Jesse Flis

[Peacekeeping, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We also have two members who sat here all evening, participating and listening very carefully. I am wondering whether you could seek agreement to extend the debate to allow the remaining speakers time but limit the debate to maybe five minutes each, which would not go beyond 9.50 p.m. or 10 p.m.

[Peacekeeping, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing today the democratization of Canada's foreign policy. It began with the review by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons with certain recommendations to the government. The government responded and in that response it said that it wanted to involve Parliament in future important defence and foreign policy decisions. Therefore, I am very pleased that we are having this debate tonight. I recommend that we have more such debates.

Two weeks ago the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. At that point, the minister wanted to know the positions of the official opposition and of the Reform Party. I will come back to that.

Although I am pleased we are having the debate, I was truly shocked and disappointed by the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition when he opened his remarks by stating that he cannot be proud of what Canada has done or has not done. We on this side are very proud of what Canada has done in this conflict and we continue to be proud and supportive of these people.

He went on to blame Canada further. He said that Canada had not done anything. Does the Leader of the Opposition not realize that we are one of a team and we cannot act unilaterally? I guess the team approach to things is not in the leader's vocabulary.

Does he not realize that presently there are about 35 countries with 43,000 troops involved here? If it was not for all the negotiations that have been going on over all these years and all the troops and countries participating, who knows if we would not be in the middle of world war three today?

Yes, lives have been lost. Yes, it is expensive. However, thank God that countries like Canada are participating because we may have warded off another world war.

The Leader of the Opposition went on to complain that all we were debating the rotation and that the rotation has been decided. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to read what it is we are debating. It states:

That this House, in light of the UN Security Council consideration of renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia-

That is what we are debating. We are debating whether Canada should continue to keep its forces there or not. The rotation comes automatically. After the troops have been there six months they are replaced. However, if after a month Canada decides to pull out its troops, it pulls out fresh and strong troops, not tired troops.

It is the mandate we are debating. The rotation is automatic after six months. I was disappointed that the hon. member could not distinguish between that.

He went on to say that we have no choice. I thought he was going to say that we have no choice whether to stay or pull out. We do have a choice. That is why we are having this debate.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of National Defence said that before making an important decision like this one, whether or not to renew the mandate, Parliament would be consulted. That is what we are doing. To stand and say that we have no choice does not help the government. We are looking for some leadership from the opposition to help Canadians make an important decision.

The Leader of the Opposition went on to say: "What is Canada's policy in peacekeeping missions?" I suggest he read a bit of history. By going back to when the Prime Minister of Canada, Lester B. Pearson, recommended the peacekeeping forces. That role continues. We are changing that role. We are looking more at preventive measures, but the peacekeeping role continues. That is why Canada holds such an enviable position around the world.

The Leader of the Opposition does not seem to realize that conflicts since the end of the cold war are much different. In those days, one state attacked another state. Peace was made and we sent peacekeepers to keep the peace. Now it is internal conflicts. It is ethnocultural conflicts. It is tribal conflicts, wars, killings and genocide within a country. That is a totally different kind of challenge.

I was pleased that the Leader of the Opposition ended by saying: "Yes, we should renew the mandate". However he puts certain conditions on it. I guess it was a conditional yes. To be honest his remarks did not help the government very much to decide whether we should continue our mandate and keep our peacekeepers there or not.

The official spokesperson for the Reform Party complained that we had no consultations. We have had consultations through the whole foreign policy review. The government responds. The foreign affairs standing committee had the Minister of Foreign Affairs before it just two weeks ago. We discussed the Bosnia-Hercegovina conflict. The minister asked point blank the members of the official opposition what was their position. The answer was similar to what we got tonight.

When the minister asked the Reform Party, what the position was, the response was that they are split 50:50 on the issue. I was pleased that today the Reform Party made it clear that its position is to withdraw our forces. At least we know what the stand is, the position of the Reform Party.

