Ron MacDonald

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Chairman, I want to commend the secretary of state. He has cleared up a lot of the misunderstanding that has been put to the Canadian public through C-SPAN because of some of the comments made by the various critics on the Reform Party side.

One thing the Reform Party members cannot stand is good news. They cannot stand the good fiscal news that is coming from this side of House.

I want to remind everybody here that in the nine years prior to the government being elected there was a right wing government. It was a Conservative government. It had promised the Canadian public that it would put the finances of this country where they should have been, or so it said.

For nine successive budgets the ministers of finance came in and each and every time made projections. They made projections about what the deficit would be. They made projections about employment.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Perhaps members opposite could put up their hands a little faster the next time so they can ask a question. I have been here for the last hour and a half. I know some days I am not as clear in thought as I want to be, but these guys have me completely confused.

I would like to ask a couple of questions about the numbers we have been given in the budget and in the borrowing authority bill.

I would like to know whether the minister can tell me if the Minister of Finance has met the deficit targets he has put forward in each of his budgets. If the answer is in the affirmative I would like to know if he has exceeded them.

I also want to know, because members opposite seem so concerned about Canadians who are jobless, whether we have created any jobs and how many jobs have been created because of the fiscal framework of the Minister of Finance.

I think this is important for people who are watching the debate. I think I am asking the types of questions Canadians want answered.

The next thing I want to know is whether the government in the fiscal framework of the budgets it has put forward and the various borrowing authorities that have come out, has it maintained the principle of access to things like health care across the country by the priority and by the transfers? Second, in the whole area of social policy and transfers to the provinces whether it has stabilized the transfers to the provinces through things like the CHST, equalization and other programs?

I get confused when I sit here after I read all of what the government has done. I am a part of that government and I was rather proud of the platform we ran on. As a matter of fact I am quite proud of the way the Minister of Finance has done his job in the last two and a half years. He has not just met those commitments but exceeded them.

Is it true that the government, through the Minister of Finance and under the direct auspices of the Prime Minister, has done what the Reform Party obviously finds so distasteful? Has it put confidence back into the Canadian economy, made sure that Canadian investors keep up with where we are going? Has it driven down interest rates so that there is more investment in this country? Has it created an atmosphere for the creation of not 10,000, not 50,000, not 100,000 but 600,000 jobs and at the same time has its deficit projections under control?

At the same time the government has stabilized the transfers to the provinces. It has made sure that programs that are as much a part of the fabric of the country as anything else that defines us have not been savaged, as the members opposite would have done. The government has managed to do it all with the support of over 58 per cent of the Canadian public while the policies of the members opposite are in such disrepute with the Canadian public that they are mired at 12 per cent in the polls. Their members run off in all directions crying at the drop of a hat. They know that they have frittered away the opportunity that was given to them in the last election by the Canadian electorate.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Chair, I have sat here and tried to understand the concerns of members of the third party. I have listened to a multitude of their finance critics. They just keep getting up. I am not exactly sure exactly what their problem is.

They talked about the deficit. They talked about the debt. They talked about public confidence. They talked about business confidence. They are now converts to the principle of universality.

I have heard the finance critic opposite say a number of conflicting things. On the one hand he was criticizing us for not just meeting our debt and deficit projections and targets but for exceeding them. On the other hand he was telling us we should be investing more dollars into job creation. He cannot have it both ways.

They cannot on the one hand criticize us for exceeding our targets on deficit reduction and spending controls and on the other hand get up and criticize the secretary of state-

[Supply, March 20th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, perhaps I will be better able to get a straight answer from the hon. member opposite.

My colleague indicated quite clearly that it is extremely unclear what the current position of the third party is with respect to the GST. We heard the previous speaker from the Reform Party indicate that his party's platform during the election campaign was to eliminate the GST after the federal deficit was eliminated.

