Jesse Flis

[Land Mines, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of rising in the House to congratulate the federal

government on its January 17 declaration of a unilateral moratorium on the use and sale of anti-personnel land mines.

As an official observer of the 1994 national elections in Cambodia, I had the opportunity to witness the danger and devastation associated with the use of such weapons. Land mines remain a threat to millions of people in nations around the globe. Canada's recently declared moratorium on the production, export and use of these tools of destruction puts us at the forefront of global de-mining activities.

This action only emphasizes Canada's role as a committed, peaceful nation among global powers. As we continue to counteract the sale and use of such violent technology, we ensure the safety of innocent victims in both the present and the future.

[Dunblane School Tragedy, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I offer the sympathy and condolences of the government and the people of Canada to the families and friends of the 16 school children and their teacher who were killed in Dunblane, Scotland today. The sudden death of so many children and their teacher strikes the sensibility of all Canadians.

We trust those wounded in this attack will recover completely from their physical wounds. We pray that the psychological scars of the wounded and the children at Dunblane School will be healed.

We share the shock and horror of the people of Dunblane and the whole country at this cruel and wanton act.

Earlier today, Canadian High Commissioner Royce Frith sent the following message on behalf of Canada:

May I express on my own behalf and on behalf of my compatriots, our most profound shock at the horrible events in Dunblane this morning.

Our hearts and warm sympathies go out to the families of those killed and our thoughts and prayers to those injured and their families.

No words are adequate but we hope they and our continuing sympathies will be of some comfort to them during this very time.

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate today. It is a double pleasure because the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence gave me the honour of chairman of the Canadian section of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence between Canada and the United States.

This Permanent Joint Board on Defence was formed through a meeting of Prime Minister Mackenzie King and President Roosevelt at Ogdensburg, New York on August 18, 1940. They came out with a joint statement issuing the announcement of this permanent joint board. That board has been meeting since 1940, sometimes more than twice a year. Now it is twice a year with one meeting in

Canada and one in the United States. The last meeting of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence was in Kingston on October 10 to 12, 1995. The 197th meeting will be held in the first week of April in the United States. I am the Canadian chair and Dwight Mason is the chairman of the U.S. section. He reports to President Clinton and I report to the Prime Minister of Canada.

It is at those meetings that we did discuss the renewal of the NORAD agreement. Is it okay as it is? Is there something lacking in the agreement that we should build in? We talked about the inclusion of something about protecting the environment. I am pleased the Minister of Foreign Affairs already mentioned that if there is any environmental dispute, it would be referred to the Permanent Joint Board on Defence between Canada and the United States.

The NORAD treaty is reflective of the positive and co-operative relationship that Canada and the United States have in so many areas. Our two countries are linked by defence, a dense web of common interest in a wide variety of areas. NORAD represents a highly valuable element of the defence web.

Since both ministers and other speakers before me have already given the content of the NORAD agreement, I would like to take this time to show how our two countries co-operate in other areas for the defence and security of our two countries, for example in the environment, energy and transportation.

Our two countries are stewards of much of the North American environment. Our mutual care of this environment is a model for the world. Our bilateral environmental relations are marked by a high degree of co-operation. Geography has made joint action and sensitivity to the rights and needs of each other a matter of both necessity and common sense.

Canada and the United States share a border close to 9,000 kilometres along over 300 rivers and lakes. Wildlife migrates back and forth across this border and air currents flow in both directions. To a significant degree, each country depends on the other to ensure that the great wealth of natural resources each possesses is managed in a sustainable fashion and that a high level of environmental quality is provided to its citizens.

Over the years a dynamic and multifaceted legal institutional framework for managing our shared environmental resources has evolved. This framework consists of both formal and informal arrangements.

At the formal level the oldest mechanism is the boundary waters treaty negotiated way back in 1909 between the United States and Great Britain on behalf of Canada. This treaty established the legal framework for the use and management of transboundary waters by the two countries. It created the International Joint Commission to prevent and resolve disputes. The commission has earned an international reputation for its handling of transboundary environmental issues in an independent, objective and collegial manner.

The treaty is a remarkable document which, to the credit of those who drafted it, has withstood the test of time. Among its notable provisions are those giving each country equal rights to the use of boundary waters and prohibiting the pollution of these waters by either country.

