Andrew Telegdi

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it makes me curious when an hon. member refers to the Quebec people and the Quebec nation. I am not quite sure what he means by this in terms of the population of Quebec. This is a point of concern for me. Obviously I am a Canadian to be able to sit in this Chamber. I came to this country after the Hungarian revolution in 1957. My 10-year old daughter was born in Canada. My wife is Irish going back seven generations.

When we talk of people within the confines of a province, I want to make sure there is some definition to it. Looking at the demographics of the population in Quebec, the direct descent French is 74.6 per cent; British, 4.2 per cent; German, half a per cent; Italian, 2.6 per cent; Chinese, half a per cent; aboriginal, 1 per cent; Dutch, one-tenth of one per cent; east Indian, three-tenths of one per cent; Polish, three-tenths of one per cent; Portuguese, one-half per cent; Jewish, 1.1 per cent; Greek, seven-tenths of one per cent; Filipino, one-tenth of one per cent; Hungarian, one-tenth of one per cent; other, 5 per cent; people of multiple origins, 8.4 per cent.

Maybe the hon. member could clarify for me that all the people living in Quebec are indeed Quebecers and are indeed Canadian.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, given the nature and the make-up of Canada, there are people living in Canada who come from all over the world. Any time there is strife somebody in Canada has ties to that locale. When there is strife and war there are Canadians who feel it very deeply. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why we have evolved to such an extent into a peacekeeping nation.

If we look at it in an historical context, over the last 50 years peacekeeping has emerged as one of the most important activities of the international community in promoting peace and stability. Peacekeepers have served in regions throughout the world laying the basis for peace and saving countless lives.

The classic peacekeeping role has been to help maintain a ceasefire or to prevent the outbreak or spread of hostilities so underlying disputes can be settled through negotiations. In this sense peacekeeping has been a practical device to assist peacemaking.

Since the end of the cold war, however, the face of peacekeeping has undergone a remarkable transformation.

As the international environment has evolved over the last six or seven years, so too has peacekeeping. Witness, for example, the recent operations in Bosnia, Rwanda or Somalia. The dramatic changes are far from over and peacekeeping must continue to adopt to meet new challenges.

In tracking the evolution of peacekeeping over the last half century, it is critical that members of the House understand the full context of peacekeeping as they debate the possible deployment of Canadian forces personnel as part of a new mission to the former Yugoslavia.

I will briefly discuss some of the ways the international community and in particular Canada is responding to meet the new challenges of peacekeeping.

When international statesmen sat down to frame the charter of the United Nations in 1945, the harsh experiences of the second world war were still fresh in their minds. Peacekeeping began modestly. In the late 1940s the UN began deploying unarmed but clearly identified military personnel to observe peace agreements in some of the world's trouble spots.

Two of these early missions, the UN truce supervision organization in the Middle East and the UN military observer group in India and Pakistan, continue to this day.

With the Suez crisis of 1956 peacekeeping moved beyond simple observing and took on a more ambitious role. Suez was the most serious crisis faced by the United Nations since the Korean war and called for an imaginative response.

Lester B. Pearson, Canada's secretary of state for external affairs at the time, argued the UN should not only establish ceasefire between the warring parties but it should also police it with military personnel and make arrangements for a political settlement.

UN members were initially unimpressed by Pearson's scheme, but his determination and skill ultimately paid off and the United Nations emergency force was born. For his efforts Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957.

UNEF set the tone for most peacekeeping operations over the next 30 years. Peacekeeping forces, made up primarily of military personnel, supervised ceasefires, monitored troop withdrawals and provided a buffer between opposing local forces.

Some of the key peacekeeping principles, such as the force be lightly armed, impartial and enjoy the consent of the warring parties, were also established in 1956.

Over the next three decades a select number of countries, including Canada, took the lead in peacekeeping. The great powers, because of ideological differences and colonial entanglements, kept a low profile.

Canadian peacekeepers served in many areas throughout the world, including the Congo, West New Guinea, Cyprus and the Golan Heights. Since 1947 more than 100,000 Canadians have participated in over 30 peacekeeping and related operations, a contribution which remains unmatched. Over 100 Canadians have lost their lives in the line of duty and many more have been wounded.

