Debates of Dec. 4th, 1995

Balkans

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what difference is there whether the decision is made in a caucus room or a cabinet room and then put out that way or whether we come here with the decision already made and for show only listen to the opposition members saying whatever they have to say, which is not important anyway, and the government members saying what in fact the government wants them to say? The government will pick on something like NATO: "They do not want to be part of NATO", or "They are not for our troops".

We are proud of our troops. They have done a great job. But let us not keep asking them to do the impossible. Do not tell me that another member will disagree with that, because another member in our party will look at it from the defence standpoint, as the defence minister should. I said I was looking at it from the big picture. I said we should look at it from the NATO involvement, the countries, the history, the mandate, the criteria and so on. Our other member will look at it simply by asking whether we can continue to ask the military to do the impossible. That will be the question he will deal with.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken said he was looking at it from the bigger picture. When he sat down after

his second last comment he said he had nothing further to add. I might say that he had nothing to add in his entire speech.

If the member is looking at the broader picture, if he is looking at the history of it, heaven help history students. We know what has happened in world history when people have failed to come together and unite for a common, humanitarian, good cause. We have had world wars started from this very part of the world. Are we to stand by and let them go to it again? Are we to put the world at risk and all those young people in the free world today coming up in the future in the armed forces? He wants to know what the cost of this will be. What is the cost of it if we do not do it? That is the question that has to be asked.

When we are debating these things on the floor of the House of Commons, let us look at the broader picture. I welcome the invitation to look at the broader picture. But if we are to look at the broader picture we have to understand what has happened along the road in history itself.

When we were over there as a defence review committee we met with a Croatian mayor, a Bosnian mayor and a Serbian mayor. Each of them had a solution and everything was different. Today, the peaceful world, the world that wants peace among humanity, will have to go in there and lay the groundwork. We talk about starting governments up. Of course we have to start putting governments in place. Nobody will walk away from something when things are going well. However, it takes courage and determination on the part of united countries and the United Nations to move in and do things when the going gets tough. It is the same thing as debates in the House of Commons. We do not sit in our seats and listen when the going gets tough. We get up and add our points.

I want to look at the broader picture. I compliment the government, I compliment NATO and I compliment the UN for showing the guts and the courage they have. In doing so they are supporting every young person in this world who may end up in a broader conflict. Yes, let us look at the broad picture. Let us look at the cost of this war. Also, let us consider the cost of not doing anything at all.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for saying it a different way. We need to debate this in the House. We need to look at all the issues. But we are not doing that. That is the problem.

The real issue is about talking to the people. I have talked to the Croatian communities. I have been invited to the Serbian communities. I have talked to them. I know what the people are saying. They are saying: "Give us the facts before you write the blank cheque". That is the point: "Give us the facts before you write the cheque".

Would the member who just spoke send his grandson or granddaughter to this conflict knowing what he knows today? That is the question.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

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-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I understand a large number of members from all parties want to participate in this important debate. If in fact members will be splitting their times, 10 minutes is not as long as members are customarily used to. I would just caution the House so that we might get as many members as possible to participate in the debate.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rather agree with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that there are two reasons why we cannot easily pull out of these peacekeeping missions.

Strictly on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, I do not believe we can ignore such suffering. However, we must also recognize that, in an open world, there is such interdependence that we have to realize that any conflict anywhere on this planet will affect us sooner or later.

Having said that, I must state that, in my opinion, the problem lies in the type of mission in which Canada will be participating. The bottom line is that Canadians would like to know, as would Quebecers, what the exact nature of Canada's involvement over there will be.

What I would like to ask the secretary of state is the following: How can there be assurances that Canada will have some input, significant input, into the decision on what type of contribution it will make in the former Yugoslavia?

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

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.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I remind myself that I am speaking on a motion by the Minister of National Defence:

That this House take note and welcome the recent Dayton peace agreement and the international community's continued efforts to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans, and Canadian support of these efforts by participation in a multinational military implementation force under NATO command.

