I will therefore refrain from doing this again. However, I would like to first of all thank all the members of this delegation. I was accompanied by a team of parliamentarians from many parties, a team that was absolutely exemplary. I'm extremely proud of the work they accomplished. Of course, I would also like to give quick thanks to the Embassy of Canada there, to Mr. Stanley Gooch, the Ambassador, his staff, and the staff at Foreign Affairs here. The contribution they made to support our mission was invaluable.

This was a fact-finding mission. To summarize the importance of this mission, which we came to realize once we were there, let me quote Sister Florencia Vargas, who runs a hospital in Altamirano. Sister Vargas is a member of the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul Congregation. As we were leaving, she said: "You are our only hope." I can assure you that this is the type of thing that leaves an impression on you.

We met a lot of representatives from organizations and many other people. Obviously, the relatively short period of time we had perhaps prevented us from meeting more. I do feel, however, that we met a very broad range of people who were representative of the Chiapas issue. We met government leaders, both from the government of Mexico and the State of Chiapas. We met members of Parliament and senators from the three main parties: the PRI, the PAN and the PRD. We met with academics and many important NGOs. We visited three refugee camps and this hospital I referred to a few moments ago.

I will give you a brief overview of what we were able to observe. I think that the question period will be more appropriate for the details.

[English]

We have observed in the first place a lot of fear, fear of the military, fear of the civilian armed groups, fear of the police. This translates into fear of the neighbour, fear of people within the same family, and so on and so forth. We have been overwhelmed by what I would qualify as excruciating poverty and social problems beyond belief, mistrust, and to some extent racism. I'm saying “to some extent” because we had too short a visit.

Very briefly, a few political remarks. Chiapas is under the political authority of the PRI, the political party of the Mexican president, the party that has been in power for I think around seven decades in Mexico. The PRI has lost its majority in the congress. Chiapas is a stronghold for this party. Obviously that is to be taken into consideration when we look at the attitude and behaviour and process adopted by the Mexican government.

• 1135

It would be foolish to believe the problem in Chiapas is a simple issue of two opposing parties. It is far more complex than that, dealing with religious problems, with cultural problems, with social problems in terms of non-distribution of wealth. Chiapas is not a poor state, but the wealth is not distributed. These problems are so complex and so intertwined that it would be very difficult to just say one good side, one bad side, and that's it.

I would like to mention just a few things that have developed lately on the part of the Mexican authorities. In an unsolicited way, while we were in Mexico the negotiator-in-chief for the issue of Chiapas, Mr. Rabasa, invited a Canadian delegation of parliamentarians to observe the elections that will take place next October in Chiapas. These are municipal and state elections.

In an unsolicited way also there has been a commitment from the Secretary of the Interior to not use force to address the issue of what we call autonomous municipalities. We will have a chance to develop what they are during question period.

The Government of Chiapas has also decided to send some women police officers into some areas in the hope that it can appease the situation a bit. We heard last Friday an official announcement that the Government of Mexico had invited the International Red Cross Committee to come back to Chiapas.

Before talking about the recommendations made to the minister yesterday, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the problem of human rights violations in Chiapas is very concerning. I think we are all very preoccupied. The human rights violations are to our assessment, at least to my assessment, perpetrated by all sides. And of course we are happy to report that both sides have recognized that there was a lot of improvement required in this area.

In terms of recommendations, I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if you prefer me to talk about recommendations now or get into that during question period. I leave that up to you but we do have to talk about a few recommendations.

The Chairman: Maybe it would be helpful if you made the recommendations as the head of the delegation. The others may have a comment on enlarging them or some differences because they might not all come out in question period.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I made a series of six recommendations to the minister, and I'm sure some of my colleagues may add to those recommendations.

First of all, we proposed to invite Mr. Rabasa for one major purpose: to meet with Canadian NGOs, who I feel ultimately will have a role to play in building bridges between the government and Mexican civil society, without which nothing can be resolved.

• 1140

I have recommended to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to accept, once it's formalized, the invitation to send observers for the elections that will take place in Chiapas. I have also recommended that this delegation include people from Elections Canada. As you know, Elections Canada is a very credible entity in Mexico. And I have also recommended that this delegation of parliamentarians include some of our own aboriginal MPs.

I have recommended to the minister to offer training for this women police corps, with a view not only to help train those who are already appointed, but with the hope that this movement can be expanded. This is something that will have to be discussed with the Mexican authorities.

I have recommended that we create an aid fund for Chiapas, which would target mainly food and medication. This is a very crying need at the present time.

