Preston Manning

[Kosovo, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House wants the G-8 peace plan to succeed, but it is important that NATO speak with one voice and that the members of NATO speak with one voice.

NATO says a full withdrawal of Yugoslav forces is essential. Our foreign minister is being quoted in the press as saying something different.

Just to make Canada's position crystal clear, will the Prime Minister say that from Canada's perspective any presence of the Serb war machine in Kosovo is unacceptable?

[Kosovo, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting response, but this weekend Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the continued presence of some Serb forces in Kosovo was negotiable. He implied therefore that the partial withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo might well be acceptable to Canada.

Does the Prime Minister agree with NATO that a full withdrawal of Yugoslav troops is necessary, or does he agree with his foreign affairs minister that a half measure may well be acceptable?

[Kosovo, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today there were reports of a partial withdrawal of some Yugoslav forces from Kosovo, but the United States and Britain have rejected a partial withdrawal as an unacceptable half measure.

Does the Prime Minister agree that a partial withdrawal of Yugoslav troops from Kosovo cannot be considered a credible fulfilment of NATO's demands?

[Kosovo, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has already committed 800 Canadian troops to a peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. Originally the plan was for these troops to work with a British brigade as part of a NATO led peacekeeping mission. Now they will presumably be deployed under a UN mandate which will include both civic administration as well as peacekeeping.

Are our Canadian troops properly prepared and equipped for any changes in role which the implementation of this new plan may include?

[Kosovo, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, nothing comes for free in this world and presumably the Russians did not agree to participate in this G-8 plan without asking for something in return from the G-8 members. For example, it is well known that the Russians have been asking for $10 billion and more in assistance from the IMF and other economic and trade assistance from the west to help a faltering economy.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what commitments the G-8 made to Russia to secure its involvement and what those commitments will cost?

[Kosovo, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, all members of the House were encouraged today to learn that the members of the G-8, including Russia, have agreed to a seven point plan to bring peace to Yugoslavia. The plan is reported to include the deployment of an armed international peacekeeping force in which the Russians would participate.

I ask the Prime Minister what role is Canada expected to play in the implementation of this plan?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a specific question and I will repeat it.

Does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development agree, yes or no, with Mr. Trudeau's interpretation that self-government within a territory must not be exclusively based on one ethnic or linguistic group, which is the central feature of the Nisga'a treaty?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Indian affairs minister quoted from the charter of rights and freedoms. I would like to quote to her a constitutional expert named Pierre Elliott Trudeau on the same subject. He said: “Our government passed a law recognizing self-government rights in native peoples and it is from that that much has followed. We made the point very specifically at that time that the self-government within a territory must not be exclusively based on one ethnic or linguistic group”.

Why is this government departing from that fundamental principle which at one time it supported?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not come clean on the real reasons why the government will not bring the treaty to parliament. We know that fisheries and oceans has a fundamentally different view on how to interpret the fishery provisions of this treaty from that of the department of Indian affairs. Finance has been unable to satisfy the auditor general's requirement that the government specify how much these treaties cost before they are signed, not after.

Is not the real reason the government delayed bringing this treaty to parliament that the federal departments themselves are not agreed on what it means, how to implement it, or what it costs?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is fundamentally different. If parliament is ever asked to surrender its authority over any subject matter to another level of government, surely this parliament ought to be consulted first and asked its opinion on that surrender.

The Nisga'a treaty contains a provision that in the event of an inconsistency between Nisga'a law and federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law prevails. That provision applies to 14 specific subject areas of constitutional interest to this parliament.

If the Prime Minister really believes in the role and authority of parliament, why would he even think of signing this treaty before getting parliament's approval?