The 1991 air quality agreement provides a forward looking framework for addressing transboundary air quality issues and for establishing new commitments to control other transboundary air pollution problems in the future.

Other important agreements include the 1916 migratory birds convention, which is one of the oldest and most effective conservation treaties in North America, and the 1986 North American waterfowl management plan, which aims to restore continental migratory waterfowl populations.

In addition there is the 1978 Great Lakes water quality agreement. This agreement is perhaps the best example of constructive Canada-U.S. co-operation on environmental issues. First signed in 1972, the agreement provides a framework for cleaning up our most significant shared resource. Although more work needs to be done particularly in eliminating the input of persistent toxic substances, great strides have been made in restoring the lakes to an acceptable level of quality for the benefit of citizens on both sides of the border.

In addition to formal arrangements, there is a network of informal ad hoc linkages between various levels and departments of our two governments. Co-operative arrangements have also been forged between our provinces and the state governments in the U.S.A. The provinces are of special importance in the environmental area due to the significant responsibilities they have for natural resources and environmental management. Just as Canada and the United States must work together on environmental issues, so too must the federal and provincial governments.

An additional and valuable component of the Canada-United States environmental relationship is the many linkages that have been developed between environmental interest groups and between business and industry in both countries.

What this myriad of formal and informal linkages have in common is the recognition that air, water and wildlife do not stop at national borders. A case in point is the situation of the Porcupine caribou herd which is crucial to the life and livelihood of Canadian aboriginal communities. In a 1987 agreement Canada and the United States recognized that this herd is a shared resource. As a result, both governments are concerned about any plans that would cause harm to the herd's main calving grounds in Alaska.

It is important to note in this debate on the NORAD renewal that the new NORAD agreement will include a clause that provides for Canada-U.S. discussions of the environmental implications of NORAD operations. This underscores that sound environmental relations between Canada and the United States have become an important dimension in all areas of the bilateral relationship. It also underscores the recognition of the need to address in a consistent manner north and south of the border the environmental implications of joint defence activities. As I mentioned, the minister already mentioned in his remarks what happens if there is an environmental dispute when we are co-operating in NORAD exercises and activities.

Moving to the energy sector, Canada and the United States have a co-operative relationship which has benefited both countries for many years. Our energy relationship is governed by the principles of deregulation and non-discrimination within the framework of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. That is why I do not think we should get too uptight when Jesse Helms tries to pass legislation in the United States which affects Canadian businesses. We do have the NAFTA rules to go to and we have the World Trade Organization rules to refer to.

The success of Canada's oil and gas export industry in the United States is impressive by any standard. Canada is one of the United States' leading oil suppliers. Our current oil exports of one million barrels per day could increase as new developments such as the Hibernia field come on stream. Canadian natural gas now represents some 12 per cent of the U.S. market. Opportunities should grow as Canada's dynamic petroleum producing and pipeline companies continue to work closely with their U.S. partners.

Canada and the U.S. have a long history of electricity trade dating back to the first export of Niagara Falls power in 1901. We co-operate very closely on power issues within the context of the Niagara River treaty and the Columbia River treaty. Today Canadian provincial utilities export well over $1 billion in electricity to the U.S.A. However, we face important challenges in the coming years and I will briefly refer to some of them.

The U.S. electricity industry is now undergoing deregulation and restructuring. Current U.S. proposals may require Canadian electricity exporters to offer open access transmission in Canada if they wish to receive similar access in the U.S. The Canadian electricity industry and the Canadian government generally welcome new U.S. market opportunities offered by deregulation. However, the structure of the Canadian industry is different from that of the United States, with a small number of very large publicly owned utilities and provincial jurisdiction over electricity generation and distribution.

Canada too is moving toward electricity deregulation, but the pace of change in Canada may be different. We will work with the U.S. to ensure its co-operation in continuing our strong bilateral relationship during the transition. Together, Canada and the United States are putting in place advanced efficient energy systems that facilitate economic growth in both countries.

