Ted McWhinney

[Peacekeeping, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this has been not merely a valuable debate but an innovatory debate in Constitutional law of Parliament terms.

It was intended by the United Stated Constitution, to which some of the members of opposition parties referred, that questions of peace and war and commitment of armed forces be always submitted to Congress for decision.

We know that historically American presidents evaded that in invoking presidential power. What is fascinating here today is that we have come to Parliament. We are consulting Parliament on the renewal of the mandate and we have established a parliamentary practice that will not likely be changed in the future.

It will now be part of our constitutional law that where there is a commitment to be made of Canadian forces, it will be more than a telephone call at 5 a.m. from a foreign head of government and a Canadian Prime Minister replying yes sir, without any thought of the roles and missions of the forces to which he is committing Canada.

There are mistakes here and we can identify them readily if we survey the history of peacekeeping in its classical form as developed by our then foreign minister, Lester Pearson, for which he won the Nobel prize for the interposition of unarmed UN forces between armed combatants who had decided to cease operations and were looking for a face saving way out of it.

The classic situation was in Suez in 1956. It was muddied in the Congo in 1960-61 when the secretary-general of the United Nations in moves that ultimately brought his own destruction and death interjected political motives that had not been cleared in advance. Many of us would believe they were the correct political decisions but the political motive intervenes.

If we look at the two operations in recent years in which we have been most involved, Croatia and Somalia, we find operations in which the political commitment was made to engage Canadian peacekeeping forces but without a prior adequate definition of goals and missions.

This is the tragedy in Somalia. A classic peacekeeping operation was converted into a mission with political objectives, arguable and even questionable because they ignored the existing power structure there which was necessary to the effective operation of the UN forces.

In Croatia conflicting political agendas had been set by European powers that were in some respects reviving their old quarrels of pre-1914. I would not wish to censor the government that made these decisions without prior discussion in Parliament, without prior examination of the roles and missions in which we are engaged, but it is clear there was a fault there.

Our real issue today is that Canada entered into operations, engaged our forces, engaged our word as a nation and we are bound by that commitment in terms of consequences. We cannot lightly walk away. In other words, a new political situation is created by our act however much the present government and opposition parties might wish to question the original political premises on which the predecessor government engaged Canada.

I have some suggestions to make in terms of the continued operation of the Canadian peace forces in Croatia. It is clear if we ought to be there it is to be in a classic peacekeeping sense. We are not there as a chapter seven of the charter, a peacemaking operation in which we have a defined political goal that involves the application of military force for its achievement.

This was never our role. It is not our role today. It may well be the objective of some of the people presently engaged in the same operation. One of the problems here is the problem of state succession to the former communist republic of Yugoslavia. It was about to break up, as Turkey was in the 19th century. It created the predecessor of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro. It was a situation of state succession in which European powers met together and realized that one cannot have recognition of new states without a precise and equitable definition of frontiers.

That was not done here and in a very real sense it is a mistake to attempt it under the guise of a peacekeeping operation. Therefore our message to the government should be that the predecessor government engaged Canada in the operation. We cannot in good faith walk away. We are responsible in measure for what has happened since. We should limit our responsibility to the UN mandate, the maintenance of a political military situation created by the parties, agreed on by the parties as a cease fire and no more.

If there is to be an issue of political goals to be established, we should call for another congress of Berlin. The treaty of Versailles to which we are signatory, our first international act, establishes just such a machinery.

If it is to be a matter of defining frontiers, let us have a larger European conference of which we are part. Let us get those frontiers defined. Do not try to do this under cover of a military peacekeeping operation. Do not charge our soldiers with the responsibility of making political decisions. It is beyond their special competence. It is beyond their mandate. It is manifestly unfair to them.

I say congratulations to the government for establishing what I hope will become a precedent that before Canadian forces are committed we will bring the matter to Parliament. Second, we will insist on maintaining respect for the UN charter and respect for UN peacekeeping operations as defined in chapter six.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker I have a question for the hon. member. The debate has focused above all on the Somalia tragedy and to a lesser extent the Bosnia tragedy.

Would the hon. member not agree that the explanation for the failure there lies in the failure to adequately define the roles and missions in advance of the intervention, the failure to separate and distinguish between chapter VI and chapter VII UN charter operations-peacekeeping as opposed to peacemaking-and the failure to adequately define a post-cold war military mission for our defence forces?

Understanding as he does the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, under those circumstances would he not accept that the responsibility lies not on the civil servants but under our constitutional system on the Prime Minister and defence minister who ventured into those operations without adequate prior thought, that is to say the Prime Minister and the defence minister in the preceding Mulroney government?

[Spring, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, spring, which came to our west coast in January, has now officially reached the rest of Canada.

B.C. citizens, radio station CKNW, home of Rafe Mair and Bill Good, Lumberland and General Paint offer each MP today a token of the new season of hope and renewal. In the poet's words:

Daffodils That come before the swallow dares and take The winds of March with beauty.

They remind us of the infinite beauty of our country, but also of its fragility.

Canadians have led the world in building the strong new international law on conservation and sustainable development of the earth's dwindling natural resources, including fisheries, as the common heritage of all mankind.

