House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 45% of the vote.
Job Creation November 25th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
For several months now, we have been hearing that the federal government was going to get more directly involved in promoting job creation.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us what steps he has taken, in co-operation with the government of my province, the Province of Quebec, in order to stimulate job creation?
Canadian Embassies November 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the PQ minister responsible for international affairs said yesterday that Canadian embassies had been instructed to limit Quebec's influence abroad as much as possible.
Right off I must condemn this statement, which is totally false and unfounded. Second, the minister should admit that, if indeed Quebec does not have as much influence abroad as it used to, he has only himself and his cuts to Quebec delegations abroad to blame.
Sylvain Simard's comment shows that, in the PQ, the more things change, the more they stay the same. When they do not know how to explain their difficulties, they blame the federal government. Quebecers who have travelled or done business abroad are aware of and appreciate the value and quality of the services provided by Canadian embassies.
Export Of Arms November 20th, 1996
Madam Speaker, our government shares the concern of the member for Winnipeg Transcona about peace and international security.
As my colleague for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso has outlined, we have taken many concrete steps in this direction. We have also taken our responsibilities very seriously to ensure that Canadian military exports are helpful in supporting our allies and do not fall into the hands of those bent on disrupting peace and security in other parts of the world.
I would like to take a few moments to outline for this House some of the steps that are taken behind the scenes to fully meet this commitment.
All applications for arms export permits, unless they involve NATO countries or a few other similar countries, are subject to an exacting consultation process within the department and with other departments. This primarily involves assessments of each specific situation.
Officials look at a range of factors affecting international and internal peace and security. First of all, are the goods in question of similar, lower or higher technological level than the recipient country already has? This closely helps determine whether a sale would have a destabilizing affect on a region.
Would the goods help the recipient contribute positively to security arrangements in the region in question or to existing or
planned UN peacekeeping activities? Are there any risks that the goods proposed for export would threaten any UN or other peace efforts in or near the recipient country or any Canadian or friendly military peacekeeping or humanitarian effort?
These assessments are made by the Department of National Defence and the Regional Security and Peacekeeping Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in conjunction with some of the geographical divisions. This averts any risk of diversion or deception concerning use or final destination.
As this House can see, we take our responsibility to protect peace very seriously. A second part of this same process is our strict policy against military sales to countries with less than perfect human rights records as well. In the area of human rights, the Department of Foreign Affairs human rights division and the country desks with their political, economic and social development experts perform a thorough analysis. They look at annual reports prepared by our embassies abroad on the human rights performance of each country for the proceeding year, including areas of deterioration as well as improvements.
They look at reports from such eminent international human rights watchdogs as Amnesty International, the UN human rights commission as well as reports received from like minded governments including the U.S. They look at, on a country by country basis, reports of Canadian and foreign based non-governmental organization offering factual or anecdotal information on human rights conditions in different countries.
They also look at concrete steps being undertaken by the Canadian government and by Canadian NGOs to improve the country's democratic and good governance institutions such a free press, democratic political institutions and an independent judiciary and civil police force.
Together, these elements give us a good idea of the human rights and security situation virtually anywhere in the world. If any doubt persists, because our information is incomplete or contradictory, our embassies investigate and report back to us. All of this is done prior to any recommendation concerning an application for an arms export permit. What is more, when the proposed recipient is a country with a potential for strategic concerns, the Minister of External Affairs himself looks at the situation in detail and decides whether to issue the permit or to deny it.
It can be seen that we already undertake a lengthy procedure to vet military exports. It is difficult to see how the member's proposal would enhance this analysis and scrutiny, but it is quite easy to see that the proposal would make a good system unworkable and make export control permits subject to unrealistic criteria. How could one possibly prove that a given export would enhance international security?
I think it is worth noting the common misconception that military exports are all arms or lethal weapons that figure centrally in conflict. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Canadian so-called military exports are made up almost completely of parts and components, electronic elements, repair and overhaul and protective and support systems.
Let me provide the House with a few illustrations. Canada is one of the world's foremost manufacturers and suppliers of bomb disposal suits and helmets used for disarming terrorist bombs and dangerous anti-personnel land mines. We also make and export to many countries bullet proof clothing and armour plating often to protect civilians.
Canada's aerospace industry is composed mainly of repair and overhaul and electronic subsystem manufacturers. We make no combat military aircraft in Canada at all. Yet aerospace makes up roughly 70 per cent of Canada's defence exports.
What else do we make and export? Devices to help land helicopters on to the heaving decks of ships at sea and radios and optical sights and flight simulators and even pellets used for target practice. Though misnamed as arms, these Canadian defence goods are vital to supporting Canada's own armed forces and to pulling our fair share internationally in our military alliances with the U.S. and NATO. The companies that make these goods also employ a lot of Canadians, between 60,000 and 80,000 directly and indirectly, independent studies tell us.
Our government is committed to peacebuilding and peacekeeping. Also, through various positive measures, we have encouraged the Canadian defence industry, including the aerospace sector, to gradually convert to civilian uses. Our initiatives in this respect were designed to maintain quality and highly paid jobs in Canada, while doing everything we could to support the conversion of goods and services in the areas of aviation, transportation and telecommunications to commercial uses.
