Heath Nelson MACQUARRIE

MACQUARRIE, The Hon. Heath Nelson, B.A., M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.A.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Hillsborough (Prince Edward Island)
Birth Date
September 18, 1919
Deceased Date
January 2, 2002
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_MacQuarrie
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=8874ad6a-cef4-4764-be03-7a8555017c67&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
author, political scientist, professor, radio-commentator, teacher

Parliamentary Career

June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
PC
  Queen's (Prince Edward Island)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Queen's (Prince Edward Island)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Queen's (Prince Edward Island)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (August 17, 1962 - February 6, 1963)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
PC
  Queen's (Prince Edward Island)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
PC
  Queen's (Prince Edward Island)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
PC
  Hillsborough (Prince Edward Island)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
PC
  Hillsborough (Prince Edward Island)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
PC
  Hillsborough (Prince Edward Island)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 7 of 424)


March 14, 1978

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):

Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, to whom I have given notice. My question concerns the Panama Canal treaty currently under consideration by a legislative chamber of our strong ally and neighbour, the United States. I do not invite the Prime Minister to intrude upon the deliberations of the American Senate; nevertheless, in view of the importance to the commerce and comity of our western hemisphere and

March 14, 1978

The Late Milton Gregg

the whole world of assured open access to the Canal, could the Prime Minister indicate that the Canadian government and people support the early conclusion of an agreement between Panama and the United States as a valuable contribution to hemispheric and international good will?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink

February 22, 1978

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs: it is in connection with his recent and highly commendable announcement regarding the establishment of a Canadian embassy in the Emirate of Kuwait. I ask the minister if he can advise whether it is the intention of the Kuwaiti government to appoint an ambassador solely accredited to Canada. Further, can he advise if progress has been made on another suggestion of mine, namely, the establishment and appointment of resident Canadian ambassadors to Amman and Damascus?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink

December 20, 1977

Mr. Macquarrie:

Saudi Arabia is a thoroughly dependable ally for peace and good will. There is long suffering Lebanon and, most of all, the Palestinians. These people must be in the equation if a successful formula is to be worked out. As for our role in connection with a recent UN resolution, I made clear my view on that at the committee meeting and 1 shall not repeat it tonight. The hon. gentleman who spoke before me talked about the use of abstention. On that resolution, 32-20, instead of voting with El Salvador, the United States and Israel against everybody else, it would have been wise to have abstained. I regret profoundly that we did not do so.

When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) was in my party I hardly ever agreed with him. Quite often at national meetings the party supported his view rather than mine, which leads me to believe that at times parties, like individuals, deserve what they get. In the instance of the boycott 1 am more inclined to be with him in his realism than with certain other people. The main issue is surely not the Arab boycott in its primary, secondary and tertiary elements. The main thing is to settle the reason for the boycott, namely, the insistent state of war. That is why there is a boycott. It is because these states are technically still at war. Can you imagine Winston Churchill saying "In war we can use only certain kinds of boycott"? He would use them all, of course. The settlement of the issue is of the essence.

I think we could do more in the Middle East if we were more objective. I heard Professor Peyton Lyon on radio this morning saying we had lost our capacity there because we are regarded as being too pro-Israel. I should like to see the day when we could regain true objectivity. It is conceivable that the nations may not v ant to go to Geneva for renewal of the conference. They cer:?inly would not wish to go to Washington because a meeting there would be held under the wing of a great power. I would like to see Canada in a position to invite all the participants to come to Ottawa. We are peacekeepers. We are proud of this role. We had a great tradition in the days of Mr. Pearson when there was a crucial, troubled time in the Middle East and Canada was in the forefront. Perhaps an

External Affairs

objective Canada, unbiased, might be the scene of a renewed conference of Middle East states.

I was interested in what the minister had to say about South Africa. I am being careful not to be hostile, but I am a little troubled. I think it is sometimes dangerous to be too brittle in one's attitude toward these matters. I wonder if I were allowed a question a day by Mr. Speaker and if every day I brought up to the minister cases of a country in which human rights were being grossly violated, and asked if we were going to sever trade relations with it, how many days it would take and how much international trade we would have left. This is a very serious situation. If the minister wishes to read Amnesty International he will find there are a great many countries involved. But more serious than that and something which troubles me is that perhaps outside criticism makes it more difficult for the moderates within South Africa.

There are men of good will inside South Africa. There are moderates there, and the ganging up of the outside world has the inevitable result of making the extremists more popular in that country. That is a great danger with this sort of thing. We want to give room to the moderate men, to people of good will. There have been some forward steps taken in South Africa but no one ever mentions them. Their system, of course, is iniquitous, but do you bring improvements to the people one wants to help most by ringing them round with a circle of hostile criticism?

I am always a little ill at ease when I hear these criticisms of the majority at the United Nations. I am old enough to remember when majorities in the United Nations General Assembly were good things because they were nearly always controlled by the United States and they were nearly always from Latin America. So it was a great thing to be in the majority. I remember all the work which was done to bring that majority into play to create the State of Israel. But now majorities are considered bad. It is unwise for Canadians to get into that act as to whether a little state is as important as a big one. Does Canada say that being a small province is less valuable than being a big one? There are troubles when one gets into that seeming condescension of criticizing countries which are both small and non-white.