If the motion before us were adopted it would have the GST eliminated before the elimination of the federal deficit. Is the hon. member trying to tell us that his party would eliminate the GST, as was the case in its campaign platform, after the deficit has been eliminated? Or, in spite of the deficit, which is going down the right way but is not quite there yet, would he still eliminate the GST and add $17 billion a year to the deficit?

[Supply, March 20th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate. It has transfixed the Canadian public since the previous Conservative prime minister, without consultation with the Canadian public, brought in the tax and barrelled it through the

House of Commons. Clearly there are many of us on this side who understand the veracity of opinion with respect to this tax.

As the hon. member opposite selectively quotes, I remember quite clearly in the red book and during the election campaign we as a party in waiting, one that was soon to have been given the trust of the Canadian public, made it extremely and exceptionally clear what our platform was.

Rather than having to wait until opposition members with selective memories misquoted us, we put down in writing, in black and white, what our policies were.

With respect to the GST we had said in opposition that it was the wrong tax at the wrong time. At that point it was the wrong tax, it was the wrong time and it aided and abetted in the deepening of a recession caused by the previous government's misguided economic policies.

At the time of the election it was very clear to us that we would be faced with an enormous task to try to balance the books, to try to put our fiscal house in order. What we said at the time in the red book, in black and white, is that this government would get rid of the GST and that we would replace it with a taxation system which was easier to administer, fairer to small businesses and which took in the same amount of revenue.

I know my hon. colleague from the Reform Party is an avid reader. He quotes the red book often. It is one of his favourite pieces of reading material.

Would his party support today the abolition of the GST if it knew it would lead to a $17 billion increase in the deficit? If not, would he specifically tell us which programs would be cut which would amount to that $17 billion? Which social programs would be laid to waste? Which transfer programs would he and his party cancel? What would be the impact of those program cancellations be to, for instance, the people of Labrador who are in the middle of an election campaign and who are wondering which party better represents the future for the people of that riding?

[Supply, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Lambton-Middlesex has been quite vigilant in bringing the interests of Canadian agricultural producers to the forefront each time she speaks in the House of Commons. The minister and the government listened very carefully to the concerns she raised.

In answer to the specific question, it is the hope of the government that actions to reach an agreement with the United States were done to put an end to almost 15 years of litigation between Canada and U.S. softwood lumber producers. I know the member is fully aware that although we have remedies under the NAFTA, many times our counterparts in the U.S. seem to become engaged with frivolous disputes which tie up the system for an undue length of time.

This was one of the considerations the Canadian government had to look at when the latest dispute arose. The Canadian industry and provincial governments decided negotiating an acceptable agreement to guarantee security of access to the U.S. market was preferable to the uncertainties and costs of fighting a countervail duty case.

I remind the House that in order to take the softwood lumber dispute to a NAFTA chapter 19 panel the United States would have to first launch a countervailing duty investigation and determine that Canadian lumber exports to the U.S. were being subsidized and conclude that U.S. producers were being injured. Furthermore, if it had so decided, the United States would have imposed the duty on Canadian softwood lumber exports. Such a duty would have had significant negative impacts on the Canadian lumber industry and its employees.

This industry is extremely important to Canada. It employs about 60,000 people across the country. Canadian exporters of softwood lumber to the U.S. reached record levels in 1995 of over $8 billion. This represents approximately 60 per cent of Canadian softwood lumber production. The value of these exports has grown substantially since 1990.

Therefore in striking a deal with the U.S. the agreement is designed to avoid another long, protracted and costly trade battle. The agreement which comes into effect on April 1, 1996 will give Canadian softwood lumber exporters security of market access to the U.S. market for five years.

I also assure the member that this deal should not looked at as a precedent. I do not think it is. The hon. member would find that the Minister for International Trade and the government will, as she said, go to the wall to protect the interests of Canadian supply side manufacturers, as we have the right to do under the GATT agreement.

Softwood lumber was a very special case. I assure the member her concerns and those of the people she represents will be taken into consideration in any future plans that the Government of Canada has with respect to supporting our producers.

