Jesse Flis

[Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we were debating Bill C-105, an act to implement tax conventions between Canada and Latvia, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, and a protocol for the tax treaty with Hungary. I find it very difficult to see how what the hon. member is saying is relevant to the bill.

[Oceans Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Davenport for reminding the public of the importance of this subject.

With respect to French nuclear testing, the Government of Canada has expressed its view on the matter in a clear and unambiguous manner. We deplore the resumption of these tests and have made our position known to France in no uncertain terms. When China resumed its tests earlier this year, we also expressed our views on that matter.

Our position is clear. We call on all nuclear weapons states to stop these tests. We call for a speedy progress toward the signature of a comprehensive test ban treaty, the CTBT, which is the best way to ensure the end of all tests for all time.

Canada's position with respect to nuclear testing is not a recent one. This is a bedrock policy that we have had since the days of former Prime Minister Trudeau when he set out the strategy calling for the suffocation of nuclear arsenals. The hon. member was here at the time and helped to develop this policy.

We are one of the few countries in the world that has the capability yet has decided as a matter of policy not to develop nuclear weapons. We have also chosen not to have any nuclear armed weapons stationed on our soil.

Having succeeded in getting the non-proliferation treaty extended for an indefinite period we are now working very hard to ensure a truly comprehensive verifiable nuclear weapon test ban, the CTBT, is signed by June 1996.

We are very heartened to learn that so far three of the five nuclear weapons states, the U.S., the U.K. and France, have come out supporting a zero option CTBT, which the hon. member will be pleased to hear. This means a treaty which will allow no nuclear explosions whatsoever.

Again I congratulate the hon. member for helping Canada develop our policy in banning all nuclear weapons from this planet.

[War Memorials, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, within the past two weeks I have had the honour of attending the official unveiling of two important plaques commemorating Canadians who served overseas during the first and second world wars.

On Thursday, September 21 a plaque was unveiled at the National War Memorial, a gift from the British people as a symbol of their abiding gratitude for Canada's support during both World War I and World War II.

On Tuesday, September 26 Lech Walesa, President of the Republic of Poland, approved the posthumous award of the Polish Home Army Cross to 26 Canadian airmen for their support in the liberation of Poland.

That ceremony took place at the Canadian Airmen Memorial in Ottawa at Confederation Park. Both actions and plaques serve as a permanent reminder of Canadian bravery and sacrifice in the protection of freedom, democracy and peace.

[The Late Jean-Luc Pepin, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I first met the late Jean-Luc Pepin in 1979 when I was elected to this House. That was the year the Conservatives won the election against the Liberals.

Every time there is a change of government there is also a change of caucus rooms because each party has a different size caucus. Jean-Luc Pepin was advising me as a newly elected member on what and what not to do. He always gave 100 per cent of his time. He was so intent on talking to me that when we arrived at the caucus room the camera lights all flashed and I did not know what was happening. What happened is that he was so engrossed in advising me that we walked into the wrong caucus room. That is a bit of the humorous side of Jean-Luc Pepin. It shows how helpful

he was to new members and when he spoke to us he gave 100 per cent. When he listened he gave 100 per cent.

The Prime Minister mentioned about his term when he was parliamentary secretary to the Hon. Mitchell Sharp. I happened to be his parliamentary secretary in 1982-83 when he was Minister of Transport. Yes, I along with the late Jean-Luc Pepin faced the Via Rail debates here and placards over our heads about the Crow bill, et cetera. He made the tough decisions. One thing about him is he listened to all sides before he made a decision. I think that is why he was so popular.

His immediate family and extended family can take great pride in the fact that he was a great Canadian. But we have not lost him; he will always be with us.

[Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute of the question and comment period to compliment the hon. member on his vision of a safe, secure planet for all. I heard this in committee and in the House. I compliment the hon. member for that vision and I hope he never loses it.

As he mentioned in his speech the most successful thing about this bill is the co-operation experienced in developing the convention and when the bill was being worked on to put it through the House before the summer recess.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the Reform Party and the official opposition.

[Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much time on the bill because I spoke on it before it went to committee.

This bill could probably set a model for future bills to be passed expeditiously. When the bill came to committee we asked the chemical producers and other witnesses to appear. Because the chemical producers and other interested parties monitored this problem during the convention they did not see any need to appear before the committee other than to endorse the legislation. Canada showed leadership in trying to convince other countries to accept this convention against the development, production, stockpiling and use of any chemical weapons or their precursors.

