Jean Augustine

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Bellechasse, he implied in his question to the Prime Minister that the Minister of National Revenue dropped his case, as reported at page 151 of Hansard , ``so that he could receive the proceeds initially awarded to him''.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As the Prime Minister noted in his response, the minister had instructed his lawyer to drop the case immediately and in a manner that the minister would no longer receive any settlement from the government.

For the member's benefit I would like to read into the record the minutes of settlement between the minister and Her Majesty the Queen dated January 20, 1994:

The parties hereto agree that the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Respondent are as follows:

The Respondent, David Anderson, will discontinue the cross-appeal herein forthwith.

The Respondent, David Anderson, hereby releases the Appellant from any claim or obligation pursuant to the judgment of Mr. Justice Strayer dated May 31, 1993.

I do not think the intentions of the Minister of National Revenue could be any clearer.

I would also like to note for the record the minister's situation before he became a minister of the crown. The suit began when the minister was a private citizen and he did not lose his legal rights by virtue of his appointment as a minister of the crown. This was not a matter of ethics. It was a question of fairness.

I would like to read to hon. members an important passage from Justice Strayer's ruling of May 31, 1993. In referring to the approach of the previous government's treatment of the Minister of National Revenue when he was a private citizen, the justice said:

The approach was not only unfair and coercive from the standpoint of the plaintiffs; it was also in my view an abuse of power, in effect amounting to the attempted sale of public offices.

In effect these plaintiffs were being asked to pay for their new Order in Council appointment by surrendering any claim they might have against the government or its officials.

The plaintiff himself obviously was also a victim.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the members across the way.

I am sure that the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore are presently following this because I have had faxes and notations from individuals who have been watching this debate all afternoon and all evening.

I appreciate the few minutes left to me to express what we heard from the member from the Northwest Territories about the wildlife situation and the environment, keeping the territories safe for the individuals who are presently there, for ourselves and for our children.

As I said earlier, the important point is the example that we as Canadians give to the rest of the world.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it was very interesting listening to the debate today and I stand to participate. I would like to suggest that Canadians want peace and non-violence, as evidenced by the peacekeeping activities. We have some 4,700 Canadian men and women involved in peacekeeping. Should we not then encourage those values in our international affairs? Should we not encourage other countries to seek peaceful and non-violent solutions to problems?

While this may sound idealistic, and I have heard that said earlier, it is up to us to set an example for the international community in which we belong. It is up to us to teach by doing. We cannot preach to other countries that they should not develop their nuclear arsenals while we allow cruise missile testing on our northern lands. We cannot preach to other countries that they should solve their problems by peaceful and non-violent means, when we in effect justify using weapons.

To allow cruise missile testing is to say there is still a need for nuclear weapons and that North America has a nuclear ability to resolve any dispute.

We should remember that by our actions not only do we set an example for the rest of the world, we set an example for our children.

Crime among Canadian youth is ever increasing. If we hope to change this reality, we must show that we are a society that values peaceful solutions. We must show our youth that violence is not the way to solve problems but that they should seek non-violent solutions. I do not believe we would be setting that example if we continue to allow cruise missile testing in Canada.

Times change. Today our needs have changed. We heard earlier about the different uses for the cruise missile. However, I want to say to this House that the world around us has changed and it is time for us to recognize those changes.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed honoured to address the House today on behalf of the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I think the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore will join me in this debate and in the expression of congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, as well as to the Prime Minister for providing the opportunity for debate.

Peacekeeping is an activity Canada does as a country. It is an activity which gives us world-wide respect and makes us all proud to be Canadians.

Canadian soldiers have been involved in every United Nations peacekeeping operation since 1947. We have sent approximately 90,000 men and women to war-torn countries around the world. Peacekeeping and peacekeepers have represented us in areas like Korea in the 1950s; Egypt, 1954; the Congo, 1960-64; Nigeria, 1968-70; Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia in the early 1970s; Iran in the late 1980s; and in many Latin American countries between 1989 and 1992.

Canadian peacekeepers are currently in El Salvador, Cyprus, the western Sahara, Angola, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Korea and Cambodia. Of course they are currently involved in the former Yugoslavia. There are some 4,700 Canadian men and women with United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world. They comprise approximately 10 per cent of all peacekeepers on duty.

We greatly value our peacekeepers and take pride in our peacekeeping activities. We treat that very seriously. Obviously we have very practical reasons for being involved. Canada can prosper only if we are living in a stable and reliable world environment. I think most Canadians believe that peacekeeping is a valued activity. We had two Nobel peace prizes awarded, one to the late Lester B. Pearson and the other to the peacekeepers in 1988.

Given the international importance of Canada's peacekeeping efforts I would like to briefly discuss my two main concerns: first, the priorities in terms of financing; and second, peacekeeping in this international context.

One of the concerns many have with peacekeeping is that Canadian peacekeepers be properly outfitted for the dangerous situations they often encounter.

This means that the equipment should be fully functional. They should have access to proper facilities and have adequate protection. All of this, of course, requires financial support.

The second concern I have is international commitment. If we as Canadians decide it is a priority for us to remain involved in peacekeeping, we must encourage collective, responsible action through the United Nations. I hope we would encourage other United Nations members to pay up their UN dues, to commit troops, to provide logistical and technical support and to honour UN resolutions.

Canadians cannot do it alone as we have seen in Bosnia where replacement troops for Canadians are not allowed to relieve our peacekeepers. We need a strong United Nations to which countries pledge, not only in word but in financial support, troops and technical terms.

Peacekeeping is one area in which we service the world. I sincerely hope we continue to do so. However, I only want us to continue to do so if we provide our peacekeepers with the necessary equipment to protect themselves while performing their duties as well as securing that stronger international commitment.

We live in a global village. We have our responsibilities in that global village.

[Ontario Coalition Of Senior Citizens Organizations, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the work of the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens Organizations.

The coalition of 56 organizations across Ontario with 460,000 members has succeeded in compiling a brief with recommendations which was distributed to all federal Members of Parliament. The brief is very well written and their concerns are succinctly articulated. I know this will contribute greatly to the ongoing discussion concerning our aging population.

I wish the coalition well in its endeavours and I present this brief.