Joe Volpe

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to ask my venerable colleague why he stopped when he did. I realize he had about 25 pages of material, as is his wont as a university professor and an expert on international affairs. However I realized that with the time constraints imposed upon him by the hierarchy in this place he had to cut short his deliberations.

I will try to take up where he left off. I hope I will be forgiven if I am a bit more humble in my approach to this topic, not having the erudition and background demonstrated by my esteemed colleague or his outstanding eloquence on the topic.

I do not want to make light of it because my colleague from Rosedale said something that is extremely important for each and every one of us to consider. In the context of an evolving Canada we now have the kinds of expertise for which most countries lust and literally spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. I am referring to the human resources afforded us by people from all over the world. They come here with a cultural background that gives them an opportunity to understand the societies, the political systems and the economic systems throughout the world. They also have the networks and the dispositions to take advantage of those opportunities for the greater good of Canada.

One might deduce that perhaps my particular disposition is one that would accord more attention to the international trade side of a foreign affairs and international trade review.

I do not want you to fall into a trap, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is absolutely crucial for the well-being of our country to exercise its dynamics on the world stage, to ferret out if need be all the opportunities that will allow for the flourishing of Canadian economic potential and for the capitalization of all the resources we have in great quantity and quality. However, I am first and foremost concerned that Canada takes its rightful place on the world stage as a country or as an entity that will play its role as a leader in social development and will understand the values of social and cultural organizations permeate virtually everything we do and that all our neighbours, all our allies and all our trading partners should emulate.

Therefore I take my lead from my colleague who just finished a most studied presentation before the House and from my other colleagues both on the committee and in the departments as secretaries of state and ministers. These people have served with other members of the House in other capacities. They have learned from those experiences and through that learning have developed an appreciation of what the country ought to do.

Each and every one of them has pointed out a specific, it is almost de rigueur to say, niche in foreign policy and international trade of particular interest. They wanted to give an indication to the House and to all citizens watching the debate that the country never needed as much as it does now a new examination of and definition for its role on the world stage.

That means we have to take to heart, with the kind of energy that only the House can provide, the initiative of our ministers to undertake a studied, thorough, analytical review. It must be as critical as it can to derive all elements which will formulate a policy that is truly reflective of the Canadian entity not only in the latter part of the 20th century but one that will lead us, I dare say, into the 21st century.

The challenges are many. Many of the debates we have in the House on occasion seem to be separated and distinct one from the other, but they are all interrelated. On many occasions, and even today during the course of debate, we talked about the importance of Canada's new policies on the environment, a new definition of international human rights, and the impact of expanded trade agreements on goods, services and the exchange. Even some of our colleagues on the opposite side of the House have pointed out that there are enormous changes in the concepts and definitions of peacekeeping and peacemaking and the consequences that come to bear on domestic policy as a result of those emerging definitions.

They have also acknowledged that there are many consequences and implications for military and civil considerations, police selections, environment and surveillance. These obligations the Canadian people through their representatives, through their government and through the House, accept as part of a leading western society, a leading progressive society and as the leader in social integration and social harmony.

That is no longer a question of domestic policy. It is no longer merely a question of determining priorities in a budget environment. It is no longer merely a question of determining how much money we shall accord here and how many such resources we shall accord there. Rather it is a question of how in their comprehensive total they will contribute to stamping a character which can be defined and sum totalled with one word, and that is Canada.

We need public consultation. We need public input. Colleagues from both sides of the House agree that if we are to develop a proprietorship in a policy each and every one of us on both sides of the House and through us the people who elected us have an opportunity to shape the views of the government of the day and governments to come.

Foreign policy is not merely the reflection of the individual on the moment for the moment. It is the vision of a people who decide in total what avenues will be pursued, what goals will be developed and what objectives will be realized in the medium

and long term. They can only do that if all the Canadian public has had an opportunity to wax their views in an environment where those who will put those views into effect listen, shape and then implement those views.

In the course of this debate some members have reflected on the problems associated with mixing what seemed to be different objectives, commercial and humanitarian. I said earlier in the debate with colleagues from the Reform Party that I was not sure that the two had to be mutually exclusive.

If Canada is to play a leadership role it is going to exercise influence. Some of that influence will be translated as internal meddling because influence means we will have others accept our values in life, our political values, our cultural and social values as they pertain to organization, development and integration. If we are going to truly exercise that kind of influence then we must be prepared to engage in productive relationships with other countries.

In the past we have focused on Europe and the United States. We have omitted ourselves from other areas such as South America. We have omitted ourselves from the tiger economies of Asia. We have essentially taken a one dimensional approach to our relationships with developing and underdeveloped nations.

