Lost his last election, in 2011, with 36% of the vote.
National Defence May 4th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has been reluctant to answer questions concerning the national missile defence system. The foreign affairs minister is against this particular system, while the national defence minister is in favour of Canada participating in this system.
What is the Prime Minister's position? Is the Prime Minister for or against Canada participating in a national missile defence system?
Reserve Force Uniform Day May 4th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, yesterday throughout our land Canada's reserve force personnel wore their uniforms with pride as part of Reserve Force Uniform Day.
Reservists have served Canada for over a century and serve on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. On behalf of the federal New Democratic Party, it is my honour to commend all reservists on their commitment to their community and country.
In my riding of Halifax West, reservists played an essential role in the recovery of Swissair Flight 111. Elsewhere, reservists have played an invaluable service throughout Canada, including during the Manitoba flood, the 1998 ice storms, avalanches and forest fires.
I urge all Canadians to take time to say thank you to the reservists so committed to our country. I also urge the Liberal government to pass legislation offering job protection to Canada's reserve force soldiers called upon to serve their country. It is appalling that the government refuses to take simple measures to ensure reservists' jobs would be protected while they are defending the interests of our country.
I also call upon the government not to reduce or eliminate these most valuable components of the military who serve their communities and their country so well, but rather to resource and support them fully for the work they do.
Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada Act May 3rd, 2000
Madam Speaker, it is crucial on many levels that Canada's forces reflect the ethnic diversity that makes up our country. That is why I am disheartened by the response of the Minister of National Defence to my question on April 13, which I asked in the House. I pointed out to the minister at that time that there were too few visible minorities and aboriginals in the senior ranks of Canada's land forces and regular navy to even register as a blip on the radar screen.
Just as bad are the targets, with a visible minority target of less than 10% for army and regular forces and less than 5% for aboriginals in the same category.
I asked the minister to commit to targets and dates to increase representation in all senior ranks, including using fast-tracking where appropriate and committing to fostering an environment promoting diversity, as recommended by his own advisory board.
The minister responded with vague motherhood generalities about ensuring that people from all parts of Canada can participate in the forces. The minister said that his own advisory board on this issue has made worthwhile recommendations. Which recommendations does he see as worthwhile? Which ones will he implement and in what timeframe?
The people of Canada deserve specific and concrete details and not just vague generalizations. As a Canadian of colour I have heard good words all too often and seen good action all too seldom.
In March of this year the minister's own advisory board on Canadian Forces Gender Integration and Employment Equity submitted its report to the minister. Women and aboriginals were determined to be less than half of their minimum potential representation in the forces and visible minorities were at less than one-quarter of the minimum potential. That is appalling.
I understand that targets have been set to increase the representation of visible minorities from 2% to 7% of the total army over 10 years. Why only 7%, and what specifically is being done to meet this target?
Canadians of colour are so scarce at the officer and non-commissioned member level to not even register in the advisory board's report.
How does this Liberal government expect to increase representation of visible minorities and aboriginal Canadians when role models from their communities are so scarce?
The minister's advisory board heard comments expressed by land forces personnel, such as: “We are not doing aboriginals and visible minorities a favour by allowing them to look so different by wearing turbans or braids. How can they possibly integrate when they stick out like a sore thumb?” A sore thumb indeed. How does the government seriously expect to foster diversity with an attitude like that?
The minister's advisory board noted the need to increase representation in the senior ranks of women, aboriginals and visible minorities. What is the minister's position on fast tracking qualified individuals?
I recognize the changes that occur only at the top tend to be short-lived. It is essential that the Liberal government learn that change must be throughout the ranks. Superficial treatment of this crisis will breed superficial results. Women, visible minorities and aboriginals deserve to know the government's plan in detail. We deserve to know that there is a comprehensive plan and to be able to see this plan.
