House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 65% of the vote.
Infrastructure Program January 26th, 1994
Maybe I can be more specific. Will federal ministers in each province have a veto over proposed infrastructure projects in that province, even if the project has nothing to do with their portfolios and is approved and recommended by the provincial and municipal authorities in that province?
Infrastructure Program January 26th, 1994
A supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. That is hardly an adequate answer.
Infrastructure Program January 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
A memorandum to the Prime Minister from the Secretary to the Cabinet obtained yesterday by the media refers to a serious divergence of views among government ministers with respect to the federal role in the national infrastructure program.
This memo reports that the minister responsible for infrastructure favours a co-operative program where provinces and municipalities would meet federal criteria, but the Minister of Human Resources Development is said to favour much more direct federal and ministerial control over the projects.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House how this power struggle has been resolved and what he is doing to safeguard the national infrastructure program from degenerating into the pork-barrel politics of the past?
Foreign Affairs January 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, that is a complex question.
First, the Reform Party is not taking a position on this particular issue. We have encouraged our members to speak their own views and the views of their constituents.
I would suggest to the hon. member though that the positions that have been expressed by these various members are reconcilable. I think there is a desire to participate in this peacekeeping role subject to certain conditions and I think the debate among us is on what those conditions should be.
Some would say that those conditions cannot be made and therefore we should withdraw. Others would go along with imposing other conditions. I think the debate among us is not whether to withdraw or not to withdraw, but whether to stay or withdraw in accordance with certain conditions.
Foreign Affairs January 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
I did not mean to imply that the criteria should be whether the conflict is resolvable or unresolvable. If I did this then I was not communicating. I think the dilemma was pointed out with just having that as the criterion.
I was suggesting that perhaps we could set some modest expectations in situations that we get into. It is not that we are going to resolve some ancient conflict that has been going on for hundreds of years but even in the case of Bosnia would it be unrealistic to set the expectation? At least we would get some kind of shaky agreement like the one in Croatia which is hardly a peace agreement but it is better than what there is in Bosnia. If that was the expectation then at least a goal would be set. If one can get it then one can say that is grounds for continuing to proceed.
I am talking about extremely modest expectations but something that one can work toward as a criterion.
Foreign Affairs January 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to both of these questions is the same. I was attempting to suggest whether we could define certain criteria that would govern whether Canada participated or not in a peacekeeping operation and if it did decide to do that, whether to remain. In the minister's statement this morning one will notice that he listed the four or five guidelines that we have used in the past and I think a number of those are adequate.
The one that I would suggest refining is perhaps Canada insisting more than we have in the past of an adequate command structure and logistical support structure for any peacekeeping operations that we get into. I do believe a number of our own military people have suggested that if there is a weak link then the UN is good at getting a legal mandate to get in there but it is not so good at managing the on the spot command of logistics. I think maybe strengthening that one criterion would be a step in the right direction.
Foreign Affairs January 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I did just want to congratulate you on your attainment of your position. As I said, you have had your own struggles with party discipline in the past and it must give you satisfaction to preside over not just a Parliament but a session where party discipline is more relaxed.
I would also like to congratulate other members who have spoken today for the scope of their presentations and for the sincerity of their presentations. I personally found it both helpful and impressive.
That said, like all other members I have a deep interest in this issue from the standpoint of international security as well as from a humanitarian standpoint.
Members of Parliament from Calgary have a special interest in this issue because up to 1,600 personnel from the Currie base in Calgary are scheduled to go to Croatia and Bosnia in the next couple of months. I do think it is important that we are able to communicate to them and their families the reasons they are going, the job they are expected to do and the resources that will be made available to them.
Reform members have not approached this debate with any preconceived notions or positions. We hope to make a contribution however by identifying key questions to be resolved, commenting on those questions from a variety of perspectives and then trying to synthesize the responses of various members to those questions into guidelines which may be useful to the government.
What then are the main questions to which the government requires answers? We think there are three of them. The first is a broad question of foreign policy: Should Canada as a country continue to play a major role in international peacekeeping and enforcement? The second is a broad question of defence policy: What should be the role of Canada's armed forces as we approach the 21st century and how does that relate to international peacekeeping and enforcement? The third is a more particular question forced upon us by the urgency and the tragedy of events in the former Yugoslavia: Should Canada continue to play a role in the current United Nations peacekeeping operations in that part of the world? Obviously the third question would be easier to answer if there were clear answers to the first two.
Should Canada as a country continue to play a major role in international peacekeeping and enforcement? There are strong arguments in favour. Number one, we live in an unsafe world and there is an obvious need for international peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. Number two, Canada has internationally recognized experience and expertise in this field of endeavour. The member for Red Deer has proposed that Canada should specialize in providing training in peacekeeping and
perhaps even export that to the world. Number three, Canada enjoys a greater degree of acceptance as a peacekeeper than many other nations, including the United States.
Those are all strong arguments but there are cautionary notes to be sounded as well. Number one, not every conflict situation is amenable to resolution by international peacekeeping forces. We will need to learn to distinguish between those that are and those that are not. Number two, Canada has limited resources and we cannot take on any and every request for peacekeeping activity that comes along. Number three, we need to give more attention as a number of members have said to the adequacy of the organizational structure under which peacekeeping operations are undertaken.
Obviously, the United Nations is needed to provide the legal and political framework for peacekeeping activities. But is the United Nations capable of providing the field command and logistic support required, or should that come from somewhere else, from a revamped NATO perhaps, or directly from a consortium of those countries that actually supply troops to these operations?
So let us look at the question: Should Canada as a country continue to play a major role in international peacekeeping and enforcement? The answer I hear suggested by the comments that have been made thus far today is, yes, but a qualified yes with much more attention being given in advance to how the peacekeeping effort is to be organized, its potential costs and the prospects of making a meaningful contribution.
Let me turn to the second question: What should be the role of Canada's armed forces as we approach the 21st century and how does that relate to international peacekeeping and enforcement? While this is not the subject of this debate as we were reminded by the minister of defence, it is the question which must be answered by the government's review of defence policy as promised in the speech from the throne.
At present the Canadian military is being told in a very loose and undefined way that it has at least four tasks to perform with $12 billion. It is to protect Canadian sovereignty, including our long sea coast in the context of continental defence. It is to participate in European security through the NATO arrangements. It is to provide support to the civil authorities at home in special cases such as Oka and it is to participate in multiple international peacekeeping and humanitarian operations under the auspices of the United Nations.
It is clear that this Parliament and this government must give the Canadian military a clearer statement of its mission for the 1990s and the 21st century than it has had heretofore. These four functions in our judgment need to be ranked in some order of priority with resources to match the priority assigned. If that were done, as the hon. member for Charlesbourg said earlier today, we would then have a clearer idea of what kind of commitment Canada could then make at any given time to an international peacekeeping possibility in different situations.
The third question I have posed is: Should Canada continue to play a role in the current United Nations peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia? This has probably been the focus of almost 50 to 60 per cent of what has been said here today.
Those who advocate withdrawal seem to do so for several reasons. They argue that the political situation in the Balkans is insoluble other than by massive military intervention or dictatorial means which Canada cannot support. Others argue that the cumulative costs which have never been fully presented to the Canadian people are too high. They argue that if the Canadian people themselves were to be fully consulted on the question of making a commitment to stay versus preparing to withdraw, then a majority of their constituents might say prepare to withdraw.
Those who advocate a continuing role do so on the following grounds.
First, the conflict in the Balkans has erupted into broader international conflicts in the past and could do so again if not contained.
Second, any weakening of Canada's resolve in Croatia or Bosnia will weaken the resolve of other peacekeeping partners and further encourage the belligerents. I think this was the argument made by the member for Labrador.
Third, I think this is the most powerful argument that has been made for a continuing role. Humanitarian concern for the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them women and children, demands an international response and a Canadian response no matter how effective or ineffective that response may appear to be. This position was eloquently argued at the very beginning of this debate by the leader of the opposition.
As I sat here listening to these various arguments I have tried to put ourselves a little bit in the government's shoes and tried to ascertain whether there is any reasonable middle ground between a commitment to stay and preparing to withdraw. If there is it would appear to me to be this.
First, Canada should insist on a better command and support structure for the peacekeeping initiative in the former Yugoslavia as a condition for remaining. This is something to be negotiated with the United Nations and not with the belligerents.
Second, Canada should define, perhaps at the conference that several members have mentioned, certain modest expectations for its continued participation in the former Yugoslavia such as
the securing of some sort of enforceable agreement in Bosnia however frail by the end of the year.
Third, Canada should consider withdrawal only as a measure of last resort if these first objectives could not be obtained. It is my hope that these modest observations may be of some help to the government in framing a general policy on Canada's future peacekeeping role and in arriving at a particular policy with respect to our continued involvement in the former Yugoslavia.
Foreign Affairs January 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your attainment of your office. In the past you have had struggles with party discipline and it must give you some satisfaction to-
Taxation January 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary for the minister. This is a terrible question for a new minister.
If the federal budget, notwithstanding the minister's strong representations, were to contain a carbon tax or the repeal of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, would the minister be willing to resign?
Taxation January 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I did the same thing with my first questions.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Natural Resources. The same speculations about the government having a revenue problem rather than a spending problem have also led to another concern. That is that the government is considering repealing the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act which permits income taxes paid by investor owned utilities to be rebated to their customers so that they are put on the same footing as the customers of government owned utilities that pay no such taxes.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources, the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest, make strong representations to the finance minister concerning the discriminatory aspects of any such repeal and the negative consequences of such an action, particularly on energy users, in her home province?