Looking at contemporary peacekeeping with the end of the cold war and the super power rivalry, we have seen a more active United Nations in the peacekeeping field. Between 1947 and 1988 the UN carried out 13 peacekeeping operations. In the last seven years alone there have been more than twenty.

The UN has also become more interventionist. The humanitarian impulse has on occasion challenged traditional notions of sovereignty. As a result the UN has become more involved in intra-state disputes and has grappled with human rights and humanitarian issues on a far greater scale than ever before. In short, modern peacekeeping operations demand a full range of military capabilities on the ground, in the air and at sea. Canada's own experience in the Balkans, Central America, the Middle East and Asia underscores this point.

In the former Yugoslavia Canadian ground troops have performed a wide range of humanitarian tasks. In Cambodia we currently have personnel on the ground serving with the Cambodian mine action centre, responsible for mine clearance operations.

At sea Canadian naval forces have participated in operations off the coast of Haiti and the former Yugoslavia, enforcing economic sanctions and arms embargoes. We have also had Canadian personnel involved in naval peacekeeping operations in Cambodia and Central America.

Modern operations sometimes take place in the absence of a viable agreement and without the consent of the warring parties. In some cases the warring parties to disputes have turned on UN forces. The result, as we have seen in Bosnia, is that our personnel have been exposed to considerable danger and have suffered casualties.

These experiences have reminded the Canadian government that fully trained soldiers are the best peacekeepers. They are equipped with the complete range of skills and level of professionalism needed to meet these new challenges.

At the same time, the government is aware that our personnel require specialized training. That is why they receive instruction in such areas as cultural sensitivity, international humanitarian law and dispute resolution. The government intends to enhance this type of training in the future.

In meeting the new challenges of peacekeeping, clearly peacekeeping in the 1990s has taken on a new look. If we are to meet the new security challenges of the next century we desperately need the UN and other international organizations to play a more effective role in resolving conflict.

Because of the scope and complexity of modern peacekeeping operations, the UN has had to call on regional organizations to play a greater role in conflict resolution. NATO's role in the proposed peace implementation force for Bosnia is an excellent example of how international organizations can work together.

The UN is the right instrument to confer legitimacy on an international peace operation, while the alliance is the organization best equipped to carry out a mission in Europe, especially one that may have an enforcement dimension to it.

As for the UN itself, reform can no longer be put off. Created in the 1940s, the organization must be equipped to handle the security challenges of the 1990s and beyond. The organization's record since the end of the cold war has been for the most part impressive. Missions in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique and Haiti have produced solid results.

However, setbacks in Africa and the Balkans, where many new concepts have been introduced, have raised concerns. Unfortunately many member states criticize the UN for all the world's current problems, which is hardly fair. Member states must stop shifting the blame and step forward to do their part.

Canada knows the UN has its share of problems but the government is determined to find solutions. Canada is in a unique position to help the UN. With our extensive experience and expertise in virtually all areas of peacekeeping, including many of the new concepts, we have much to offer.

Canada is helping strengthen UN peacekeeping in a variety of ways, from providing expert advice at headquarters in New York, to establishing the Lester B. Pearson International Peacekeeping Training Centre in Cornwallis, Nova Scotia.

In true Canadian fashion, we are putting forth practical and achievable proposals to help prepare the UN for the future. With the international environment becoming ever more complex, it is no surprise that peacekeeping has followed suit.

As new security threats continue to emerge, Canada and other members of the international community must not let up in their efforts to discover new and innovative approaches to peacekeeping.

Whatever the challenges, Canada's commitment to this useful conflict resolution tool should remain steadfast.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, first let me say that I believe we have to be involved in the peacekeeping effort. As the hon. member mentioned, political stability is very important. In spite of the misgivings of the hon. member, if Canada were not involved, seeing as it has been an architect of peacekeeping, then there would be many other countries that would not get involved.