To answer the Leader of the Opposition, I want to remind him that Canada remains one of the strongest advocates of reinforcing UN's conflict prevention and conflict resolution capability. We have been working with like-minded countries at the UN to bring about reforms that will provide the organization with the political, financial and military tools it needs to fulfil its growing responsibilities.

Canada is conducting a study on a UN rapid reaction capability and will host an international conference on the subject next week. We are organizing with our partners peacekeeping semi-

nars in the context of PAC, Regional Forum and the Organization for American States.

We are also working with the Organization of African Union to improve the capability of African countries to better contribute to peacekeeping operations and preventive diplomacy.

I do not want to finish my speech on Bosnia-Hercegovina without mentioning to all members that we have gone beyond peacekeeping. We are looking at conflict prevention. We are looking at reforming the United Nations so that our peacekeepers can be sent with a much clearer mandate.

I appeal to all members who will be taking part in the debate tonight, to the independent members, to the members on our government side, to the members of the Bloc Quebecois, the members of the Reform Party, to help the government make this important decision. Let us put our partisan politics aside. Let us hear what our constituents are telling us. Then we can make a very knowledgeable, intelligent and the right decision for Canada and hopefully for bringing peace to that area.

[Financial Administration Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I present the government's position on Bill C-263 tabled by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I will be speaking to this House about the International Development Research Centre, or IDRC as it is better known, and why it is and should remain exempt from the Financial Administration Act, or the FAA.

It is with great pride that I tell you about this well respected Canadian organization in true Canadian form. It is one of our institutions that is better known outside this country than it is by the taxpayers who support it.

IDRC was the first such institution in the world. Lester B. Pearson, a strong proponent of IDRC, was named as its first chairman. The centre was then copied in Sweden, set up as SAREC in 1975, and in the U.S.A., Australia, Germany and the Netherlands.

The debates here and in the Senate showed there was strong agreement that IDRC should represent a new approach to relations with developing countries. The idea of the centre was to bring together Canadian and foreign experts on the problems of developing economies.

During second reading the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, well known to everyone in Canada, who was then Secretary of State for External Affairs, pointed out that the centre would be "a Canadian institution with an important international dimension. Both the board and staff will include specially qualified people from various parts of the world, including the developing countries. The centre will be structured so as to provide the best possible environment for creativity and problem solving".

Therein lies the reason why IDRC is not an agent of Her Majesty. Canadians must form the majority of its board members but the remainder is made up of prominent residents of developing countries. The current board members include Sir Sridath Ramphal, former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, and Dr. Miguel de la Madrid, former President of Mexico. It would be very difficult for non-Canadian governors to serve, without a conflict of allegiance, an institution which was an agent of Her Majesty.

The importance of having staff from outside Canada is the reason the employees are not members of the public service. To this date the centre's staff comprises many scientists from developing countries. These bring to the centre's work a unique knowledge and appreciation of local conditions which is essential to finding practical and useful results. If its staff were to join the public service, it would become extremely difficult to recruit scientists in developing countries.

Now we come to the thrust of Bill C-263, the question of IDRC's exemption from the FAA. When the centre was created the parliamentary subcommittee reviewing the bill noted in its report that there was concern that there be "a reasonable measure of accountability for the use of public funds". At the same time it was recognized that "an essential prerequisite for

such an institution is that it be fully free to exercise purely professional standards of prominence and integrity".

The report went on to say that "constant vigilance will be required to protect the independence and integrity of the centre. The object will be advanced by the diversification of the sources of financial support and this should be a high priority for the governors".

Throughout its existence, IDRC has used its exemption from the FAA to enable it to seek financial support from diverse sources, something which it has had some success in doing. However in the current climate of government fiscal restraint, IDRC has made it a priority within the centre to reduce its dependency on the public purse by raising and leveraging resources from organizations outside Canada: multilateral and bilateral institutions and private not for profit foundations. Many of these, because of their mandates, would be unable to provide funds to the receiver general of a developed country.

In other words, by putting IDRC under the FAA which the member wants to do in his bill, we would make it more reliant on government funding and limit its ability to diversify its revenue resources. I am sure this was not the intention of my esteemed colleague when he tabled this bill.