[International Trade, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not hear my response.

For the record, it is very clear that the Canadian government has taken the lead, not just with foreign governments, by trying to ensure that the American government knows that the bill is inappropriate but also by consulting with Canadian businesses that could adversely be impacted by the bill. After consultations are completed and we get an indication from the U.S. as to if and when it is going to implement some provisions of the bill, we will take the most appropriate action possible to protect Canadian business interests.

[International Trade, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised two very important issues the government has taken the lead on.

With respect to the Helms-Burton bill our Prime Minister no less, as well as the Minister for International Trade and our ambassador in Washington have expressed very clearly the objections of the Canadian government to that bill. We continue to consult with the leaders in industry who may be adversely affected by the bill, as well as some of our allies in the Caribbean, Latin America and the European Union to try to get a consensus to put pressure on the United States to abandon the bill. We believe the bill is extraterritorial. We believe the bill will have the unwanted impact of slapping American allies in trade for an action they had absolutely nothing to do with, which was the unfortunate and condemnable shooting down of the two planes by the Cuban government.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have engaged this member in debate in the past. He is usually rather unequivocal with his position.

I ask him to be unequivocal. The member heard me and I indicated my support and I could not make it any clearer. I am concerned about whether the Canadian Armed Forces generally has the resources given to it through the budgetary process to have the best equipment possible to do the job we ask of it.

I ask the member opposite a question concerning himself individually. Forget his party. He knows the comments I have made about his party and its position. Does he support the Canadian Armed Forces participating in IFOR? It is either yes or no.

Perhaps the member thinks this is the forum in which we debate exactly every detail the Canadian forces are to do over there. The member should know those details will be worked out with their colleagues who are putting together this collective force.

With or without qualifications, does he support it? Yes or no.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased the debate has been extended because if it had not been, I would not have been able to put my views on the record.

A lot of members are very interested in what is going on in Bosnia and Croatia and the other states of the former Yugoslavia. In my constituency there are many individuals whose families have served in a number of different support functions with the United Nations since this conflict started. In the Dartmouth-Halifax area because the east coast Canadian navy is there, there are many individuals who have served onboard the ships which offered logistical support in the Adriatic. Many individuals from Atlantic Canada have served on a number of the missions in Bosnia.

The hon. member for Athabasca indicated earlier that perhaps he was in a unique situation because his son might be one of those called upon to serve. He may be unique in that regard, but there are many of us, myself included, who have family members in the Canadian Armed Forces.

My brother Paul has served in peacekeeping missions under the UN as a blue beret in Cambodia. Cambodia was a very difficult mission. There were no warring factions at that point in time, but it was a highly unstable political situation. It was difficult on family members. It was difficult on Paul's fiancée at the time, but he served proudly wearing the blue beret of the United Nations. He served there proudly as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

My nephew, Neil Bernard MacKinnon, served two or three tours of duty in Bosnia. He was a young man in his early twenties. When he would visit, my dad, who served in the second world war, would say: "I think Neil Bernard has seen more slick trenches by his stories from Bosnia than I did in the Italian campaign during the second world war". That young man dedicated himself and his life to serve the Canadian Armed Forces. He served very proudly under very difficult circumstances in Bosnia. It is unfortunate because he lost his life in the spring of this year, not in Bosnia but here in Canada in a training exercise in Suffield. This is currently the subject of an inquiry.

Some of the best remembrances I and my family have of Neil Bernard are his stories about the service he gave in Bosnia, about the humanitarian tragedy that was unfolding in that particular state and about the important role played by Canadian peacekeepers serving under the UN banner in that little part of hell. That is how he described it to me one day.

Today it is important that as parliamentarians we not debate in isolation. I have heard a lot of isolated debate today. I have heard a little bit too much partisanship in the debate as well. We are talking about the soldiers, the men and women who have chosen to serve this country, Canada, through the Canadian Armed Forces. We sent these people over there in a time of war and conflict when there was no peace to keep. They provided humanitarian aid. Some were injured and some were killed. Some were scarred by what they saw, but nevertheless they did it because they believed in the Pearson commitment to humanitarian aid and peacekeeping through the United Nations.

