Roy Cullen

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member for Yukon for his comments and pick up on the interaction between him and the member for Prince George—Peace River.

Governments do make choices; that is absolutely right. Although all of us in this House are troubled with the recent difficulties with the sponsorship program, I wonder if we sometimes forget the fiscal performance of the government over the last 10 years.

We eliminated a $42 billion deficit. We are actually considered among the nations of the world as the fiscal miracle by eliminating a deficit of $42 billion in three years, by paying down over $46 billion in debt. That saves taxpayers over $3 billion annually as an annuity in perpetuity. We have the strongest job creation record in the G-7. We have consistently outperformed the U.S. economy in terms of job creation. We have had stable pricing and low inflation.

Governments do make choices. Our government in 1993 decided that we would put the fiscal house in order. That is what the government set out to do and it is what the government did. This of course never justifies the mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars which has happened from time to time. Our government has resolved itself to deal with those problems.

I am sure because of the actions we have taken in the past we will be able to redeploy resources to national defence. We will be able to better match our resources with the strategic objectives that we have in defence and foreign policy as that review emerges and develops.

The member for Yukon posed a question earlier about the defences in the north. I wonder what the attitude of the residents of his area in the Yukon is toward a missile defence program.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this very important debate this evening.

As the Minister of National Defence has stated, this issue truly is of vital importance to Haiti and to the international community. It is an issue which we cannot afford to ignore or walk away from, and our government is not walking away. We are taking action where action is needed.

In the last 50 years, the Canadian Forces have been involved in numerous peacekeeping operations of one kind or another. Their experience, expertise and professionalism are second to none and recognized throughout the world.

In his speech to Parliament yesterday, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan praised Canada's ongoing support to the United Nations and our involvement in UN peacekeeping operations. It should come as no surprise that the international community is looking to Canada to participate in the United Nations mandated multinational interim force to help bring peace and stability to Haiti.

Canada has traditionally had very close ties with Haiti and it is a connection that continues today. We therefore have a strong sense of responsibility to do our part to help that country. At the same time we also have the experience needed to make a difference. Here the record speaks for itself. The Canadian Forces have participated in military missions around the world, missions that have ranged from observing and peacekeeping to more robust combat operations. In recent years we have seen the Canadian Forces deployed to many trouble spots, in the Balkans, Rwanda, the Central African Republic, Angola and East Timor just to name a few.

Even more recently the Canadian Forces members have been in Afghanistan and the Arabian Gulf region, working with our allies in the fight against terrorism. In fact today in Kabul it is a Canadian, Lieutenant General Rick Hillier, who is in charge of the UN-mandated, NATO-led international security assistance force, better known as ISAF. In this role he is in command of some 6,000 troops.

This is a very prestigious position and a tremendous responsibility. The fact that General Hillier was appointed to this position is a testament to the tremendous respect the men and women of the Canadian Forces have earned within the international community, a respect they richly deserve.

That is only a brief summary of some of the experience that Canadian Forces bring to this mission, but more important, for the purposes of this debate, we need to look at their experience in Haiti.

Since the early 1990s, Canada has been involved in efforts to establish and restore democracy in Haiti. Indeed we have participated in several UN missions in that country.

For example, we were involved in the United Nations observer group for the verification of the elections in Haiti in 1990-91. From 1993 to 1994 we contributed a naval contingent to the Haiti embargo enforcement. Some 500 military personnel participated in the United Nations mission in Haiti from 1993 to 1996, helping to maintain a secure and stable environment. Between 1996 and 1997 we sent approximately 750 Canadian Forces personnel to the United Nations support mission in Haiti. In 1997 we contributed a military contingent of around 650 people to the United Nations transition mission in Haiti. While this was our last military deployment in Haiti, the Department of National Defence also assisted with the United Nations civilian police mission in Haiti from 1997 to 2000.

I believe that Canada has shown its commitment to Haiti and we are doing so again today. As our Prime Minister has emphasized, we are committed to helping rebuild Haiti. He has made it clear that the international community cannot afford to make the mistake of pulling out of this troubled nation prematurely.

Yesterday, the Secretary-General of the United Nations also pointed out that every member of the international community needs to provide assistance to this troubled nation. He added that only serious long term assistance would ensure Haiti's future stability and prosperity.

