Does the minister admit that this new aluminium smelter in South Africa poses a direct threat to the job security of thousands of workers in Quebec and British Columbia?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1993, with 40% of the vote.
Aluminium Industry March 22nd, 1994
Does the minister admit that this new aluminium smelter in South Africa poses a direct threat to the job security of thousands of workers in Quebec and British Columbia?
Aluminium Industry March 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
On February 14, I asked the minister why he had approved a $60 million credit for the construction of a new aluminium smelter in South Africa, when this plant will be competing directly against Canadian producers.
The aluminium industry is very important for Canada, especially British Columbia and Quebec, since almost 10,000 people are employed in our ten smelters. These plants are located in Shawinigan and in nine other ridings represented by members of the Official Opposition. In recent years, hundreds of Quebecers-
Semaine De La Francophonie March 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party of Canada recognizes the Journée internationale de la Francophonie, that was officially celebrated yesterday, March 20.
Our party, being a party of the people, recognizes on this day that 23 per cent of Canadians are francophones.
At the same time, we realize that Canadians are part of la Francophonie, a worldwide group of 400 million people.
Canada is a fortunate country. Despite our financial problems, we continue to provide assistance to other countries, but our help does not necessarily involve money.
We agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who just said that Canada will continue to promote the fundamental values dear to all Canadians such as democracy, human rights, women's equality, child welfare, education and training. By supporting these values in other countries, we hope to reinforce them at home.
We congratulate francophones from Canada and other countries around the world on this international day of la Francophonie.
Canadian Foreign Policy March 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, in responding to the question, my address was specifically on peacekeeping. The question directs itself to foreign aid as well as peacekeeping and so I will try to respond to those two issues.
First, consideration of foreign aid should not be done in isolation of the fact that Canada is spending a great amount on peacekeeping. That should be part of balancing the ledger for us.
On foreign aid, I will not give it as a measure of percentage of the gross domestic product but my reckoning is that $2.5 billion per year at this moment with Canada's vulnerable economic state is too high.
We must continue to give foreign aid, there is no question, particularly for some of the things that we have heard of today such as pure water systems and the like. That is good. That is direct aid to people and we need that.
What we must get away from is some of the government to government aid which finds its way into bottomless ratholes. That we do not need. My response in summary is keep up the peacekeeping. Bill it as part of foreign aid. Cut foreign aid by a measure below $2.5 billion a year and direct it in the right channels.
Canadian Foreign Policy March 15th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting this 20 minutes segment with my colleague, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
I want first of all to urge the people of Canada to accept the offer made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, who chairs the committee, to listen to what you have to say because it is essentially the point of my speech today.
I do welcome the opportunity of addressing the House on the topic of Canada's foreign affairs policy.
My feeling is that the more our foreign policy is reviewed publicly, such as in this discussion, the more the policy will be understood and supported by the public. To go a step further, if the discussion is carried outside the House in communities across the country the more accurately will our foreign policy reflect the majority opinion of the electorate. This is particularly important, in my opinion, when it comes to revising or formulating defence policy, which should be a subset of foreign policy.
The Canadian public is very supportive of its armed forces in time of war, but it is less interested in time of peace. However, what Canada has experienced in the nearly 50 years since the end of World War II cannot properly be called peace. We have had relative peace within our boundaries but that was so, in large part, because Canadian troops were engaged overseas in smaller wars such as in Korea and in the cold war.
Throughout this half century as well Canadian forces were engaged, as they are at the moment, in peacekeeping operations around the world. The public must realize, therefore, that the terms war and peace are subject to redefinition. It should also accept the responsibility for engaging in this debate on foreign policy including defence and peacekeeping.
In asking for public consideration and input, it might be helpful to do several things. We should probably define peacekeeping, then examine what we have been doing in that field. We should also postulate our ideals of foreign policy. What should Canada's policies be and why? It might then be instructive to compare the ideal with current policy to see if there are anomalies or gaps in our policy.
Finally, we should zero in on defence policy and the specifics of peacekeeping.
Concerning definitions, the Canadian public should at least be aware of the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking. Peacekeeping implies that there is an agreement in place, as is the case between Serbians and Croatians in parts of the former Yugoslavia. Peacemaking implies an action to bring hostile parties to agreement, which is the case in Bosnia.
In reviewing our foreign and defence policies, the public should decide if it supports both activities and under what circumstances.
If we examine Canada's participation in peacekeeping and peacemaking operations over the years, we find that changes in operations and our commitments have taken place without our necessarily having changed policy. Through an apparent zeal to participate in all peacekeeping operations, we have gradually become immersed beyond the intent of our policy and almost beyond our resources.
We have also learned some lessons over the years. I cite as an example our experience in Indo-China. Canada was part of a moribund commission there for many years. It was a wasted effort. However, when it came time to help the Americans extricate themselves with their prisoners of war from Vietnam in 1973, Canada wisely joined the new commission with much revised terms of reference but pulled out after six months when the main part of the job was over. It made good sense.