This exemption from the FAA does not mean that the IDRC is unaccountable. On the contrary, IDRC is accountable to the Parliament of Canada. Its transactions are audited annually by the Auditor General of Canada who has also just completed a second value for money audit undertaken at the centre's request.

The centre's annual report is tabled in Parliament and the centre's chairperson and president frequently appear before House of Commons committees. I know I cannot use props but I do have the International Development Research Centre's annual report for 1993-94 if any member is interested in obtaining a copy.

I have just returned from Montevideo where I visited the regional office of IDRC. I also have a copy of its annual report which is available to any member who wishes to study it.

The current status allows for flexibility and enables the centre to move with great speed when political situations change, as they did in South Africa, Vietnam, Ukraine and who knows, maybe Burundi in the future.

IDRC's work at implementing sustainable development was given a positive mention in the special joint committee review of Canada's foreign policy. Its performance was rated highly by the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology's review of science and technology in Canada.

IDRC's flexibility has brought enormous benefits to Canada and the developing world. The centre is seen internationally as a dynamic, knowledge based and results oriented organization which has helped improve the lives of people in developing countries. It is particularly suited to these times of considerable change and constant upheaval.

I could refer to many examples of the outstanding work of IDRC but I know my time is limited. However, I would like to share a few examples with the House.

Members may have heard of the fog catcher in Chile. Peter Gzowski on "Morningside" a month ago and the extremely influential British magazine The Economist in January had stories describing this IDRC technology which is bringing clean drinking water to the poor people of a Chilean village. It is now being introduced in neighbouring Peru and Ecuador. It has the potential to bring water to many other communities in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

In this its 25th year, IDRC and Canadians who have supported it have much to be proud of. IDRC is a leading Canadian agency for research and innovation, an area this government regards as key to our future growth. Its work benefits not only people in developing countries but also people here in Canada.

I visited the IDRC regional centre in Uruguay just two weeks ago and held a round table meeting with the regional director, the staff and the researchers. I learned how the work of IDRC in developing countries provides information, technology, goodwill and knowledge that can lead to business opportunities for Canadians at home or in those countries.

I also learned that the IDRC can contribute in a unique way in helping economies in transition to prepare for a market economy and build ties to Canada. IDRC's assets in this regard are its in house expertise and its international network of experts in this field.

IDRC helps emerging economies tap Canadian scientific and technological expertise and establish links with Canadian researchers and the private sector. This was the case, for example, in IDRC's work in Vietnam, China, Singapore, Pakistan and India.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that IDRC's exemption from the FAA has served it and Canada well. Removing this exemption would make it difficult for the centre to raise revenue from sources outside Canada. It would make it less flexible. It would thus hinder its fine work and would limit the international component of the centre.

When we have a good institution, a uniquely Canadian institution, why change it? For these reasons and others, the government does not support Bill C-263.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to debate Bill C-68, an act to restrict firearms and other weapons.

I congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice for making good on the government's promise to fight crime with tough but fair firearms legislation. The minister is to be congratulated because Bill C-68 is the product of an open dialogue between ordinary Canadians, police officials, people working in the justice system, sharp shooters, legitimate gun collectors and the justice minister.

Last November when the government originally announced the action plan on firearms control a number of people expressed concern about certain conditions of ownership, including the sale, trade and exchange of particular firearms among legitimate owners and collectors. The minister listened to these concerns, demonstrated his flexibility and changed his action plan so that legitimate gun owners are treated fairly under Bill C-68.

Overall, I do not think anyone in the House or any law-abiding Canadian would dispute the minister's efforts to crack down on the criminal misuse of firearms. All law-abiding Canadians welcome harsh penalties for the violent misuse of firearms.

In keeping with the Liberal promise of safer homes and safer streets, Bill C-68 will impose mandatory prison sentences and a lifetime prohibition from gun ownership for anyone using a firearm in the commission of a murder, attempted murder, robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault and five other criminal offences.

