Ron MacDonald

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for South Shore. Indeed it is a pleasure to have him as a colleague from Nova Scotia in the House of Commons. I have known the member for many years. The area has made a very wise choice in sending him here to be its representative in the House of Commons. On a personal note, I am very pleased

that a friend of mine has pursued this noble occupation of being a member of Parliament from South Shore.

The member comes from one of the most beautiful parts of Canada. Perhaps he can let people who are watching this debate and people who are in the House know about some of the beautiful spots and tourism events in his riding. Tourism is a major industry in the riding of South Shore. Perhaps he could elucidate for us some events that take place there so that some of the people in the House and the people watching can take him up on an offer and maybe we will see them there in the summer.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will make it very clear. The debate today is about policy direction. We have a legal agreement with the United States but I am quite certain that a sovereign Government of Canada, if it felt it was the will of the Canadian public or part of an overall framework on defence policy that they could not fulfil a commitment, our neighbours to the south would understand and hopefully allow us to abrogate it.

I am saying I support this agreement. However I do not want to prejudice the debate that will follow. It has to be an unencumbered debate that will take place during the defence review. I do not think you walk into a defence review saying we have decided ahead of time that 14 of these things are sacred cows so they cannot be touched, that 22 bases cannot be touched and you cannot talk about cruise missile testing in Canada.

We want to engage parliamentarians and Canadians, both inside and outside the defence establishment, to develop a defence policy which first and foremost looks after the sovereign needs of Canada. I would hope that defence policy would focus quite heavily on things such as fisheries patrol, on drug interdiction in our coastal waters and on our commitment to the international community through the UN on peacekeeping.

From my view what we have to do is say that the agreement that is in place is one we will uphold but let our American counterparts know there will be an open and free debate in this country about what it is we want to do as a nation with our defence policy.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite raises some very interesting observations about the technology. I think he is right. We are talking about the testing of technology as it is embodied in the cruise missile, a jet-propelled unmanned rocket, with a guidance system on board.

I am sure he would agree that most of the innovative technologies developed by the defence establishment have most times found applications within the civilian industrial complex.

I am pleased he raised that. One of the things the Liberal Party, which is now the government, clearly indicated during the campaign is that we would have a program of defence conversion. Many of the industries that relied during the cold war on defence procurement and research and development on defence will get the necessary government assistance now that there is a change in the geopolitical situation around the world. We will give some assistance to those industries to take new and innovative technologies that have been developed for a military purpose and help find applications for a civilian purpose.

We on this side of the House believe by doing that we will ensure that the technologies that have been developed will not be lost as a result in the changing political situation around the world and that jobs for Canadians will be found with government assistance in bridging the gap between defence industries and civilian industries using defence technology.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

It is a pleasure to rise on debate today. Yesterday when we had the first day of debate on national defence issues I was not able to formally get on debate. I was up and down like a jack-in-the-box on questions and comments so I think I got most of my comments in yesterday.

This is an important debate. As I just said to my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois and the Official Opposition, this is a different House. We started off this term in government with this Liberal government trying to uphold the rhetoric we had spouted while in opposition. That was that this House had to act differently and if we wanted to put some respect back into the way this place worked, we had to recognize that the 295 men and women who were elected to be here had the right to speak on issues that affect them and convey wherever possible the interests and points of view of the people they are here to represent.

It is quite clear that today's debate on cruise missile testing is another example of the commitment given during the campaign. The issue of cruise missile testing, as my colleague from Rosedale indicated earlier, is a new debate. Many people who would have been getting up during the course of the day to support at least in the short term the continued testing of U.S. cruise missiles over Canadian soil, just a few short years ago may have been getting up and saying something quite different in debate.

We have to recognize that the world has changed dramatically in the last five years. We have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union. The cold war has ended. I remember just a few short years ago listening to many of my colleagues, mostly from the New Democratic Party, who time and time again were preaching about a peace dividend and how the government of the day should withdraw, downsize, even do away with whole aspects of the defence establishment.