Canada's timely decision to deploy about 450 soldiers for a 90-day period is part of the global strategy of our government to find a sustainable solution to the problems facing Haiti and to restore peace and security in that country.

As Kofi Annan said yesterday, “Half-hearted efforts of the past have been insufficient. We cannot afford to fail this time”. I sincerely agree with this statement. I know Canadians also believe that we must take seriously our responsibility to help find a lasting and peaceful solution in Haiti.

The government recognizes that a lasting peace depends on more than just the provision of military forces. It depends on a combination of diplomacy, development, and defence, the three Ds that are vital to the long term rebuilding of this and any other troubled country. We are now taking action on all three fronts and are committed to continuing to do so. The Canadian Forces will be a vital part of the three D approach.

I join the Minister of National Defence in expressing my confidence in the ability of the Canadian Forces to carry out this important mission. I know that the forces will once again live up to their well-earned reputation as one of the most skilled, professional, and dedicated militaries in the world. They will help restore stability. They will assist in the delivery of humanitarian aid. They will support local police efforts, and in doing this, they will help make a brighter future for the Haitian people.

[Committees of the House, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-21, an act to amend the customs tariff. It was agreed on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, to report it without amendment.

[Fisheries, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you would find consent to revert to tabling reports from committees in order for me to table the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-21.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition signed by a number of members who adhere to St. Andrew's Humber Heights Presbyterian Church in my riding of Etobicoke North.

The signatories ask that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Contraventions Act, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this motion.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the member for Fraser Valley I thought I heard two messages.

First of all, I agree with him that it is important to have this debate, but I still come back to my criteria. The way I see it is that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board should be looking for optimal returns for the benefit of all Canadians. Should it be guided by the types of considerations that he has highlighted? Yes, I think it should and I think it is.

I do not know how we can have it both ways. I do not know how we can say that on the one hand these companies that are in the defence sector are doing these things but should be not outlawed. I think that is what the member was saying. I am a little confused because I think on the one hand he is saying that perhaps this ethical investing is a good idea, but on the other hand he is saying perhaps it is not such a good idea. Maybe I missed the question.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is not proposing that we have a committee of this House that would monitor this type of activity, because that would be a full time job. The committee would have to meet every day because the problem is that this type of behaviour and these kinds of standards and guidelines change, every day I would suspect. One day a company is ethical by his standards, but the next day it is unethical by someone else's standards, maybe even by his own standards. We would have to decide that every single day.

What we are talking about here is an investment board that is charged with optimizing returns. The member cites the example of landmines. What if 5% of a company's total sales is dedicated to landmines and the rest is for other types? Would he make any distinction there? If it produced one landmine, is it automatically off the list? It does not make any sense.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps they were bad examples, but the point I was trying to make was that all these decisions about what is or is not an ethical investment are subject to judgment. With the passage of time, something that might appear ethical today might not have been ethical yesterday. Something that appears unethical today might appear ethical in the future or vice versa. I tried to pick some examples. I am not familiar with the particular circumstances of the Ivanhoe mines in Burma.

I was attempting to draw the House's attention to the fact that this is a judgment call. Who makes these decisions on what is ethical and what is not? There is a grey area, in my judgment, and I do not think that people with the best will in the world could reach the same conclusion about what is an ethical investment and what is not. That was the point I was trying to highlight.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, normally the member for Souris--Moose Mountain is quite lucid on these matters and he highlighted something important. As we all know, the Canada pension plan is one pillar of a three pillar or four pillar system. There is the Canada pension plan, old age security, registered retirement savings plans, and registered pension plans. The government strives to ensure that the parts of the chair that are holding up the chair seat are all sound.

I would agree with him to the extent that old age security is indexed to inflation, but many elderly people in my riding do not have any other means of income and it is difficult for them. I hope that someday we will be able to revisit old age security. As the member for Souris--Moose Mountain knows, there is a mechanism in place now with the guaranteed income supplement. Those people who are very stressed in terms of income can apply for that.

What we do have in Canada is this pillar, this chair with these legs supporting it so that we have a very sound retirement system for all Canadians, of which the CPP is but one part.