NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 2, 1998

• 1636

[English]

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): I would like to call to order this joint meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

We have with us today Ministers Axworthy and Eggleton, who are going to give us a briefing on a potential Canadian participation in a peacekeeping force in the Central African Republic. Then members can have an opportunity to ask the ministers questions and hopefully have some time for discussion of that issue when the ministers have finished.

Mr. Axworthy, welcome to the committee, sir.

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Thank you, Joint Chairmen, Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Graham.

Let me first thank you for responding so quickly and with courtesy to our request for this briefing. As we often find out in this business, one does not manage time or events to suit parliamentary schedules, but we thought it was important to come and brief both committees on an important request we received from the UN to participate in a new peacekeeping initiative.

Many of you would probably know from reading the papers and others things that on March 27 the UN Security Council approved a new UN mission to the Central African Republic. I'll give you some details on that later.

It was interesting to note that in the support for this mission they recognized it as a quite innovative exercise in preventive diplomacy, and it's very important that it takes place in the broad central African area, where there has been a lot of instability and where the UN has been asked to play an important role in continuing to try to ensure that it doesn't spread.

It's also pointed out that this is the first new United Nations mission in two years and the first UN mission in Africa in four years. What should be of particular interest to us as Canadians is that the mission is based on the concept of the rapid deployment headquarters, which is a Canadian proposal that has been adopted by the United Nations. This is a mechanism for an integrated planning and deployment, something that has been strongly advocated by us for several years. I think the fact that they're now incorporating that as part of the management system is very important.

[Translation]

The United Nations have asked Canada to supply a Francophone communications unit to the mission. This group, comprising from 25 to 45 soldiers, will be the real seat of operations for this mission.

[English]

The mission is proposed to start on April 15. We'll have to move very quickly to respond to the UN request. We've consulted with our various partners at the UN, who have all urged our participation. Our Prime Minister has spoken to several heads of government, heads of state, to gain their interest.

It is clear that the new proposed MINURCA will have a mandate to provide security in the capital city of Bangui in the Central African Republic to protect key installations, supervise the disposal of surrendered weapons of former combatants, ensure the security and free movement of UN personnel, and provide advice for the legislative election scheduled for the fall of 1998—I want to underline that point.

• 1640

There was a democratic election in 1993 in the Central African Republic. Things haven't worked well, but they have been working. The fact of the matter is that the next round of elections come up this fall. Without the international presence in the Central African Republic to provide a degree of stability, and also to provide just the basic framework in which elections can take place, the chances of it succeeding could be probable. Not only would this be traditional peacekeeping in that sense, it also borrows in part some of the activities that we've seen take place in Bosnia, where the peacekeeping unit will also provide a framework for the elections this fall.

As you know, the Central African Republic is a former French colony. The present president is Ange-Félix Patassé. The country has had a lot of financial difficulties. It has had a number of upheavals. It is faced with dealing with a rebel group that controls parts of the countryside. There have been various mutinies. There has been an African multinational force helping to put them down.

But despite its problems, it is still surviving, and there is room. I think there have been some signs of improvements, some building of institutions. Like many states coming out of a colonial situation or a conflict situation, it's trying to find itself in a place where it can still operate under democratic principles.

The other problem it faces is that it's in a tough neighbourhood. There are a number of other countries in the immediate proximity that are undergoing conflicts or have gone through conflicts—Congo-Brazzaville, Angola, Sudan, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. There is a lot of instability and a lot of volatility in the area, which is why I think we have an important opportunity here to work very closely with African nations in the area. Along with France, Angola, Gabon and Senegal would be the major participants—and I think my colleague Art Eggleton will outline the actual military capacities.

But there is a real chance for us to, first, demonstrate that Canada is a leading peacekeeping country that is still prepared to offer its special skills in this area; second, show that we're called upon because of the particular assets that we have as a bilingual country, because we can offer highly trained technicians in the communications field who speak French; and third, demonstrate in Africa that there is a continuing UN commitment to that continent to help in its stability.

As a result, the proposed mission has acquired considerable symbolic significance at the UN. The non-aligned movement feels that this is a real test case for the UN in terms of showing that it pays as much attention to their concerns as it has to places such as Bosnia and other conflicts along the way.

[Translation]

I also think that Canadian participation could improve our relations with the Francophone nations, especially African countries and, subsequently, could advance our campaign to have Canada recognized as an influential nation within the Francophonie and in other areas of the world.

[English]

So, members of the commitee, we're here to seek the support of parliamentarians for this initiative. As you know, we've always taken the principle that before we make any final decisions, we want to have an opportunity to consult with Parliament. In this case, because of the size and nature of the mission, I think the endorsement or support of this committee would be very welcome. Before Minister Eggleton and I report back to the Prime Minister, we would really very much welcome your views, and we are certainly prepared to answer any questions.