I wish that their comments had borne fruit. But the reality is that the world has changed. The cold war is over, but the world today probably is even a less safe place than it was during the cold war.

Previous debates that the public and parliamentarians have been seized with dealing with cruise missile testing in Canada are quite different from the debate today. The debate was whether or not the Canadian government by allowing cruise missile testing over Canadian soil was adding to or aiding in the escalation of the nuclear armament between the two superpowers. Indeed, it was a consideration and a concern we all shared, even though we had different points of view on it.

However, today's debate is not on that at all. We saw just two years ago in the gulf war that the U.S. technology, the cruise missile technology, can also be used in delivering strategic surgical, very precise blows to the arsenals of the opposing forces, in that particular case the Iraqis. I dare say that the technology that was developed yes, initially to deliver tactical nuclear weapons was used with conventional weapons in a way that minimized the loss of life and probably decreased the length of that war.

The reality is that as Canadians, as parliamentarians, we are now facing a crisis in Canada. We are trying to develop, and we are inviting input from all members from all sides, a national defence policy, not just for this year or next, but for the future.

The reality is that for a long period of time we have relied on our membership in international organizations like NORAD and NATO to provide us with collective security as a nation. I would go so far as to say that as a nation we probably spend very, very little on a per capita basis for our defence in comparison to other countries that are in the NATO alliance or NORAD.

As part of a team, there is give and take. Yesterday we heard a lot about the give. Canada has given to the world a thing called peacekeeping in the great Pearson tradition. We debated that yesterday. We are the country with a small population which has excelled around the world and has gained support and credibility from our neighbours through the United Nations for our military efforts, not at making war or being an aggressor state, but as peacekeepers. That is the contribution we have made through the international community and through our NATO and NORAD agreements to peace and security. Let us be fair. The Americans, the giant that lives next door provides us, because it is in their strategic interest, with most of our national defence. We have to give something in return for that. What they have asked for in the past, and which has caused great concern among Canadians, was that we allow them to test the cruise missile on Canadian soil.

What we are being asked to debate is whether it is the opinion of members of this House that the 10-year agreement which was renewed last year by the previous government should be upheld. Indeed we should try to stimulate debate in this place about what type of defence policy we do want.

It is fairly clear. It was the Leader of the Opposition who quoted physicist Kosta Tsipis. The quote he used is important. It deals with the available technology that is used in the cruise missile itself. Mr. Tsipis indicated that any country that can manufacture simple aircraft can construct a cruise missile that can carry a ton of cargo at least 300 miles and land no more than 30 feet from its target.

It is clear that we are dealing with the second generation of testing of cruise technology by the United States. We know that other countries have the technology to develop cruise type missiles. We know that some of those countries which have the technology to have cruise type missiles are not friendly or stable countries.

We know with the collapse of the Soviet Union that much of the arsenal which was at least protected by the former communist government through force is now or perhaps will be up for sale. It would be foolhardy in seeking to maintain some type of international peace for the Canadian government not to at least in the interim until the defence policy is fully fleshed out through a review to uphold the commitment to allow the American government to come in and further test the cruise missile.

What are they testing it for? Are they testing it because they want to put a nuclear warhead on it? No. That is not why they are doing it. From all I read this round of testing is basically to ensure that the United States will be able to develop some methods to better detect cruise missiles and similar technology from other countries.

Is that a valid observation? I think it is and it is something that we have to agree to. If we look at where our Canadian troops are currently serving, we do not know if in a year, six months, or two years time that we are not going to see an aggressor force or some radical group in a civil war somewhere where our troops are using cruise technology against us.

In this case the best defence is an offence, to look and see what it is we can do to aid the Americans in developing the second tier of technology in order to be able to detect low-level cruise type missiles that are coming from other countries.

It is also important to look at what is going on today as a prelude to a much larger and much more necessary debate that will take place in this House.

During the course of the campaign, the military and military expenditures became a major issue. One question kept being asked. I represent an area where we have all kinds of people that work in the Canadian military, probably over 10,000 or maybe 15,000. We have the Canadian navy. We have CFB Shearwater. There are lots of individuals who are in the Canadian military.