Now is the time to approach this in a more comprehensive fashion and through it to have an influence on domestic policy. It is becoming more clear that the primary focus of our government should be one that gives its attention to a policy that expands beyond our borders. Then we can see ourselves not only as we would like to see ourselves but as others would recognize us to be.

I urge all members to support this initiative and then to engage themselves in the review that will follow.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify one further item with the hon. member.

We do not differ on the philosophy but I think the member is aware when he speaks on the question of giving aid especially through CIDA we are not talking ultimately of a cash transfer. We are talking about providing a service. We are talking about providing goods. We are talking essentially about purchasing the same for the benefit of a third party. That does not necessarily mean we are taking a large budget item and transferring it in cash to a recipient country.

Because of that I do not see why we would want to separate from the philosophical objectives of any of our activity the possible consequences which can all be positive.

The fact that we would be giving aid does not necessarily mean that there are no commercial benefits or that there are commercial benefits that we should eschew. The fact that we would be providing or stimulating trade does not necessarily mean that we would not be disposed to providing further assistance because it is not a question, unless the member's understanding of the Auditor General's report is different from mine, of taking dollars out of our pocket and handing them over to somebody else whom we have defined as needy.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I compliment the hon. gentleman on the tenor of the latter part of his intervention which I heard. It certainly exemplifies some very commendable views about Canada and its role in the international sphere.

I am a trifle confused however by his reluctance to see the relationship of both objectives. The commercial side reflects Canadian interests as they might develop anywhere in the world. That might reflect positively on the more humanitarian or altruistic-if he would accept that term-side of the equation as it more appropriately relates to Canada's political and humanitarian objectives everywhere in the world. I do not understand why one must preclude the existence of the other.

I accept that we should renew and continue to reinforce those initiatives which have made Canada stand out for its humanitarian or relief work, which is the term I think the member used. However Canadian interests are served on both the philosophical side and the strictly pragmatic business side when the two interests are married under one administration.

I am wondering whether the hon. member would clarify that for me. I have difficulty understanding why we would have to separate the administration of two departments under one roof when the objectives of both give us the results Canadians seem to want.

[Pearson International Airport, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, you and other members will know of the importance of Pearson International Airport to the Canadian economy. It is one of Canada's most prized pieces of infrastructure. Its importance to the economy of southern Ontario and to all of Canada is beyond question.

Recently there have been some reports in the press that have given us a confused message on what will be happening to this valuable piece of infrastructure.

Would the Minister of Transport be so good as to clarify for all members present what the position of the government might be with respect to any plans in the short term or the long term for improving the performance of Pearson and in fact improving the value of this piece of Canadian infrastructure?

[Soldiers Missing In Action, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the peace process in the Middle East is promising for all those advocating peace and normalcy. Families with soldiers missing in action on both sides dare to hope.

Mrs. Miriam Baumel, one such parent charged with renewed vigour when Messrs. Arafat and Rabin shook hands last fall, has been pressing the issue of soldiers missing in action with foreign governments and international organizations. Today she met with Canadian parliamentarians.

Her son and other Israeli soldiers have been missing in action in Lebanon since 1982. British parliamentarians have committed to raising the matter with Syrian and Iranian officials. A U.S. congressional delegation has gone on a fact finding mission in the area. Mrs. Baumel has just come from a meeting with members of Congress in the United States.

I note the Geneva convention makes the country where MIAs were last seen in action responsible for their whereabouts. That country, Syria, is a signatory to that convention.

I urge the Minister of Foreign Affairs to address the issue vigorously with Syrian authorities and with Mr. Arafat himself so as to make the return of MIAs part of the peace package.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I know that it is very difficult to see members in this corner. There is not much light here.

I would like to congratulate you on your new position. I know that you have served this House and the Canadian people well, both on this side and on the other side. I am sure that under the present circumstances, you will continue doing the work for which you have already shown a great ability. An ability that also includes the value of peacekeeping.

Many of my colleagues today, including the latest one who spoke about the value of peacekeeping, have begun to reflect on just what we should be doing in this instance and as well with respect to peacekeeping.

I was impressed, as I am sure are many of my constituents and constituents throughout Canada, by the recitation of the reasons why we find ourselves today in Bosnia-Hercegovina. One of those reasons of course is that we have established a tradition in this country that accepts a responsibility to contribute to world order, to the establishment of a civilized fashion of government, of the maintenance of peace and the propagation of the concept of law as that which should govern all countries.