I have recommended to the minister to use an agreement that was passed between the Mexican government and the Canadian government on joint aboriginal economic development. I recommended that we use this agreement to actually develop in concrete terms intense relationships between our own aboriginal people and the aboriginal people in Mexico generally speaking and in Chiapas specifically.

Of course this is not a recommendation per se, but I have expressed a wish that we express our satisfaction at seeing the International Red Cross Committee back in Chiapas. When you talk about fear of organizations that are supposed to not create fear but appease, I think the international presence of the Red Cross could prove very valuable.

I have mentioned to the minister that we had some initiatives taken by some NGOs. I'm referring here to one, but it's not only one, le Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale, which expressed the wish to meet with our delegation. I have accepted to be there. I would certainly invite and urge my colleagues from our delegation to make every effort to be there. I have asked this organization, this NGO, to talk to all other NGOs concerned with the issue of Chiapas so that this meeting could be a joint meeting and as fruitful as possible.

I would like to conclude on one thing. I'm convinced that the NGOs have a definite role to play in helping in Chiapas.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr Saada.

Monsieur Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like the chairman of our delegation, I too would like to say how much I enjoyed going on this mission with my colleagues. I think that we tried to take an approach that was as professional and objective as possible. This was a very rewarding experience and I hope that, in the future, any parliamentary missions that I am part of will be able to match this.

I distributed a document containing a few recommendations that are more personal, because our delegation did not operate like the one that visited Algeria. A few days ago, this committee heard Mr. Boudria explain that his delegation was able to prepare a report further to two meetings that had taken place in Algeria. Our group did not believe that it would be appropriate, although I did suggest this in Chiapas, to prepare a group report. Accordingly, yesterday we presented some recommendations to the minister that were based primarily on our own personal views and experience.

• 1145

I would like to underscore two things about the mission itself. I feel that the mission was too short. On a mission of this nature, where we were to establish the facts, as Mr. Saada pointed out, we would have needed several additional days in order to do the task properly. Spending barely a day and a half in Chiapas to meet with three communities and a few individuals from these communities is not, in my mind, adequate.

In the future, I think that these delegations should ensure that they spend more time in the communities in order to meet people who are directly involved and affected by the conflict. Furthermore, we met a lot of government representatives and, in hindsight, I think this was a bit excessive.

In future, I would prefer—and I'm saying this before the Chairman—that the delegations work more collectively and present the minister with a report containing group recommendations, which would not prevent individuals from submitting their own recommendations as well.

I have therefore prepared a summary of the recommendations and I would like to underscore two series of recommendations. You can read the others. First of all, with respect to the political situation in Chiapas, I would like to make a few comments about the recommendations that I made to the minister yesterday, including the fourth recommendation that a new delegation be sent to Chiapas. I would encourage you to read the recommendations that I have made with respect to development aid and supporting civilian society and the electoral process. I could come back to this issue during the question period.

First of all, I think it is important to discuss the political situation that we had to report on to the minister. The press release that announced the creation of our mission indicated that we were to assess the political situation in Chiapas.

We must state clearly, and we agree on this, that the political situation in Chiapas gives cause for concern. Particularly since today we have learned that in Nicolas Ruiz, an independent municipality in Mexico, the police were called in and more than 100 people from this municipality were thrown into prison.

When we were in Mexico, the chairman reported to me that the Minister of the Interior had promised that he would not dismantle independent municipalities such as Nicolas Ruiz. We must therefore be concerned about the situation which is going on as we speak. Although we don't have all of the information about what happened in Nicolas Ruiz, we can see that this is an additional incident that should prompt the government of Canada, through its minister, to express its concern about the political situation and to state its concern in bilateral meetings with the Mexicans and in appropriate multilateral fora.

Another very important issue we must not be afraid to talk about, particularly since Mexico has become a trade partner, a partner in this new economic integration with its political connotations, is our opinion about paramilitary groups. If there's one thing that generates fear and concern amongst the people of Chiapas, particularly those individuals we met in the three camps we visited, it's the thought that there are paramilitary groups that are armed and that constantly threaten to attack individuals, civilians, women and children.

Yesterday, I told the minister that he should, in the name of the friendship that we have with the Mexicans, tell the government in very clear terms that it should strive to disarm and even dismantle paramilitary groups.

• 1150

I prepared other suggestions and I would like to talk about one. While we were in Mexico, we learned that the negotiations to implement the San Andrés Accords were at a stalemate and that neither the government nor the Zapatistas were prepared to return to the negotiating table in order to further the peace and reconciliation process. The negotiator, Mr. Rabasa, told us that he was worried about the fallout from these events because he wasn't able to get the Zapatistas back to the table and that, in his opinion, the conditions that had been set out did not appear to suit the Zapatistas themselves whatsoever.