In the next 10 minutes or so I plan to talk about the new ground we are breaking, what are the trends, talk about what I see the missions are and give some possible areas of the difficulties that I foresee. Maybe from that one could draw some ideas about some of the things that Canadians could do with the considerable experience they have had in peacekeeping.

I want to start by going back to 1947. It depends on how one reads history, as the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke mentioned. If members look at history they have to look at the trends. If they look at the trend beginning in 1947 and the 40 years until 1987, there were really 13 peacekeeping missions.

From 1987 until this year there have been double that or 26. If members look at 13 in 40 years and 26 in 5 years, there are twice as many in one-fifth the time. Therefore there is a factor of 10.

Whether that factor of 10 will continue to rise, I am not sure. It is an indicator that what we are doing now we are likely to have to do again some time in the not too distant future.

This is peacekeeping operation No. 40 in the world. I believe it is the most challenging one and that it will allow us to break new ground.

There is another aspect of this which, if it does not bother me, it guides me in my personal belief of what should be happening. There are 184 countries in the world. Some are very large. We are the second largest of the countries. Some are very small. Of the 184 countries, what is important to remember with respect to ethnicity, cultural differences and various other differences is that only 10 per cent of those countries have any kind of homogeneity in their population. Of those countries the 10 per cent has an ethnic grouping of about 75 per cent.

What we are seeing here may not be the end of our involvement in historical patterns. For that reason it is important for us to debate this issue. What we decide today will be debated in cabinet and will eventually become the Canadian decision. It will set ground rules for future involvement in what will inevitably be the result of these kinds of actions downstream, hopefully not too soon, but in all likelihood before this Parliament ends.

When considering the 44 months of difficulty which has existed in Bosnia, it is uplifting to talk about a chance to change the horror of war to the prospect of peace. A quarter of a million people have been killed. In the city of Sarajevo 10,500 people were killed. There are up to a million refugees. It is a very sad situation. They have a decimated landscape of shattered buildings, roofless homes, deserted towns and countless graves scattered in the hillsides, bearing the names of young men and women who were born after 1970.

The special joint committee of which I was privileged to be a member saw all of this. There is a battered, bombed out mental institution in Bacovici being run by Canadian soldiers and the wretched inhabitants of this institution depend on Canadians for their very existence.

In a civil war such as the one we have witnessed in Bosnia there are no winners nor are there likely to be winners. The only likelihood of a winner is the prospect of peace. Peace can be the only victor in this lexicon of issues.

The peace implementation plan, although it is not perfect, offers hope that some things will be no more. There will be no more days of dodging bullets and nights of artillery barrages. There will be no more winters of freshly dug cold and sinister graves. There will be no more years of isolation from the outside world.

There are 10 highlights to the Bosnia peace accord that were mentioned by the Minister of National Defence this morning. First, Bosnia remains a single state within a present border. There will be a Bosnian-Croat federation with 51 per cent of the territory and a Bosnian-Serb republic with 49 per cent.

Second, there will be a rotating presidency, beginning with a Bosnian-Muslim, a two-house Parliament and a constitutional court. The central government will have responsibility for foreign policy, foreign trade, monetary policy, citizenship, immigration and other collective issues.

The capital, Sarajevo, is united and under Muslim-Croat control. This may prove to be difficult in the future honing and improving of these negotiations.

International supervised elections should take place next year, or in the foreseeable future.

Almost a million refugees will be able to return home and people may move freely.

The control of Brcko, a Serb held town, will be decided by an arbitration panel made up of Muslims, Serbs and Europeans.

It is important to the issue that there will be a corridor of between three to five miles in northeast Bosnia linking the Serb held smaller territory to the east to the central northern part by a corridor called the Posavina corridor. That is still the subject of some intense negotiation.

The Muslim held town of Gorazde will be linked to the federation by a land corridor. The Serbs retain Srebrenica and Zepa, Muslim enclaves they overran last summer. Last but not least, the NATO implementation force will be participating in the near future. In fact it has already started.

