Jean-Robert Gauthier

[Petitions, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the next two petitions deal with sexual orientation. They ask Parliament to amend the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36, which have been certified correct as to form and content.

The first petition deals with abortion and proposes that we amend the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Auditor General Act, June 13th, 1994]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[Auditor General Act, June 13th, 1994]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Auditor General Act, June 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am going to comment very briefly on this amendment requiring the Auditor General of Canada to report at least three times in addition to his annual report.

We considered such a provision when the bill was drafted, and we rejected it at that time because, in my opinion, the Auditor General should be left free to act. It should be his decision when to table a report. There should not be a minimum of three reports imposed on him.

What will happen if, for completely extra-parliamentary reasons, for factors entirely outside his activities as auditor, an election is called? It is easy to see that it would be impossible for him to table the three minimum reports plus an annual report in that year. I am puzzled that the Bloc Québécois is absolutely determined to impose three additional reports on the Auditor General, over and above his annual report.

The original idea behind Bill C-207 was to make possible greater transparency, greater freedom of action, and, what is more, greater accountability to the people of Canada with respect to the public accounts that are approved by this House.

I do not see why the Auditor General should be forced to prepare a minimum of three additional reports. I would have preferred that we stick to the original bill, which left him the freedom to decide when, how and why he would report, and did not impose a minimum of three extra reports.

I cannot support this amendment.

[Auditor General Act, June 8th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-257, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (appointment of the Auditor General of Canada).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Oxford for seconding my motion.

I am pleased to table today a bill whose purpose is to change the way the Auditor General of Canada is appointed. The Prime Minister now appoints the Auditor General without consulting the House, and I would like the act to contain a provision whereby, in the event of a vacancy, the House of Commons Committee on Public Accounts would consider the proposed candidates and submit to the House of Commons a report recommending the appointment of a competent person. In my opinion, after the House of Commons receives the report from the committee, it should be up to the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons to choose the next Auditor General of Canada.

This bill would ensure a greater independence of the Auditor General of Canada, would make the House of Commons responsible for his or her appointment, and I believe strongly that it would help us to better account to Canadians for public funds.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Auditor General Act, June 6th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-255, an act to amend the Auditor General Act (approval of appropriations for the office of the Auditor General and an audit of the office of the Auditor General).

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides that the public accounts committee of the House of Commons would be responsible in future for examining the annual estimates provided by the office of the Auditor General, and where the committee approves the estimates the chairman of the committee will transmit them to the President of the Treasury Board who will lay them in front of the House of Commons as government business.

This bill also provides that the public accounts committee will be responsible for appointing a qualified auditor to examine the operations of the office of the Auditor General every five years.

This bill is very interesting. It gives this House a say. It gives this House credibility. It will give Canadians accountability.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Petitions, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions signed by about 40 constituents of mine.

The first petition deals with the sanctity of human life. The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no change in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

The second petition deals with the sanctity of life but for a different reason. The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to protect the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this debate is a difficult one for many of us and I would like to briefly in the few minutes I have remind Canadians that the House has been asked to consider a request contained in the UN Secretary General's April 18 letter to the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to extend arrangements similar to those in place to protect Sarajevo and five other UN safe areas in Bosnia.

NATO had previously agreed to provide air-ground support only for self defence of our forces, NATO forces and the United Nations protection force, in order to facilitate certain things such as rotation of UNPROFOR troops and to protect Sarajevo which as we know was designated as an exclusion zone as of last February.

An exclusion zone differs from a safe haven because in the latter case, safe haven, the Bosnian-Serb forces in an exclusion zone are required to withdraw their heavy weapons beyond 30 kilometres or to hand them over to UNPROFOR, UN forces.

I understand from what I hear and know of the situation today that President Clinton has apparently suggested that all the safe havens become exclusion zones, that sanctions be reinforced and that a summit meeting be called.

NATO is to meet tomorrow to consider what to do. If we agree with the proposal, it would demonstrate to the Bosnian Serbs and others who have questioned the UN's credibility that the international community is serious about backing its words with actions. It could possibly, as it did in Sarajevo, deter attacks on other safe havens.

If we do not agree, we could be accused of doing nothing to prevent ethnic cleansing, aggression. We could even be accused of genocide. If we do not agree, the action may be too little, too late and it would not prevent the Bosnian Serbs from continuing with their inhumane actions against other human beings.

If we did not agree, it would put our forces at risk. It would possibly create a situation that would be untenable for many people in the former Yugoslavia. I find it very difficult nevertheless to support air attacks because as we know in any type of initiative of that nature, it has two consequences.

First, any air attack that is not supported by good ground support in my view is not very effective. Second, it would change our role in the UN forces from a peacekeeping to a peacemaking role and I am not sure that Canadians today would endorse that kind of initiative.

Keep in mind some of the reasons for which we sent our troops to Bosnia under the United Nations flag. First, to support peacekeeping in that region of the world and, second, for humanitarian reasons. Everyone will recall the difficulties we had in bringing humanitarian support to Sarajevo. I do not need to remind Canadians of the difficulties UN forces had to overcome in this conflict.

We must remember that Canada has in the past expressed serious reservations about the use of air strikes. In our opinion, the problem cannot be solved by air strikes; we look instead to a negotiated solution. Let us not forget that the international community must consider the effect this decision will have on the peace process. In the end, a lasting peace can only be a negotiated peace, unless the international community is ready to impose peace by force.

At this time, UN forces in the field are neither equipped nor in a position to enforce peace. Whatever decision the international community will reach tomorrow must be credible in my eyes and in those of the Canadian and international communities. We should not make statements that cannot be backed up. Whatever the decision, air strikes do not, in my opinion, meet these two criteria for making peace unless we go all the way.

I do not think the Americans, who do not have any military troops in the field at this time, can tell us once again to go there while they stay home. So the Americans' contribution to the land forces is an important consideration. I think that Russia should be ready to participate and that it should have an important role to play in this conflict. If I understood Mr. Yeltsin correctly, he is ready to accept a summit meeting and that is very positive.

I for one think that Canada must support Mr. Clinton's and Mr. Yeltsin's proposal for a summit meeting where we will be certainly present. I am among those who approve a negotiated position. I can honestly say I am against violence and air strikes.

I don't think we would accomplish much with such measures. I agree with those who are totally convinced that negotiation is the way to go and that we must draw these people to the negotiating table because otherwise we are heading straight for a disaster; history will repeat itself. I say so with great sorrow and hesitation since I know my opinion is contrary to that of many colleagues in this House. Air strikes are not the solution to this problem; we will have to negotiate and not use force.

[Auditor General Act, March 25th, 1994]

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that this letter be tabled. I think it is an important letter and it should be appended to today's minutes.