[Fisheries, February 22nd, 1995]

Members can listen because it affects the west coast too.

Last year, when a similar problem arose on the Pacific coast, the minister took action against U.S. salmon fishing vessels and induced the United States to return to the negotiating table.

Will the minister consider perhaps exercising similar friendly persuasion on the Atlantic coast?

[Fisheries, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries.

The European Union is formally objecting to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization's imposition of quotas for turbot fishing in the North Atlantic. It may encourage European Union member countries to ignore the NAFO limits.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtful question from the hon. member opposite. We welcome his co-operation and his party's co-operation in finding concrete ways for cutting government waste and cutting expenditure. We accept the burden of reducing the national deficit, reducing the

external debt. We believe the positive way is by expanding the economy by creating more jobs. If more jobs are not created, we will never get rid of the deficit. That is why we say the two go together. There cannot be one without the other.

I welcome his co-operation and his party's co-operation in tackling the deficit.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have waited patiently through a sea of clichés and tired metaphors for a general idea or a question. When finally the question emerged, the only response one can give is pay attention to empirical data. Read my speech when it comes out in Hansard and the responses are there. Please do not remain in the realm of cliches. Give us some empirical data. Do not be an Albanian in Mr. Khrushchev's terms.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

We understate, as the parliamentary secretary who intervened knows very well. It is our tradition to understate.

There is a little bit of voodoo economics in some of the proposals put forward by the second opposition party. For example, cutting provincial transfer payments with a corresponding transfer of tax points does not result in lowering the overall public debt. It is simply to transfer federal problems to the provinces.

Alberta and Saskatchewan already have their own economic houses in order but other provinces have not. I do not think they are going to appreciate a federal government abdication of responsibility.

Let us take another example. Broad brush cuts look very simple. There is a proposal that has been floated to automate lighthouses on the west coast. It is a major issue for people on the west coast. Many sincere, decent people have discussed this subject with me. I have 25,000 names on a petition in my office opposing this one budgetary cut. I accept the sincerity of the proposals, the logic of the argument, but I also recognize that we have to make cuts.

I have to pose the question: "Whom would you cut and why? Is the deficit to be cut everywhere but in one's own backyard?" These are the hard problems that a finance minister must struggle with.

The Indian affairs department has been referred to. It is a favourite target for many people who do not bother examining

empirical data. It is in the process of devolution that is being spearheaded in Manitoba. The department has cut its workforce by 45 per cent in the last several years. Some bands are ready for self-government, although that is not totally defined, and some bands are more ready for self-government than others.

Consideration of further cuts in the Indian affairs department has to be related to the progress to self-government and to the concept of moving by steps which the government rightfully on all empirical political experience has accepted as the best road to self-government.

Transferring responsibility to what is called the family ignores current social structures that exist as the living reality today in Canada. I would suggest the second opposition party has a rather restricted particularistic definition of the family. One would raise the question and not simply rhetorically: "What about Canadians who do not have a well-to-do family to rely on? What about them?"

There are too many contradictions-antinomy is the technical term-in the shadow budget of the second opposition party that are simply not resolved. Empowerment of individuals is brought forward as a buzzword but is really a code word for abandoning those in need. Basically it calls for people to look after themselves whether or not they can.

This contradicts what in another part of the second opposition party's proposal, the shadow budget, is called equalization. Again one talks of national standards but this contradicts the principle of cutting transfer payments. If we want to impose national standards as a federal government in a domain where the federal constitutional power has to be stretched to the limit, how do we do it without using the tool of transfer payments? The contradiction is there in the shadow budget of the second opposition party. It simply has not bothered to try to resolve it or to suggest how to do it. That again stems from the fact of absence of responsibility in making the hard decisions that we must make as a government.

Again to take a further contradiction on a contradiction, the equalization principle contradicts the idea of cutting transfers to the provinces as such. I believe there is one basic truth here which all of us must recognize. The budget to be brought in by the finance minister within the next week will be the toughest budget Canadians have seen in 127 years. That is the reality. It is going to be a very tough budget. That is our responsibility.

Since I am not privy and constitutionally could not be to the finance minister's plans until he actually announces them in the House, I do not yet know what is in the budget; but I am on record, as are many of my colleagues in the government, as supporting drastic reform of the pensions of members of Parliament. I am on record, as are some of my colleagues, in advocating that Parliament bring MPs' pensions into line with those in the private sector.

There has been reference to foreign travel. I personally have not partaken of any foreign travel at taxpayers' expense since my election. Many government members are in the same position.

I support unemployment insurance reform. Indeed the most imaginative part of the green paper on social reform brought forward by the minister charged with social security concerns unemployment insurance reform. Many Canadians are paying $1,200 per annum in premiums even if they have never made a claim. The seasonally unemployed and the manufacturing industries which include unemployment insurance abuse in their business plans should be made to be more self-supporting through increased premiums, fewer weeks of benefits, more weeks to qualify and mandatory retraining.

These are the materials before the finance minister that have been given considerable consideration by committees, by task forces and by other groups. They are the sorts of decisions a government must make, big tough decisions, balancing the interests, choosing among the conflicting interests and resolving the antinomies.