All three parties were very co-operative. We all saw that we are making the planet safer for future generations. We are very fortunate to have a member on this side of the House who actually witnessed the signing of the convention. He will be one of our speakers in this debate.

It is important to get the legislation through the House and the Senate before the summer because Canada would like to be one of the first 65 signatories to ratify this convention. With the kind of co-operation we have been getting from the official opposition, the Reform Party and independent members, I think we will have this legislation passed very quickly through this House and then hopefully passed just as quickly in the Senate.

The reason this convention was so successful is that companies which are producing chemicals were involved. Canadian manufacturers were even used as a test ground to see if this is the kind of convention that will work. It is a convention that is doable. Canadians can be proud that here again when it comes to the security and environmental cleanup of our planet, Canada always shows the lead.

In closing I thank all parties and the private sector for helping us to get this legislation passed as quickly as possible.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the reason we were hung up on section 718.2 is that it was all the Reform Party was addressing and we were trying to educate the Reform Party to the fact that it was not the only issue in the bill.

I draw the hon. member's attention to section 718. I had trouble with some sections but I welcomed section 718 when I looked at the purpose and the principles of the bill because I also have a constituency where a lot of crime has crept in. Section 718 states:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

Unfortunately there are some Canadians who stoop to unlawful conduct. It continues:

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

In question period the Reform Party has been pressing this point. Sections 718(e) and (f) are specifically important. They state:

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community;

The judges in the past have had no direction and now the bill is giving them direction. If there is damage done to a community, hopefully in the sentencing the judge will take that into consideration. The criminal might be able to help the community more by restoring the damage rather than by sitting for two or five years behind bars.

They continue:

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

There is an organization called Parkdale Focus Community Watch in my constituency. That is exactly what it is focusing on. It wants to protect the safety of the streets and the homes of the community.

Would the hon. member agree with what is stated in the purpose and principles in section 718?

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise so that I can compliment the hon. member for Wild Rose who is a former educator like myself. He told the House what he would do if he saw a fight on the street regardless of the colour of the people, the religion, et cetera. I compliment him for it.

He like other speakers from the Reform Party complained that the only section the Liberals were addressing was section 718.2. The reason this side is addressing it is that-

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment.

The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley complained in her opening remarks about time allocation, saying that it is not her party that is stalling and delaying.

I believe the hon. member was here yesterday when Canadians saw the Reform Party members wasting time deliberately with the way they were voting in slow motion and making a mockery of this Parliament. I call that a contempt of this Parliament. This is why we have to bring in time allocation. We have not brought in closure. They can complain about closure.

When we are dealing with members like this, I call time allocation good time management.

[Peacekeeping Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government in its election platform made a commitment to better involve parliamentarians in the decision making process on foreign policy and defence issues. To that effect, House and Senate members have had the opportunity to participate extensively in the review of Canada's foreign and defence policies.

A number of debates have been held in the House over the last 16 months on several aspects of our international relations. These debates have allowed members to express their views specifically on Canada's peacekeeping policy and operations. This is why I thank the hon. member from the Reform Party for bringing in Bill C-295. It gives us another opportunity to give our views on our peacekeeping forces abroad.

The concerns raised in Bill C-295 are in part similar to those expressed in previous debates. They show that a more open and accessible decision making process in the field of defence and foreign policy is necessary. The government subscribes to the intentions which have motivated the tabling of Bill C-295. It is after all the responsibility of this government to ensure that Canada's contributions to peacekeeping operations remain efficient and useful and that they respect the financial situation of the country.

Bill C-295 generally calls for rigid procedures which would run counter to the need for the case by case flexible approach that has made Canadians successful peacekeepers in the past. Moreover the adoption of Bill C-295 which in its general outline borrows heavily from the American approach to peacekeeping would send a very negative signal to our partners and to the international community at a time when Canada is promoting new ways of improving the efficiency and the relevance of the UN in the field of conflict prevention and resolution.

The end of the cold war has seen a return to violent ethnic and nationalistic conflicts in many parts of the world. This reality coupled with the new co-operation among the members of the security council have changed the peacekeeping equation. Missions have increased in number and grown in size and scope putting severe pressure on the financial capability of the UN and member states.

Ten years ago Canada's share of the total UN cost of peacekeeping was $8 million. In 1995 Canadian assessment alone will be in excess of $150 million, not including the incremental costs of the Department of National Defence. This is admittedly a burden but it is also an investment in peace at costs far lower than were we to allow conflicts to continue unabated and uncontained.