What are the NATO objectives? There are two, primary and secondary. The primary objective, as I see it, which I will put slightly differently but with the same thrust as the Minister of National Defence, is to oversee the withdrawal of warring factions from a buffer zone about five kilometres or two and a half miles wide created in most places along the current ceasefire lines. After a certain period of time, maybe 30 or 45 days, this zone will be widened to five miles or more, except in Gorazde, Sarajevo and Brcko which, as I mentioned earlier, will have special boundaries.

The secondary mission is removing land mines and also quasi-military roles such as providing security for relief agencies, delivering food and other necessities of life and ensuring passage for the thousands of refugees that I mentioned.

To try and prevent small conflicts from growing there will be an agreement that several commissions could be created to discuss this.

I have given the background of what I believe is the setting for Canada's participation. We are breaking new ground. This is the first time that NATO has had a pure peacekeeping role. It is not only NATO. We are involved with the partnership for peace, our future allies, and Russia has a role to play with a command and control system that has been set up for the very first time.

Quite frankly, as a parliamentarian and a member of the government, there are risks involved. There have been risks in every peacekeeping operation. However, I quote the hon. member who stood up a few moments ago and said: "The risk of not participating either monetary wise or the risk of lives or wounded may be much greater than not participating".

From the various debates we have had in the last two years, from the special joint committee on defence, the white paper discussion and the present discussion on reserves, it is very clear to me that Canadians are prepared to and want to take this risk and participate in this operation.

It is the role we have to play. I really implore the opposition members, after their political rhetoric, to give the government some indication of what they believe the Canadian people would like us to do so that we can be guided in the cabinet discussions and downstream decisions.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, we shall proceed to the period set aside for questions and comments immediately after oral question period.

As it is now two o'clock, we will begin Statements by Members. The hon. parliamentary secretary will have the floor when we come back.

Canada Savings Bonds

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex—Windsor, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and commend the Minister of Finance for his announcement in September that Canadians were able to purchase Canada savings bonds for registered retirement savings plans, RRSPs, this year.

In my riding, when I held prebudget consultation meetings last year, many of my constituents recommended the creation of a debt bond similar to victory bonds as a way to ensure that more of our national debt was held by Canadians, lessening our dependence on the international money markets and money speculators.

The Essex Canadian Auto Workers political action committee met with me this summer to advocate that Canadians be able to use Canada savings bonds as RRSPs. I thank the members of the CAW for their continued interest in Canada's fiscal health.

The changes made this year show that the government and the Minister of Finance listen to Canadians and are willing to act on Canadian suggestions for better handling the nation's finances.

I encourage all Canadians to participate in prebudget consultations. Their suggestions will be heard. I also thank Canadians who took advantage of the new option and purchased their RRSPs through Canada savings bonds this fall.

Indian Affairs

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday Bloc members questioned the Minister of Indian Affairs on the paternalistic and disdainful attitude and intentions toward aboriginal people shown in a memorandum written by his assistant deputy minister.

In his reply, the minister launched into a full scale attack on sovereignists and on the government of all of the people of Quebec.

While refusing to be answerable for the inappropriate suggestions of his assistant deputy minister about buying off the aboriginal people, the minister launched into an attack on Quebec which was remarkable for its exaggerations and inaccuracies. He even said that I had been kidnapped by the Mohawks. What a pitiful performance, and what disdain for the democratic system, coming from a minister of the crown.

National Unity

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal government came to power in 1993 it promised things would be different. Yet the more things change the more they stay the same.

Look at the Prime Minister's Quebec package. In the referendum aftermath Canadians in every region of the country looked to Ottawa for a vision. The best our Prime Minister could offer was "Charlottetown lite", reheated Tory policies that had already failed inside and outside Quebec. Not only did the Prime Minister have to borrow the Tories' vision, he has also resorted to their bag of dirty tricks by invoking closure on his Quebec veto bill.

That's right, the government is going to shove its unity package down Canadians' throats whether they like it or not, limiting debate on a package that will not fly in any region of the country. The Tories were never so bold or undemocratic.

This may unite Canadians yet in their conviction to reject the old Canada and begin building the new: no more Liberal, no more Tory; in '97 Reform's the story.

National Safe Driving Week

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Safe Driving Week sponsored by the Canada Safety Council.