In the bilateral transportation area, NAFTA and open skies have expanded Canada-U.S. commerce and tourism tremendously. For example, Canada and the U.S. now trade $1 billion Canadian per day and open skies has helped Canadian Airlines International increase its transborder passenger traffic by 84 per cent. Air Canada traffic grew by 24 per cent. Last year more than one million people crossed the Canada-U.S. border.

These accomplishments put new stresses on the border however at a time of decreasing government resources for staff and infrastructure on both sides of the border. In response to the new realities of border management, Canada and the U.S.A. announced the accord on our shared border during President Clinton's February 1995 visit to Ottawa. This is a significant achievement.

The border accord is an agreement between the Canadian and U.S. border inspection agencies to jointly modernize and improve border management. The border accord functions as an umbrella agreement for various individual initiatives.

For individual travellers the CANPASS/INSPASS programs at airports and CANPASS/PORTPASS on highways allow frequent travellers to cross the border via special lanes. Rather than face a customs or immigration officer, travellers pass through an automated gate that is activated by a personal identifier such as a fingerprint or hand geometry. Duties can be paid by credit card. CANPASS is now available when entering Canada at the two highway crossings in B.C. and at the Vancouver airport. It is expected at all of the Pearson terminals, Dorval and Mirabel by the fall of 1996.

For commercial traffic, the NAFTA prototype will harmonize border documents and procedures in all NAFTA countries. Documentation will be shared electronically. New transponder technology will read electronic signals from properly documented trucks and allow them to cross the border without stopping. A prototype of this system is expected to be on line at Buffalo-Fort Erie this year.

Canada and the U.S.A. also co-operate on preclearance services. For example, since the 1950s air preclearance in Canadian airports has allowed U.S. customs and immigration officers to preclear U.S. bound passengers into the U.S.A. before crossing the border giving Canada based travellers direct access to the huge U.S. air network.

In the autumn of 1995 Canada and the U.S.A. agreed to extend preclearance services to the Ottawa airport. The U.S.A. is considering establishing preclearance services at Halifax. Other U.S. preclearance services are provided for the Vancouver-Seattle train service and for ferries travelling between B.C., Washington and Alaska.

When we look at the NORAD renewal we should not only be looking at that one agreement between our two countries. We should look at the whole mass of treaties and agreements we have to demonstrate to the world how our two countries live together in peace and harmony. We live together taking into account that air currents and water currents do not stop at a border; they travel back and forth. And so with our defence and with our security we must also look at the defence and security of North America.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I am addressing the House in this session with you in the chair, I congratulate you on the position. I know the decorum of this place will certainly improve with your excellent skills.

I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance on his address to the budget.

I was very pleased that he and the budget stressed the importance of protecting the rights of our children, especially the rights of children in a split marriage. Most parents, whether they live together or are separated, have the interests of their children at heart and provide support payments. However, there are always a few chronic defaulters who use children as pawns and do everything possible to delay the payments, to decrease them, et cetera.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could tell the House if there is anything in the budget plans to pursue chronic defaulters. It is not the other spouse who suffers; the children suffer.

I am pleased that Parliament is addressing the rights of the children.

[Cuba, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, nine days ago Canada condemned Cuba for shooting down two civilian aircraft. It was an unwarranted act resulting in the tragic death of two U.S. citizens.

Without question the United States has the right to respond to this incident, but the passage of the Jesse Helms-Burton bill, which poses a direct threat to Canadian companies doing business with Cuba, is itself an excessive use of force.

The United States has every right to determine its own trade policy with Cuba, but the Helms-Burton bill oversteps legal boundaries and violates the purposes and principles of the UN charter. It furthermore infringes on the sovereignty of Canada and that of other friendly trading nations in the Caribbean basin.

The Prime Minister of Canada speaks for all Canadians when he says: "Friends are friends and business is business". However, the Helms-Burton bill is no way to do business nor is it a way to treat your friends.

Therefore I urge the U.S. Congress to kill such an irresponsible piece of legislation.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 11th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be debating Bill C-110 and more specifically Motion No. 2 to Bill C-110. Wherein Bill C-110 the veto powers were given to four regions of Canada, Motion No. 2 gives this veto power to five regions of Canada.

Where did this veto proposal come from? Let me take the members back to the referendum. The Prime Minister made certain promises about recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. Having many relatives in Quebec, I find it very incomprehensible that the Bloc Quebecois would vote against the recognition of a distinct society. I hope that somehow, maybe on a one to one basis, it can clarify that for me because I find it shocking.

