Ron MacDonald

[Fisheries, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

In February of this year Canadian fishermen were absolutely elated that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was able to obtain a NAFO moratorium on the fishing of 3NO cod. However that celebration was quickly muted by the fact that the European union abstained on the vote thereby retaining their right to fish this very endangered stock.

Can the minister tell us what the current status is? Has he been able to convince the European union about the seriousness of the situation off the east coast of Canada?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express grave concern about published reports in today's paper concerning revelations over the RCMP's spying activities on black civil rights leaders in the province of Nova Scotia during the 1960s and 1970s.

The documents were released only after an access to information request by a Nova Scotia newspaper. Although highly censored they still contain unacceptable racial stereotypical references to blacks such as portraying black women as prolific child bearers and black men as layabouts and thieves.

This whole episode would be disturbing enough if these reports were written by any RCMP surveillance officer. However some of the most racially insensitive comments were in reports by Mr. William Higgitt who went on to become the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I ask the Solicitor General today to personally undertake a review of all of the uncensored documentation relating to this issue in an effort to search out and if found, stamp out any institutionalized racism in Canada's federal forces, the RCMP and CSIS.

[Preston And Area Development Fund, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

Recently there has been a lot of controversy over the future of the Preston and area development fund. This fund was established to address the real systemic obstacles to black entrepreneurs in Nova Scotia gaining working capital. The mandate of this particular program expires on March 31.

Is it the intention of the minister's department and his government to continue with this program? If not, will he be announcing a replacement program for black entrepreneurs in the Preston area in the near future?

[Port Of Halifax, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the situation at the port of Halifax.

Atlantic Container Lines was ready to guarantee 8,000 new containers per year of cargo bound for Chicago, simply because the port of Halifax provides the most competitive entry location for midwestern U.S. cargo.

The Halifax Port Corporation and the longshoremen's union both agreed on major cuts in handling fees and surcharges to attract this business and keep it there. However, last week the Maritime Employers Association, a board dominated by interests competing with Halifax, voted to reject the union's offer to lower benefits. Only after public outcry did the board decide to accept a revised offer.

However, I remain astounded that any supposedly responsible employer's group could have considered rejecting an offer of concessions from its union, an offer of lowering operating costs and increased competitiveness.

For now, the port of Halifax may have escaped permanent damage, but this incident forces me to question the system through which the port of Halifax can be hampered in its drive for success by a board made up of its competitors.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to be quite frank, I find the statements by the member to be quite troublesome.

The member quoted a poll from today's paper which clearly shows there is a problem. Perhaps the problem is accentuated by the fact that people who claim to be leaders in the community stand in places like this and in provincial legislatures and allow the perception that immigrants are a drain on the Canadian society to be put out there without any type of substantiation whatsoever.

It is very dangerous to stand in the House of Commons and give a speech that lends credibility to an argument that has absolutely no foundation in fact. The problem is not that immigrants are becoming an undue burden on our major cities. The reality is that more immigrants with different skin colours are coming to Canada from places like Asia. That seems to be the problem I hear. I would like the member to comment on that.

[National Defence, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Yesterday this House voted on establishing a joint parliamentary committee to review and revamp defence policy. On Tuesday night the Minister of Finance announced cuts to defence and the closing and downsizing of over 20 military installations.

My question to the Minister of National Defence is this. Could he inform the House as to what criteria was used in selecting the bases to be downsized and cut? Can he give this House an assurance that the actions in the budget of two nights ago will not prejudice the work of the defence review committee?

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I was in the lobby but I was listening to the speech by the member. I fully understand the angst that he must feel knowing that with the base and with cuts pending he may have to deal with that in his riding. I certainly wish him well. I certainly hope that he does not have to deal with that at this point.

I have a fundamental question. During the election campaign the Reform Party in my riding-I have one of the largest military ridings in the country-would go around and say that it was its party's platform to eliminate the deficit in three years. However, at every all-candidates meeting on my side of the harbour and on the side of the harbour of my colleague from Halifax, whenever asked about defence policy we never received an answer.

The hon. member is now speaking for his constituents and I think that is the right thing to do. I want to know what the party's position is? The Reform Party platform said that in three years it would eliminate the deficit. With 37 cents of every discretionary dollar left in the budget going to defence, how would his party approach cutting the deficit to zero without going around and laying waste to most of the national defence infrastructure?

What I am saying is maybe he cannot have it both ways. I have never seen it like that. Maybe he can explain how it is done.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just gave a speech, indicating some of the ideas that he has as to where the government could effect some savings in national defence expenditure.

Somewhere out there is a misnomer that perhaps some provinces do not get a great economic impact from national defence expenditures. One place that is fairly great is in the province of Quebec. Indeed colleagues on my side of the House and employees of members that I know from the province of Quebec have little understanding about the great and very positive economic impact of national defence expenditures in that province.