With the changing geopolitical situation, the Canadian government must seize the initiative and ensure that we have a modern defence policy. What we said during the campaign is that as a government we would initiate and conclude through broad consultation, not just the parliamentarians but all Canadians, what it is we should be doing through the United Nations in the interests of global peace and security and also in the interests of protecting our national sovereignty.

Until that review is completed I would submit to the House that it is in the interests of international peace and security and it is in the interest of Canada's standing in the world community through its adherence to international agreements that the

decision made by the previous government to continue to allow the American forces to test cruise missiles on Canadian soil be upheld. The decision to uphold it should be subject to the results of a comprehensive cross-Canada debate on what we want for our Canadian forces as a national policy in the future.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member of the Bloc Quebecois for the remarks that he just gave. I have a few comments on the back part of the speech and perhaps a question or two.

The member has indicated clearly his position and the position of his party as enunciated a little earlier by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the Leader of the Opposition.

However he asked a question at the end of it. Specifically he said: "Why are we going through this exercise now? Why the consultation at this period of time?" It is fairly clear that during the election campaign the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, which is now the government, indicated that this would be a different type of Parliament.

I have been here since 1988. This is only my second term, but I can certainly tell the members that the type of consultative approach that has been taken in just the first 10 days of this Parliament is vastly different than what this place has seen in the past. This is an effort by this government to try to change the way this place does business.

Yesterday we had a debate in this House concerning the role of Canada's peacekeepers specifically in Bosnia-Hercegovina. I think it was extremely productive.

The first item on the news last night was that this place, which had been far too partisan in the past, far too pro forma in just rubber stamping government policy that was decided in the PMO and in that inner circle of the cabinet, was going to be a little different now.

The consultative process which started yesterday and allows members from this side of the House, backbenchers who are not members of the cabinet to voice differences of opinion on key policy areas is refreshing.

We are having this debate today because the Prime Minister has indicated that as we develop our policy on issues such as this and put our legislative framework together, members from all sides of this House will have a right to input. That is vastly different from what I have seen in my last five years in this place.

I conclude by indicating that the comments the hon. member and others in this House made today will go a long way in deciding the process by which we develop a long-term policy.

The comments the member made that perhaps we should have a defence white paper is an issue that has seized members of this House and the Canadian public in the past. I believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have indicated that in these matters of defence policy it is not good enough to wait until the entire review is done. Some time early in the session we must ask the members of this House for some input.

I am pleased to see that the hon. member believes in the consultative process. I look forward to his comments as the government gets under way with committees on the comprehensive review of national defence policy.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is what happens when I get down on the list and it is a shorter debate than it really should be.

I want to comment on an excellent speech by the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. I think the personal experience that he has brought to the debate says a lot. A lot of us can get up and make comments about what we think is happening and how we see resolutions. Obviously from his experience in Africa he has seen it firsthand and knows the devastation that is certainly being wrought as we speak in places like Bosnia.

He mentioned a number of very interesting alternatives. I am one of those people who believes that Canada, wherever possible-I underline wherever possible-should continue its humanitarian relief efforts such as peacekeeping in Bosnia. I also believe that there may be a problem in that the United Nations unwittingly may have put our troops at greater risk by having so many resolutions on which they obviously are not going to follow through.

Since the member has come up with some very good recommendations, does he believe that things like greater and enforced sanctions against Serbia and some of the other nation-states to try to bring them to the table should be a prerequisite that is put forward by Canada? This would have to be met by the world body before we would give them basically carte blanche that our peacekeeping troops would continue under their current mandate.

In short, does he think Canada can play a greater role given that we are renowned world peacekeepers? People do want us there. We are serving a very good humanitarian purpose. Should we be able to lever that at the United Nations to try to force it to take some of the actions that the hon. member has just mentioned?

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I echo the comments the member has just made. I want her to clarify whether or not she believes-and I am not saying whether we should have been in there when we were through the UN-that the UN, once we were there, acted in a responsible fashion by the passage of resolutions on which it obviously had no intention. It obviously had no gumption or stomach to follow through on the sanctions or the threat of air strikes if indeed the aggressors in this particular circumstance did not cease and desist with the type of genocide which had been undertaken.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley on her intervention in this debate.