To mark the 40th anniversary of this campaign which is designed to promote safe driving on Canada's roads, Transport Canada would like to take this opportunity to remind Canadians that road safety is everyone's responsibility.

The theme of the campaign this year is the hidden face of impaired driving. Impaired driving is still a serious issue. Recent statistics suggest that over 40 per cent of drivers killed in car accidents had been drinking.

Transport Canada has also been working hard to reduce death and injury on our roads through initiatives such as the national occupant restraint program and the introduction of mandatory safety equipment for vehicles.

All Canadians can play a role in promoting safe driving, which begins with safe driving practices. Drivers must take extra care to use safety equipment such as airbags and seatbelts properly. Exercising common sense when driving a vehicle, observing speed limits and respecting the rules will make our roads safe for everyone.

National Safe Driving Week is an important campaign and I urge hon. members to endorse its goals.

Peacekeeping

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today as we debate sending troops to Bosnia we must remember the accomplishments achieved over the past half century by Canadian UN forces.

We must embrace the vision of global peace and unity so recently articulated in Ottawa by UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Canadians must set the example as ambassadors of peace. To waver at such a historical moment in the history of these warring countries would be paramount to turning a blind eye to a starving child. Bosnia is starving for peace.

As members of a united nation, all Canadians must accept the challenge to make a lasting peace for all Bosnians.

National Unity

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the early 1600s Canada has grown geographically and maturely as a nation of which we are very proud.

We as the Liberal Party sat recently in opposition. We looked across the floor of the House of Commons and watched the present leader of the separatist party and Marcel Masse as Minister of National Defence and Roch Lasalle sitting in the cabinet benches of the Government of Canada wielding all their power and political philosophy at the utmost. Today they are campaigning to separate Quebec from Canada. They are misrepresenting the facts of life to the wonderful people of the province of Quebec.

Today we think about statesmen such as Baldwin, Lafontaine, Georges Etienne Cartier, Ernest Lapointe, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Louis St. Laurent, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the current Prime Minister who have and who are laying the foundation for a great future of a Canada that will always include Quebec. Unlike the leader of the separatist party in the House who changes political parties like he changes clothes, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party-

Manpower Training

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who announced that the federal government would withdraw from manpower training, did not keep his promise.

By tabling a proposal that offers even less than the proposal made to the government of Quebec in June 1994 and dismissed out of hand by Daniel Johnson, Ottawa has again shown its inability to acknowledge the consensus in Quebec on the need for transferring the authority and resources for manpower training to that province.

From now on, the minister will be able to impose national standards if the provinces want federal funding, and if they do not accept Ottawa's standards, the minister will be able to go over the heads of the provinces and offer these programs directly to the unemployed.

It is now obvious why the minister waited until after the referendum to table his reforms.

The Economy

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Arise, young people of Canada. You have nothing to lose but poverty. This generation is ruining you. It leaves you with horrendous mortgages. You have heard of the visible mortgage.

The federal and provincial debt is about $800 billion and grows at well over $100 million a day. When you are raising your family almost certainly about one-half of every dollar you pay in taxes will go to pay interest on the mortgage this generation leaves you. Sadly this is only half the story.

There is another little known and largely invisible mortgage. Actuaries estimate the cost of benefits promised to pensioners through the CPP, OAS and medicare programs will double from about $50 billion to $100 billion per year. Your income taxes will be 50 per cent higher just to cover these costs.

Young Canadians, arise and join the-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.

Saskatchewan

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan is the best place in the world to live according to Martha Justus, an economist with Informetrica. She used the same United Nations human development index that ranked Canada number one among the countries of the world.

When this index was applied to the provinces, Saskatchewan came out on top. The UN ranking is an attempt to define quality of life by combining life expectancy, educational attainment and gross domestic product adjusted for cost of living.

The findings of Informetrica were no surprise to those of us from Saskatchewan. Our community oriented history and culture have produced some of the best social legislation. For example, the recent initiatives by our provincial NDP government gives many part time workers access to benefits usually enjoyed only by full time employees. This further enhances our quality of life.