Canada remains one of the strongest advocates of reinforcing the UN's conflict prevention and conflict resolution capability. We have been working with like minded countries at the UN to bring about reforms that will provide the organization with the political, financial and military tools it needs to fulfil its growing responsibilities.

Canada is conducting a study on a UN rapid reaction capability which will provide recommendations on how to make the UN more efficient and more timely in case of conflicts. We are also organizing with our partners peacekeeping seminars in the context of the ASEAN regional forum and the OAS. We are working with the OAU to improve the capability of African countries to better contribute to peacekeeping operations and preventive diplomacy.

On April 24 the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre officially opened providing the international community with a world class training facility in this vital field. Canada's credibility and efficiency in the field of peacekeeping came from its commitments to the UN and its reliability in time of crisis. Canada has contributed with distinction in most operations in the history of peacekeeping because of the foresight of its leaders, the flexibility of its policies and the courage and skills of its troops.

Bill C-295, despite the well founded intentions of its author, would prevent the government from meeting these conditions. More specifically, Bill C-295 calls for a five hour debate prior to any mission that involves 100 or more members of the Canadian forces. Given the complexity of the situation on the ground and the sensitive nature of the negotiations that take place between the UN, the parties to the conflict and the troop contributors, a public debate on a given operation would take place in the shadow of diplomatic activities. It would likely lead to general reflection on peacekeeping without addressing the

specifics of the mission being debated. In other words, it would not respond to the problem for which this is allegedly a solution.

Other avenues are already available to parliamentarians to express their views on the subject. The government will continue to ensure those views are taken into account when cabinet decides on Canada's contribution to peacekeeping.

Given the nature of conflicts in the current international environment and the speed at which crisis situations degenerate into open confrontations, debating each mission might also hinder the government's ability to rapidly reply to a UN request and deploy Canadian troops in a timely fashion. This is precisely the opposite of what the government is currently promoting and urging the UN, to be more timely and more effective in responding to crises. Both the defence review and the foreign affairs review drew attention to this issue.

Bill C-295, if implemented, would ask the Minister of National Defence to specify the objectives, duties and role of the mission as well as to define its area of operation. These aspects are currently defined by the UN Security Council after careful consideration and discussions with troop contributors. This is the sole competence of the UN.

Should individual countries decide to redefine missions, objectives and operational requirements this situation would lead to constant stalemate in UN planning and deploying. When an operation does not meet Canadian approval, Canada does not contribute. This was the case for instance in the latest UN verification mission in Angola.

Canada and other like minded countries have invested personnel and financial resources in order to ensure the UN fulfils its task in an efficient manner, observing the criteria and conditions which are necessary for countries contributing troops to participate in peacekeeping missions.

We continue to play a leading role in the establishment of a better decision making process in the UN. Recently we have succeeded among other things in obtaining a better consultation mechanism between the security council and the contributing countries at the early stage in the process of mission planning. We intend to continue to press the UN and the security council on this issue.

The bill also stipulates that the Canadian forces in peacekeeping operations shall be under direct command of a Canadian officer. This has always been the case. We do not need further legislation to ensure that provision.

The bill further allows for this Canadian officer to be placed under United Nations command. The government strongly opposes this suggestion. Currently, Canadian soldiers are under UN control, but the ultimate command of the troops remains with Canadian authorities. Such a practice prevents the UN field commander from using Canadian troops for tasks that have not been agreed to by the government.

Such a far reaching commitment appears to contradict the intent of the rest of Bill C-295 and demonstrates this proposal is not clearly thought out. I respect the author of the bill just tried to correct that with unanimous consent, but I think it shows how ill thought out the bill was.

Let me underline again the commitment of this government to open debate on peacekeeping issues, especially in times of scarce resources. It is important to reach a broad consensus about where and how Canada should contribute to the needs of the international community. The foreign and defence policy reviews and the debates in the House are tangible proof of the seriousness of the government about the issue.

However, Bill C-295 is a step in the wrong direction. The idea of providing greater parliamentary control over the Canadian contribution to UN peacekeeping is exerted at the wrong end of the decision making process.

The adoption of this bill would not shake the overall Canadian attitude toward peacekeeping operations. It would rather have the effect of confusing the decision making processes and limiting Canada's ability to respond in a timely fashion to UN requests.

Canadians remain supportive of our contribution to peacekeeping, as was demonstrated during the foreign and defence policy reviews and in several polls taken over the years. Canada should build on this past experience rather than move in the direction of this bill.