Recommendations were also made in a similar vein to the same minister last year arising out of the Canadian forces debacle in Somalia. The Minister of National Defence agreed in 1999 to establish regular liaison with anti-racist groups to “obtain assistance in the conduct of appropriate cultural sensitivity training and to assist supervisors and commanders in identifying signs of racism and involvement with hate groups”. Has this happened and if so, who was consulted and what were the results of these liaisons?
Last year the Canadian Human Rights Commission gave the Canadian forces a failing grade for its efforts to reflect Canada's cultural makeup. So far the pupil does not seem to be doing much better.
I trust the government will respond to my comments with a specific plan including dates, targets and measures to be taken at all levels within the forces. Anything less would be an insult.
National Defence May 3rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the military generals are taking a position.
It has now come to light that military officials knew about the harmful effects of depleted uranium before the gulf war. Why then does the government still try to suggest that DU is safe? The defence minister has made it clear that he supports testing those suffering from exposure to DU. Why has he not taken action on an insulting and intimidating force's memo distributed to those Canadians suffering, basically telling them that the problem may be all in their heads?
Also, recently Canadians in the Halifax area suffering from exposure to this toxin have been told there is no directive for the forces to provide testing for depleted uranium. What does the minister have to say about this?
National Defence May 3rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, Canada must loudly and proudly say no to the U.S. proposed national missile defence system.
The foreign affairs minister says the missile system is dangerous. The defence minister says Canada may support the missile system.
Will the Prime Minister make a public statement on Canada's opposition to the U.S. government's plan to crank up the arms race and threaten peace and stability with this national missile system? Will he say no?
Criminal Code May 2nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, Canada must not in any way be party to nuclear arms buildups or to actions which may lead to a cold war environment. Canada must loudly and proudly say no to the U.S. proposed national missile defence system. On behalf of the federal NDP I urge the government to take a stand sooner rather than later.
I raised the question of our participation in the system on March 16. The Minister of National Defence stated:
We cannot yet take a position. There are too many unknowns.
I could not believe my ears. Of course we can take a stand. We should take a stand and we must take a stand.
The minister is also fully aware that DND started work on a $637 million project to provide Canada with a foothold in the arms buildup strategy of the U.S. This expenditure involves putting military surveillance sensors in space. The U.S. treats Canada like the 51st state and the Liberal government reacts like a whipped dog.
The U.S. threw down its gauntlet in comments from U.S. deputy defence secretary in a speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce when he said:
We are at an important pivot point in our relationship with each other. Unfortunately I think that pivot point is going to revolve around the issue of national missile defence. Canada needs to take the lead.
This is an explicit threat from where I sit: either do what the U.S. says or we will suffer. I am shocked that the government did not respond to this thinly veiled threat. The foreign affairs minister said on March 22:
Unilateral efforts to build defences against these dangers are unlikely to provide lasting security, and might quite possibly increase insecurity.
The impulse to build walls should be resisted. The answer instead lies in creating a multilateral approach to stop missile proliferation in the first place.
On the other hand we have the minister of defence meekly stating:
We cannot yet take a position. There are too many unknowns.
Now, however, it seems as if the big defence corporations and the U.S. brass have given our minister of defence marching orders. More recently he is making statements which seem very much to suggest that NORAD is anything but a joint Canada-U.S. defence command and is in reality an easy way for the U.S. to tell us to heel and to roll over.
This is a serious matter. Canada's role in international affairs hangs in the balance. I ask the Liberal government for an answer to my question. Whose words rule the Liberal roost? Is it those of the defence minister or the foreign affairs minister? I ask the Prime Minister to make a public statement on Canada's opposition to the U.S. government's plans to crank up the arms race with this national missile system.
The defence minister says there are too many unknowns. Allow me to clarify the picture for him a little. The defence minister of France, Alain Richard, has said the threat of ballistic missile attack is sometimes hyped or exaggerated. Military affairs analyst John Clearwater said of the proposed system:
It is money down the toilet...any rogue country shooting a missile at the U.S. knows it will be wiped out.
This insane missile plan will destabilize the current state of arms control. Even the conservative Globe and Mail stated that Canada should deny U.S. support on this measure.