I have with me two key officials who are available for questioning, Ralph Lysyshyn, the director general of international security—maybe you'll remember him from his role with the landmines—and Madame Sandelle Scrimshaw, who is our director general for African affairs. They will also both be available to answer other questions.

I will now ask my colleague to speak about it.

Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Thank you very much, Chairman Bertrand, Chairman Graham, members of the two committees.

• 1645

My colleague Lloyd Axworthy has outlined for you the political situation with respect to the Central African Republic and the goals of the UN mission. I'd like to provide you with more details on the military component and Canada's potential role in it.

The UN force will assist the Central African Republic's national security forces, such as they are, in maintaining law and order and in protecting key installations in Bangui. It will supervise the disposal of weapons retrieved in the disarmament program. It will ensure the security and freedom of movement of UN personnel and the safety and security of UN property.

MINURCA will take over from MISAB, an acronym for the current UN mission there. Countries participating in this new mission, MINURCA, will likely include: France, Ghana, Côte-d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Chad, Gabon, Mali, Senegal and Togo, in addition to ourselves.

The military force will number approximately 1,350 troops from all of those countries. The force will include a headquarters, a signals unit, six infantry companies, a light armoured squadron, a reinforced security company, a mortar platoon, a medical unit, a river transportation unit and an aviation unit.

France, which has had a presence there for some time, will maintain a small security force at the airport and will also have an extraction force outside the country. Ghana will provide the security company. Côte-d'Ivoire will provide the light armoured squadron. The force commander will likely be the commander of the current mission, and he is a general from Gabon.

Now for Canada's contribution: Canada has received a request from the United Nations to provide a signals troop of about 25 French-speaking soldiers. The signals unit would generally be responsible for operating the UN-owned communications equipment at the military operation centre on a full-time basis and for communications between the force headquarters and the various subordinate contingents.

As we always do, we would also provide Canadian personnel to handle the special needs of our own contingent, including pay, administration, a medical adviser, etc.

The UN has also asked us to provide four personnel as part of the headquarters staff for the mission. The total size of the Canadian contribution would be about 45 personnel.

The UN force will be housed at two camps, one in the centre of Bangui and one at the airport, which is about six kilometres away. The Canadian signals unit would operate from both camps. Security at both sites will be provided by MINURCA and French forces. Furthermore, as I mentioned, the French will also have extraction forces outside the country, but nearby in Chad and Gabon, which would react to an emergency within hours.

France will also provide for the logistical and medical needs of the force. As soon as we learned that the UN might ask us to participate, we began assessing the situation and planning for a possible mission. We sent a team to UN headquarters in New York for discussions and a reconnaissance team into the Central African Republic. We have also been in close contact with our French allies.

Based on their assessments, the Chief of Defence Staff has informed me that he considers the level of risk to our soldiers acceptable.

The mandate duration is initially for a period of three months, ending on July 15 of this year. However, the Secretary-General's report on the Central African Republic recommends an extension until after the elections that are being held this fall, and that would be for a total duration of nine months. We are keeping that nine-month timeframe in mind and planning accordingly. If there is an extension, and if Canada decides to participate, then the Canadian Forces will be prepared to go from the three-to the nine-month duration.

• 1650

On the costs of this, the incremental cost to Canada for our contribution we estimate to be about $1,200,000 for three months, or about $3,100,000 for nine months, based on a commitment of 45 soldiers.

In addition, the UN intends to reimburse Canada for the cost of 29 personnel—that is, the 25 signals element who are running the communications systems, plus the four personnel who would be at headquarters. That would decrease the incremental costs on the three-month period by $122,000. I don't have a figure for the nine-month period—unless you have one?

A voice: No, sir. It would be about three times that amount.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: It's about three times that. That's simple.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Good mathematics.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: In conclusion, we've assessed the situation carefully, both from here and from New York, and from discussions with our allies and also on the ground, in the country, over the past few days. The Canadian Forces are capable of providing the personnel for the initial three-month period and in fact for the longer period if the mission is extended, as I expect it will be. There are still some details to be worked out, but I am quite prepared, as the Minister of Defence, to support Canadian participation in this mission.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions. If there's any detail required, Lieutenant-General Crabbe, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, is here with me to help on those technical questions.

Thank you. Merci.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We'll now go to questions. We'll start with Mr. Hanger from the Reform. We don't have that much time, so as much as possible, we should keep our questions very short.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eggleton, I'm kind of curious about this mandate again. It appears that you have indicated that the soldiers will be almost static in some respects, but also on the other side that there's going to be some movement. You indicated in your initial comments that they'd be there to assist in maintaining law and order and to supervise UN convoys. At the other side, you say that the signals corps of 25 soldiers will be operating under two basic camps, with some administrative support and four headquarters staff. Are they going to be on the move? Are they going to be armed? Exactly what will they be doing?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: We've been asked to provide for a signals unit—communications personnel—and they're going to be located in two camps. I was giving you an overview, and maybe you're putting a little bit of the comments together here. I was giving you an overview of what the total military mission would be from the UN—that's the 1,350 troops. Our group, though, would be primarily stationary in those two camps based around the capital city.