I raised this issue several times during the course of the mission and I asked the Mexicans whether they would be interested in international mediation or in having an international mediator step in, as was the case in Ireland, which proved to be relatively successful, as we now know. Although they were rather against the notion and didn't necessarily view this favourably, perhaps we must now think about suggesting an international mediator to come up with a peaceful and negotiated solution to the conflict in Chiapas.

As for sending a new delegation, I would like to state that, in my opinion, it is important that we return to Mexico. This first mission was important and it opened the door to a type of parliamentary observation. I believe that the Mexicans felt that we did an adequate job and they appreciated and respected the work we did. However, given today's events and other events that lie ahead, particularly the elections that are to take place in Chiapas in October, it's important that a new delegation or mission be organized and that, this time, it include not only members of Parliament but also representatives from Canadian and Quebec non-governmental organizations.

Moreover, a proposal to this effect was made in the committee and sent to Ms. Beaumier by the Council on International Co-operation. The proposal requested that such a delegation be organized and sent to Mexico in early 1999.

Yesterday, the minister indicated that he would be prepared to send a delegation to Mexico when the joint Canada-Mexico committee is to meet, namely, in the fall of 1998. He has not made a decision as to whether or not to send NGO representatives to accompany the parliamentarians. In my view, I think that we should organize such a delegation in order to test the goodwill of the Mexican government and to ascertain whether or not it is truly interested in there being observation missions that can make critical observations about its attitude and about the attitude of all the parties involved in the conflict. I am therefore suggesting that such a delegation be organized so that we can follow up on this situation.

I will conclude by saying that I prepared a text while I was in Chiapas. I made notes and I kept a journal of this two-day mission to Chiapas. I have distributed this text today in both French and English. I hope that you will be able to read it to see how difficult the situation is in Mexico and for those living in Chiapas. We should be worried and continue to be worried about the situation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks we have just heard from Mr. Turp. As Mr. Saada said at the outset, this was a fact-finding mission. My impression was that there were precious few facts to be found. It was mostly reacting and hearing from other people about their interpretations about what had happened, for example, at the massacre at Acteal last December. To that extent, the mission was too short. When we go back or when another mission is put together it should certainly be longer. I think it should also be longer in terms of the preparation for the mission.

• 1155

I think we would have been better prepared had we been able to meet with some of the Canadian NGOs prior to our departure. We might have had a better sense and a better feel for some of the groups we were meeting with, or perhaps even more important, with groups we didn't have the opportunity to meet with.

I'll give one example. We left at different times. I met the day we left with the non-governmental human rights commission in Mexico and MarieClair Acosta. It would have been, I think, terribly useful if all of the delegation could have met with her and probably early on. So I would agree with Mr. Turp that we probably saw too many government officials in some cases too many times, and it would have been better if we had broadened our horizons.

There have been some developments since we came back on May 7. The International Red Cross going back in is welcome news, and I was pleased that the subcommittee of this committee on human rights had unanimously passed that motion. I think as it turned out that day the agreement was struck with the International Red Cross, the Mexican Red Cross, and the Government of Mexico.

However, following immediately on that announcement were the tougher rules and regulations for NGOs from outside Mexico to go in. I think you probably are aware of those. So that's disturbing, compounded with the news of yesterday's assault on the autonomous community of Nicolas Ruiz and the 140 people who are in detention. That was something, as has already been said, that we had requested strongly of Mexican government officials, that they not add to the detention and the displacement centres at this particularly difficult time. We thought we had had some agreement that they were listening, but clearly their actions speak much louder than words. So it's a classic Mexican case of one step forward and two steps back since we were there last month.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will leave it at that. I look forward to the questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Proctor.

[Translation]

Ms. St-Jacques, would you like to add anything?

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Yes, please. My comments will be very brief. Like my colleagues, I feel that four days is a very short period of time to form an opinion about the very complex situation that exists in Chiapas. There are problems of both a political and religious nature, there is undescribable poverty, a climate of mistrust and accompanying fear. It was not easy to observe all of???. This is so short a time.

Although Mr. Turp said that one solution would perhaps be to withdraw the army, I have my doubts. I am wondering if this would really provide the solution. I agree that the army is perhaps too visible, but would withdrawing the army be the right solution? The testimony of the people we met in the different camps varied tremendously. Some were afraid of the army, others were afraid of the Zapatistas. It's very difficult to form an opinion because the comments varied.