I remember in the last Parliament we had another debate on the UN and UN resolutions with respect to the Persian Gulf crisis. I remember quite well having to speak in that debate. It was certainly not as focused as this debate is. The government at the time did not want us to speak specifically about whether or not our troops would be committed if a war did break out. It was a

resolution on whether or not we supported UN resolutions. I remember I was waiting to speak on that bill. There was a long list at the time. It was a motion. My interest in speaking was that I knew if a war did break out and the Canadian government committed troops there would be men and women who lived in my riding, some of whom lived in my neighbourhood and some of whom had children who went to school with my children, who would be committed.

As members of Parliament, I wanted everybody to be quite aware of the dangers of such a commitment of forces in the Persian Gulf. I supported at that time the government of the day doing what it did. I supported that Parliament and the Canadian government had to support members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

It is a little different this time around. We are being asked to debate the principle of whether we should continue, now that we have the Dayton peace accord, to provide troops for a one-year period as peace is implemented in Bosnia.

Clearly, the members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been truly tested over the years from budget cuts and lack of equipment they believe they need. But not once have I talked to a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who was not prepared to go and do the job they joined the armed forces to do. If that is in protection of the sovereignty of our country, they are there to do it. If it is to go and protect or preserve a peace or to try to bring about a peace in a foreign state, they are prepared to serve.

I am rising today to say that I support the Canadian government participating in the IFOR in Bosnia. I do not do it lightly. I do it knowing full well, as the member for Athabasca said, that when you get involved with an action like this there are inherent dangers. Members of this place have to understand that when they speak in support or not in support of motions such as this.

I also believe very strongly that we can no longer continue to ask the members of our Canadian Armed Forces to do more with less. During the Persian Gulf situation and since 1991 in the Bosnian situation, there is no question that what we have done is ask our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces to stretch the resources further than the resources many times could be stretched.

I am one of those who believe that if we want the Canadian Armed Forces to continue to hold up the very credible reputation that Canada has worldwide for its peacekeeping and peacemaking efforts as well, then we must provide the resources to the armed forces to make sure they are the best equipped forces in the world.

I get worried about talk of continued budgetary cutbacks. I get worried when I know that perhaps some of the equipment our armed forces has is not what it should be. But I get equally worried when I hear members opposite of the third party, the Reform Party, who want to have it both ways. This is two or three times in debate that they have criticized the government for allowing a debate to happen, which is outrageous, and said we cannot send troops over because they are not properly equipped.

I do not care what the Minister of National Defence says and I really do not care what the Minister of Finance says with respect to having to get the deficit down when I know there are members of the Canadian Armed Forces who do not have the resources they require to do the job we ask of them.

I will say it in this place. I said it publicly and I will continue to say it, even though some in my party may not like me saying it. At least I am not hypocritical. I am consistent. I have been for the seven years I have been here.

What I would like to find out from the members opposite, from somebody in the Reform Party, is whether they are in favour of sending troops over. Please say so. If it is with the condition that there is more money allocated through the budgetary process to provide them with better helicopters to replace the Sea Kings, I will be the first one to jump up and say I agree with you. If it is with the assurance that the armoured personnel vehicle program that has been announced be accelerated, which would cost a little more money, I will agree with them. If it is conditional on the purchase of new submarines to retire the aging class that we have most of the time that do not work because they are so bloody old, I will agree with them.

I would like for them to be clear and intellectually honest in a debate like this. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve better than political rhetoric on the floor of the House of Commons when there are motions put forward debating whether or not they participate in international obligations, particularly when there is the threat of injury or even death.

I support the government's initiative, but I will also put it on the record that I want the government to ensure that the troops we send have the resources they need to do the job we ask of them.