Do you want to add anything to that?

Lieutenant-General Raymond Crabbe (Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): That's absolutely right. The signals component, plus our own international element, will be in a camp—in fact, you'll see it in the handout there—in Camp Beal, plus the airport. The rest of the contingent, largely those six companies, will be the ones who'll be providing the assistance to the law and order and the freedom of movement for the UN forces throughout the rest of the city and the immediate vicinity. That's essentially how the division of responsibilities will be handled.

Mr. Art Hanger: I appreciate that. I gather when you're saying “the rest”, you're not referring to the Canadian troops, but to the 1,300 that are—

LGen Raymond Crabbe: That's correct, from the other countries.

Mr. Art Hanger: How would you assess the level of risk?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: As I said, the Chief of Defence Staff has indicated that the risk is acceptable, and the risk in the areas where we're going to be located, in the capital city, is considered to be a low risk.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. I have one more question, and then my colleague, I know, has a couple of questions.

Who will be directly commanding those troops—our troops?

LGen Raymond Crabbe: The command and control structure will be exactly the same as it is for every Canadian Forces deployment outside the country. That is, we'll have a Canadian contingent commander in theatre who will be under command of the Chief of Defence Staff.

Mr. Art Hanger: Who will that be?

• 1655

LGen Raymond Crabbe: It's a lieutenant-colonel, yet to be named, who is coming from Valcartier. He is the contingent commander.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you.

Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Thank you very much, Ministers, and thank you for bringing your staff and support people with you today to answer our questions.

One concern I have is that this area is, as the ministers have explained already, an area of instability, and some countries who will be our allies in this mission have had difficulties of their own. Maybe you can alleviate my concern that we will have allies on this mission who will be able to continue on and finish the mission.

Chad, for instance, has had domestic instability itself, and it is one of our allies on this mission. What assurances do Canadians have that our allies are going to be able to fulfil this police action in central Africa?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: One of the first things we looked at was security of our troops there. The security is going to be particularly the responsibility of Ghana. They are going to provide the security company, and they are really quite experienced. We have dealt with them on a number of other occasions, and they are really quite experienced and quite competent in terms of that function.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: You asked a specific question about Chad. The previous mission was in place for well over a year, and Chad was a member during that period of time and no problems were encountered. We don't foresee any, because they have made the commitment. Based on recent experience, they seem to be a very stable partner.

Mr. Jim Hart: Okay.

What is the potential for Canada's involvement to expand past either the 25 or 45 personnel, or the nine months?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: We have to keep an eye on what is called mission creep, obviously, but we've been asked to provide a very specific function. It's not a general patrolling function but a very specific function—that is, communications. The endeavour here is to have the African nations themselves provide the bulk of the force and the command of the force. So we'll have to address that as we come to it.

A key point is the election coming up in the fall. The Secretary-General feels that this unit is going to be needed there until that point in time.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: From the point of view of the assurance we can build in, the actual Security Council resolution was just for three months. It will then go back for extension, subject again to an assessment of the role that's being playing and if there's any further mandate.

One thing we did check on very carefully, because of past experience, is to make sure the mandate was totally in concurrence with the resources that would be available. That's one reason the application of the rapid deployment management system that we've been urging is showing some value. In fact, the UN now has a capacity—limited, but a capacity—to do some real planning in New York that can assist contingent countries like ours to prepare itself. I think the Security Council has again approached this at a much higher level of assessment that will continue during these periods of extension that will go on.

Mr. Jim Hart: All of these missions and history will tell us that people are concerned about rules of engagement. How does Canada play a role in drafting those rules of engagement in this particular UN mission?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: This particular mission is under chapter VI of the United Nations charter, not under chapter VII. So it doesn't foresee any kind of combat role. I think the forces will then draw their rules of engagement accordingly.

Mr. Jim Hart: Thank you very much.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: There are rules of engagement that do come. They are formalized by the United Nations. We also review them in Ottawa and establish our own national rules of engagement that our command structure is subject to.

Mr. Jim Hart: Thank you.

• 1700

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen.

I guess it's no surprise to anybody that I would support this operation. It really pleases to me to see that Canada is asked to take these types of specific roles and that we have the expertise to add to this.

To the Minister of Defence especially, this should make you feel that this adds something else that you can go forward with as we continually look to improve our military in every way and improve the resources available to them.

With regard to the question that was just asked, we're sending approximately 45 people for the signals operation. This is for an operation of up to 3 months, and then it may be extended.