I remind the member that for 1992-93 according to the data I have received from national defence, in excess of $2 billion-that is a lot-is spent directly in the province of Quebec by the Department of National Defence.

I would ask him to go a little bit further. One of the things that sometimes is not put into the right envelope as far as benefits are capital projects from Atlantic Canada. We have the frigate replacement program which is out of Saint John, New Brunswick. Many of those vessels are being built in the province of Quebec. Indeed the Department of Industry has indicated clearly that for every dollar that is spent in Atlantic Canada on capital projects, about 44 cents of it goes to Ontario and Quebec.

Therefore the major impact of defence may be at least 50 per cent more and perhaps even double. There is about $3 billion to $4 billion in that economic impact in the province of Quebec.

The member from Trois-Rivières indicated that he had a petition from some people in his riding. They basically said that they thought there should be even further cuts.

The hon. member knows that there are both civilian and military personnel employed in his riding and that his riding benefits to the tune of at least $4 million to $6 million. Would he be willing to forgo that $4 million to $6 million infusion from national defence, both civilian and military employees, grants and other purchases, to put into other ventures in his riding? Would he agree with the petitioners that he mentioned that we should slash $4 million or $5 million from Trois-Rivières?

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would make a few more comments on base closures.

If we talk to members of the Canadian military who know what they are talking about, who should be the people who drive the defence policy, and ask them what they need to do the job we have asked them to do, they will say that since the Conservative government slashed the standing forces, there has not been a corresponding cut in redundant defence infrastructure. We all know that is the case.

My premise in the arguments I put forward today is simple. If we are asking a House of Commons committee to go forward and consult across this country about what our defence policy should be, we should not if at all possible, and I underline this, prejudice the outcome of that report.

What we should do in keeping with the commitments we have made in the red book is try to realize as much of the $360 million in expenditure cuts to national defence without adversely affecting the infrastructure that is left in the country.

We just heard my colleague from the Cornwallis area, from South West Nova, ask a question of the minister in the House about CFB Cornwallis. We have heard that CFB Cornwallis, which is in Nova Scotia, is the English speaking recruit training centre for the Canadian Armed Forces. Even though our forces had been reduced, I would anticipate that the result of a review would show that we are still going to have some new English speaking recruits coming into the system.

My colleague from South West Nova asked specifically about peacekeeping.

My point is if we can leave as much of the infrastructure intact at this point, pending the outcome of the defence review, we will be leaving every available option open to that defence review committee as far as what role it believes our armed forces should be mandated with.

It is never easy to close a base. I want to say that. It is never easy to close a base. It can be unconscionable, however, for a government to close a base without first and foremost looking at the defence priorities and the requirements and how that base closure would affect those requirements.

I would hope that the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance in their wisdom will look internally at operations, will look at things such as lowering the hours of flying time for the Sea Kings at Shearwater. For every hour that the Sea Kings are in the air out of CFB Shearwater they take about 21 hours of maintenance. If they could cut the number of air hours by 30 or 40 or 50 per cent for a year without affecting the mandate and the requirement to be flying for certain manoeuvres it would be a substantial saving.

Perhaps there are things like that which can be done by reducing flying time for the Challengers currently out over the Atlantic doing fisheries patrol. My understanding is that fully 40 per cent of those flights are really not fisheries patrols. In the short term, perhaps a year, until this defence review is completed those reductions in expenditures could be made without adversely affecting the realm of possibilities of defence policy.

That is my position on defence reviews. I am hoping that on Tuesday when the budget comes down the ministers who are charged with this responsibility will be able to find savings internally without taking too sharp a knife to bases and infrastructure.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, before we broke for Question Period the hon. member had asked me a question concerning the defence white paper. I would just like to elaborate.

The question basically was: Would I support the government tabling a white paper on defence policy? He seemed to think that should be done prior to consultation. I had indicated to him very clearly that this is a different government on this side of the House. We consult first and then act. We do not act and then consult.

We committed in our red book to a period of consultation. We have said to the Canadian public and we have said to the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces that no more would there be a slash and burn approach to defence policy. We recognize there is a fundamental responsibility as a government to modernize our defence establishment. We recognize we have certain fiscal restraints which we have inherited from the previous government. Over all, we recognize our fundamental responsibility to Canadians that when we get into areas such as national defence policy, social policy, fisheries policy, whatever it is, we have a responsibility to consult. What we have started here today with this debate on the floor of the House of Commons is to get that process going, to put it over to a standing committee

of this House and to ask that committee to review what we should be doing in a modern, geopolitical world context.

In conclusion, we will come back at some point. I will support our government, this party, putting forward and tabling in the House of Commons a white paper on national defence. It will not be done, and I underline this, until the work of the committee has been done and all of the interest groups and all Canadians wishing to be heard on this issue are heard.