The hon. member mentioned that we lack the capability of making a credible effort in this regard. I wonder if he and his party would like to come forward to give us numbers in terms of the numbers of soldiers that should be sent and what kind of equipment they should have, instead of undermining the efforts of the government in fulfilling a very useful role, a role we have been instrumental in pioneering.

[Panacom, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd. announced that it had purchased a 12-acre site in Waterloo. Construction will begin immediately on the new plant that will be occupied by the Panacom automation division. The 75,000 square foot facility will be ready by September 1996. Panacom designs, develops, markets and manufactures network terminal devices for the worldwide market.

Since Panacom began in 1984 it has been a leader in its field. Panacom is the number one supplier worldwide of X-stations, which are network display devices that allow users to access simultaneously multiple applications running on work stations. Panacom is a genuine Canadian success story.

The people of my riding are delighted that Hewlett-Packard has decided to invest in Waterloo. The new plant adds to the growing, vibrant information technology sector in Waterloo riding. The new plant will mean more research and development in my riding and more jobs for the people of Waterloo.

To Hewlett-Packard and to the Panacom automation division we send our congratulations and best wishes for continued success.

[National Defence, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It involves the contracting out of household moving services for the furniture and effects of employees of the federal government. The moneys involved are in excess of $100 million annually.

Will the minister inform the House as to what steps he has taken to ensure greater competition in awarding the moving contracts, which will result in savings to the taxpayers of Canada?

[Endangered And Threatened Species Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if there is doubt whether a species is going to be extinct then we want to make sure we make the right decisions and err on the side of caution. I am pleased to speak on Bill C-275, sponsored by the member for Davenport, the chair of the environment committee.

The paddlefish, the swift fox and the blackfooted ferret have one thing in common: they no longer exist in the wild in Canada. The Labrador duck, the sea mink and the blue walleye have one thing in common: they no longer exist at all.

The eastern cougar, the salish sucker, the right whale, the white prairie gentian and the spotted owl are all endangered in Canada. The white-headed woodpecker, the blue ash, the western Atlantic harbour porpoise and the spiny softshell turtle are threatened. The polar bear, the eastern bluebird, the orange spotted sunfish, the pugnose minnow, the prairie rose, the blue whale and the trumpeter swan are vulnerable.

Two hundred and forty-four species of wild fauna and flora are at risk in our country. They suffer from loss of critical habitat, overharvesting, the introduction of foreign species, climate change and contamination from toxic substances.

The time has clearly come for the federal government to set legislation to protect endangered species. The protection of endangered species is the responsibility of all sectors of our society and all citizens in our country. We need legislation in which all Canadians feel a vested interest.

Legislation would call for regulations on the killing, wounding, capturing, collecting or distributing of endangered plants, fish, mammals and embryos. Legislation would also call for Canadian controls on the buying, selling and international trafficking of endangered species.

Canadians want us to throw the book at anyone who tries to make a fast buck from illegally importing or exporting endangered species.

The committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, an arm's length scientific body, would assess species at risk on an annual basis. The Minister of the Environment would be required to establish a list of the species at risk in areas of federal jurisdiction. Response statements outlining planned actions would be mandatory. Recovery plans if required would be prepared within two weeks for endangered species and within three years for threatened species.

Legislation would also permit emergency measures to be taken to conserve and protect species requiring the equivalent to emergency ward treatment. Legislation would authorize the Minister of the Environment to establish funding for conservation agreements with other governments, organizations and private landlords in partnership efforts to preserve endangered species. Legislation would also authorize tough enforcement and severe penalties.

The federal government has a responsibility to set a benchmark for effective endangered species legislation in all of Canada's jurisdictions. That is not enough. We have a responsibility to work with the provinces, the territories and aboriginal people to ensure a comprehensive national approach to the protection of endangered

species in all parts of Canada. The federal government is committed to doing its part in this shared enterprise.

Acting alone, the federal government cannot come close to solving all the problems. I want to congratulate Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick for already passing legislation on behalf of endangered species. I also want to congratulate Alberta which has committed to introduce legislation. I particularly want to congratulate wildlife experts, environmentalists, farmers, fishermen, foresters and the mining, pulp and paper and petroleum industries. They are the people on the front lines. They have acted in good faith despite their often divergent interests.