Before we can make some very precise recommendations, I agree with Mr. Turp that we should perhaps strike a committee which could be made up of members of the delegation and perhaps people who have experienced life in Mexico. It would be easy to come up with what we feel is an appropriate solution, but we don't live there and we don't know the full impact of such a solution. It would be useful to strike a committee, sit down and really assess the problems experienced by the people who live there. Could we not also be informed, on a regular basis, of how events are enfolding in Chiapas? We only spent four days there and I think that we should remain in regular contact and continue to receive information so that we can form a valid opinion.

Many topics were discussed. I would also like to add that we should get the international community involved. There is the problem of the children, a problem which we perhaps did not discuss. Perhaps UNESCO could help the children there. The poverty there is considerable. If we do not intervene quickly, perhaps the children may become revolutionaries when they are seven or eight years old. Can we do something to prevent this terrible outcome?

The first thing that I see as a step towards a solution is getting the negotiations back on track. Perhaps Canada can act as a facilitator to get the two parties back to the table, resume negotiations and try to find a solution.

• 1200

This is a general comment, but we can provide more in-depth answers to the questions you ask us.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. St-Jacques.

[English]

Members, I just want to draw your attention to the fact that it's now 12 o'clock, and because of the vote we lost half an hour. We have only until 12.30, because many members have other obligations and we can't hold it past 12.30. I already have seven people on my list to ask questions, so let's keep it to at least no more than five minutes per person and see how we get that way.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): I have four areas I would like to explore. The first one is the process.

We have a subcommittee on human rights chaired by Colleen Beaumier. This is the second time in two days that we've been here with some group that has been sent off by somebody. It seems to me there's a real problem with process—not your problem, but a problem that we do have the mechanism for sending groups off that should be more expert at analysing foreign affairs issues than certainly some other put-together group. I would ask that question about process. As I say, it's the second time in two days. It seems to me it should have been done by our human rights subcommittee. Likewise, if we are doing a trade thing, it should be done by our subcommittee on that. So I have a real problem with that.

Second, we must remember that Mexico is one of the three amigos. We are working with this country, and our Prime Minister has said that we are working like amigos.

That comes to my third point. I am not sure why we are running off to one of our amigos to examine in detail an issue. Why wouldn't this group go to northern Manitoba? Why wouldn't it go to Hobbema, just north of my riding, where the grassroots people have been picketing the chief and council because they wouldn't listen to them, because there's no grassroots involvement, because they don't have toilets and they don't have heat in their homes while the chief and council are going off to Las Vegas once a month to have their assemblies and meetings. That's a big problem. Those people don't have anything, and they are picketing their office.

We can talk about Oka. We can talk about Gustafson Lake. Let's not throw rocks when you live in a glass house, guys. I believe that's exactly where we're at here, and I find it offensive. If a group of Mexican parliamentarians came here and spent time in northern Manitoba or in some of these other situations, let's just analyse how we would receive that.

I would like to hear from you about the numbers of NGOs there. I understand there are huge numbers. With what I have seen, maybe there's more concern about politics than there is about actually helping poor people and people on the ground.

I don't deny that there are problems, but there are problems in lots of parts of the world. Yesterday or the day before we talked about Sudan. One and a half million people have died there, so maybe we can give some help to them. Nigeria...the list goes on and on.

I guess I have a real concern about some of the things I'm hearing here or the process I see happening. It seems to me that if we really wanted to do something for Chiapas and for the people, we would sit down first with the Mexican government, first with the embassy here in Ottawa, bring in experts, get the information from there, and then ask what can we do with the information we have.

We have a huge aboriginal problem in our country. The first nations people have a big problem in our country and it's a huge problem that's just getting bigger.

It would seem to me that we could say we have equal problems here and we must find solutions for the people of Canada, the first nations, and for the people of Mexico of aboriginal background. Do it productively and cooperatively, not a special group to gather information to come back and promote whatever. I just believe it's the wrong thing. I don't like to see it in our media. I'm not proud of it as a parliamentarian. I think we should be examining this whole issue on how we handle this sort of thing.

• 1205

I don't really have a question. I guess I find the process obnoxious. I find the whole attitude obnoxious. I feel the approach is wrong.

I agree with a lot of those agreements. We should help them with elections if they ask us. Look at their election process: they have cards for every elector. They have a lot better ID system for electors. In my riding some people had as many as four election cards. That couldn't happen in Mexico. There is a more sophisticated computerized electoral system than in Canada.

Let's not just be on the attack. Let's be constructive in what we do. I think that's a lot more beneficial than what I believe you tried to accomplish.

Did I take my five minutes?