In terms of the moneys that you said will be coming back—and I guess this is strictly a question my committee would ask—where do those moneys come back to? Will they come back to you at Defence or will they come back to general revenue?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I would be happy to take them.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Art Eggleton: I know where you're coming from, and I 100% agree, but I think I'd like to get back to you on that.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you.

Mr. Art Eggleton: As soon as I fight it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Ms. Debien.

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

To begin with, I would like to say that, in the pursuit of efforts aimed at promoting peace and resolving conflicts, the Bloc Québécois obviously supports the Canadian initiative, since it is part of a process and within the framework of a Security Council resolution.

That being said, I would like to ask three questions. My first question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Minister, you had gotten us used to, or rather you had fallen into the good habit of having a debate in the House when there is an issue of sending troops within the framework of UN missions. This time, that was not the case. If you recall, we did it for Bosnia, for Haiti, and later, when there was the question of extending their mandates, of course, we came here to the House. Since the UN Security Council has been studying the question for many weeks now, I wonder why the Minister has not called for a debate in the House.

Secondly, I would like to know more about the request you received to send Francophone soldiers. You were asked for 45 Francophone soldiers. The request was sent to you. I really hope you will answer positively since it is a Francophone country. I would like to know if it would be only Francophone or French- speaking officers and soldiers.

My third question concerns arms. I would like to know whether, in 1997, military arms were exported to the Central African Republic by Canadian companies. According to the report published by your ministry on the exportation of military goods, the 1996 annual report, almost 2 million dollars worth of arms were supplied to the Central African Republic in 1996.

I would like to know whether, in 1997, Canadian companies exported more military goods, seeing as how in the summary we were given, it is stated that the main problem in the Central African Republic and neighbouring countries is precisely the proliferation of arms. I would like to know what you have to say on that subject.

My fourth question, which is perhaps the hardest one to ask, concerns public development aid. Is Canada taking part in development aid programs in the Central African Republic?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: First of all, I would like to say that there was an opportunity to consult with the committee about decisions made on the extension of the mandates in Bosnia and Haiti.

Ms. Maud Debien: Yes, but there wasn't any debate in the House.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: No, but we just received the request from the UN a few days ago and it was impossible to make the necessary arrangements, especially since the committee was on a trip to Washington and New York at the time.

• 1705

After consulting with the co-chairs of the two committees, we decided that this was the best way to proceed in order to satisfy Parliament's interests. Under the circumstances, the members of the group certainly have the right to debate the matter and to decide whether or not to support the resolutions and the requests.

[English]

On the other question, I can't answer exactly about the number of arms sent. I'll just point out the circumstances a little bit. Generally, efforts were made to help support the army in the Central African Republic to provide its own stability. We're not there to replace what they're doing. We hope to help build their institutions, and one of them is to provide a degree of military order.

We wouldn't, I don't think, send them any kind of active arms, or there might be, and I only answer that because I don't have the export arms control report in front of me. If it was a legitimate transfer to the army of the government of the Central African Republic to defend itself and try to bring stability to the country, I would think that would be appropriate.

In fact, we we don't want to be there for very long. One way of doing that is to make sure there is a proper police function and stability in its army in the Central African Republic, so it can take on the job itself.

Finally, on the question of development, we haven't made any decisions on that yet. We have a peace-building fund that is jointly managed by CIDA and ourselves, where we support elections or various efforts of democratic development. I suppose once our soldiers get on the ground and we're a little more acquainted with the circumstances, we would look at taking their advice, or some judgment, as to whether we could assist in the peace-building, democratic-building side of it, but at this point no commitment has been made.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: If I could just add to what my colleague has said, in terms of the process, as he pointed out, it was very recently that we received the request from the United Nations. There were a lot of unanswered questions at that time and it required further examination on our part before we were in a position to make the presentation we're making here today, including the fact we wanted to send a reconnaissance team to the Central African Republic to see the circumstances on the ground and talk to our allies, to get a good sense of the security for our troops we would be sending over there.

That has all been happening very rapidly over the last few days, and of course the UN Security Council just adopted the resolutions at the end of last week. There is a desire to get this up and operating in a hurry. We want to get it up and operating in about another week's time, so time is of the essence in all of this.

As you can appreciate, the House is not going to be sitting for the next two weeks, hence we're here today. But we wanted to have the opportunity to be able to come and talk to you, the representatives of the House and the different parties, about the areas of interest. That's why we're here, as opposed to having the kind of debate in the past in the House, although as my colleague has said, we didn't do it on every occasion. This is a little smaller contingent. It is a specific function of communications in this case and a smaller group.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much, Ministers, for attending. It's always nice to have our favourite ministers at committee.

I have three questions. One deals with the troops over there. There are 45 people for three months, possibly nine, and I want to know what type of troop rotation will be used and what their average length of stay will be. That's the first question.

The second one deals with the type of equipment and the total amount of equipment going over—back-up equipment and what's required.