Farmers and aboriginal people, the stewards of the land, must be treated fairly by the new legislation. The maximum number of Canadians must participate in protecting endangered species. We must have a national safety net for species at risk.

As we move toward new endangered species legislation, a very large part of the credit must go to young Canadians. Students from throughout the country have kept the pressure on the government. They have collected petition after petition and they have sent to the Minister of the Environment thousands and thousands of carefully considered individual letters and drawings. We want the continued help and support of Canada's young people in preparing a final bill.

The government's proposed legislation is already on Environment Canada's green lane on the Internet. We look forward to receiving feedback. We want the best possible law to achieve economic growth while preserving the diversity of genes, species and ecosystems that are the biological foundation of the world. We owe that to the endangered species. We owe that to future generations of Canadians.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I take tremendous pride in representing my community, and the petition I am presenting is one of the reasons. It was organized by Mr. Jakeet Singh, a student at Waterloo collegiate. A year ago a couple of students at WCI decided that with the referendum approaching the youth of Canada would reach out to do their part in having our country remain united.

There are 4,000 signatures on this petition, which reads: "We, the citizens of Canada, want to see this country remain united from coast to coast, with Quebec as an integral part of our nation".

"We, the citizens of Canada, want to see this country remain united from coast to coast, with Quebec as an integral part of our nation".

I am very pleased to present this petition to the House. It is in addition to the many other things done in my community in expressing its love for a united Canada.

[Canadian Unity, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Thanksgiving weekend Waterloo, Ontario, hosted a Waterloo, Quebec, delegation during Oktoberfest. On Sunday evening, October 8, the two mayors signed a declaration officially twinning the two Waterloos.

Mayor Bernard Provencher told the delegates of the two Waterloos:

We are now living in the most critical period in the history of our country, with a possibility of a break up. It is quite ironic that it is in the midst of this crisis we are gathered here tonight to tell each other that if we could find a magical way of bringing all English-speaking Canadians through the Quebec province and do it in reverse the other way then we would not have to vote for what we already own on the 30th. Long live the twinning of our two cities, may they both remain forever in a united Canada.

The mayors of the two Waterloos, Bernard Provencher and Brian Turnbull, are in the House today. Their actions have helped to develop better understanding, mutual respect, and friendship among Canadians.

Vive les deux Waterloos! Vive le Canada uni!

[Waterloo, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that Ville de Waterloo, Quebec and the city of Waterloo, Ontario have agreed to formally twin their respective communities.

The aim of the twinning is to promote social, cultural, economic, historic and sports exchanges in order to strengthen existing ties of friendship and provide a framework for mutually beneficial exchanges of information and experiences.

Representatives of the two Waterloos first met in Ottawa during the Spicer commission hearings. I had the honour to be a participant as a municipal councillor.

Ville de Waterloo will be hosted by my community this weekend during Oktoberfest, the largest Bavarian festival outside of Munich. On Monday, Thanksgiving weekend, the mayors of the two Waterloos will be part of the Oktoberfest parade that will be televised nationally.

To mayors, Bernard Provencher and Brian Turnbull, along with their respective councils and communities, we offer our congratulations for their initiatives in promoting goodwill and understanding among Canadians.

My colleague from Kitchener and I would like to invite all members of the House and Canadians to come to Kitchener-Waterloo for Oktoberfest.

[Quebec Referendum, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of the federal riding of Waterloo, a part of English speaking Canada, overwhelmingly recognize that Quebec is a vital, integral

and essential part of our country. They recognize that Canada is greater than the sum of its parts.

They are concerned and apprehensive about the upcoming referendum in Quebec. They want a Canada that includes Quebec.

They know there are two sides to the referendum campaign: the separation side led by Jacques Parizeau and the unity side led by Daniel Johnson.

It is their expectation that political parties that say they favour a united Canada work together and not engage in self-serving political opportunism.

The questions raised by the Reform Party to the Prime Minister during question periods on the upcoming referendum have aided and abetted the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. It is time members of the Reform Party matched their rhetoric with action and got onside with the group that is working together for a united Canada.