The Chairman: You took your five minutes. Anybody can use the time. You are a member of Parliament; you can use your time the way you want to. This is in committee and that's the rule.

It seems to me if we want to have a debate about this issue, it is a debate we should have in the committee. But we might use our time more profitably this morning when we have the people who have been there to ask them questions about it. If you want to set time for a debate about what we should be doing, let's have a debate in the committee on that issue, but let's use the time to take advantage of the presence of the people who have been there to get some information from them.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I will not address all the comments, but I think there's one thing I think ought to be formalized and put for the record here. The Reform Party was asked to send a representative on this delegation and refused.

Mr. Bob Mills: But do you know why?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Debien.

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval-East, BQ): Good afternoon, colleagues.

You told us that you met numerous representatives from the Mexican government. I would like to know two things. Did you talk to them about the Chiapas 94 Campaign Plan, which involved, among other things, the formation of paramilitary groups and the limitations put on the NGOs? I'd like to hear your comments on this issue.

Secondly, did you talk to the government representatives about the expulsion of the foreign observers? Earlier, Ms. St-Jacques talked about not having enough information about what is going on down there. How can we get information if all of the foreign observers are expelled? It's a bit contradictory. I'd like to know what you were told about the expulsion of observers. First of all, did you raise the question and, if so, what were you told?

My third question concerns the constitutional negotiations. Mr. Turp told us that the negotiations were at a stalemate, according to the chief negotiator, and that there was some disagreement about the conditions laid down by the parties to resume negotiations. What are these conditions? Why is there disagreement about the conditions?

You also met Mexican NGOs there. I would like to know how the NGOs assess the situation.

Finally, were you able to determine where the paramilitary groups in Chiapas were getting their weapons? You know that Canada exports ammunition and weapons to Mexico.

Those are my questions.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you. I will try to answer the very important questions you raised.

First of all, as for the foreign observers, all the members of the delegation raised this issue several times. And I say several times. Every time the Mexican authorities responded by saying: "We are prepared to welcome credible and representative foreign observers, but we are not prepared to accept groups who, on the one hand, are not representative and who, on the other hand, come here with preconceived notions about the situation in order to help subversive or opposition movements, in other words, people who are politically involved in these movements." This is a response we were given systematically. I think that my colleagues will be able to confirm this or elaborate on the issue.

• 1210

Moreover, I must say that I was pleasantly surprised when Mexico invited the International Committee of the Red Cross to intervene, because it is as though Mexico were taking the initiative on proposals that they had previously made.

As for the negotiations, without getting into the details immediately, I would like to specify one thing. Mr. Turp, in his intervention, referred to the fact that the two parties had imposed unacceptable conditions. However—and I say this solely out of a concern for objectivity—the groups we met that were close to the Zapatistas acknowledged that since Mr. Rabasa's appointment, the Mexican government had attempted to get the negotiations back on track several times.

As for the content, I will perhaps ask for a little bit of assistance from my colleague, but essentially, the San Andrés Accords were political agreements that were reached in 1996. When these political agreements were set forth in legal terms, the tremendous divergence between the Zapatistas claims and what the Mexican government is prepared to give became apparent. There is, in particular, in the definition of a "people", the difference between "autonomy" and "sovereignty", and so on and so forth.

There can be no progress while these fundamental issues remain outstanding. As long as these issues constitute primarily what is at stake, people will not come back to the table. This is a prerequisite.

Listen, I don't have time...

Ms. Maud Debien: We could leave it at that, but I would like you to go back to the National Defence Department Chiapas 94 Campaign Plan.

Mr. Daniel Turp: No, we didn't discuss it. We certainly did not have enough information on this issue, which implies that more preparation should go into planning missions such as this, and that it should not be such a last minute thing.

We have learned from the NGOs, particularly through a document that is circulating this morning in the Ottawa group... No doubt this plan was known in advance, but we weren't told about it. In all honesty, we did not really discuss this matter, just as we did not discuss where the weapons were coming from. We didn't ask any questions. We probably should have. We heard that there were some AK-47s, that there were weapons that came from the United States, the USSR and other Latin American countries, but we didn't systematically ask the people we met this question.

We did not meet with representatives from the military. This was probably a shortcoming as well, but Ambassador Gooch told us that we wouldn't be any further ahead if we did meet with the military officials in Mexico because they wouldn't say anything. We found this out, moreover, when I systematically asked all of the people I met: How many soldiers are in Chiapas? We were told that there were about 8,000, 12,000, 35,000, 70,000, 75,000. We were given estimates. I asked questions, and when I asked the Governor of Chiapas for an answer, he called upon one of his colleagues, who called the military. The answer we were given was that this was a military secret.