This is an important debate in the House of Commons. I am pleased that we are starting off in such a fashion. It allows members to rise without fear of retribution by party whips when they take the personal positions they feel on this very important issue. I commend her on her remarks. They were delivered very well and there was a lot of substance to them.

I have a concern that I want to share with my colleague who just made her remarks. As I said earlier, I support the peacekeeping mandate of the Canadian forces over and over again. Indeed I commend the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces for the excellent job they have done over the last number of decades. However the reality is that in this current situation the United Nations has found itself to be desperately wanting in

being able to use resolutions from the collective body of the United Nations in order to stop this aggression. There has been over a dozen resolutions by the United Nations.

The member just referred to some of the atrocities that are occurring. At the same point in time the shelling continues in Sarajevo, no matter how many times the United Nations has stood, spoken as a world body and said if they do not stop the aggression, if they do not allow the humanitarian aid through, if they continue in their aggression in the city of Sarajevo, they will do x , y and z . They have never done anything.

It is rather telling that in the latest attack we saw in the last few days young school children were murdered as they played outside. It was only 200 metres from the main Sarajevo headquarters of the United Nations military force. It is fairly clear the individuals who shelled the area where those children were simply did not believe the United Nations had any teeth or desire to escalate the situation by the use of armed intervention.

Does the member believe the United Nations has in effect let down Canadian peacekeepers and the peacekeepers from other nations who are there by issuing these hollow threats and the sabre rattling they have undertaken through these resolutions?

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest as I have for many years to my colleague from Renfrew. He has been an ardent and very convincing supporter of giving the Canadian military establishment the tools to do the job we have asked of it over the years. I cannot think of a more articulate proponent for the men and women who have chosen to serve our country through the Canadian Armed Forces than the member who just spoke.

I want to ask him a very specific set of questions. Even after one term, compared to my hon. colleague I am still a rookie when it comes to matters such as this one. One thing that deeply concerns me with the situation in Bosnia is the impotence or the seeming impotence of the United Nations in using its collective voice to try to force the aggressors in Bosnia to stop, cease and desist and to find some diplomatic, non-military, non-aggressive means to try to bring the situation to a head, to find a resolution.

It has been going on for far too long. We have had far too many children killed. We have had far too many people dislocated. We have heard of far too many rapes and acts of brutality, the likes of which we had not heard since the second world war. Time and time again the United Nations, that great and venerable institution, has passed resolutions but it seems to have forgotten to put some teeth into the resolutions. It seems not to have found the ways to enforce the resolutions so that the atrocities we have heard all too much about would have ceased. Indeed I want to quote what the outgoing UNPROFOR commander, Belgian Lieutenant General Francis Briquemont, said. This was in the Globe and Mail of January 24: ``There is a fantastic crisis now because the politicians are writing and voting I do not know how many resolutions, but we have no means to execute them''.

The question I ask of my colleague is: what is it that he believes Canada can do? What leading role can we take to ensure when the United Nations chooses to pass resolutions and actions in cases like this that in actual fact they are adhered to and there are teeth behind the resolutions? What role can Canada play to strengthen those resolutions?

[Pay Equity, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the previous Parliament the issue of regional rates of pay within the federal public service was the subject of two private members' motions that I placed before the House. Indeed the existence and unfairness of regional rates of pays was the primary cause of the national ships crews strike in 1989. It continues to be an irritant within the federal public service.

Thousands of federal employees who work in Atlantic Canada doing the same jobs as their counterparts in central and western Canada get paid less, and in some cases up to 30 per cent less, simply because of the region in which they have chosen to live.

Last Thursday in the House the President of the Treasury Board stated:

One of the programs this government is most committed to is the matter of pay equity.

This is a pay equity issue. I urge the President of the Treasury Board to take immediate steps to eliminate this abhorrent, discriminatory practice of regional rates of pay.