It is strange that there are certain occasions when the majority is damned, but when it comes to Africa we justify our actions by indicating that we are with the majority. An inconsistency such as that troubles me. If I had more time I would wax eloquently and logically as to where that will lead us.

The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) is getting pretty senior around here, as 1 am. He spoke about the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, of which I have long been a senior member. If I were in the United States Senate 1 would be referred to as a ranking member of that committee, and 1 would have a staff of 100 people. My long-ranking membership here seems to be of no

December 20, 1977

External Affairs

good, except that I am usually told, "You have said that before, Macquarrie".

I agree with what the hon. member said about the usefulness of Senate committees. Whether he is preaching for a call, or I am, I can only say that I have always felt that way about Senate committees. Their work in regard to the Commonwealth Caribbean was absolutely definitive, and they deserve great credit for it. The hon. member was somewhat unfair to our standing committees and to the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) when he suggested that they were not doing enough. Many months were spent on a very serious study concerning aid and development. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona was very accurate when he commented on that. The hon. member was correct when he indicated that there is no proper term of reference; but that is not the fault of the committee, it is the fault of the government.

I am too young to be in my anecdotage, but when the Hon. Paul Martin was secretary of state for external affairs I was the spokesman for foreign policy on this side of the House. We agreed that the ministers' reports would be sent to committee. By doing that, we had an opportunity to examine any issue on the entire global surface of international relations. That should be done now. We need a broader term of reference.

I liked what the hon. member said about the non-partisan approach, but we should not bind ourselves to total non-partisanship. As St. Paul would say, there are times we in the opposition can "shew unto you a more excellent way," and therefore we have the right to disagree. When Canadians travel abroad, they do not kick around the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson).

This has been a very excellent debate. If I had not had the guillotine put on me, I was intending to give an excellent lecture on Canada-United States relations. 1 hope to publish a paper on that soon, and I will send a copy to everyone.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink

December 20, 1977

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be participating in this debate, not the first foreign affairs debate in 17 years. It is quite wrong to suggest that;

[Mr. Lachance.)

there have been a larger number prompted by the opposition over that period of time.

I want to congratulate the minister for the high tone he took in leading off the debate. I say to him now, as I said to him in the committee not long ago, that we are proud of him as an eloquent and articulate spokesman for our country abroad. On occasion we do not agree with him, but we admire the way he expresses himself. His speech the other day was a credit to him, to his country, and to the department. 1 was very proud of the whole tone of the debate. Almost without exception, no one descended into party politics at any time. Our leader, who has proven himself knowledgeable on national issues, demonstrated a dimension of statesmanship the other day, showing he has a grasp of international issues which bodes well for the potential prime minister of this country.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink

December 20, 1977

Mr. Macquarrie:

I was particularly pleased at his reference to the late L. B. Pearson. There never was a finer or nobler Canadian. I admired what my leader had to say about the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), a leading expert in the study of aid and development who proved himself, as he always does, a most competent, perceptive, and sensitive statesman.

The Middle East has been a major concern of mine for many years, Mr. Speaker, but the subject will not form a major portion of my truncated speech. Like all people of good will who believe that love is better than hate and peace better than war, I rejoiced at the recent meeting in that ancient and beautiful city which our old hymn describes as "Jerusalem the Golden". I predict that President Sadat will become the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and I hope nobody will think me anti-American if I say that it is an even greater designation than being named Time magazine's "Man of the Year." But we must not allow our yearnings or our responses to the theatre and the drama of the Jerusalem meeting to blind our perception of some sombre truths. Psalm 85 in the Presbyterians' beloved Old Testament contains a pregnant message "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other."

No matter how amiable are the relations or the accords between Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat, there will be no lasting or worthy peace in the Middle East which forgets the suffering or ignores the rights of the chief victims of the Middle East situation, the Palestinians. It was not a good omen when the Israeli delegate to the Cairo conference the other day refused to participate in the presence of an empty chair which had been designated for the PLO, and called for the hauling down of the PLO flag outside the building. Whether we like it or not, the PLO is the most widely supported Palestinian organization at this time.

Until the Palestinians have a state of their own they will not be able to go through the process of formally selecting a government. And not all members of the PLO are terrorists, as we are so often told they are by the biased media. President Sadat aired the case for the Palestinians well in the Knesset.

December 20, 1977

Let us hope it will not be lost in any bilateral discussions which take place.

The return of Sinai to Egypt and a separate peace between that country and Israel will not solve nor settle the Middle East crisis. There is a danger in rushing some of these things too fast. The American word "momentum" has been used in connection with the operation: it is being said we must maintain the momentum. We should be less interested in momentum, I believe, Sir, than we should be interested in peace.

Other states must be involved. I refer to Syria, whose commitment to the suffering Palestinians has been both powerful and painful, and to Jordan, whose moderation and wisdom are and always were a hopeful and helpful element. I congratulate His Majesty the King on the celebration of his twenty-fifth anniversary of his reign, as we did the Queen of our own country.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink