Dan McTeague

[Veterans, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government recognizes the legitimate interest of the provinces in taking part in international forums and conferences, particularly in fields of provincial jurisdiction or shared jurisdiction.

The federal government has, over the years, taken steps to strengthen the role played by the provinces in Canada's relations with international intergovernmental organizations. Thus, it has established a number of mechanisms for consultation prior to international conferences, and regularly invites the provinces to be part of Canadian delegations.

In the context of UNESCO meetings and conferences, arrangements have been made through which Canada invites Quebec or another province to speak as a member of the Canadian delegation, from the government's official place and in Canada's name, to address certain aspects of Canada's position in accordance with international law and diplomatic practice.

With respect to the draft proposal for the International Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Content and Artistic Expression, we note that, since the beginning of September, the federal government has consulted the provinces, Quebec, in particular, on the draft proposal for the convention at least 13 times, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage will be consulting Quebec again on this matter.

During the discussions at UNESCO in Paris in September, the Canadian delegation included several representatives from the Government of Quebec. Canada had the largest delegation of all the countries represented, and Quebec's position on cultural diversity was heard.

We must recognize, however, that Canada's relations with international organizations, the members of which are countries, are an integral part of Canada's foreign policy, in matters of trade or culture, in concluding agreements or treaties, in the sending of delegations or any other activities to which Canada contributes as a country. This is a strictly federal jurisdiction and in this context, the extension of provincial fields of jurisdiction may be recognized.

Participation by the provinces in international intergovernmental conferences has never been an exception to the international criterion of a country, since the delegation speaks with a single voice.

As we can see, many consultations take place prior to international forums, conferences and negotiations, and participation by the provinces and territories is becoming stronger and more varied. The mechanisms by which the provinces and territories are involved in cooperation and consultation on the management of international issues that may involve provincial jurisdictions are regularly reviewed, so that improvements can be made as quickly as possible.

[Veterans, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but I want to take the opportunity not only to thank the member for Cape Breton--Canso for his comments and who I think speaks for all of us in the House, but also to salute the member for Tobique--Mactaquac who is also our very capable caucus chair. I am not at all surprised that this wonderful initiative came from the member. I know how deeply committed he is to the cause of ensuring that our heritage is well respected in years to come. This very worthwhile motion speaks to our heritage. It speaks to our proudest moments and to our moments of reflection.

I had the opportunity last year to be at Ypres. I was rather amazed at the number of Canadian soldiers lost in that battle, given the very small numbers that we had as a nation. I also was amazed at the statue commemorating the 1915 gas attack, which would be about 45 feet high. It was being redone by the Government of Canada. What an example of the tragedy, but also the great bravery of our men as they fought for the right cause and for the right reasons at a particular time.

There is concern about the state of disrepair of many of our monuments. However, I am also rising today because just a few days ago I had an opportunity to speak to members of one of the legions in my riding, Branch 606, as well as the mayor of Pickering, Mayor David Ryan. We have a concern over the movement of a particular monument commemorating the 1943 battle at Ortona, a significant battle where a number of our soldiers not only fought bravely, but many were wounded or perished in the assault. It was probably again another example of Canadian gallantry. Pickering has for some time wanted to move the cenotaph to a place that is more appropriate and fitting so people will see it.

The initiative by the member is not only one that he believes is important. It is clear that members of Parliament hear all have reasons and cause to ensure that the brave memory of those who fought for us, those who were prepared to give their lives for us, for this Parliament which exists today, including the statue of George Baker, a former member of Parliament who was killed in 1916, is respected through advice to the government, which is what we deem in terms of a motion.

Every day the Globe and Mail for the past few weeks has been continuing with a small picture and a few anecdotes about where Canada was 60 years ago today, as we head toward the denouement of the second world war, certainly in terms of May of 1945. It is interesting to note that in a very short period of time, starting with the Normandy invasion on June 6 all the way to May 7, virtually half of all servicemen who were killed in the second world war were killed during that period of time. It is important that we do not just talk about these things as we hit certain milestones, but that we in fact are able to give quiet reflection on what these people did to create the great democracy which we now enjoy and a debt for which we can never truly pay.

I also want to give thanks to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission which looks after many of the graves of Canadian fallen soldiers and other allied soldiers of the British Commonwealth. It is important for us to consider that in context of doing so well there, we can do more in terms of memorials.

I also hope these monuments in my Province of Ontario and the beautiful Province of Quebec do not simply become monuments that people do not bother to respect. I find it somewhat strange that these two provinces do not have motions in force to recognize November 11. If they did, all Canadians, from coast to coast, could celebrate together the great victories and the dedication of our soldiers still so vibrant today.

