Steve Mahoney

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know there is an attempt by some to somehow demonize the role of the Americans in this conflict. Let me simply say that NATO has a constitution and a mandate. In that mandate it is very clear that the responsibility of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is that it is one for all and all for one if a member is attacked.

The fact that the Americans happen to be the largest and perhaps the most dominant player because of their economic clout and their military clout I think is a given. The role that Canada can play and should play is being rightly played out on the international scene by our Minister of National Defence and our Minister of Foreign Affairs in trying to do exactly what this motion is calling for; that is, trying to find a peaceful solution and working with Russia, which can indeed be a catalyst in finding a solution.

It would seem to me that while the Americans would have little if any influence over Mr. Milosevic, the Russians do have some influence. We know that the Russian military has provided arms and weaponry to the Serbian military over the years. That is fine. That is a legitimate arrangement, a commercial contract. We know that they have a relationship.

Rather than trying to demonize the Americans and turning this into either a partisan issue or some kind of conflicting issue—and if the hon. member did not mean that I apologize, but that is how I interpreted it—I think our role as the Canadian government is to work alongside the Americans as a partner in NATO and to try to find a solution by our meeting with Russia and the United Nations.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if anybody in the employment of this country were to make a statement like that, and it could be proven, he or she should be fired. It is plain and simple.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the UN should be involved. As a result of the meetings our minister will be having in Russia and with the UN secretary general, I hope we will be able to bring them in.

We have to be realistic as well and realize that NATO serves a very specific role that is somewhat different from that of the United Nations. The theatre for the United Nations is the entire world. That is not true with NATO. The theatre for NATO is Europe and the Americas. It is not Asia, Africa or the Middle East.

If NATO could come in, and China and Russian were prepared to come in and co-operate in negotiating a peace settlement, that would be entirely appropriate. Hopefully the movement by our minister to go there and meet with them will see that happen.

It would more appropriate, if it is possible, to have NATO forces enforcing a peace settlement. However we have to get a peace settlement first. As long as Russia stays on the outside and is not prepared to come in to the negotiations, I fear the UN is marginalizing itself because of one or two of its members. Hopefully we can see some serious involvement by the United Nations over coming weeks.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the last comment about getting people to stop hating. I heard Henry Kissinger, I think it was, say that was probably not a possible scenario in these parts of the Balkans. Hate is deeply ingrained in the souls, hearts and minds of the people in that region. I wish it were so that by holding up Canadian values or values which we hold dear we could communicate in some way that they should stop hating. I wish it were that easy but I fear it is not.

I congratulate the member for Halifax and the New Democratic Party for putting forward what I frankly consider to be a responsible position in a responsible use of an opposition day. We have had scenes in this place where motions have been put forward that frankly would be seen as nothing more than grandstanding for the purpose of perhaps espousing certain philosophical viewpoints or somehow trying to embarrass the government. I do not think the motion does that at all.

The motion states that the government should intensify and accelerate efforts to find a diplomatic solution. Who among us would not want that to happen? Who among the population of this great country would not want that to happen?

The mission being undertaken by the minister later this week, with meetings being set up in Russia and meetings with the Secretary General of the United Nations, is an effort to do exactly that, to find a way to answer a question I have some difficulty answering when constituents call me: How did this happen?

We have to look at history to find out how and why this has happened and why we are debating it today. It is responsible of an opposition party to suggest that the government should increase efforts to find a diplomatic solution. I agree with them that it should happen. I also think it is responsible for us to urge NATO not to accelerate the campaign beyond what is currently going on in an effort to try to find a diplomatic solution.

Having said that, we cannot stick our heads in the sand. I was very interested to hear my colleague from Hamilton—Wentworth say that he had held a town hall meeting. I wondered what it would be like to have a town hall meeting in Kosovo. I wondered how people who have been driven out of their homes and who have watched their fathers, their husbands and their sons assassinated in front of them would feel about participating in a town hall meeting. This is not media hype; we have heard testimony from refugees who have stood by and watched their mothers and their daughters raped in front of their families.

I think they would be so shocked at the democratic process which my colleague held in his riding that they would not know what to say. They could not imagine describing the horror and the pain.

While we strive to find diplomatic and peaceful solutions, we have to take a look at why we are in this position in the first place.

In 1949 former Prime Minister Lester Pearson, whom I think all Canadians and members of this place would consider one of the great men of this century, won a Nobel prize. He signed an agreement with 11 other countries to form an alliance called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That membership has expanded to 19.

What was the purpose? Was it just some kind of window dressing following the war, that we should all get together once a year and have a barbecue or something like that? I do not think so.

These were 12 and now 19 countries that recognized a number of different threats existed in the world. The most obvious would have been the spread of communism in 1949. We saw what happened with the wall. We saw it go up. We saw it come down. We saw a country divided. We saw what happened economically and philosophically, or from any aspect of society we want to look at, to a country that could have been, should have been, might have been and might still be again a great country, Russia.

This may be a bias but I happen to think it is one we all believe in, the bias of democracy. This is a people who have been put in a terrible position because of the spread of communism and because of the militaristic attitude that occurred in that country. They wound up in a destitute situation. NATO was formed to monitor the spread of communism.

