Preston Manning

[Arms Sales, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question.

The sale to Columbia involves so-called civilian versions of the Bell model 212 helicopter. This civilian distinction avoids the necessity of gaining approval under federal defence export regulations. Concerns have arisen however because it is relatively easy to convert the model 212 into a military attack vehicle.

In light of these facts can the parliamentary secretary please explain what the guiding philosophy of the government is regarding international sales of arms, especially to countries

like Columbia whose military has a history of human rights violation.

[Arms Sales, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting reply but it had nothing to do with my question.

Maybe I can repeat the question. We are simply asking if the guidelines that are being applied to these arms sales are the guidelines that were developed and used by the previous government of which many members were critical or are these new guidelines developed by the current government? If they are, could the parliamentary secretary tell us what they are.

[Arms Sales, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Canadian government has already approved a deal to sell helicopters to Columbia and is now considering the sale of coastal frigates to Taiwan. Concerning these sales the Minister of Foreign Affairs said last week that we have a process of reviewing our sales of arms abroad. We are doing it only under very specific conditions and every sale is reviewed carefully before being allowed.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain whether the guidelines used in reviewing these sales are the guidelines established and employed by the previous government or whether this is a new set of guidelines developed by the present government?

[Trade, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question.

Internal barriers to trade are created by provincial governments and inflict injury on businesses and consumers. The federal government's approach to dealing with these barriers has been to get the provinces, the creators of the problem, together and ask them to solve it.

Has the government considered bringing together businesses and consumers that are injured by internal barriers to trade and giving them the tools to fight these barriers, for example

providing a domestic trade dispute settling mechanism in Canada like we have in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement?

[Trade, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the track record of these discussions is that the trade ministers come up with a list of exemptions as long as your arm.

The Constitution empowers the federal government to regulate trade and commerce and provide some capacity for the federal government itself to act on internal barriers to trade. Section 121 of the Constitution states: "All articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces".

My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: What is the federal government doing to exercise its current constitutional powers, including the application of section 121, to facilitate freer trade in Canada?

[Trade, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

As the minister knows Canada's trade ministers have been meeting to discuss ways and means of securing freer trade within Canada. Various trade associations have suggested there are over 500 barriers to trade, they cost us $6 billion and, of course, they kill jobs.

Is the federal government considering more proactive measures, federal initiatives, to dismantle interprovincial trade barriers if the provincial ministers fail to do more than just scratch the surface?

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before the member got on to his more negative comments about the Reform Party, he did share a bit of his vision of Canada with us. I think he made reference to the historic union of two linguistic and cultural groups modelled by New Brunswick and suggested that was the model for the country.

Is there not a need to expand that vision because that vision is not sufficient for the entire country? Would the member not acknowledge if we tell people in downtown Victoria that this is a historic union of two linguistic and cultural groups that they do not relate to that? If we tell people in most of our aboriginal communities that this is a historic union of two linguistic and cultural groups, that does not describe Canada for them.

Is there not a need to expand beyond the concept of Canada as being simply a partnership of the English and French groups?

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the member's question is certainly our vision of a new Canada includes Atlantic Canada. It includes a reinvigorated Atlantic Canada economy.

What the other member was referring to, and he meant no offence, was that for the last 30 years the way we have tried to stimulate economic development in Atlantic Canada has been through regional development grants. The Canadian approach to regional development is now quoted by economists the world over as the way not to do it. We have invested billions of dollars and the unemployment rates and the economic growth rates in those provinces are no better than they were when we started.

The alternative is embraced in this vision. Regional development programs of the future will be exploiting the north-south dimensions of free trade. Part of the country that has the strongest regional economy today is British Columbia which is doing exactly that. The premier of the province of New Brunswick is working on a strategy to that effect which we believe is the regional development wave of the future.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his questions and observations.

We see this as the tip of an iceberg and the member is really asking for what is beneath that. This phrase that new Canada should be characterized by a commitment to preserving our cultural heritage and diversity has all the room necessary to recognize the factors of Canadian diversity that the member mentions.

There is the role of aboriginal peoples, the role of new Canadians from many lands, the role of the original French and English populations. This provides scope for that in our vision of a new Canada. Our vision of a new Canada with respect to aboriginal peoples has to include the doing away with the paternalistic Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the transferring of its responsibilities, functions and funding to local aboriginal governments. We have said that on many occasions and again the argument is how to do it and not whether it is the objective.

We recognize from a historical and sociological standpoint the French and the English as playing founding roles in the development of Canada. Our point, however, is that if we are developing constitutional arrangements we ought not to tie constitutional entitlements to factors like race, culture or language because we end up dividing rather than uniting.

I suggest again that in terms of the broad objective of preserving our cultural heritage and diversity, however broadly that is defined, we are not in disagreement. The constitutional arrangements that get us there, that is where there will be diversity of opinion in the House.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

As our motion suggests, we support the objective of preserving our cultural heritage and diversity which leaves all kinds of room for supporting the concept of preserving Canada's multicultural heritage. Regarding the member's suggestion that it has an economic dimension, we would have no disagreement with that. Where we will come to a difference is on how to get there.

Our view is that we preserve this multicultural heritage by making that the responsibility of individuals, maybe economically motivated individuals, private associations and the lower levels of government.

We get the federal government out of that business and confine its role to strictly the prevention of discrimination on the basis of culture, language or other distinction. The difference is not with the goal, it is how to get there.

The international trade dimensions of this most effective new Canada that it has to be a trading nation competing in the free trade world give an additional argument for having a federal government that did not exist even 10 years ago, and that is we need a bigger federal government as our bargaining agent in these big international trade agreements. Our point is that a bargaining agent representing 28 million people is going to get further in a free trade world than a government representing 8 million people.