We have excellent support for the direction the Prime Minister is taking. Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow says the proposals deserve to be carefully considered by political leaders and the public as an honest effort by an honest individual, the Prime Minister, to keep this great country together.

An Edmonton Journal editorial states: To hear some of our politicians'', and we are hearing them today,you would think that the Quebec referendum didn't happen. There seems to be little recognition that Prime Minister Chrétien made necessary promises during the referendum campaign and that he is honour bound to keep them''. That is what we are doing.

The Prime Minister has tabled legislation to keep his promises, and he is known for that. In his 30 years of politics he has never broken a promise, which is why he is so well liked by Canadians from coast to coast.

However, we have to settle this dispute of Quebec separation once and for all. People are fed up hearing about it. People are disgusted. It is affecting families psychologically. Families cannot have a normal relationship anymore. Instead of coming home and talking about hockey scores or other things they get on the referendum and become depressed. I know this from my family. Whether in education, whether they work for the police force, whether in the Department of National Defence, entire families are being affected by this dispute. Let us settle it once and for all and let us settle it quickly.

Some are complaining about why we are pushing this through quickly. It is Canadians who want us to act quickly. When people in Quebec voted no to separation they also gave us an important message to bring about changes but not to bring them about as former Prime Minister Mulroney did, dragging out commissions and committees and joint committees, et cetera. At the end of a one-year or two-year process what did Canada get? Nothing but more frustration, more disputes, more dividing of this beautiful country which was named number one by the United Nations. We do not want that. Canadians do not want that. They want us to act quickly and keep the promise we made during the referendum.

This frustration is not only within Quebec but outside of Quebec. I hear it in my constituency. I held a recent town hall meeting just after the referendum specifically to discuss what happened and where we should go from there. It covered the entire spectrum with frustration across the entire spectrum.

Allow me to quote a constituent, Howard Dunnick: "Dear Mr. Flis, I object strongly to giving Quebec distinct society status. As for the veto, why should the tail wag the dog? We just cannot afford to let Quebec spend our money like drunken sailors any longer. They say they are one of the founders of our nation. If they are so concerned, why do they first lead us to bankruptcy and then break up the nation? In fact, they do not care if they bleed us to death".

That is how strong the feelings are at that end of the spectrum. It is not the majority feeling, nor a feeling I share. At the other end of the spectrum Janet Page says: "Quebec needs to be brought into the Constitution. I do not want to lose Quebec. Bouchard does not have

the best interests of the people in mind. The government should force him to bargain in good faith. We need an end to this".

That is the frustration at the other end of the spectrum. We need an end to this dispute, to this debate. At town hall meetings we have to allow the people to share this frustration. What I like about the process of a town hall meeting, at least as I observe in my riding, is that people get educated. They educate themselves. Initially at town hall meetings they are filled with anger, with a let them go attitude. By the end of the evening they ask: "How can we demonstrate to Quebec that to us Canada includes Quebec?" They are good debates and discussions: What is Canada? What does it mean to be a Canadian?

By the end of the evening the same group of people who had those extreme views are making suggestions. They asked me whether when I was the principal of Argentina School and it was twinned with Canada School in Buenos Aires the children learned anything. I said yes. They learned about each other's culture and language. There were student exchanges and project exchanges. That is a suggestion they give for us here in Canada. Others suggest that cities and towns should be twinning. Families should be meeting so they can talk around the dinner table and get to know each other.

I was so pleased that out of the frustration grew these kinds of positive suggestions. If we go in that spirit and we accept the distinct society, if we accept that Quebec has a civil code for its justice system, if we accept that regions should be given a veto power-and I support the fact that this motion allows B.C. to have a veto power.

I was born and raised in Saskatchewan, a third of my life was spent there. When we talked about the prairie provinces we did not include B.C. We included Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and that is a natural region. B.C. has its rising population and its distinctiveness of trading with the Pacific Rim and everything else that the minister mentioned in his presentation. It is natural that B.C. is a region, the prairie provinces are a region, Ontario is a region, Quebec is a region and the Atlantic is a region.