Critics of the current gun control legislation brought in under former Conservative Justice Minister Kim Campbell say that some of the previous legislation is not proving very effective in court. This is true. That is why we need Bill C-68, to win court cases and to justly punish criminal behaviour.

For example, statistics from the justice department show that two thirds of weapon charges were dismissed, stayed or withdrawn due to plea bargaining or problems with presenting evidence in court. To overcome this legal wrangling, Bill C-68 will put in place tough measures to ensure swift and sure punishment.

Let us turn to the traffic of illegal weapons across our borders.

Last year the federal government took organised crime head on and successfully quashed the illegal trade of cigarettes. The same must be done to halt the illegal trafficking of firearms across Canadian borders. Bill C-68 will impose stern penalties against gun smugglers, including the immediate seizure of vehicles, boats and aeroplanes used in the trafficking of contraband. New import and export controls will provide a greater degree of protection to legitimate Canadian commercial interests. Cheap imitations of so-called Saturday night specials which have a propensity to misfire and cause injury will be less common and not as easy for criminals to access. Consequently, all Canadians will benefit.

All told, it seems the main objection to Bill C-68 is the proposed registration system. It does not matter how many times the minister has said registration does not mean confiscation. The purpose of registration is to limit access to firearms, to promote their safe use and storage and to control their movement. Careless ownership does cost lives. For example, the gun that killed Constable Todd Bayliss in June of 1994 was stolen from an Etobicoke widow. The gun was left lying on a shelf in her closet and was easy prey for the thief who stole it.

While there are many responsible gun owners who follow safe storage rules, far too many do not. The registration system will require all gun owners to be responsible. I do not think any legitimate gun owner worth his or her salt would disagree with safety measures which would prevent children from having accidents with carelessly stored firearms or from keeping loaded weapons out of the hands of criminals on a smash and dash, break and enter. The registration system coupled with increased border controls will make it far more difficult for criminals to access prohibited weapons.

The cost of the system, estimated at $85 million, will be entirely recovered through user fees. This is consistent with principles laid out by the federal government's recent budget. These fees are a small price to pay for public safety. The Minister of Justice does not, as some assert, have a hidden agenda to make gun ownership prohibitively expensive. The registration fees applied to the ownership of motor vehicles does not prohibit millions of Canadians from driving cars. There is nothing which would indicate that gun registration would be more expensive than any other registration system. In short, we need the co-operation of legitimate gun owners to ensure public safety for all Canadians.

I am curious about the position on gun control taken by my hon. colleagues in the Reform Party. Strangely enough, an October 1994 Reform Party resolution echoed support for the federal government's initiative. I quote from the Reform Party resolution under social issues: "If elected, a Reform government will introduce legislation by which the criminal misuse of firearms will be severely punished and the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms will be protected".

That sounds like it is Bill C-68 promised in the Reform platform. What happened since then? Did the gun lobbyists get to Reformers? Are they that weak kneed that they gave into the gun lobbyists? They should stick to their platform as promised. That is why they were elected. Under this legislation only criminals will be prevented from owning a gun and the rights of law-abiding citizens will be protected. Perhaps the leader of the Reform Party might clarify things for us. If he would state his precise position on gun control instead of making vague statements we might know exactly where Reform stands on the issue.

The residents of Parkdale-High Park strongly support the government. I did a poll two years ago in my riding on tougher controls on firearms and 67 per cent said they want and support stronger firearms control. In my town hall meetings today, two years later, that percentage would probably jump up to 80 per cent or 90 per cent. Instead of a weakening position, it is a stronger position for Bill C-68. I hope we can count on all members of the House to protect Canadians by supporting Bill C-68.

Not long ago the President of the United States spoke to a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Commons in the Chamber. He congratulated Canada because we recognize the legitimate use and ownership of firearms as opposed to the criminals owning them and the guns getting into the wrong hands. The President of the United States is complimenting our country on our way of doing things.

We can take a lesson from that. Let us not go the U.S. route. Let us go the Canadian route. Let us do it the Canadian way. The Reform Party wants to go the U.S. way. If we go that way, I am afraid the crime rate will grow and the cities, especially the inner cities, will be more violent.