Yes, Saskatchewan is number one.

Infrastructure

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian infrastructure program is still in full swing in Peterborough where it represents more than $35 million and 68 construction projects in every village, township and city, both school boards, Fleming College and Trent University.

One feature of the program has been the way it has released monies, private and public, being held in reserve for future projects. The release of these funds now has resulted in useful projects and has created much needed jobs. Money has been spent at the grassroots of the economy.

I strongly urge the government to build on its experience with the current infrastructure program and launch another. Perhaps the new one could be redesigned to deliberately tap more private sector funds. Perhaps its could include regional variants to accommodate special local needs. Perhaps priority could be given to particular types of infrastructure.

Let us consult with the municipalities and launch a new invigorated infrastructure program.

Violence Against Women

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, six years ago this week the promising lives of 14 bright, talented young women were lost in a senseless act of violence at l'École Polytechnique in Montreal.

Canadian women everywhere remain haunted by this tragedy. On Wednesday, Canada's national day of remembrance and action on violence against women, the tragedy of December 6 should stand as a symbol of the safe, just and peaceful society we must strive to create.

We must remember there is much strength to be gained from this awful sacrifice. Through dedication and effort and regardless of regional, linguistic, racial or partisan divisions, the memory of these women should inspire us to rebuild a nation founded on the principles of equality and respect where women shall no longer be victims.

Unemployment Insurance Reform

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled his unemployment insurance reforms. The minister told whoever wanted to listen that the purpose of his reforms was to adjust to the new demands of Canadian society and that it would be easier for the unemployed to re-enter the labour market.

However, now that the reforms have been tabled, it is clear that the impact will be far worse than we expected. The federal government hopes to reduce its deficit at the expense of women and young people.

Furthermore, in order to ensure that wealth is redistributed, Ottawa has decided to reduce the premiums of those who are well off by one billion dollars and, to make up for this reduction, increase the premiums of low-income workers by $900 million. Is that what the federal government calls justice and social equity?

The Late Robertson Davies

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to pay tribute to the late Robertson Davies, one of Canada's most treasured writers.

Bridging Canada's two solitudes, a headline in the Quebec media reads:

"With Robertson Davies, Canadian literature has lost one of its titans".

This sentiment accurately describes Robertson Davies' status: a monument to Canadian literature.

Robertson Davies was to me a person of another world. I knew him by reputation only. When I first heard him on the radio I was impressed that he appeared as interested in hearing the opinions of others as in expressing his own. Acknowledged the world over as a great man of letters, Robertson Davies was also a man of the people.

Canada and the world are much the better for his presence and for being the beneficiaries of a great literary legacy on his passing.

Banks

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville—Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Dominion Bank and the Bank of Montreal announced substantial increases in 1995 profits last week. Their profits rose 17 per cent and 19.5 per cent respectively over last year.

While these figures may earn the industry the respect of its shareholders, they are also drawing criticism from small and medium size business owners. We have all heard their frustration at the banking industry's reluctance to lend to the small business sector. We know it plays a critical role in our economy. That is why we are working hard to foster a new environment of opportunity for it.

We cannot do it alone. It is our view that the banks have a special obligation to assist small businesses in obtaining financing. Let us hope their increased profits motivate them to fulfil that important obligation.

The Late Robertson Davies

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians mourn the passing of master writer, scholar, leading playwright and critic Robertson Davies who was instrumental in establishing Canadian literature at home and abroad.

His writings and teachings, particularly as Master of Massey College, had a profound impact on Canadian writers. A finalist for the Booker Prize in 1986 and recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1992, Robertson Davies was a recipient of the Governor General's Literary Award in 1972 and the Molson Prize in 1988.

His works contain a world of the imagination that mingles passion, magic, fate, lust and humour. His astonishing erudition made him an outstanding ambassador of Canadian letters.

A modest man with a gentle wit, when asked for a self-description he proclaimed: "I may not be the world's foremost swan, but I am not a duck". He leaves us, nevertheless, with a remarkable swan like legacy. He will continue to be an icon for future generations.