With that kind of check on changing and bringing amendments to the Constitution, we will see this country grow and flower like we have never seen. We have to be willing to share and to support each other, not like the Reform Party where the leader was the one who suggested that we include B.C. as a separate region. What does Reform do now? It is going to vote against this motion.

It is that party which held up five fingers every question period. Why not B.C.? It got B.C. What is it doing? Reform members are not interested in Canadian unity. They are interested in scoring political points. They are scoring political points down to the point where they are 8 per cent in the polls.

I appeal to the Reform Party. I appeal to the Bloc Quebecois. This is Canada. It is the most beautiful country in the world. We are not building Canada for you and you and you and me. We are building Canada for future generations. That is why we were elected. If we believe in that, we will all pull together and pass this motion and the bill.

[Food And Drugs Act, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Vietnamese Canadian community across Canada is very appreciative that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra raised this issue not only in the House of Commons but in other fora.

As the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific stated during question period, Canada's position and our relationship with Vietnam is one of supporting engagement rather than isolation. This is in concert with the rest of the international community. Having a dialogue on human rights remains an important part of our relationship.

When the Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Hanoi in the middle of November, he raised human rights issues with his Vietnamese counterpart, Minister Nguyen Manh Cam. The secretary of state also raised his concerns about human rights in Vietnam during his visit to that country. Furthermore, he had a lengthy discussion about human rights with the Vietnam deputy prime minister during the latter's visit to Canada last year. We also maintain an ongoing dialogue through our embassy in Hanoi and with the Vietnamese embassy in Canada.

Our policy is to speak honestly and forthrightly in appropriate multilateral fora such as the United Nations' third committee, which deals with questions of human rights.

In his speech on Friday, December 1, Ambassador Bob Fowler mentioned Canadian concerns related to religious and political prisoners. In our judgment, maintaining a position of quiet diplomacy bilaterally while continuing to speak honestly in multilateral fora is more effective than a confrontational approach.

We are pleased to see that two prisoners have already been released. I am certain that the hon. member's interventions at the ambassadorial and other levels went a long way toward this release.

We hope our current policy and the hon. member's skills of quiet diplomacy will continue to have positive results.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that the third party had a golden opportunity to really put its policies forward and boost the morale of our forces at all three service levels, really make an input, really make a significant contribution nationally and internationally, and what do they do? They talk about Somalia. They talk about all other issues except the motion that is on the table. The official opposition at least gave us some figures. They said our commitment should be up to 2,000 troops, et cetera. I wish they would have gone on more specifically, what kind and so on. But the third party has not given the government one constructive suggestion.

On one hand, they complain that the government has already made up its mind. It has not. Cabinet is not meeting until Wednesday. They read something in the newspapers. It is like the budget: someone reads something in the newspapers and they call it a budget leak. That is what they are comparing this to. Forget about what is in the newspapers. Give the government constructive suggestions and concrete ideas. This is their golden opportunity, and they are blowing it.

They praise our peacekeepers and then in all their debates what do they do? They bring the morale right down as low as they can get it. If I were out there fighting, I certainly would not listen to what they were saying. That really would depress me.

I have always respected the hon. member for having good ideas. I am wondering if in the time left he would share them with us. What is it he would like cabinet to consider? What are the options? Do we participate at all? If so, how many troops? Two thousand troops? What kind? Should we forget about that altogether and go on the human rights side on other issues?

Let us hear it. This is their golden opportunity and they are blowing it.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. There will be a series of implementation conferences, co-ordination conferences, et cetera. That is why this debate is so crucial. Before ministers go to these conferences, they want input from parliamentarians sitting in this House.

Let me make it very clear. Before it even goes to that level, it must go to cabinet. Before going through cabinet, cabinet wants our ideas. While we are debating here, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defence are holding expert consultations.

This process is ongoing. The process of consulting Canadians never happened under previous governments. It is happening now.

Again I urge members, if they have constructive ideas they should go to the cabinet table and to the international discussions we will be having. This is where we will show the world another example of how Canadians can work through consultations, how we can work putting partisan politics aside.