We said that we should postulate our foreign policy ideals. What do we believe in as Canadians and therefore what should our foreign policy be?
I believe that we are a generous people who believe in democracy and the rule of law. We do not believe in imperialism and we do have strong humanitarian feelings.
We are also pragmatic enough to believe in collective security. All of these beliefs shape our foreign affairs and defence policies. I do encourage the public to think about these basics and to add its own ideas.
A comparison of our ideals with what we have been doing as a country in peacekeeping should tell us how far off our policies are. My personal conclusion would be that we are fairly close but that a review is very necessary. As said earlier, the public should participate to the maximum extent in that review.
In addition to encouraging public participation in the review process, I would like to leave the House with these thoughts. First, the Canadian forces, through years of efforts overseas, have created for Canada an international reputation of real value. We should do more as a country to capitalize on our
standing by taking a greater leadership role in the shaping of international peacekeeping policy and procedures.
Second, in reviewing our foreign and defence policies we should take full account of the work of previous House standing committees. Some of the reports I have read have been excellent and should not be wasted.
Third, if as expected the review reaffirms the role of aid of the civil power for the Canadian forces, it must be confirmed that the forces are of sufficient strength to meet that commitment as well as their other obligations.
In a similar manner, the equipment state of the forces should be checked after the forthcoming review to ensure that it is adequate to perform the given tasks.
Finally, policy review of foreign affairs and defence, including peacekeeping, should be an ongoing process by the departments concerned, by Parliament and by the public.
Petitions March 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk of petitions, on behalf of many concerned constituents of Nanaimo-Cowichan and the surrounding area.
The petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum binding on Parliament to accept or reject two official languages. Given Canada's current financial restraints the petitioners feel the existing official languages law is very expensive and is actually more divisive than cohesive.
Official Languages March 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. President of the Treasury Board for this opportunity to respond to his interesting report.
Let me first underline that our party is not against bilingualism. We are not. In fact, we encourage it on a personal basis. What we are against is the waste of resources brought about by the application of the Official Languages Act and its divisiveness to Canada as a country.
Although no doubt well intentioned, the continued blind application of the act, to use the words of the President of the Treasury Board, "in making sure that federal institutions live up
to their obligations under the act" is the very thing that is causing resentment across the land.
The minister proudly states that English speaking and French speaking Canadians have equal opportunities to obtain employment and advancement in federal institutions. However, within the last two weeks we heard the Minister of National Defence say with pride that officers of the Canadian forces aspiring to the rank of lieutenant colonel or above will have to be bilingual. This same restriction is being applied at the non-commissioned officer level.
In a country where more than 60 per cent of francophones speak no English and over 80 per cent of anglophones speak no French, a person should be able to pursue a career solely in either official language with the expectation that if he or she does everything correctly, there is a reasonable chance for success in that career. Application of the Official Languages Act takes away this hope from the majority in both language groups. It fosters resentment and division in Canada.
We would be among the first to applaud the opportunity for francophones to pursue a career in the French language.
We are appalled by the fact that the number of jobs available to unilingual francophones has dropped 26 per cent since 1974 thanks to the government's ridiculous pursuit of the bilingual post designation.
We are equally upset that unilingual anglophones are suffering the same form of discrimination.
Let me repeat again that we are not opposed to bilingualism. We agree that both languages are necessary in government institutions, such as this Parliament, and the courts of justice. On the other hand, we are opposed to the antagonism and the waste of resources caused by the Official Languages Act over the past 25 years.
I want to conclude by saying I am deeply distressed also by the inaction of the chief parliamentary body overseeing the Official Languages Act. I am a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages which has yet to meet this session. My research indicates this committee has met only nine times in the past two years and has not issued a single recommendation to this House. It saddens me to think that such a vital part of the fabric of Canadian society appears to be sorely neglected by us, Canada's elected representatives.
Telecommunications March 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, would the minister not consider, partly for saving bilingual bonuses to the tune of $54,000 a year for that centre alone, combining the propositions put forward on this side with the answers provided on that side to give service to individuals in the language of their choice and viva voce as well?
Telecommunications March 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
An income security program's telecentre is to be established in May of this year in Bathurst, New Brunswick. In making the announcement the government was proud to jump on the high tech telecommunications bandwagon. However it specified that all 68 persons to be hired must be bilingual.
In the words of one federal employee in Bathurst, the bilingual employees there now speak either broken French or broken English.
Does the minister not agree that the centre would better serve the public in both languages by hiring unilingual French and English-speaking personnel and asking the public to press either one or two on their telephone to get better service in the language of their choice.
The Budget February 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I have nothing against bilingualism and neither does the Reform Party, and when I say the elite, I am not referring to the people of Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan, or Grande-Prairie or St. Boniface. The elite are here in Ottawa, where they force the issue by saying: We will have this legislation enforced by inspectors who will monitor its implementation, and we can spend any amount of money on this. That is what I object to.