The technological partnership program announced last year by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, ensures that the risks associated with research and development are shared with the industry, especially where businesses convert to new civilian applications.
The Canadian government is taking all responsible steps to prevent Canadian made military goods from being sold to destinations and end users that threaten peace and security internationally. In fact, our current level of in depth study and analysis is equal to any in the world. But we are doing more. We are supporting industry in its efforts to strengthen the civil commercial side of its business when converting from traditional military production and in this way retaining companies, jobs and invaluable high technologies in Canada.
Mineral And Metal Policy November 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to tell you about the government's new policy on minerals and metals, and the renewal of the federation.
This government is committed to a flexible and dynamic approach to federalism. The new minerals and metals policy is based on a fundamental recognition by this government of provincial ownership and management of mineral resources. The policy describes a sharply focused role for the government in minerals and metals that is tied to core federal responsibilities such as international trade and investment, science and technology and aboriginal affairs. Through the policy the government commits itself to building effective and durable partnerships with the provinces and territories.
By promoting the establishment of partnerships, the new policy on minerals and metals will help renew the federation and make sure the industry continues to make a major contribution to the economic and social well-being of Canadians, right into the 21st century.
Great Lakes Region Of Africa November 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the United Nations emergency force inaugurated the era of modern peacekeeping. Canada has been in the forefront with its patient explorations, its practical ideas, and its pragmatic compromises.
This has been Canada's trademark, and this same power of persuasion and tenacity which has always characterized Canada, sometimes under difficult circumstances, has been manifested in recent days and recent hours, while the government was dealing with this current crisis.
The Canadian forces have provided the United Nations emergency force with the logistical support that is the backbone of any military undertaking. Over the years, this service has become Canada's specialty, a known quantity, a support on which our international friends have been able to depend to insure the necessary stability and continuity of other peacekeeping missions, for other missions were not long in coming.
In the ten years that followed, two other important peacekeeping missions took place, the United Nations operation in the Congo between 1960 and 1964, and the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Cyprus starting in 1964.
The operation in the Congo, now Zaire, was particularly difficult and somewhat controversial. Many lives were lost and much money was poured into it. As well, we had to resort to force and to interfere in the internal affairs of the Congo. This led eventually to deep divisions between the member states, which threatened the future of the United Nations. There was great danger, and Canadians were responsible for a number of acts of bravery. Two hundred and thirty-four members of the United Nations force lost their lives during this operation.
Canadians again had special skills to bring to bear. Our primary contribution was in the area of signals and communications. It also helped enormously that so many members of the Canadian forces could speak the common Congolese language of French. There was a humanitarian aspect to the mission to which Canadians contributed foodstuffs.
Canada was in the lead in Cyprus, with Secretary of State for External Affairs Paul Martin Senior providing the crucial diplo-
matic impetus to get UN members behind the idea of a peacekeeping force. Canadian troops were on the island 24 hours after the force was authorized. "You will never know what this may have prevented", American President Lyndon Johnson told Mr. Pearson, then our Prime Minister.
There have been moments of discouragement as peacekeeping evolved, warts and all, but as this House's Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence reminded Canadians in 1970: "For Canadians now to lose heart and reduce its interest in peacekeeping would be an abdication of responsibility. No other country could fill the gap thus opened-and the development of effective peacekeeping would be set back with incalculable but certainly disastrous effect". The committee added: "The work of peacekeeping is not glamorous. It is frustrating. It does not inspire gratitude. It does not directly assist narrow Canadian interests. But it is an essential service-and one for which Canada has special qualifications because of her reputation for fairness and because of her technical skills".
Canadians listened to that advice. Canada's commitment toward peace keeping has never faltered. By the end of the Cold War, 80,000 Canadian soldiers had taken part in peacekeeping and it was hard to name a peacekeeping mission under UN or other auspices in which Canada had not played a lead role.
We were the leading world peace keepers, well intentioned, well equipped, well trained. Empirical studies, however, indicate that the funds allocated to peacekeeping were only a tiny fraction of total defence budgets.
At the end of the cold war, peacekeeping expanded and changed dramatically, if we consider the type, form and general nature of these operations. Both Conservatives and Liberals sent 20,000 peacekeepers to the borders of Iraq, to the UN Commission in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to Mozambique, Namibia, Angola, the Western Sahara, to Rwanda and Somalia, to Salvador and Haiti, to Cambodia and the Balkans.
At one point in the early 90s, more than 4,000 Canadian peacekeepers were deployed in various parts of the world.
During those years, mandates remained vague. The risks were greater. Inevitably, the risk of controversy, error and abuse had increased, compared with the time when missions were straightforward peacekeeping operations.
But the challenges were also more numerous. Humanitarian aid and the defence of human rights were very likely to be a major factor in these new operations which, in turn, could act as a catalyst for putting in place democratic institutions.
In the former Yugoslavia under General Lewis MacKenzie, Canadians got aid to the besieged capital of Sarajevo and elsewhere. They repaired schools, hospitals, roads and they provided medical care. They gave of their own time to the aged and to the young.