When we are representing Canada abroad, be it in peacekeeping, be it in any forum, that is when partisan politics are put aside. We are representing Canada, united, undivided, strong. That is when the peacekeepers really have high morale and that is why I am so pleased that the Reform Party has changed its attitude toward our peacekeepers abroad.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, where some of my colleagues have criticized and given the member for Red Deer a hard time, I would like to compliment him. I see a change in attitude in the Reform Party. In the past it criticized our peacekeeping forces and was afraid to involve them in peacekeeping situations. At least today we are hearing from the Reform Party that we have the best peacekeepers in the world. I am very pleased that members of the Reform Party have evolved to the stage where they now see the importance of peacekeepers in the world.

My hon. colleague, the Minister of National Defence, has outlined the options of our participation in the international force which is being assembled to bring peace and stability to Bosnia. It is those options I hope we will debate today.

I would like to take us through a foreign affairs perspective. I would like to give a little broader analysis of the question before the House which underscores the importance of Canadian participation in this effort from a foreign policy perspective.

The suffering of thousands of innocent persons in the former Yugoslavia has deeply affected us all. Persons have been driven from their homes, subjected to ethnocultural cleansing and too frequently killed. These developments deeply offend Canadians' humanitarian values and sense of justice.

Who can forget the tragedy of Sarajevo and the suffering of the people in that city, under siege for over three full years, one of the longest sieges in European history? Against this backdrop of conflict and human suffering, Canada and the international community were asked by the United Nations to provide peacekeepers.

As a country committed to multilateral peacekeeping and the effectiveness of the UN, Canada responded. Canada responded to these challenges positively and at some cost. In each of these areas of challenge we have taken a stand in defence of Canadian values and as leaders on the world stage.

As we review what we have done in the past and consider what we will do in the future, it is important to place these challenges in a broader context. As the tragic story of the former Yugoslavia clearly demonstrates, international security is indivisible from human security.

To restore peace to Bosnia we must also restore the human conditions that support peace, conditions which will allow families to reunite, schools and hospitals to reopen and communities to rebuild. Peace and stability are in many respects preconditions to a degree of human security that will allow the people of Bosnia to

learn the lessons of peace, the lessons of trust, tolerance and co-operation. Without peace and stability we risk teaching an entire generation of Bosnians the lessons of war, the lessons of mistrust, hatred and violence.

From the very beginning of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, Canada recognized the importance of early action on behalf of the international community to prevent the spread of violence. It was Canada which led the call in 1991 for the UN Security Council to address the crisis in the former Yugoslavia.

As we heard from our Minister of National Defence this morning, Canada was among the first to send peacekeepers to the former Yugoslavia, undertaking some of the most difficult assignments. In June 1992 it was Canadian troops that were deployed to Sarajevo to reopen and secure the airport so that the airlift of relief supplies could begin.

Canadian troops were in Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia-Hercegovina to establish the UN presence in that besieged city. Until the drawdown of UN forces this fall, Canada was the fifth largest contributor to UN peace forces in the former Yugoslavia.

As well, since the autumn of 1991, Canada has contributed well over $63 million in humanitarian assistance for the victims of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Canadian money has been used to purchase and deliver food, medical supplies and clothing, to provide shelter, to assist refugees and displaced persons and to support victims of sexual violence.

In 1992 Canada also introduced special measures to help citizens of the former Yugoslavia join their relatives in Canada. Over 7,000 persons have been landed in Canada under these special measures. In addition, over 11,000 refugees have been admitted to Canada from the former Yugoslavia through government assisted and privately sponsored programs.

Outraged at reports of horrendous crimes against humanity committed during the conflict, Canada led efforts to investigate and prosecute those responsible. A Canadian judge was one of 11 elected by the UN General Assembly to the International War Crimes Tribunal. The critic for the Reform Party did not make note of that.

Today, with the initialling of the Dayton agreement on a general framework for peace in Bosnia-Hercegovina, the parties to the conflict have committed themselves to sign later this month in Paris, an agreement that would ensure that Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina respect each other's sovereign equality. The agreement guarantees that Bosnia and Hercegovina will remain a single state within its internationally recognized borders.

The Dayton peace agreement touches on issues such as the new constitution of Bosnia and Hercegovina, territorial divisions, human rights and policy and military forces. Among the key points agreed:

Bosnia and Hercegovina will be composed of two entities, known as the Federation of Bosnia and Hercegovina and the Serb Republic. These will be joined in a loose union with a central government.