When we talked to the military attaché at the Canadian Embassy, he said that, in his opinion, there were 14,500 Mexican soldiers in Chiapas, whereas the NGOs put this number at 70,000. I can tell you that one of the frustrating things about our fact-finding mission was that we had no real idea of how many soldiers were in Chiapas.

As for the constitutional negotiations, yes, there are some conditions. The Zapatistas have requested that five conditions be met. I have these conditions and I could give them to you. The two most important conditions pertain to the withdrawal of the army and the return to the COCOPA text, the text of the constitutional bill that was prepared by this conciliation committee and which was turned down by the government because it wanted to replace it with its own text.

• 1215

As for the issue of foreign observers, I would like to conclude by saying that, in my recommendations, I suggested that the government express its concern because there had been a tightening of the rules governing the stay and the establishment or work of the NGOs in Mexico, rules that tend to restrict their access to Mexico. We talked about this issue often and we have to talk about this even more because the people who are behind us, who are observers and who want to continue to be so, are going to have a more difficult time over the next few weeks and months if they want to go to Mexico.

The Chairman: Thank you. I'm sorry, Ms. Debien, but really—

Ms. Maud Debien: I had five questions and he answered four of them.

The Chairman: I know, but you had five minutes and your five minutes have elapsed. That's the problem.

Ms. Maud Debien: They didn't answer.

The Chairman: Perhaps we'll get back to this, but for the time being, I would like to turn the floor over to Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): I would like to thank the members of the delegation for appearing here this morning, particularly Mr. Turp for his written report and Mr. Proctor, for the press conference he held.

[English]

I have a couple of questions. Madam Debien asked a number of questions I wanted to follow up on.

Mr. Saada, I'm wondering why you have not actually prepared a report as the chair of this delegation.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That's a very interesting question. I think I was just reporting to you. My first concern was the following, and it's not a concern having to do with a written report or a verbal report but in terms of the process. The mission had been requested by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and to me it was important, by virtue of respect for protocol, to report to him first and then report to this committee and if need be to have a written report. I have no objection in principle at all. I just wanted to follow the rules.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So you intend to do a written report.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I didn't intend to. I don't mind doing it if it's required. I think what is more important than the written report is really the follow-up process Mr. Turp referred to. There is a series of recommendations that has been drafted. I'm here to see what the decision of the minister is going to be with regard to these recommendations. I think it is far more constructive than arguing about the wording of a text when we all agree that we should consider this situation urgent.

Mr. Svend Robinson: On the recommendations then, again, could I ask for your position, as chair of the delegation, with respect to two specific areas of concern? You mentioned that all members of the delegation had raised questions about the rules for human rights observers in Mexico. What is your position, as chair of the delegation, with respect to those rules?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Let me preface it with one small statement and then I'll give you the answer to that.

The first statement I would like to make, which is going to apply not only for NGO presence or for international presence but as a rule, is we have seen that it was very profoundly perceptible. Mexico is extremely jealous of its own sovereignty and has a trend to view very negatively, right from the outset, not on the merits but just on the appearance of infringement on its own sovereignty, any proposition.

Mr. Svend Robinson: What's your position? That's Mexico's position.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I think that if you do not have somehow an opening to international presence in Mexico, you are depriving yourself of a very important tool to address the issue. The answer to your question is yes, I am very much in favour of increased international presence in Mexico, but we have to do it in a way that is constructive and not to block off from the outset.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It would have been helpful perhaps if that had been one of the recommendations you made to the minister. It was not in any way, as I understand it, among the six recommendations.

Mr. Jacques Saada: On this last point, it's not because a recommendation is made by another person within my own delegation that I do not agree with them because they are from a different party. I have stated very specifically to Mr. Axworthy in the presence of Mr. Turp that some of the recommendations Mr. Turp is making I subscribe to and I agree with.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's fine. I assumed the recommendations you made reflected your priorities.

Mr. Saada, what is your position? Since this wasn't included among your recommendations perhaps it's one of those you support from Mr. Proctor. But both Mr. Proctor and Mr. Turp have recommended that paramilitary groups operating in the region should be disarmed.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: NGOs have made a similar recommendation, and that the government should pull back its military forces. What is your position on that? You didn't include that among your recommendations.

• 1220

What is your position with respect to the issue of the Canadian government suspending the approval of export permits for military equipment, particularly in light of the developments we heard about recently in the autonomous community of Nicolas Ruiz?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I think if you look at the field there, obviously you have no other choice but to promote disarmament of these civilian armed groups. But this cannot be a unilateral decision. It has to be done by all parties concerned. We have learned there are, I believe, 14 armed civilian groups. Some of them are armed by the PRI. They are pro-PRI. There are some, a minority, that are pro-Zapatistas. We also heard that some of them are helped in terms of armament by groups that have nothing to do with the situation, for instance drug dealing.