I support, as do many government members, the commercialisation of as many crown corporations as possible and a rationalization of those remaining. The government accepts that responsibility. It will be reflected in the choices that it has to make in the budget.

We all support the elimination of overlapping government services. We support the transfer of powers to the provinces in such areas as natural resources, fishing and health administration, without sacrificing national health standards. These proposals have been part of our historical debate for the last 30 years since the quiet revolution.

We welcome the suggestions put forward by governments in Quebec, by the Bourassa government and by its present government, for study in this area but we recognize the impact upon the budget in adopting proposals of this sort.

I am really saying that the shadow budget of the second opposition party does not really tackle concretely the problems of making those hard choices. To the extent that it does, it seems to me that like the previous Mulroney government's approach to the economic situation there is a give it up philosophy there.

It is not enough to slash government expenditures. We need, and this was our proposal in the red book and in the general election, a dynamic policy of creating new jobs. We need new export industries. We need more foreign trade. We need to be competitive there.

The Prime Minister has made his trips to Asia accompanied by our leading business specialists and to South America. This is part of the new politics. We need to harness science and technology in aid of economic growth and that requires a strong federal presence. This is the key to the infrastructure program that the government has been carrying forward since its election. It is the key to areas such as western economic development, but it is a recognition. The slashing of expenditures, if that is all it is, is a descent into economic pessimism. It reminds one of the policies of the economists who failed in Germany at the end of the 1920s and who failed in the United States in the Hoover period.

The country is strong. To echo the remarks of the man who replaced President Hoover, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. What we need are new jobs, new markets and new tax revenues. This is a positive, dynamic way of controlling the deficit and reducing the external debt. Create the new jobs, build the new revenues from the new incomes. It is a new, dynamic and optimistic approach to the Canada of the next century. This will be the thrust in the budget to be presented I am sure in the next week.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the second opposition party for tabling what can be called a shadow budget. It becomes part of a general dialectical process of discussion that the finance minister launched some months ago and which has been highlighted by discussions of citizens' groups, household groups, learned society groups, all people putting in ideas and suggestions to the government to help the finance minister in preparing for his budget that he will table in the next week.

Members will pardon me, though, if I say-it is not intended as a criticism-that one finds in the feedback from the various groups consulted, and we could say this is true of the shadow budget from the second opposition party, that it is formulated at a fairly high level of generality and abstraction, that it lacks the tethering detail of examining concrete cases against an empirical record which is the responsibility of a government.

One is reminded of General Secretary Khrushchev celebrated rebuke to the Albanians. I will not translate what he said in Russian exactly. He referred, I think we can say in English, to people jabbering. Basically it says: "Look, it is one thing to talk without having responsibility but when you have to make decisions you have to point out concretely what this means".

In other words, if we have suggestions to make and we do not want cutbacks in our own backyard, whom would we want to cut and why? What are the criteria?

It is very easy to say without responsibility for the government that one would eliminate $40 billion or $50 billion from federal spending in three years, but a government has to justify that in the concrete cases and examine what cuts in one sector of the budget would do to other sectors of the budget and, second, what impact it would all have on federal-provincial relations which without necessarily any action other than from historical forces is with us again as a key issue in the next few years, the Quebec issue to mention only one of these things.

We were warned during the last general election by financial analysts of some reputation and by the International Monetary Fund that reckless and radical financial restructuring without proper attention to empirical detail would have unforeseen effects on unemployment and on the economy.

This is why the government, as its first approach to the budget, recognizes the basic truth that any budget is a balancing act. It requires balancing competing interests, social and economic interests, choosing between them and offering justification for that.

As a government we are charged with keeping Canada together. We have to recognize the conflict in economic attitudes in many parts of the country. For the economically dynamic western provinces in which my own seat is located this means cutting the deficit as top priority. In Quebec and the Atlantic provinces we are getting the message that jobs may have a higher priority than that. We have to balance those interests.

Our predecessor government, the Mulroney government that has disappeared into history, had a fixation on cutting without serious consideration of the revenue side of the balance sheet. To take one example, some economists estimate that each public sector job results in seven spinoff jobs in the private sector. For many companies, for better or for worse, the public sector today is their largest customer. They have to be weaned off public spending. Public sector jobs have to be cut at a pace at which the private sector can absorb them.

Coming back to the budget and the balancing of interests, there is a little bit of voodoo economics from the second opposition party. President George Bush's-

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fruitful question raised by the hon. member. I would have thought the bill as presented by the minister responded to the specific cases he raised. These 16 and 17 year olds are to be dealt with in adult court under the bill. The maximum sentence is 10 years for first degree murder.

We are getting into this issue of marginal variation and where do we draw the line? Would we extend it from 16 years down to 15, or why not then 14? A life sentence and even death sentences were routinely applied in earlier periods of criminology to young children. We have obviously gone beyond that.

We have tried to establish a new line which reflects present societal expectations and present societal realities. It is always possible to amend this, but I would have thought that there is a significant change now made in applying this 10-year minimum sentence for first degree murder. On that particular score I think that the bill represents an advance. However, if on experience it is found that changes are needed, it can be amended again.