The third one, and the one that sticks out the most, is that you're going into a country that has 30 years of political instability. It has been three decades since it became a country of its own, and it has never had any political stability up to this point. I would be most interested to know what makes you think that at the end of the next election it will have any stability. That sticks in my mind. What miracle is going to happen that would make it stable all of a sudden?

• 1710

I just don't want to see us looking at something for possibly 9 or 12 months, and then in fact three years later we're back here talking about renewing the mandate. So I would like some assurance toward that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: Lieutenant-General Crabbe will answer the military ones, and then Lloyd can answer the—

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: I'm just going to direct.

Mr. John O'Reilly: He thinks he's the mayor of Toronto.

LGen Raymond Crabbe: With respect to the rotation plan, our plan is to have the first contingent of soldiers serve the first three months, and then we would rotate that with a second contingent of soldiers for six months. There are some technical reasons why we prefer to do it that way.

With respect to the communications equipment, what our soldiers will be operating is the United Nations-held equipment. This is largely a Motorola-based system to provide communications within the headquarters, and then, as the minister explained, from the headquarters to the deployed contingents throughout the city and vicinity.

Our own soldiers will go armed with small arms and be completely outkitted for NBC, although the threat of that is virtually zero. They will take the personnel equipment they would normally use to protect themselves individually.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: John, you ask a very crucial question. I'd point out that during those 30 years, it was really only in 1993 that they had elections. If you look at our own history, our first elections weren't exactly models themselves. It takes a while to get adjusted.

There's the fact that they did hold democratic elections. They are on the verge of holding another set of elections. I think it's worth the investment to make that happen.

No one can ever predict how these things come out, but the opportunity to work with the other African states and help supply certain technical areas that they requested is a part of a level of solidarity with the African states. This is what I think is important to mention.

In the last couple of years, even more recently, there have been much stronger and I think very powerful developments among African states themselves to organize—this is for the OAU and other organizations—and to take on more peacekeeping activities and more direct responsibility for stability and democracy building.

As we've seen from the recent trip of President Clinton, there really is, I think, a very profound change taking place in Africa in terms of handling their own problems. They want to work with countries like ours, but they're really taking a much stronger sense of real responsibility. That is what gives me some optimism. I think that by demonstrating some solidarity with them, we're being asked to provide a very specific function.

At this point—I talked to the minister—it could well be that one of the things, to go back to the question about assistance, would be to even help train some of the African troops there in some of the communications functions so they could inherit these roles later on.

I think it's a very important opportunity for Canada to reinforce this new sense of African initiative for their own security and stability in the region. I think they're going to take more activity in central Africa on these matters. We can come in, perhaps in discussion with CIDA and others, about some peace-building measures to help support that, but it's important to get to the next election. Once it happens, then I think we have a chance.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Before we go, Mr. Hanger, I believe you had a question.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): I have two quick questions and an observation.

Minister, a group from the foreign affairs committee was in New York yesterday. We had the opportunity of speaking to some of the UN officials about this potential mission. The emphasis they put on it was very much the prevention nature of it. If Rwanda taught us anything, it was that stronger, more effective forces in place would have saved not only a lot of lives, but a lot of later humanitarian aid as well.

The emphasis in this force is to ensure that we can establish stability in time to be effective. I wonder if you could help us by elaborating a little bit more on that, like you did in your introductory remarks.

• 1715

I think the second thing from your introductory remarks that would be helpful for us to understand would be the point that you made about the relationship between ourselves and the Francophonie in terms of the way in which this mission will continue to make us a more effective voice in the Francophonie, ensuring that the role we play in that organization is an effective one.

I would just like to finish my questions by making an observation along the lines of Madame Debien's observation. Speaking as the chair of the committee, I want to thank the ministers for coming before the two committees. It's my own personal belief that the discussions in the House of Commons on these issues often lack the opportunity to have the informed advice that we are able to get in committee when you can come here and when we can have the benefit of your officials here before us.

When we travelled to Bosnia together as a committee and then came back and heard officials jointly and were able to adopt a resolution at that time, I think all members of the House who participated in that process would agree that it was a more informed and effective process than merely stage-set speeches in the House of Commons. So as one member of this committee, I would like to encourage this process, because I believe it encourages effective debate and more informed debate than that which we sometimes get the other way. I'm not saying it is always the effective proposal, but in this particular circumstance and at many other times, I think it's the best.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Thanks, Bill. I guess I can use the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that's certainly the case here. It's a reasonably small investment, as crucial as it is, because I think the contribution of a signals communication unit is really the nerve system of any peacekeeping venture. Nevertheless, I think the fact is that the troops can be there to both offset any of the sort problems that are coming from some of the rebel groups, and provide the right statement to other countries in the region.