I am in favour of the principle of disarmament, but it would not be fair to say it's only the Government of Mexico that has to do it. I think all parties have to do it.

I'm sorry, could you repeat the second question?

Mr. Svend Robinson: The second question was with respect to recommendations that a number of NGOs have made, particularly important given the events in Nicolas Ruiz, the autonomous community, breaching the commitment I understand was made to you that there be a suspension of approval of export permits for military equipment to Mexico.

Mr. Jacques Saada: First of all, when you talk about breaching, I would be careful. I would rather wait until I have confirmation of the facts, because one of the conditions attached to the non-intervention with violence was non-violation of human rights. Whether there was a violation of human rights in Nicolas Ruiz that justified the intervention I don't know. So I think fairness would require that I just wait until I can determine that.

As far as the suspension of military exports, if military exports are used to arm civilian groups or to fight against Mexican populations, I would certainly support suspension of that, but I don't have any proof of that and I don't think anybody here has proof of it.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'll try to be as brief as I can.

I get the sense that while the situation is still very untenable, you detect that some progress may be being made with the new governor and so on. Did I understand you correctly, Mr. Saada?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would be cautious in using the word “progress”. We have heard manifestations of intent. Actually, the only thing we can be sure of is the resumption of the presence of the International Red Cross Committee.

Your question leads me to what might be a fundamental statement here. It seems that denunciation might be less productive than helping and pushing for help and pushing for support for resolution of the conflict.

I don't live in Utopia, but I do favour approaches that are more constructive by having observers, by helping the population of Chiapas with aid, by training the police in their civilian dealings. By all those measures, by developing the economic powers of the aboriginal people, we will go much further and it's much more promising. Whether there is a guarantee that it will happen, whether it will work, I certainly am not in a position to give you a guarantee.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I would like to add something. If there has been progress, it has been very, very limited. One aspect that indicates the absence of progress is that people are no longer talking together and that the government has undertaken constitutional reform that could result in the adoption of changes that are vitally important to Mexican society and to the Aboriginal people of Chiapas and other regions without even obtaining the assent of these people. This poses a very big problem and I think that this is what justified a mission such as ours.

• 1225

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to my colleague, Mr. Mills, and to add that between friendly countries, between amigos as you called them, Mr. Mills, we have even more reason to be concerned about the human rights situation. A friendly country can accept criticism. The Mexicans, including Mr. Rabasa, even told us: "We have agreed to have you on our territory knowing what the consequence will be, namely that you will criticize us, and we are prepared to receive this criticism." So we should not be blamed for criticizing them.

I would really like it if the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs would not hesitate to denounce certain situations and to express its concern, which should not on the other hand prevent it from taking more positive steps to assist and support civilian society. In fact, one of my suggestions is to fund an initiative suggested by a group that came to talk to us last week. They want to establish a round table with participants from Mexican civilian society, Mexican NGOs and Canadian NGOs. In order to be a friend, we must say when things are not right. All countries, including Mexico, are accountable to the international community when it comes to respecting or not respecting human rights. This includes Mexico, even if this country may be more of a friend than others are at this time.

[English]

Mr. Julian Reed: It's obvious that the continuation of the strife among these various groups aids and abets the drug trade. How big is the drug trade? Do you have any picture? As long as turmoil continues it's good for the drug trade, isn't it?

Mr. Jacques Saada: It is very difficult to answer this question.

What we were told there was that some airports were being used by drug dealers. Often civilian armed groups were mercenaries that didn't have any political opinion necessarily but were just there because they were paid. This is very confusing.

We have the suspicion that there definitely is a problem. To what extent there is a problem it's difficult for us to say.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: The problem is so widespread that it was implied that the army, and more particularly the many police forces that exist in Mexico—because there are many police forces, there are the provincial forces, the municipal police forces, the special security force—systematically took part in drug trafficking. This is such a big issue that the United States, in its dealings with Mexico, is making the drug trade a very big priority. This is not the case with Canada, because drug trafficking goes on primarily between Mexico and the United States, but this is an issue that should concern us as well.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, if I may, this brings me to complete an answer to a question that Mr. Robinson had asked me.

When we talk about the commitment made by Mr. Labastida, the Secretary of the Interior, to refrain from using force, we must also establish that it was in fact a police force apparently that intervened in the village. Now, the police force is not under the jurisdiction of the Mexican federal government, but under that of the government of the State of Mexico and perhaps exclusively under the jurisdiction of the municipality. These are things that must be established before we judge the sincerity of Mr. Labastida's commitment.

[English]

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): I'm sitting here as a parliamentarian listening to colleagues who have gone there and who have seen the misery and who have seen the lives of people so devastated. I'm asking what can we as parliamentarians do to better the situation. The Mexican government's current policies and practices allow that kind of devastation. I'm asking how as parliamentarians we could put pressure, which has all kinds of different connotations, or in some way have the government see what you saw.

• 1230

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Very briefly, Ms. Augustine, there are probably three ways of looking at this problem. The first one at the first level is the historical problem. The difficulties did not arrive with respect to the massacre. That was the obvious outcome of an historical process. It did not just start with the uprising in January 1994.

There were a lot of issues and factors that premeditated the formation of the Zapatistas and the rebel movement: deep poverty, alienation, an Indian group who had lived there ostensibly for hundreds of years peacefully and through a subsistence kind of existence, but they were getting along. We have not been able to determine precisely what those factors were that led to that rebellion.

The second level is the immediate suffering as a result of the difficulties. We saw many instances where young people were dying. We visited the hospitals and were told that there were young people coming there with tuberculosis and there was not proper medication. That's the second level that we have to address.

The third one and perhaps the more complicated is from the political, civil society, military perspective. These are very complicated questions. We spoke to and I asked a direct question of a Canadian NGO, a professor of social work from the University of Alberta, who told me emphatically that there were 72,000 military soldiers there. This was absolutely incorrect. I know he had no intention of providing false information, but it's a very complicated matter.

I think Mr. Mills raised some interesting points about Canada's own situation with respect to our aboriginal people, but try to turn it around for a second. If we had invited Mexican parliamentarians to Oka in 1990, would they have gone back to their country and said it was about a nine-hole golf course? Absolutely not. The matters there were very complicated.

In New Brunswick we have a group of chiefs now in between the Government of New Brunswick and some of the loggers. Some of the loggers are non-native people. Look at the complications there. It's very difficult to analyse it very quickly.

One of the things we must look at from a long-term perspective is that it is no different from what we are dealing with here in Canada in terms of the systemic poverty and what led to the uprising there, what led beyond the golf course to the uprising in Canada with our own aboriginal people and how that caused a firestorm across this country.

Those are some of the important points we have to start working on collectively as a committee or this subgroup perhaps, but more importantly, as a government.

Mr. Dick Proctor: What can we do? I think we have a bit of time when the Canadian government should be indicating to the Mexican government that we want to see some significant improvements in the next little while with regard to Chiapas, and we could also pick some other places. If we don't, then the Canadian government is going to get more vocal, more public in its criticism of what is going on in Mexico.

In response to the first intervention this afternoon, I guess the best offence is a good defence, or vice versa. We acknowledged, Mr. Mills, and Mr. Iftody did it better than anyone else publicly, that we did not go to Mexico with clean hands in terms of our aboriginal people. We know we have problems in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and a number of other places, but I haven't noticed recently that 45, and mostly women, were massacred in any Canadian community.

Mr. Bob Mills: They're committing suicide.

Mr. Dick Proctor: It's really a very specious argument. I suspect that on June 2 you didn't have 150 ballot boxes disappear in your community so that the votes were never counted. We had a federal election in 1988 in both Mexico and Canada. The computers didn't suddenly go down in this country and then the results came in totally different.

• 1235

You can have whatever rationale you want for the fact that the Reform Party didn't go to Mexico, but the ones you advanced this afternoon are very specious.

The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I thank our colleagues for coming and sharing experiences with us.

As a committee it is clear that we will have to judge for ourselves what we are going to do with this information and whether we should take further action in the committee. Miss Beaumier could not stay until the end, but obviously we have the human rights subcommittee. This may well be something we will have to follow on a more regular basis. We thank our colleagues for taking the time and sharing their experiences.

Before we adjourn, Mr. Grewal has a quick motion. He's not going to have it debated today, but he wants to get on the table.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to move, pursuant to Standing Order 81(7) and 81(8), that the foreign affairs and international trade committee shall consider and report to the House the expenditure plans and priorities in future fiscal years of the Department of Foreign Affairs with regard to the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, and its assistance programs to India and Pakistan in light of the recent nuclear testing performed by both countries.

The Chairman: That's the motion. It's on the table. I understand Mr. Mills will speak to it when we come back on Tuesday.

We are adjourned until nine o'clock Tuesday.

Thank you very much, members.