I commend the hon. member for his motion. I hope there will be ears in the legislature of Ontario and the great national assembly in Quebec and I hope that motions will indeed take place to give force to November 11 as a truly national holiday and that we make a point and a purpose of these monuments. I hope the monuments will become a place for our children and generations to visit and ensure that the proper amount of respect is given. I can think of no higher way for this Parliament to do this than to support the motion of my hon., very capable and devoted colleague from Tobique--Mactaquac. Without his motion, we could not go forward. We should try at the very least to pass this unanimously.

[National Defence, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this government will take the necessary time to ensure that the threats weighing on the world and Canada and the issues important to all Canadians are examined properly. All the facts will be considered in detail to ensure a clear understanding of today's world, especially in the context of globalization.

[National Defence, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that in this House and in this time, this country will do what is right at the time of our choosing. We also will make sure that when it comes to the ever evolving, changing world out there, of which the hon. member is obviously not aware, we will do what is right in time because there are a number of considerations.

We will not simply do it because the member demands that we get an IPS immediately. We will do it at a time and choosing that is right. We will get the policy options correct in order that all Canadians, including Parliament, will have an idea as to how to achieve an objective response to a darn good paper.

[Justice, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the policy is one of zero tolerance. The department will suspend a diplomat's driving privileges on the basis of a police report, certainly when it deals with a first offence. This is a reciprocal approach as well. We hope the same happens in other countries. Canada is one of the first that does this, by the way.

[Foreign Affairs, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the very thorough question and would advise her that the foreign affairs minister's visit last week to the Middle East was indeed an opportunity to assess how we can best support efforts toward peace.

Our focus is on helping the development of Palestinian capacity building in preparation for Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. Mr. Abbas has of course provided us a list of items that he wishes us to look at. On March 1 we will be in London supporting the Palestinian authority in preparation for that withdrawal and we hope that we will see progress in that area.

[Foreign Affairs, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the House has heard the comments by the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, but it has also heard the comments and the response by the Prime Minister, as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the questions asked.

It seems that the hon. member does not understand the response, and yet it is simple. We, as a Parliament, as a government, support Resolution 1559. We call for the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon. Period.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is quite interesting. Members of this party are ready to get all worked up over international issues as they relate to airlines and the aeronautic industry. They really want us to support this industry. I can understand clearly why they want to lump this in with foreign affairs issues.

I have just one question for the hon. member, since my colleague wants to ask a question too.

Since our government includes 15 departments that have an international involvement or presence, should I infer from the remarks she just made that all these departments should be consolidated into a single department?

Am I crazy about this? It does not make sense. What the hon. member is now proposing is that any department that has anything to do with international relations or foreign affairs should now become part of foreign affairs.

The policy she is advocating here makes no sense. Either she wants the foreign affairs department to keep its non-trade mandates, or she wants all our departments to be consolidated into one because they have something to do with foreign affairs. She cannot have it both ways.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 14th, 2005]

Finally, they got up. I have given them food for thought.

All our efforts with various countries have put us in a position where we there to ensure that the values shared by all the regions of our country are understood by everyone, and this in the current context.

The hon. member wants to vote against the bill anyway. There have been many changes, and she was involved in making these changes a few weeks ago and again last week. Would she not agree that the Bloc Québécois could support this decision to ensure that the Department of Foreign Affairs can now focus on broader human rights issue, such as the environment?

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for her comments. She is the Bloc Québécois critic for foreign affairs.

I am aware, as I indicated previously, that she and the hon. member for Halifax went to the Middle East with the official opposition. I am glad they have returned. Their points of view on the world and on that trip are, in our view, very encouraging.

I want to respond very quickly to the comments by the member for Halifax who suggested that I was going to suggest there were polls done demonstrating the will of Canadians. What I was merely pointing out was that the hon. member used both the tsunami and BMD and she was very categorical in her support: four to one, for those who were strongly against the idea of our participation; nevertheless an issue reflecting Canadians' concerns about foreign policy, as was expressed when they voted with their pocketbooks on the subject of the tsunami. However both those issues are quite separate and independent from international trade.

I listened closely to the comments by the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois opposite. I understand her position when she says there were relations. Of course, trade relations have existed for a long time. Still, I also think that if we look a little further, we can also see that there are relations with respect to our foreign affairs. There are also immigration issues and it is important that we discuss these and reach agreements with other countries and not only with the United Nations.

She also touched on the question of human rights. This is something that is often raised in our meetings. She also mentioned consular issues and environmental issues that affect us in all our communications and meetings with other countries.

There are questions of defence and aid. How should aid be distributed? How should other countries be helped? There are major issues of security in a time of terrorism. These are obviously all considerations we must face in the present context.

Although I do not like the Bloc Québécois's decision not to support this bill at second reading, I understand it. It may be a fixation on some sort of philosophy. Still, we must be realistic; we must understand that the world has changed.

We on this side of the House find one thing interesting. The Bloc Québécois is against dividing a department into two, but has nothing against dividing our country. I find that not very interesting. But that is Bloc Québécois policy. All sorts of other factors have to be taken into consideration.