Bosnia-wide elections, assisted and supervised by the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, OSCE, will take place within nine months of entry into force of the agreement.

Sarajevo will be a single city.

Parties will begin negotiations on confidence building measures, or CSBMs and on a sub-regional arms control arrangement under the auspices of OSCE.

Refugees and displaced persons will have the right to return to their homes of origin or receive compensation.

Admittedly the Dayton agreement is fragile. We know that, but that is all we have at present. Questions remain. Serious difficulties must still be worked out and much could go wrong. Yet this agreement represents a major commitment to peace by the parties to the conflict. It is the best chance at peace we have had since that conflict began. The Dayton peace agreement presents us with an opportunity to end the suffering in the former Yugoslavia. This is an opportunity we must seize now.

The formation of the implementation force for Bosnia will be authorized by the United Nations Security Council. It will be placed under NATO command and tasked to separate the warring forces and implement the military aspects of the Dayton peace agreement over a 12-month period. That is why it is wrong to compare this to Cyprus, where we had peacekeeping forces for almost 30 years. This is an essential part of the peace agreement. Without it, parties to the agreement believe there can be no peace.

The parties to the Dayton peace agreement are not alone in recognizing the importance of seizing this opportunity to bring peace and stability to the former Yugoslavia. The response of the international community to the call for an implementation force has been rapid. In addition to our partners within NATO's military structure, 19 non-NATO countries have indicated their willingness to participate in IFOR.

It is important to recognize that a Canadian contribution to IFOR represents but one dimension of a comprehensive approach to bring a lasting peace to the former Yugoslavia.

Canada will also remain engaged in humanitarian and refugee issues. We will remain politically involved, counselling diplomacy and negotiation in addressing problems as opposed to a resort to arms only. We will engage ourselves fully in the multinational effort on economic restructuring and social rehabilitation in the former Yugoslavia.

In this regard I would suggest that Canada's focus should be on social rehabilitation and the development of democratic and just societies. This focus would include the promotion of human rights and ethnocultural tolerance in the states of the former Yugoslavia and continued support for the work of the International War Crimes Tribunal.

Canada should engage itself in the promotion of free elections in co-operation with OSCE. We should support the creation of national human rights institutions and work to promote free media. Some are even accusing the international media that fuelled this conflict in the first place.

Canada's commitment to the building of civic societies should also entail a concentration of assistance on community based projects and on the rehabilitation of social infrastructure in the former Yugoslavia. Canadian projects should be initiated in communities where inter-ethnic co-operation is beginning to emerge.

With regard to economic rehabilitation, Canada's contribution to a multilateral effort should be significant but not disproportionate to the contributions of European allies and the U.S.A. We could consider some debt relief within the framework of multilateral agreements reached at the Paris Club, if countries were to meet the eligibility requirements of such relief.

All these activities will ensure a comprehensive Canadian approach to the post conflict situation in the former Yugoslavia. Integral to this is a continued Canadian effort in the field of security. The peace in Bosnia-Hercegovina remains dangerously fragile. The stability that can be provided by an international implementation force is essential.

In participating in the implementation force, IFOR, Canada can make a unique contribution. There is no more experienced or well trained peacekeeping force in the world than ours. To participate in IFOR means to accept our responsibility to continue addressing a conflict we have been concerned with from its very inception. To do less would mean walking away from a conflict that has challenged key Canadian values and interests before it is effectively resolved.

It would be wrong for us to walk away from a job only three-quarters done, ignoring the hard fought investment of Canadians made over the last four years. We must continue our efforts to bring peace and stability to the former Yugoslavia. This requires solid Canadian participation in the military force to guarantee the implementation of the peace agreement.

It is an essential element in a comprehensive Canadian approach to peace in the former Yugoslavia. It is our best hope to ensure that the dreams and talents of the entire generation of Bosnians are not lost to war.

On a personal note, I have many constituents from the former Yugoslavia, from the different ethnocultural backgrounds. Every one of them is urging us to continue the Canadian participation and assistance. That is their wish as Canadians. I welcome concrete suggestions rather than hon. members taking their 20 minutes-