There's a lot of flow-over in this region. There are a lot of people who are in areas like Sierra Leone and Congo and Rwanda, and they carry their guns with them and move in. That's one of the problems that we're facing in the world. It's these roving bands of interveners who move around. One way of making sure that you kind of put a little bit of a control on this is by having an international presence there to support the existing institutions and government.

I'll just give you a footnote that I think demonstrates the real value of that. I was in the Balkans last week, in Macedonia, where the UN has a very thin line on the border between Kosovo and Macedonia. You all know the problems in Kosovo. I think one of the really fundamental stabilizing elements in that area is the continuation of the UN force on the border, in terms of dealing with crossover problems of some of the extremists moving back and forth, refugee flows, etc. More importantly, it's a statement that the international community is there and is not going to allow Macedonia to be drawn into further conflict. It's a little bit of a stop hinge, and I think that's the same role this force would play with its presence in the CAR.

You're absolutely right. If we've learned any lessons out of the previous situations in Africa and other conflict areas around the world, the earlier you get in, the better off you are. You don't deal with a conflict that's in existence, you try to snuff it out before it really spreads like a wildfire. I think that's one reason why we were prepared to quickly respond, and we would recommend this very strongly to the committee.

As for the process itself, I tend to agree with you. I think it's a real matter of fundamental debate, and the Iraq case was a good case in point. We had a good debate in the House because there were some really big issues, but I think it's here where you really get a lot of flow of information. I certainly speak for myself, but I also prefer to do it this way. And I would also say that if there are any changes in the mandate, we would be prepared to come back to the committee to keep you informed, or we would have our officials do that.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm curious as to what economic interests Canada has in Central Africa, if any. Beyond that, what would be our motivation for involvement here?

Another question that I have is based on the fact that there have been four attempted coups or mutinies within. I assume those have involved the armed forces in an attempt to take over the government. That all seems to be focused around the spot that this multinational force—from what I can tell—is protecting, in other words, the capital city. That's where our troops are going to be, I gather.

• 1720

If that is the case, there will be a significant dependency on this peacekeeping force involving Chad, Gabon and the other African countries. How well trained are they to protect even the capital, given the fact that so many of those African military operations aren't exactly well trained, but will certainly attempt any kind of coup or break free from even the organization they're with to wreak havoc on anyone? I'm curious about their training and the overall security of our forces.

The final question is in reference to the reconnaissance team that was sent over there. The minister alluded to it twice now, but never really outlined what was found. I'd like to know precisely what its determination was.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Do you want to deal with the first one?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: You can deal with the first one and you can deal with the military one.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Just call me Alderman Axworthy.

Mr. Hanger, on your question, our economic interests are negligible. It's not a mission that is still predicated on economics; it's predicated on security. We have had some involvements, primarily through both our Commonwealth and Francophonie commitments, to try to help provide security. We reopened our embassy in the Congo, for example—not the Central African Republic, but the Congo. We're active in Burundi, Rwanda and other areas, just trying to help them settle down and develop a peace process and a resolution of some of these issues.

It's not a security that is abstract for us. If you look at the past conflicts that have grown, spread and mushroomed, they tended to involve Canadian interest all the way from refugee flows to increasing instability on the continent. Also, in some very direct ways, you spread a variety of global ingredients, including diseases, because there's no control or stability in those areas. It's a security issue, primarily for the area where we have been involved.

To go back to Bill Graham's question earlier, in the Commonwealth we have been active in initiatives recently in The Gambia. Secretary of State Kilgour is on a ministerial mission in Sierra Leone right now to determine how we can help Sierra Leone. The key issue is, and Central African Republic is a good example, there has been a real movement from military governments in Africa to democratic governments. We think, as a country that has supported that as part of its foreign policy, using both the Francophonie and the Commonwealth to support where we can the emergence of democracies is a sound Canadian objective.

LGen Raymond Crabbe: With respect to the training of the Africans, I've worked personally with the Ghanaians and the Senegalese and they are good, tough, fierce, little soldiers, and I would go to war with them any time. I can't speak for the others, Mr. Hanger. I've not had experience with them. However, the Chief of Defence Staff has and fully appreciates their capabilities. They are very good soldiers.

With respect to the other element, the French, they are leaving a large logistic component there to assist the force logistically and medically as well, including a surgical capability with an immediate, direct medical evacuation to Paris, which is comforting for the whole force and certainly for the Canadians.

In addition, they're providing a security element right in the city and what they call an over-the-horizon capability, with troops stationed in Chad and Libreville. They are quite capable of reacting, as the minister said, very quickly to assist in that respect.

Members of the recce party arrived in theatre on Sunday night and have reported back on several occasions on a myriad of things, largely concentrating on the security in the city. They've walked the city, they've driven it, and they've talked to many people.