That is not what we want for Canada. We want safe communities and safe streets. It has to begin in the families, in the schools, in the municipal and provincial governments, and here in the federal government where we must bring in legislation which is good for all Canadians.

[Human Rights, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his speaking out against human rights violations anywhere on this planet. He will be pleased to know that last Friday a senior official of the foreign affairs department called in the Ambassador of Turkey to express Canada's concern about the recent actions.

It is our hope that the Turkish military forces will remove the troops from northern Iraq and will do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties there. We call on Turkey to respect human rights, but in particular the cultural rights of the Kurdish community in Turkey. I am sure that the Government of Turkey will listen to our concerns.

[Burundi, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is very concerned with what is going on in Burundi. We do not want to see a repeat of what happened in Rwanda.

Last week the secretary of state appeared before the parliamentary standing committee on foreign affairs. We spent three hours debating how we could help people in Burundi so as not to repeat the atrocities of Rwanda.

The Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa was in Burundi from February 15 to February 17 at a conference.

Strategy was discussed with the neighbouring countries. These were then forwarded to the security council.

[Rail Strike, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I too offer a few statistics to Bloc Quebecois members who are deliberately destroying the economies of Quebec and the other provinces by delaying an end to the railway strike.

Every morning $200 million worth of exports to the United States are being interrupted. This week alone the delay will cost the Canadian economy $3 billion to $5 billion worth of productivity, all courtesy of the Bloc Quebecois.

Somehow the image of the Bloc as champions of the collective bargaining process is shattered by the fact that even Buzz Hargrove of the Canadian Auto Workers has said there is no benefit whatsoever to delaying the legislation.

The Liberals strongly believe in collective bargaining, but when it fails and results in economic turmoil the government must act in the public interest. Obviously this concept escapes the Bloc Quebecois, a party that is losing its credibility as the official opposition.

[Defence, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, from March 7 to 9 the permanent joint board on defence between Canada and the United States had its 195th meeting.

The permanent joint board dates back to a 1940 agreement between Canada and the U.S. to share common security interests and to co-ordinate joint defence. Composed of both civilian and military officials, the 195th board discussed security in the western hemisphere and NATO's infrastructure and possible expansion.

The Americans had the opportunity to study our government's white paper on defence and foreign policy statement while Canadians had the opportunity to review the U.S. national military strategy.

Mr. Dwight Mason, the American co-chair, and I as the Canadian co-chair were both impressed with the depth of discussion and strongly encourage continuing support for these meetings.

Managing one of the world's largest defence arrangements requires close co-operation between Canada and the United States. The permanent joint board on defence is an excellent vehicle to help administer this important relationship.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed many budgets tabled in the House. Usually the next day constituency offices' telephones ring off the hook with complaints, support or whatever.

This year I checked with my constituency office on how many calls it received the day after the budget. My assistant in Parkdale-High Park told me it received one call. That caller said the minister did not go far enough in reducing the deficit.

Because the hon. member works very closely with and listens to his constituents, what kind of reaction did he have from them directly on the budget, positive or negative?

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the hon. member would delve a little deeper into the alternative measures that he started talking about.

I wonder if the hon. member is looking at the same bill, Bill C-37. I draw his attention to the summary.

This enactment amends the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code.

The major elements of the enactment are the following:

amendments to provide that sixteen and seventeen year olds charged with specific serious crimes involving violence will be proceeded against in adult court-

amendments to increase the period of time that sixteen and seventeen year olds convicted of murder in adult court must serve before being eligible to apply for parole;

amendments to provide that young offenders should be accountable to their victims-

This is what his constituents are requesting. In fairness, he should draw this to the attention of his constituents.

amendments to provide for greater sharing of information relating to young offenders with persons who require such information for safety reasons.

Again, this is something his constituents are requesting. Sometimes I believe that members of Parliament are not serving their constituents properly if they do not share with the constituents exactly what is in the bill.