There is no question the U.S. is consciously heading on a collision course with Russia, despite Russia's most recent positive efforts at ratifying the START II, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The NMD totally contradicts the 1972 ABM Treaty with Russia. The U.S. would have to withdraw from or violate the treaty.
Canada has the duty and the responsibility of playing a leadership role. The U.S. plans to fuel the arms race and to destabilize international relations must be actively opposed.
The government has a choice. It can continue to invest in this U.S. missile system and act like the 51st state or it can take a clear and strong stand against something that is fundamentally wrong and do so with pride.
The Liberals are perched on a very high and narrow fence and Canadians are waiting to see on which side of the fence they will fall. If the government falls on the side of complicity with the U.S. NMD system through silence on the matter or through open support, then all of Canada will be hurt in this fall. The pain will also be felt by those in other countries looking to Canada to play a leadership role.
Transportation April 14th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Transport announced funding for VIA Rail service across the country.
The NDP believes that public passenger rail strengthens the federation and brings Canadians closer together. However, I wonder if the minister knows that the province of Newfoundland is no longer served by passenger rail. I wonder if he knows that Newfoundlanders have been waiting for 12 years for needed upgrades to the Trans-Canada Highway and for improvements to existing ferry service.
Will the minister commit today to timetables with targets to deliver on four laning and improved service to the mainland which Newfoundlanders have been expecting for years?
National Defence April 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, how many visible minorities and aboriginals are there in the senior ranks of Canada's land forces and regular navy? Too few to even register, according to the defence minister's own advisory board.
Just as bad are the targets, with a visible minority target of less than 10% for army and regular forces and less than 5% for aboriginals in the same category.
Will the minister here and now commit to targets and dates to increase representation in all senior ranks, including using fast tracking where appropriate, and commit to fostering an environment promoting diversity, as recommended by his own advisory board?
Budget Implementation Act, 2000 April 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am really qualified to say where I think the rates should stop.
I think the hon. member has raised a valid point with respect to the increase in premiums and so forth because far too often what is happening is that the government is constantly increasing premiums and taking more money from people when in reality what we need to do is readjust our priorities so that the money that is there can be utilized in a more positive way to alleviate some of the difficulties that people who must go on disability encounter.
When we look, for example, at what happened with the EI premiums and a program designed to help the unemployed, the government took that money and threw it into its pot so that it could come up with a surplus.
When we look at superannuation, the money is taken there and put into a pot so the government can claim a surplus. When we look at the pay equity struggle that workers had for years and years and years, again, it comes back to priorities. If the government will reorganize its priorities and think in terms of people, then that issue that the member raised will come to a natural resolution.
Budget Implementation Act, 2000 April 13th, 2000
In any event, it took this individual one year to answer a letter. I know we all sometimes have problems getting back on time with our correspondence. However, the key is this. When people are looking to governments and their leaders, they want to feel that there is some sense of responsibility on these issues because these issues are very crucial to them.
These are the kinds of comments that are coming forward. I raise these in good faith to give an understanding as to why people are concerned about the budget and why they are concerned about the government.
I am not sure how much time I have left, but I want to bring this to a conclusion on a positive note. I think it is very important for each and every one of us in the House to examine very closely the budget from the point of view, as I said before, as to what it says in terms of priorities for people, priorities for Canadians. What are we saying to the public about the direction in which we want the country to go? We have to get past the bottom line being just the dollar. By that I do not mean that the dollar is not important. Of course it is important. However, there is much more importance in having a sense of decency about the way we conduct our business, about having a sense of obligation and responsibility to seniors, students, the ill and those who are afflicted.
There is much more to the budget than just the dollars themselves. We notice that the budget did not really touch upon many issues that would affect aboriginal people, our first citizens of this country. These kinds of things determine what attitude we have about our country, about where we are as a nation.
In conclusion, I would say that we certainly were disappointed with the budget. We hope that the comments of Canadians, such as the comments that I read earlier, will be taken to heart and the government will look at those things in a meaningful way and try to do what is best for our country.