Jesse Flis

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I shall be sharing my time with the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester.

I shall keep my remarks brief because two parliamentary standing committees are waiting for my presence there also.

I am pleased that I have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act. This bill is greatly needed as it modernizes and improves the efficiency of our electoral administration. I am very pleased that this bill has been brought forward as I have believed for quite some time that it was necessary because of our inefficient enumeration process.

During every election we hear horror stories of residents of entire streets and whole apartment buildings not being enumerated. Many voters are omitted because they are travelling or working odd shifts during the enumeration period. Yet other voters are not enumerated because of language barriers or because they simply do not want to open their doors due to security concerns. It is sad but many people are afraid to open their doors when they are knocked on late in the evening. As a result they do not get enumerated. Others do not discover the omission of their names until they arrive at the polls on election day.

That is why on December 13, 1988, after the election, I urged Parliament to approve the following recommendations: first, to develop a registration process to establish permanent voters lists; second, to approve election day voter's registration in urban areas, the same right that is given to rural voters. Implementation of the latter recommendation has prevented discrimination against urban voters and guarantees Canadian voters their citizenship rights. It is our duty as parliamentarians to make it easier for citizens to vote, not to place obstacles in their way. Bill C-63 does just that.

I am pleased to see that through Bill C-63 a permanent voters register will be created. That will solve many of the problems I mentioned. The bill will pave the way to a 1997 election campaign based on 36 days as opposed to the current 47 days. This is an excellent move for it will save the federal government and the Canadian taxpayers a sum of $30 million per federal election.

The shortened election period will generate approximately $8 million of the $30 million savings to the Canadian taxpayers for each federal election. By having the permanent register with a shortened election period we can expect significant cost savings. Another benefit that results from this bill is that the permanent register can be shared with provinces, municipalities and school boards for their elections which would generate even more savings for Canadians.

Sharing and pooling resources makes a lot of sense. The permanent register of voters will be updated using data from Revenue Canada, lists of new Canadian citizens from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and from provincial and territorial motor vehicle and vital statistics data.

It is worth noting, as the bill states, that the register will be established from information collected by enumeration, but will be held outside the electoral period. Between electoral events these lists will be updated. No longer will Canadians be left off voters lists because of the short enumeration period and the obstacles I described earlier.

Bill C-63 is very convenient. When an election is called the preliminary lists will be distributed within five days of the issuing of the writs. Election expense limits will be available 31 days before polling day as opposed to the 24 days under the current

legislation. This will allow the candidate to assess earlier what his or her expense limits are.

The objects of Bill C-63 and the amendments are very clear: to make our electoral administration more practical and efficient. As someone who has campaigned as a Liberal candidate in five elections, winning four and losing one, I applaud the government for this bill and I am certain that Canadians will support it as well. I am pleased we will have good support from the opposition parties on this bill.

[War Criminals, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the foreign affairs minister.

I would like to compliment the hon. member for Laval East for her questions on war criminals. My question really is supplementary to hers.

At a recent conference regarding war criminals in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Justice Richard Goldstone expressed concerns that many who have been indicted for crimes against humanity are not being arrested and brought to The Hague to face criminal charges.

I ask the minister: What specific instructions has Canada given to its IFOR peacekeepers to assist in bringing these indicted war criminals to justice?

[Ukraine, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Canadians attach great importance to strengthening our socioeconomic relations with Ukraine, a growing European economy.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what was accomplished last week when he led a delegation of 70 senior Canadian business leaders to Ukraine?

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, my wife and I spent the last two weekends in Montreal. We love going there. My wife says that no city in the world has smoked meat like Montreal has. She will also says that no city in the world has bagels like Montreal has.

However, on our last visit we were very depressed. We took a taxi from Dorval airport to downtown Montreal. When I want to learn what is happening in a city I usually talk to taxi drivers and barbers. I learn a lot from these two professions.

The taxi driver told us that he was not pleased with what was happening. He said that he was selling his taxi business, which shocked me. He was selling his home. I asked him why. He replied: "Things are not certain. I cannot go on living this way". When I asked him how long he had been in Montreal he told me 25 years.

He is selling his taxi business and his home. He is moving to Toronto. He speaks French, English and Greek. These are the kinds of human resources we have in our beautiful country and in la belle province, Quebec. He is selling out, moving out to join his brother who has a restaurant and an apartment business in Toronto.

That depressed me. Here is a true entrepreneur who helped to build the economy of Montreal and Quebec for 25 years, and now he is pulling out because of political uncertainty.

The member for Longueuil has been here as long as I have, if not longer, so I am sure he will take my question seriously. Rather than blame the federal government falsely, as this motion does, to say-

-the federal government's under-investment in research and development; its inequitable allocation of federal purchases of goods and services-

This is not true.