Tito was in charge in Yugoslavia and the army was there. I witnessed firsthand in 1990 when I was part of a parliamentary delegation as a member of the provincial legislature the first free elections in Croatia since the end of the second world war. Yet there were still armed soldiers standing over the ballot boxes intimidating the people as they came in. They stood there and did not move.

I remember how incredulous some of the Croatian people were when I went up to the armed soldiers and put a Canadian pin on their lapel. They were quite astounded that I would do that. Thinking back I was a little nuts to do it. In any event I was being friendly and extending a friendly hand to those people. We could see tears in the eyes of the Croatian people as they lined down the street to vote for the first time since the war. It was truly one of the most amazing and moving political opportunities that I have experienced.

Like most of us in this place I am really rather spoiled. Think of where we live. Think of the fact that I have often said in this place that our weapons are hopefully our minds. Our ammunition are the words that we hurl at one another. We do not kill one another. Hopefully we do not. There may be days when some would feel that way but generally speaking we are not a violent people.

Yet we see what is happening and we a partaking in what can amount to nothing other than a military action, or call it whatever we want. It is war against a regime. I do not consider this a war against the Serbian people as a nation. Although I have to openly admit obviously Serbs will be injured and killed in this exercise. That is a terrible tragedy, but we cannot sit back and do nothing.

I wonder what the Canadian people would say if Canada, a participant in NATO for the last 50 years, was to step back and say that we will not be involved in this situation; we were there for the good times and liked the conferences, but we will not participate in this action. I do not see how we could in any moral conscience take a position that we would not participate.

I pray and hope, as do all Canadians and members of the House, that what we have seen today will not escalate into the use of our soldiers in active combat. It may yet happen, but we hope it will not. They are there. They are being positioned to go in to implement a peace settlement. I hope that our minister and our Prime Minister can meet with the Russians and do what the NDP is talking about and what we would all like to see, to see if Russia can implement a peace settlement with this regime to end the fighting and the killing.

Then our people could do what they have been trained to do, that is keep a sustaining peace in that part of the world and help the Kosovars readjust, go back in and rebuild their lives. I know we all pray for that, and hopefully we will see it in the not too distant future.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. member.

Having worked with the member for St. Albert on public accounts, I have found him to be one of the few members on that side whom I would give some credit to for being a responsible individual when it comes to this. I am therefore astounded when I hear him say that this money belongs to the Canadian taxpayer, not to the government nor to the union. I understand that position. However, why do we not put it to the best use possible that will benefit the Canadian taxpayer?

From the people I have talked to in my riding and clearly those across Canada, they want us to reduce the debt. They understand the burden on their kids and their grandchildren. They want us to use every available excess dollar, every available surplus that we possibly can to reduce the debt. That is what this will do.

It is astounding that Reform would simply see us leaving it in a black box, as the member said, or in some kind of bank account and not putting it to proper use and to the benefit of all taxpayers in Canada.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a relevant question.

Let me first deal with the improvements. The formula for calculating retirement benefits will be changed to five consecutive years instead of six. That is an improvement. The hon. member's own critic said so in Hansard .

The formula by which the plan benefits are integrated with the CPP or the QPP will be changed in the plan member's favour; life insurance to ensure the government's pension package for its employees, in keeping with the opinions of the courts; the issue of survivors' benefits under the major plans, including the pension plans for members of parliament, will be amended to extend survivors' benefits to same sex partners on the same basis as survivors' benefits are now available to opposite sex partners in a common law relationships.

A dental plan will also be included in the amendments. The bill will include authority for the Treasury Board to look at the surpluses that get accumulated every 15 years. I have outlined lots of benefits that will be improvements for the members. There are more, but I know that my time is limited.

The member should read her own critic's Hansard . He actually praises many of the changes in the bill on behalf of the retirees. I would not want to mislead the House by saying he agrees with everything, but he does point out that there are a number of very positive improvements.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Well, they are trying to understand what the word conjugal means. I will allow them to go to their own dictionaries to figure that one out. It would be highly unlikely that I would take the time in here to try to conduct sex education classes for members opposite. I am not sure that they would be able to grasp it in any event.

The issues in this bill are about improvements to the benefits of the people who will collect the pensions. The issue very clearly lays out the fact that survivor benefits can include people in that kind of relationship.

I do not know why those members do not just stand up and say what it is they want to say. Frankly, I do not think they would like the reaction of the Canadian public when they do that.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this proves my point. The Reform Party members would simply like to turn this into an issue of same sex relationships instead of—

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

I will give the member a break all right. What has happened here is that the government has put in place an amendment which frankly takes that issue off the table and settles it.

Let us deal with the important issues. The important issues in this are not whether someone is having a conjugal relationship with a same sex partner. We are not redefining family. We are not redefining marriage. I believe the important aspect of benefits paid to a survivor under any pension plan is how the premiums were paid. Were they paid on a family basis and are they recognized in that capacity?

The bill goes a long way to setting a new standard that Canadians will understand.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am sure it caused some consternation in the Reform Party when its members saw what appeared to be some attempt to dodge the same sex issue. They would like to simply turn this debate around on that one issue.