In an even more desperate situation in Rwanda, under Generals Roméo Dallaire and Guy Tousignant the Canadian forces cleared mines, delivered aid, purified water and brought critical medical assistance.
We cannot ignore the assistance so many other Canadians have provided and continue to provide daily to those who need it throughout the world. I am referring to the NGOs and Canadian religious orders in Rwanda who were the first to draw our attention to the crisis which had developed in that country.
General Dallaire said one day he had seen too many bodies, too many tears, too much human suffering and too much destruction in Rwanda to let us, the international community, go about our business without a care in the world.
We clearly need mechanisms in order to be able to react quickly and effectively to international disasters. Examples of typically Canadian initiatives intended to help deal with international crises are the rapid reaction force proposed by the government, which made its way at the UN, and the Disaster Assistance Relief Team, also known as DART.
Over the last few minutes I have attempted to sketch the context in which the government motion under consideration by this House is set: a Canadian peacekeeping and humanitarian experience, expertise and excellence built up over many years and tested in a wide variety of circumstances; a longstanding Canadian commitment to international co-operation which is very much in our interests and deeply embedded in our tradition; a Canadian leadership role in the international community which is more usual than unusual.
And so we come to the obvious conclusion that the world is too small for us to turn our backs on the African continent and all its problems.
I fully support the leadership role assumed by Canada within the international community, as it seeks ways to deal directly and fearlessly with the crisis in Africa.
I would also ask that we intervene in a way that leaves no doubt as to the generosity and firm resolve of this House.
Montreal Economy November 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the governments of Canada and Quebec have decided to coordinate their efforts to help Montreal's economic recovery.
A new organization will be set up today to coordinate efforts to promote Greater Montreal's international development. This organization, which will be called Montreal International, will welcome foreign investors, provide information to them, and also seek foreign investments.
It will have a budget of $10 million. The governments of Canada and Quebec will provide $4 million, while $5 million will come from the private sector and $1 million from the municipalities that are part of Greater Montreal.
Montreal International is proof that we can accomplish great things when the various levels of government and the private sector work in close co-operation.
Great Lakes Region Of Africa November 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my fullest support to the decision made by the government to alleviate human suffering in the great lakes region of central Africa.
It is right to do all we can to help fight disease, death and cruelty whenever we can. We owe it to ourselves and to our neighbours to recognize that our responsibilities extend beyond Canada's boundaries. As a CBC commentator suggested last week, referring to this issue: "It is a noble deed to transcend our own personal concerns".
Canada has a longstanding commitment to the rest of the world. We have fought tyranny in both world wars. Canada was a founding member of the League of Nations and the United Nations, and since the end of the second world war, we have participated in many international ventures from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the Francophonie.
We Canadians have such strong immigration, economic, cultural and personal ties with the international community that we instinctively realize that we must know the people out there in order to know ourselves.
Forty years ago almost to the day, a Canadian was in the forefront of another global effort to restore stability to an apparently faraway region. The Suez crisis had erupted and the Middle East was in flames. Foreign affairs minister Lester Pearson, horrified by a conflict that threatened international peace and split even Canada's friends, hurried to New York and immediately set to work with his colleagues from the Department of External Affairs to find the solution.
The answer lay in an innovative application of a relatively new concept, United Nations peacekeeping, an expedient which had been used since the end of the second world war to concoct small observer forces in the Middle East and on the India-Pakistan border.
Mr. Pearson's cool and flexible diplomacy in 1956 led to the establishment against all odds of the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East, a large multinational UN team whose role was to police a ceasefire and interpose itself between the combatants. The idea was a simple but powerful one, to create a breathing space so that there was a real opportunity for peace to be grasped if the parties wanted it sufficiently.
The peacekeepers could not make peace. They had-
Great Lakes Region Of Africa November 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, this morning my colleague mentioned the briefing we had with the three departments. It was a very interesting briefing.
I believe it was Mr. Buckley from foreign affairs who mentioned that Canada has spent close to $50 million in help so far in that area of the African continent. Does my colleague think the $50 million was well spent? Does he think we should increase or decrease this amount? Where should this money go?
Softwood Lumber November 6th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
On October 31, following the recent Canada-U.S. agreement on softwood lumber, lumber companies in Quebec and Canada received a letter from the Canadian government indicating their market quotas.
Can the minister explain how these quotas were calculated and say if steps were taken to protect those companies that have already exceeded their quotas?
The Quebec Socio-Economic Summit November 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on the day after the socio-economic summit from which they came back practically empty handed, the people of the Outaouais are totally justified in questioning the PQ government's attitude toward them.
In fact, PQ minister Sylvain Simard accused the people of the Outaouais of being responsible for their lack of success at the summit. He stated that they could not accuse Quebec of not doing its share in the Outaouais while remaining uninterested in Quebec and not getting involved, that if they did not adapt to Quebec, they would miss the boat because the federal state would no longer be there to compensate, that they should stop complaining and start acting.
The minister's scorn for our region is unjustifiable. The PQ government must stop its referendum vendetta against the Outaouais and agree to give our region the same benefits as those enjoyed by separatist regions.