It is a false motion. Rather than blame the taxi driver I talked to who is moving from Montreal, what is the Bloc Quebecois Party doing to keep these entrepreneurs in Montreal? By falsely blaming

the federal government the Bloc is driving more of these entrepreneurs out of Montreal.

The Bloc Quebecois has a responsibility as its members were elected by a large group of people, and that I respect. The reason they are sitting here is because they were put here through a democratic process. What are they doing to prevent this flight of entrepreneurs from Montreal?

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member from the Reform Party participating in this debate. Reform's solution to help the sagging economy in Montreal is to cut even more.

Reform is going to cut $15 billion if it ever forms a government. This would mean smaller transfer payments to the provinces. He talked about free trade with the provinces and I agree with him on that. How will he or his party achieve free trade with Quebec when every day, every week in this House the Reform Party does nothing but Quebec bashing? Then the Reform is going to sit down with it and negotiate free trade. Good luck. I would like to know how it plans to do that.

Reform is going to operate with a smaller government. Mr. Speaker, I am sure your constituents and mine are complaining now that we have cut government too far. There are people who want to have questions answered from Revenue Canada and from immigration. We have already, through our program review, cut the public service by 45,000 and probably another 10,000. The public service has been cut to the bone now. Reform wants to cut not to the bone but into the bone. It claims it is listening to grassroots Canadians. So am I and grassroots Canadians are saying do not cut anymore. They want the public service to serve them when they need it.

My intervention is more of a comment, but I would like the member to answer some of these questions. On the one hand Reform members continually bash Quebec. Of course Montreal is the capital city and the hub of the province and the country.

I think Reform fails to recognize that cities like Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto are still rated by objective international pollsters as the three best cities in the world next to Paris and London. If we compare Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto with U.S. cities, Boston will place third, whereas Montreal will still place in the top ten.

[National Aids Strategy, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, AIDS is a scourge that has affected the lives of families all across this country.

One of my former students has contracted this terrible disease from a heterosexual partner who has already died because of AIDS. Recently she was awarded the Ovation Award for Activism by the Toronto People with AIDS Foundation.

Like many Canadians, my constituents appreciate the effort the government has made through the National AIDS Strategy to combat the disease through research, treatment and education.

Canada has made a substantial and recognized contribution in fighting AIDS. I was pleased to see the response to the petition I presented on the AIDS strategy. It states that the Minister of Health is participating in active discussions in various sectors concerning the federal role with regard to HIV-AIDS.

I urge the Minister of Health and the entire government to secure continuing funding for the AIDS strategy before the program runs out in March 1998.

[Linguistic Duality, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians share the same values. They are peaceful, generous and united. We are also proud of our cultural diversity and we promote bilingualism from coast to coast.

Thus, the Toronto school board is proposing mandatory French courses to all students, these courses being required by the Department of Education and Training.

Together, public and catholic boards in Toronto have 14 French schools. In fact, French is thriving in Toronto. Many students in my riding even have the opportunity to learn three languages simultaneously.

Obviously, our linguistic duality is dynamic and constitutes an unquestionable asset for Canadians in the global economy.

[Pledge Of Allegiance, October 9th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I pledge allegiance to this flag and to the country for which it stands, one country indivisible for the benefit of all. I learned that in a rural school in Saskatchewan in grade one. It still stays with me. That is why I cannot emphasize more strongly support for this motion and the private member's bill which was read to us.

Everything is falling into place nicely. If not each day, at least once a week members could stand up to salute the flag which would be saluting the country for which it stands. Then the children from coast to coast would have an example from us of what they could do in their schools.

I have a challenge for Canada to take it a step further. Let us have a contest across the country. Canadians could come up with a flag song. That is something else I learned in Saskatchewan. The song was "The Maple Leaf Forever". We are on the right track when we are moving in this direction.

[The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Co-operation.

It gives me great pleasure to support Bill C-54, an act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act at third reading. This bill is timely and greatly needed.

The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, FEMA, was passed in February 1984 to block unreasonable laws or rulings of a foreign power from being applied in Canada. The time has come to bring it up to date to ensure that it remains a credible act. I am pleased that both opposition parties are supporting this legislation and will ensure its speedy passage.

Bill C-54 and the amendments put forward will better prepare Canada to block countries in applying unacceptable laws and rulings in Canada. In the case of the Helms-Burton act, the United States has overstepped legal boundaries and has violated the purposes and principles of the United Nations charter. Furthermore, the act infringes on the sovereignty of Canada and that of other friendly trading nations.

Our Canadian foreign policy and trade relationships are determined here in Canada and not in the United States. The United States has every right to determine its own trade policy with Cuba. It is unfair of the American government to impose its policies and laws on us.