One of the colleagues from the Bloc went so far as to say-I do not quote but paraphrase because I was taken by some of the phrases-

Canadians are proud of that work because, in playing that role, Canada has been working towards freedom, towards the achievement of democracy and towards the extending of human rights.

These are no mean ambitions, no mean objectives and no mean goals for the purposes of our troops both in Bosnia-Hercegovina and elsewhere. In fact those types of goals have made us, in many respects, a leader in establishing not only a philosophy but a mechanism and a role for our armed forces for the world throughout to follow.

For us it has been a pragmatic approach to the limited type of military resources we could bring to any theatre world-wide. It is fair to say that we are not, by any stretch of the imagination, a threat militarily to any country in the world given the number of troops we currently have in our defence structure. However, we have used them intelligently. We have used them for the maintenance of peace. We have used them to teach others how to establish order and how to establish and maintain an approach to conflict resolution that could lead to eventual long-term peace.

Many of my colleagues in this House today and Canadians everywhere seem to be ambivalent simply because none of those ideals, none of those values appear to be as clear as they have been in the past.

My hon. colleague from Sherbrooke talked a few moments ago about all of the valued initiatives of the last decade or so. But they are no longer very clear in the public's mind. Why not? Many of us have witnessed on a daily basis the kinds of repugnant pictures that would suggest we are no longer as successful as we have been in the past. Perhaps that is what hurts us most.

One of our colleagues earlier indicated that we are revolted by the barbarities, the atrocities, the outright horror, the destruction of all belligerents. No one mentioned the aggressor because one of the weaknesses in discussing peacekeeping in the context of what used to be called Yugoslavia is that there are many belligerents but we have named no aggressor. Consequently when we make comparisons between the set of circumstances in which we have engaged our military forces and those which were engaged in the Gulf war, there is that basic difference, that we have named no aggressor and therefore we have let others dictate our actions on the basis of that vacuum.

Almost on a daily basis we have been reminded that all of our good intentions, all of our resources, the risks that we ask our young men and women to take in a theatre of war or conflict, are producing no results. We are so stunned by that that some members represent the public view that perhaps this is not cost efficient.

My colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth asked a very pertinent question and that is how to measure the cost efficiency of a moral value, of a value that has international application and a value which has a long-term benefit for social order.

Others have indicated that we are absorbing, as we have been in all of our engagements, virtually all of the material costs. Others, our allies, our friends in the UN and NATO have not been so conscientious in following that model.

We seem to be at a loss at what to do because our troops, like some members here-and I do not mean to make light-are cornered, out manoeuvred, by belligerents who have no regard for their goals and their altruistic reason for being in such a locus. Worse, we seem to be manipulated by our own allies who are engaged in an evolution of military tactics just as we are witnessing an evolution of peacemaking and peacekeeping.

While it might appear that I have made a Freudian slip when I say there is an evolution of peacekeeping and peacemaking, in the last House we went into the discussion of peacekeeping in the Gulf war to peacemaking. Our obligations had shifted. The moment we make a definition that is different from the one that had guided until that day virtually all of our interventions in the world theatre, we assumed an entirely different set of obligations, both material, personnel and in outcome.

We have not made a definitive explanation yet of what we mean by peacemaking. If I listen to my constituents, I understand that it is what most of us as Canadians would want most desperately for the people of the Balkans today, that someone would impose peace, would make peace, and then we would voluntarily go in and keep it.

We are not a part of that evolution, not at the decision table. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs gave a very detailed explanation of what is going on, blow by blow, chronologically, at the political table, with respect how our allies are dealing with the circumstances in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Should we then be considering just simply this question of peacekeeping, or should we be addressing peacekeeping per se?

I know you want to give me just another moment to close off, Mr. Speaker. That is the unfortunate part of having only 10 minutes to speak. I will use the next 55 seconds to close off.

What we should do as a House is draw our attention to some of the good initiatives that have been proposed by both sides of this House. For example, I am pleased to have presented a proposal in 1989 to convert one of our military bases into an international peacekeeping training centre. For my colleagues on the Reform side this would have generated some $80 million a year and provided nations throughout the world with an opportunity to avail themselves of the expertise, both military and paramilitary, for application in peacetime and in conflict resolution throughout the world.

That idea did not receive all the attention it deserved but Canadian Forces Base Cornwallis is still being considered. Mr. Speaker, I know that you will allow me to encourage my colleagues on the government side to reconsider and to focus on a re-evaluation of where we should be. We should be where our obligations have taken us. Let us discharge those and then focus again on how to best to utilize the materiel and expertise we have built up.