• 1725

Colonel Fenton, the head of the mission, was telling me that on many occasions the locals came up and recognized the Canadian flag and were quite comforted that Canadians were coming to help them out. By and large, he has found the city to be extremely calm. He has looked at the accommodation and two camps the minister referred to that we will be occupying, and he has found them very good and very secure. There are tall cement walls that provide good perimeter security for the camps. The accommodations, the facilities, the kitchens, the medical facilities, and so on in those camps are acceptable. There is some work that needs to be done on them, but they are certainly acceptable.

I think, by and large, the impression is that MISAB, the force that's in place now, has done a very credible job. We had heard that in fact the retrieving of the arms was not successful. In fact, it has been extremely successful, to the point where there are no more heavy weapons left out there and very few small arms weapons or personal weapons left that have not been recovered under that program.

I would say that's the kind of information we've been getting back from the recce party. Colonel Fenton is very impressed with the command and control structure that's in there that will essentially transition, by and large, to MINURCA, the new force.

Mr. Art Hanger: I have one final point for clarification. This is a francophone unit. Are all the troops over there francophone? Are they going to be dealing with just a French-speaking multinational force?

LGen Raymond Crabbe: All the troops except the Ghanians are French-speaking troops. The Ghanians are English-speaking.

The working language, as I understand it, will be French; therefore, obviously the communicators working in the headquarters need to speak French and to teach the communicators and other contingents the procedures that will be used on the radio in French.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Chairman, I must say that we do agree with the mission. It is typically Canadian in our role in the world today.

Since we are short of time, I have just one question that goes in a little different direction. It's regarding the timeframe. How soon will we be deploying?

In relation to that, the question goes a little deeper, and what we've been hearing in our standing committee meetings on the different bases is that a lot of the troops aren't really getting enough warning. This is not a high-security mission, so in this case would they get enough warning, for the family problems and...?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: I'll ask General Crabbe to answer that, but first let me say, in terms of when they are deployed, that it depends on the final determination that we are going to participate in this mission.

Mr. David Price: But you must have a time—

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: But subject to that—

LGen Raymond Crabbe: We have a party in theatre now that will stay there until the advance party arrives, and that's seven or eight people who are planning to leave on Sunday and will arrive in Bangui next Tuesday—April 8, I believe it is.

It is planned right now that the main body would deploy on April 14 or 15 to be in theatre in sufficient time to assist with the set-up of the headquarters. That's all contingent on the training being completed, and there's a process to ensure that in fact is in place. That's the plan now, subject to government approval.

Mr. David Price: Okay. As to the people who are going to be deployed on this, the 25 people for communications, for instance, you must have a pretty good idea of who those people are going to be. Have they been warned at this point? Do they know they are going to be deployed? Is there just a pre-warning system in place? To this point, we've heard they haven't been. Quite often it is a matter of a couple of days and they're gone, and they don't have time to prepare their families.

LGen Raymond Crabbe: Yes, the 45 people from Valcartier in fact were informed some days ago.

Mr. David Price: Okay.

LGen Raymond Crabbe: Certainly the leadership was told last Friday who the leaders would be if this was a go. I know, because I personally spoke to them.

More importantly, for the soldiers, they have been told. They started their training program and some of the administration, in fact, late last week, and in earnest on Monday.

Mr. David Price: Are they currently training at Valcartier?

LGen Raymond Crabbe: Yes, they are.

• 1730

Mr. David Price: Okay. Because that has been another problem—that sometimes when they are deployed all of a sudden they're pulled out to be trained somewhere else.

LGen Raymond Crabbe: They're training in Valcartier. There may be the odd exception of one or two specialists from across the country who will augment that for us, but our intent certainly is that they would, to the largest extent possible, come from Valcartier.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Mr. Grewal.

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

I'm looking at this whole issue from a legal point of view. The situation that exists in the Central African Republic exists in many other countries around Africa. If you ask me to, I can count as many countries as you want with a similar scenario or similar situation. In particular, in most of the African countries the army is dominated by one ethnicity. In most or many of the countries in Africa the armies are not multi-ethnic armies.

Illegal trade of weapons is very common, guns and other stuff. AK-47s are quite commonly available in those countries.

I think that since resolution 1152 of the Security Council—according to that, the situation has steadily improved in the Central African Republic since January 1998. The situation in Bangui, particularly, has calmed down, except for some sporadic rebel insurgencies. I think the only track they're having is banditry and armed robbery, which is the major problem in that country.

The UNDP has sent or has committed that in January 1998 they wanted to send some forces. The project's aim was to demobilize over 1,000 members of the Central African Republic's armed forces. If we want to demobilize their army and to put pressure on the country to have a republican national multi-ethnic army in their country... I don't see that this is a long-term solution, setting a precedent in that country, if the same scenario, same situation occurs in neighbouring countries. This will potentially occur, because of this situation the other countries are exhibiting at this time.