Overall, our relationship with the United States has been positive. As the Canadian chairman of the permanent joint board on defence, I know of the kinds of close working relationships our two countries have in defence matters and North American security. The United States has shown time and time again that it works well with its partners. Our trade relationship with our neighbour is a strong one.

However, we must assert ourselves in this instance. Helms-Burton creates a dangerous precedent for future trading relations. The Prime Minister of Canada is absolutely right when he says friends are friends and business is business. However, the Helms-Burton bill is no way of doing business or no way to treat your friends.

We live in a global economy where countries are interacting more now than ever. In the case of Canada and Cuba there has been an unbroken official relationship since 1945. Canada and Cuba have maintained good relations in many key areas including fisheries where Cuba has supported the Canadian view on the need for measures to end high seas overfishing of straddling and high migratory fish stocks.

Good relations have also been maintained in the areas of agriculture, natural resources development and tourism; over 120,000 Canadians visit Cuba each year. In my former role as parliamentary secretary I had the pleasure to open an additional honorary councillor office to serve Canadian tourists there. This was in addition to the services we provide through our embassy in Havana.

Last year Canada exported goods worth over $274 million to Cuba comprising mainly of agri-foods and manufactured goods. In return, Canada imported close to $321 million worth of products from Cuba, mostly sugar and nickel.

In October 1994, I had the privilege to visit Cuba in an official capacity to attend the Havana International Fair. I met with representatives of 24 different Canadian companies which were doing business with Cuba. These companies included Sherritt Incorporated of Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta; Romet Limited of Mississauga, Ontario; J.D. Irving of St. John, New Brunswick; Galax Incorporated of Montreal, Quebec; United Tire and Rubber Company Limited of Rexdale, Ontario.

I saw firsthand the many advantages that resulted from Canada's relationship with Cuba. I am also in full agreement with the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he said that Canada shares the U.S. objectives of improving human rights standards and moving to a more representative government in Cuba.

Canada and the United States have differed significantly in the approaches we have taken toward these very important goals. Whereas the United States implements a policy of isolating Cuba, Canada encourages a policy of dialogue and engagement.

Canada has taken a number of measures to promote democratic reforms in Cuba which have created real results. Canada has been developing a technical assistance program to help modernize Cuban economic institutions. Through the partnership program the Canadian International Development Agency has provided funding to Canadian non-governmental organizations working with grassroots partners in Cuba.

A policy of openness, dialogue and interaction is an effective way of assisting Cuba to become a pluralistic society. It is obvious that the Helms-Burton legislation does nothing to advance sound policy in the short and long term.

On a more positive note, in July of this year President Clinton suspended the right of U.S. companies to file law suits under the act for six months. While this is a positive move forward, it still leaves the threat of future law suits unresolved.

Unfortunately some Canadians have already been informed that they are no longer welcome on U.S. soil. It is completely incomprehensible to me that any person, individual or company, as well as the spouse and all dependants of such a person doing business in Cuba would be excluded from the great United States.

Canadian companies need tools to defend themselves, and Bill C-54 will strengthen FEMA by giving Canadians recourse to Canadian courts to recover any amounts awarded under foreign rulings, along with their court costs in Canada and the foreign country, a measure known as a clawback.

The attorney general will be able to block any attempt by a foreign claimant to enforce a judgment under any objectionable foreign law such as Helms-Burton.

Hopefully these changes to FEMA will deter U.S. firms from taking action against Canadians. Canadian companies sued in the United States will have the right to initiate counter-suits against interests of the U.S. firms here.

In conclusion, the object of Bill C-54 and the amendments is very clear. It is to enforce the sovereignty of Canada.

The Helms-Burton Act draws third countries into a bilateral political squabble between the United States and Cuba. That is not right and sets a dangerous precedent.

Strong opposition from the European Union and Latin American countries suggests that Canada has powerful and ready made allies.

The bill and the amendments reinforce the position that Canada has every right to pursue trade and other commercial links with Central American and Caribbean countries and to strengthen its own diplomatic, trade and development co-operation relations with Cuba.

Again I thank the opposition parties and all members who saw the importance of this legislation for their co-operation in ensuring it receives speedy passage.

[Parkdale Collegiate Institute, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, students at Parkdale collegiate in my riding of Parkdale-High Park deserve to be congratulated. The collegiate itself is found in a less affluent area of Toronto; however, this has not dissuaded the students from believing and living the Canadian dream.

According to Jim Craig, the high school English teacher, 99 per cent of his students go on to university despite the fact that most came as immigrants from non-English speaking communities. Sadly, many came as refugees from war zones.

Recently these students have compiled a collection of prose and poetry describing their views of life, Images of Parkdale . Images of Parkdale is truly unique in that it allows us to see life through the eyes of young people who have endured very difficult times and have yet gone beyond this by putting together a truly remarkable and inspirational book.

I fully commend the staff and the students of Parkdale Collegiate Institute for their excellent work.