Are we going to send the army into those countries? If we are setting a precedent of this nature, I would be interested to know if we are finding a permanent solution, or if it is only a band-aid solution at this time.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Well, this is not the only thing we're doing in Africa. Just off the top, I can give you an example. This afternoon, with the visit of the special representative of the Secretary-General, Otunnu, for children in armed conflict, we announced a number of projects designed to help rehabilitate children in some of the countries you mentioned, who have been recruited or drawn into armed conflict situations.

In Burundi we just established a major peace-building mission to help negotiate a settlement between the conflictual parties in Burundi. We're providing support to the OAU for a conflict resolution negotiation that the Africans themselves are undertaking in central Africa. CIDA has a number of direct development programs on education and water and humanitarian aid.

The fact of the matter is that we have a multi-dimensional approach to the situations in Africa. We're just talking here about a specific request from the UN Security Council, to follow, as we talked about earlier, a preventive peacekeeping mission to ensure that the progress that's been made can be maintained. If we can get through the next elections and stabilize the government, then they have a chance of becoming a country that doesn't require the same kind of international presence that they did before. I think that's the very basic essence of the prevention.

I'm sure if you wanted to have a broader briefing, certainly Madam Scrimshaw would be glad to arrange that with you, and we could give you an overview of the kinds of initiatives that we are supporting in Africa, and particularly in the central African region right now.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, I would also be interested to know what the timeframe of the forces we are committing is. Would it be 90 days or six months or 120 days...?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: The Security Council resolution is for a three-month period for now. The mandate is for three months with the possibility of extensions for another six-month period—nine months, all told.

• 1735

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Colleagues, I see no one else has asked for questions. There seems to be general agreement here that we go ahead with our participation.

Mr. David Price: I have just one item on the sheet I was handed. I just ask that we put on the resolution that the committee hear if there is an extension and that it comes back to us. I think it was said, but I just want to make sure it is on it.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Sure.

Mr. David Price: Actually, I'd go beyond the nine months.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Or if the mandate runs out.

Mr. David Price: Yes.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): I'll just wait for my colleague to come back.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): Mr. Proud has a motion, and I would like to make an observation immediately after that.

Mr. George Proud: I'd just like to read this into the record and get approval of it:

Whereas peacekeeping remains a key element of Canada's foreign and defence policies;

Whereas the international community recognizes the importance of stability in the Central African Republic;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council has adopted a resolution establishing a United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA) to contribute to the stability of the Central Africa Republic;

Whereas the Government of Canada has been asked to contribute to this operation;

The Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and National Defence and Veterans Affairs recommend that the Government of Canada agree to contribute Canadian personnel to this operation.

I so move.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Is everybody in agreement?

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): Could we hold it for one minute?

Mr. George Proud: Yes.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): Maybe I can help somehow by pointing out something to Mr. Proud. I wonder if he would be willing to be open to some friendly amendments, which maybe we can work out very quickly. I believe I have had indications of support, although Madam Debien wants to express a reserve, but subject to that, I think Mr. Price has said from his opening comment—

Mr. David Price: I want that line added into the record.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): You don't have any problems.

I think the Reform Party would prefer us, because of some confusion, to take out the first whereas. Is that correct? I don't think we need that. That whereas isn't key. I would recommend that.

Secondly, the recommendation is that the dispositive paragraph in the resolution would read

...that the Government of Canada agree to contribute Canadian communications personnel, consisting of a maximum of 45 Canadian communications personnel.

Is 45 all right, Minister Eggleton? If we were to put in the dispositive part of the resolution a limit of 45 or 50—up to a maximum of 50—would that be consistent with the obligation?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: I guess if you put up to 50 that would be fine.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): Okay, a maximum of 50 and consistent with the United Nations mandate.

Mr. George Proud: Why wouldn't you say “the required personnel, consistent with the United Nations mandate”?

Mr. Art Hanger: This has been cleared at 45 members.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): But if it's required, 50 gives them a margin—

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): —and is consistent with the United Nations mandate. That seems to be agreeable to most of the members.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: I just wanted to add that if there is a change in the mandate or any addition time-wise, that it come back to committee.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): Okay, thank you.

I think the ministers indicated that was the case.

[Translation]

Ms. Debien, you expressed reservations, I believe, regarding the ministers' participation.

Ms. Maud Debien: Not at all. We understand the circumstances that prevented a debate being held in the House, although we believe that the Minister knew for quite a while that there would be a mission. Also, I would like to say that we believe that we are responsible to the people before the House and that, in a democracy, that's the main arena for debate.

We hope that, when there are other missions, there will be debates in the House, if need be, which will not preclude consultation with experts. We approve the motion.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): You approve the motion, but you're expressing a position concerning committee debates. I believe that's a traditional position that has already been expressed before our committee.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Should we take a vote? Is everybody in agreement?

(The motion is adopted—See the Minutes)

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): OK.

The session is adjourned.